Our Case...

IN BRIEF
The present attack on the Scottish landscape is the result of poor strategic planning at the highest level in the face of mounting concern over climate change.

Since the mid-nineties national planning controls have been relaxed to expose our local planning representatives to powerful international interest groups whose focus is the enormous subsidies we are all paying.   Many local and national politicians are now demanding a re-think of the whole strategy for generating electricity from renewable sources.

Support for our case relies on people understanding that we cannot leave the Scottish landscape and our way of life to be ruined because of the lack of forethought of others.  

• You can support wind power and still think this particular proposal is not appropriate.  A wind turbine in your garden is on a vastly different scale from the ones on your hills.
• Large-scale wind power can’t live up to its promises.
• Government policy on subsidy has diverted funds from less damaging alternatives.
• A wind factory on Pressendye would have far-reaching effects on the landscape and the environment which are unacceptable in view of the dubious benefits.
• People in countries with large numbers of wind turbines are having second thoughts – so should we. 

WHAT'S WRONG WITH WIND
(top)

Why the rush to the hills?

Wind power is expensive to produce but those in government have agreed at a European level to increase the amount of electricity from “renewable” sources as opposed to coal and gas (fossil fuel).   Other countries have developed industries manufacturing wind turbines but all have failed to provide adequate funds for developing wave and tidal sources of electricity.

Having been slow off the mark, UK governments are now rushing to promote the most convenient way of appearing to address the problem of climate change.   It is driven by a system of subsidising renewable schemes which put electricity onto the National Grid.  

Those within the industry admit that without the huge subsidies (60% of their income) electricity from wind power would never make a profit.   Paul Golby, as chief executive of Eon UK, said of the subsidy mechanism: “Without Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROC) nobody would be building wind farms.” (Daily Telegraph 26 March 2005).   ROCs force power companies to buy in an increasing amount of “green” electricity for which there is a heavy price.

It may sound fair that so far the subsidy has been applied equally to all types of scheme.   However, because offshore wind and wave power is up to 30% more expensive than onshore, it is clearly less attractive to developers.

Scottish Energy Minister Jim Mather said in September 2007: “…this Government is building an energy strategy which will include the whole renewable mix - from biomass to the energy we can generate from waves and tides.   While we cannot have onshore wind farms anywhere or at any price to the environment, it is clear that onshore wind will continue to play a crucial role over the next few years.”    This is not a ringing endorsement for Scotland’s energy policy so far, and the wind factory industry in particular.   The onshore wind subsidy is likely to fall relative to offshore.   This feverish air of uncertainty and the huge amounts of cash from stockmarket investors has led to a stampede across the Scottish hills.

Will this rush into onshore wind power generation save coal or gas and reduce the greenhouse gases and other pollutants released into the air? The wind factory industry is unclear about the savings but is determined to increase the number of wind turbines in the UK from 1800 to thousands more in the few years left for the bonanza.

How can they ignore the problems with unreliable wind? 

What if the wind doesn’t blow? 
Fossil fuel-burning power stations have to be ready to take over whenever the wind drops. On standby, these run inefficiently at a reduced power level using more fuel for each kilowatt of electricity and giving off more emissions than when at full power. The assertion that there is always wind somewhere in the UK is incorrect.   There were several weeks of very calm weather across the UK in December, 2006.

What if the wind blows when the electricity is not needed?
Energy is wasted because there is no viable Grid version of a battery to store excess electricity.   Only a small amount of unwanted power can be saved for later by using it to pump water back into reservoirs.  It would be highly controversial to propose building the thousand reservoirs needed to store the otherwise wasted electricity produced by the thousands of wind turbines proposed.

What if there is far too much wind?
If wind rises strongly at the wrong time, the grid as it stands could be overloaded causing blackouts around the country.  If it blows too strongly the turbines have to be completely stopped anyway.  So energy is wasted.  But strong wind has brought other problems. 

In November 2007 near Campbeltown in Argyle, the tower of a turbine of half the height of those proposed for Pressendye bent over and collapsed during winds gusting to around 55mph.   For safety reasons, wind turbines of the same type had to be stopped.

What about ice and snow?
Small amounts of ice on wind turbine blades affect their aerodynamic performance and thus dramatically reduce the power generated by the turbine.    Furthermore, large ice accumulations from freezing rain or blown snow may cause turbine vibrations and structural failure.    Icing occurs most frequently at just below freezing point, a temperature which may occur on Pressendye at any time of year.

Can they get it just right?
Even if the wind blows at a usable strength at a time when people need electricity, it doesn’t always cut much pollution.   It is easier to shut down a less polluting gas power-station than a coal-fired power station.  A coal-fired power station gives off more than twice the emissions but can’t just be turned off like a gas power station.   When wind strength is forecast to be variable, Grid managers may even decide not to reduce output from conventional sources of power at all.   Sometimes no coal or gas is saved, no pollution prevented by wind factories.  

A large amount of energy is wasted because electricity heats up cables.  Over the whole Grid, this waste of energy is usually around 7% of all the power generated.  It can be 12% wastage over long-distance cables which connect wind factories to places where the electricity will actually be used.   If a remote wind turbine achieves an optimistic equivalent of 8 years at full output over its 25-year life, one of those years’ worth could be wasted heating the transmission cables.

These problems cancel out much of the energy and pollution savings claimed by the wind factory industry mainly because wind is unreliable:

“People don’t understand the importance of control.  The electricity system is highly controlled and we can’t just throw endless amounts of uncontrolled renewables onto it.”  (Jim Oswald, Consultant Engineer on Radio 4 on 30 August 2007.)   Like the wind, the growth of wind factories cannot continue unabated.  

Why not put all the claims made by the wind factory industry to the test at sea before ruining the Scottish landscape?   The subsidy system is at the root of this attack on the Scottish landscape.

By 2010 the UK government wants to get 10% of our electricity from renewables.   The wind factory contribution would be equivalent to at least 4500 large turbines.   There are around 1100 turbines of various sizes in the UK, 1400 in the pipeline.  There is therefore pressure from the industry to build many more.

In Scotland wind turbines generate on average only about a third of their maximum possible output (known as installed capacity or rating).   This is considered quite good.   Over the 25-year period the wind factory might be allowed to operate, this would in reality amount to about 8 years’ worth of electricity.    That is assuming no problems are encountered through breakdowns and worse.

PLANNING ISSUES
(top) Wind factories fall far short as a technical solution to the problems of generating electricity from renewable sources.   The other side of our case is to show why this unnecessary damage to the Scottish environment is happening.

There is no grand plan
If there were, it would surely be based on “Education…Insulation…Generation”.

Scotland’s energy policy has been devolved to the Scottish Government. The companies building wind factories are powerful multi-national concerns.  Planning guidelines are being changed, and the planning system is under pressure.

In November 2007, 95 out of 211 UK wind factory planning applications caught up in the planning system were in Scotland (dozens in Aberdeenshire alone).  A Cambridge Econometrics report predicted recently that the 2010 UK target for renewables will not be reached even by 2020, such is the backlog.   Other experts agree.

Jim Mather, Energy Minister for Scotland, has said recently that local authorities had been asked to prepare guidance on where onshore wind farms should be sited.   They are to identify areas where wind turbines would be inappropriate and unlikely to be approved. Work to identify locations for marine energy is beginning too.

At this point down the road towards a desperately needed strategy which takes into account new and emerging possibilites, it is surely time to pause as wind factories threaten the boundaries of our National Park.

Why was this site chosen?
The Government owns most of the land which is managed by the Forestry Commission (FC).  In making use of its assets to fulfil objectives set by the Government for renewable energy, the one “key performance measure” mentioned in a FC document is “net income from development activities”.  

In 2004 officials were approached by Danish company, Alpha Wind Energy, which claimed expertise in building wind “farms” partly through maintaining a high degree of community involvement.   Officials of the FC saw an opportunity for “more inclusive” consultations with the local community and for a “high degree of local consensus”.

Alpha and Powergen Community Power (now part of Germany company, Eon) were chosen as preferred bidders from a list of four developers.

The FC then chose West Coast Energy (WCE) which is the project manager representing Cushnie Wind Energy, a partnership between Italian company, Falck Renewables, and RDC Scotland.  Falck has stated that its interests are “very much aligned with the long term interests of the landowners”.   On the scale proposed the eventual rent paid to the FC could be well over £110,000 a year

Atmos Consulting/West Coast Energy is proposing a wind factory with some of the highest structures in Scotland.   They have referred to it in the press as a “smaller-scale” development in order to play down its undoubted impact.   As a major development it is being fast-tracked by the Council through the planning system under new procedures.   In terms of wind factory schemes this is a medium-scale development

Have the developers made you feel part of an “inclusive” process of consultation?

Who Decides?
WCE/Atmos has applied to the Marr Area Planning Committee of Aberdeenshire Council for permission to build the wind factory.

The Committee has the task of deciding whether the development is appropriate on this hill on planning grounds.   These are your representatives and you have the right to express your view before they consider the application.

What do planning authorities consider?
The impact of this large industrial scheme would be very far-reaching.   Issues are inter-related, but distinct areas are considered including landscape and visual impact, noise, the effect on the environment, the natural world, including ecological systems.   The planners weigh up how much the settings of historic buildings and monuments would be altered or spoiled and whether transport and communications will be affected.   Will the local community and the local economy benefit or lose out to wider considerations such as how effective wind turbines really are?   These are covered in detail under the “The Cost to” on the main menu.

Landscape
From this perspective, the most damaging effect of this large industrial installation would be to ruin part of an area specially chosen by Aberdeenshire Council for the importance of its landscape.    The wind factory will tower over the Howe of Cromar, which has been designated in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan (Policy Env\5b) as part of a “Tier 3 Area of Landscape Significance”.    The extent of this can be seen on the rough-and-ready the Main Proposals Map for the Marr Area.

There is therefore a strong case for the argument that building an industrial development on this scale on these hills would contravene the Local Plan and should not be permitted.  See section on Landscape on “The Costs” page.

Objections to five other proposed wind factories, which would tower over parts of the Cairngorms National Park, have been submitted to the EU Environment Commissioner.   Such developments might be in breach of EU legislation to protect sensitive areas and landscapes.

Table 4.2 in Chapter 4 of the developers’ Environmental Statement summarises Council planning officials’ preliminary observations on the proposal from the perspective of policies laid down in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan.   There is cause for concern.

Objectors to this particularly inappropriate industrial development are not just NIMBYs - unless an area of hundreds of square kilometres is regarded as a “backyard”.  The Council considers that communities within an area of over 1250 sqr kilometres of the scheme should be considered eligible for a form of compensation for “planning loss” of amenity, etc.   Any “handouts” could therefore be very thin on the ground.

The developers consider the site to be “remote”, which is likely to give the impression that the wind factory would have little effect on our lives.   This is far from the truth.   It is not possible in any sense to conceive of the rolling lower landscape of the howes as detached from their narrow upland rims.   The lowlands of the howes can be seen as surrounding the hills and vice versa.   This is an entirely integrated landscape.

Environment
Planning officials, residents and visitors to the area will wish to consider the effect of the wind factory on the environment.  For example, local residents are extremely concerned about the effect on water supplies of dumping many hundreds, possibly thousands, of tonnes of concrete used for bases on Pressendye.   It appears that these massive lumps of concrete would be left there potentially changing the soils, water quality and availability forever.   In the event that they are around in 25 years time to “reinstate” the site, the developers are trying to get away with removing only the top part of the concrete bases.

Economy and Recreation
It’s not just tourists who would be put off.   Regular visitors and residents using Pressendye for recreation would go elsewhere.   Even those who are initially curious would find that the turbines so dominate the experience of being on the local hills that they, too, would go elsewhere.   This would generate more road-miles.  But if everywhere else in Scotland is affected, too, where will people find unspoilt countryside and wilderness?   Abroad, in all likelihood, generating more air-miles.   These are all extra costs to us and the environment - on top of higher charges for electricity.

The benefits from the creation of a relatively small number of short-term local jobs are minimal compared to the potential long-term losses of visitors to the area.

Does the business and technical case matter?

The Planning Committee doesn’t ask whether a scheme is worth the effort for the developer.
Councillors don’t consider business or technical issues not related to “planning”.  

However, as most of wind factory owners’ income (60%) is obtained through subsidies, they can in effect ignore issues of cost-effectiveness as well as the true contribution to electricity generation and CO2 reduction.  

It was a political decision to make subsidies for wind factories so high. You have a right to be concerned about the way in which the massive subsidies are driving such schemes.   You can tell the planners that, when the wind factory industry doesn’t make its dream a reality, rural communities will have sacrificed a great deal for these concrete and metal monuments to folly.

REALISTIC ALTERNATIVES
(top)

A positive campaign against wind
Our opposition to inappropriate wind factories is partly based on the fact that there are less intrusive, more reliable alternatives which are realistic and affordable.   Some sea-based schemes, above and below the surface, would be large-scale but can be located nearer to centres of population.   Other land-based schemes would be smaller-scale but much more reliable than wind.   Micro-schemes installed by individual householders can reduce demand on the grid to a small extent.

Donald Snow, energy consultant, says that we are at the “Wright Bros” stage in renewables. …The notion of renewable resources demands different attitudes and approaches from all levels of society… There are great degrees of sophistication yet to be achieved, and perhaps we haven’t begun to think about it deeply enough.( 20 Nov 2007, Radio 4)

Insulation and energy saving
Energy saving is the first step to consider.   The money given in subsidies (£1billion a year by 2010) to wind factory owners could be used up to 4 times more effectively to reduce CO2 and fossil-fuel use and consequently CO2 emissions through better insulation and low-energy products such as lightbulbs 

Several years ago, officials were shocked at the huge amounts of heat loss from modern homes in Kingswells, near Aberdeen, because of poor insulation.

Most people agree that the first thing we can do is save energy and use less.   Yet in 2006, an extra £10 million for research into renewables was to be paid for by a cut in the UK energy conservation (ie, insulation) budget.   So much for the strategy.  

Emissions targets could be achieved right now without cost or even inconvenience to the consumer by avoiding energy wastage.   Considerable savings could be made by increasing awareness of excessive energy use (lights left on in homes and offices, unnecessary use of floodlights, electric kettles, not leaving appliances on standby, etc.).

If the majority of UK households switched off appliances rather than leaving them on standby, the energy saved would be equal to the output of 160 wind factories of the size proposed for Pressendye.

Similar savings can be made through other simple measures like improving insulation in existing and newly-built houses, replacing conventional incandescent light bulbs with low-energy ones, etc.   Together these would easily account for several coal-fired power stations or several hundred large onshore wind factories.

If we look at Scotland’s resources, we can see the landscape doesn’t have to be the scapegoat for the lack of forethought and appropriate action.

Water everywhere
Less damaging ways of generating electricity are being installed now or are under development.   UK know-how could be used extensively to put us at the forefront of potentially huge revenues from manufacturing equipment used for renewable power generation.   These are offshore wind, wave and tidal energy and river power generation.   Problems, such as corrosion caused by sea water, are being tackled.

Offshore wind factories
On 10 December 2007 the UK government announced a massive expansion of offshore wind factory construction amounting to around 7000 turbines.   This, it is claimed, would be enough to provide electricity for all UK homes but how this can be achieved has yet to be demonstrated.

At last the UK government seems prepared to test all the claims made by some politicians and the industry for wind power at sea before ruining the Scottish landscape.   Now is a good time to stop the onshore assault. 

The wind blows more strongly and reliably at sea.   The Thames Array has now passed the planning stage.   With 270 turbines it will be the largest wind factory in the world, sensibly sited close to where the electricity is needed.   An even larger one is proposed for the Bristol Channel.   The Atlantic Array would consist of up to 370 turbines.

The world’s biggest off-shore turbine is being developed under Project Britannia by American company Clipper Windpower at the New and Renewable Energy Centre at Blyth in Northumberland.  It will have a maximum output of 7.5 MW – two to five times the maximum output of one proposed for  Pressendye.  

River Turbines
The hydro-dynamic screw is coming to a river near you.   In a private scheme, (a river turbine) generating about enough electricity for Strathdon, is being installed in the River Don.   Based on the 2000yr old Archimedes screw, it is unobtrusive, generates electricity much more reliably than wind turbines and is fish-friendly.   The same type of river generator is to be placed in the River Goyt in New Mills in Derbyshire.   There, a share prospectus is being issued to allow local people to get involved in a major part of the funding of the scheme. Clearly Scotland’s rivers aren’t about to dry up and most areas are well served with rivers of sufficient size.

Tidal and wave power
Tidal turbines are to be installed on the seabed in Ramsey Sound off St David’s in Pembrokeshire. In November 2007, British company Lunar Energy announced that, in conjunction with E.On, they would be building the world's first deep-sea tidal-energy “farm” and will provide electricity for around 5,000 homes. Eight underwater turbines, each 25 metres long and 15 metres high, are to be installed on the seabed.   Construction is due to start in the summer of 2008 and the tidal energy turbines should be operational by 2010.   Tidal power is predictable and reliable.   UK has abundant tidal and wave energy.

Solar Power Cells
The latest technology using silicon solar tiles has the potential to reduce future costs to one hundredth of current costs (£18,000 for a domestic 40 sqr metre array)  Fulfilment of the potential of solar power is now considered practicable.

Bio-gas generators
Holsworthy Bio-gas plant in North Devon uses bacteria to break down cattle slurry and food processing waste into methane gas.    The gas is burned to generate electricity for the local town (over 1000 homes).    Problem waste is turned into a resource.   Unlike wind, the gas can be stored to increase output at times of higher demand for electricity.   Throughout the UK the industry and local authorities produce 15 – 20 million tonnes of waste every year.   Much of this could easily be processed in bio-gas plants.   There are many of these in Germany, particularly on farms where they help to reduce the risk of slurry contamination of the environment.

Non-generating technologies
While not necessarily involving the production of electricity, renewable resources such as burning forest waste and reclaimed wood can reduce demand for electricity used for heating.   10% of the UK’s current heating requirements could be fulfilled without planting more trees.   The Forestry Commission says 2 million hectares of currently unmanaged forest could be brought into energy production.   Computer control and sensors are being applied to the age-old concept of burning wood
Utilising “waste” heat from power stations (combined heat and power) saves electricity.
Ground-source heat exchangers produce heat from pipes buried in the ground.
Solar panels plumbed into existing heating systems are relatively easy to install and are low-maintenance.

COMPARING COUNTRIES
(top)

Denmark
A growing number of Danes are resisting further damage to their landscape.  The Danish Government, however, regards the landscape as a shop window for its industry.

In 2005 wind turbines in Denmark actually produced about a quarter of their maximum possible amount, and consumers were able to use only part of that for themselves. They had to send a large proportion abroad, often sold at a loss, just because the wind blows at the wrong time.    How did they know it was electricity from wind which was being exported?   Over 2005/6 it has been shown that hour by hour the rise in electricity production from wind closely matches any rise in exported electricity.

For this reason, wind’s contribution to fulfilling total Danish electricity demand was not, as claimed, 18.7% (17% in 2006) but in reality just 13.6% (10.3% in 2006).

Mainland Europe is well served with “interconnector” powerlines, so at least electricity can be transferred between countries.   Scotland has a single link with England and one with Northern Ireland.  There is one link across the channel, so, as things stand, any surplus could not easily be sold abroad.

Germany
The German power generator, E.ON, admits that, as the number of wind turbines grows, even more coal and gas power-stations must be built as backup.   This is why, by 2020, it estimates that the overall part played by electricity from wind will have fallen from 8% to 4% of total electricity consumed in Germany. Germany has a programme to construct 27 new coal-fire power stations inspite of its large number of wind factories.

Germany leads the world in solar powered electricity generation with the construction of the largest solar power station (40Mw).   They claim that by 2050 all energy could come from renewables - if the sun shines and the wind blows.

France
President Sarkozy recently announced the end of the rush across the countryside which has characterised French policy on wind turbines.   Brownfield sites will be preferred in future.  Areas of the traditional French countryside, which have so far escaped ruin, will be protected.   Property prices in these areas are expected to rise, indicating how desperate people are to avoid wind factories.  The French tourist industry has had a partial reprieve.   

In contrast, the Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee wants to increase income from tourism by 50% before 2015 while the Government intends to carry on covering Scotland with wind factories at an even faster rate than before.    This reveals a difference in the perception of a critical situation.