Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

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.

Clean energy targets 'will not be met if Lewis plan rejected'



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: 26 January 2008
MINISTERS were warned last night that they will fail to meet their own green-energy targets if they reject plans to build Europe's biggest on-shore wind farm on Lewis.
The Scottish Government is expected to throw out plans for 176 giant turbines on the Hebridean island, a proposal which would provide a massive boost to the SNP's drive for a green- energy Scotland. Ministers have written to the developer, Lewis Wind
Power (LWP), to say the plan will be rejected in the coming weeks unless it can come up with compelling new reasons for its approval.

The move yesterday delighted anti-wind-farm campaigners, but infuriated environmentalists who believe such big developments need to be agreed if the country is to meet its targets on renewable energy.

Patrick Harvie, a Green MSP, said: "There are strong feelings on both sides about this particular project, but as long as local authorities have no requirement to include renewable-energy projects in their local plans, the risk is that Scotland will fail to meet even ministers' limited targets for clean energy."

John Quigley, the Scottish regional secretary for the trade union Unite, added: "If this proposed wind farm is refused permission, the government's energy policy will descend into complete shambles."

He said: "Alex Salmond has made clear his opposition to new nuclear power stations, but now it looks like government ministers will reject plans to build one of Europe's most significant renewable-energy projects."

The Lewis project has attracted 9,500 objections, most from residents appalled at the idea of so many giant turbines stretching across the peat moorland. Some of the moorland that would be affected are Special Protection Areas – environmentally sensitive areas, home to birds and other wildlife.

It is understood that ministers were concerned the environment would suffer if the development went ahead and have asked LWP to come up with new legal arguments to support the application or redraw the plans.

However, the development has also proved to be attractive for environmentalists because of its potential to alter the balance of electricity production in Scotland, away from traditional fossil-fuel sources to renewables.

The Scottish Government wants the country to generate 50 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 – a huge task considering only 5 per cent of Scotland's electricity comes from non-hydro renewables at the moment.

The Lewis project is so big that it has the potential to meet 11 per cent of the electricity requirement on its own.

Ministers have been caught between their determination to increase renewable-electricity generation and by the strong objections of local communities that do not want wind farms. The Nationalists also won the Western Isles at a Scottish Parliament election for the first time last May, a victory which might well be reversed if the Scottish Government endorsed the wind-farm scheme.

However, a Scottish Government source insisted last night that the renewable-energy target could easily be met, even if the Lewis project was turned down. He said: "Even if half of current wind applications were not approved, we would still be on course to meet 50 per cent of Scotland's electricity demand from renewable sources by 2020, with a significant amount from onshore and offshore wind."

A spokesman for the Scottish Government stressed last night that no decision had been taken on the wind farm. He admitted that the developers had been sent a letter setting out the ways in which the proposal would have an impact on the local environment, but he insisted: "No final decision has been taken by ministers."

Yesterday, John Price, project director of the Lewis wind farm, said:

"We are disappointed, but it's good that we can now enter into this period of consultation. We believe that the arguments need to be hammered home."

• The Scottish Government yesterday gave the go-ahead for a major increase in the production capacity of a wind farm near Fetteresso in Aberdeenshire, allowing it to produce power for an additional 13,000 homes.

Wildlife bodies say key sites can be protected in battle against climate change

OPPONENTS of the Lewis wind farm last night insisted Scotland could meet its energy demands without having to resort to such large developments on environmentally sensitive land.

The Scottish Wildlife Trust unveiled a blueprint for the country's energy use in 2025, which prioritises offshore wind turbines.

And RSPB Scotland said it believed Scotland could "meet its renewable energy targets several times over without having to compromise our most important wildlife sites".

SWT came up with the plan, seen by The Scotsman, after opposing the island development because of its siting on sensitive peatland.

Jonny Hughes, Head of Policy at the trust, said: "SWT was keen to develop a robust policy position which offered a balance between the urgent need to tackle climate change on the one hand, and the imperative to protect nature and the wider environment for future generations on the other. We think this balance is achievable in Scotland."

The trust is calling on the Scottish Government to set up an energy efficiency agency which would help reduce electricity used by households.

It says that before the sources of energy can be altered, the use of power by households needs to be reduced, a proposal backed by Jim Mather, minister for enterprise and energy.

The policy proposes government incentives to encourage a shift towards less wasteful appliances and an overhaul of transport. This would include moving from roads to rail and decreasing the number of miles travelled each year by people and goods.

The trust has given its backing to the St Fergus plant, near Peterhead, which generates natural gas, but is against nuclear power.

And although it is in favour of offshore windfarms – which can contribute to marine life by effectively acting as a reef – it is concerned about land developments and wants "habitat enhancement measures" to be a planning prerequisite.

Even offshore developments should be subjected to stringent assessments for potential impacts on marine life.

A spokesman for RSPB Scotland said: "Offshore wind turbines could be a way forward, but even with onshore wind there are plenty of potential sites to be considered and we are working with developers to find these sites that won't damage some of our environmentally designated sites, important for national heritage."

Lindsay McIntosh

THE PLAN BY N NUMBERS

THE wind-farm development on Lewis would include:

• 176 turbines – each one with a tip height of 140 metres on a tower 86.5 metres tall

• 88 miles of roads will be constructed

• 8 electrical substations

• 19 miles of overhead cables

• 137 pylons each 27 metres high

• 18.3 miles of underground cables

• 9 turbines would be required to meet the electricity needs of the Outer Hebrides

• 176 turbines could generate enough electricity to supply the annual domestic needs of Glasgow

• 120mph is the top wind speed recorded on Lewis

• 4mph is the speed at which the blades will begin turning

• 20mph is the speed at which the blades reach their maximum energy generation

• At 50mph or more the turbines would be switched off to prevent damage

• 3 seconds is the length of time it takes one blade to rotate 360 degrees



The full article contains 1227 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 26/01/2008 01:18:19
Oh, so now you want it?
2

Guga II,

Rockall 26/01/2008 01:53:09
This whole project is based on a blatant lie, or, to be more precise, a series of blatant lies.

There may be 400 jobs on offer during the construction phase, but most of these jobs will go to people from outwith the islands; probably Poles as they can, and do, exploit them by paying them less than the going rate.

As for the alleged 70 ongoing jobs, that is utter rubbish. In the large scheme they built in Wales, there are only 3 full time ongoing jobs, and only one of them has gone to a local.

The people in the islands will not benefit in any way from the construction of these monstrosities. They will not get a halfpenny extra in their pocket, and they will not get cheaper electricity. The power from this scheme will be sold to England, and the profits will go to foreigners also.

These towers will be 487 feet high, and the proposal was for 187 of them spread out over an area the size of greater London. They will be a blight on the landscape, and will not even be able to be utilised for a high percentage of the time because the winds will be too strong for them to operate.

Ignoring the numpties in the Comhairle, the majority of the people do not want, or need to have these monstrosities despoiling their island, especially when they will have no benefit from them. There is a lot to be said for bringing back annual elections for councils, otherwise these overpaid and underworked numpties will continue to do things against the wishes of the people. They should also remember that the church will not protect them, or ensure their re-election forever.

If they want to increase the population and the economy of the islands, the only way is to have Sunday ferries, and Road Equivalent Tariff (RET) on the ferries. Not by blighting the landscape for the benefit of foreigners.
3

Richardinho,

26/01/2008 02:45:21
If we're really going to reject nuclear, we really have to be serious about renewables and allow schemes like this to go ahead, regardless of 'local' opposition.
4

nolimits,

Alberta, Canada 26/01/2008 03:32:50
#4, Agreed. Its time to look out for future generations.
5

Mallory,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 05:03:32
Logic says - go nuclear.
6

Guga II,

Rockall 26/01/2008 05:13:14
Incidentally, I don't know where the Hootsmon got their figures from, but the top wind speed recorded in Lewis was over 170 mph, at the Butt of Lewis; and during the storms in January a couple of years ago, there were wind speeds in excess of 160 mph.
7

aonghas,

Houston 26/01/2008 05:41:47
this is what AMEC were saying in 2001 - a lot of dobts about viability - so what's changed ?

www.amec.com/uploadfiles/WESTERN%20ISLES%20RENEWABLE%20ENERGY%20-%20LEWIS%20WIND%20FARM%20QA.pdf

This project will give very very short-term benefits to island employment IF the structures are pre-fabricated on Lewis - a cost/benefit option that AMEC would have no second thoughts about satisying elsewhere like SLP Lowestoft - most of the jobs will go to specialists and consultants from AMEC - not to local people - and the ongong maintenance forget it this kind of development can run with 6 people + automation.

IT's NOT A GOOD DEAL - FOR ANYONE - IT DOES NOT EVEN MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE - EXCEPT FOR INCREASING AMECs RETURN ON CAPITAL


8

Grahamski,

Falkirk 26/01/2008 07:50:27
And on the subject of this administration's commitment to renewable energy...oh, ok they don't seem to have any..so what's the plan chaps? Let's buy our electricity from Evil-Land? Pathetic, cheap vote-chasing political chancers get caught out again.
9

Jimmy the Pie,

26/01/2008 07:54:51
Hardly worth destroying a beautiful place like Lewis to make speculators a fortune. And all the drivel spouted about putting Scotland to the forefront of renewable technology is just that, drivel. The factories that make the technical bits are in Denmark and Germany and like Guga says there will be hardly a job created longterm. Stick them out to sea. Might cost a bit more - so what!
10

Jimmy the Pie,

26/01/2008 07:56:30
Are you up so early Grahamski, waiting on your psychiatric nurse showing up?
11

ddmc,

26/01/2008 08:28:55
why dont the Govt give us all mini turbines to install on our roofs, they cost about £1500 but if buying in bulk i'm sure we could half that amount. Then we can all have wind power as a primary source (hint, install local/community battery banks) when this source isnt available we can draw it from the national grid.

How much will the Lewis wind farm cost ?, as usual the hootsmon in another piece of journalism dont mention costs in the above article !
12

Kenny A,

26/01/2008 08:56:39
Guga

Worlds highest ever windspeed, (Jet stream fair enough)

408mph over South Uist in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland on 13th December 1967.

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/slw/weather...

These things come closer to the surface than normal on occasions, wonder how the farms would if this happened.
13

David MacVicar,

web 26/01/2008 08:57:16
Renewable Energy is the way forward in Scotland with wind playing a major role in the near future. However I completely agree with Guga. This project had many flaws in its conception and I am glad its getting rejected as-is, though I am concerned about the damage it may have done to future proposed projects.

I guess this was a kind of 'Wind at all costs' project and to héll with the negative aspects. A bad project is a bad project.

However there is plenty of scope for a wind project on Lewis and if done in partnership with the local community could be a great success.

I am not sure what possibilities are also available for offshore west of Lewis but it is the best place in Scotland for average wind.

Its true this is a blow for capacity planning but this is a true test of the SNPs ability to govern. I hope the consultation is going to lead to a revised project at least.
14

Kenny A,

26/01/2008 09:06:37
14

David

People are so sick of the way that these farm projects have been handled, and the division in the community it has caused, that I have a feeling if a reasonable, well thought project, one with benefits for the community and guareented local employment, was proposed. It would still be viewed in a very negative manner, mainly as it would be seen as a pretex for developing the giants again.

The council and development companies have realy batched the whole issue on a grand scale.
15

Harbinger,

Land of my turbines 26/01/2008 09:27:27
"If this proposed wind farm is refused permission, the government's energy policy will descend into complete shambles."

The whole thing is a shambles based on a lie. Did anyone check the weather lately? Across the world, temperatures are falling. All the ski resorts are full of snow this year, the Met office recently said that global warming is on hold until 2012 because even they can't spin the facts any more. If additional CO2 warms up the planet, why isn't it happening?

Turbines may start turning at 4mph but they don't deliver until 12 mph. However with the wind speeds on Lewis, they'll be shut down for most of the time because it's too high.

They also have to have base backup regardless of the way this is always dismissed, so if the power is being sold south, then they will have to build more conventional power stations to make up the deficit.

We have 220 million tonnes of proven coal reserves in the Uk and it could be up to a billion tonnes. What a crime to leave it in the ground and despoil our wild and beautiful places with these monoliths. Yet we buy coal from Russia, Australia, Indonesia and South Africa.

The scrappies are going to do well in a few years time, but I don't think there's a good market in scrap concrete.

"176 turbines could generate enough electricity to supply the annual domestic needs of Glasgow" - but they won't, they may produce about 25% of rated output at most.
16

Unimpressed one,

26/01/2008 09:30:25
But isn't this just so typical of the green bams? They fight tooth and nail to prevent oil/gas installations from protected areas. Yet when their own 'pet' industrial developments based on a flawed 'save the planet' logic are turned down, they go spare. Tony Juniper of FoE was apoplectic when turbines were rejected being built in the heart of the lake district. Imagine if BP had wanted to put a pipeline through here? Wake up!! The greens don't give a fcuk about the environment! Their agenda is to control our lives based on their agenda. Where have we heard all this before?
17

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 10:03:21
16. Harbinger spouts his usual anti-wind propaganda. The facts are:

A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but generates different amounts of power depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output i.e. it will have a capacity factor (or load factor) of 30%. A nuclear power station can be up to 90%, a coal station 70% and an oil plant 30%.

All power generators require back up in case of failure. The UK grid already operates with enough back up to replace a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand. A small amount of additional back up for wind is required at a penetration of 10%. This would amount to around 400MW and would add only about 0.2p per kWh to the generation cost of wind energy.
18

danielrober,

26/01/2008 10:03:57
A word of advice to the SNP, scr%^w the UK.

As a, i do belive the current term is 'royal federalist', (a federal monachy) i normally back up UK engineering schemes when possible. But not this time. As a professional, though not involved in this project, i offer some advice and stages.

Stage 1, Split the development into blocks based on the North Sea model, realeased over a numbers of years. This prevents any one company conducting a land grab.

Stage 2, Make the Western Isles the first place in Europe to generate all its electricty from renewable power. This can be done with only a few of these super WT. This would be a huge technological success for the Isles, Scotland, the UK and the EU.

Stage 3, If stage 2 is successful and more WT are needed, slowly expand transmission capabilities. It is better to have 5 small sized cable rather than one huge macho man cable. This is a sercurity of suppier capability issue.

Stage 4, If the first cable backed up by the second set of WT is successful move on to develop another block.

Stage 5, Slow down planing, forcing trans-european and international engineering companies to employ locals. The faster this project happens the less economic benefit the isles will gain.

The advantages of this type of staged scheme is that wind resuces are developed at a reasonable and economic pace. It also puts the power into the hands of the comunity that lives there, the islanders.

These are a nice set of islands, that so far i've never visited, why? Because its expensive. What's wrong with just stimulating the islands economy, with renewables. All the islanders i've met are very open, liberal and well educated. Lets back up this community, not ask it to make sacrificese for the rest of us.
19

Upbeat,

26/01/2008 10:05:08
If the Scotsman were really informing us, and setting out the facts they would have pointed that the Lewis wind farm plan is an aspiration in isolation. The planning to connect this capacity to any market has not even been lodged with authorities, started its way through any planning process or been costed with any accuracy.Whether any interconnector proposal could be completed so as to deliver the power from Lewis by 2020 is an open question. This issue is one which has yet to run the hurdles of public debate.

The Lewis proposal is all about installing capacity to generate electricity. This will then appear on the "balance sheet" as part of Scotland's green energy target.

Actually delivering this power to any market..well... that is a secondary consideration isn't it !
20

scottish person,

paisley 26/01/2008 10:36:36
It takes 100 tonnes of concrete for a standard turbine, how many tonnes of concrete would be required if they were being mounted in peat. How many years would it take to pay back the emmisions created in the making 176000 tonnes of concrete.
21

Edward,

26/01/2008 10:36:38
This will be the Wind power that was going to supply Electricity to England by means of a sub sea cable.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Study-backs-undersea-cable-to.3681414.jp
I think the good people of Lewis who were supporting the Wind Farm on the basis of employment were sold a falsehood. They should consider that once the Wind farm is built, there will be no jobs, the wind turbines by there very nature dont need much looking after
22

Am-Bodach,

26/01/2008 10:58:17
"Patrick Harvie, a Green MSP, said: "....the risk is that Scotland will fail to meet even ministers' limited targets for clean energy."


Mr Harvie may wish to refelect on why the Greens received a battering in the last election. Their ill considered policies on wind energy have antagonised voters across Scotland. I sincerely hope the Lewis development is consigned to the dustbin where it belongs. The choice of words used by those in favour of the Lewis windfarm is telling - Scotland will "fail to meet its renewable energy target". Of course this is a meaningless target, for if realised, Scotland's dependence on fossil and nuclear fuel will scarcely be lessened. Windfarm supporters are less able to demonstrate that developments such as that proposed for Lewis reduce fuel consumption in power stations. Based on evidence from other european countries, Scotland's energy supply would not suffer if wind farms were uninvented tomorrow.

23

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 11:05:44
23. When the windfarms are putting power into the grid the output of fossil fuel stations can be reduced, thereby saving fuel, money and pollution.
24

MacFhraing,

Callanish 26/01/2008 11:13:03
4, 5, etc. The old nimby story, isn' t it? We' re all in favour of it, so long as it' s far, far away from us. Would all this lot be so in favour of this monstrosity if it was right beside their homes?
25

Am-Bodach,

26/01/2008 11:22:07
#18

"All power generators require back up in case of failure. The UK grid already operates with enough back up to replace a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand."


Fred Bloggs how do you manage to post such an endless series of misleading statements? The fluctuation in the output of wind infrastructure is massive, and far greater than that encountered during normal operation of transmission grids. The output of the german wind carpet can be monitored in real time via the internet. On 29th-30th December, output fell by almost 10000MW in under 24 hours, equivalent to the near simultaneous failure of eight coal fired power stations. Even studies presented at UK wind industry conferences (Holtinnen) recognise the increased requirement for balancing generation required by wind energy.


#24

I await information on the effect of wind energy on fuel consumption in power stations. Corrected for balancing generation, transmission losses, increased wear & tear on balancing plant, construction, maintenance and decommissioning, etc. Against this background, fuel savings will be vanishingly small.
26

McNasty,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 11:38:36
Where did the 5,0000 objectors come from?

Are they the same people that will benefit when the ferries are given a road equivalent tariff?

I'll bet they will not say no to that.
27

Neil,

Glasgow 26/01/2008 12:12:23
We are repeatedly told by the Greens that they oppose nuclear because electricity generation should be localised.

That is why every Green MSP who is remotely honest* has come out in favour of central Scotland's power being generated at Hunterston & Torness rather than on the outer edge of the outer isles.

* obviously there are none & weren't even when they had several MSPs
28

 Ayrshire Scot™,

26/01/2008 13:43:43
9. The usual one dimension bile from a devoted hack of the sleaze drenched corrupt new Labour law breaking clique.

A committment to renewables does not mean approving any and all renewable schemes, irrespective of community feeling, scale or suitability of each project.
29

Caliwag,

york 26/01/2008 14:12:59
No 12...complete waste ot time and £1500, barely power a bulb, mainly due to turbulence from nearby roofs.
Take a look at the ongoing debate on www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk
30

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 14:39:30
28. You claim 'The fluctuation in the output of wind infrastructure is massive, and far greater than that encountered during normal operation of transmission grids.'

The facts are:

When a fossil or nuclear plant trips offline unexpectedly, it happens instantly with a drop of up to 1000MW.
In contrast, wind energy does not suddenly trip off the system. Variations in wind energy are smoother as there are hundreds or thousands of units running rather than a few large power stations. The system will not notice the shutdown of a 2MW wind turbine but it will have to respond to the failure of 500MW coal plant or a 1000MW nuclear plant instantly.
31

Neil,

Glasgow 26/01/2008 14:52:13
It not being windy today is somewhat more common than a catastrophic failurte of conventional supply. The question remains - if the electricty isn't being produced how do we keep the lights on?
32

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA..captured from Mexico 1845 26/01/2008 15:01:36
Clean energy targets 'will not be met if Lewis plan rejected'

-----------------------------------------------------

If the Lewis plan to build windmills is rejected by locals .

What is their alternative solution for renewable energy source.?

GC
33

Am-Bodach,

26/01/2008 15:17:10
#35

You are able to check my "claims" via the internet. The rate of decline in wind output of the german wind energy system was almost 10,000MW in less than 18 hours - >500MW per hour. As stated above, and as noted by the grid operator, this is equivalent to the near simultaneous failure of several coal fired power stations. I stress this data was derived from a geographically dispersed wind carpet. The variation in output is so extreme because the output of a wind turbine is proportional to the 3rd power of wind speed. I can only suggest that you plot a graph of y = x>3, and note the "shape" of the resulting curve - if this is too taxing, the Danish wind industry provide a nice worked example - google "The Power of the Wind: Cube of Wind Speed - Danish Wind Industry Association"
34

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 16:27:07
Building new, more efficent nucleur power stations on or near the existing ones would give us clean power, without further carbon impact, on sites with infrastructures and management for their needs.

Countless inefficent wind farms that destroy our amenity are not the way ahead. We have technology, let's use the most efficent.
35

n/,

Perth 26/01/2008 17:09:21
Keep posting fred bloggs of Edinburgh.
You will no doubt be delighted to learn that single handedly;by means of the nonsensical tripe you spout; are achieving more to bring about the demise and hopefully final collapse of the renewables industry in Scotland than all campaigners against ever could. More power to your elbow.Keep up the good work.
36

eyeswider,

home 26/01/2008 17:37:14
"it's good that we can now enter into this period of consultation"

I can see them rubbing their sticky little hands together. Problem being it is going to get cold soon. Very cold. Very soon. No amount of hot air or hand rubbing will get us out of that.
37

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 17:46:05
37. The old 'no wind no power' story.

Winter anticyclones
These, it is alleged, frequently becalm the
whole country and cause problems for the
system operator, due to the absence of any
wind power, especially at periods of peak
demand. The Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford was quite clear when appearing before a House of Lords Select Committee:
"We have looked at that [stationary
anticyclones in the middle of winter over the British Isles] occurring in the wind data and the wind data does not show it."
Several authors, including National Wind Power,
have also found that peak demand periods
actually tend to coincide with above-average
wind plant output. The reason for this is that
wind output will tend to be correlated to periods
of high peak demand, as one of the key factors
in determining the load on the electricity system
is wind speed. Cold, windy days will lead to
increased demand for heating.
38

n/,

Perth 26/01/2008 17:46:39
All the facts are already known and are on the table not least that which has been said to the Scottish Government by the EU!

So why ARE the developers Lewis Wind Power(ie Amec & British Energy) being given three extra weeks?
39

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 17:55:00
40. You talk as if 500MW in an hour was a big change and yet demand alone can change just as fast:

The demand for electricity, or load, changes throughout the day and is dependent on a large number of factors, including the weather (temperature, wind speed), daylight conditions, the time of day, and TV schedules. On a typical winter day the load increase can reach up to 12,000 MW in two hours over the morning load
pickup period. The system also has to deal with more sudden increases in demand, such as those seen during or after TV programmes. In 1990 the end of extra time in the World Cup semi-final between England and
Germany resulted in a demand surge of 2,800 MW over a few minute, the largest ever recorded for a TV programme.

Germany, kind of ironic?
40

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 18:15:17
47. DfB: Do they have to be steel? Couldn't you make them of something a bit more, well, consumer friendly? Chocolate fudge would be nice.
41

n/,

Perth 26/01/2008 18:53:02
Come on Fred were all waiting for an answer.............and why should they be built of anything other than steel just because it's Edinburgh.
How's about right where their derisory output is needed. On the Crag which towers over our wee leaky Parliament at Holyrood.
42

n/,

Perth 26/01/2008 19:00:47
Yup ...sounds fine to me D of B. Meantime.........

come on Fred....let's all have an answer my teas waiting.
43

n/,

Perth 26/01/2008 19:29:41
Had my tea.......so where are you Fred ..the nation awaits your answer.
44

yoric,

26/01/2008 20:37:28
Green Energy Targets equal Electricity rationing, and the destruction of great areas of Scottish and English countryside.
The Government of the day will import Nuclear Generated Electricity from France to make up the shortfall or we will be sitting in the dark.
45

n/,

Perth 26/01/2008 21:12:19
The UK IS already importing Nuclear from France...........however if this nonsense of renewables
in Scotland continues..instead of exporting ,
in the future,Scotland will be importing from England's now newly planned nuclear and even coal production plant! What price Independence then?!!!!!!!!!!and consider the cost. Export electricity from renewables? Who the hell will want unreliable intermittent electricity? England Norway? Who? ...........and what price back up? Sell cheap.....buy dear! Wake up and see the future not least the SNP. Who suggests this?How's about Ian Marchant of SSE for starters!
46

danielrober,

27/01/2008 00:30:22
# 58 and 59 DaveSubsea,


LOVE IT.
47

American Reader,

Edmond, OK, USA 27/01/2008 02:17:24
20 year life span??? Didn't anyone else catch that?? Than what?? All that concrete, damage and cables left to just rust and look god awful for how many generations to come??? WHO is going to be responsible for cleaning that mess up in 20 years???? Then what will that lovely moorland look like???
48

New Town Resident,

27/01/2008 10:38:28
About time the SNP stopped pandering to the anti-nuclear lobby as part of its populalist policy of trying to get as many interest groups on board as possible. Supporting wind farms is totally illogical if you believe in independence. Currently wind farms recieve a massive UK subsidy, 90% of which is levied on England and Wales consumers. Why would the English go on paying this if Scotland was independent? We would simply have wrecked our tourist industry for a heap of scrap metal because there is no way the Scottish electricity customer could pay 100% of the subsidy for these abominations - the price of Scottish electricity would double as a consequence!
49

n/,

Perth 27/01/2008 11:14:58
We need to blame this whole shambolic nonsense on Brussels (and of course their partners in crime those simple minded greenies!) who merely see Scotland as a worthless outpost of their Empire,but just useful enough to dump wind turbines on and in huge numbers to reach renewable targets and to hell with our world class landsacpe.........and........ also let's also not forget,..........when Alex Salmond John Sweeney and their ilk tell us to "look to the example set by Norway"....just be reminded.............it aint in the EU!
50

Trond,

Norway 27/01/2008 13:23:54
# 19: ". . .land grab"

According to the rules on the following page:

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/sound.htm

the minimum distance to the neighbouring houses here should be 7 times the propeller diameter. From the facts in the article, each blade, (or the rotor radius, being the difference between the tip and the tower heights) is:
140 - 86 meter = 54 meters.
Diameter = 108 meters,
not suitable for housing projects diameter x 7:
756 meters measured from the tower.

This distance is greater if more than one generator are sources of the noise. The distance is also greater if calm sea is the surface between the generator and the house.
51

morris,

edinburgh 27/01/2008 15:29:20
6

There is nothing logical about creating waste, which no matter where you bury it,(and transportation is a big enough risk on its own), for tens of thousands of years(by which time there will be much much more), you live in fear of Seismic activity,and are constantly moving to less safe sites !You cannot avoid this or you chose the wrong site to start with!

Scotland has the potential to supply the United Kingdom if need be with clean renewable energy.She certainly WILL NEVER need nuclear and has a surplus at the moment without the nuclear input we already have according to recent figures!

There simply is no need to take the risk and only someone with a vested interest (or an idiot) would argue that there is .

Nuclear energy is NOT SAFE It will never be SAFE because the waste cannot be made safe anywhere, unless you can guarantee that seismic activity cannot happen. That is impossible.

They think that a few windfarms will spoil the environment ! What the **** do you think a nuclear exposure will do ? Make the country look pretty?
52

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 27/01/2008 20:59:59
Hello All,

I'm fed up with your Enviro-Whacko Lot. There's no pleasing you; for the last 4 DECADES you sad lot have been whining, screaming, demonstrating, making speeches, haranguing, and generally abusing the peace, all in an attempt to get energy companies, cities, towns, states, and entire countries, to turn to Solar and Wind Power.

You bad mouthed coal fired electric plants, declaring to all and sundry, that the FUTURE was in Wind and Solar Power, CLEAN POWER, not the 'dirty' coal fired plants.

You were AGAINST natural gas fired plants, because that meant drilling for natural gas sources. So once again, you loud-mouthed sad sack lot continued making all those speeches, kept demonstrating, kept haranguing, everybody and anybody, for Wind Farms and Solar Farms to be built and hooked to the Grid.

You shrieked, chided, and scolded heartily, anyone who even remotely suggested Nuclear Power.

All you wanted was a mass conversion to Wind and Solar Farms.

Well, welcome to the Future which YOU CALLED FOR, day after day and year after year. The last FORTY YEARS I've listened to you hypocritical swine bad mouth anyone not in favor or the Wind Farms and Solar Farms.

Now that you've got them, you DON'T WANT THEM!

You want your cakes, ice creams, lollipops, chocolates, marzipan, and sodas, all at the same time, but you DON'T want to get sick after eating/drinking them all.

Well, shut up. You've got what you've asked for, so SHUT UP. Sit there, suck your thumbs, and SHUT UP, you bunch of ungrateful hypocritical TWITS. I've had all I'll take from you lackluster lot, and so have most other folks.

The Wind Farms MUST be built. The Solar Farms MUST be built.
Wanting is never as good as having is it?

Save the Earth! Save the Environment!

Sit down. SHUT UP. SMILE at your SUCCESS.

Cheers from the Rockies
53

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 27/01/2008 21:11:35
Hello All Again,

I've been saying for YEARS that what is needed in both the USA and Great Britain, is for both Governments to offer 115% GRANTS (for low income folks) or 115% Tax Write-Offs (for those doing well), for Home Turbines/Solar Arrays.

We could cut home usage off the Grid by thousands of Megawatts!

Unfortunately, the PC Crowd shuts down this whole concept right from the get go- tax write offs and grants are always seen as being 'for the rich'; never mind that the definition of 'rich' moves constantly for them.

The hypocrisy of the Rad Left/PC'ers never ceases to amaze me: there is NO PLEASING THEM.

Those of us who are for lower energy costs, a better environment, greater independence of individuals from Energy Corps, we all want home solar array and wind turbines, but the Professional Enviro-Whackos don't.

The lackluster swine who literally making a living off saying no to quality ideas which are truly environmentally friendly AND energy productive, only want to maintain their political and financial power; they are nothing more than arrogant elitists.

Well, we plebs have a better idea for our families, our neighborhoods, and our towns/cities.

We're going to fight the numpty elitists and WIN the fight for clean energy generation, both here in the USA and in Great Britain.

Cheers from the Rockies
54

MichScot,

USA 27/01/2008 22:21:03
So just what percentage of the Lewis landscape would this affect? How many km x km?

Lewis is so pristine. Why destroy it? And what will it do to the wildlife? I'm glad I saw it BEFORE the project,even though there are uglier man-made structures.

And, speaking of wind, the wires and cables should be underground because high winds cause downed power lines. They should be where they are most distant from the homes and communities and not spread as far apart as possible to make the least environmental and eyesore blights. The residents, I am sure, know the best location if it becomes inevitable.

Also, isn't there an uninhabited island somewhere out there that would work just as well?
55

MichScot,

USA 27/01/2008 22:27:27
#67
Good idea. Spread that wealth around! Too few have too much. The middle and lower classes could really benefit from such things. And you should add that the landowners get the rights to wind and solar power on their lands. We are fortunate enough to own our mineral rights, even though there is nothing of value here at present, but I can foresee losing those other rights if the corporations think they can get away with it.
56

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 27/01/2008 23:35:11
Hey there MichScot,

Don't forget that there is a movement in many states, to cement in writing what a very few states have codified:

that all individuals/small businesses which have invested in an on-Grid System, shall be PURCHASED by the Governing Power Company!!!

This means that if a small house has a good wind turbine/solar combo, any EXCESS power is purchased by the Power Company. By switching over to energy saving devices throughout the house, home owners end up with MORE MONEY in their pockets (to pay the mortgage off quicker?) at the end of each month!

Quite a few homes in the USA, have done so well, that they get a CHECK from their power companies, rather than a bill!!!!

The folks who have bigger homes (2500 sq ft or larger) end up generating so much of their own power, that electric bills drop to very little (like from $300.00 a month to $40.00 a month).

This is what should be done in Scotland (the entire UK actually).

Cheers from the Rockies

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.