Give people of Scotland their say on wind farms, SNP is urged
THE Scottish Government has been urged to listen to local opinion after a report revealed ministers were approving major wind-farm projects, while local authorities were turning more down.
Figures from trade body RenewableUK show all four onshore wind-farm applications for projects of more than 50MW that went to ministers for approval last year were given the go-ahead.
The Blacklaw Extension in Lanarkshire, Blackcraig in the Galloway hills, Dunmaglass, south of Inverness, and Fallago Rig in the Borders, with a cumulative capacity of 381MW, were all approved.
However, no schemes of more than 50MW were decided elsewhere in the UK, with larger projects in England increasingly being rejected and smaller ones more likely to be approved.
This was a significant drop in the overall number of major wind-farm projects approved in the UK, from eight in 2009–10 (total 493MW) and six in 2008–9 (total 724MW).
However, the state-of-the-industry report says local approval rates in Scotland have seen the steepest fall over the past three years in terms of consented capacity – down from 58 per cent in 2008-9 and 57 per cent in 2009–10, to only 39 per cent.
Lyndsey Ward, who was among campaigners who staged a protest at the SNP conference in Inverness last Saturday over the growing number of wind farms, said: “The last major wind farm refused was in 2008.
“The developments below 50MW, which can still be quite large, go through the local planning system and it’s the councillors who are having the final say on whether they are approved.
“I would hope it’s because local councillors are listening to the people and that’s why the developments are not going through, as opposed to the bigger ones that are going to central government.
“If people did not lobby against wind farms they would just go through. That must be something Alex Salmond should listen to.”
Ms Ward is co-founder of the Wind Farm Action Group and an opponent of the planned 23-turbine Druim Ba wind farm above Loch Ness. The project was unanimously opposed by Highland Council last month but will now be discussed at a public inquiry before the Scottish Government has the final say.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said every wind farm application was assessed on its merits, taking into account the views of various interested parties, local communities and the public.
“The Scottish Government will only allow wind farms to be built where the impacts have been found to be acceptable – and unsuitable applications are rejected,” she said.
“The Scottish Government also recognises that onshore wind can create opportunities for communities as well providing jobs and growth, contributing to our broader renewables targets as part of a mix of energy sources.”
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 49 comments to this article
Page 1 of 4
Black Grouse
Friday, October 28, 2011 at 02:40 AM#47, #48. Rubbish. No fuel is 'free', as the process of extracting energy from it always has a cost whether it be oil or wind. Would you describe water as free? Wind is a singularly poor energy source because it is diffuse and intermittent. Hence the old saw: “No one has ever built a windmill if he could build a watermill.” Hence Whitelee - 140 x 110m turbines on 55 square kilometres site area only has a headline capacity of 322 MW and had an LF of only 24% in 200910. You are also talking utter spheroid objects about costs - check out Mott McDonald and Parsons Brinkehoff for levelised costings. Both make onshore wind more expensive that gas, coal and nuclear (including decommissioning and fuel storage). NB they don't include backup, grid engineering and connection, curtailment and subsidies in their wind costs - with those, wind becomes even more uncompetitive with thermal generators. Offshore wind is ludicrously expensive by comparison with anything but other marine renewables.
Newferryman
Thursday, October 27, 2011 at 04:57 PM47. Exactly Fred. People should not misinterpretate efficiency with running costs. Incedentally running costs of a wind farm are peanuts compared to a power station.
fred bloggs
Thursday, October 27, 2011 at 07:26 AMEfficiency is of no real concern with wind turbines because the fuel (wind) is free. What matters is the capital and running costs which work out as similar to other technologies for onshore wind.
Black Grouse
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 09:50 PM#43, Quite, QED.
Geomac
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 06:54 PM#40 - it looks like you have achieved success as the h3 tags have disappeared from #27 and #28 posts???
Geomac
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 06:51 PM#41 Newferryman Go ahead and convince me!! I would welcome your explanation of why you consider them 100% efficient when their blades are static when there is no wind blowing. Or why they're 100% efficient when their blades only achieve contact with a very small %age of the wind passing through them. You're not a politician by any chance, are you??
Electric Hermit
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 06:40 PM42 Black Grouse "From a security of energy supply perspective the key issue is the uncertainty and variability of output..." - Only an issue if there is over-reliance on wind turbines. With a mixed generation set-up there is no issue at all.
Black Grouse
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 06:32 PMRe. efficiency and load factors. National Grid rightly points out that average LF's and theoretical efficiency are of little interest to the Grid. What they are interested in is availability during periods of high load: "[140] The [metered wind] output varied between 3 MW and 1586 MW with an average of 435 MW. This gives an average load factor of 27% over the period. From a security of energy supply perspective the key issue is the uncertainty and variability of output and the average load factor is of limited use." "141. Figure A.31 highlights that at the times of peak electricity demand over the last three successive winters wind power output has been relatively low compared with average load factors." "146. Note that for wind and hydro generation in table A.10 that the basis of assumed availability is different to that for other fuel types as it is actual load factor at the time of the demand peak and not technical declared availability as in both cases availability of input energy to the generation is a more limiting factor. In turbine availability terms we expect that wind turbine technical availability was in the high ninety percentage level range, but this has very little significance if the wind is not at a speed where they can generate at full output." (National Grid, 'Winter Consultation Report 201011. A review of winter 200910 and preliminary outlook for winter 201011’).
Newferryman
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 05:36 PMWind farms are technically 100% efficient. Will dispute all comers....
Electric Hermit
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 05:32 PM39 Geomac "I have looked at the alleged fakes you mention in your post and I cannot determine which is real and which is fake." - If you look at the username on posts #27 and #28 in the source code - in the h3 tags - you will see that there are three or four extra spaces between the word Electric and the opening bracket of (referendumdebate.com). That's how easy it is to fake a username here.
Geomac
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 05:10 PM#37 Electric - you say " You can spot the fakes if you view the page source. They are the ones with added spaces or HTML character references. The code accepts these as unique usernames then strips out the extraneous characters before rendering the text. So there is no way to tell just by looking at what is on the screen. " I have looked at the alleged fakes you mention in your post and I cannot determine which is real and which is fake. If I were you I'd repeatedly report Unsuitable all the posts you believe are fake until the Scotsman webmaster takes action!!!
Saoghal Beag
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 04:27 PMThe point in 24 was the need for dispersed, diverse and embedded generation. One of THE most inefficient and unreliable means of providing electricity is for each home to have its own generator. Just look at the level of feed in tariffs (FiT) required to persuade people to invest in solar, personal wind heat pumps, biomass etc Your reference to FiTs (and RHi) only illustrates a change in the distribution of investment, it does not uphold your statement that it is the most inefficient option. No engineer would argue that. A disperesed, diverse and embedded generation portfolio does not exclude the need for the national grid, nor does it require the generation to work in isolation. I uphold that community owned local generation will do more to address fuel poverty than the weasely words from Huhne and his wee chats with the generators.
Electric Hermit
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 04:23 PM34 Geomac "#33 Electric - who is impersonating you - or who do you think the impersonators are. If you are concerned why not report post as sunsuitable?" - Posts #27 and #28 were not posted by me. Obviously I have no way of knowing who is doing this. It has been going on for several days at least. And I am not the only one being impersonated. I have reported dozens of these posts but nobody seems interested. You can spot the fakes if you view the page source. They are the ones with added spaces or HTML character references. The code accepts these as unique usernames then strips out the extraneous characters before rendering the text. So there is no way to tell just by looking at what is on the screen. Of course, all of this makes the whole comment facility nothing more than a bad joke. Especially if there is an ongoing exchange of views involving a particular individual. People should realise that they may not be responding to the person they think they are.
Geomac
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 04:18 PM#32 SB - you keep on changing issues and it's hard to pin down a moving target. However, let me try. One of THE most inefficient and unreliable means of providing electricity is for each home to have its own generator. Just look at the level of feed in tariffs (FiT) required to persuade people to invest in solar, personal wind heat pumps, biomass etc - these FiTs can range from 4 times the current retail price of electricity to 2 times depending on the capital cost involved. Then what do people do when their solitary means of generation fails - where's the back up or are you prepared to sacrifice security of supply based on the whims of green fanatics and politicians? I have yet to hear a qualified engineer make a case for economic and reliable localised generation - remember that the National Grid is there for a reason - security of supply - no modern nation will remain modern without such a feature Community generation of islands such as Eigg make some sort of sense BUT they too had reliability problems recently - no wind and no water - so it was back to candles since diesel generator was out of service.
Electric Hermit
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 04:11 PM32 Saoghal Beag !My point is that there needs to be a shift from the current situation dominated by a few generators, to a much more diverse generation portfolio." - Which is, of course, precisely what the Scottish Government has in mind. What the more shallow-minded critics of onshore wind power fail to recognise is that the process of shifting to that "diverse generation portfolio" had to start somewhere. And the only technology that was sufficiently developed to lead the way was the wind turbine.
Page 1 of 4
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.