Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008

Evening News / Sony Centre Reverse Auction

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.

Blowing up a storm



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

Imagine the public outcry if the government of a modern European country sanctioned a controversial planning application from a giant multinational company that would deprive indigenous farming people of thousands of acres of their common land – in the process destroying history, heritage and archaeology of national, if not international importance – to turn the land into an industrial wasteland.
This is precisely what would happen if the Scottish Government consented to the application by Lewis Windpower to build a giant 181-turbine wind farm on the Isle of Lewis. The Lewis Peatlands, Amec's chosen site for the wind farm, also happens to be
the common grazings shared by hundreds of crofters.

Amec, though, has no respect for this land, or the indigenous people on the land. Amec only cares about the wind that blows across it.

But the crofters don't share Amec's contempt for their grazings, and last year more than 730 of them wrote to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Land Court, making their opposition and objections to the Lewis wind farm explicit.

The reality, therefore, is that if the government consents to this development, an unprecedented court battle will ensue. The developer would attempt to force many hundreds of crofters off their land to make way for the wind farm; but the crofters have already told the government they will take their fight to protect their rights – enshrined in the 1886 Crofting Act – directly to the courts.

Surely the SNP ministers, who are so committed to the future of crofting, and to the preservation of the natural heritage and environment, would never sanction the destruction of thousands of acres of unique crofting landscape, and the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of Lewis crofters and their families … would they?

DINA MURRAY
North Galson
Isle of Lewis




The full article contains 301 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 January 2008 8:39 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 07:33:21
Cannot livestock and crops be safely farmed between the turbine towers as happens elsewhere?
2

nabodican,

Portree 17/01/2008 08:07:31
Fred Bloggs sitting in Edinburgh has not the faintest idea what he is talking about. He knows nothing about crofting, nothing about peat bogs and nothing about electrical engineering. All he sees is the profit of AMEC et al.
Try this Fred : 181 turbines @ 2000 tonnes of reinforced concrete per base = 362,000 tonnes of concete dumped in the moor and never to be removed.
You are also looking at around 50 miles of tracks being carved through the peat.
The Lewis peat bog is a protected habitat which you and your ilk are quite happy to destroy so that AMEC can make more money and all our electricity bills go up.
As for safety - these things fall over at regular intervals, blades fall off and fires are commonplace.
These are power stations and all safety legislation as decreed by the HSE applies.
I would suggest you try cleaning up Edinburgh and leave the countryside to country people.
3

Mikey,

17/01/2008 08:50:50
OK, let's have a look at this.

Will this wind farm benefut the locals in Lewis? - Supposedly it will provide much needed jobs.

Will it benefit Scotland? - Supposedly, by providing good, cheap power, although I'm a bit worried about the attenuation rate.

Will it look good? - No, certainly not!

Who is it being built for? - Supposedly, English consumers! Hmmm, shome mishtake shurely?
4

Jings Crivens,

paisley 17/01/2008 09:45:09
3 Mikey

Are you drunk you seem, to be slurring your words
5

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 09:48:09
Wind generation is the only tried and tested and economic renewable at the present. Most people like windfarms despite the whingeing from the antis. They are being built all over the world. They reduce dependence on polluting coal and oil. They mitigate global warming.
The Lewis scheme will be connected to the mainland by undsea cable thence overland to the Beauly-Denny upgraded line to serve the Lowlands where most of the population live but who at present have to put up with the pollution spewing out of the stacks at Longannet and elsewhere.
Eventually, the Supergrid will interconnect the whole of Europe via HVDC cables.
6

Mikey,

17/01/2008 10:00:37
Fred, do you know the attenutaion rate between Lewis and Denny? I seem to remember something like 40% lost?
7

Upbeat,

17/01/2008 10:06:51
5 Fred

How do you know this ?

"The Lewis scheme will be connected to the mainland by undsea cable thence overland to the Beauly-Denny upgraded line to serve the Lowlands .....etc etc "

There is no approved method by which any development on Barvas Moor can be connected to anything....the conumer, the grid...nothing.

Howvere it is recognised by those in the industry that the developers will start to receive carbon offset advantage and subsidy, the moment the capacity is installed. It does not have to deliver any generated power at all under the present absurd arrangement.

But where the power is to be transmitted to , is the next huge planning battle. We do not yet know if the Beauly Denny desecration of the highlands is ever to be given the " green light"

8

Unimpressed one,

17/01/2008 10:27:26
Fred Bloggs is definately a clueless ar*e. Has he ever been to Lewis? Has he seen the wealth of bogland plant species? Seen wheatears flying off the moor and perching on the dykes? And the piece de resistance, the golden eagle in the mist? He wants to protect the planet from a non-existant problem by destroying a natural habitat????? Where are the WWF, FoE, Greenpees, etc. on this issue? You can just imagine that lot's response to on oil company proposing to put a pipeline across the island. Sheer hypocrisy at its worst, but par for the course for the eco-loonies!
9

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 11:16:00
6. I don't know the figure. However, SSE is a commercial organisation in which the public can buy shares and it it is unlikely to want to build such a big scheme if it is going to be uneconomic.

I do know that total grid network losses in the UK and the USA are around 7% even though some routes in the US are much longer than Lewis-Denny.
10

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 17/01/2008 11:28:51
It's ok folks, Fred knows F all about anything really, so we can safely ignore the fool.

After all, if he actually went to Lewis and spoke to people with his view, it would be unlikely he would evr leave again under his own free will. For you see folks, Fred is a coward and a Nimby if the worst kind.

He doesn't understand that the WI's and Northern Isles are some of Europes last great wildnersses, or habitats for rare species, or home to Europes largest blanket bog or that the wind turbines are to be built on SSSI's that include several hundred km of roads etc.

No, Fred doesn't recognise this because he lives with his mum and hides behind a computer. I dare Fred to visit Lewis and present his views to the locals......
11

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 11:34:45
8. If it were true that wind turbines kill large numbers of birds then I would be concerned. However, if it is true, why are there not piles of dead creatures underneath the whirling blades? I understand that very large numbers of birds and other creatures are killed by road traffic, cats and climate change due to global warming.
12

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 12:07:26
10. DfB comes up with his usual childish insults. FYI I have visited most of the Western Isles including Lewis. I understand that there are significant numbers of islanders on both sides of this argument.
13

Neil,

Glasgow 17/01/2008 12:14:14
If windmills were necessary to keep the lights on I would support them. They are not. We know perfectly well that we can keep the lights on with nuclear while wind is an intermittent source which cannot provide baseload powet - all it provides is hideously expensive very limited amounts of occasional extra power & vast subsidies for the "renewable" lobby's clients.

Still those lobbyists have a good re;ationship with politicians which seems to be all that matters.
14

Generalissimo Hernandez,

17/01/2008 12:27:50
Personally I would site two reactors in Glasgow; one at Ibrox and one at Parkhead.

After all, even if there were an meltdown, it wouldn't make the atmosphere any more polluted.
15

Unimpressed one,

17/01/2008 12:45:36
#11, Fred, there are plenty of reports from California, where the largest concentration of turbines in the world is sited, that it does have an impact on raptor numbers. Given the rightful outrage that the poisoning of a single golden eagle has in Scotland, how can it possibly make any sense to site the highest number of turbines per square mile on Lewis and so threaten the UK's highest concentration of this species, all for a token gesture to combat 'climate change'? Like I said, if it was any other industrial venture in such a scale, the greens would be up in arms. Where are they now?
16

G,

dndy 17/01/2008 12:56:15
#15

Raptors don't crash into trees or pylons and other birds negoticate buildings and pylons - why would wind farms cause a single fatality? Where is your evidence? Is it published? or is this another " a good friend of my friend says that"...
perhaps the birds are bored to death by nimby protests....
17

Am-Bodach,

17/01/2008 13:12:37
Test - moderator - please delete - problems accessing site! - thanks
18

Am-Bodach,

17/01/2008 13:19:20
#5

"Wind generation is the only tried and tested and economic renewable at the present."

Perhaps you could provide a link to scientific (independent, controlled, prospective, blinded, etc) study measuring the effect of wind energy on power station fuel consumption. There are lots of (easy to bias) computer simulations - but we seem to know very little about the actual benefits of wind power on the UK electricity system.

"They reduce dependence on polluting coal and oil. They mitigate global warming."

No power station has ever been closed as a result of wind energy. In fact Germany now needs to construct over 20 coal fired power stations and extend the life of its nuclear fleet - despite extensive deployment of wind farms.

#9

"I do know that total grid network losses in the UK and the USA are around 7%"

Power losses attributable to grid transmission in the UK approach 5TWh. The power loss per 100km is roughly 2-3 per cent. Unfortunately, wind energy requires massive grid expansion (3000km in Germany), and thus significantly increases transmission losses.

#11, #15

"However, if it is true, why are there not piles of dead creatures underneath the whirling blades?"

The leading industry journal "Windpower Monthly" acknowledges wind turbine bird kills, describing Europe's largest wind farm as "wreaking havoc with the natural order of raptor life on two continents".
19

nabodican,

Portree 17/01/2008 16:10:10
Fred says "Wind generation is the only tried and tested and economic renewable at the present. "
Not true, we have had hydro for over 50 years, La Rance tidal barrage has been in operation since 1966.
Wind is only viable because of the ROCS system.
Fred says : "at the present. Most people like windfarms despite the whingeing from the antis"
not true, surveys have shown that windfarms are one of the most hated eyesores in the land.
Fred says : "They reduce dependence on polluting coal and oil. They mitigate global warming." Not true, they have not resulyed in a single tonne less coal being burned in Longannet or Cockenzie.
.
Fred says, Fred says ##############
Fred says nothing that makes any sense except to the likes of AMEC.
20

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 16:34:35
13.

Wind reduces the marginal cost of generation. When it blows, it replaces the most expensive plant in a generation portfolio, the peaking plant. The marginal price of electricity drops, as does the average cost.
21

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 16:47:34
19. Surveys show that around 80% like wind farms and many have become tourist attractions.

Hydro pumped storage works well with wind to store power overnight when the wind blows more but demand is low.
22

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 17/01/2008 16:53:07
Fred

WRRROOONNNGGG again! With 6,000 objections against and 18 for recorded to date, where is your proof?

You haven't been here at all. Cretin.
23

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 17/01/2008 17:01:15
Surveys prove it - around 80% hate them and many have driven tourists away.
24

n/,

Perth 17/01/2008 17:52:09
As you rightly state Dave,fred bloggs,by so many of his comments CAN be little other than a "cretin".
Reading his postings does a persons head in!

However,may I suggest........that in stead of attempting to educate him on this subject ,.........that ,just for starters,fred acquires a copy of the report by The Royal Society of Edinburgh,........"Inquiry into Energy Issues for Scotland" Final report June 2006, and.......... before appearing on any more postings talking tripe,...........reads......... and comprehends..............if that is........ he is even capable!
Scotland does not only expect Fred...it deserves such!






25

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 17:58:23
18. You ask for a link. Try:

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden05-dtiwindreport.pdf

- a report by the Environmental Change Institute on 'Wind power and the UKK Wind Resource'
26

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 18:23:39
18. Also for example:


'If installed on a good site, the Vestas V90-3.0 MW wind turbine will generate approximately 280,000 MWh in 20 years - thus sparing the environment the impact of a net volume of approximately 230,000 tons of CO2, as compared to the figures for energy generated by a coal-fired power station.'

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=25113
27

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 18:28:08
24. - I read the RSE report last year. Most of it I agree with although it is somewhat biased against wind and towards nuclear. But then, one of the committee members was in the nuclear industry...
28

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 18:59:16
22 and 24. You address me as 'cretin'. Read this:

'Cretinism is a condition of severely stunted physical and mental growth due to untreated congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones (hypothyroidism). The term cretin refers to a person so affected and is no longer considered to be politically correct nomenclature.'
29

Unimpressed one,

17/01/2008 19:16:44
#16, G you can try this for starters.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm
Just google "windfarms" and "bird kills". You will of course see the usual sh*te from the greens saying that it's been over-stated, but go to the scientific reports and ignore the eco-tripe. Funny how they are up in arms about oil spills killing wildlife but defend the wind shredders. T*ssing b*stards!
30

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/01/2008 20:05:21
'Some wind turbines kill birds, especially birds of prey. More recent siting generally takes into account known bird flight patterns. Studies show that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is negligible compared to the number that die as a result of other human activities such as traffic, hunting, power lines and high-rise buildings and especially the environmental impacts of using non-clean power sources. For example, in the UK, where there are several hundred turbines, about one bird is killed per turbine per year; 10 million per year are killed by cars alone. In the United States, turbines kill 70,000 birds per year, compared to 57 million killed by cars and 97.5 million killed by collisions with plate glass. An article in Nature stated that each wind turbine kills on average 0.03 birds per year, or one kill per thirty turbines.

In the UK, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) concluded that "The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds." It notes that climate change poses a much more significant threat to wildlife, and therefore supports wind farms and other forms of renewable energy.'

- Wikipedia
31

Chairman Gordon,

Bannockburn 17/01/2008 21:58:09
#30-
If the best you can do is cite the 100% unreliable wikipedia, you'd be as well not bothering.
Visit the wind farms at Braes of Doune or Earlshill and you'll see plenty of dead birds lying underneath them.
Oh but wait; that can't be true, I only saw it with my own eyes instead of reading it on wikipedia.
32

Am-Bodach,

17/01/2008 22:10:15
#25, 26, 30

I asked for a study quantifying the effects of wind power on power station fuel consumption i.e. by real-time measurements. Your references do not do this - in #25 note use of the word "estimate". I also asked for reference to a study that was independent (i.e. in this case of the wind industry), prospective, controlled and blinded, as might be expected (in different context) for a clinical trial. Has the ECI not received funding from interests linked to wind energy? Similarly, with respect to #30, does the RSPB not raise funds from the sale of green electricity? Furthermore, the comparative data on bird kills you provide are irrelevant to species of high conservation value such as raptors. Eagles, kites, etc are uniquely threatened by wind energy developments.
33

Am-Bodach,

17/01/2008 22:37:16
#26

"If installed on a good site, the Vestas V90-3.0 MW wind turbine will generate approximately 280,000 MWh in 20 years - thus sparing the environment the impact of a net volume of approximately 230,000 tons of CO2, as compared to the figures for energy generated by a coal-fired power station."


This demonstrates very little - except that wind industry claims may be exaggerated. The correct carbon offset for your 3MW turbine is 63,282 tonnes over 20 years (based on DTI load factors and carbon displacement data). This figure is not adjusted for balancing generation and transmission losses - the net emission savings could be close to zero.
34

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 08:00:29
33. if you didn't like that, maybe you'll like this:

http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/PDF/06/0604Intermittency/0604IntermittencyReport.pdf
35

Am-Bodach,

18/01/2008 10:31:14
#34

This still doesn't answer the question concerning the effect of wind power on power station fuel consumption. This study is more concerned with the financial costs of providing balancing generation - note the use of the words "direct reduction" in the conclusions - how great a reduction? Moreover, the authors freely admit to ignoring transmisson losses, (footnotes around pp 16-18 from memory) and assume aggregate load factors that are unlikely to be achieved in the UK. Finally, the conclusions do not appear to agree with retrospective analyses of the effects of wind power on the Danish electricity system. As a matter of curiosity, have you read this UKERC study?
36

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 14:24:43
35. It seems to me clear that wind can and does reduce the fuel consumption of stations it is replacing (on an hour-by-hour basis) for example when it is able to be brought online to replace expensive and/or polluting coal, oil or gas at times of high demand. Surely this is what balancing is all about?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.