Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Europe's largest wind farm connected to national grid

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: 20 May 2009
Europe's largest onshore wind farm was officially switched on today by Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond.
And he announced that the Scottish Government had given permission for the £300 million Whitelee Windfarm in East Renfrewshire to be extended –creating about 300 jobs and increasing the amount of electricity the farm can generate.

Mr Salmond made the announcement of the site's extension when he carried out the switch-on, connecting the turbines there to the national grid.

The site already has 140 turbines, said to be capable of generating 322 megawatts of energy – enough to power 180,000 homes.

The extension will allow a further 36 turbines to be installed, taking the total power capacity to 452 megawatts – enough to power 250,000 homes.

The First Minister said: "Whitelee in its current form is already flying the flag for onshore wind power in Europe.

"The planned extension, which I am delighted to announce today, will enable the wind farm to harness its comparative and competitive advantage in wind-generated energy within Europe. It has the infrastructure, the expertise and the capacity to continue to develop in the future."

Mr Salmond said that during its initial construction Whitelee Windfarm had employed more than 500 people and contributed £300 million directly into the Scottish economy.

But the benefits went beyond that, he added.

"It is an investment in Scotland's potential and ambition to lead the clean, green energy revolution."

And Mr Salmond said Scotland had the potential to generate much more electricity from renewable energy sources, saying: "Our potential for electricity generation from renewables is up to 60 gigawatts – more than 10 times our peak demand."

More than 16,000 jobs may be created in the renewable-energy sector over the next decade, he added.

Scottish ministers have now approved 23 major energy projects – including 22 renewables projects – since the SNP took office in May 2007.

Mr Salmond said that meant more applications had been decided by his Government than in the previous four years.

"We are determined to get rid of harmful emissions from our environment while capitalising on the vast economic opportunities our natural advantage in renewable energy poses." he went on.

The Scottish Government has said it wants to have 31% of electricity coming from renewable sources by 2011, rising to 50% by 2020.

Richard Dixon, director of environmental charity WWF Scotland, said Whitelee Windfarm makes "a very welcome contribution to meeting Scotland's targets for renewable electricity and reducing climate-change emissions".

He added: "On and offshore wind, wave, tidal, hydro, biomass and solar are all going to be important in Scotland's future mix of clean, green energy."

Page 1 of 1

 
1

Proghead,

Embra 20/05/2009 13:11:01
Great start. Anything that reduces the reliance on fossil fuels. However, I know the greens or SNP won't like it, but we still have to dramatically increase our nuclear capacity. Our old stations need replacing, and we need more on top of that. We've come a long way in nuclear safety since the bad old days. Look at France. They sell US there extra capacity.
2

Sumlogic,

Excellent 20/05/2009 13:26:44
Focus needs to be on renewables and energy saving/reduction measures through new technology like LED, tariffs etc.

No place for Nuclear in Scotland, unless its for medicinal purposes.
3

,

20/05/2009 13:33:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 13:33:51
Proghead, if you consider only Scotland's needs, we do not need to "dramatically increase" our nuclear capacity. We already export electricity.
5

Proghead,

Embra 20/05/2009 13:45:50
No I wasn't considering only Scotland's needs. I was referring to the whole UK
6

LRS,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 14:13:17
Proghead was quite right to go beyond the purely parochial and consider the UK situation.
As Professor MacKay shows in his excellent book (downloadable from www.withouthotair.com), wind, solar and tidal power on their own simply cannot provide enough to meet our UK needs - and especially so if phase out petrol driven transport in favour of electric cars and trams. It is a matter of simple arithmetic. Given that is the case, then the generating balance needs to come either from more nuclear or the construction of huge solar farms in the Sahara.
7

Proghead,

Embra 20/05/2009 14:21:07
Huge Sahara solar farms sound good, but that introduces a geo-political element similar to the issues we see with OPEC, Russia and the like. Better to keep generation on our shores, so it's nuclear again
8

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 20/05/2009 14:28:33
Wind farms like this are a tragedy for our countryside. And all for so little benefit
9

,

20/05/2009 14:45:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

greenhill,

20/05/2009 15:38:50
RE:TheDisplacedGlaswegian,Edinburgh 20/05/2009 13:33:51
Proghead, if you consider only Scotland's needs, we do not need to "dramatically increase" our nuclear capacity. We already export electricity.

.......................................

Lets face it you are either willfull stupid or an out and out liar.It has already been explained to you(in previous threads) that Scotland’s power is provided by 5 main plants: nuclear at Hunterston and Torness, coal at Cockenzie and Longannet, gas from Peterhead .We also have important power from hydro and some from wind.

For various reasons most of these plants will need to close in the near future. Decisions need to be taken now about what we do next. It must also be taken into account that we are expected to develop to be using 50% more energy by 2050.

The planning and building of major engineering projects can take many years and are usually subject to delays and cost overruns. It is not appropriate to dither.

Given these realities current exports are not relevant to the debate.What part of that do you not understand ? You clown.
11

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 20/05/2009 15:54:11
9 Vincent

I don't have precise figures but I strongly suspect that 4 will vastly exceed 1+2+3.

However, a bigger factor is, when they are not operating due to adverse wind conditions, how dirty is the generation that comes online to fill the gap. That alone make them environmentally questionable.

The availability of wind turbines can be quite low ie less than 50%.
12

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 20/05/2009 15:57:43
11 greenhill

Your post is full of vitriol. Why the anger. I'm afraid your "facts" lose their clarity when you type with such emotion. Care to make them again? This time with a cool head.
13

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 16:01:15
Alex Salmond - "Our potential for electricity generation from renewables is up to 60 gigawatts – more than 10 times our peak demand."
#6 LRS, Thanks for providing us with the link - I will read the book in full. Back to your comment though - the whole story is written from a Scottish perspective. Some of us discuss our future energy needs from this position and some don't. Proghead was neither right nor wrong to comment on the UK situation.
I'll ask you the same thing - consider only Scotland's needs. Do you agree that Scotland can meet her full energy needs through renewables? It is totally obvious that the UK as a whole cannot. I don't think you'll find anyone will disagree with this statement and as a consequence, I don't think you'll find anyone successfully argue that the UK as a whole does not need nuclear power.
14

NGRZR,

Glasgow 20/05/2009 16:22:56
VincentW, if you do a google search for 'wind turbine energy payback' there are plenty of articles including peer reviewed published papers. On a windy site 1+2+3 recover 4 in less than 6 months.
I can see Whitelee from my windows and think it looks amazing.
15

W Smith,

Middle East 20/05/2009 16:44:44
More drivel from Salmond and his 'green' tartan army.

1) Most of the jobs created here are typical of any building site. A nuclear power plant may produce even more jobs.

2) No mention of the turbines made by Siemens, the German company. So Scots just purchase them not make them.

Just two important facts that slipped Salmonds mind.
16

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 16:46:53
#11. I can only assume your anger is due to your 'facts' being proven to be the opposite. I said we do not need to dramatically increase our nuclear capacity - you respond by saying I'm either, "willfull stupid or an out and out liar" and then finish it off with, "you clown".
Give nuclear provides more than half the energy generated in Scotland, how much nuclear production do you think we need? What, to you, is a fair dramatic increase given what we already realise from renewables and our potential to increase this?
(Obviously you can comment however you like, but please do not expect me to further engage unlessl you display some manners.)
17

LRS,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 17:17:51
#14 - It would indeed be interesting to try and re-work Prof Mackay's figures on a Scotland-only basis. However I strongly suspect that the results would be similar - i.e. that renewables will not be sufficient. Remember that if we are to stop carbon emissions it means using electricity rather than petrol for transport, and electricity rather than gas/oil for central heating. This implies the need for a substantial increase in electricity generation (by a factor of somewhere between 2 and 3). I just cannot see how that can be met by wind and wave power.

One problem in looking at the issue from a purely Scottish perspective is that the smaller you go in geography, the greater the problem in load balancing. When the wind drops it is likely to be across most of Scotland - how will we meet the demand in that case if we do not have the interconnector to the rest of the UK?
18

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 20/05/2009 17:30:29
-- It must also be taken into account that we are expected to develop to be using 50% more energy by 2050.

Why? Modern engineering can do marvels on energy efficiency. How many people will live here in 2050? Any ideas?

It's the UK-US economic strategy of the past 30 years that's can't survive till 2015 far less 2050, or this ludicrous Union with it.

You'd need national assets to have a UK national energy policy and these have mainly been sold to EU consortia. But Scotland could be thinking more nationally on the lines of our Norwegian neighbours.
19

LRS,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 17:51:04
Care should be taken when reading the statement in the article that 'The site already has 140 turbines, said to be capable of generating 322 megawatts of energy – enough to power 180,000 homes'.

However using this definition of a 'home' only counts the electricity consumption at a value of 4700kWh per year. The actual energy usage of the occupants of the house is about 24 times larger (same reference as in 6 above) - so not quite as impressive as it seems!
20

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 18:07:09
#18 The Average wind turbine up time in Europe is around 25%. In Scotland this rises to 40% (with the Western Isles achieving the world record of nearly 60% up time over a calendar year). If you look a the massive off shore wind turbines, where the wind is more consistent and less turbulent, greater up times can be achieved.
Wind aside though, it looks like you've not considered tidal power. Unlike wind, this power source is totally predictable... we know exactly when the tides will change and when the moon's pull is strongest. There are some experts who argue that the Pentland firth alone can provide 25% of Europe's energy needs - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7638242.stm
(There is a lull at the turn of the tide we need to deal with though, perhaps stored energy from other renewable sources can be used to provide base load.)

I have nothing against nuclear energy - I see it as one of man's greatest technological advances. I would agree that it is green, it is safe, it is reliable and it can be easily secured. However, I remain completely unconvinced that Scotland needs it. I don't see why we should burden our future generations with a perpetual ongoing cost and problem of managing the waste when all we have to do is make the effort to exploit our renewable sources. Lets not be lazy here... we have a choice of thousands of years of radioactive waste management or a couple of decades of investment in renewables.
21

,

20/05/2009 18:47:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

greenhill,

20/05/2009 18:53:18
RETheDisplacedGlaswegian,Edinburgh 20/05/2009 18:07:09

Two points for you.

Do you know what base load means?

Do you think renewables can provide base load in the near or mid term future?
23

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 20/05/2009 20:18:18
It was good thinking for the SNP to appoint an impressive panel of engineers for the Saltire marine renewables prize.

Consider that Frank Whittle first demonstrated his prototype jet engine in 1937 (from private funding). The first english jet plane (now a classified technology) flew in May 1941 from a very shoe-string budget. So I think tidal power could be on stream faster if there was a national project and finance for it.

"In June, 1989, in New York City, Trombly and Farnsworth physically demonstrated a small solid state electrical transformer that measurably showed an efficiency of 54:1. Adam then walked down the street to the United Nations to give an address. From the point of view of one who witnessed this event firsthand, I can't believe the entire world didn't change as a result. One of the reasons I asked Adam if I could write this piece is because it is now ten years later and the American people, in particular, have still not gotten the message that there is an entirely new and benign option to the current death spiral of humanity. As the result of ignoring the opportunity that was presented on that day in 1989, the world still suffers under the tyranny of fossil fuels .. "

This zero-point technology is still classified stuff.
24

Stan Butler,

20/05/2009 20:40:40


How much does this farm generate in subsidies and who gets the money?

25

Stan Butler,

20/05/2009 20:45:15

#9 Vincent-W


You might also want to ask how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere when the wind farms are built on peat bogs.

26

yoric,

20/05/2009 21:25:00
Wind farms, back to the dark ages.

Go out and buy a generator and plenty of diesel, you will need it.
27

krusty the klown,

20/05/2009 21:50:36
#27 - mmm, alas, there's nane left yorik - Outrageous!
28

krusty the klown,

20/05/2009 21:52:00
#26 - it is apparently 42
29

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 22:16:35
#22 numpty, From the US Department of Energy's office of civilian radioactive waste management:-
"Current storage methods shield any harmful radiation and are presently safe. However, modern aboveground storage structures are designed for temporary storage only, and will not withstand rain, wind, and other environmental factors for the tens of thousands of years during which the waste will be hazardous."

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0338.shtml

So, once again you make up 'facts'. The latest being "after 600 years nuclear waste has as much radioactivity as copper piping" LOL.

RE base load: there are a few ways to describe base load. One is that it is the minimum continous supply needed to service the country's needs. Another for base load power stations is that it is the continous minimum supply that the power station must provide.

To arm yourself with real facts, I suggest you also read this:- http://www.newstatesman.com/pdf/nuclearwaste2003.pdf
30

Soloman,

Stirling 20/05/2009 22:58:49
16 W. Smith Middle East

2) No mention of the turbines made by Siemens, the German company. So Scots just purchase them not make them.

Wind Turbines are built in Campbeltown Scotland.


X BREAK FREE X

X VOTE SNP X

INDEPENDENCE FROM WESTMINSTER
31

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 20/05/2009 23:41:01
Utilities were so called because they provided usefull stuff like electriciy, gas, water when they were run as municipal, regional or national outfits. Energy politics and energy finance do not currently benefit the domestic consumer or local factory.
32

Brianwci,

20/05/2009 23:48:53
Just watched a 'special' Newsnict from Dublin. BBC Scotland went to some lengths to subtly lets Scots know that Independence essentially led to ruin...

The smirk on his face at the end tells us HE thought he had done a good hatchet job.

Sadly for GB and his team only a small per cent of non anorak voters watch Newsnict and most of them have the sense to know propaganda when they see it.

Now this article on the other hand, this is what influences voters Mr Brewer. Have a close look at the Euro elections to see how successful your propaganda piece was.

33

Gorach,

Oban 20/05/2009 23:59:29
Aye, wind turbines built in Scotland would have been the better choice.
34

,

21/05/2009 08:02:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

tea lady,

21/05/2009 08:26:33
Independently minded mentions "Its time for you lot to accept the democratic process we have here in our country" Has he, as well as Alex Salmond, forgotten that the SNP's election platform was for wind farms offshore? At the hustings I asked my SNP candidate what her and her parties views were and got a one line reply "Offshore".
36

greenhill,

21/05/2009 08:50:25
RE TheDisplacedGlaswegian,Edinburgh 20/05/2009 22:16:35


No you are the numpty. Vitrified waste buried underground has about as much radioactivity as copper piping after 600 years.

However because of the scaremongering of the anti nuclear brigade it is not politically possible to do this. So it gets stored above ground.
37

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

21/05/2009 11:29:40
"Vitrified waste buried underground has about as much radioactivity as copper piping after 600 years". LOL.
Are you suggesting that simply by putting the waste underground it makes it less radioactive? You seem to disagree with the experts that say radioactive nuclear waste will remain hazardous for thousands of years. (Given the half life of the waste isotopes, this is no surprise).
I also know all about the scare mongering capabilities of the anti nuclear lobby. None of them have any idea that they are at more risk from natural background radiation than they are from nuclear power stations or their waste. None of them have any idea that coal fired power stations emit more radioactive particles into the environment than nuclear power stations. I have nothing against nuclear power. My view is that the long term waste management issues are not worth the effort. Scotland can do without it as we have the potential to harvest all our energy needs from renewable sources.
Whilst I hold the view that we have the potential, I am not claiming we have the ability yet (or will have soon). If we don't get our act together and get a realistic plan for a full workable renewable solution in place soon then we'll need to commission at least one new nuclear power station, although I'd rather not. Not because I am in any way scared of radiation, nuclear waste or our ability to come up with a long term storage solution but because our laziness could leave an everlasting cost for our future generations. If I was a greedy, ignorant, and selfish - I wouldn't care less. But I'm not - I have kids and I'd like to leave Scotland a better place for them. I'd prefer not leave them and their offspring a perpetual radioactive waste management problem and ongoing cost. That's the issue. Not whether nuclear is safe or not.
Now, if you want to enlighten me, then please go ahead. My view on whether or not Scotland needs nuclear power has already been changed from the one you currently adopt by
38

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 21/05/2009 11:30:15
cont...
fellow posters - who's to say you can't reverse my thinking? First you'll need to drop your immature attitude and insults and give me some real facts backed up with reference to relevant sources. Until then, you are just a mouthy wean.
39

greenhill,

22/05/2009 18:24:45
Grind up a spoonfull of 600 year old nuclear waste and eat it you will die.So it is very dangerous.Do the same with copper piping and you will die.

You should get a grip and get real and understand what is meant by hazardous.
40

Dragonfire,

17/07/2009 16:10:52
Windfarms as far as the eye can see. How beautiful.

 

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
 
  

 
 

More Wind Power

More Wind Power >>

More Alternative energy sources

More Alternative energy sources >>

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.