Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 7th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Landowners feel power of the green pound as renewables firms seek sites for turbines



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 June 2008
POWER companies are targeting landowners with the promise of tens of thousands of pounds – and the chance to make millions more – in return for the right to build wind turbines on their land.
In the race to find new sites for wind farms, energy firms are writing to farmers and estate owners offering them at least £10,500 a year for each turbine built on their land.

The developers are urging estate owners to sign deals giving them exclusive rights to build wind farms, with about £1,000 usually offered as an incentive.

If planning permission is subsequently granted, farmers could pocket millions of pounds in rent payments.

Scottish Power Renewables has been offering farmers £10,500 a year for each turbine for 25 years. This works out at £2.6 million for any landowner who takes ten turbines.

One industry insider said: "It's competitive because there's only a limited amount of land that is suitable."

He said all developers were trying to sign agreements with farmers before the available land ran out.

Alasdair Laing, owner of Logie Estate in Morayshire, has been approached three times by separate companies and is considering signing an agreement with one of the firms.

"The income from these things is extremely attractive," he said.

"It will often be quite a difficult decision because there are controversial things about windmills, as well as good things.

"I question some of the bases of some of the arguments for wind farms. There is still very much an ongoing debate on just how green they are. My personal jury is out.

"But in terms of bringing money into what are otherwise fragile economies it is good news."

David Johnstone, the owner of Annadale Estate in Lockerbie, has signed an agreement with Renewable Energy Systems for four turbines to be built on his land.

If planning permission is granted it will earn him tens of thousands of pounds a year.

He said: "I think it's a good business opportunity. Wind turbines are one of those things that people love or loathe and there doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

"I'm very supportive of renewable energy. We are looking at putting in biomass heating on the estate as well as microrenewables and small-scale hydro."

Simon McMillan, spokesman for Scottish Power Renewables, said: "It's common practice and we are working with landowners right across Scotland."

He said to meet the government's renewable energy targets more wind farms would be needed, adding: "The only realistic way we are going to hit the targets is by continuing to develop onshore wind, which currently is the most economically proven form of renewables.

"What we are offering landowners is the going market rate for these projects."

He said before the firm approaches a landowner it looks at criteria such as wind conditions at the site and its proximity to the national grid.

A spokesman for the National Farmers' Union Scotland said: "We will support our members in their individual business decisions, whether that be in developing their land for renewables projects or whether that be setting up a farm shop within their steading.

"Commercial wind farms do provide an opportunity for some of our members but the decision as to whether or not to proceed lies entirely with them."

Scotland set for boom in wind farms

A HUGE rise in the number of wind farms in mainland Scotland is proposed in UK government plans to reduce dependency on oil and gas.

Ministers say an extra 7,000 turbines may be needed by 2020 if more than a third of Britain's electricity is to be generated from renewables.

Of these, 4,000 will be built on the UK mainland and 3,000 at sea. The official consultation document states: "Subject to planning permission, we would expect that a large proportion of onshore wind development will take place in Scotland."

This threatens to put Westminster at loggerheads with Holyrood, which in April turned down an application for 181 turbines on Lewis.

There are also fears that it could mean years of extra costs, with the subsidy paid to encourage "green" energy development already adding about £60 a year to bills.

Dr Sue Ion, vice-president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said the challenge of developing offshore power was "immense".


The full article contains 729 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

27/06/2008 01:08:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

bring them on,

27/06/2008 05:16:17
I wonder if Romanov has read this article?

He be rethinking the plan for building the block of flats.
3

Boy Wonder,

27/06/2008 06:47:29
#1. Don't know anything about AM2 being yourself ... but I have suspected for some time now that many of the posters are posting under multiple names. Some even going so far as to argue with themselves to make it look genuine. With what #1 tells us ... I now look at the posters here with even more scepticism. I have even wondered if Chuckles Linskaill (who is not me) is posting under another name, to support his CK posts. And everyone wh posts from "elsewhere" (Timbo?) is highly suspect.
I wonder why the Hootsmon even keeps up this site and if some of the hackjournos are actually posting? Makes you think, eh?
4

Greenheatman,

TAIN 27/06/2008 06:59:28
If we are going to building these ridiculous wind turbines all over the place then the power produced should be MWh(thermal) not MWh(electrical)

For every 3MWh(th) fed into an existing coal fired power station 1MWh(e) will be generated to meet dynamic demand (load following)

It will also reduce carbon emissions by around 950kg for every MWh(e) produced - when it is need - not subject to the vagaries of the weather!
5

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 27/06/2008 07:11:07
I don't understand any of the above postings.

I don't understand why any on-shore windfarms should be built. Over the marine horizon with them, please.

Submarine turbines are the real answer, of course. Out of sight and always on stream. Our oceans could power Europe. What's the hold up?
6

Boy Wonder,

27/06/2008 07:28:08
#5. I agree with you re windfarms! We are an island ... we could have massive offshore undersea turbines powering Europe. Why mar the landscape with these monstrosities, when the sea is crying out for development?
7

bring them on,

27/06/2008 07:31:24
Gordon Clown has yet to admit that under each site in an underground nuclear reactor facility.

I will keep a close eye on developments.
8

Scotish Exile,

27/06/2008 08:02:58
Farmers will be rubbing their grubby hands together, pockets lined and you don't have to get out of bed in the morning!
9

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 27/06/2008 08:08:40
At the russle of green £s, landowners emerge from their usual covert operations and reveal who is owning Scotland.

The EU issues directifs; then Westminster is told by the City how to sell "renewables" (to us) as a money-making scam (for them). Although these wind power stations are useful in integrated national and local grids, this is not the prime purpose. Big contractors like it too, as roads, heavy machinery and of course pouring alot of concrete are required.

Who owns Scotland? What owns Scotland? and it seems to be money.
10

bogmon,

27/06/2008 09:07:30
Business opportunity, eh?

Bribe more like.
11

bogmon,

27/06/2008 09:39:10
The government's renewable energy targets will be met only by the fantasy world of the turbine manufacturer's performance figures. The practical reality will be very much different.

How deep does Gordo want to dig his grave for God's sake?
12

bogmon,

27/06/2008 10:04:39
This announcement along with the announcement of the new planning system quango, onshore wind factories seem now to be a foregone conclusion, in spite of the right to protest. Any protests will simply be ignored from now on.
13

sam the god,

27/06/2008 10:40:09
just think of the number of raptors that are going to die due to these wind farmsbut no doubt shooters will be blamed for these deaths
14

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 27/06/2008 10:49:42
Forget protecting the living environment, the beauty of the landscape, tourism and small rural village survival. Don't concern yourselves about getting rural roads maintained, the cost of fuel in out-of-the way places, ferry services, rural health facilities or the mobile library. New Labour has a funding crisis! The countryside is a commodity that has a trading value. Stop hunting and shooting by banning it or regulating it to death, regardless of how much income it creates. Then, when ordinary people don't have a use for countryside they will move to towns. Where will New Labour get their funds? Surely they won't be approaching rich 'developers'? Will they?
15

Neil,

Glasgow 27/06/2008 10:52:03
Those opposed to any concern for the environment who are keen on uglyfying our countryside this way & demand the entirely necessary subsidies shouldpay for it through a higher tax rate. Doubtless everybody who voted Green, LudDim, Labour, Tory SNP or SSP would be happy to pay an extra 10p income tax leaving the rest of us to make do with nuclear.

Obviously only somebody who was both a total hypocrite & extremly happy to be nothing more than a parasite would be happy to pay this. Indeed every honest member of the Green party is already making an extra donation totalling all of their electricity bill to the authorities. (How many hosest members the Green party has is another question)
16

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 27/06/2008 10:58:58
#13 Are raptors so blind they can't see a slowly turning blade? (Not that I'm a fan (pun) of wind turbines).
17

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 27/06/2008 11:01:03
#15 Neil.

The nuclear subsidy is VASTLY greater than 10P income tax.
18

Galaman,

Galashiels 27/06/2008 11:08:55
Bearing in mind the present high cost of electricity, I wonder if the pro-folly (sorry, windfarm) lobby will still be just as happy when their power bills soar ever higher, and also if they have stockpiles of candles at the ready for when the wind stops and the lights go out.
How a power source which is only intermittent and requires constant back-up can be considered viable, is beyond me. This report just goes to show that this whole global warming business is just a smokescreen, and that it's all just about money.
19

Farmernot,

27/06/2008 11:12:39
#8 Ma paws arnie grubby.....they are washed and ready to accept any freebie payment ah can lay ma hauns oan.

Just think like the turbines aroon the country........pretty wee windmills like in Holland really.
20

GlenB,

27/06/2008 12:00:56
#16 "Are raptors so blind they can't see a slowly turning blade?"

Blade tips travel at very nearly 200mph - an eagle may be focused on a rabbit some mile or more beyond the turbine - concentrating on the rabbit it flies directly to its prey - missing the blade is a lottery.

For comparison - with all our knowledge of cars we would find it hard to judge when to run across the road in front of a 200mph car when concentrating on just that activity.
I don't think eagles are as familiar with wind turbines.
21

Saoghal Beag,

27/06/2008 12:17:05
glenB, turbine kills are negligible, even the braes of doone sited near an over wintering area for red kits has only recorded a two or three strikes. on the otherhand, illeagal poisoning, shooting and road kills take very many more.
22

Saoghal Beag,

27/06/2008 12:18:42
17 Oh no rules, you'll be getting called an ecofascist next. basically anyone whoi disagrees with neil is an ecofascist in his book.
23

Schot,

27/06/2008 12:58:10
I did some work for the RSPB near a windfarm. The only related birds we found were away from the turbines, they appeared to have been killed by pre-existing faulty pylons.

There are 30,000 birds killed by wind-turbines in Denmark each year, compared to a million killed by cars.

To put that in context, British cats kill 55 million birds each year. In other words, a bird is several thousand times more likely to be eaten by a bird, even if were to have as dense windfarms as the Danish - which isn't being the case.
24

Schot,

27/06/2008 13:12:00
Should read "eaten by a cat", or more accurately, killed by a cat.

Once fossil fuel demand exceeds production - and we are almost there - then you need lot's of new powerstations to replace the oil and gas ones.
Scotland does need massive tidal schemes as well as windpower if it is to avoid a massive new +extra+ nuclear programme.
Because of the variable nature of most renewables we also need extra energy storage schemes, where water is pumped between lochs at off-peak times.

Insulating houses and reducing petrol mileage are the only two significant ways we can as individuals cut our energy costs. It is dishonest of politicians urging us to turn off our TVs rather than leave them on standby. That is neglible amounts of power.
25

GlenB,

27/06/2008 13:14:41
Simple overall comparative numbers tell us nothing it's the number of kills as a proportion of the species' population and the impact on breeding success in the local area that really matters.
26

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 27/06/2008 13:46:30
I see them everyday and think nothing of it. How often do you notice the Electricity pylons that stretch the entire countryside.

Once we start to delevop and improve the technology who knows what the future energy output may be.

Alternatively we can keep using oil and ignore the pollution.

Wind, Tidal, Hydro and even Solar we are after all a very small population unlike our southern neighbours
27

Coutts,

Ayrshire 27/06/2008 14:06:00
What about security of supply?

What about power plants running backup power 100% of the time?

What about the truth?

Gordon Brown seems to be digging deeper and deeper holes for himself.

Another disastrous policy which is backfiring.

28

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 27/06/2008 14:33:04
The lunatics have taken over both the Holyrood and Westminster asylums.
Anyone who thinks that installing thousands of windmills of mass destruction all over our our landscape is going to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels is barking mad.
What we are seeing is large businesses running the government. All you have to do is look at the constitution of the "Renewable energy advisory board" to see who is calling the shots!! THE BWEA.
It really is time for newspapers like the Scotsman to stand up for the people of Scotland and send these carpet bagging wind developers back where they belong.
With fuel poverty being a very real issue these windmills which are getting more for rocs than the price of the electricity are guaranteed to push the cost of electricityy up.
And the bottom line is that not a single tonne less coal will be burned at Longannet or Cockenzie because of these windmills of mass destruction.
Wake up Scotland - we are being taken for a ride.
29

Courtney,

East Molesey 27/06/2008 14:36:17
Another great con on the consumer: the corrupt leading the blinkered politician
30

Schot,

27/06/2008 14:37:34
@25

Not true, it is indicative of the scale of the problem.

And both the scientific evidence, plus my own first hand research, indicates that cats kill thousands of times more birds than turines do. Even cars kill more. Bird deaths from turbines is as red a herring as TVs on standby. It isn't important. Climate change causes far more bird deaths. I would go so far as to say shooting birds and cats and burning them in bio-mass powerplants would be benficial to all nature. And I say that as a cat lover.

It is not an issue, it is a false distraction. Both sides of the argument here seem to rely on adjectives not numbers, and that leads to irrational decisions. Here is a report on the issue that concentrates on numbers. Some of the Greens won't like it, some of the suits won't like it.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/presentations/SEWTHA7/mgp00001.html
31

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 27/06/2008 15:12:02
£10,500 per annum for one turbine. Is one turbine capable of producing £10,500 worth of electricity in one year?
32

Saoghal Beag,

27/06/2008 15:25:26
30 schot, someone who talks sense about bird kills, but the irrational arguments will focus on the nice trophy species and carry on regardless.
33

Saoghal Beag,

27/06/2008 15:29:02
Coutts

What about security of supply?
Nuclear can only supply base load and as a single point source is open to attack, granted security on site is tight, but not on the pylon lines leading out.

What about power plants running backup power 100% of the time?
Thankfully we have sufficeint power load to cover our nuclear plants going down, or having "planned" down time to correct unplanned faults.

What about the truth?
Nuclear energy in Scotland generated the smallest percentage of its design load for any generation technology last year.

Gordon Brown seems to be digging deeper and deeper holes for himself.
we can only hope that the black hole collapses on his head.

Another disastrous policy which is backfiring.
criticism but no alternative.
34

Schot,

27/06/2008 15:31:03
Saoghal,

Thanks. To be honest though I stole the figures I quoted from a supporting slide to Professor Mackays book.

If you ever see me spouting common sense then you can be sure I am plagarising. I'd urge you all to take the time to read his book.
I know it is a big 'download' but it is a big issue.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/presentations/SEWTHA7/mgp00164.html
35

david hill,

huddersfield 27/06/2008 15:32:45
Dear Sir,

Re: The Wind Farms Decision is the wrong one for Britain’s long-term Energy Needs and one that we shall all regret

The latest government decision to spend over £100 Billion of taxpayer’s funds on wind farms shows how the government and their advisers are totally lacking in knowledge and information on renewable energy matters. This decision, fuelled by the self-interest of lobbyists on behalf of the major wind turbine corporations will be a decision that Britain greatly regrets in the years ahead.
In this respect in 2003 as an example the actual amount of electricity that these wind turbines produced equated to a production time of only 24.1 per cent of the year. For the facts are that these turbines only reach maximum efficiency when the wind speed is between 10 and 20mph and where below 8mph these turbines just simply do not produce any electricity at all. Added to these facts is that above 20mph efficiencies go down and when over 56mph they all stop producing electricity completely due to cut out and risk of damage. Indeed, a significant number of wind turbines in fact cut out at 33mph. The problem is therefore that wind turbines have a very narrow band to work within and produce electricity (less than 25% of the time according to all international studies). Replacement time is also short in the range of 9-12 years. Therefore £100 billion spent today will have to be spent again in less than two decades time. Maintenance costs are also at a high premium, as sudden wind gusts (which are a constant situation) wear out components quickly. Therefore the government’s decision is good for the vast installers, but certainly very bad for the British taxpayer who gets an abysmal raw deal out of this uniformed decision. Indeed in many ways it will be seen over time like the ‘Dome’ and a very expensive ‘White elephant’. But the real problem is that the government’s advisers do not look further than the powerful industrial lobbyists and where if they had
36

Schot,

27/06/2008 15:34:30
http://www.withouthotair.com/

Sorry, I provided the link to the cat death slide and not to the climate change report.
37

Colin, Glasgow,

27/06/2008 15:55:23
#35 David, out of interest, where did you get the replacement time of 9-12 years from?
38

Alan B,

27/06/2008 16:15:10
#david hill

The biggest problem i see with ur analysis is u do not put the need for renewable energy in any context.

Firstly the issue, is do u want to do anything about CO2 emmission and associated climate change. Or are u of the believe that it is not happening or do not care.

The choice for electricity production where we want to do something about reducing CO2 emmission is

1)coal with carbon capture
2)nuclear
3)renewables

Previous government ran an irresponsible dash for gas policy that used up our gas reserves in a short time. It was moving to gas that brought down the uk co2 emmissions.

The choices therefore are one of above or some mixture.

From this there is the issue of whether we are happy with nuclear. There has also been massive subsidies to this industry from government and the issue of what to do with waste is controversial.

Part of ur argument regards what u believe are poor components for windfarms. In many ways many goods say cars start out unreliable and get better if there is investment.

The quesiton really is how much would it cost to have say 60% of our electricity in scotland produced by renewables. We should not just rely on wind must must diversify to tide and wave as these technologies become viable.






39

Neil,

Glasgow 27/06/2008 16:18:03
Rules your claim that nuclear is "vastly subsidised" is, I accept an example of the very highest standard of honesty of which the Luddites who call themselves "environmentalists" are capable, rather like so many previous lies you have told here.

Should you have any evidence that it is in any remote way truthful you are, of course, free to produce it.
40

ARP,

Scotland 27/06/2008 16:30:34
If it were not my money that is being thrown at these "farmers"I would have no objection to the countryside being littered with these awful things, nor would I bother much about birds being killed - but it IS my money, and yours, and yours, that is paying for this monumental waste of resources. For over a decade, weak governments have yielded to green pressures and now we are in a real mess. Oil running out and imports of oil and electricity (French nuclear generated!) ever more costly - inflation about to take off big time (after September when the pensioners index has been settled) unemployment rising, unions rattling their money bags in the face of a terrified and bankrupted Labour government, national debt at a record level - hurrah for our prudent Broon! And now this diversion... while real poverty faces all but the obscenely rich. Oh - lets go and bomb someone!
41

GlenB,

27/06/2008 16:45:05
#30

And how many Golden Eagles have you recorded being killed by cats?

We are talking about wind turbines and rare species that only produce a few offspring a year - not cats and huge populations of song birds that produce many offspring per year.

Sustainability of species is dependent on the size of its breeding population and their breeding success.
The threats to particular species are specific to that species and general comparisons to not apply.
42

Schot,

27/06/2008 16:54:12
@41

Our Christian militia have views on the subject ? Well, luckily this isn't a 'faith based subject so you are talking nonsense. Of course the statistical probabality of any bird being killed by a wind-turbine is relevant. I am aware of no evidence that only non raptors are killed by turbines. I am aware of research showing climate change affecting scottish raptors.

In terms of natural management, there is no case against wind-turbines, although in terms of economics there may be.

Are you going tokeep bugging me just because I ridiculed your creationist beliefs ? Not very Christ-like behaviour I have to say. I would like to point out for the record that Noahs so called flood was actually first reported in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Stick to religious threads GlenB because your irrational cult is an enemy of science.
43

The Canadian,

27/06/2008 16:58:41
Landowners = Highland Clearances.
What about compensation for descendants of people who were cleared from the Highlands during the Highland Clearances.
44

GlenB,

27/06/2008 17:04:59
My apologies if you feel that way - I wasn't bugging you in particular it just seemed to me your understanding of population dynamics is a bit lacking. (I think that has something to do with science.)

45

GlenB,

27/06/2008 17:05:57
My 44 refers to #42
46

Schot,

27/06/2008 17:07:46
I would say to anyone who is concerned with bird deaths due to turbines. There are far more birds killed by pylons, and underground powerlines are both more scenic and more safe.

You can prove this to yourself easily. Visit a windfarm. Trace the power lines. You will find far more dead birds under the powerlines than near the turbines. When I worked for the RSPB, the raptors found dead under the powerlines were six. The raptors killed by the turbines were none. Even with a vast increase in wind turbines and turbine related deaths this is so a tiny, a fraction of a percentage of raptors killed, that it is irrelevant to international arguments about power and climate change.
47

Schot,

27/06/2008 17:20:29
"And how many Golden Eagles have you recorded being killed by cats?"

How many Golden Eagles have you seen killed by wind turbines ?

Both wind turbines and Golden Eagles are too rare to be an issue. I personally would like to see a dead Golden Eagle near a wind turbine. It would be a positive indication that we have a more healthy population of both.

If anyone is interested, during my RSPB stint, it was the buzzards who were most at risk of death by pylon, presumably because they like to perch on poles/trees.

I think it is an interesting argument about conservation but it is also a completely irrational distraction from national power considerations.
48

GlenB,

27/06/2008 18:03:26
#47 "I think it is an interesting argument about conservation but it is also a completely irrational distraction from national power considerations."

I agree though perhaps not about the irrationality.

More wind power in UK is, according to Gordon Brown going to increase energy costs. It will have a negative impact on the economy yet do very little if anything to affect climate change.
This it seems to me is an irrational choice.



49

Coutts,

Ayrshire 27/06/2008 18:09:47

Vast amounts of money for landowners in suitable sites for turbines? Hmmm?

Is anybody still falling for that old tale that only wind turbines are a solution to climate change?

Surely this is more about the generation of money and not the reduction of emissions.

Gordon Brown - you've lost my vote.
50

Schot,

27/06/2008 18:18:24
Yes, that may be true Glen. I'd ask you to read the book though before further comments. I realise it is a big commitment but it is worth it. For example, according to Mackays 'Plan S for Scotland', we could be totally renewable but not without a cost.

I personally am anti-nuclear. I would rather be without power than have nuclear power, simply out of respect to future generations who would have to deal with the waste my decisions create.

However Mackays book does address a feasible nuclear future.

I feel these issues are urgent, and I believe nonsense about bird-deaths and TV Standby buttons are deliberate obfuscation.

Read the withoutHotAir.com link I provided if you have the time and bandwidth, it may well be common ground, it is certainly common sense.

51

Saoghal Beag,

27/06/2008 18:31:17
35 Dear David Hill, they are a dam site more reliable than Scotland's two nuclear plants though. THey dream of reaching 29%
52

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 27/06/2008 18:54:54
So Schot has come out of the cupboard and joined SB
"Anti nuclear therefore wind turbines are fine"
Sorry Schot but you are wrong about turbine kills and how may birds are killed by cats is totally irrelevant.
Check out how many eagles have been killed at Altamont pass or Smola. As has been pointed out cats don't jump 450ft in the air tp the top of wind turbines where the blade tips are travelling at 200mph plus and where golden and sea eagles fly, or whooper swans etc.
What about the case not so long ago in the uk when a swan was minced in front of many witnesses.
SB is also getting confused between reliability and unpredictability. Nuclear power stations are very reliable but like any other mechanism has a certain lifespan and ours are at the end of it and need replacing.
At the Ben Aketil windfarm on Skye, the first turbine failed after a week and a second shortly after.
Good work for the mainenance crew from "Germany"
53

Colin, Glasgow,

27/06/2008 19:09:03
#50 Schot, I disagree with you about nuclear power - I think it is a major part of the solution; but I agree with you about Mackay’s book. It is essential reading for anybody interested in national-scale energy solutions.

As he says: “Stop saying we have huge renewables and do the sums!”

And: “’Nuclear or wind?’ is the wrong question. We need everything we can get our hands on – all the wind, and all the nuclear – and even then, we’re still in trouble."

I couldn't agree more.

There is an entertaining review of his work at the Register, here (this also includes a link to the full draft of his book).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
54

,

27/06/2008 19:14:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

Schot,

27/06/2008 20:03:30
Nabodican & Colin,

I respect our disagreement on nuclear power, given the deep, deep 'trouble' we are in energy wise. I respect anyone who doesn't want to live constantly next to a wind-turbine, given the ultra-sonic noise that they give off. However if you have some respect for Mackays book then how can anyone raise the issue of dead birds from turbines on a national forum ? More swans have been eaten by British citizens in the past year than have been killed by turbines. Doubtless more birds have flown to their deaths directly into the walls and windows of nuclear power-stations over the past few decades. That is not a valid argument against nuclear though, nor should it be employed against wind power. I am happy to state from personal investigation that the greatest avian threat from power production is death by pylon, and that is universal regardless of generator. Even nuclear radiation barely affects birds because they live such short lives anyway on average.

My point - and I feel this is Mackays main point too - is we urgently have to drop these either ignorant or malicious unscientific arguments and start working out a sensible energy policy.
Are you aware some migratory birds can no longer reach the UK because of climate change ? Do you doubt my claim that more birds are killed by the pylons of any power-station than are killed by turbines ?

Our country uses vast amounts of imported energy which is about to disappear. For all the buzzards who have been killed by pylons, we may soon have a surfeit of them when they are feeding off our corpses. We have evolved into an evoltionary niche of fossil fuels, and we are driving our cars to a brick-wall.

You don't have to be a Green to recognise we are in a potentiallly catastrophic situation, and our best solutions are either massive increase in renewables or massive increase in nuclear, or a combination of both.

We disagree about the solution perhaps, and we can argue that with figures
56

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 27/06/2008 20:15:10
Clive - keep taking the drugs because you are wrong on every count. I really would like to know where you got the ridiculous idea that 90% of people "love" wind turbines. Is that why there are so many objections to them.
Schot - you are missing the point about turbine bird kill. this is an unnecessary evil as these turbines are simply not required as there is no energy crisis. All that is needed is to replace our ageing power stations with new ones. Then instead of giving the massive subsidies in the form of rocs to the wind industry, look at developing a nation wide tidal system for the future.
If you think that wind turbines serve any purpose other than making money you are sadly mistaken.
Meanwhile spare a thought for those on low incomes and pensioners who are really struggling to pay their electricity bills, some will even die come winter, when the Amecs of this world are rubbing their hands with glee at having fleeced us.
57

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 27/06/2008 21:06:42
This academic discussion is all very well (personally I'm on the side of nuclear and tidal power generation) but lets get to the nub of this greenwash announcement and the reason Brassneck Broon made it. Where are New Labour going to get the funds for their election campaign?
58

Schot,

27/06/2008 21:07:57
"this is an unnecessary evil as these turbines are simply not required as there is no energy crisis."

There is obviously an energy crisis. Any rational person who has kept themselves informed can see that.

I would have liked to debate this but the smae irrelevant points keep getting raised.

There is no real risk to birds from any sort of power production, except through the side effect of climate change.

Anyone who promotes these miniscule levels bird-death caused by power production as an reason for one type of power-production over another is at best a scare-mongerer. Your cats kill more birds but you don't call for a ban on cats. Your cars kill more birds but you still drive.

Oh, and turning off your TV is not going to save the world. We +need+ major solutions, not PR fluff designed to deflect criticism from our politicians.

F the ducks.
59

Colin, Glasgow,

27/06/2008 21:18:53
Schot, “we urgently have to drop these either ignorant or malicious unscientific arguments and start working out a sensible energy policy.”

Agreed.

Nabodican, “these turbines are simply not required as there is no energy crisis. All that is needed is to replace our ageing power stations with new ones.”

The energy crisis derives from the fact that there isn’t time to build replacement powerstations. Wind turbines, inadequate as they may be, can at least be constructed quickly. These, along with an increase in gas generating capacity, which now seems inevitable, can plug the gap until a new generation of nuclear powerstations takes over.
60

dido-bendigo,

27/06/2008 21:31:25
For goodness sake Schot! Look up Altamont bird strikes on a search engine! Do some homework on Norwegian Sea Eagle turbine fatalities. Look up vulture casualties in Extramadura(sp?). Rare parrot kills in Australia. Bats are being wiped out in some migration areas. They are all serious events! The 'Executive' have just granted permission for a windfarm to the north of Loch Awe, Argyll. It will be operational on the most productive territory for golden eagles in that part of Scotland. RSPB objected, but it will still go ahead, SNH said it is OK so they can probably stay in their new HQ at Inverness for a bit longer. The blasted things should be banned on British soil.
61

Schot,

27/06/2008 22:16:06
Dido,
The work I was volunteering with was related to the Sea Eagle releases in Scotland. I did find much concern among RSPB members about turbines. I also found this concern wasn't evidence based, most of these peoples skills were in unrelated disciplines and were simply worried 'intuitively'. We need less intuition and more study. The only dead raptors found were directly underneath pylons, and the RSPB employees put this done to 'old age' or 'bad wiring', neither of which is likely given the lack or burns on seemingly heathly, well-fed corspes.

So few birds are killed by turbines that I hope that even supporters of nuclear power stop using this false argument against wind. In return, I think 'intuitive' arguments against nuclear are equally shunned.

I prefer wave power to wind power to nuclear. I am not a turbine evangelist. There will be turbines, they will kill birds, and it is still not a conservation issue. If you want to see more Sea Eagles, then release more into the wild, protect their habitat and stop the major threats to them - in terms of Sea Eagles that would be deliberate poisoning by gamekeepers targetting other raptors such as the buzzard.

Don't base a national energy policy on false sentiment.

While I was searching for genuine fatalities at wind farms I was staying at a hippy commune. They had a large piece of double glazed glass lying upright in the woods, which killed one hawk and one falcon while I was there, tree hugging hypocrites. I also once found hundreds of dead seagulls at Windscale. Obviously nuclear related, but equally obviously not an argument to ban nuclear power.

The main thing about the Mackay book is it cuts through prejucdice and intuition and leaves us a range of options that would supply our power. You can choose which option you want, but you have to choose no, and you have to choose rationally.

Don't let anyone pretend you could close down a nuclear power station simply by turning off your TV, n
62

Schot,

27/06/2008 22:21:15
Bleugh... too many spelling mistakes to correct this time but I hope that was comprehensible to anyone neutral.

"Don't make me angry...You won't understand me when I'm angry"
63

Schot,

28/06/2008 00:39:40
Oil: The final warning - New Scientists current headline

"Expensive fuel at the pumps is just the start. These battles over the price of oil could be the harbinger of something even scarier. There is a growing realisation that we are teetering on the edge of an economic catastrophe which could be triggered next time there is a glitch in the world's oil supply....
So where does this leave us at a time when global oil production is approaching the point when it stops growing and starts to decline? Most industry experts, including geoscientists and economists, who were polled by Samid in 2007 said that peak production will occur by 2010."

So we have perhaps two years to come up with a replacement energy policy. Given the number of years it takes to produce any sort of power plant we are looking at serious power cuts, no fertilisers, no plastics, no transport except for the seriously rich.
64

Saoghal Beag,

28/06/2008 21:16:01
schot, they won't listen to reason, they have hung their hats on the nuclear peg and need every excuse and ill begotten reason to justify it. The fact that it is unreliable, the newest french reactor ahs had to go abck and redo a lot of the pipe work as it wasn't good enough, the new finnish reactor is two years behind schedule, the french have recommissioned their old oil stations as they are loosing too much money exporting the excess power they have to generate since they ahve an excess of nuclear, nuclear is base load only, and not reliable for that.

unreliable, unaffordable, inflexible, why on earth is it being considered at all?
65

Colin, Glasgow,

29/06/2008 20:30:30
Saoghal Beag #65, clearly you have hung your hat on the anti-nuclear peg. If the best arguments you can come up with are that nuclear is unreliable or that it is expensive then I am not surprised that you cannot understand why so many countries are planning to expand nuclear power.

You cannot base your assumptions on a few cherry-picked facts. If you only look at times when nuclear powerstations are shut down for maintenance, then obviously their availability will seem low. If you only look at first-of-a-kind builds with their associated delays then obviously it will seem costly.

But if you actually look at what the International Energy Agency says on the matter, based on actual operating information and projected future costs you find a different story:
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1472

In some countries Nuclear has the lowest levelised cost of generation of any electricity source. It is comparable to the cost of coal or gas-fired plant, with the relative difference being dependent on the availability of fossil fuel in each country. Nuclear also has availability around 85%, the same as fossil fuel plant.

Onshore wind is on average 50% more expensive, and offshore wind is more like 100% more expensive. Solar is five to ten times as expensive.

Nuclear also produces fewer lifecycle CO2 emissions than any of these renewable options. So it is not surprising that both the IEA and the IPCC endorse it as a suitable technology to combat climate change.
66

Schot,

30/06/2008 23:41:00
Colin,

If we can get rid of our existing nuclear, or at least avoid anymore nuclear, wouldn't you see that as a good thing ?

My basic problem with nuclear is the waste is deadly for hundreds of thousands of years. My secondary concern is with the risk of large fatalities +when+ the next accident occurs. The increase in background radiation maybe negligible, it is particulate inhalation that causes tens of thousands deaths. The fact that the closer you live to a nuclear powerstaion, the more likely your child is to have leukemia or other evil diseases.

The disposal of waste requires an impossible engineering feat - a storage system that will not leak for hundreds of thousands of years.

How old are the pyramids again ? They were designed to be sealed forever.
67

Colin, Glasgow,

01/07/2008 15:04:01
Schott, are you under the impression that there is a safer alternative to nuclear that would scale up? If there was I wouldn’t have problem replacing it.

But there isn’t. For starters fossil fuel is vastly more harmful than nuclear power. Air pollution from burning fossil fuel in the UK kills tens of thousands of people per year – not by accident but through normal usage. Worldwide, air pollution from fossil fuel causes damage to health equivalent to several Chernobyl accidents per day.

The health impacts of the worst nuclear accident are no worse than the everyday hazard from air pollution (not that this is good, but it is tolerable).
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/49/abstract

And the chances of a Chernobyl-like accident in the UK are in the region of 1 in 2.4 billion reactor years.

The European Commission conducted a study called ExternE, which calculated the external costs (i.e. health and environmental damage) caused by each method of electricity generation. This included the effects of normal operation and also the risk of catastrophic accident. Wind and large hydro were the only sources that had lower external impacts than nuclear. Solar PV was worse. Biomass was much worse – comparable to fossil fuel – due to the air pollution. Now, most of the available hydro resource has been used, and we can’t run the whole show on wind, so nuclear is the next default available.

The insinuation that there is a causal connection between nuclear powerstations and leukaemia is simply false. COMARE reported that there is no link years ago.

Disposal of nuclear waste is not an impossible engineering feat. In fact it is nearly impossible to get it wrong as long as it is deep enough. The proposed designs for geological disposal have huge margins of safety. They are designed so that the waste cannot migrate back to the biosphere before it has decayed to safe levels. The maximum risk to somebody living on top of repository at any time in the future is 1
68

Colin, Glasgow,

01/07/2008 15:05:09
[continued...]
The maximum risk to somebody living on top of repository at any time in the future is 1 in a million per year. In the short term the risk is less than 1 in a trillion per year. (Contrast this with risk from natural background radiation which is 1 in 10,000; or better yet the risk from air pollution from fossil fuel…)

Consider – cave paintings have survived intact for 35,000 years. They are prone to water damage, and their originators had no knowledge of geology, yet they survived simply because they were underground. Consider how much longer glass would survive, if encased in steel and copper, embedded in clay. (Why clay? Because water permeates saturated clay at rate of about 1 metre per million years.)

That is the proposed method of disposal – at a depth of several hundred metres. Under all conceivable circumstances it is 100 times safer than natural background radiation.

Look at the charts in this document to get an idea of the risk profile over time:
http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&pageid=12038
69

Schot,

01/07/2008 20:10:47
Cave paintings in France were cleaned off by a French anti-graffiti team in 1992. Nuclear enthusiasts sometime dismiss all 'regretable mistakes' as down to human error. I too see human error as an inevitable.

Your solution sounds quite elegant, but safe ? Fool-proof against time itself. What if there is geological activity beneath the mine ? What if people go after it ? What if hundreds of thousands of years throw up more 'what if's ?

Nuclear generation is a Damacles Sword, it is clutching at a snake.

And in Scotland at least it isn't necessary. Have a quick scan of the book here. It isn't an anti-nuclear rant, but it does make clear Scotland could choose a non nuclear future if it wanted.
http://www.withouthotair.com/
70

Schot,

01/07/2008 20:25:12
Claudia Spix and her colleagues at the University of Mainz took another look at cancer statistics from 1980 to 2003, held in the German Childhood Cancer Registry at Mainz. First time around they had found a suggestion in the German cancer statistics of extra cases of childhood leukaemia near nuclear plants, but the effects did not appear to be constant over time.

This time they found that children under 5 years old who live within 5 kilometres of any of Germany's 16 nuclear plants had a 50 per cent increased risk of developing leukaemia. The team suggests this could add up to 29 excess cases of the cancer over the 24 years examined (European Journal of Cancer, vol 44, p 275).
71

Schot,

01/07/2008 20:37:39
Colin,

Your link is PR spin. I don't know if you posted that because you read it and believe it, or because of a genuine belief in nuclear power, but it dimishes you in my eyes and it implies a paucity in your research at best.

I realise there is anti-nuclear spin too but I haven't linked to any.

http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Nuclear_Decommissioning_Authority
72

Schot,

01/07/2008 20:46:41
Colin,

Do you have any personal or financial links to the nuclear industry ?
73

Colin, Glasgow,

01/07/2008 21:32:48
Schot #70, the fact that the repository is sealed keeps the graffiti artists out. More seriously, if somebody did deliberately “go after” the waste then, with multi-£million resources they could dig it up, but then what?

The risk analysis includes various intrusion scenarios including accidental excavation by a bore hole. The risk of death is still less than 1 in a million. Even if you excavate it you have to be immensely unlucky or do something pretty stupid with it to get it to kill you.

Human intervention aside, geologists are pretty good at predicting geological activity. Even if their calculations are wrong by two orders of magnitude, the repository is still safer than background radiation for all time.

The “natural” reactor at Oklo went critical 1.5 billion years ago and kept fissioning on and off for several hundred millenia. After it finished the resulting radioactive waste moved only a few centimetres in two billion years. Without any planning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

You are correct that nuclear is not strictly necessary in Scotland. Theoretically, and at great expense, it may be possible to produce a low carbon energy solution that would meet Scotland’s needs. I have read Mackay’s work and I am very impressed by it. If anything he makes a compelling case for nuclear, if not for Scotland, then certainly for the rest of the world.

However, note the solution for Scotland is based on several technologies that have not yet been commercialised, including wave and tidal generators. And it costs seven times as much as the nuclear scenario. For these reasons the more likely reality is that we will just replace nuclear with renewables, keep burning fossil fuel for the oil/gas revenue, and not make any carbon saving.
74

Colin, Glasgow,

01/07/2008 21:33:57
Schot #71, as far as I am aware the German leukemia study did not propose a causal link between the radiation from the nuclear power stations and the disease. That is the point. There are leukemia clusters all over the place, as COMARE showed. But the cause is not radiation. In fact the German researchers explicitly stated that radiation could not be the cause.

It seems the whole anti-nuclear case is based on “what-if?”. In the meantime we don’t need to ask “what-if” about fossil fuel because it’s killing hundreds of thousands of people per year, every year. There is no possible way that nuclear waste could be that bad. The risk of not using nuclear is that you end up using more fossil fuel. Historically this has tended to be the case.
75

Colin, Glasgow,

01/07/2008 21:49:06
Schot, which link is nuclear spin? The link from the NDA site? How can you say that? It is certainly related to the industry, but it is a technical document produced for the government appointed Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. It illustrates what the risk model for the proposed repository is like.

If you ask me, the “nuclear spin” site that you linked is clearly an anti-nuclear site. It is sponsored by Greenpeace, who have credibility invested in opposing nuclear power on principle. Who is the nuclearspin site accountable to?

In answer to your question, some of my older relatives worked in the nuclear industry before they retired some twenty years ago. Hence I was not brought up with a default anti-nuclear bias. However I don’t have any current links to the nuclear industry.
76

Schot,

01/07/2008 23:43:40
"However, note the solution for Scotland is based on several technologies that have not yet been commercialised, including wave and tidal generators."

That is mistaken / misworded / untrue. I was in a highly successful French tidal site in the 1970's. The Don especially is a prime candidate for a barrage as Mackays book makes clear. Even wave is now commerically viable, not that I rate commerical viability as a priority over the survival of our species.


"You are correct that nuclear is not strictly necessary in Scotland. Theoretically, and at great expense, it may be possible to produce a low carbon energy solution that would meet Scotland’s needs."

And at a bit greater short-term expense it may even be possible to build a carbon positive, non-nuclear Scotland. Can we agree on that since we both respect the same research that points that out ? Now we just need to haggle about the relative financial value of leaving a non-nuclear country to our descendants. I personally would be prepared to pay a lot more tax or at least contribute more to my community by other means in exchange for living in a non-nuclear country. That is also the stated preference of Mackay, even though the Register put a pro-nuclear spin on the report. I hope you also agree that is so urgent due to peak oil and climate change that it requires urgent - and correct - decisions.


"Schot, which link is nuclear spin?"
Yes, the NDA is a spin site, unworthy of even the time it would take anyone to discredit it. Let's just forget you posted that so we can progress the discussion. I realise the site I linked to is not much better but it is perfectly accurate on it's allegation against the NDA and I wouldn't have l linked to the site it if you had chose a better source. So now that we both claim the Mackay report as common ground, can we dop the dodgier sites from our interpretations ?

Of course, I was biased as a child against nuclear, also for perfectly understandable reas
77

Schot,

01/07/2008 23:56:12
As to the epidemogical study in Germany, these studys only ever report statistical links.

You may claim that the f