Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gerald Warner: Wind turbine revolution is at the expense of natural beauty

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 Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

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: 24 May 2009
'BREATHES there the man with soul so dead/Who never to himself hath said/'This is my own, my native land – and what a gruesome tip they've made of it…?'" Nobody ravages a landscape more devastatingly than an environmentalist. The crazed drive to promote wind farms has destroyed Scotland's natural beauty by peppering our rural wildernesses with Martian wind turbines – to no practical benefit.
Last week Alex Salmond performed the formal opening ceremony at Whitelee wind farm, outside Glasgow, run by the Spanish company Iberdrola Renovables through its Scottish subsidiary ScottishPower Renewables. This is now the largest onshore wind farm i
n Europe, comprising 140 wind turbines. The owners' publicity material trumpeted its generating capacity of 322 MWA, to be increased to 600 MWA within a few years.

Promoters of wind power are very keen on proclaiming their turbines' "generating capacity". What they are less keen on broadcasting is the fact that Government figures show an average capacity utilisation factor (CF) of just 28 per cent for onshore wind farms. So all those impressive megawatt and gigawatt figures have to be adjusted accordingly.

A study conducted by the Renewable Energy Foundation discovered that only a few Scottish wind farms attain the 28 per cent of theoretical capacity, while in some parts of England the figure is below 10 per cent. This reflects the fact that turbines will not work if the wind is not strong enough, while if it is too strong the generators have to be locked down to avoid damage. In a speech in the House of Lords on 7 May, Lord Reay claimed an idleness rate for turbines of between 55 and 110 days a year.

Amid its triumphalist announcements last week, Scottish Power made no reference to the remarks made to Reuters news agency on 22 April by Rupert Steele, regulation director at ScottishPower Renewables, in which he warned that Britain, aiming to install some 30 gigawatts (GW) of wind turbines by 2020, will need to build almost an equivalent capacity of backup power generation to cover periods when the turbines are idle. "Thirty gigawatts of wind maybe requires 25 GW of backup," he said. "The problem is that if you've got a high-pressured area, you may have quite a large area where there's no wind at all…"

So, what we are actually doing, at a time of financial stringency, is creating two parallel energy systems, at more than double the necessary cost, to meet demented EU targets, while simultaneously destroying our landscape – in the name of environmentalism. As Lord Reay pointed out, "per delivered megawatt, the capital cost of wind is three to five times the cost of nuclear, ten times the cost of gas and 15 times the cost of coal".

Scotland is the worst loser in the United Kingdom from the wind power hysteria. Our landscape – our greatest national asset – is desperately vulnerable. To look at the online map created by Scottish Natural Heritage, charting the growth of wind farms, is a deeply dismaying experience. The infestation is already far-flung and mostly afflicts sites of natural beauty. The most high-profile current controversy involves the proposed Viking wind farm on Shetland, comprising 150 turbines over 12,800 hectares. Yet Viking Energy itself has produced a worst-case scenario in which it would take 14.9 years to pay back the carbon dioxide emissions potentially produced from drying out peat bog over 25 years' operation.

There are issues of democracy too. So committed is the Scottish Government to renewable energy that wind farm applications in Scotland are seldom rejected, though there is only a 40 per cent approval rate in England. The SNP managed to ban nuclear power by winning a Holyrood vote in January 2008. No person of any sensitivity welcomes nuclear power, with its long-term waste disposal problems; but harsh reality may force it upon us. Of Scotland's two existing nuclear power stations, Hunterston B is due to close in 2016 and Torness in 2023. The notion that this generating capacity can be replaced by a jungle of temperamental whirligigs is infantile.

It is also outdated. True environmentalists subscribe to the Charter of Palermo, recently drawn up by a conference of European artists, academics and environmentalists chaired by former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, condemning wind farms' destruction of Europe's patrimony of natural beauty. In Britain there are already 2,434 turbines in operation, two-thirds as many under construction and more than twice as many planned. They are hideous, costly and inefficient. This madness must end.







The full article contains 771 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Bill_on_a_boat,

Floating - Better than Labours Ship? 24/05/2009 01:16:22
Interesting story - not often these days one gets to agree with a columnist here. Wind, just one or two megawatt per mill, and very unsightly - hydro untold capacity, as it would appear that the folks who think there's a limit to Scottish Hydro Power may well be proven so wrong - it may in fact be close to limitless.
Time, and not much of it, will tell the tale here. The windmills are ugly indeed - as are solar and tidal installations. If we can't do nuclear - and fossil fuel has global implications - we're pretty much back to hydro - and it will be our true winning option.
2

Observer,,

Glasgow 24/05/2009 01:30:13
Well Gerald - I see you have avoided defaming the Prime Minister's brother this week :-)
3

Observer,,

Glasgow 24/05/2009 01:32:24
Not your best article - but at least it isn't libellous.
4

Observer,,

Glasgow 24/05/2009 01:35:35
How strange - the article from the 10th May seems to have vanished :-)
5

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 24/05/2009 07:52:20
#6 Cynicus- Bang on,I could not agree more. I t is time for the wind madness to stop.
Unfortunately wee Eck and the tartan taliban are so far up the backsides of the wind industry it would take a John Deere to pull them out.
6

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 24/05/2009 08:24:40
This article is full the of the inaccuracies, lies and exaggerations we have come to expect from the hysterical and irrational anti-wind brigade.

What Steele actually said:

'Rupert Steele, head of regulation at Scottish Power, said that to decarbonise the energy sector, more electricity would have to be generated by coal-fired plants with Carbon Capture and Storage, nuclear and large-scale windfarms. To help reduce carbon emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, the government has promised to increase energy from renewable sources, such as wind power, by 15% by 2020. But Steele said that its success would depend on upgrading the electricity network. "Solid transmission is the backbone of the energy network and if these wires aren't there, it won't happen"

-The Guardian
7

Unimpressed one,

24/05/2009 08:56:49
But there's no getting away from the fact that none of the generating companies would touch wind power with a barge pole were it not for the vast public subsidies that are paid to them. The whole pointless exercise is an example of the gross stupidity of following the advice of the environmental movement -illogical, ill-conceived and idiotic.
8

Retiarius,

Batavadaroum 24/05/2009 10:57:48
I see the Whitelee turbines on the horizon every morning from the train to East Kilbride - actually they look quite jolly, admittedly from a considerable range: up close they look like something out of the War of the Worlds or, perhaps, The Prisoner (if you see any giant bouncing beach balls, run for it).
One outfit which has complained about them is the Ramblers' Association, which fears the spread of "industrial" plant,even of the eco variety,will curtail the available space in which to "ramble". However in fact people will be able to ramble quite freely around the windmills, which is to be sold as an ec0-tourism attraction ("haud me back"), so it's really the curtailment of conventional pastoral countryside they're bothered about. However ... Eaglesham Moor: who needs it? We should identify areas - eg, the whole of Lanarkshire - where almost any fixture would be a visual improvement to the present post-Thatcher wasteland. If the resulting structures power a lightbulb or two, that would be simply a bonus ...
9

Greenheatman,

TAIN 24/05/2009 12:07:02
All renewables should be generating heat and sending heat to existing coal fired power stations like Longannet. 12TWh(green thermal) is enough thermal power to generate 4TWh(green electrical)that matches the peaks and troughs of demand - please google "gentec wats" for more details.

10

Bill_on_a_boat,

Afloat 24/05/2009 12:29:04
Greenheatman & Unimpressed: Interesting thoughts - except to generate heat in the levels theorised requires pollution and capture, not clean energy, unimpressed the "Environmental Movement" like any has its good and not so. One of the good is a new pumping system under development that can theoretically move substantial cubic meters of liquid an hour without generating significant heat or pollution - if it can be turned into a practical device.... But then the world is full of "if's" and even more opinions, isn't it.
11

mr broon,

Edinburgh 24/05/2009 13:56:06
In 2002, after British Energy was "privatised" the government still had to bail out the newly created and ailing company with £650 million of taxpayers money!

Ever since the first nuclear power stations were built in the post-War period to generate electricity, and produce nuclear material for military purposes, UK governments have never recovered their full investment.

In 2008, the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority announced that by 2050 it would cost £73 BILLION to clear and store nuclear material from Britain's ageing nuclear power stations!

However, a senior official at the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority admitted to a government committee that "costs will continue to escalate, and the final cost may well be in excess of £100 BILLION, and the time scale could exceed 100 years"!
(Source: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform)
12

Capn Andy,

Sunny Africa. 24/05/2009 14:19:09
Like others, I don't often agree with Mr Warner, but today he's spot on. Most of the money poured into these monstrosities is pocketed abroad.
If the money wasted on windmills had been put into research and development of tidal power ( Utterly predictable.) we'd be sitting pretty and there would be a lot more skilled jobs for local engineering businesses involved.
13

Teemackell the Scribe,

24/05/2009 14:49:05
#10, Retiarius writes,

"If the resulting structures power a lightbulb or two, that would be simply a bonus."

But their proclaimed purpose is to power a lot more than that. During the week, a supporter of wind power, Professor Donald MacKay of Cambridge, published some shocking research: it would take a windfarm covering the area of WALES (!) to deliver 1/6th the UK's electricity needs.

That is the problem with windfarms: so large is their 'footprint' they do not deliver bangs for the buck even when the wind IS blowing. Of course, when it's NOT blowing (or blowing too hard) they deliver NO power at all and need fossil fuel or nuclear back-up.

The whole thing is a nonsense -a monstrous scandal one poster above calls it. It would be an impossible nonsense without the taxpayer bungs to landowners and power generators through the Renewables Obligations Certificates.

One political purpose these vast visual intrusions serve is to delude voters by their in-your-face presence into believing the government is 'doing something' about global CO2 emissions. Just as Churchil, during the war, had iron railings, some very beautiful, ripped off the walls around town dwellings to be "turned into bullets." It never happened. It was all spin aimed at persuading people, by highly visible political gesture, the government was 'doing something.' And every town and city today boasts these "Churcill stumps" on walls around pre-war buildings.

The purpose of windfarms is the same. They will make a near-zero contribution to the reduction of global CO2. That is not the point, though. It is to give the APPEARANCE of political action. And, 20, 30...years from now our countryside is going to be blighted by their tattered relics far more than townscapes are today. Even a Lanarkshire wasteland, Retiarius, will look MUCH worse than post-Thatcher.
14

mr broon,

Edinburgh 24/05/2009 15:22:56
The Nationalists are anti-nuclear and pro-renewables, but since coming to power have commissioned very few windfarms.

The Nationalist Government has vetoed many others large and small, including the proposed 181 turbine wind farm on the Isle of Lewis.

In April, 2006, the then Labour/Lib-Dem Scottish Government agreed to Whitelee and many other large and small onshore wind farms that have recently been completed. At that time, East Renfrewshire had a Tory/Lib-Dem coalition which agreed to the wind farm.

15

Geomac 1,

Scotland 24/05/2009 17:56:32
Spot on Gerald!
I have to wonder exactly why our politicians are so enamoured of useless windmills? depite some of the comments above, this is NOT a political issue - this is a serious problem in that our landscapes are being systematically destroyed for no real or tangible benefit.
Windmills do not reduce CO2 because of the need to retain conventional backup. They are expensive. They are unreliable and produce electricity intermittently.
Whats is the point of them - other than to line the pockets of developers and landowners at the expense of the consumer and taxpayer!!
16

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 25/05/2009 07:12:29
16 Mr Broon, It wasn't the SNP that stopped the Amec windfarm on Lewis, or even the 10000 or so objections, it was the threat of being sued by Europe that stopped it.
I have just had a look at the Scottish power website and I see the usual lies and spin that the likes of Fred Bloggs is in denial about.
eg they claim they will reinstate the land after 25 years - oh yeh! what about the 280,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete in the turbine bases ? or the 100 miles of road.
Then we have their claim about the Scottish people supporting windfarms and the nearer they live to them the more they like them. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A look at the details of the MORI survey reveals that they scaled the results such that the nearer you lived to a windfarm, the less your opinion counted.
This was after asking questions of the ilk " would you rather have a windfarm on your doorstep or stick your head in a bucket of nuclear waste"
Lies - damn lies - and statistics.
So beloved of Fred the turbine hugger who is all for the felling of thousands of acres of trees to put up wind turbines.
With the present price of ROCS being over £52/MWh it must give the turbine huggers a warm glow to know that they are paying for this.
17

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 25/05/2009 07:13:31
Keep taking your medication Fred, I am sure you will get better soon.
18

Retiarius,

Batavadorum 25/05/2009 14:42:38
"Even a Lanarkshire wasteland, Retiarius, will look MUCH worse than post-Thatcher." (Teemackell).

Well, I concede, he may have a point. Perhaps in a few years rusty old wind turbines, the neat paths around them long-since choked with weeds, will turn out to be Scotland's equivalent of these circular bomb shelter things the demented ex-dictator of Albania insisted on building everywhere.
However surely Teemackell would concede that, for example, the whole of Cumbernauld could be used for target practice by strategic US bomber strikes (so goodbye, Falkirk), and then - its citizens having been sent to Tenerife for the weekend - replaced by a vastly more attractive windfarm site. Just a thought. So much of Central Scotland is an eyesore I remain to be convinced that windfarms wouldn't be easier on the eye than the present vistas. As I said, they even - theoretically - produce some electricity.
19

The Former Mr. Angry,

31/05/2009 22:43:32
Politicians of all hues including the SNP seem dazzled by the potential maximum output (capacity) of wind farms, but their huge problem is that due to fluctuations in windspeed their actual output is about a quarter of the rated maxmium, necessitating conventional backup. It all looks like lots of payoffs for those involved with a half-thought-out solution which has been jumped on and invested in by us the taxpayer (who else). No one else in their right mind would invest in a commercial sense.

Hydro has the absolute advantage in terms of being able to operate at full pelt and then overnight use the unused power to pump water back up the hill again for re-use next day - how's that for recycling. Sure we might flood a few remote glens but look at the mess created by windfarms on or offshore! Tidal operates predictably ay any location since the moon isn't going away and output can be smoothed due to different locations experiencing tides at different times, the rough rule of thumb for tidal height being 1/12 in the first hour, 2/12 in the second, 3/12 in the third (max velocity at the end of the third hour) then 3/12 in the 4th, 2/12 in the 5th and 1/12 in the 6th when the tide turns and the same pattern is repeated (just switch the turbine blades by 180 degrees).

So if we augment hydro and tidal with coal and almost certainly nuclear if it's needed and the coal burn is carbon captured for those worried about CO2 (why - dumb) then that's it sorted. Then we can pull down the unproductive or inefficient wind farms and restore the bonny countryside.
20

Satire above all,

07/08/2009 23:08:38
Windmills can always be dismantled and very quickly too, but rty dismantling a nuclear power station :-"

 

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.