Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Decision to block Lewis turbines project has revealed the myth of wind power

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: 23 April 2008
Reaction to the Scottish Government's refusal to construct one of Europe's largest onshore wind farms, 181 turbines on Lewis in the Western Isles (your report, 22 April), has exposed the myth of wind power.


In response to Scottish industry's concerns that its lights may go out, Britain's power industry had to admit it would not make one iota of difference as wind power is too unstable to be included in any calculations of how much power is needed t
o satisfy the country's needs – whether or not the wind is blowing our power stations will still burn the same amount of fossil fuel.

A spinning turbine's only value, for the environmentalists, is as an icon of their power over the vulnerable and as an "at least we are doing something" comfort blanket for gullible politicians, plus, of course, an exponential currency generator for the wind industry.

BRIAN CHRISTLEY

Bryn Gwyn

Abergele, Conwy

The notion that peat disturbance is a kind of environmental destruction of Scotland's natural landscape, which is against public opinion, is absurd (your report, 22 April). Peat represents a final stage in the biological breakdown of organic matter. There is little biological activity in peat, apart from the production of some and methane, which we could well do without. Our thousands of acres of blanket peat are really a blight on the Scottish landscape.

As an environmentalist with an interest in Scotland's energy policy, I am appalled by the notion that the Lewis wind farm project should be abandoned because it does not conform to EU regulations. Scotland requires an energy policy appropriate to our own topography and population density.

Scotland has no national representation within the EU. The last thing we need is an energy policy based on biofuels, formulated by busybodies representing other countries without reference to our national interest.

(DR) DAVID PURVES

Strathalmond Road

Edinburgh

With Scottish ministers having rejected Lewis Wind Power's proposal to build a massive 181-turbine wind farm on the Isle of Lewis, the renewables industry can now be seen for what it truly is: not a saviour of the planet, but an environmental vandal driven by financial greed.

Lewis Wind Power and the few supporters it was able to persuade to come on side for this ill-conceived proposal, which included the Western Isles Council, will no doubt continue to see the Scottish Government's decision as a "huge missed opportunity" for Scotland. However, I suspect the many thousands who objected will see the decision to reject in a far more sensible and less blinkered light.

NEIL McKINNON

Tulchan Garden

Glenalmond, Perthshire

Perhaps PhD student Richard Crozier (Letters, 21 April) should read the Sustainable Development Commission's Windpower in the UK, for it states that at wind farm installations of 20 per cent, fossil power station back-up of 80 per cent is required and that at greater proportions even more back-up is required. This sort of defeats the purpose doesn't it?

Power stations cannot be adjusted to suit variable wind generation and without this back-up there would be no reliable supply of electricity.

Can you imagine running an electric train service on wind power? Tear up the timetables.

A R NELSON

Scarletmuir

Lanark





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 April 2008 7:47 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Unimpressed one,

23/04/2008 08:27:24
David Purves shows his obvious lack of joined up thinking classing himself as an environmentalist but obviously lacking common sense. It seems for some green fundamentalists destruction of habitat and wildlife is a price worth paying for the useless symbolism of 'doing something' to 'tackle climate change'. idiot.
2

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 23/04/2008 08:39:07
I agree with all that has been said about the wind factory scam, but let's not overlook the fact that wind power does have limited local application, especially on islands, in particular if it is combined with off-peak hydrogen generation. This can be switched in automatically to power electricity production when the wind is not cooperating. The system is already well developed and in regular use in Norway. The proposed Lewis wind factory was an abomination, but I would not use the same criteria to judge the successful application of wind power on Gigha and elsewhere.

3

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 23/04/2008 08:55:32
Dr David Purves claims, "Peat represents a final stage in the biological breakdown of organic matter."

No it does not. The final stage in the breakdown of such organic matter is carbon dioxide and water. Peat is valuable (in climate terms) and should be protected because it represents an intermediate stage in such breakdown. Peat thus sequesters large amounts of carbon that would otherwise be released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide or methane. It is because disturbance and draining of peat can lead to its oxidation to carbon dioxide that it is necessary to treat it with great care (to say nothing of its value for biodiversity).
4

Upbeat,

23/04/2008 09:35:42
No mention here of the most obvious reason for denying the consent to build such a power station on a distant island.

There is no one on Lewis who needs electrical energy in this quantity, and there never has been any precise or detailed plan that revealed accurately how any energy generated on Lewis would ever have reached those who might have required it.

This whole charade shows the folly of creating a regulatory and incentive system that rewards investment into capacity, with no thought of usefullness or viability.

5

Agent 99,

23/04/2008 09:49:23
[4] An excellent point.

A point which exposes the immaturity and stupidity behind much of the wind industry. They, almost without exception, propose schemes to planners with salient detail of the operation of such plant conspicuously missing.

In other areas, project proposals do not only have to deal with implementaiton issues, but dull details like day to day operation. Without such design work, the proposed plant becomes only a monument to itself and those misguided enough to sanction it.

What use is a new airport runway without sufficient terminal capacity to handle the increased volume of passengers?

What use is an electrified railway without some garantee that the power will be there to run the thing?

Likewise these mega wind factories. Utterly useless unless what they produce can be used, at the place that is most appropriate for its use. Planning consent should always be withheld until such time as as the project is demonstrated [and independently verified] to be viable, in all its dimensions.
6

Drummer1,

Troon 23/04/2008 10:54:21
The decision for Lewis windfarm appears to be correct, but it does not symbolise that all windfarms are a farce for combating climate change.

There is currently huge igorance surrounding windfarms, impacts to peat and climate change - it is the anti-wind brigade that build the myths.

Energy from wind is worthwhile and after 20 years from now will be recognised as having played an important economic and political pivot to enable a balanced renewable portfolio that includes hydrogen, marine and solar, etc.
7

Agent 99,

23/04/2008 11:01:57
[6] "There is currently huge igorance surrounding windfarms...climate change"

OK, I'll bite. Aside from the absurdly simplistic value judgement "energy from wind is worthwhile" in the subsequent paragraph, I see nothing in your post of a substantiative nature. Please support your argument with something other than bland assertions.
8

Jocko,

Richmond 23/04/2008 11:16:14
Please, can we leave out the politics and psuedo-environmentalism? Thre is no doubt that the only way to provide an emission-free, 24/7 source of power is nuclear, and the sooner that we go on to replace Hunterston etc the better.
9

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 23/04/2008 11:41:25
My goodness ! I agree with Slioch ! Must mark this day in the diary.
# 6 is correct "There is currently huge igorance surrounding windfarms" and this is put out by the wind industry spin doctors to try and make people believe they will save the planet, provide cheap and reliable electricity and are not a blot on the landscape !!
# 6 has demonstrated admirably this ignorance, so full marks to the wind industry - your spin is working !!!!
10

Max C,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 00:22:38
What a load of tosh these comments are.

#1 Er no it's not useless, electricity produced by wind or other renewables means *we burn less fuel* (and *produce less emissions*) to satisfy our electricity demand. It also means we have energy security in that we are using an indigenous resource that will always be available to us and we have a price hedge into the future as all the cost is the upfront cost of building the plant and not the fuel (ie the price we pay is the price we pay tomorrow).

#2 And the scam is what?

#3 Sure - burning peat in power stations (as they do in Ireland) releases the CO2 - I very much doubt whether digging and drying the peat required for wind turbine bases would have anything like as much as an effect, particularly since the amount we're talking about is pretty small. By all means lets do some studies but until I see some facts I remain unconvinced - and this wasn't the reason the application was rejected.

#4 Rubbish I'm afraid. Of course studies have been done on how to transmit the power. Technically it is not a significant issue - there are a number of similar submarine cable links from power stations to demand centres across the world - eg the Basslink project from Tasmania to mainland Australia.

#7 energy from wind is worthwhile because of my point re:#1 above

#8 I'm sorry to shatter your illusions but no power stations are 24/7 - hence the reason we've currently had 6 out of 16 of our nuclear reactors shutdown for the past few months. The good thing with renewables projects is that you would be most unlikely to get such a situation occuring because of the multiple units involved in each project and the wide variety of projects.

#9 You have your view on landscape but you can't escape my response to point #1.

11

Upbeat,

24/04/2008 08:27:20
Max C.

What a load of self righteous obfuscation.

1) The construction of wind plant has a huge energy cost which would be better invested in a method of power generation that A) has the ability to generate power independent of the weather.B) Has an expected operating life greater than a short 25 years C) Is close to where the power is required so that huge percentages of the power generated is not lost in transmission.
2) The scam -if there is one -is that the only justification for building many of these wind powerstations is the subsidy that is being derived from the ROC's system.
3)The studies exist, and if you don't go looking for them you will rermain uninformed, and dependent on your own opinion for justification for your ignorance.
4)It would have been logical to have prepared a proper plan for the connection of this proposed power plant to the market. There was none.The whole plan to connect the plant would have been commenced once the planning permission for the main project received the go ahead. The Planning process may never have approved any of the options that were outlined by the so called studies. The idea that you build something first then attempt to bring it on stream afterwards, and not as part of the original plan was judged to be 'kite flying'by the developers.
5) Windpower is justified where the power generated is close to the market. In Lewis it was not.
6) The same can be said of multiple use of mainstream power stations and hydro plants.So ... your point is ?
7) Your response to point 1) was flawed from the outset. You cannot justify the placement of huge wind power generating capacity on Lewis or in any of the other remote parts of Scotland. The future of windpower lies in the construction of small local schemes near the market for the energy they produce. This has been done with great success in Germany Holland and Denmark. In none of these other countries do they wreck their natural enviroment in the process.




12

Max C,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 14:28:31
@Upbeat

1) The energy cost of a wind plant is typically repaid within a few months of generation.

1) A) No problem having a method of generation dependent on the weather so long as there is back up (which there already is to cover peaks in demand). The key is to minimise fuel use and emissions/pollution - seems like you disagree. National Grid have stated that up to 20% of our electricity coming from a variable resource like wind would not be an issue for this reason.

B) What's your problem with a 25 year design life? Yes longer would be nice but see point above. Then simply replace turbines in 25 years time. Not so easy with other generating technologies...

C) Huge percentages of power are not lost in transmission, particularly if you use HDVC technology (see: http://www.engineerlive.com/international-energy-solutions/20080101/transmition-and-distribution/1.983.987.988/19707/global-highways-for-electric-current.thtml)

2. Following your logic then I assume anything an elected government does that provides a financial incentive to achieve a policy objective is a scam? Interesting. Defense spending, health, decommissioning nuclear reactors ('it's a scam - no one would do it if the government didn't pay them to')?

3. And the studies say what? I already said I didn't know and remained to be convinced, you appear to have this information so please feel free to share it.

4. You're arguing that the wind farm would have been built if there wasn't a grid link? Really? And there are plenty of examples of this no doubt? I'll give you a clue - unless you can sell the electricity you won't be able to get back your original investment. Think about it. Carefully now....

5. No its justified where it reduces our fuel use and emissions.

6. The point is that you will never have 40% of the UK's wind farms unable to function for months on end. All power generating technologies are internmittent to a greater or lesser degree there is no such thing
13

Max C,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 22:09:48
... as 24/7 power that's my point

7. Glad you're advocating that we follow the German example that has 10x the installed capacity of wind that we do for example.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


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.