.
For all the latest news go to
scotlandagainstspin.org
24 January 2018
Fyne Homes to build community wind farm in Argyll and Bute
The project is only the second community renewable energy project led by a Scottish housing agency

Housing association Fyne Homes is to build a three turbine community wind farm in Argyll and Bute.
Triodos Bank is providing £11.4 million to support the development and the Scottish Investment Bank, the investment arm of Scottish Enterprise, is making a £2.82 million investment via the Renewable Energy Investment Fund.

The Argyll and Bute project is only the second community renewable energy project led by a Scottish housing agency, the first being Berwickshire Housing Association's 19GW three turbine community wind farm at Hoprigshiels Farm, near Cockburnspath, which launched last year to support the delivery of new housing.
Fyne Homes said the 6.9-megawatt wind farm development, at Auchadaduie, Glenbarr in the Kintyre Peninsula, has been 10 years in the planning.

Alan Hobbit, previously of Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust, first came up with the idea for the Auchadaduie development, and the project is now being taken forward by Fyne Futures, supported by parent company, Fyne Homes.
The 6.9-megawatt wind farm will meet the power needs of around 4,000 households at optimum output.
Fyne Homes estimates the development will deliver £15.6 million of community and charitable benefit over the next 20 years.
The project is expected to deliver an average of £750,000 in community benefit each year, which will be split equally across three community initiatives: supporting social housing charitable objectives led by Fyne Homes; charitable employability and environmental priorities led by Fyne Futures; and investment in local community identified priorities. Thats two thirds to Fyne Homes/Futures community & one third will be invested in local priorities identified by the local community.

Colin Renfrew, chief executive of Fyne Homes, said: “We are appreciative that Triodos Bank and Scottish Investment Bank recognise the economic, social and environmental value of our three turbine development, providing essential investment to make the project a reality.
Kerry Sharp, director of the Scottish Investment Bank, said: “After ten years of development, we are delighted to help secure this investment in Scotland.

2 January 2018
Huge areas of forest destroyed to make way for 7 wind farms – Scottish Daily Mail
 By Dean Herbert

Forestry chiefs have been accused of ‘desecrating’ Scotland’s countryside after felling almost 6,500 acres of woodland to make way for wind turbines.
Alarming figures show that vast swathes of forestry have been cleared to make way for just seven wind farms in unspoiled countryside in only two years.
One development in Kintyre saw 1,300 acres of woodland felled, while another in Caithness saw 1,000 acres cleared to make way for turbines.
Documents published by the Forestry Commission Scotland indicate that less than half of the forestry destroyed in the creation of wind farms has either been replanted or is earmarked for replanting.
In 2012, then First Minister Alex Salmond claimed the spread of wind farms ‘enhances our appeal as a country’.
But experts have warned that Scotland’s booming tourism industry could be damaged by the replacement of forestry with industrial wind turbines.
Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation think-tank, said: ‘This has been happening in other parts of Europe for some time. People in Scotland are not as aware of it because the forestry is not close to population centres.
‘Many of these forms of renewable energy have far greater impact on the environment than simply building a power plant.
‘By building wind farms they are destroying huge areas of forestry for very little effect and are desecrating large parts of beautiful countryside, which can only damage Scotland as a tourism destination.’
The figures show that between 2014 and 2016, a total of 6,409 acres of forestry were felled to make way for wind farm developments – the equivalent of ten square miles.
A further 795 acres of forestry has yet to be felled at the A’Cruach wind farm near Ardrishaig, Argyll.
At three developments – Beinn an Tuirc near Campbeltown, Argyll and Stroupster and Burn of Whilk in Caithness – none of the 3,300 acres of forestry felled has been replanted.
The largest deforestation took place at Harestanes wind farm near Moffat, Dumfriesshire, where 1,690 acres were felled. However, 1,124 of these acres have been replanted.
Officials said 1,252 acres have been replanted and 1,406 have yet to be replaced across all seven wind farms.
Tory environment spokesman Donald Cameron said: ‘Wind farms are part of our energy mix but we must ask if destroying so many trees and dramatically changing the landscape is a worthwhile trade-off when wind farms could be sited elsewhere.
‘This does look like the SNP is so obsessed with onshore wind energy that it doesn’t mind destroying forestry to make way for it. We can’t just trade one environmental resource for another.’
A spokesman for Forest Enterprise Scotland, the part of Forestry Commission Scotland responsible for the management of forests, said:
‘We have strong controls on woodland removal.
‘The amount felled for these wind farms equates to 0.4 per cent of the total area of public land managed by Forest Enterprise Scotland.
‘Two-thirds of woodland felled will be replanted or become restored habitats, with the small remainder used for wind farm infrastructure.’


21 December 2017
Clachaig Glen Windfarm, Land North East Of Muasdale, Argyll And Bute – Appeal
21 December 2017
Section 36 Application For The Proposed Killean Wind Farm


9th December 2016
RES unveils Argyll ambition

RES has filed to build an around 56MW wind farm on the Kintyre peninsula in Argyll and Bute, Scotland.
The developer has submitted Section 36 paperwork in support of the 17-turbine Killean project near Tayinloan, where tips are set at 149.9 metres.
RES trimmed the project from a 20-unit scoping layout on the site, which is a mix of commercial forestry and moorland.
Senior development manager Louise Davis said: “A wind farm at Killean could provide significant benefits to the local economy as it would represent a major inward investment in the area."
She added: “We have selected a taller turbine at Killean which we believe is acceptable within the landscape and will optimise the amount of electricity that can be generated with fewer turbines.
"Onshore wind is the least expensive form of large scale low carbon electricity and by utilising wind energy at a site like Killean we are helping to make an important transition to a low cost, low carbon future for Scotland – great for consumers and our economy.”
Scottish ministers will determine the application with the local authority acting as a statutory consultee.
Documents here
RES completes Freasdail sale for £18.5m
The Renewables Infrastructure Group (TRIG) has completed the acquisition of the 22.55MW Freasdail wind farm in Argyll & Bute in Scotland from the company’s operations manager Renewable Energy Systems (RES).
The deal concluded under the company’s right-of-first-offer agreement with RES for a total consideration of £18.5m including project completion costs.
TRIG said the project is in an advanced stage of construction and is expected to be commissioned in the first quarter of 2017.
The wind farm will comprise 11 Senvion MM82 2.05MW turbines.
It will be accredited under the UK’s 20-year 0.9 Renewables Obligation Certificate per MWh support regime.
RES has been retained by TRIG to complete the final stages of building and commissioning the project.
Freasdail has a 15-year power purchase agreement including a floor price with Vattenfall Energy Trading.
Long-term finance for the project has been provided by KfW Ipex-Bank, fully amortising over 15 years.
The deal increases TRIG’s portfolio net generating capacity 708MW. 
Source:
renews.biz/105219/res-unveils-argyll-ambition/
9th December 2016
Jobs lost as Kintyre Way charity in crisis
EXCLUSIVE by MARK DAVEY
editor@campbeltowncourier.co.uk
THE CHARITABLE company which manages the Kintyre Way has made its employees redundant due to a cashflow crisis.
On Monday, voluntary directors from The Long and Winding Way Ltd told workers, whom they described as ‘gutted’, that there is no money left in the coffers to pay salaries.
Kintyre Way chairman Niall Mcalister-Hall said: ‘We would like to thank the staff for all their enthusiasm and positivity.
‘We are endeavouring to find a way to keep the company running and the route maintained.’
Just 18 months ago it all looked so different. In March 2015, staff and directors celebrated having completed the 100-mile route at its new finishing point in Machrihanish.
Earlier this year the Kintyre Way was a final ist in the 2016 Scottish Outdoor and Leisure Awards and the logo is displayed on its Facebook page.
Funding has been an issue for the charity since last year. Its accounts on the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator’s website show an expenditure of £168,501 in 2015 against an income of £150,991.
Capital money for the charity has historically come from a variety of sources, including lottery funding through the Coastal Communities Fund which just a year ago, in December 2015, gave £100,000.
In addition, renewable energy firm RES pledged £30,000 in 2012 and gave a further £10,000 last year.
Argyll and Bute Council gave the charity £10,000 a year for marketing but has now said: ‘It will consider information as it is presented.’
Funds have been used to improve the Way, such as installing picnic benches, shel ters and boardwalks. Just last month there was major path reconstruction around the Clachan bogs and a new bridge designed and manufactured in the Way’s workshop at Hazelburn Business Park.
The grants have paid salaries for its marketing officer and Way manager and two trainees who have all now lost their livelihoods.
A portent of the current financial troubles came in February 2015 when Kintyre Way’s management presented a document to Argyll and Bute Council titled: ‘Kintyre Way Emergency Funding Proposal.’
The document explained that the Way urgently needed £40,000 per annum to continue to employ staff and maintain the path.
Of the requested money £3,000 was for maintenance, with £22,000 for one salary, vehicle costs of £5,000, £2,400 for the Hazelburn workshop, £2,500 insurance and employability mon ey for the trainees of £6,000.
To support the bid, it was claimed, at that time, that the Way brought £800,000 into the Kintyre economy.
That bid failed to gain the backing of Argyll and Bute council.
A RES spokesperson said: ‘RES has been a proud supporter of the Kintyre Way and its goals for a number of years. It is saddened by the news today – particularly for those whose jobs are directly affected.’
The charity’s directors stressed that next year’s improved Kin-tyre Way ultra-marathon is unaffected by the problems as it is self financing with 53 mountain bikers and 60 runners already committed.

Sneddon Law Windfarm Water Supplies and Rights of Representation – Clarion Call for Help from
Dr Rachel Connor
24 November 2016
Dear Everyone,
We now have more evidence of the potential for the Sneddon Law Windfarm to seriously affect our water supplies, with the recently published Sneddon Law WF Private Water Supply Risk Assessment (PWS RA): https://app.box.com/s/61683trl1bryoq9sjlyp1wvffufpk945
As you know, Sneddon Law Windfarm was originally permitted by East Ayrshire Council in 2012. It has taken Community Windpower Ltd (CWL) nearly five years to commission this PWSRA. This has only happened because EAC refused, In January 2016, to discharge the planning condition that was supposed to protect people’s water supplies.
As a result of that refusal, CWL have submitted an Appeal to the Scottish Government (DPEA) and this PWS planning condition is now due to be considered at a public Hearing, probably at the Fenwick starting on 9 January 2017. In view of the large number of PWS now deemed to be at significant risk, with their owners/consumers left completely in the dark about the risk to their homes, families and businesses until very recently, that Hearing has now been rescheduled to allow for public comment. It is my very earnest hope that you will come along and be heard.
The PWS RA report is from the developer’s own expert consultants and witnesses (Geohydrologists MacArthur Green) which (at last) lists 8 PWS as now being at major risk for loss of, or pollution to their PWS and 12 PWS as being at moderate risk. Twenty private water supplies in total are considered to be at significant risk, applying the appropriate Environmental Impact Regulations. All of these PWS now considered to be at significant risk are outside SEPA’s designated 250m ‘one size fits all’ buffer zone. This is SEPA’s rule of thumb for the minimum distance for a water source to lie from a windfarm related excavation of more than 1 metre in depth (ie borrow pits or turbine foundations.) This rule of thumb is “designed” to provide absolute protection for private water supplies. But it does not do that.
There is, however, one large water source at Sneddon Law which is supplying three stock farms and a trout fishery. This diffuse source, as yet unidentified and uncharted by CWL seems likely to be within the windfarm boundary and perhaps within 250m of high risk excavations of >1m. Its omission is inexplicable.
You will see at once that this throws some doubt on the credibility of SEPA’s Planning Guidance (known as LUPG 31) which tells windfarm developers that 250m is a safe buffer distance, so as to protect water supplies.
Despite repeated requests from the Council over the past four years to review information for Sneddon Law windfarm, SEPA have repeatedly discharged any concerns related to their interests- which includes the protection of surface and groundwater in the environment . Once again, as they did for the WL3 Extension Public Inquiry, SEPA have declined the invitation by the Reporter to attend and contribute to the PWS Hearing for Sneddon Law WF.
What then are the facts?
Sneddon Law WF is adjacent to and surrounded by Whitelee WF on three sides and it shares much of the same solid geology and surface structure as Whitelee WF.
In the decision notice for the Whitelee WF 3 Extension, issued only in October 2016, 20 months after the Inquiry, I was criticised by Scottish Power and the Reporters as being unqualified to draw my conclusions as to how so many water supplies during that windfarm construction were either lost completely (four in total) or suffered serious contamination with sediment and bacteria. The Whitelee Extension 3 Public Inquiry in June 2015 lasted almost a week and dealt largely with the alleged impact caused by constructing Whitelee WF original and its two Extensions (2006 -2013) on public and private water supplies as well as on surface and groundwater. Permission was ultimately refused for “landscape” reasons.
The difference this time is a that a proper water risk assessment, commissioned by the developer has (at the fourth attempt) used the same background geohydrological risks to draw many of the same conclusions as we were able to draw at the Whitelee 3 Inquiry. On this occasion, therefore, CWL cannot cast doubt on the evidence, the conclusions and the credibility of their own experts.
Rural dwellers rely on their private water supplies and usually have no alternative supplies. They are more vulnerable to contamination and pollution than public water supplies. I believe that it should not be the case in 21st Century Scotland that our citizens have to fight for the right to protect and maintain their water supplies in a clean and wholesome condition. Water is a basic human right and a requirement for life. There have been several successful human rights cases based on pollution of PWS in Europe , not just because of pollution by commercial developers but by also local authorities. So elsewhere, this is a live issue.
The Scottish Government always state publicly that windfarms are only consented if they’re in the right place. So I ask the question – how can constructing a windfarm which jeopardises people’s water supplies and livelihoods possibly be construed as being ‘ in the right place’?
How can a developer be allowed to submit an Environmental Statement (ES) which is so deficient that it fails to list almost all the PWS that are now deemed to be at major risk of either pollution (loss of quality) or loss of quantity, or loss altogether? It is extraordinary that the original ES from 2011 listed only six PWS as being at risk. All were then deemed to be at negligible risk apart from one, (Craigends) now owned by CWL and intended to be mothballed, with the property rendered uninhabitable. The information now available that 20 PWS were at significant risk from the development was not before the Council when it awarded consent in 2012. To their credit, EAC now recognise this. They have a policy that any planning application likely to affect water supplies would be regarded as a deemed refusal, in line with the EU’s Water Framework Directive.
Why then was this critical environmental information omitted from the Environmental Statement? Was it done on purpose? Was it done carelessly? Is the omission part of a bigger picture which we cannot see? Nobody knows, and nobody will say.
I believe that this failure to provide such important environmental information before a decision to award Planning Permission consent should be questioned? How can Permission be regarded as being competent if there is missing information which would be contrary to existing law? Because the new PWS RA, just lodged with the Reporter highlights so many PWS which will be at risk, along with the livelihoods of three farms, a trout fishery and country sports facility, the Reporter has agreed that this new information needs public notification, as is required under the Åarhus convention and under current EIA regulations.
The DPEA has now provided clarification as to where this information can be found and where public comment can be submitted. This is enclosed in the attached letter.
I know everyone is weary of objecting to windfarms that are not in their own backyard, but the implications of this Appeal are immense, not just to ensure that in future, developers submit complete and accurate Environmental Statements and Water Supply risk assessments, but also that the public are given the chance to exercise their right to comment on potentially vital environmental impacts.
These concerns are, by law, properly considered before deciding an application, while all questions are still open and at large for the decisionmaker. They should not be decided after granting permission.
I AM THEREFORE WRITING TO ASK FOR YOUR HELP. OUR COMMUNITY COUNCIL NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS OCCASION LIKE NO OTHER.
The public have until 21st December 2016 to submit comment on this PWS RA.
Comments are to be sent to the case Officer, Colin Bell: Colin.Bell@gov.scot The full case can be viewed at www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk case No PPA-190-2058 and at
https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?ID=117448 When you look at this website, please be persistent. The data is quite hard to find. You will see that the DPEA have somewhat obscured the issue, by lumping the much more important Water Supply Appeal (PPA-190-2054) under another concurrent appeal for Sneddon Law windfarm relating to the issue of a Financial Bond (PPA 190-2058).
This means that anyone trying to navigate the DPEA website may find it difficult to find the information and notifications related to the PWS Hearing. To repeat, the case will be heard, probably at the Fenwick Hotel, on 9 January 2017 starting at 1000.
Your support is vital. If you can also come to the Appeal, that too would be so very helpful. Please do consider objecting and forward this to as many people as possible. Summary bullet points, which you may find helpful to include in your comments are listed at the end.
Best wishes,
Rachel Connor ( Chair Moscow and Waterside Community Council)
Summary Points.
1. This Windfarm should not have been awarded consent by either the Council in 2012, or DPEA in 2014, without a complete and accurate ES, which required a private water supply risk assessment.
2. Twenty homes and rural business’ water supplies are now at significant risk from this development, which were not identified before consent was awarded.
3. Should water supplies be affected, the developer’s solution is to provide bottled water for 24 hours and thereafter, either bowser or tanker water. Anyone who has a washing machine or a barn full of cattle will realise this is completely impractical and inadequate.
4. The stated major risks of affecting water quality not only risks public health by virtue of contaminating water, but it risks the welfare and business of farm animals and a trout fishery, which is dependent on clean, unchlorinated water.
5. If Water supplies are affected, it will be because groundwater is either contaminated or groundwater flows have been altered by quarrying or construction. These effects are likely to last months and may be permanent. Such changes are contrary to the Water Framework Directive and transposed Scots Law.
6. None of the PWS which may be affected, have any financial guarantee embedded in the consent documents that require the developer to reinstate PWS quantity or quality and local residents have been excluded from ensuring that this occurs.
7. Under the Aarhus convention and EU Law, this new environmental information must be publicised and the public have a right to comment on this and for their comments to be heard, considered and recorded in the decision making process.

Ministers still waving through windfarms
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party press office
Sunday, November 6, 2016
FAO: all newsdesks
Embargo: for immediate release
Two-thirds of windfarm applications rejected by local authorities have been overturned by the Scottish Government so far this year.
Research has revealed, of the 17 appeals submitted to and ruled upon by ministers in Edinburgh, 11 have been allowed, with the Scottish Government backing councils on just six occasions.
It means windfarm developers have a success rate on appeal of 64 per cent.
The SNP has been consistently criticised for obsessing with wind energy at the expense of other sources.
Communities across Scotland have complained about too many turbines spoiling local scenery, while some councils have even asked for moratoriums to be put in place to cope with the influx of planning applications.
Yet despite claiming to respect local democracy, the SNP has repeatedly overruled decisions made by councillors and planners.
On top of the 11 windfarm applications overturned in 2016, the Scottish Government planning reporter has been even more likely to wave through appeals for solitary turbine applications.
Of the 10 applications submitted, local authorities have been sided with on just three occasions.
The Scottish Conservatives said this was more evidence of prioritising wind energy over other more reliable sources, and centralising decisions that should be made locally.
Scottish Conservative energy spokesman Alexander Burnett said:
“The SNP’s obsession with onshore wind energy is damaging Scotland’s countryside and ruining local democracy.
“Too often, when these applications are lodged, the people say no, council planners say no and local elected representatives say no.
“You’d think the Scottish Government would respect this, yet still we see ministers in Edinburgh pulling ranks and acting like they know what’s best for rural Scotland.
“Of course wind energy has a place in Scotland’s energy mix, but only when the turbines are not ruining local scenery and upsetting those who have to see them every day.
“The SNP should be opening its mind to other sources like shale extraction, especially at a time when our coal-powered facilities are running out.
“But instead, it’s continuing on its bloody-minded path of having Scotland’s countryside plastered with unreliable and intermittent windfarms.”
Ends
Notes to editors:
Below is a list of the windfarm applications which have been successfully appealed to the Scottish Government so far in 2016:
Kenly Farm, Boarhills, St Andrews
Cairnhill, Turiff, Aberdeenshire
Kittymuir Farm, Millheugh Road, Stonehouse
Larbrax, Leswalt, Stranraer
Halsary Wind Farm, Halsary Forest, Watten, Near Wick
Achlachan 2 Windfarm, Watten
Auchentirrie Farm, Rothesay, Isle of Bute
Land North East and North West of Farmhouse Braidlie, Hawick, Borders
Land at Barwhillanty Estate and Glenswinton Farm, Parton, Castle Douglas
Camilty Plantation, Harburn, West Calder
Land North and East of Corlic Hill, Greenock
Below is a list of those appeals that were rejected in the same timeframe:
Land to the North West of Blair Farm, Glasgow Road, Kilmarnock
California Wind Park Development, Land North of A75m Between Gatehouse of Fleet and Creetown
Blackshaw Farm, West Kilbride, Ayrshire
Brown Muir Hill, Rothes, Moray
Straid Farm, near Pinmore Station, Lendalfoot, South Ayrshire
Land South East of Halmyre Farmhouse, Romanno Bridge, Borders
For more information, visit:
http://www.dpea.scotland.gov. uk/CaseSearch.aspx?T=2
Adam Morris
Head of Media
Scottish Conservatives
0131 348 5615
07876 396 334
adam.morris@parliament.scot
Twitter: @adammorrisedin
Graham Lang chair of campaigning group Scotland Against Spin said
“Where on shore wind is concerned the Scottish Government does not respect local democracy and are a target driven autocracy. No one knows better that the Energy Minister Paul Wheelhouse, as a resident in the Scottish Borders where some areas are saturated with turbines, the depth of well founded planning based objections from Local Authorities, Community Councils and thousands of individuals. People are entitled to wonder if there is pro-wind bias among Reporters determining appeals and those advising Scottish Scottish Ministers”


Why there shouldn’t be more subsidies
28 October 2016

Please note below are the notes Linda Holt used for her interview with BBC Scotland today. It will be used in an upcoming feature on Scottish Power who are working their socks off erecting turbines to grab as much ROC subsidy as possible before the March 2017 cut-off date, and who want to make the case, backed by Scottish Renewables of course, that the industry needs continuing subsidy in one form or another.
Why there shouldn’t be more subsidies
The simple answer is that we can’t afford them. The UK government cut subsidies for new schemes because it was going to blow its own budget under the Levy Control Framework 1. In the end the cost of subsidies to the wind sector is paid for by all of us on our electricity bills which people are already struggling with. We’ve spent £9 billion since 2002 subsidising the wind industry 2.
The Government has to balance the interests of onshore wind developers with those of the wider public.
Wind power may be the cheapest form of power to produce for the producer – because he gets subsidies – but it’s by far from the cheapest for the consumer who pays for the subsidies plus the additional costs of transmission and back-up.
The wind industry likes to say that the cost of producing wind energy is falling – that’s true for the generator – but the fall in cost is not being passed on to consumers, who just see their bills increasing as more subsidized wind comes on line.
A comparison of the costs of several forms of generation in the UK puts the average cost of new gas generation at £68/MWh and onshore wind at £190/MWh when backup and infrastructure costs are included. With the current ROC subsidy of £45/MWh, the price to the consumer will be greater still 3.
These costs – generation, transmission and subsidies – make up about three quarters of domestic electricity bills. Thus when all consumer-borne costs are taken into account the cheapest wind generated electricity is likely to be costing consumers about three times as much as electricity generated from gas. This puts even the guaranteed strike price of £92/MWh for Hinkley C, which being both controllable and on an existing site will incur few of the additional costs, into perspective4.
A cheap bid price does not mean cheap electricity for consumers because of additional costs due to transmission and back up. Significant amounts of wind energy in the energy mix distort the market.
Of course developers in Scotland like Scottish Power – which incidentally isn’t Scottish but Spanish – are feeling more pain from the subsidy cut than developers in England because Scotland has had a – and is still receiving – a disproportionate amount of subsidy. Only 8% of the UK population lives in Scotland, but it received 24% of the Renewable Obligation payments in 2014/15 5. In the last Contracts for Difference round, Scottish projects won 11 of the 25 contracts awarded6.
I think the UK and Scottish Governments agree that affordability is the key to decarbonisation – both have an overriding duty to ensure value for money for consumers. Now renewable energy costs have been falling across the board and onshore wind is a mature technology which is reaching the point where it can be deployed without subsidy. Of course that means the industry can’t just stick the odd turbine anywhere and expect to turn a profit, as they could in the past – it means they have to select sites with good wind resource and infrastructure, and look at economies of scale, but there’s plenty of evidence to suggest developers are doing just that.
No market stays static, and just because wind developers have had the most luxurious insulation against the ups and downs of the energy market in the past doesn’t mean they can expect consumers to featherbed them forever. The only justification of subsidies is to get new industries off the ground until they can stand on their own two feet and we’ve done that with onshore wind.
It’s now time that subsidy money stopped going into the pockets of shareholders outside Scotland and went into R & D on other renewable technologies like wave and tidal which have huge potential in Scotland. And this is what the UK Gov is doing in that it’s announced three more competitive CFD auctions this Parliament for less established technologies. The three auctions will offer up to £730 million of annual support over 15 years7.
Did the industry know? Well, this wasn’t some coup d’etat. There was an Energy Bill which was properly consulted on – in fact because of stakeholder engagement longer grace periods were introduced – , debated etc and the Conservatives had cutting onshore wind subsidy in their manifesto. It had been on the cards for years before that because we were reaching capacity with onshore wind – in terms of targets (15% renewable electricity by 2020), cost (Levy Control Framework) and the potential for decarbonisation within the electricity mix – but of course nobody thought the Conservatives were going to win the 2015 general election. That was the real shock for the industry.
UK Gov: “The deployment of renewables in Scotland continues to rise, driven by the support received as a result of UK government policies. According to BEIS’ latest quarterly energy trends, set out in the chart below, total deployment of renewables in Scotland stood at over 7.7GW in 2015, a rise of six per cent on 2014 and of 57% compared with 2008. Scotland’s total renewable electricity capacity accounts for around a quarter of total UK capacity in 2015 (30.5GW).
Looking forward, we expect significant further deployment in Scotland over the coming years. The majority of onshore wind projects that qualified for the Renewables Obligation early closure grace period are expected be in Scotland, as are 10 of the 15 onshore wind projects that were successfully allocated a CFD. The 588MW Beatrice offshore wind project in the Outer Moray Firth will begin offshore construction in 2017 and the 92.4MW European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre off Aberdeenshire is expected to be operational in 2018. There is also a significant pipeline of projects—including 1,116MW of offshore wind—which have planning consent and can deploy subject to their success in any future CFD auction.” 8
A market stabilization CFD is a subsidy by another name, and although the UK gov is considering this, it will cost money, we don’t need more onshore wind and very many people – especially Conservative voters but not only – don’t want more onshore turbines. So I think it unlikely the industry will get this.
Around 60% of the UK’s onshore wind capacity is located in Scotland, and there are over 15 GW of renewable projects currently contracted with National Grid to connect in Scotland within the next decade. This shows that transmission charges are not deterring renewable generators from connecting in Scotland9.
“It should be noted that energy policy, including support for low carbon technologies and CCS, is a reserved matter and the responsibility of the UK Government. “The Government strongly believes that maintaining a fully integrated single energy market for Great Britain benefits all consumers in England, Wales and Scotland In particular it ensures continuing security of supply and promoting competition in generation”10.
Constraint payments: necessary to balance grid so National Grid pays wind farms to switch off when windy. In 2015 £90 million was paid by consumers to w/farms to switch off – transferred from the pockets of the poor to the pockets of the rich in order to sustain an unsustainable electricity production mirage11.
The more turbines we put up, the more we have to constrain.
References

1. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmscotaf/741/74102.htm
2. http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/238-the-probable-cost-of-uk-renewable-electricity-subsidies-2002-2030
3. http://www.bordersnetwork.co.uk/421021526
4. http://www.bordersnetwork.co.uk/421021526
5. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmscotaf/741/74102.htm
6. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmscotaf/741/74102.htm
7. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmscotaf/741/74102.htm
8. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmscotaf/741/74102.htm
9. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmscotaf/741/74102.htm
10. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmscotaf/741/74102.htm
11. http://euanmearns.com/uk-wind-constraint-payments/

23rd September 2016
The Renewables Infrastructure Group (TRIG) has raised £62.62m through its latest share issue, significantly higher than the £25m target.
The fund issued 62m new ordinary shares at a price of £1.01 per share. TRIG said the share issue was oversubscribed and demand was been scaled back to 62m. 
The shares are expected to start dealing on the London Stock Exchange at 8.00am on 27 September.
The net proceeds from the issue will be applied towards paying down amounts drawn under the group’s revolving acquisition facility and funding the company’s pipeline.
The pipeline includes the acquisition of a 100% interest in a 22.5MW onshore wind project in Scotland from the company’s operations manager, Renewable Energy Systems.
The unnamed project is understood to be the 11-turbine Freasdail on Kintyre, which is at an advanced stage of construction and features Senvion hardware.
Canaccord Genuity and Liberum Capital acted as joint bookrunners in relation to the share issue.


14th September 2016
The Renewables Infrastructure Group (TRIG) has entered into an exclusivity agreement to acquire a 22.5MW wind farm in Scotland from Renewable Energy Systems (RES).
The specific project was not mentioned although it is understood to be the 11-turbine Freasdail on Kintyre, which is at an advanced stage of construction and features Senvion hardware.
TRIG said the project is expected to be commissioned in the first quarter of 2017.
It added that the wind farm is being made available under its “first offer agreement with RES”.
TRIG said that, in light of existing drawings under its acquisition facility, it is to raise £25m through an issue of new ordinary shares, which will not be offered at a fixed price.
The fund said the number of shares issued may increase “in the event of material excess demand”.
The volume of shares issued and the issue price will be announced shortly after the latest date for receipt of bids, which is midday on 23 September.
TRIG said it expects the shares to start trading on the London Stock Exchange on or around 27 September.
The joint bookrunners on the placement are Canaccord Genuity and Liberium Capital, it added.


4th February 2016
Senvion is to supply RES with 22.55MW for the Freasdail wind farm on the Kintyre Peninsula on the West Coast of Scotland.
Senvion is to supply RES with 22.55MW for the Freasdail wind farm on the Kintyre Peninsula on the West Coast of Scotland.
The deal, first reported in reNEWS last August, will see the German manufacturer deliver 11 MM82 units starting in the autumn of this year.
Pre-commissioning work will start in December 2016.
Senvion Northern Europe managing director Raymond Gilfedder said: “We are delighted to be signing our second turbine contract with RES in the UK, building on what is a solid partnership between the two companies.”
RES supply chain director Roger Seshan said: “We look forward to working with Senvion on the delivery of this important project and further developing our relationship with them.”
Source: REnews

16th December 2015
Senvion wins order to supply 21 MW to Cour Wind Farm in UK
Edinburgh – Senvion, one of the world’s biggest wind turbine manufacturers, has signed a new contract with leading renewable energy developer Blue Energy to supply ten Senvion MM92 turbines to the Cour Wind Farm.
Cour Wind Farm is located on the Mull of Kintyre on the West Coast of Scotland. The wind farm will have a total rated output of 20.5 megawatts (MW) and will produce enough electricity to power more than 11,000 homes each year. This is the sixth wind farm project that Senvion and Blue Energy have worked on together in the UK.
The first turbine installations at Cour Wind Farm are scheduled for delivery in Summer 2016, with the expected date of commissioning in Autumn 2016. Senvion also concluded a 20 year maintenance contract with Blue Energy for the project.
Raymond Gilfedder, Managing Director of Senvion Northern Europe, said: “Following our biggest UK onshore turbine contract that we have recently signed with Blue Energy, we are delighted to be supplying and maintaining MM92 turbines for the Cour Wind Farm. This is our sixth supply contract with Blue Energy, totaling a combined rated output of 175 megawatts. We look forward to continuing our successful partnership with Blue Energy.”
Christopher Dean the CEO of Blue Energy, commented: “We are delighted to be ordering another 10 x MM92 turbines from Senvion. This builds upon the excellent relationship we have established together and is the sixth order we have placed during the last 18 months, as Blue Energy rolls out the construction of our UK onshore portfolio.”
Source:sunwindenergy.com

20th December 2015
Wind farm companies blocking Scotland's planning system with costly appeals
SCOTLAND'S planning system has become jammed by costly appeals from wind farm companies, with some cases overdue by up to nine months.
There are 34 proposals being considered by the Scottish Government's Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA), with 16 of those requiring a full public local inqury. 
In almost every case, the wind farm has been refused planning consent by the local council and the operators have appealed to SNP Ministers to overturn the verdict.
Each appeal can cost tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money, diverting local authority cash away from frontline services at a time of increasing budget pressures.
The revelation comes just months after the DPEA warned that budget and staff reductions would slow down the speed of the appeals process.
Linda Holt, spokeswoman for campaign group Scotland Against Spin, said: "Councils in areas targeted by wind developers increasingly refuse new wind applications because they believe they have reached saturation point, but there is considerable financial pressure on them not to. 
"Appeals cost everyone money, and local authorities such as Perth & Kinross have sometimes found themselves forced to pay the applicant's expenses (eg Drumderg) as well if the appeal is upheld. 
"If a local authority objects to an application for a wind farm over 50 MW, this triggers a public local inquiry, which can cost the public purse £100,000 plus, with local authorities having to find tens of thousands of pounds to pay for expert witnesses and legal representation. 
"This provides a strong financial incentive for cash-strapped local authorities not to refuse or object to a wind application, if they feel Scottish Ministers would be minded to approve it anyway.
"Developers do not pay the full economic cost of assessing and determining wind applications, and it falls to taxpayers to cover the shortfall for decision-makers and statutory consutees. 
"This figure runs into the millions for the thousands of turbine applications which have bedevilled Scotland in recent years. It is no less than another covert subsidy for wind speculators."

The oldest outstanding appeal is the 24-turbine Stranoch Wind Farm at New Luce, Wigtownshire, which was passed to the DPEA on August 1, 2014 and had a target decision date of March 13, 2015.
The DPEA's latest update said the final report should be delivered to Scottish Ministers by "mid-November".
Eight other appeals have gone beyond the target decision date, including the 50-turbine South Kyle Wind Farm, near Dalmellington, Ayrshire, and the 39-turbine Strathy Wind Farm extension in Sutherland.
The proposed wind farms have all proved controversial in their local areas, resulting in an often complex and lengthy appeals process with up to 1,000 documents for the Reporter to consider in each case.
One appeal, relating to the third phase of the giant Whitelee Wind Farm on Eaglesham Moor, south of Glasgow, has even seen allegations of poisoned drinking water.

The plans for the Braemore Wind Farm, near Lairg, Sutherland, have seen plans for a £6.5million redevelopment of nearby Carbisdale Castle put at risk.
Scottish Government figures show that 50 wind farm appeals have been decided by the DPEA so far in 2015/16, with 25 granted and 25 refused.
A spokesman said: "Our planning and environmental appeals department takes a rigorous approach to all appeals that it handles. We have significantly reduced the timescale for appeals in recent years and this year we have met the target for making a decision in 80 per cent of cases."
Source: The Express



New Evidence: Wind Farms Contaminating Water Supply in Scotland
Campaigners in Scotland are calling for a full, independent investigation into allegations that wind farms are contaminating water supplies across large areas of Scotland.They have written to the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Energy Secretary Amber Rudd calling for an immediate halt on all wind farm development north of the border until the government can guarantee safe drinking water for everyone.

The problem first came to light when residents living near Europe’s largest wind farm, the 215 turbine Whitelee farm in Ayrshire, began to suffer from diarrhoea and severe vomiting. Tipped off by an NHS report which mentioned that difficulties in treating the water supply may pose health risks, local resident Dr Rachel Connor, a retired clinical radiologist, started digging into the council’s water testing results.

She found that, between May 2010 and April 2013, high readings of E.coli and other coliform bacteria had been recorded. In addition, readings of the chemical trihalomethane (THM), linked to various cancers, still births and miscarriages, were way beyond safe limits.

Scottish Power, who run the wind farm, denied causing the pollution but admitted that they hadn’t warned residents that their water supplies may be contaminated.


Speaking to the Daily Record she explained: “I obtained test results in 2013 from East Ayrshire Council and discovered that our water had been grossly contaminated with E.coli bacteria.

“That was bad enough but I am far more concerned about the presence of THMs in the public supply.

“We are drinking the stuff now but all the medical advice is that the effects may not be seen for 10 or 20 years.

She added: “I would expect this likely contamination of drinking water must be happening all over Scotland. If there is not an actual cover-up, then there is probably complacency to the point of negligence by developers and statutory authorities.”

THMs are formed when chlorine, which is added to the water supply, react with organic particles in the water. Anti-wind farm campaigners explain that the construction of wind farms in Scotland tends to involve the disturbance of vast areas of peatlands which dumps huge quantities of carbon into water sources.


Susan Crosthwaite is one such campaigner. An award winning chef, she runs a bed and breakfast business located within the UNESCO designated Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere. Her guests travel from far and wide to take in stunning sea views and natural landscapes, but all that is being threatened by what she describes as “the SNP’s obsession with carpeting our landscape with more wind farms”. The Scottish government has committed to generating 100 percent of Scotland’s energy from renewables by 2020.


She admitted to Breitbart London that there is great irony in the fact that fracking is not going ahead in large part due to unfounded fears over contamination of water sources, while at the same time green zealots seem more than happy to cover Scotland in a sea of turbines despite good evidence that they actually do contaminate those same water sources.

“People wonder how wind farms can possibly contaminate our water,” she said.

“Firstly, most are constructed on areas of unspoilt moss, heather and deep peat, often with associated forestry. Construction vehicles churn up the ground to make access roads and clear the forests – approximately 3 million trees were cleared at Whitelee. Trees are pulled up, and the churned up peat is washed into the river systems by heavy rain, releasing excessive carbon which the water treatment works are not able to deal with.

“The construction teams then blast quarries and ‘borrow-pits’ to provide rock foundations for access roads and turbine bases – six quarries with 85 articulated dump lorries ferried almost 6 million tons of excavated rock around the Whitelee site for roads and turbine foundations. These excavations allow access to the numerous faults and dykes which crisscross Scotland and act as conduits for ground water. Chemical and diesel spills, therefore, have an immediate channel to the aquifer.

“It is also a great irony that anti-fracking campaigners make spurious claims about potential water pollution and then support the construction on industrial wind turbines, which are demonstrably causing widespread pollution to our water supplies in Scotland.”


Mrs Crosthwaite has now compiled a comprehensive 115 page dossier detailing not just the contamination caused by various wind farms, but also the lack of response by energy giants or the authorities.

She has attached her dossier to letters seen by Breitbart London, addressed to Scotland’s First Minister and Britain’s Energy Secretary to demand that all wind farm construction cease until a proper investigation has been carried out.

She claims that continuing to develop wind farms constitutes a clear breach of both The EU’s Environmental Liabilities Directive and its Water Frameworks Directive, as the authorities have failed in their legal duty to protect Scotland’s water environment, allowing development to go ahead regardless.

“As Whitelee is Scottish Power Renewable’s flagship windfarm, the credibility of all their windfarm developments is based on the belief that their professed mitigation measures are successfully preventing any water pollution. How can the public be confident that this is the case if they do not constantly and consistently monitor all subsequent developments with results made easily available to the public?” she asked.

Her campaign has gained the support of former Conservative MEP for Scotland, Struan Stevenson, who told Breitbart London: “It is clear from this extensive and well-researched report prepared by Susan Crosthwaite that under pressure from the SNP Government at Holyrood, statutory authorities like SEPA, Scottish Water and Scottish councils, have simply ignored EU environmental legislation designed to protect our water.


“The Environmental Liabilities Directive and the Water Framework Directive have been repeatedly breached in Scotland in the race to erect giant wind turbines and fulfil the SNP’s obsession with turning Scotland into the ‘Saudi Arabia of renewables’. 

“Now we have direct evidence that this has led to serious contamination of groundwater in the vicinity of industrial wind farms, causing consequent dangerous pollution to our drinking water.

“It is ironic that the same people who vigorously oppose fracking because they claim it will cause water pollution, enthusiastically support wind farms which demonstrably do cause water pollution, as well as defacing our landscape.

“I would urge the European Commission to take immediate action against the Scottish Government for allowing these serial breaches of EU directives to continue unchallenged.”
Source:Breitbaart



23rd September 2015
Bute wind turbine application is turned down
Bute Community Power’s planning application for two wind turbines at the island’s Auchintirrie farm has been refused - but only just.

Following a discretionary hearing at Rothesay Pavilion on Tuesday, members of Argyll and Bute Council’s planning, protective services and licensing committee decided to turn down the application for planning permission to build two turbines, each 47 metres tall to blade tip and with a generating capacity of 250 kilowatts.

Four of the councillors on the committee - Donnie McMillan, Sandy Taylor, Richard Traill and George Freeman - joined Mr Kinniburgh in backing a motion to refuse the plans.

Cowal councillor Alec McNaughton put forward an amendment which proposed “a continuation to try and find a competent motion to seek approval”; he was backed by Robin Currie, Robert G. MacIntyre, Jimnmy McQueen and Roddy McCuish.

But on Mr Kinniburgh’s casting vote the motion was carried and the application refused.

* More in this week’s issue of The Buteman - on sale from Thursday, September 24.

20th September 2015
Air disaster in the making: RAF pilots have almost 60 close-calls with wind farm RAF pilots flying over Britain have come close to mid-air disaster because of wind farms on almost 60 occasions in the past five years.
A "shocking" military dossier reveals a catalogue of potentially catastrophic air safety incidents, many of them related to unlit turbines and new or uncharted developments.

However, the Ministry of Defence withheld more information on national security grounds meaning the real number could be much higher.

Last night, campaigners called for an urgent review of the mapping and lighting of wind turbines to prevent a fatal crash involving a low-flying aircraft.

The 59 near-misses were classified from negligible to high in terms of severity with 15 cases - most of them from RAF Lossiemouth in Moray - in the high-risk category.

One Sea King helicopter captain revealed that search and rescue crews were having to manually update flight charts to keep pace with the renewables industry.

He said: “Occasionally up to a hundred amendments per cycle are required to be plotted and this must be repeated on up to a dozen copies of some charts.

“If a chart is used by the aircrew or becomes dog eared that chart must be replaced and the amendments re-done.

“On average, over a thousand hand plotted and written amendments are required per month, taking many hours of work.

“Cumulatively over a period of months or years the task becomes mindless, very onerous and extremely prone to error.”

One third of the reports were made by pilots or ground crew from Lossiemouth, which is often used for low-level training flights over the Scottish mountains.

A hazard report filed in September 2013 concerned an uncharted 300ft wind turbine, adding: “It is of particular concern as it is on the Inverurie Heli Lane into Aberdeen.”

It also noted that a single turbine marked on their charts had been “developed into a wind farm with over 10 turbines”.

Others relate to temporary anemometer masts, which are erected to measure wind speed. One Sea King report said: "Over the course of a 5 day detachment to Glencorse Barracks, Edinburgh, several unlit anemometer masts up to approx. 200ft were sighted... The masts were thin and difficult to see by day, and would have been near impossible to see at night being unlit."

Last night, Scotland Against Spin spokeswoman Linda Holt said the catalogue of "shocking" incidents represented only the "tip of the iceberg".

She added: "What about civilian aircraft, including private planes and helicopters, microlights and gliders? Aviation impact is yet another aspect of wind energy where public safety has been given short shrift.

"The problem of unmapped or unlit turbines and masts is the result of the subsidy-driven frenzy in speculative wind development since 2008.

"We know of a number of turbines and masts where aviation lights have not been fitted, or fail to function, despite being required by planning conditions. Taken together with inadequate mapping, it is only a matter of time before these unlit hazards cause fatal accidents."
Ms Holt said ministers had to act now to prevent accidents and added: "This requires urgent action from the Energy Minister Fergus Ewing if he is not to have blood on his hands.

"He should order an immediate review of the mapping and lighting of all operational wind turbines in Scotland. A comprehensive inquiry into aviation incidents involving turbines and masts should also be undertaken with the aim of improving future planning and enforcement and reducing unnecessary risks to pilots and the public."

Stephanie Clark, Policy Manager at industry body Scottish Renewables, said: “The wind industry enters into early engagement with the MoD to ensure that any proposals are assessed against defence flying requirements. If any concerns are raised, the MoD will work with the developer to identify ways to mitigate them as part of the planning process.”
Solurce: The Daily Express

18th September 2015
Perth and Kinross Council argues strongly against further wind farms in Highland Perthshire
Message to Scottish Government is that shire's scenic spots are suffering from proliferation of turbines
Perth and Kinross Council has warned the Scottish Government that it has reached the tipping point for wind farms in Highland Perthshire.
And it says there is no way it can accept plans for a massive 25-turbine wind farm earmarked for that area.
The strong message has been sent to Holyrood over the proposed 75MW Crossburns scheme near Aberfeldy.
And, if it is approved by the SNP government, the council says it would “tip the balance” of impact because of the multitude of proposed and operational sites in the immediate vicinity.
Holyrood’s energy consents unit is handling West Coast Energy’s application because of its scale and capacity, and asked PKC for its views.
But in the response, supported by development management committee members, PKC lists a raft of reasons why the 1570 hectares wind farm is too much to take.
In particular, the council’s landscape consultant says the cumulative impact of turbine developments around this area has created a ‘wind farm landscape’.
And the consultant said an assessment in 2010 had established then that Perthshire had “reached capacity”.
“Any new proposal should avoid adverse visual impact on the highly sensitive highland landscapes to the north and west,” the report says, adding “it would appear that the addition of Crossburns Wind Farm within this landscape would ‘tip the balance’, resulting in significant cumulative effects”.
The “wind farm landscape” assertion is used at least twice, with the major Calliacher and Griffin schemes and the planned Calliacher North extension, comprising more than 80 turbines as among the reasons why.
The council’s response also argues that Perthshire has been overburdened with wind farms, including from a study commissioned in 2007 by Glasgow University which says wind farms impacted on tourism, and that Perth and Kinross was one of two worst-hit areas in Scotland because of the developments.
The study showed that the losses caused by wind farms would effectively deny the area money to the tune of £6.3mllion and around 360 tourism jobs for the Big County and its neighbouring Stirling Council area by this year.
PKC also argues that the majority of the turbines are earmarked for a site which was ruled out in the 2008 Calliacher/Griffin planning appeal.
It also highlights the impact on the scenic landscapes around Aberfeldy, Glen Lyon and Loch Rannoch.
But, a note of caution that the objection might prove ineffective was sounded by convenor Tom Gray following the overturning of the Calliacher extension.
He said: “As well all know the (Scottish Government) reporter overturned our opposition to the Calliacher extension, so effectively we could again see a plan like that built against our wishes.”
Three community councils -Dull and Weem, Dunkeld and Birnam and Glen Lyon and Loch Tay- have objected to the scheme over its visual, economic and wildlife impacts, with Scottish Natural Heritage also in opposition.
Source:Scottish Daily Record

26th August 2015
SgurrEnergy win Argyll and Bute forest and energy study contract

Wood Group's renewable energy consultancy will provide geographic information system (GIS) mapping and interpretation services in a project which is being part-funded by the Scottish Government’s Strategic Timber Transport Fund Wood Group's renewable energy consultancy SgurrEnergy has won a mapping contract to identify collaboration opportunities between the forestry and renewable energy industries in Argyll and Bute.

SgurrEnergy will provide geographic information system (GIS) mapping and interpretation services in a project which is being part-funded by the Scottish Government’s Strategic Timber Transport Fund.

Argyll Timber Transport Group (ATTG) is leading the project, which also includes Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission (SHE Transmission), Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) and Argyll & Bute Renewable Alliance (ABRA).

The project partners will work together to assist with the planning of new developments which “will deliver long term economic, environmental and social benefits throughout Argyll”.

Glasgow-based SgurrEnergy will map forest road and energy project road infrastructure and how this links to the public road network.

New roads required for construction will be assessed to maximise the long term benefits to the forest industry and to the wider infrastructure in Argyll.

The project will also look at opportunities to link existing access routes within established forests to allow timber traffic to be directed away from sections of the public road network whilst enabling renewable energy development.

SgurrEnergy said the methodology could be replicated in other areas where forestry and renewables interact closely.

SgurrEnergy’s technical director, Ian Irvine, said: “Argyll is a vital location for the development of renewable energy and we are delighted to be working with two crucial sectors of the local Argyll economy – energy and forestry – to help deliver maximum benefits for the area and its residents.”

Argyll Timber Transport Group’s project manager, Kirsty Robb, added: “We are looking forward to the results and to further encourage collaboration and joint ventures between two of the most important business sectors operating in Argyll.

“ATTG is very proud of the approach adopted by the forest industries in Argyll which is now well established as leading the field in best practice and innovation where timber transport is concerned.”
Source: Scottish Daily Record

20th August 2015
SPR’s Beinn an Tuirc windfarm community benefit funds one renewables education post – to what end?

Students returning to schools in Argyll and Bute for the new academic year will find a new Education and Skills Development role in their education mix.  The post, a job share for Kirsty Jackson-Stark and Katie Evamy, will be funded by community benefit money given to communities local to SPR’s Beinn an Tuirc windfarm. Beinn an Tuirc is on the top of the central spinal ridge of the Kintye peninsula, directly west of Torrisdale, south of Carradale.

A press release on this development says: ‘Over £100,000 made by SPR over three years will support the role which will focus on broadening and strengthening the renewables-related skills base locally as well as promoting employability skills and preparing school leavers for local opportunities.

‘The Education and Skills Development role will work with school pupils and community groups across Argyll and Bute to generate interest and promote careers in the renewables sector and encourage the local people to develop the skills mix to be able to take advantage of renewables employment opportunities.

‘SPR has supported an Education and Development role in the area since 2007 in conjunction with ALlenergy and Argyll and Bute council, but the role has been enhanced to better support the local community and schools. An active member of Argyll and Bute Renewable Alliance (ABRA), SPR is working with local stakeholders to ensure that the renewable energy it is generating boosts the local economy and creates opportunities for local people.

‘To date, SPR has provided over £14.5m in community benefit funds in its areas of operation across the UK. Argyll and Bute has received more than £850,000 through the community benefit funds generated by the operational Cruach Mhor, Clachan Flats and Beinn an Tuirc windfarms.’

Commentary
A key to the driver is the following statement that: ‘SPR will further boost the funding it provides to local projects if consent is granted for an extension to Beinn an Tuirc.’

Windfarms have been consented with the support – or muted objection – from communities effectively bought off by promises of community benefit cash.

If one accepts that these things will in the end be forced into existence regardless, then communities might as well take the cash and let the wind farms happen sooner rather than later.

But if this is the pragmatic reality then there remains a serious argument about the best use of such cash and, in this instance for example, about who takes the decisions on how community benefit cash will  be spent.

We note that there is no mention in this press release of community councils’ involvement in the decision taking – nor of which school will be the base for the post; nor of the schools which will experience this addition to their curriculum.

The application of a tad of common sense to this proposition is enough to show what a waste of money it is.

One post shared between two half timers covering the very ill specified and frankly woolly remit set out above can achieve little if anything except a passing distraction.

If, as it seems, Argyll and Bute Council has, with AliEnergy [which seems to be the current employer of the two staff to share this post], been a major player in the decision as to how this £100,000 over three years should be spent, it would make a lot more sense to put it into the council’s challenged education budget.

Everything is welcome that can help to improve teaching where standards are falling markedly across Scotland in the foundation skills of numeracy and literacy; and where the teaching profession in Scotland is facing serious recruiting problems.

A total of £100k is not to be sneezed at if applied where it might actually make a difference. Spending it on a minimal provision of a cosmetic addition when the basics of learning are enfeebled is a foolish waste of scarce resources.

Kirsty Jackson-Stark, Education and Skills Development, ALIenergy, says: ‘I am excited about this new role as it provides the opportunity to work in partnership with key local agencies to inspire young people and the community about renewable energy. It also delivers and facilitates opportunities for young people and the local community to obtain skills enabling them to take up employment opportunities within the renewables sector.’It’s good to see this excitement – but one job in two halves, spread very thinly? Come on.
Source: For Argyll

21st June 2015
£600m white elephant is blight on landscape
A HUGELY controversial power line through the heart of Scotland has been exposed as a £600million “white elephant” due to the end of onshore wind turbine subsidies.

Energy minister Fergus Ewing has admitted the 137-mile Beauly-to-Denny line will not be at full capacity when it becomes operational in November.

With public cash support to wind farms due to end next April 1, critics said it would no longer be necessary to carry vast amounts of renewable electricity from the Highlands.

The damning assessment reflects expert evidence given to the public inquiry into the project, built by energy giants SSE, which predicted the line would not be needed until 2020.

Beauly-Denny consists of around 600 steel pylons each up to 215-feet high – taller than the Scott Monument – running through the heart of some of Scotland’s most iconic scenery, including right past the Wallace Monument and Cairngorms National Park.

The project was originally estimated at £330m but has since almost doubled, with all costs to be met by household electricity bills.

The largest industrial development in the Highlands since the hydro-electric power schemes of the 1950s, it provoked a huge outcry and became one of the most controversial political issues of recent years.

Dr John Constable, chairman of the Renewable Energy Foundation, said: “The case for that line was never made. Even if all the wind projects planned for the Highlands had gone ahead at full pace, it is doubtful whether it would have been necessary.

“Now that budgetary and environmental constraints have made it necessary to put a limit on onshore wind subsidies, this line and others like it will be put in jeopardy.

“Beauly to Denny should never have gone ahead. Like the wind farms themselves, it was unaffordable and unacceptable.


“National Grid made serious errors of judgement in proceeding with this line and the Scottish Government encouraged them, so the blame must be shared.

"There was catastrophic malinvestment all around. It is a £600million white elephant.”

Stuart Young, of Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, said: “All of these things were entirely predictable. The inquiry was told that Beauly-Denny would be a ‘stranded asset’.”

Lyndsey Ward, who lives in the shadow of the power line, said it was already damaging tourism – and predicted there would be “absolute fury” in the Highlands if the project turned out to be unnecessary.

She said: “It has been a massive scandal. I live just outside Beauly and it doesn’t matter where you drive, the pylons are everywhere and they are so big you can’t believe it.

"You go through the most beautiful hills and glens but there is no escape. I moved here to open a bed and breakfast but I’ve put my plans on hold to fight one wind farm after another.

“You speak to people who come and stay here and they can’t believe what we are doing. The transmission lines criss-cross the skyline and the fishermen on the River Beauly say they will not come back because they have a constant buzzing above their heads.

"The Balblair substation is massive and it makes a constant noise that we call the Beauly Buzz.”

Scottish Conservative energy spokesman Murdo Fraser said: “At the time of the Beauly-Denny planning application, there were warnings the massive pylon line might not be needed. These warnings, ignored at the time, now seem to be proven correct.

“Once again we see the SNP’s failings in energy policy. It is little wonder that experts are saying they lack a coherent strategy.”

Linda Holt, from campaign group Scotland against Spin, added: “If the SNP is worried about redundant capacity on the Beauly-Denny line, there is a very simple solution. They can fund the subsidies for the proposed wind farms themselves - after all, this is what they would have to do in an independent Scotland.

"Whether Scottish electricity consumers would vote for a party which made their bills soar above those of consumers in the rest of the UK is another matter, of course.”

At Holyrood last week, Mr Ewing said in a written answer to Lib Dem MSP Liam McArthur that the line was on track to become “fully energised” by November.

He added: “It will not operate at its full capacity initially as other circuits on the east coast will reach their full capacity before Beauly to Denny. 

"Network reinforcement requirements are kept under continual review, based on current future energy scenarios there are no immediate plans to upgrade the Beauly to Denny circuit."

The Scottish Government said the upgrade was “essential for improved energy security and to facilitate the flow of renewable power from north to south”. 

A spokeswoman added: “We are profoundly disappointed at the UK Government's recent announcement to close the renewable obligation early, but there remains a pipeline of renewable generation projects throughout Scotland. 

“We will maintain pressure on the UK Government to ensure there is adequate support for onshore wind in the future.

"It remains the Scottish Government's ambition to see the equivalent of 100 per cent of demand for electricity in Scotland supplied through renewables by 2020. The Beauly to Denny upgrade is central to this challenge.”

Source: The Express


18th June 15

Earlier end to subsidies for new UK onshore wind farms

New onshore wind farms will be excluded from a subsidy scheme from 1 April 2016, a year earlier than expected.

There will be a grace period for projects which already have planning permission, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said.

Energy firms had been facing an end to subsidies in 2017.

The funding for the subsidy comes from the Renewables Obligation, which is funded by levies added to household fuel bills.

After the announcement was made, Fergus Ewing, Scottish minister for business, energy and tourism and member of the Scottish parliament, said he had warned the UK government that the decision could be the subject of a judicial review.

Analysis: Roger Harrabin, environment analyst
The Conservatives promised in their manifesto to hold down bills and increase renewable energy.

But onshore wind is the cheapest readily-available form of clean energy in the UK. That's why some experts have described their decision to kill the onshore wind programme as bizarre and irrational.

Speaking to business leaders in London last night, Amber Rudd said it was time to shift subsidies from onshore wind to other technologies that needed them more. But she did not say what those technologies would be, and the government has not announced compensatory subsidies for other forms of energy.

Some of the business leaders are baffled why ministers will give local people a unique veto over wind turbines, when they cannot veto shale gas fracking or even a nuclear power station on their doorstep.

The government's policies are seen by green groups as nakedly political. Another reason may be partly at play - the right-leaning think tank Policy Exchange calculates that the energy subsidies programme has simply run out of cash.

If this is accurate, it presents a formidable challenge to an energy secretary who says she is committed to transforming the UK into a low-carbon economy.

"The decision by the UK government to end the Renewables Obligation next year is deeply regrettable and will have a disproportionate impact on Scotland, as around 70% of onshore wind projects in the UK planning system are here," he added.

'Energy mix'The move was part of a manifesto commitment by the Conservative party ahead of the general election in May.

"We are driving forward our commitment to end new onshore wind subsidies and give local communities the final say over any new wind farms," said Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd.

"Onshore wind is an important part of our energy mix and we now have enough subsidised projects in the pipeline to meet our renewable energy commitments," she said.

The Conservatives also say that the onshore turbines "often fail to win public support and are unable by themselves to provide the firm capacity that a stable energy system requires".

Some reports estimate that almost 3,000 wind turbines are awaiting planning permission and this announcement could jeopardise those plans.

Friends of the Earth's renewable energy campaigner Alasdair Cameron said: "While the government rolls out the red carpet for fracking, they're pulling the rug out from under onshore wind.

"Proposed changes to the planning system could make it more difficult for local authorities to give the go-ahead to new wind installations - even if it's the local community who want to build and run them."

And Gordon MacDougall, managing director of Renewable Energy Systems, a Sir Robert McAlpine Group company, told the BBC that "what we are seeing is political intervention".

He criticised the intervention in what he says is the cheapest form of low-carbon energy.

The grace period could allow up to 5.2 gigawatts (GW) of wind capacity to go ahead, which could mean hundreds more wind turbines going up across the UK.

Source: BBC News

8th June 15
Highlands estate has price cut by £15 million by reclusive businessman owner

The price of a Highlands country estate which was the summer retreat of Conservative statesman and prime minister, Sir Robert Peel, has been slashed by £12 million by its reclusive billionaire owner.

But owner Canadian telecoms tycoon Brendan Clouston initially put the estate, which includes a four-storey modern mansion house, on the market at a price of £15m.

His decision to sell came a year after he tried to block the forced sale of part of his land to make way for controversial power scheme the Beauly Denny line, which is currently under construction.

It has been claimed in the past that he initially invested £20 million in creating his new home on the island in 2006.

Mr Clouston, who is a friend of Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates and made his fortune through Denver-based telecoms firm Tele-Communications (TCI), no longer spends long spells at Eilean Aigas and relocated to his home in the Channel Islands.

It is understood he retreated from the public eye after Unabomber John Kaczynski threatened fellow TCI director John Malone and security was tightened around the firm’s board.

Eilean Aigas, which features the mansion, a gate house and hunting lodge and sits on the River Beauly, was also rented by Whisky Galore author Sir Compton Mackenzie in the 1930s, while author Lady Antonia Fraser - the wife of deceased playwright Harold Pinter - is said to have worked on some of her books in a summer house on the island.

The mansion house was built on a high bank above a river on the eastern side of the island and is modelled on the original hunting lodge.

Evelyn Channing of selling agent Savills said: “The family has invested an enormous amount of time, resource and effort into creating and renewing more than 500 acres of historic and beautiful Scottish landscape whilst protecting the wildlife within. For them this was always a personal restoration journey, never purely a financial investment.”

She added: “A motivated buyer could prevent Eilean Aigas from reaching the auction by purchasing it by private treaty this summer. For this to happen, their pre-emptive bid would need to be at a level which reflects the incredibly high standard of craftsmanship that has gone into the design and build of this beautiful home, and its breathtaking location”.

Mr Clouston decided to sell the house after energy giant SSE applied for a compulsory purchase order for his land, which lies in a narrow strip between Eskadale and Hughton. The firm wanted to install an overhead electricity transmission line featuring around six hundred 200ft high towers close to the new mansion.

Mr Clouston helped finance the local campaign group Pylon Pressure and gave evidence at the public inquiry into SSE’s plans.

In 2012, a spokesman for Mr Clouston confirmed the new power line had contributed to his decision to sell the island estate
In the selling notes from Savills it said the design “creates a peaceful ambience and tranquillity in harmony with the surroundings”.

Mr Clouston could not be reached for comment.
Source: The Scotsman

4th June 2015
SNP will defy Tories and keep wind farm subsidies in Scotland, energy spokesman indicates Fergus Ewing says scrapping subsidies would be 'irrational' in comments that undermine Tory manifesto promise to 'halt' spread of onshore wind farms

The Scottish National Party will block David Cameron’s attempts to scrap onshore wind farm subsidies, the party’s energy spokesman has indicated.

Fergus Ewing MSP, who holds the brief in the Scottish Parliament, said removing such subsidies was “irrational” and could cost taxpayers up to £3 billion.

It raises the prospect of the SNP Government at Holyrood retaining the onshore wind farm in Scotland and undermining the Prime Minister’s election promise.

The Conservatives pledged to “halt the spread of onshore wind farms” in their election manifesto, explaining they had failed to “win public support”.

However the majority of onshore wind farm projects awaiting planning permission – 1,642 out of 2,836 turbines – are in Scotland.

Control over subsidies is devolved, meaning it is in the hands of the SNP as to whether Mr Cameron can deliver his promise to end the spread of onshore wind farms.

Mr Ewing, Scottish Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, indicated that the SNP would oppose the proposals in a new consultation which was launched at the Queen’s Speech last week.

He warned on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme that there was a “headlong rush by the UK government to make apparent policy statements regarding scrapping new subsidies for onshore wind without a proper engagement either with ourselves or with the industry”.

“It’s our view that it is irrational to reduce or even scrap on shore wind subsidies when in fact … onshore wind is clearly still the most cost-effective large-scale way of deploying renewable technology in the UK. Economically, therefore, why would you want to bring that to a premature halt?”

Quoting figures from Scottish Power, Mr Ewing added: “If you prematurely bring onshore wind to a halt you will end up costing UK consumers an extra £2-3bn and you will end up having to deploy more expensive technologies."

He said bodies like Scottish Renewables and UK Energy had said privately they are “very, very concerned” about the plans and the warned the move could prove “costly, irrational, and even expose the taxpayer to the risk of judicial review”.

While Mr Ewing fell short of pledging the SNP will block the proposals outright, his comments will disappoint Conservative voters.

The Tory manifesto read: “Onshore wind farms often fail to win public support, however, and are unable by themselves to provide the firm capacity that a stable energy system requires. As a result, we will end any new public subsidy for them and change the law so that local people have the final say on wind farm applications.”

However speaking in the Commons yesterday, Mr Cameron appeared to accept he could only remove subsidies from onshore wind farms in England and Wales.

Should the SNP Government decide not to implement a subsidy lift, it would mean the majority of onshore wind farm projects awaiting planning permission in the UK would be unaffected.
Source: The Telegraph



31/05/15
Wind farm subsidies facing the axe
Generous taxpayer subsidies will be cut off earlier than expected, effectively preventing thousands of turbines from being built, under plans being considered by Amber Rudd, the energy secretary Subsidies that have fuelled the spread of onshore wind farms are to be dramatically curtailed, under Government plans to be unveiled within days.

The Telegraph has learnt that a generous subsidy scheme will be shut down earlier than expected, effectively preventing thousands of turbines from getting built, under plans being considered by Amber Rudd, the new energy secretary.

The proposals, which could be announced as soon as this week, will set out for the first time how the Conservatives will implement their manifesto pledge to end any new public subsidy for onshore wind farms - amid concerns that turbines are unpopular with local communities.

Under current policy, any big onshore wind turbines built before the end of March 2017 would automatically be able to qualify for generous payments through a scheme called the Renewables Obligation (RO), which is funded through green levies on consumer energy bills.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change has now confirmed it plans to “reform” the RO scheme. It is understood to be looking at ending the free-for-all by shutting the scheme down early – effectively preventing thousands of turbines getting built. The action follows similar moves taken to curb subsidies for solar farms last year.

After the RO shuts, the only possible subsidies for wind farms will be through a new scheme that is less generous and also much more strictly rationed, with ministers deciding how many projects – if any - are awarded subsidy contracts, enabling them to block further onshore wind if desired.

As well as big wind farms, subsidies for small individual wind turbines such as those popular with farmers – funded through a separate scheme called the Feed in Tariff - are expected to be limited under the plans.

A spokesman for the DECC said: “We are driving forward plans to end new public subsidy for onshore wind farms.

“We will shortly be publishing our plans to reform the Renewables Obligation and Feed in Tariff scheme to implement this commitment. With the cost of supplying onshore wind falling, government subsidy is no longer appropriate.

“We have supported new technologies when they’ve been a good deal for the consumer – providing start-up funding and certainty about future payments to help them become competitive. However, those subsidies won’t continue when costs come down – that’s not value for money for billpayers in the long run.”

Ms Rudd said: “We promised people clean, affordable and secure energy supplies and that’s what I’m going to deliver. We’ll focus support on renewables when they’re starting up - getting a good deal for billpayers is the top priority.”

Government plans to tackle climate change and hit EU renewable energy targets envisage that between 11 and 13 gigawatts (GW) of onshore wind power is needed by 2020.

More than 9.5 GW of projects – about 5,500 turbines - have either already been built or are under construction in the UK. At least 5.2 GW more wind farms – almost 3,000 more turbines - have already been granted planning permission.

Even if not all of these are built there would still be enough to hit the top end of Government plans.

On top of that, there are close to 3,000 more big new turbines with a combined capacity of more than 7GW seeking planning permission.

The DECC spokesman said: “Looking at what has already had planning permission, there is enough onshore wind to contribute what’s needed to reach the ambition set out in the Coalition Government’s renewables roadmap that 30 per cent of our electricity should come from renewables by 2020.”

Many of the projects that already have planning permission would have been expecting to secure subsidies under the RO scheme and it is not clear whether they will still be able to if the scheme shuts early. Ministers may consider offering a ‘grace period’, enabling some of those that already have permission to still get built while blocking off subsidies for those that do not.

One of the biggest factors determining the impact of the proposed changes will be whether or not they apply in Scotland, where the majority of proposed turbines are due to be built.

The Government said last week that it would “consult with the devolved administrations on changes to subsidy regimes for onshore wind farms”.

Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP Scottish First Minister, wants more onshore wind farms and has already demanded a veto on the Tory plans – raising the prospect that subsidies could continue to be paid to new projects in Scotland.

However the Conservatives will be under pressure from their own backbenches to ensure the subsidies are scrapped across the UK.

The Government also announced in the Queen’s Speech last week that it would bring forward legislation to give local communities “the final say” by ensuring large wind farm projects are decided at local rather than national level.

Ms Rudd said: “We need to make decisions on energy more democratic and give our communities a direct say into new onshore wind farms where they live. In future, I want planning decisions on onshore wind farms to be made by local people – not by politicians in Westminster.”

However those in the green energy industry had been most concerned about the pledge to end subsidies, amid uncertainty over the detail of the plans.

Critics of the Conservative pledge, including Tim Yeo, the former Tory head of the energy committee, and Ed Davey, the former Lib Dem energy secretary, have argued that it will actually push up bills as ministers instead offer subsidies to more offshore wind farms that are even more expensive.

Source: The Telegraph


24/5/15
Green energy bills set to soar as subsidies end

SCOTLAND’s renewable energy­ industry has warned that a sudden end to subsidies for new onshore wind farms could lead to a hike in bills for businesses and consumers.

The new Conservative energy secretary, Amber Rudd, has signalled that she plans to end subsidies to the operators of new wind farms, with the details expected to be confirmed in this week’s Queen’s Speech with a view to the change being brought in next year.

Niall Stuart, chief executive of trade body Scottish Renewables, which represents 100 organisations working in ons­hore wind in Scotland, said it was “hard to square the UK government’s commitment to cut carbon emissions in the most affordable way, whilst pledging to end any support for the cheapest form of renewable electricity that can be deployed at the scale we need to meet our climate change targets”.

Stuart said the industry has cut costs significantly in recent years and was committed to further reductions as it makes progress towards matching the cost of power from new conventional generation by the end of this decade. “A sudden change in support will reduce deployment and threaten the work being done to reduce costs in a phased and managed way,” he said. “Indeed, it could actually push up bills if any shortfall required to meet our targets has to be made up by more expensive generation.”

Gordon MacDougall, of renewables developer RES, which has a base in Glasgow, said a sudden end to support for new projects would hit progress being made by the industry towards being subsidy-free in the medium-term.

“Onshore wind now stands on the verge of being able to compete on a purely commercial basis with other, more mature, forms of energy gen­er­ation without requiring new subsidies in the 2020s – and it would be in no-one’s interests for this important opportunity to be squandered,” he said.

MacDougall said retaining the recently Contracts for Difference support scheme for onshore wind was a “key stepping stone to a subsidy-free future”.
Source: The Scotsman


We pay Scots £60m but get no energy in return:
SNP government milks wind farms for cash THE Scottish government has been accused of milking energy customers in England by encouraging the growth of wind farms even though much of the electricity cannot be delivered to homes in the South.
By Matthew Davis PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sun, Apr 19, 2015 | UPDATED: 14:39, Mon, Apr 20, 2015

A record £61.4million was paid to wind farm operators to turn off their turbines in the past year if their electricity was surplus to requirement – up 32 per cent on the previous year.

The vast majority of this handout, funded through a charge on customers’ energy bills, goes to huge wind farms that have been built across Scotland.

In the past two years, payments to wind farm operators have soared from £11,000 to £170,000 a day.

One of the big problems is the grid link between England and Scotland has limited capacity.

An energy expert has accused the Scottish government of being “irresponsible” for encouraging wind farms that can generate more electricity than can be used north of the border and more than can be exported.

Wind farm owners are paid for electricity that could have been generated and sold if there was a demand or there had not been a grid blockage.

These payments to wind farms, 95 per cent of which go to Scotland, have increased massively.

Three years ago just £4million was paid.

The nation’s biggest wind farm with 215 turbines, Scottish Power-owned Whitelee, near Glasgow, has 215 turbines and has received almost £28million since it first opened in 2009.

Dr John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, attacked the building of “silly amounts of wind power in Scotland”.

He said: “The Scottish government has driven the construction of large onshore wind way ahead of the grid’s ability to absorb the energy at reasonable cost.

“This headlong rush is what lies behind the rapid growth in payments to wind.

“The Scots behaved in this irresponsible way as they knew the costs, like the subsidies, would be picked up by UK consumers, not just voters in Scotland.

The dramatic overbuild of wind power in Scotland is causing significant additional costs for UK consumers, firstly in payments to stop generating when the network is congested,then to conventional generators in England and Wales to make up for the loss of wind power.”

Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “The blind pursuit of misguided energy policies has left
hard-pressed families facing ever higher bills.”

The Scottish government said: “This claim misrepresents how the system operates. Power companies throughout Britain are paid for their flexibility in managing the grid.

“The bulk of payments for varying output, up and down, are paid to fossil fuel generators.

“Wind farms attract payments only when they offer the lowest cost option to resolve grid congestion and maintain stability.”
Source: The Express


11th April 2015 The Herald
Project launched to tag black grouse at windfarm sites

A SCHEME to tag and track one of Scotland's most popular birds has been launched in a bid to halt their rapid decline.

ScottishPower Renewables (SPR) have undertaken the project to protect black grouse at the sites of their windfarms.

SPR ecologists and researchers will fit the birds with harnesses carrying data loggers, allowing the team to build a detailed picture of the birds' movements.

The SPR windfarm at Cruach Mhor on the Cowal Peninsula, Argyll and Bute, will be the first trial site for this project as the area is known to have one of the highest black grouse populations across SPR's windfarms and in the Cowal area.

A motion sensor camera has been installed on site to identify areas commonly used by grouse for lekking (mating) or feeding. Once this has been identified, a trap will be set up and a qualified and licenced harness fitter will attach the tags.

Data will then be collected as the grouse move around the site, and will be remotely downloaded at regular intervals for analysis and reporting.

By examining this data, the team will be able to study the impact of windfarms on black grouse. Turbines are not built closer than 500 yards to a black grouse lekking area, and the research project is being undertaken to give a better understanding of how black grouse populations make use the landscape around a windfarm.

Conservationists say that the project could be key to understanding why black grouse numbers are falling across Scotland and whether windfarm development is the key.

Doug Shapley of RSPB Scotland said: "We welcome this new study by ScottishPower Renewables. Black grouse are a red list species meaning they are of the highest conservation priority in the UK.

"Numbers have declined throughout Argyll and this is one of the few areas of Cowal where black grouse still occur, albeit at a lower population level.

"Habitat management is really important to helping these birds and we're interested to see what the tagging might reveal about how they use the landscape at these sites."

Peter Robson, Senior Ecologist at ScottishPower Renewables, added: "We have a number of challenges when considering the viability of a windfarm. First and foremost for any application there are rigorous ecological assessments that we carry out.

"We are dedicated to habitat preservation and restoration, across many different ecological and topographical settings, and work closely with partners such as RSPB Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage to ensure that we are working to support the environment and eco-system at all sites.

"This commitment by SPR has led to some very exciting research projects for the ecology team. This innovative black grouse project will allow us to understand more fully the impact of windfarms on the black grouse population.

"As responsible developers of renewable energy, we are keen to do everything in our power to protect this important and secretive species and this pioneering research will help inform those decisions."

Black Isle votes 'no' to wind turbines Written
byJackie Mackenzie

PEOPLE in the Black Isle have voted against a controversial community wind farm plan.

A postal ballot of residents in the Highland Council’s Ward 10 area returned a 54.4 per cent against developing the three turbines at Millbuie Forest near Culbokie.

The turnout was 56.7 per cent.

David Fraser, of the campaign group No Black Isle Wind Farm, said: "This is a good day for the Black Isle and its precious environment.

"We believe the community has made a wise decision, looking to the long-term future of the Black Isle.

"It is also a good decision for the sensible use of public funds. It would have been wrong to have spent an additional £150,000 of scarce public money on a windfarm development which we believe made little financial or environmental sense."

The wind turbines plan was being mooted by local group Black Isle Community Energy (BICE)

It hoped to plough the money from the power generation back into community projects.

However it needed to show the Forestry Commission, which owns the proposed site, that a majority of local people were in favour of the plan before it could secure the land.

The project was being brought under the National Forest Land Scheme.

BICE chairman Martin Sherring said it was disappointing the project had failed by such a small margin.

But he said: "On the positive side, it was good to have engaged with so many people on the important issues of securing funding for community development, and of course reducing our carbon footprint."

There were no plans to revisit the Millbuie Forest turbines plan, he said, but believed that given the level of support for the idea it would be good to explore other ideas for either green energy or for reducing energy waste.

RESULTS:

• 56.7 % turnout (4,884 votes)

• 4 invalid votes

• 45.6% of valid votes were Yes (2,225) votes

• 54.4 % of valid votes were No (2,655)

Source: North Star
Windfarm community fund cash blow

• 10:00, 15 January 2015
• By Stuart Gillespie

Council cannot force windfarm companies into paying out community funds in legal blow 
The council has had to ditch a plan to force windfarm developers to give money to local communities.

The move comes after officials sought legal advice on their windfarm community benefit policy.

The economy, environment and infrastructure committee was told on Tuesday that around £400,000 a year is currently being paid out in community benefits – a figure that will rise to almost £3million when approved windfarms are up and running.

Originally it had been intended for turbine operators to pay £5,000 a year per megawatt. Half would go to local communities and half would go into a central pot run by the council – a move development contributions officer Laurie McNabb admitted to members had proven “contentious”.

He said: “The regional fund in its current form is still perceived by a significant number of communities and developers to be ‘taken by the council’ for statutory activities, despite assurances to the contrary.”

In his report for members, Mr Laurie said it was senior counsel’s opinion that such community benefit agreements were lawful but only if the developer was in favour. It was deemed “not appropriate” for the council to try to enforce the policy on an unwilling developer.

The report added this matches up in with the latest Scottish Government advice – a change from 2013 when a consultation document suggested using planning conditions to secure benefits.

Councillors agreed to change the policy and the 50/50 split has been removed, although a voluntary region wide fund remains. There will only be discussions with community councils whose area covers or borders the development side. Currently communities within 15km are consulted.

Committee chairman Colin Smyth said: “Councillors unanimously agreed a way forward that makes it clear that any such regional fund would be voluntary. I also want to make it clear that any funding in a central pot would be used for community projects and not council work.

“However, the crucial decision councillors made was to put in place resources to work with communities to support them in getting the best possible deal from any developer.

“The Scottish Government guidance makes clear that a windfarm company doesn’t legally have to pay any community benefit, the level of £5,000 per megawatt is purely a suggestion and windfarm companies can, and have, paid less and at the end of the day the windfarm companies make the final decisions on what any money is spent on.

“That’s why we want to work with communities, if they want us to, and ensure they do not lose out.

He added: “I don’t think people realise the scale of the funding that could land on the laps of communities over the next few years. We are talking about possibly an extra £2.4million a year.

It is vital that how that money is spent is determined by the communities as far as possible and it meets the needs of those communities. Some will have the capacity to deal with any funding, others won’t and the last thing we want is for any local community to get a poor deal or face criticism from local residents that any funding is wasted.”

Source Daily Record

Conservative’s wind farm moratorium plans unveiled
  Credit:  The Berwickshire News | Wednesday 04 March 2015 | www.berwickshirenews.co.uk ~~

The Scottish Conservatives have launched an action plan for rural Scotland calling for more powers and more opportunities for all.

The plan includes a pledge for local councils to be able to place a moratorium on new wind farms and ensure people whose property prices have dropped are compensated.

Latest figures reveal the number of public objections to large-scale wind farms has doubled to around 6,000 in the last year.

When councils demanded a moratorium on wind farm applications the Scottish Government said it would be an “unprecedented step in Scottish planning practice.”

But with a moratorium on shale gas exploration announced recently the precedent has now been set.

Berwickshire MSP John Lamont said: “Regardless of your views on the merits of large scale wind farms, it should be local people deciding whether or not they are suitable for the area.

“The SNP’s obsession with wind farms has resulted in them being plastered across the Scottish Borders.

“Let’s hand more power back to local councils. It should be up to local communities whether they want a wind farm on their back door.

“So I support councils getting the right to block new wind farm applications – and compensation from developers for people whose properties fall in value as a result.”

Scottish Conservative energy spokesman Murdo Fraser said of the plethora of wind farm applications in rural Scotland: “It puts a massive strain on council planning departments, which in turn causes anxiety to those in communities whose surroundings would be severely impaired.

“Onshore wind has a place as part of a balanced energy approach, but the Scottish Government has placed far too much emphasis on them.”

Source:  The Berwickshire News | Wednesday 04 March 2015 | www.berwickshirenews.co.uk

26th February 2015

Protect what's left of Scotland's wild land

The BMC's sister organisation in Scotland has challenged decision makers to support a new vision for the future of the country’s mountains and wild land – a major resource increasingly under threat.

And the public are being asked to add their weight to the call, by signing an online petition demanding that recognised areas of wild land are protected from large scale development.

Just weeks after highlighting shortcomings in the Scottish Government’s handling of wind farm applications, where counsel from its own advisors is too often ignored by Ministers, the Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS) has challenged the Government and all politicians to take a more positive view of our mountains.

After wide consultation, The MCofS, which represents climbers and hill walkers in Scotland, has published ‘Respecting Scotland’s Mountains: MCofS Vision for the Future’, which points the way ahead to a sustainable future where appropriate development and conservation can go side by side.

MCofS President Brian Linington said: “We call on Politicians to protect and promote our mountains as the incredible asset that they are, to open their eyes to the permanent damage being done to this irreplaceable resource by ill-considered developments.

“With a General Election looming the moment has come for all the political parties to be absolutely clear that they are committed to the protection of our mountains and wild places. They can do this by joining us in working for a future which respects our natural heritage and makes the most of it for our country and its people.”

At the same time as speaking directly to politicians and decision-makers, the MCofS has appealed to the public to get involved by signing a petition on 38 Degrees urging better protection of Scotland’s remaining wild land.

The proportion of Scotland from which built development cannot be seen has dropped by two fifths in just 11 years, to 27 per cent in 2013. The petition calls for a ban on further industrial development on the remaining wild land, as mapped by Scottish National Heritage last year.

The petition seeks wider public support for the message in the Respecting Scotland’s Mountains booklet.

Five elements

At its heart of Respecting Scotland’s Mountains is the vision: “That Scotland protects and respects its mountains and wild places whilst encouraging people to enjoy the mountains in a responsible manner.”

It is built on five key elements:

• That our mountains and wild land should be safeguarded as an irreplaceable natural, cultural and economic asset.

• That the mountains provide opportunity to develop and improve informal recreation, tourism and health and wellbeing.

• That Scotland should harness the potential of mountains and wild land to contribute to a foundation for sustainable futures for fragile rural communities.

• That change should be planned and regulated to enhance rather than diminish our wild lands and mountains.

• And, finally, that appreciation and enjoyment of the mountains – including good practice and responsibility – should be promoted from childhood.

Two major areas of concern highlighted in the document are inappropriately-sited wind farms and the lack of effective control over damaging hill tracks.

It also emphasises the need to support fragile local economies in highland areas, saying sustainable businesses can be created by making the most of mountains as places for recreation and leisure, but stating: “To do this their wild quality must be maintained – if not, the evidence increasingly shows that visitors will go elsewhere.”

And it underlines the role of mountains in tackling Scotland’s major health challenges associated with lack of exercise and stress.

It says: “People need to be encouraged to go out and experience the beauty, enjoy the exercise and benefit from the relaxation that our mountains can provide.”

Copies of ‘Respecting Scotland’s Mountains’ have been sent to each of Scotland’s 129 MSPs and to its 59 MPs, as well as councillors and heads of planning in the national parks and local authority areas which include mountains, and to government agencies with responsibility for environmental matters.

The aim is to raise awareness of the value and vulnerability of Scotland’s world-renowned landscape and encourage the country’s decision-makers to see that protection and pragmatism go hand in hand when deciding future policy.

Respecting Scotland’s Mountains: MCofS Vision for the Future is downloadable here.

The 38 Degrees petition can be accessed here: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/p/wild-land.

The MCofS is the BMC's sister organisation in Scotland. The BMC partly funds its access and conservation officer post. 

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/protect-whats-left-of-scotlands-wild-land



February 2015
The £400million feed-in frenzy:
Green energy firms accused of making wind turbines LESS efficient so they appear weak enough to win small business fund

• Report identified gaping loophole used by 'more than 100' wind turbines
• Small turbines earn 'feed-in tariffs' to subsidise cost of green power
• But large firms are downgrading turbines to earn same fund, it is claimed
• Practice could cost the country £400million over the next 20 years 
• Government launched investigation but claims numbers are 'incorrect'

Ben Spencer, Science Reporter for the Daily Mail
Published: 21:07, 10 February 2015 | Updated: 21:12, 10 February 2015

Green energy companies are scooping up millions of pounds in subsidies by artificially capping the power their wind turbines produce, according to a damning report.

A gaping loophole in the Government's renewable energy 'feed-in' system means firms can get more money for producing less power.

Companies now stand accused of abusing the arrangement in what researchers have termed a 'feed-in frenzy', which will cost bill-payers an extra £400million over the life of the system.


Feed-in tariffs, the guaranteed price paid for green energy, were originally designed to boost small-scale community wind farms, with smaller turbines receiving a higher payment per unit of energy.

But an investigation by the IPPR thinktank has revealed that big companies are taking advantage of that system by intentionally limiting the power they produce to qualify for the higher rate.

The organisation has identified 103 turbines in Britain which are taking advantage of the loophole, with the owners making up to £100,000 extra in payments every year per turbine.

The boom in British wind farms means that number could double by the end of 2015, the IPPR estimates, costing the country £400million over the next 20 years.

The authors of the new report say the practice has become widespread among the operators of schemes with one or two turbines.

It means that the country has become blighted with unnecessarily large turbines that are not producing as much power as they could.

Under the feed-in system, which are designed to generate up to 500 kilowatts of electricity and usually measure 100 feet tall, receive a guaranteed price of 13.34p per kilowatt hour, a sum which is subsidised through people's electricity bills.

Larger turbines, which can generate between 500 and 1,500kW, receive almost half the subsidy, just 7.24p/kWh.

If companies intentionally limit the output of the bigger turbines, which usually measure 165 feet tall, they can make more money.

It is suspected they do this either by programming the turbines to produce less power, or simply by altering the design of the rotor to be less efficient.

The ruse, which is known, as de-rating, could easily be stamped out, the IPPR said.

Report author Joss Garman said: 'This loophole is short-changing bill payers to the tune of millions of pounds a year.

'Ministers should act immediately to close down what is becoming a "feed-in frenzy".

'It is distorting the energy market, lining the pockets of investors and undermining public confidence in Britain's vital clean energy sector.'

Charles Ogilvie, energy consultant and co-author of the report, added: 'The feed-in tariff should be driving innovation to create a sustainable, broad base of renewable energy for the UK.

'By leaving loopholes like this open for so long, the Government is effectively squandering support for the innovators and entrepreneurs who play by the rules.'

But wind industry body RenewableUK's deputy chief executive, Maf Smith, said operators adhered to the rules drawn up by Ofgem and the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

'De-rating is a complex issue - for example, it may be necessary because of limits in the capacity of the grid to cope with the amount of electricity that's being generated, or because a site where the wind is lower needs a turbine with longer blades to make the best use of it.

'The IPPR report doesn't take account of these legitimate reasons for using the right turbine in the right location.

'It's also worth remembering that we're talking here about 103 operational turbines at the most. That's less than 1 per cent of the 12,000 small, medium and large-scale onshore wind turbines generating in the UK.'

The Government last night rejected the IPPR's sums.

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: 'This report is based on incorrect and second-hand information - the numbers just don't add up.

'We keep this issue under constant review to make sure consumers are getting the best possible deal, and an in-depth investigation is currently under way.

'We will take any action necessary if wind developers are found to be unfairly exploiting the feed-in tariff scheme.'

But Mr Garman said: 'The numbers in this report were reviewed by independent energy consultants who themselves advise the government, and one of this report's authors himself advised the energy minister with responsibility for this scheme.

'We stand by our report.'

Daily Mail

Feed-In-Frenzy Report  2015 by IPPP
4th January 2015

Fintona, County Tyrone: 80-metre wind turbine collapses
BBC NI report on the wind turbine that crashed down on Friday night 2nd January 2015 at the Screggagh Wind Farm, Fintona, County Tyrone. Debris was scattered over half a mile across the mountainside and across the main Fintona to Fivemiletown Road.


1st December 2014
Loch Urr and Benbrack: No dumping ground for windfarms

Credit:  By Stuart Gillespie | Daily Record | Dec 01, 2014 | www.dailyrecord.co.uk ~~

An energy giant has come under fire over proposals for two new windfarms.

E.ON has lodged applications with the Scottish Government to build a total of 44 turbines at two sites – Benbrack near Carsphairn and Loch Urr.

The plans have been scaled down from what they originally intended to build but locals remain unhappy.

Caroline Pridham, of the Save Loch Urr group, said: “We need to fight against these proposals and send a strong clear message to the Scottish Government, or risk seeing the whole of our beautiful region being covered with windfarms.

“There are currently more than 1,000 wind turbines over 260 feet high – operational, consented, or in planning – within 20 miles of Loch Urr.

“E.ON state that they have taken community concerns into account and have liaised extensively with the community. If this was truly the case, they would not be submitting these applications.

“Many from the communities who will be impacted by these proposed windfarms have already made it clear to E.ON and Dumfries and Galloway Council that our areas is already doing more than its fair share for renewable energy.

“We need to let the Scottish Government know that our area is not prepared to be a dumping ground for windfarms.”

Keith Mycock, of Turbine Watch 312, added: “Even though E.ON have reduced the number of turbines in their Benbrack and Loch Urr windfarm proposals they are still substantial developments which will have a significant detrimental impact on the landscape.

“It has to be said that it is the norm for a windfarm proposal to be initially put forward with far more turbines than the developer really expects to be in the final submission, allowing them to claim they have listened to the community.”

And Alison Chapman, of Galloway Landscape And Renewable Energy (GLARE), said: “We believe the project would have adverse impacts on wildlife, ecosystems, the landscape and tourism plus loss of amenity capital for the area.

“GLARE considers the inclusion of Craigenputtock in the site plan is a wanton act of vandalism on Scotland’s heritage and most prestigious thinker, Thomas Carlyle, who actually coined the word environment.”

E.ON had intended to put up 27 turbines at Benbrack, a number that has been reduced to 18. At Loch Urr, they cut the number of turbines from 63 to 26.

Project developer Nick Taylor said: “We removed the northern section of our Loch Urr windfarm plans to significantly reduce the impact on the neighbouring Moniaive and Dunscore communities. Through local and environmental consultation, the size of our Benbrack site has also been reduced.”

The plans will be considered by the Scottish Government.

Source:  By Stuart Gillespie | Daily Record | Dec 01, 2014 | www.dailyrecord.co.uk

25th August 2014
SSE to spend £2.5m on acoustic equipment to silence ‘buzz’ from sub-station – The Herald
David Ross
Highland Correspondent

Energy giant SSE is having to spend £2.5 million to silence the “Beauly
Buzz”, which has been disturbing residents in a small Highland community.

Some residents have complained the constant humming was keeping them awake
at night and others feared it could affect the value of their homes.

SSE was issued with a noise abatement notice by the Highland Council in
February to tackle the low-frequency humming sound from the Wester Balblair
sub-station.

This was after new equipment was installed as part of the upgrade of the
controversial 137 mile Beauly-to-Denny powerline. The first section of the
line between Beauly and Fort Augustus went live last year.

The company, which was initially sceptical about the level of noise, said
it would place acoustic jackets around individual components and then
install an acoustic barrier around the entire equipment.

SSE has now confirmed this will cost around £2.5 million to do.

Steve Byford, chairman of the local community council, said the high cost
of repair was a problem of SSE’s own making

Meanwhile another £1m is having to be spent on acoustic barriers for
equipment associated with the power line near Fort Augustus.

David Gardner, SSE’s transmissions director, admitted this week that the
problem could tarnish the company’s reputation.

He said: “It takes time to find solutions because of the complex nature of
the problem, but we are taking this very seriously. It is difficult for me
to have to try to manage and it is not good for our reputation.”


8th June 2014

Call for a halt to all new wind farm projects
By Derek Lambie, 8 June 2014 12.00pm. The Sunday Post
Enough wind farms for 2020 target already.

Ministers are facing demands to halt all new wind farm projects amid evidence there are almost enough turbines to meet climate change targets for 2020.

Green energy is a key SNP policy, with ambitious plans to better a legally-binding EU directive on the UK by meeting 100% of electricity needs from renewables by the end of the decade.

But The Sunday Post can reveal the explosion in wind farms has meant Scotland now has sufficient turbines in place, or approved, to cover 90% of energy needs.

Indeed new figures show that if all projects still to be considered are also included, there would be a massive surplus of unnecessary sites littering the countryside.

The total output from wind farms still with planning officials would be able to generate 10 times more electricity than the shortfall required to meet the 2020 target.

In March The Sunday Post revealed there could be a 10-fold rise in the number of wind farms over the next few years with a mountain of applications.

The revelations have sparked calls for a 12-month moratorium on allowing new projects to be submitted with campaigners insisting there is no longer a need for additional turbines.

Graham Lang, of campaign group Scotland Against Spin, said: “Runaway numbers of industrial turbines are now ruining our countryside, blighting local economies and upping electricity bills.

“But instead of taking a reality-check, our Government sits frozen in the headlights of the referendum. We need an immediate moratorium on onshore wind, a thorough audit of costs and a new energy policy grounded in sound economics and engineering.”

A legally-binding directive from Brussels in 2009 called for all EU member states to ensure 20% of the energy used by 2020 should come from renewable sources.

But the Scottish Government has set its own unofficial target to generate the equivalent of 100% from renewables.

Ministers have heavily promoted the sector, insisting Scotland has a quarter of all of Europe’s wind energy potential.

There are more than 200 wind farms operational, with at least 2,440 turbines between them — accounting for over half of the UK’s total onshore capacity.

As a result, Government officials say they are on course to meet their interim target of generating the equivalent of 50% of electricity from renewables.

But with a staggering 1,898 further applications for turbines having been granted, or still to be considered, experts say the 100% target could even be surpassed by this autumn.

New data shows output currently accounts for about 17 TeraWatt Hours (TWh), meeting 46.5% of the 36.6TWh of electricity consumed.

The figures, from the Renewable Energy Foundation charity, predict that wind farms and other technologies awaiting construction will soon add almost a further 17TWh of output —enough capacity to meet 90% of the 2020 target.

However, the total output from all other projects still to be considered by planners could generate about 21TWh, almost 10 times more than the shortfall needed.

That would leave Scotland with a massive 50% surplus.

Dr John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, said the current scale in activity in the wind sector has created “vast surpluses of capacity in the planning system”.

He said: “The renewable sector is dramatically overheated, with targets met or nearly met.

“Scottish Government policies, combined with excessive subsidies, have created a classic bubble market.”

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “The value of renewable energy to Scotland’s economy is clear.”

In a major U-turn, the European Commission plans to ditch legally-binding renewable energy targets.
Source: The Sunday Post

7th June 2014
Council tells Holyrood – Hands off our wind farm decisions!   Credit:  By Andrew Keddie | Border Telegraph | 7 Jun 2014 | www.bordertelegraph.com ~~

Councillors of all party political hues and none have combined to send a clear signal to the Scottish Government that this region is at saturation point when it comes to “inappropriate” wind farms.

Even the SNP group, whose government at Holyrood has set a target of generating 100% of Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020, joined the clamour for local decision-making on wind farm planning applications to be binding.

The call came at last week’s SBC meeting when Conservative councillor Keith Cockburn (Tweeddale West) proposed a motion demanding that council leader David Parker writes to the Scottish Government to express concern over the sustainability of the targets and the impact on the Borders countryside of the current policy.

In an impassioned speech, Councillor Cockburn claimed the Holyrood government had allowed the number of wind farms in the Borders to get out of control.

“We need a more balanced approach,” he asserted.

He explained that, in April this year, there were 306 wind turbines in the region, with a further 10 under construction and with another 41 having received planning approval. He claimed the parliamentary constituency of Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale had more wind turbines that any other in the UK.

“Despite consuming less than 10% of the UK’s energy, and having 10% of the population, Scotland hosts more than 50% of the UK’s onshore wind turbines,” said Mr Cockburn..

“As of April 2014 there were 2,315 operating turbines north of the border, from a total of 4,350 in the whole UK, with another 405 turbines under construction. These figures do not even take into account wind farms which are making their way through the planning process.

“This has caused five million trees to be cut down to make way for turbines across Scotland. These statistics contradict comments from the SNP Scottish Government that it is ready to cool its obsession with onshore wind energy.”

Mr Cockburn said the Holyrood renewable energy targets were “challenging and optimistic”.

“Groups such as the Scientific Alliance Scotland are raising doubts over the long term sustainability and viability of the use of wind farm schemes. These groups argue that not only is the efficiency of wind generated electricity debatable, but that it is also ruinously expensive.

“They say that turbines have well documented problems of intermittency, mechanical frailty, and have a short service life, suggesting that wind turbines will have gone in 20 to 30 years.

“Building and operating these machines is wholly dependent on a high level of public subsidy, while our roads and infrastructure are not built for carrying the exceptional loads.

“Survey results are warning us that badly sited wind farms are a serious threat to Scotland’s reputation as a tourism destination. Natural heritage tourism is worth £1.6 billion to the Scottish economy.

“I can understand why landowners like the financial packages they are given to allow wind farms on their land, but our public think we have had enough wind farms. We should listen to our electorate.

“I think the majority on this council agree that we have had more than our fair share of wind farm schemes here in the Borders. I believe that we have moved passed the point of balance.”

Mr Cockburn claimed that the Scottish Government had overturned a third of wind farm proposals refused by local councils.

“I know some of you may not feel that this motion sets well with your politics, but I say to you, whatever your politics you are a Borderer first and foremost, elected here by other Borderers.”

Mr Cockburn’s comments brooked no dissent, although, on the insistence of the SNP/Independent/Lib Dem ruling administration at Newtown, his motion was amended thus:

“The council instructs the leader to write to the Scottish Government expressing concern over the conflict between the sustainability of energy targets and their impact on landscapes in the Borders, being mindful of the present impact of turbines in his area…the council reaffirms that Scottish Borders planning policy is the best mechanism for balancing protection with appropriate developments.”

SBC’s planning committee is responsible for determining applications for wind farms which generate less than 50MW. Bigger developments are decided by Scottish ministers with the council treated merely as a “statutory consultee”.

On Monday, the committee, in that latter role, unanimously agreed to object to plans for 18 giant turbines at Cloich Forest, about a mile west of Eddleston in Mr Cockburn’s ward.

Members felt the proposal would breach the current local development plan (LDP) by causing unacceptable harm to the landscape and the visual amenity of residents.

A new LDP, with a more proscriptive interpretation of what constitutes an “appropriate” wind farm location, is due to be considered by councillors later this month after a 12-week public consultation period.

Not surprisingly, that document has already attracted opposition from renewable energy firms who feel it is over-restrictive.

Their comments and other responses to the new LDP will be considered by SBC on June 26.

Source:  By Andrew Keddie | Border Telegraph | 7 Jun 2014 | www.bordertelegraph.com

25th May 2014
First eagle killed by wind farm in Scotland
from Sunday Herald, 25 May 2014

For the first time in Scotland a wind farm has been officially blamed for killing an eagle, the Sunday Herald can reveal. A white-tailed sea eagle, reintroduced as part of a nature conservation programme, was found dead in February at Burnfoot Hill wind farm in the Ochil hills near Tillicoutry in Clackmannanshire. A post mortem by government-approved scientists concluded that a “likely cause of death” was collision with a wind turbine. 
Eagles have been killed by wind farms in Germany and Norway before, but no deaths have previously been recorded in Scotland. Conservationists stress that many more eagles are killed by landowners, gamekeepers, power lines and trains.
But evidence that a sea eagle has now died after crashing into a wind turbine is likely to ignite fierce controversy, and trigger renewed questions about where wind farms should be sited. 
Sea eagles were driven to extinction in Scotland early in the 20th Century, and have been reintroduced from Norway in a series of government-backed releases beginning in the 1980s. Bigger than golden eagles, they are the UK’s largest bird of prey, with between 37 and 44 pairs now successfully breeding.
The dead sea eagle, known as Red T, was a male released in the east of Scotland in 2011. His body was found three months ago under a layer of snow beneath a wind turbine at Burnfoot Hill, which was developed by the Bristol-based company, Wind Prospect, and is owned and run by the French state enterprise, EDF Energy Renewables.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) commissioned vets from Scotland’s Rural College, which also works for the Scottish Government, to conduct a post mortem. Their investigation ruled out death by poisoning, and discovered that two bones in the bird’s left leg were broken.
“Dark discolouration” around the head and neck suggested that the eagle had suffered trauma, the post mortem report said. “Trauma consistent with, but not limited to, that expected from collision with a wind turbine has been recorded as the likely cause of death,” it concluded.
The death was “very disappointing”, said Aedán Smith, head of planning and development at RSPB Scotland. “This tragic incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of ensuring wind farms are carefully planned to avoid our best places for wildlife.”
The RSPB was increasingly concerned about the number of applications for wind turbines in areas that, unlike the Ochils, were known to be important for eagles, he added. “Hopefully, these will be withdrawn by the applicants or declined by the planning authorities.”
Smith pointed out, though, that white-tailed sea eagles were far more likely to be killed by other causes. According to RSPB figures, since 2007 six had been killed by trains, eight by power lines and at least six illegally poisoned or shot (see table below).
The number who died because of illegal persecution may be much higher as cases can easily go undetected, the RSPB stresses. Since 1989, sea eagles along with golden eagles in Scotland have reportedly been victims of 63 incidents of illegal poisoning, shooting, trapping or nest destruction.
Ron Macdonald, policy director with the government’s wildlife agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, was saddened by the eagle’s death. “Evidence has been growing from Europe that white-tailed eagles are fairly vulnerable to collision with wind turbines, and clearly we have to monitor the situation closely in Scotland,” he said.
EDF Energy Renewables confirmed that “regrettably” a white-tailed sea eagle had been found dead at Burnfoot Hill, which has 13 100-metre high turbines. ”It is thought that it died as a result of colliding with one of the turbines at the site,” said the company’s head of asset management, Nick Bradford.
“Together with our wind farm development partners, we take the utmost care in selecting potential sites and undertake extensive environmental studies including bird habitat and migration routes before constructing our wind farms.”
At Burnfoot Hill, there were bird surveys in 2003-04 and again from 2008 to 2010 to ensure that best practice guidelines were met. “However even with such work, unfortunate incidents like these, although uncommon, do still sometimes occur,” said Bradford.
“We will be working closely with RSPB and our own environmental consultants to determine what lessons can be learned from this incident and what might be done to prevent such incidents occurring in future.”
Joss Blamire, senior policy manager at the industry body Scottish Renewables, described the death as “a sad event”. But he cautioned that the impact of wind farms on birds should not be overstated.
The climate pollution that wind farms help avoid could cause species to become extinct, he argued. “I hope this isolated incident is not used by opponents of renewables to vilify a source of energy that displaced over 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide last year alone.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The loss of any sea eagle is extremely disappointing, when so many people have worked so hard to bring back the species to Scotland.”
Known deaths of white-tailed sea eagles in Scotland
cause of death / deaths since 2007
wind farm / 1
trains / 6
poisoned or shot / 6*
power lines / 8

*Because illegal persecution goes undetected, this figure could be much higher.

source: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Scotland
Posted by Rob Edwards on 25 May 2014 at 09:13 AM in Renewables, Wildlife and landscape | Permalink


3rd January 2014
Windfarms make homes unsellable
Source:
Credit:  by Victoria Allen | Daily Mail | via Scotland Against Spin
Scots homeowners are seeing up to 50 per cent slashed from the value of their houses because of wind turbines, estate agents have warned.
Mounting evidence is emerging that the SNP’s green crusade has wiped thousands of pounds from home values across the country. It comes as the Scottish Government launches a study into the link between house prices and turbines, which experts say will show homes near wind farms are almost impossible to sell. One local authority has already lowered council tax for one household, in recognition that its value has dropped because of turbines nearby. Families across the country also claim they have been trapped in their homes for years because noisy wind farms put off potential buyers.
Richard Girdwood, an estate agent previously working in Scotland and now at Winkworth in London, cut his valuation of one property by £40,000 because of surrounding turbines. He said: ‘Wind turbines are beyond homeowners’ control and they do have an impact of potentially tens of thousands of pounds.’
Estate agent Iain Robb, previously with Strutt & Parker in Glasgow, wrote to a homeowner about the impact of proposed turbines near his property. Mr Robb, who did not respond to requests for further comment, said house prices could be cut in half or more by wind farms. He wrote: ‘In my personal view (as distinct from a Strutt & Parker corporate view) the capital values of residential properties near to existing or intended wind farms suffer a minimum of 50 per cent diminution of their residential capital value. ‘Properties next to sites where a planning application for a windfarm has been lodged are virtually unsellable.’
Tas Gibson, 66, who received the letter, was forced to knock £300,000 off his home and four holiday lodges in Newton Stewart, Wigtownshire. A retired financial controller in the oil and gas industry, he bought his 18-acre Waterside estate as an investment and has been trying to sell it for 18 months. He said: ‘The Scottish Government are just riding roughshod over ordinary people. Buyers are put off by the noise, the view and the effect on their health.’
Mr Gibson’s neighbouring wind farm, 96-turbine Kilgallioch, is just 2.5 miles west of his property, has planning consent and is expected to be started next year. Another house, close to the 16- turbine Drumderg wind farm in Blairgowrie, Perthshire, was found by an assessor to have had 20 per cent wiped from its value and its council tax band was lowered as a result.
Joss Blamire, senior policy manager at Scottish Renewables, said: ‘We have yet to see any conclusive evidence which links house and land prices with onshore wind farms. ‘The sector continues to be an important driver of investment at a time of slow or negative economic growth, employing more than 11,000 people and attracting £1.6 billion of investment to the country’s economy in 2012.’
A Scottish Government spokesman said: ‘Current planning and consents processes are rigorous and ensure appropriate siting.’


3rd January 2014
Source: The Telegraph
Europe wants to block UK wind farm subsidies European climate action commissioners say state aid for renewable technologies should be phased out by the end of the decade
The European Commission is to order Britain to end wind farm subsidies.
Officials have told ministers that the current level of state support for renewable energy sources must be phased out by the end of the decade.
Taxpayer support for solar energy must also be cut, the commission will say.
The commission, which oversees the European single market, is preparing to argue that the onshore wind and solar power industries are “mature” and should be allowed to operate without support from taxpayers. Under the single market rules, European Union governments are forbidden from providing long-term “state aid” to domestic industries that can function without support.
A Government source said European officials have privately warned ministers that they must reduce public support for onshore wind and solar generators.
“The commission has been making pretty clear that it’s moving towards saying that these industries are mature and state aid won’t be allowed,” he said.
Although Conservative ministers sometimes criticise the EC for its interference in domestic matters, they are understood to be keen to cooperate in the case of renewable energy subsidies.
“I never thought I’d say this but the commission is absolutely right about this,” a Conservative minister said.
“It’s absurd that taxpayers are being made to subsidise wind technology.”
The operators of onshore wind turbines get subsidies that increase the price they are paid for the power they generate.
Wholesale energy prices are typically about £55 for a megawatt hour of power. But onshore wind generators are paid about £90. Ministers have started reducing those subsidies, cutting tariffs applied to household bills and slashing guaranteed prices for onshore wind.
But pressure from the EC is expected force the Coalition to introduce a less generous system of support for onshore wind and solar power.
That new regime, which could be in place in less than two years, will see wind farm operators competing with each other for a share of a reduced pool of public subsidies. Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, said earlier this month he was preparing to announce that onshore wind and solar farm developers would be forced to compete to secure government subsidies.
The commission is expected to announce the results of a review of support for renewable energy as soon as later this month.
Despite British enthusiasm for reducing subsidies, politicians in other EU states may resist pressure to withdraw public support for renewables.
Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s climate action commissioner, said the eventual aim was the end of state aid for wind power. “One of the things Europe has to do better is how we subsidise renewables,” she said.
“That is why the commission is reviewing state aid guidelines for energy, including renewables.”
“My view is that if you have mature technologies, renewables or not, they should not have state aid. If they can manage themselves why have state aid?”
Policy Exchange, a think tank with close links to the Conservatives, has called for steep cuts in subsidies, which would eventually reduce household bills.

2nd January 2014
Source: The Scotsman
5 million Scottish trees felled for wind farms
ONLY a fraction of Scottish forests felled to make way for wind farms have been replanted, figures show, sparking calls for a ban on new developments.

Forestry Commission statistics reveal that about five million trees – almost one for every person in Scotland – have been cut down to clear space for turbines in the past six years but less than a third of them have been replaced.

Of the 2,510 hectares stripped of woodland to make way for turbines since 2007, just 792 hectares were reforested after construction was completed.

The Scottish Conservatives, who obtained the figures through a Freedom of Information request, claimed the figures are evidence that the Scottish Government is “destroying nature” in a bid to meet its own climate targets, which aim for all the country’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020.

MSP Murdo Fraser, energy spokesman for the party, said: “The SNP is so blindly obsessed with renewable energy that it doesn’t mind destroying another important environmental attribute to make way for it.

“It’s quite astonishing to see almost as many trees have been destroyed as there are people in Scotland.”

The government has hit back at the claims, saying the figures do not represent the full picture.

Environment and climate change minister Paul Wheelhouse said: “We have replanted nearly 800 hectares and have restored significant areas of important open habitat where this is best for the environment. The result is that, of the area felled for wind farms, only 315 hectares of land suitable for another rotation of trees has not been replanted.”

He also pointed out that 31,400 hectares of new forestry was planted around the country in the same six-year period. “That’s a staggering 62 million trees in the ground across Scotland,” he said.

“Scotland is also shouldering the vast majority of tree-planting in Britain, with nearly two and a half times more in Scotland compared to south of the Border.”

Mr Fraser, who has previously voiced his opposition to wind farms, is calling for a year-long moratorium on planning applications for new developments.

The regional MSP for Mid-Scotland and Fife said: “The contribution of trees to our environment has been well established through the ages.

“I’m still waiting to see compelling evidence of the contribution wind farms make. They are an expensive, intermittent and unreliable alternative, and not one that it’s worth making this level of sacrifice to ­accommodate.

“If the Scottish Government cooled its ludicrous renewable energy targets, we wouldn’t see this kind of wanton destruction and intrusion on our landscape.”

Mr Wheelhouse defended Scotland’s planning rules, which he said require developers to plant new trees to replace any cut down to make way for wind farms.

He added: “It was the Scottish Government that took a proactive role in protecting Scotland’s forests and woodlands. In 2009, we tightened up the guidance around felling from wind farm developments.

“A key component is to keep any felling to a minimum and compensatory planting undertaken where suitable. Every energy company building wind farms has to comply with this policy. All renewable developments are subject to environmental scrutiny through the planning process and this manages any impacts on the natural environment, landscape and ­communities.”

25th November 2013

Judge Rules Wind Turbines Cause “Irreparable Harm” to Health

Judge Rules Wind Turbines Cause “Irreparable Harm” to Human Health and Issues Immediate Injunction Overnight So Neighbours Can Sleep

US Justice Muse has just ruled 1 that two 1.65 VESTAS Wind Turbines in Falmouth cause “irreparable physical and psychological harm” to the health of neighbours.He has ordered that the turbines are immediately turned off between 7pm and 7am every night, pending the hearing of a case for noise nuisance.

These two turbines are the same power generating capacity as wind turbines at a number of wind developments in Australia 2 where local residents have reported the same range of symptoms, most commonly repetitive sleep disturbance, known for centuries to result in serious long term damage to mental and physical health.

In a letter 3 to the Falmouth Town Health Board in September, US Psychiatrist Dr William Hallstein called for the Board to “stop the abuse” and detailed how sleep deprivation can worsen many pre existing health conditions, can cause serious harm to healthy people if prolonged, and is used as a method of torture.

The Waubra Foundation have just issued an Explicit Warning Notice,4 to publicise the fact that the wind industry and others including governments have been aware of the direct causation of sleep disturbance and other symptoms from infrasound and low frequency noise emissions from wind turbines since the comprehensive acoustic field research 1985,5 led by Dr Neil Kelley.

The denials of the wind industry are reminiscent of those of the tobacco, asbestos and thalidomide manufacturers.Wind Turbine manufacturers have consistently denied knowledge of adverse health effects, most recently VESTAS with their “Act on Facts” campaign,6 launched in Australia June this year.

The subsequent Kelley laboratory research, presented at the American Wind Energy Association Conference in 1987,7 makes it clear that the direct causal link between symptoms and infrasound and low frequency noise has been known to the wind industry for over twenty years.

“Unlike other manufacturers, who have proven their products’ safety, wind turbine manufacturers have not ever done so” according to the Waubra Foundation CEO, Sarah Laurie.“Dr Kelley has since confirmed that his research is equally applicable to modern upwind turbines, despite wind industry assurances otherwise”.8

“We expect other legal cases for noise nuisance from wind turbines, damages for professional negligence 9 and other litigation against those responsible for the predictable harm to health will follow this US decision”.
Source: Waubra Foundation

  23rd November 2013
Energy company to pay out $1m over eagle deaths at wind farms
US energy supplier Duke Energy agrees six figure settlement after pleading guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at Wyoming wind farms

The U.S. government for the first time has enforced environmental laws protecting birds against wind energy facilities, winning a $1 million settlement from a power company that pleaded guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at two wind farms in the western state of Wyoming.

The Obama administration has championed pollution-free wind power and used the same law against oil companies and power companies for drowning and electrocuting birds. The case against Duke Energy Corp. and its renewable energy arm was the first prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act against a wind energy company.

"In this plea agreement, Duke Energy Renewables acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a manner it knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths," Robert G. Dreher, acting assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in a statement Friday.

An investigation by The Associated Press in May revealed dozens of eagle deaths from wind energy facilities, including at Duke's Top of the World farm outside Casper, Wyoming, the deadliest for eagles of 15 such facilities that Duke operates nationwide. The other wind farm included in the settlement is in nearby Campbell Hill.

The Duke has a market capitalisation of nearly $50 billion.

"We deeply regret the impacts of golden eagles at two of our wind facilities," said Greg Wolf, president of Duke Energy Renewables Inc. in a statement. "Our goal is to provide the benefits of wind energy in the most environmentally responsible way possible."

A study in September by federal biologists found that wind turbines had killed at least 67 bald and golden eagles since 2008. That did not include deaths at Altamont Pass, an area in northern California where wind farms kill an estimated 60 eagles a year.

Until Friday's announcement, not a single wind energy company had been prosecuted for a death of an eagle or other protected bird – even though each death is a violation of federal law.

"Wind energy is not green if it is killing hundreds of thousands of birds," said George Fenwick, president of the American Bird Conservancy, which supports properly sited wind farms. "The unfortunate reality is that the flagrant violations of the law seen in this case are widespread."

In 2009, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty and paid $600,000 for killing 85 birds in five states. The BP oil company was fined $100 million for killing and harming migratory birds during the 2010 Gulf oil spill. And PacifiCorp, which operates coal plants, paid more than $10.5 million in 2009 for electrocuting 232 eagles along power lines and at its substations.

Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet's wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds up to 170mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.

Flying eagles behave like drivers texting on their cellphones; they don't look up. As they scan for food, they don't notice the industrial turbine blades until it's too late.

The wind farms in Friday's settlement came on line before the Obama administration drafted voluntary guidelines encouraging wind energy companies to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid locations that would impact wildlife. Companies that choose to cooperate get rewarded, because prosecutors take it into consideration before pursuing prosecution.

Once a wind farm is built, there is little a company can do to stop the deaths. Some firms have tried using radar to detect birds and to shut down the turbines when they get too close. Others have used human spotters to warn when birds are flying too close to the blades. Another tactic has been to remove vegetation to reduce the prey the birds like to eat.

As part of the agreement, Duke will continue to use field biologists to identify eagles and shut down turbines when they get too close. It will install new radar technology, similar to what is used in Afghanistan to track missiles. And it will continue to voluntarily report all eagle and bird deaths to the government.

While the settlement with Duke is a first, there could be more enforcement. The Fish and Wildlife Service is investigating 18 bird-death cases involving windpower facilities, and about a half dozen have been referred to the Justice Department.
Edited by Steve Wilson
Source: The Telegraph

Stirling conference to hear wind power arguments

Stirling is to play host to Scotland’s first national conference exploring the cost of wind energy.

Scotland Against Spin (SAS) has organised the day-long event, which will take place at the Alberts Halls on Sunday November 24.

Linda Holt, from SAS, said the event is not just for those who oppose windfarms but added the conference could not be coming at a better time due to the row over rising utility bills — and how green levies are pushing prices up even further.

The National Audit Office has claimed power bills could continue to rise above inflation for the next 17 years because of the cost of improving infrastructure, building power stations and the switch to greener sources of energy.

One power company, EDF, has already said it will keep its next planned rise to 3.9% if the UK government does lift some green levies.

Ms Holt said people will hear arguments for and against wind power at the event.

She added: “It is a public meeting, it is not just for our members.

“People who oppose wind turbines tend to do it on the basis that they don’t want them next to them but it’s only later they realise there is an economic argument.”

Ms Holt said the costs of investing in wind power, either on or offshore, are too prohibitive and not just in terms of the subsidies power companies receive.

“Wind energy is very destabilising for the grid — they have problems with that in Germany — so these sort of issues need discussed,” she said.

“We will also need to build all the substations and that has not been added to the cost. The idea that Scotland can export energy without these is just ridiculous.”

Speakers include academics and industry experts, including Edinburgh University economist Professor Gordon Hughes and Sue Kearns, head of the Scottish Government’s Renewables Routemap.

Scottish Government energy minister Fergus Ewing will not be at the event, despite an invitation.

Ms Holt said: “We have invited every single councillor, MSP, MP and MEP in Scotland but almost none of them is coming.

“Ninety-five per cent did not even have the courtesy to reply,” she said.

Anyone who wants to attend should email info@scotlandagainstspin.org or call 07715 106032.
Source: The Courier

November 9th 2013
£10BN ENERGY BILLS RIP-OFF:
Salmond wind farm obsession cost British families £2,860

ALEX Salmond’s wind turbine obsession is set to add an extra £10billion onto Britain’s power bills, with consumers locked into paying for renewable energy they will never use.

Dozens of new Scottish wind farms, many of them foreign-owned, are being completed years before the upgrade of power lines from the Highlands and islands or across the Border. The £10billion estimated cost of this renewables rush –
equivalent to almost £2,860 for every household over the next seven years – is based on a report by National Grid, which manages the country’s transmission network.

Under legislation introduced by the Coalition in 2010, energy companies sign what are known as “Connect and Manage” agreements for all new projects.

This means that if they are operational before National Grid is ready to cope with the power they can generate, they will be paid to switch off their turbines.

While most of these wind farms are in Scotland, most of the demand is in England – and the necessary north-south improvements to the grid will take up to a decade to complete.

At the same time, more electricity must be purchased to meet demand in the cities – meaning that householders will be effectively paying for the same power twice.

In three months from April and July, Connect and Manage cost National Grid at least £17.2million – all of which will be “socialised”, or added on to electricity bills.

Only 13 large wind farms in Scotland with 600MW of generating power are operating under the new arrangements – meaning they cost National Grid £1million for each 35MW of capacity.

However, a further 112 Scottish wind farms with a colossal 14,653MW of generating power have already signed Connect and Manage deals.

The average length of time before the network will be ready to cope with all this additional power will be seven years in southern Scotland and five years in the north. Based on the most recent figures, the ultimate cost to customers would
be £10billion – although as more wind farms are built and the grid becomes more congested, that could rise still further.

Also, this figure does not include the millions of pounds in “constraint” payments given to older wind farms to help balance demand on the grid.

Stuart Young, a retired construction consultant and chairman of Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, stumbled across the astonishing report on National Grid’s website.

He said: “This is the inevitable consequence of our government introducing Connect and Manage at a far greater cost than they anticipated.

Britain will be bankrupt if this goes ahead

Stuart Young

“Connect and Manage cost £5.6million for the whole of last year and £17million for just three months this year.

“The reason for this is that we are adding more and more wind farms and we have no option but to pay for this.

“It is inconceivable that it can be allowed to happen this way because the country cannot afford it. Britain will be bankrupt if this goes ahead.”

He added: “Alex Salmond’s ambitions are completely destabilising the running of National Grid. Westminster controls energy but it appears to have forgotten that Holyrood controls planning, therefore it has no say over how many new wind
farms are built in Scotland under this scheme.”

Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser also condemned the spiralling costs of the scheme, saying: “It is bad enough that electricity consumers are having to pay through the nose for intermittent, unreliable and expensive wind power but it now turns
out that they are also having to pay for power that’s not actually capable of being used.

“The figures involved are simply eye-watering and will have to be borne by millions of families across the country who are already struggling with rising energy costs.

“All this just reveals once again the absurdity of SNP energy policy and its single-minded focus on developing more and more wind farms.”

The Beauly to Denny power line, due to open next year, will clear some of the green energy bottleneck in the Highlands.
However, other projects – including a new £1billion undersea cable from Ayrshire to north Wales – are years away from completion.

The latest National Grid report into Connect and Manage said “high winds” between April and July, as well as a cable fault in Northumberland, “compounded” the increase in costs.

The report does not include the sums paid out to cover the 127 smaller wind farms in Scotland covered by Connect and Manage.

There are also 38 large power projects due to come on stream in England and Wales, with a further 21,305MW of capacity.


Although the average delay before they are fully connected to the grid is only three years, these projects are also likely to incur enormous pay-outs.

National Grid estimates that Connect and Manage will cost consumers between £102million to £590million by 2021, although it admits this is not a “definitive forecast”.

A spokesman said: “We do all we can to keep costs down. The costs between April-July were higher due to factors like higher winds and the way the system is in terms of capacity.”
Source: The Scottish Express

November 9th 2013
Gigha watts: Scottish island tests batteries for wind farms Battery project involving 75,000 litres of sulphuric acid will allow Scottish island to store wind power it cannot transmit

The Scottish island of Gigha is to be the focus of a £2.5m experiment aimed at solving a major technological problem: how to store energy generated by wind, tide and wave power plants. The project, which will involve building giant batteries containing 75,000 litres of sulphuric acid mixed with vanadium pentoxide, is intended to allow power generated by the island's wind turbines to be stored for later use.

At present, while Gigha's turbines are running, their power is used to run households on the island and excess is transmitted by cable to the mainland electricity grid. When winds are low, and Gigha's turbines do not turn, the grid feeds power to the island. But the cable link has an upper power limit. As a result, much of the island's excess power cannot be transmitted to the mainland and is wasted. The battery project, backed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, is intended to get round this problem.

"It is not easy to store electricity on a large scale," said Sir John Samuel of REDT, the company awarded the battery contract. "Standard lead-acid batteries generally lose their charge relatively quickly. The battery system we are involved with does not suffer from this problem."

Samuel said the batteries would be able to store enough power to provide the island with 100kW of electricity for 12 hours when winds were low. "The crucial point is that our batteries will be able to be used over and over again," he added.

Scotland's islands and remote highland regions have immense potential for wind power – and, in future, wave and tide power – but suffer because their electricity-cable links are poor and would be immensely expensive to replace. Battery storage systems could therefore help Scotland to reach its goal of meeting all its electricity needs renewably by 2020.
Source: The Guardian

6th may 2013
Eagle chopped in half by wind
by Jesper Lundh

Translation:
A young eagle was yesterday cut in two by a spinning windmill in Skagen. Danish Ornithological Society is in turmoil and believes that misplaced wind turbines can cost several birds. The dead bird with a wingspan of 2.25 meters was found on the ground Sunday morning. The broad wings and the head was in one place - the eagle's lower body with the long sharp claws were well away from the three wind turbines at Buttervej the outskirts of Skagen. It writes the Danish Ornithological Society, DOF.
"Early in the morning, six white-tailed eagles in a row of Skagen and they flew a round beyond Reserve and came near the branch before they flew south again in the fresh westerly wind. Probably the slain young eagle was one of the six white-tailed eagles in a row, "said Pedersen, who almost daily follow bird migration in Skagen.
The turbines are 40 meters high and may have more bird life on his conscience, but since the area is deserted becomes the birds picked up by foxes before they are registered. And there is a risk of even more deaths are, believe bird enthusiasts. For Frederikshavn Municipality has plans to place 11 new wind turbines in the reclaimed Gårdbo lake. Each turbine is 140 feet tall.
"One can hardly suggest a more unfortunate place than Gårdbo lake to put big wind turbines in Denmark, the turbines will stand right by migratory birds approach to Skagen peninsula, the spring is the scene of one of Northern Europe's largest and most concentrated bird migration north. Between 10,000 and 15,000 birds of prey each year draws to Skagen. Moreover 100,000 s of other smaller birds, "says Thorkild Lund, who is chairman of the Danish Ornithological Society (DOF) in northern Jutland to the association's newsletter.
"From Norway we have evidence that large wind turbines are deadly for example, white-tailed eagles. During the seven years after 2005, the 68 windmills in Smola Wind Park on the west coast of the middle Norway claimed 49 dead sea eagles that has collided with the spinning turbine blades, "says Thorkild Lund.
Click here to watch live TV from Danish sea eagles
Source: http://lokalavisen.dk/se-billederne-havoern-hakket-midt-over-af-vindmoelle-/Sjaelland-Politi/20130506/artikler/130509461/1265

10th May 2013
SSE boss 'ashamed' over mis-selling

The chief executive of SSE energy firm has said he is personally ashamed that the company faced strong criticism for mis-selling.

Ian Marchant was speaking after the Perth-based power provider was fined £10.5m for misleading potential customers about rivals' prices.

In an interview about his company and the energy industry, he said senior executive pay was too high.

He also warned the government over future energy policy.

He said the delay in making policy on the future of energy pricing was putting the brakes on new investment.

In the wide-ranging interview with BBC Scotland, to be broadcast on the BBC News Channel and BBC Radio Scotland this weekend, Mr Marchant was asked how it felt to be told his staff had been lying, on his watch as chief executive.

He replied: "The examples of lying were few and far between. More common was misunderstanding, either deliberate or accidental.

Ian Marchant SSE Chief Executive "However, I feel deeply ashamed that a company I've been involved in, where I've been proud to be a leader, was involved in something that it should not have been. Absolutely, it's something that I'll regret for the rest of my career."

He added: "There are some customers who clearly don't like us at all, they've either been let down or feel they've been let down, and for that I'm obviously very sorry. The larger reaction from customers has been this has undermined confidence, you need to rebuild it, and what are you going to do about that?

"It will take a couple of years, I think, to get back to where we were even a month or so ago".

SSE trades as Scottish Hydro, Southern Electric, Swalec and Airtricity. And in comparing the criticism energy companies are receiving, in parallel with banks, Mr Marchant said:

"We did provide the energy, every day, 24/7, to our customers, and we are still doing it, whereas the banks...? What were they providing? Was there any value to the customer, for insurance products that would not pay out.

"So we may be in the eye of the storm more, but the deep-rooted problems are less in our industry".

Mr Marchant said he has reflected on what went wrong at SSE that led to the mis-selling fine, concluding that the sales pitch was "fragile", in trying to explain the benefits of switching while all prices were heading upwards.

Other reasons included managers not checking what they were being told by sales staff, and a failure to heed warning signs going back several years.

Executives overpaid He said £1.3bn profits for SSE last year were explained by the scale of its operations, with some profits regulated and other margins below those retailers could expect.

On his pay of more than £800,000 per year, plus bonuses, he said he was underpaid by comparison with other chief executives in Britain's biggest companies, and agreed that top executives have become overpaid.

"We've been driven too much by the American view of business, and the consultants' view of comparators. Our stated policy is to pay less than average, and I am not aware of any other company with that status, and by definition, 50% of companies should be".

Mr Marchant is to step down as chief executive this summer after 11 years in the job, and 20 years within SSE's companies.

He said he hopes to continue as a company and charity director, while supporting small businesses and business education at university level.

Ian Marchant appears in Leading Questions, put by BBC Scotland business editor Douglas Fraser, at 20:30 on both Saturday and Sunday on the BBC News Channel, with the interview also broadcast on BBC Radio Scotland at 06:00 on Saturday and 10:00 on Sunday

Source: BBC News
£1m for wind farms to shut turbines for one day

POWER companies operating wind farms in Scotland were paid more than £1 million to shut down their turbines for a single day last month, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

New figures reveal that £1,146,614 was handed out to the operators of 13 Scottish wind farms, including £296,457 to a development built on land owned by the Duke of Roxburghe.

The cash, which ultimately comes from electricity consumers’ bills, was given to companies as part of a controversial scheme which compensates wind farm operators for not producing electricity.

The so-called “constraint payments” are paid by the National Grid to energy companies when energy supply outstrips demand – turbines are switched off so they stop producing electricity to rebalance the system.

A snapshot of the scale of the payments was provided by the Renewable Energy Foundation, a charity that publishes information on the energy sector, which compiled constraint payment data for 29 April.

The largest sum paid out on that date was £348,349, which was to shut off the Crystal Rig II wind farm operated by energy company Fred Olsen in East Lothian.

The second-biggest beneficiary was the Fallago Rig Wind Farm run by EDF on land it rents from Roxburghe in the Lammermuir Hills.

A spokesman for Roxburghe refused to comment yesterday on the details of its “commercial agreement with the developer”, other than to say it was “based on a rental for the wind farm”.

But EDF said it received the “full” amount of the constraint payment.

Although Roxburghe will not benefit from the constraint payment, a recent book So Much Wind: The Myth Of Green Energy by the Tory MEP Struan Stevenson suggested the landowner could receive up to £1.5m per year in rent.

Murdo Fraser, the Conservative MSP and a prominent wind farm critic, said: “People struggling with rising electricity bills and growing levels of fuel poverty will be astonished to learn that millions are being paid to companies for power which isn’t even being used.

“This illustrates yet again the folly of the SNP government’s wind energy policy.”

Dr John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, said: “Constraint payments to wind are well in excess of the lost subsidy 
income, suggesting that the industry is taking advantage of the difficulties that they cause on the network.

“While perfectly legal, this is clearly unfair, and the regulator Ofgem needs to step in to protect the consumer.”

SSE was given £89,789 for shutting down Hadyard Hill wind farm in South Ayrshire on 29 April. Seven of Hadyard Hill’s 48 turbines are on land owned by Alex Fergusson, the Tory MSP. According to his register of interests, Fergusson receives between £40,000 and £45,000 per year in rent, but he does not receive any constraint payments.

Yesterday Fergusson said: “I don’t receive any constraint payment whatsoever. I have never understood a policy whereby wind farm operators are compensated not to operate. I find it quite extra-ordinary.”

A spokesman for the National Grid said: “As part of National Grid’s role, it can ask generators to come on or off the grid to manage constraints and keep the system balanced.

“We are incentivised to keep down balancing costs, including constraint payments, and we’ll always take the cheapest and most effective action first to do that.”

A spokesman for EDF said: “All generators are required to have commercial agreements in place with the National Grid. These agreements cover periods when the Grid instructs generators to temporarily decrease the power they generate.”

Source: Scotland On Sunday

24th April 2013
Wind turbines have reduced property values, court says
Ontario court dismisses a lawsuit against wind company

An Ontario court says that landowners near a proposed wind farm have suffered diminished property values.

A lawyer for the landowners says the decision will clear the way for more actions against both wind developers and those who lease their land for wind turbines.

But a spokesman for the wind power company says the evidence that the court heard was “speculative,” and the proceedings never reached the point where core issues were addressed.

The ruling by Madam Justice S.E. Healey dismissed the claims by a group of landowners in the Collingwood area who sued both wpd Canada Corp. and a farm corporation that signed lease agreements with wpd.

The dismissal is based on the fact that the proposed eight-turbine Fairview Wind Project hasn’t yet received environmental approval.

“The plaintiffs are unable to prove, currently, that the Fairview Wind Project will be built,” Healey wrote in her decision (emphasis in the original).

But she did accept that damage has been done.

“Even though in this case the court accepts that the plaintiffs have suffered, and are currently suffering, losses culminating in diminished property values, as the evidence exists today the plaintiffs are unable to prove that they have been wronged by the defendants,” she wrote.

Healey noted that the landowners near the proposed wind farms had submitted expert opinion estimating that drop in land values of 20 to 50 per cent.

She said the landowners can file a damage claim when the project clears all of its regulatory approvals.

“It is possible . . . that they may he wronged by one or more of the defendants committing a tort in the future when and if the Fairview Wind Project is either given approval and/or constructed,” she wrote.

(A tort is a civil action that causes damage.)

Sylvia and John Wiggins, who were selling their a 48-acre horse farm, had sued for $2 million. They said no one would buy their property when the wind project was announced. They were joined by other property owners.

Eric Gillespie, the lawyer for the landowners who brought the action, said the decision is a significant step forward for his clients.

“Wind corporations and politicians have been saying for many years that wind turbines don’t devalue property,” Gillespie said in an interview.

“This is a court finding that they do, even before a project has been approved and constructed,” he said

“In the minds of our clients, that’s a major breakthrough,” he added.

Kevin Surette, spokesman for wpd, downplayed the significance of the ruling, noting that it came at an early stage in proceedings.

The court’s acceptance that the property values near the proposed wind farm have suffered came before the wind company had made its case, he said.

“The court is basing that opinion on the evidence presented by the plaintiffs,” he said in an interview.

“We have not, and we had not, presented evidence on our side, and we haven’t challenged their evidence,” he said.

“Had the case proceeded, we would have challenged those claims.”

The wind farm application by wpd is in the hands of Ontario’s environment ministry, Surette said. The ministry still hasn’t accepted that the application for the eight-turbine development is complete.

Once it is accepted as complete, the ministry has six months to approve or reject it.

Source: The Star

7th April 2013 SSE boss to get £400k pension as he refuses to resign

Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) has received the largest ever fine given to an energy company after it was found guilty of lying to customers.

It has emerged that the man in charge of SSE, chief executive, Ian Marshall is in line for a £15 million payoff if he waits until the summer to step down.

SSE has been fined £10.5 million by the energy regulator Ofgem for mis-selling gas and electricity to customers via doorstop-selling at people’s homes, in-store and on the phone between October 2009 and July 2011.

MPs on the Commons Energy Select Committee demanded that police open a fraud inquiry.

Mr Marshall has refused to personally apologise or take responsibility for the mis-selling of energy tariffs in which customers were lied to about savings they could make by choosing one of SSE's tariffs over rival tariffs.

He repeated a statement given by the firm saying: “SSE made it very clear we regret and apologise for things we didn’t get right.

“We have also made it clear what we have already done to correct these issues from the past and what we continue to do.”

An SSE spokesman said last night: “He has announced he will leave on July 1, nothing that’s happened this week changed that. His remuneration package has yet to be decided.”

Mr Marshall is expected to receive a pension worth £400,000 a year.

Ofgem said that the “findings show SSE failed its customers, missold to them and undermined trust in the energy supply industry.”

It said there were “failures at every stage of the sales process”. The fine will be paid to the Treasury. Ofgem said at least 23,000 customers were mis-sold energy products.

It said that all customers who believe they may have been mis-sold products are encouraged to apply for cpmpensation from SSE.

The regulator accused SSE of lying to customers to persuade them to switch their energy deals to SSE. It said the firm gave out “misleading and unsubstantiated statements” to potential new customers about prices and the savings they could make if they switched.

A statement from SSE said: “SSE is deeply regretful that breaches occurred and apologises unreservedly to any customers who have been affected by sales activity which ran counter to the values and culture of the company.”

SSE has set aside a fund of £5 million for customers to claim from if they feel they have been mis-sold a product.

Sarah Harrison, Ofgem’s Senior Partner in charge of enforcement said: “In order to restore trust in the energy market suppliers must comply with their obligations and play it straight with consumers.

“Ofgem’s findings show SSE failed its customers, missold to them and undermined trust in the energy supply industry.

“These failings did not just take place on the doorstep but also in the management of SSE. Ofgem’s fine reflects an absence of effective management control over energy selling.”

The regulator went on to say that the level of the fine reflects the seriousness and duration of the mis-selling, as well as the harm caused to customers and the likely gain to SSE.

Ofgem said that examples of some of the mis-selling techniques used included:

• telling some customers that they would save money when in fact they were switched on to a more expensive contract

• telling some customers that they could make larger savings if they switched to SSE than were possible

• telling the customer that by switching to SSE they would be getting the full reductions they’re entitled to, “just like the government intended”

• telling the customer that other suppliers were making “all sorts of false promises”

• telling the customer that other suppliers were putting their prices up, or that other suppliers’ price increases were higher than they actually were

• suggesting to customers that SSE can put them on a “preferred customer tariff ... with no standing charge if you want”, but failing to tell those customers they would be charged higher first tier unit rates instead of a standing charge.

Ann Robinson, Director of Consumer Policy at uSwitch.com, says: “This is shocking news, especially given the magnitude of the fine. We welcome such a significant move by Ofgem – it is vital that trust is restored in the industry.

“SSE customers should have been contacted to see if they qualify for a reimbursement. However, if they haven’t yet been written to and feel they are out of pocket, they should contact SSE for compensation - the supplier has set aside £5 million to repay them.”

Richard Lloyd of consumer group Which? said: “While SSE have contacted customers and have made funds available to compensate those affected, we want the Government to ensure regulators have the power to force energy companies to proactively contact and compensate those customers who were mis-sold.”
Source: My Finances

5th April
'Launch criminal probe into SSE swindle': MP demand police investigate mis-selling scandal.
He has written to ­Scotland Yard calling for regulator Ofgem to be forced to hand over all its evidence on energy mis-selling.
A furious MP yesterday formally demanded a criminal probe into the SSE energy rip-off scandal.

Labour’s Barry Gardiner wrote to ­Scotland Yard calling for regulator Ofgem to be forced to hand over all its evidence on energy mis-selling.

Mr Gardiner, who sits on the Energy Select Committee, said police needed to “determine whether any fraudulent or criminal activity has taken place” in the company’s bid to win new customers.

He said it was not up to Ofgem to decide if SSE had broken the law by getting its doorstep sellers to fleece customers.

Yesterday thousands of ripped-off customers blitzed the energy giant’s compensation hotline to get refunds.

But payouts from the firm which made £1.3billion profit last year averaged just £65.

Ofgem has fined SSE a record £10.5million for ­ruthless mis-selling on doorsteps, over the telephone and on the high street.

Blame for a “woeful catalogue of failures” was laid on everyone from executives to cold callers.

Hundreds of thousands were lured to switch suppliers at the height of the racket – which lasted for three years – and many ended up paying more.

They were promised larger savings than were possible or were told other suppliers were putting up prices.

Sales staff also failed to provide adequate information on prices, exit fees, unit rates and standing charges.

Mr Gardiner’s letter to Met police chief Bernard Hogan-Howe raises the prospect of criminal charges against SSE directors.

He calls for an investigation into mis-selling to determine whether it amounts to fraud.

Mr Gardiner notes that Ofgem has determined that mis-selling has taken place and goes on: “I note that Ofgem have stated that they have no intention of providing the evidence of this to the police as they concluded that they had found no evidence of criminal intent.

“You may consider, as I do, that it is the job of the courts to determine whether there was criminal intent.

“I trust you will consider asking Ofgem to provide you with a full dossier and, through your investigations, determine whether it would be appropriate to request that the Director of Public Prosecutions initiate further proceeding.”

Scotland Yard yesterday confirmed they had received his letter.

While the £10.5million fine is the largest ever handed out by Ofgem it is a tiny fraction of the company’s profits.

SSE has set aside just £5million to cover claims while boss, Ian Marchant, 51, is set to walk away with a £15million golden handshake this summer.

Last night a customer, who did not wish to be named, said: “They are laughing all the way to the bank.

"How dare they? Those responsible should be arrested.”

The questions Mr Marchant will not answerYesterday Mr Marchant refused to answer the Mirror’s questions for the second day running.

A spokesman said he was at work but not at the company’s Perth headquarters. But SSE refused to say where he was working from.

Today we remind him what those six burning questions are...

1 You know the names and addresses of customers you have ripped off. Why are you not compensating them immediately - rather than insisting they get in touch with you?

2 Do you feel you are morally ­entitled to accept your £15million golden handshake?

3 When were you first aware of the mis-selling by SSE sales staff and what did you do?

4 When did the mis-selling come to an end?

5 Has anyone lost their job over the scandal?

6 Do you not feel you should tender your resignation immediately?

How to claim compensation from SSEThe Daily Mirror believes rip-off companies should compensate customers straight away.

And today we challenge PM David Cameron to force them to give a no-quibble refund to customers.

This is how to claim if you are an SSE victim:

1. Call SSE on its hotline 0800 975 3341 if you believe you were mis-sold a contract between October 2009 and July 2011.

2. You will be asked for account details so have them handy.

3. SSE has written to 970,000 customers but if you haven’t got a letter it doesn’t mean you won’t be entitled to a refund. Claims should take around two weeks to settle.

4. If you are unhappy with the decision, contact the Energy Ombudsman on 0330 440 1624 or by writing to Ombudsman Services - Energy, PO Box 966, Warrington WA4 9DF.

Source: The Mirror

3rd April 2013
Anti-wind farm campaigners remain to convinced over 'extra protection' for wild land
CAMPAIGNERS against the “further industrialisation” of the Scottish landscape by wind turbines have reacted sceptically to claims of an about turn on the issue by Alex Salmond.

The First Minister has previously claimed that wind farms do not deter visitors or damage the landscape, despite tens of thousands of objections to projects around the country.

But he is now said to be ready to support “turbine-free” areas to protect the country’s best mountain scenery.

The environment agency Scottish Natural Heritage is drawing up maps identifying about 28 per cent of the countryside as “wild land”.

These areas are mainly in the Highlands and it has been suggested that in future planning guidance will suggest applications should not be approved in these areas unless it is a “special case”.

The Scottish Planning Policy document, and the National Planning Framework, are to be revised to reflect the change, according to reports.

However, a spokesman for Scotland Against Spin, the anti-wind farm group, said the proposal left 72 per cent of Scotland unprotected.

Linda Holt, for the group, added: “It may be that Mr Salmond is reacting to having been so deaf to people for so long. It is high time he started listening.

“If things are going to change, we would also like to see the guideline that suggests wind turbines should be at least 2km from homes being made mandatory. At the moment that guideline is routinely trampled over.”

David Gibson, chief officer of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, said the Allt Duine wind farm on the edge of the Cairngorms National Park was a hugely important test case for any change of policy.

The 31-turbine proposal is in the heart of the Monadhliadth Mountains, near Aviemore, and the MCofS has warned that it will scar an area of national importance.

Mr Gibson said the alleged about turn would mean Fergus Ewing, the Energy Minister, “saying no” if the project – which was the subject of a public inquiry - landed on his desk for a final decision.

He added: “My reaction to the latest news is that the devil is in the detail. But if this is evidence of the Scottish Government is listening, then that is encouraging.” He added that Scotland had already reached “saturation point”, and that thousands of turbines were still in the planning pipeline.

Pat Wells, of the Stop Highland Windfarms Campaign, said that if the mapping plan was “not simply a PR exercise” then there was an urgent need for a more robust and transparent planning system in which the voice of local communities was not ignored.

She also called for statutory designation for wild land to spare it from “further industrialisation”.

She added: “Effective protection for Scotland’s wild land is overdue and some special areas have already been, or will be, damaged by wind farm developments such as the approved Dunmaglass wind farm on deep peat in the heart of the Monadhliath Mountains.”

Ms Wells said the standard Scottish Government comment that it was committed to “suitably located” wind farms had become “something of a sick joke” as numerous large projects over 50 MW that had been refused by councils had been rubber-stamped by ministers.

Liz Smith, the Scottish Conservative MSP, said it was the first hint that the SNP may be prepared to ease off on its wind farm obsession, but added that it did not “tie” with Mr Salmond’s aggressive rhetoric on the issue.

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said it was committed to suitably located onshore wind farms that gave the “right level of protection to important landscapes".

He added that there would be consultation process soon on a new draft Scottish Planning Policy and the National Planning Framework.
Source: The Telegraph

17March 2013

Green tax boost for wind farm profits
The full extent of the profits to be made by wind farms in Britain can be spelt out for the first time.
A briefing document on the wind industry written for investors – and seen by The Sunday Telegraph – shows how attempts to increase the supply of green energy will make turbines far more profitable over the next decade.

It predicts that wind farms will generate greater income following the introduction of a new tax on energy from gas and coal-fired power stations because it will drive up the cost of electricity over the next seven years.

The new tax, intended to cut pollution from traditional sources of electricity, will allow wind farm operators to charge more for the power they produce, with the extra costs expected to be passed on to consumers through their bills. Energy industry experts predict the new tax will cost electricity customers an extra £1billion a year from 2016.

The documents seen by The Sunday Telegraph show how:

* Wind farms are already making hundreds of millions of pounds of profits, with half the income from existing consumer subsidies;

* Coal-fired power plants are being forced to close ahead of the new carbon tax as it will make operating too expensive;

* Electricity prices are expected to increase at an accelerated rate due to the resulting reduction in power supplies;

* Energy costs will rise by around eight per cent each year between now and 2020, meaning wholesale prices will almost double.

The details are contained in a 70-page prospectus drawn up by Barclays Bank and sent to financiers looking to invest up to £260million in a new energy fund, Greencoat UK Wind, which is planning to buy stakes in six big wind farms around the UK.

The document will anger backbench Tory MPs, who have campaigned for wind farm subsidies to be cut – only to discover that they will effectively be receiving a new subsidy on top of existing ones the industry receives to encourage renewable energy.

Chris Heaton-Harris, a Conservative MP who has led a campaign to reduce wind farm subsidies, said: “I find it hard to believe that the Department of Energy and Climate Change has pulled the wool over the eyes of those in the Treasury.

“This prospectus explains the massive rush of wind applications, as developers know they will get rich whilst pushing thousands of energy consumers into fuel poverty.”

The financial prospectus shows just how much money the bank is convinced investors can now make from wind energy, providing the most detailed insight yet into the workings of the wind industry.

Most of the profit comes from the generous subsidy currently offered by the Government to encourage green energy, which is subsequently added on to electricity bills.

The document says the introduction of the new green tax on polluting forms of energy – called the “carbon price floor” – will have the effect of driving up prices, not least because coal-fired power stations are being shut down as a result, making wind farms even more profitable.

The Government, through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, has committed £50million to the Greencoat fund to underpin the scheme.

Critics complain that this means the Government is unlikely to reduce generous subsidies on which it is now also staking its own money.

Investors were told in the prospectus that electricity prices should rise by 55 per cent from £45 for each megawatt-hour to £70 by 2016. On top of that wind farms receive an additional subsidy of about £50 for each megawatt-hour.

Dr John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a charity which has highlighted the cost of wind farms, said: “Wind power is already over-subsidised, so it is simply astonishing that government should calmly and one suspects incompetently spread another generous layer of jam on the revenue of existing wind farms.”

A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills spokesman said it was investing £50million in Greencoat “to help catalyse the additional private sector capital required” to increase investment in renewable energy.

Richard Nourse, managing partner at Greencoat Capital, which will manage the fund, said: “Greencoat UK Wind offers investors the prospect of a six per cent dividend yield expected to increase in line with inflation.

“In these days of low interest rates and high volatility, this seems to be attractive to investors.”
Source: The Telegraph

15 March 2013
Barely 2,000 onshore wind farm jobs in Scotland Onshore wind farms support barely 2,000 jobs in Scotland despite Alex Salmond’s claim they are a major source of employment, ministers have admitted.

Fergus Ewing, the SNP Energy Minister, published figures showing there are 2,235 posts “connected directly to onshore wind”, less than a fifth of the total for all forms of green power.

Mr Salmond last year told MSPs that 18,000 Scots were employed in renewable energy before downgrading that total to 11,000 by requesting the Scottish Parliament written record of proceedings be secretly changed.

The Conservatives last night said the new figure raises further questions about the SNP’s drive for a speedy expansion of wind farms across rural Scotland.

The First Minister has claimed his target of generating the equivalent of all Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020 would lead to the country’s re-industrialisation and thousands of jobs.

However, most of the target is expected to be met using thousands of onshore wind turbines as this is by far the most mature of the renewable technologies.

John Lamont, Scottish Tory Chief Whip, said: “The rhetoric from the Scottish Government over recent years has given the clear impression that wind farms are worth the visual sacrifice because they are such a major source of employment.

“Yet now we learn that far from the misleading 11,000 figure, which includes all renewable sources, there are only 2,000 employed thanks to wind farm developments. This is deliberate manipulation by the SNP – and they can’t even say where these jobs are.”

Mr Lamont received the real jobs total after asking the Scottish Government how many people have jobs “directly connected to wind farm developments”.

Mr Ewing replied initially using an oft-quoted estimate by Scottish Renewables, the trade body representing wind farm companies, that there were 11,136 full-time posts in green energy in 2011/12.

However, he then admitted that only 18 per cent of these jobs were in onshore wind. But the minister added: “The success of the onshore wind industry has contributed towards the wider success of the renewable energy sector and, in particular, provided a rationale for major grid upgrade projects.”

The Scottish Government has claimed offshore wind alone will generate up to 28,000 jobs but critics have claimed the majority of posts will be filled by foreign turbine manufacturers and installation teams.

After realising he had wrongly stated there are 18,000 renewables jobs, Mr Salmond wrote to Holyrood’s administrators last year asking that they change his answer by altering the official report, a written minute of parliament’s proceedings.

However, he did not simultaneously follow Scottish Parliament guidance that he publicise the correction by telling the MSP whose question prompted his inaccurate answer and the opposition parties.

MSPs only discovered that the jobs total was incorrect and Mr Salmond’s subsequent attempt to alter Holyrood’s records after the error was highlighted by an anti-wind farm campaigner.
Source: The Telegraph

12 March 2013
Civil servants 'in bid to gag anti-wind farm protesters'
A COMMUNITY councillor who took the UK Government to the United Nations over the building of wind farms has accused civil servants of attempting to gag campaigners.

Christine Metcalfe, 69, went to the UN on behalf of Avich-Kilchrenan Community Council in Argyll, after failing with a complaint to the Scottish Government about the building of the Carraig Gheal wind farm near her home in Taynuilt – an area of great beauty and a nesting site for golden eagles.

With the case due to be discussed again at the end of this month by the international tribunal, it has emerged UK civil servants have attempted to use a technical point which would stop others following her lead.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) wrote to the UN after Mrs Metcalfe's case was heard in Geneva in December last year.

Defra cast doubt on the status of Scottish community councils, saying they might be considered public authorities which would exclude them from bringing a complaint.

However, campaigners claim the move is strange as the Scottish Government, which is responsible for the remit of community councils, states they are not public authorities.

Mrs Metcalfe complained to the UN's Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) the UK and European Union breached the Aarhus Convention, under which the public must be given reliable and transparent information on environmental matters, and sufficient participation in decision-making. Her complaint relates to both the Carraig Gheal wind farm and to claims made within renewable energy policy.

But in what campaigners believe is a bid to prevent similar complaints, Defra has attempted to persuade the UN not to treat the case as being made by a community councillor. Instead, officials suggest it should be treated as coming from a member of the public.

Defra told the UN committee: "The general purpose of com-munity councils is to ascertain, co-ordinate and express to the local authorities for its area, and to public authorities, the views of the community which it represents. Given the role played by community councils - there are arguments against considering them to be public authorities for the purpose of the convention.

"We respectfully suggest it may be helpful to consider the communicant to be Mrs Metcalfe in person."

Mrs Metcalfe said if UNECE accepts Defra's position and stops community councils making complaints, it would restrict the ability of the public to raise objections.

She said: "It's extremely important community councils can make complaints.

"It's easier for governments to ignore an individual, pass him or her from pillar to post or fob them off. Community councils have to be answered."

Linda Holt, spokeswoman for the anti-wind farm group Scotland Against Spin, said it was strange Defra had not received clarification from the Scottish Government.

She added: "The fact the UK Government is casting doubt over the status of community councils when the Scottish Government is clear they are not public authorities seems to show an astounding lack of communication between the two.

"Maybe the UK Government is trying to muddy the waters so the UN doesn't accept community councils as complainants, but it does smack of desperation."

But Defra said: "To make sure there could not be any obstruction to Mrs Metcalfe's complaint we suggested that an individual was making it rather than there being any confusion over whether the community council is classed as a public body."

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said community councils were not public authorities but declined to comment because of the legal process.
Source: The Herald

24 February 2013
Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists

Thousands of Britain’s wind turbines will create more greenhouse gases than they save, according to potentially devastating scientific research to be published later this year.

The finding, which threatens the entire rationale of the onshore wind farm industry, will be made by Scottish government-funded researchers who devised the standard method used by developers to calculate “carbon payback time” for wind farms on peat soils.

Wind farms are typically built on upland sites, where peat soil is common. In Scotland alone, two thirds of all planned onshore wind development is on peatland. England and Wales also have large numbers of current or proposed peatland wind farms.

But peat is also a massive store of carbon, described as Europe’s equivalent of the tropical rainforest. Peat bogs contain and absorb carbon in the same way as trees and plants — but in much higher quantities.

British peatland stores at least 3.2 billion tons of carbon, making it by far the country’s most important carbon sink and among the most important in the world.

Wind farms, and the miles of new roads and tracks needed to service them, damage or destroy the peat and cause significant loss of carbon to the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change.

Writing in the scientific journal Nature, the scientists, Dr Jo Smith, Dr Dali Nayak and Prof Pete Smith, of Aberdeen University, say: “We contend that wind farms on peatlands will probably not reduce emissions …we suggest that the construction of wind farms on non-degraded peats should always be avoided.”

Dr Nayak told The Telegraph: “Our full paper is not yet published, but we should definitely be worried about this. If the peatland is already degraded, there is no problem. But if it is in good condition, we should avoid it.”

Another peat scientist, Richard Lindsay of the University of East London, said: “If we are concerned about CO2, we shouldn’t be worrying first about the rainforests, we should be worrying about peatlands.

“The world’s peatlands have four times the amount of carbon than all the world’s rainforests. But they are a Cinderella habitat, completely invisible to decision- makers.”

One typical large peat site just approved in southern Scotland, the Kilgallioch wind farm, includes 43 miles of roads and tracks. Peat only retains its carbon if it is moist, but the roads and tracks block the passage of the water.

The wind industry insists that it increasingly builds “floating roads,” where rock is piled on a textile surface without disturbing the peat underneath.

But Mr Lindsay said: “Peat has less solids in it than milk. The roads inevitably sink, that then causes huge areas of peatland to dry out and the carbon is released.”

Mr Lindsay said that more than half of all British onshore wind development, current and planned, is on peat soils.

In 2011 the Scottish government’s nature protection body, Scottish Natural Heritage, said 67 per cent of planned onshore wind development in Scotland would be on peatland.

Struan Stevenson, the Tory MEP for Scotland who has campaigned on the issue, said: “This is a devastating blow for the wind factory industry from which I hope it will not recover.

"The Scottish government cannot realise their plans for wind farms without allowing the ruination of peat bogs, so they are trying to brush this problem under the carpet.

"This is just another way in which wind power is a scam. It couldn’t exist without subsidy. It is driving industry out of Britain and driving people into fuel poverty.”

Scotland’s SNP government has led a strong charge for wind power, promising that 100 per cent of the country’s electricity will be generated from renewable sources.

But even its environment minister, Stewart Stevenson, admits: “Scotland has 15 per cent of the world’s blanket bog.

"Even a small proportion of the carbon stored in peatlands, if lost by erosion and drainage, could add significantly to our greenhouse gas emissions.”

In 2008 Dr Smith, Dr Nayak and Prof Smith devised the standard “carbon payback time” calculator used by the wind farm industry to assess the CO2 impact of developments on peat soils.

“Large peatland wind farms introduce high potential for their expected CO2 savings to be cancelled out by release of greenhouse gases stored in the peat,” they said.

“Emission savings are achieved by wind power only after the carbon payback time has elapsed, and if this exceeds the lifetime of the wind farm, no carbon benefits will be realised.”

Even the initial version of the calculator found that the carbon cost of a badly sited peat wind farm — on a sloping site, resulting in more drainage of the peat, and without restoration afterwards — was so high that it would take 23 years before it provided any CO2 benefit. The typical life of a wind farm is only 25 years.

The researchers initially believed that well-managed and well-sited peatland wind farms could still cut greenhouse gas emissions, over time, compared to electricity generation overall.

But now they say that the shrinking use of fossil fuels in overall electricity generation has changed the equation, making the comparison less favourable to all peatland wind farms.

“Our previous work argued that most peatland sites could save on net [CO2] emissions,” they said. “But emissions factors [in UK electricity generation as a whole] are likely to drop significantly in the future.

"As a result, peatland sites would be less likely to generate a reduction in carbon emissions, even with careful management.”

The significance of the Aberdeen researchers’ work is increased by the fact that they are funded by the Scottish government and are broadly pro-wind.

They wrote in a previous paper that “it is important that wind farm developments should not be discouraged unnecessarily because they are a key requirement for delivery of the Scottish government’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.

Helen McDade, from the John Muir Trust, which campaigns to protect wild land, said: “Much of the cheap land being targeted by developers desperate to cash in on wind farm subsidies is peatland in remote wild land areas of the UK.

"This statement, from the academic team who developed the carbon calculator for the Scottish government, is a timely reminder that we must have independent and scientific assessment of the effects of policy and subsidies.”

The wind industry insisted that the impact of properly managed wind farms on peat and carbon emissions was minimal. Niall Stuart, director of Scottish Renewables, a trade association, said that damaged peatland could be restored in as little as a year.

He said the association had signed a “statement of good practice principles” with environmental groups promising that “every reasonable effort” will be made to avoid “significant adverse environmental effects” on peatland, including “properly planned and managed habitat restoration”.

Jennifer Webber, a spokesman for RenewableUK, the industry lobbying group, said: “Wind farms continue to be an important tool in decarbonisation and energy independence, with actual measurements showing wind displacing gas from the system. This is why they retain support from environmental organisations.”
Source: The Telegraph

22 February 2013
Landowners '£1 billion wind farm boom'
Scotland’s wealthiest private landowners are on course to earn around £1 billion in rental fees from wind farm companies, according to a book published yesterday by a senior Tory politician.

Struan Stevenson, a Conservative MEP, estimated the sum will be paid over the next eight years to at least a dozen landowners willing to allow turbines on their estates and farms.

He suggested the wealthiest Scots are benefiting from the spread of wind farms at the expense of consumers, who have to heavily subsidise the technology in their energy bills.

Among the landowners named in the book is the Duke of Roxburghe, who, he estimated, could earn £1.5 million a year from turbines erected in the Lammermuir Hills.

Titled So Much Wind – The Myth of Green Energy, the book also claims that the spread of wind farms is leading to a new wave of Clearances as families are forced to move away by the construction of industrial turbines.

It was published as MSPs debated Alex Salmond’s plan to generate the equivalent of all Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by the end of the decade.

Mr Stevenson estimated that the target would require the construction of around 5,000 wind farms in Scotland of which around 1,900 have already been built.

“We’re seeing in Scotland the biggest transfer of money from the poor to the rich that we’ve ever seen in our history,” he told a press conference in Edinburgh.

“In parts of the Highlands now tourism is being effectively destroyed and people are leaving the Highlands because tourists no longer want to go there with the landscape bristling with wind factories and industrial wind turbines.

“It’s a catastrophic policy that could lead to the lights going out in Scotland and power cuts in the years ahead. It’s time this was exposed.”

His book argued that “money is the driver” behind landowners’ willingness to allow the construction of wind farms on their estates and farms.

“Rental payments vary and are top secret but it is estimated that a dozen or more of Scotland’s wealthiest private landowners will pocket around £1 billion in rental fees over the next eight years,” he wrote.

Mr Stevenson estimated the Duke of Roxburghe’s income based on 48 120-metre high turbines at Fallago Rig in the Lammermuir Hills.

He wrote that Sir Alastair Gordon-Cumming, a seventh baronet, could be earning £435,000 a year for allowing 29 turbines on his Altyre Estate near Forres in Moray.

Meanwhile, he estimated the Earl of Seafield could get £120,000 a year from eight turbines on his estate near Banff.

The Earl of Moray is estimated to receive around £2 million annually in rent for 49 turbines at Braes O’Doune, which Mr Stevenson wrote are “clearly visible from the iconic Stirling Castle”.

The Earl of Glasgow, a Liberal Democrat peer, has 14 turbines on his Kelburn estate in Ayrshire that could generate £300,000 of income per year.

Mr Stevenson highlighted how the Crown Estate, will controls large tracts of land and the seabed around Scotland, is on course to net billions of pounds from offshore wind farms. The revenue will be split between the Treasury and the Queen.

The Tory MEP argued wind farms are extremely inefficient and erratic, saying National Grid figures showed they produced only 0.1 per cent of the UK’s electricity needs on Tuesday morning this week.

In a debate at Holyrood, opposition MSPs complained about SNP ministers overturning local planning authorities’ decisions to reject wind farm applications.

However, Fergus Ewing, the Scottish Energy Minister, insisted he would only approve “the right developments in the right places”.

Scottish Land and Estates, the body that represents landowners, and the Roxburghe Estate declined to comment on Mr Stevenson's claims.

Source: The Telegraph

19th February 2013

What a wind turbine earns
Click here to see the capacity, actual generation and generated income (from electricity sales and ROCs) from over 400 wind turbine locations in the UK. Click the name of the location to see the details.
Source: Variable Pitch

7th February 2013

Warning wind farm subsidies are pushing Scots into fuel poverty

A Scots politician has claimed wind farm subsidies are plunging Scots into fuel poverty.

In a Scottish Government debate on fuel poverty, Mid-Scotland and Fife MSP Murdo Fraser attacked the SNP for its staunch backing of onshore wind projects.

Opponents of the Government policy have claimed the generous grants awarded to wind farm developers have pushed electricity costs through the roof, leaving Scotland with some of the highest energy bills in Europe.

The subsidies were introduced across the UK last year and are expected to have cost up to £1 billion.

They offer a huge benefit to the energy companies as they push ahead with wind power projects but their cost in added on to household bills.

The subsidies are said to be rising faster than inflation, with wages struggling to keep up.

Almost 30% of Scottish residents are being left in fuel poverty and Energy Action Scotland claims the figure could be as high as 40%.

“Each electricity bill has a rapidly increasing levy for paying the subsidies for wind turbines,” Mr Fraser said.

“Every time we hear someone evangelising on behalf of the wind power industry, let us remember it is built on increasing fuel poverty.

“Every time we hear wind farm developers talking about the sums they pay out in community benefit, let us remember every penny of community benefit is being robbed from the public, many of whom can barely afford to heat their homes.

Mr Fraser added: “The Scottish Government must realise the decisions they make on wind energy effects everyone in Scotland, from the rural resident whose community is blighted by these structures, to the urban family who witness a dramatic increase in their heating and lighting bills.”
Source: The Courier

SSE sells wind farms for £140m
By GARETH MACKIE
Published on Wednesday 6 February 2013 08:15

Scottish Hydro parent company SSE has agreed to sell four wind farms, including two in Scotland, for £140 million in cash.

The Perth-based group is selling the farms, which have a total generation capacity of 79.5 megawatts, to a new fund managed by renewables-focused investor Greencoat Capital. SSE said it would invest up to £43m of the sale proceeds into the fund.

The sale includes SSE’s 50 per cent stake in the Braes of Doune facility near Stirling, along with its wholly-owned Carcant site in the Borders, plus two farms in Northern Ireland.

Following the sale, SSE will have 1,351 megawatts of onshore wind farm capacity across Britain and Ireland, with a further 277 megawatts under construction or in the pipeline.

The utility’s finance director, Gregor Alexander, said: “The proceeds from these disposals will support our investment in new renewable assets in the coming financial year.”

He said the deal was subject to Greencoat Capital successfully listing on the London Stock Exchange and raising the required capital by the end of March.
Source: The Scotsman

30th January 2013
35-metre wind turbine collapses in Bradworthy

A 35-metre turbine has collapsed near Holsworthy leaving the tower lying on the ground.

The turbine at East Ash Farm in Bradworthy was erected in 2010 by Dulas Ltd.

Dulas confirmed this morning that an "incident" had occurred with the turbine and said the situation is currently being investigated.

A spokesman for Dulas said: "We can confirm that an incident occurred with a turbine in the Bradworthy area of North Devon in the early hours of Sunday morning.

"We can reassure the local community that due to the isolated location of the turbine, no one was put at risk and we are currently working hard to establish the precise cause of the incident.

"Our technical team is one of the most experienced in the UK. They are working alongside the turbine manufacturer to conduct a full root-cause analysis investigation.

"We will continue to keep communication open and provide updates as and when we have further information.”

The Endurance Wind Power E-3120 turbine, which was the first model of its kind to be erected in the country, has a five year warranty.

It is believed the turbine collapsed during high winds in the early hours of Sunday.

But Bradworthy Parish Council, who are fiercely against the proliferation of turbines in the Bradworthy area, don't believe the weather was that extreme.

Councillor Keith Tomlin, who spoke on behalf of the parish council, said: “The collapse of the less than 3 year old wind turbine at East Ash occurred during a night of unexceptional weather for the area.

"We are relieved to note that no one was injured but had this happened in daytime there was a chance of serious injury to workers on the farm where it was located or to the public on the road nearby.

"Of greater concern is that Torridge District Council have recently approved the erection of a second turbine of the same size and manufacture at this location that would have been closer to the public road.

"A number of similar turbines have been approved and erected locally and the safety of these turbines must now be questioned, together with that of the much larger ones that have also been approved but not yet built.

"This incident must be a wakeup call for Torridge District Council in their policy towards wind turbines and until the result of any investigation into this incident has taken place they would be prudent to halt the erection of any other wind turbines in the district."

Marcus, who didn't wish to give his surname, lives three miles from the site and drove past the collapsed turbine this morning.

He said: "It was flat on the ground, there were about half a dozen men in high vis jackets in the field looking at it."

Others took to Twitter to share news of the collapsed turbine.

@putfordpom wrote: "Turbine down due to record high winds & sheered bolts. Unprecedented."

Although no one was injured during the incident the Health and Safety Executive have confirmed they are looking into it but it has not been reported to them officially.

The owners of East Ash Farm have recently been granted planning permission by Torridge District Council to erect a second turbine of the same make.

At the planning committee meeting in December, where permission was given, Joanna Maynard, from Stags acting as an agent for the farmers, confirmed the extra turbine would mean the farm’s 350 dairy herd could increase by 200.

It was also confirmed at the meeting the turbine will only be 130 metres from the nearest property, rather than the distance of 385 metres stated in the planning report.

The Journal has been unable to contact the owners of East Ash Farm.
Source: This is North Devon


30th January 2013
Tories insist no wind turbines within 2km of homes
ALL wind farms would be built at least two kilometres (one-and-a-quarter miles) away from housing in Scotland under plans to be unveiled by the Conservatives today.

The party warns that turbine numbers in Scotland will rise to more than 5,000 as the SNP moves ahead with plans to generate all of Scotland’s electricity from green energy sources like wind, wave and hydro.

The Nationalist government says it backs two-thirds of local decisions on turbines and the renewables industry provides “essential jobs and investment”.

However, Tory leader Ruth Davidson will say: “It is not fair that anyone should have to live in the shadow of a turbine.

“The SNP may think it’s acceptable to plaster the countryside with windfarms, spoiling the scenery, but the least it could do is offer some kind of quality control on the policy.

“Invoking the two kilometre limit would simply be enforcing the rules that are there, but in too many cases have been ignored.”

Local planning guidelines suggest a two kilometre distance, but this is repeatedly ignored.

The Scottish Conservatives will call on the SNP to ensure legislation is properly enforced to better protect the value of people’s homes. The plan would apply only to new turbines, not those already built.

The Tories will unveil an energy policy titled Power And Responsibility. They will say the Government has “overshot” its own energy targets years early, and could be producing up to 134 per cent of electricity for renewable sources before long.

The party will also urge ministers to carry out a rigid health assessment of turbines to reassure communities living nearby.

There are an estimated 1,996 operational turbines across Scotland, a figure expected to rise to 3,295 once those already given consent come into operation.

A further 1,873 are in planning, meaning Scotland could have a combined total of 5,168 turbines in coming years, not including those yet to be submitted to planners.

An inquiry by Holyrood’s economy committee earlier this year found there was no “robust” evidence that windfarms were a threat to the tourism industry, as suggested by US tycoon Donald Trump, who criticised an offshore development adjacent to his Aberdeenshire golf resort.

The Government said it has “yet to receive any credible, peer-reviewed evidence that wind turbines adversely impact health” even though studies have found that industrial turbine developments “disturbed the sleep and caused daytime sleepiness and impaired mental health in residents living within 1.4km”.
Source: The Scotsman


24th January 2013
SSE chief executive Ian Marchant to step down in summer
Ian Marchant announces his departure from SSE as the big six energy companies battle to restore the trust of consumers

Energy company SSE is to lose its chief executive as the big six firms in the sector battle to restore trust with consumers over high prices, doorstep mis-selling and wider industry allegations of gas market manipulation.

Ian Marchant said on Wednesday that "the time is right for a change for both SSE and me". He said he would stand down this summer to be replaced by his current deputy, Alistair Phillips-Davies.

One of the more colourful and outspoken energy bosses, Marchant has run the company since 2002 and has successfully steered it towards becoming one of the country's biggest energy producers and a major investor in wind farms as well as coal and gas plants. SSE owns Southern Electric, Swalec and Scottish Hydro and has 5 million electricity customers and 3.4 million gas customers.

The company has created a stir by selling out of its NuGen atomic power consortium with GDF Suez, and by announcing an increase of nearly 40% in first half profits - just a month after putting up gas and electricity prices by 9%.

Like the other big six firms, SSE has always denied any sharp practise in a wholesale gas market which is currently being investigated by the Financial Services Authority and the energy regulator Ofgem.

Marchant said he had thoroughly enjoyed his time at SSE and was convinced the business would go "from strength to strength".

The 51-year-old has made it clear internally that while he was not seeking another big executive job, he was open to doing more than his current non-executive role at the John Wood Group.

Marchant, who earned just over £1m last year, will not receive a payoff when he leaves, SSE said.
Source: The Guardian

24th January 2013
Fury as energy company named as tourism awards sponsor
There was fury yesterday as an energy company accused of “destroying” tourism was named as sponsor of the prestigious Highlands and Islands Tourism Awards.

Outraged protesters called it “bizarre” that Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE), the company behind the Beauly to Denny power line and numerous windfarms throughout the Highlands, should align itself with tourism.

The power company has plans to instal more than 100 turbines on hills overlooking Loch Ness. Awards chairwoman Marina Huggentt said the sponsorship reinforces the positive relationship between energy and tourism.

And Fergus Ewing, Minister for Energy and Tourism, said the renewable energy sector and the tourist industry will “continue to flourish side by side”.

Furious broadcaster and mountaineer Cameron McNeish said: “This is obviously an attempt by the company to align themselves with Scottish tourism and give the impression they are helping tourism when in actual fact they are not. They are actually destroying it.

“That SSE, who are doing so much to destroy much of what people come to Scotland to see, should be sponsoring the Highlands and Islands Tourism Awards seems quite ironic to me.

“SSE are building the Beauly to Denny power line with its industrial pylons. They have got bulldozer tracks all over the place along the A9 and they are building a huge track across the Monaliadh Mountains.

“So many people say to me they won’t come back to Scotland because it is covered in pylons and wind turbines.”

SSE’s managing director of renewables, Jim Smith said: “The Highlands and islands are famed for outstanding beauty and great hospitality and, through our sponsorship of the awards, we are proud to help recognise the businesses and individuals that make the most of these natural assets.“

The region’s other great natural asset is its potential for renewable energy and SSE has been working with communities in the Highlands and islands for generations to build sensitively developments that deliver real benefit to the local economy.

“There need be no conflict between tourism and well-sited and well managed renewable projects.”

A spokesman for conservation charity the John Muir Trust said: “Of all the energy companies, SSE have had an especially cavalier approach to using Scotland’s magnificent landscapes. They have been prepared to routinely exploit them in pursuit of profit.

“Two of the windfarms they are seeking permission for at the moment, Stronelairg at Loch Ness and Viking at Shetland, will cover an area larger than the city of Aberdeen. That is the landscape that brings tourists to Scotland. It seems pretty bizarre that this company should be sponsoring tourism awards.”

The awards will be made at the Drumossie Hotel, Inverness on October 4.

Source: The Press and Journal.

21st January 2013
Scotland Against Spin
Scotland Against Spin is the name of a new national alliance of anti-wind farm campaigners.
It was set up following the successful, very vocal, protest in Perth last October. That day made clear that people across Scotland had had enough of current government wind policy and were looking for a new, stronger initiative to support. People want the truth, deserve the truth and will fight to get the truth.
Scotland Against Spin is against the spin of the turbines, the spin of the developers, the spin of trade association Scottish Renewables and the spin of the Scottish Government. We will attack their spin in the media, with facts and demands for data relating to such statements, and strive to make the wider public aware of how they are funding such a deceitful industry.   A recent report (14th January 2013) stated that nearly 10,000 people felt so strongly against wind turbines that they have written to the Scottish Government to tell them so. Many more have objected to their local councils. Scotland Against Spin wants to reach out to the huge number of individuals, groups and activists across Scotland who are fighting wind developments where they live and in areas they care about.

To make this mission successful we need you all. Your expertise, experience and dogged determination are invaluable and will lead us to triumph over the injustice that is being forced upon us. We will lobby the government for a moratorium on further wind development until the facts regarding all issues have been independently scrutinised and the true data made public.   As an embryonic organisation our website is still under construction and the finer details have yet to be addressed. We wanted you to know that there is a dedicated team of experienced campaigners who are volunteering their time to bring this together so we can start making an impact against this destructive policy now!   Scotland Against Spin is going live on facebook and Twitter so feel free to join in and help spread the word that we are here and that we want everyone to join us. The more supporters we have, the more noise we can make and the sooner our politicians will be forced to act.
Please register with Scotland Against Spin here

15th January 2013
Wind farm company targets children to drum up support for more turbines
A wind farm company has triggered outrage by targeting children as young as five in to drum up support for the construction of more turbines.

Primary pupils in North Ayrshire were handed plans, seemingly written by a developer, encouraging their parents to back a planning application for an extension to a wind farm in the area.

The letter contained a section for parents’ signatures at the bottom and was addressed to the local council’s planning department.

Critics yesterday expressed their anger at both the developer and SNP-run North Ayrshire council for allowing wind farm “propaganda” in the classroom but the local authority claimed the letters were “directly relevant” to the pupils’ school work.

The move is the most extreme yet of the pressure being exerted by wind farm companies on Scotland’s planning system as Alex Salmond strives to meet his target of generating the equivalent of all Scotland's electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

It emerged last month that an average of five planning applications a day for wind farms had been lodged with councils since the SNP came to power in May 2007.

The Telegraph has also disclosed how local authorities have come under pressure to alter their planning blueprints to allow more turbines even where officials consider them to have reached “saturation point”.

Struan Stevenson, a Scottish Tory MEP, said: “That this letter has been endorsed and distributed by the council beggars belief.

“How can residents have faith in decisions on controversial planning proposals if it’s the council’s policy to allow distribution of pro-renewables propaganda on behalf of the developers?”

He said he would write to the Public Standards Commission for Scotland asking for an investigation into this “apparently blatant conflict of interest”.

The letter was handed to pupils at Dalry Primary School and St Palladius Primary School, also in Dalry.

“I am writing to support the planning application made by Community Windpower Ltd to construct the Millour Hill (wind farm) extension,” it read.

“I believe we should explore all forms of renewable energy in order to avoid the threat climate change poses. The wind farm will generate clean, green electricity, which will contribute to the Government’s renewable energy targets.

“As a supporter of renewable energy, I fully support the planning application and hope North Ayrshire Council will too.”

A whistleblower, who passed the document to a Sunday newspaper, said: “Kids as young as five are becoming a free postal service for lobbying for planning applications. This is a step too far.”

SNP ministers tried to distance themselves from the row, saying it was a matter for the local authority. A Scottish Government spokesman added: “We do not condone this approach.”

But a council spokesman was unrepentant, saying: “Pupils at the Dalry schools have been involved with projects related closely to the environment and sustainable energy and the distributed information was directly relevant to their school work.

“Neither of the schools are in any way endorsing the plans and are simply distributing information to the community.”

No one from Community Windpower was available for comment but a spokesman for Scottish Renewables, the trade body representing wind farm companies, said: “We would discourage developers against using such indirect means of contacting adults to support an ongoing planning application.”

Source: The Telegraph


15th January 2013

SNP approves most large wind farms despite 10,000 objections

SNP ministers have approved the vast majority of the largest wind farm applications despite receiving nearly 10,000 objections from communities across Scotland, it has emerged.

Fergus Ewing, the Energy Minister, published figures showing ministers have received 9,868 protests over the past five years about wind developments that produce more than 50 megawatts.

Although there were barely 4,000 messages of support, the SNP administration has approved more than four out of five applications on which it has so far ruled.

The Scottish Conservatives, who uncovered the figures, said they should leave ministers in no doubt about the strength of community opposition to the spread of turbines across the countryside.

They were published as it emerged 40 representatives from every part of the Scottish Borders have joined forces for the first time in an attempt to stop “turbine creep”.

Murdo Fraser, convener of Holyrood’s energy committee, said the 10,000 total was the “thin end of the wedge” as it does not include objections to local councils to proposals for smaller wind farms.

“What is more galling is, despite receiving 10,000 objections, many of these wind farms were waved through anyway,” the Tory MSP said.

“The SNP’s wind energy obsession has to be curbed, otherwise every vista in Scotland will be at-risk from an invasion of great, white turbines.”

The figures show in 2008 ministers received 618 submissions backing the construction of large wind farms compared to 1,211 objections. Despite this, they approved three of the four applications presented to them.

In 2009 there were 1,549 messages of support for seven large wind farms compared to 3,109 protests. However, four were given planning consent.

The following year ministers received 256 submissions backing plans for wind farms and 903 objections but they approved two of the six. Three have yet to be ruled on and one was withdrawn.

In 2011 there were 1,567 messages of support and 1,966 of opposition to large turbine developments. Ministers have so far approved three of the 13 applications and rejected none.

Although none of last year’s nine applications for large wind farms have been ruled on yet, the Scottish Government received 2,679 letters of objections compared to only 60 backing the plans.

The Daily Telegraph disclosed last year how Scottish Borders Council has come under pressure from the SNP to alter its planning blueprint to allow more turbines even where officials consider them to have reached "saturation point".

A new network has been set up between anti-wind farm campaigners across the region to foster greater communication and co-operation and ensure residents are aware of the spread of turbines.

Mark Rowley, head of Cranshaws, Ellemford and Longformacus community council, chaired a meeting of 40 groups. He said: “The real flood of wind farm applications is only just beginning even though the Scottish Borders has already reached saturation point.”

But Jenny Hogan, director of policy for industry body Scottish Renewables, said ast year’s proposals for the coal-fired power station at Hunterston attracted more than 22,000 objections.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Scotland has open, inclusive and transparent planning processes which give the right protection to our magnificent landscapes, and which takes the views of local communities into account.”

Source: The Telegraph


15th January 2013
SNP DEAF TO HUGE PUBLIC BACKLASH OVER WIND FARMS
A PUBLIC backlash against Alex Salmond’s plan to cover Scotland with wind farms was exposed yesterday when new figures revealed there have been almost 10,000 objections to planning applications.

Yet, separate figures obtained recently showed that a staggering 83 per cent of all major applications for wind farms submitted for approval by ministers were passed.

It’s believed the 10,000 or so objections will be only a fraction of the overall objections to wind farms, because local authorities deal with the majority of cases.
Anti-wind farm campaigners seized on the figures, claiming they showed the SNP government was not listening to ordinary people.

They emerged following a Holyrood written question from Scottish Tory MSP Murdo Fraser, who is also convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Energy and Tourism Committee.

Mr Fraser said: “Given the sheer number of objections, the SNP should be in no doubt about how Scotland’s communities feel about wind farms.

“And this is the thin end of the wedge, because these are people who have been so irked by the treat of looming wind turbines, that they have taken the time to contact the Scottish Government to protest.
“This figure does not include the thousands more who find turbines unsightly and unnecessary. What is more galling is, despite receiving 10,000 objections, many wind farms were waved through anyway.

“The SNP’s wind energy obsession has to be curbed, otherwise every vista in Scotland will be at risk from an invasion of great, white turbines.

“That will have a negative impact on tourism and the everyday enjoyment rural communities get from their surroundings.”

Anti-wind farm campaigner Linda Holt said the Scottish Government seemed to be in a “coma” and was simply ploughing ahead with the development with no regard for their costs or the damage to the environment they cause.

She said: “It doesn’t surprise me that they are not listening. They have decided that this is the way it must be and nothing will get in there way.

“They will accept no counter arguments that the turbines are not only ugly, damage the environment, but also do not work. It seems as if they are in a coma and are blindly ploughing ahead with all this without acknowledging there may be problems. More and more people and various groups from ordinary communities to mountaineers are growing increasingly uneasy about the blight these structures are leaving on Scotland’s countryside. It is an obsession for which they will pay dearly at the ballot box.”

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Scotland has open, inclusive and transparent planning processes which give the right protection to our magnificent landscapes, and which take the views of local communities into account.

“Since 2008, we have received more than 4,000 representations in support of wind farm applications and 9,868 objections. Wind farms and other forms of clean, green energy enhance energy security and create opportunities for communities to secure new jobs and investment.”
Source: The Express

12 January 2013
Clark Cross: Britain is in breach of UN rules on wind farms Britain is in breach of UN rules on wind farms, argues Clark Cross

CHRISTINE Metcalfe – a member of Avich and Kilchrenan Community Council – is determined to halt the relentless march of Britain’s wind turbines.

She was recently given a hearing before the Compliance Committee at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva (Unece).

She is mounting a legal challenge against the UK Government and the EU, claiming they have both breached UN laws over their green energy policies.

She told the committee that Holyrood and Westminster have failed to ensure the public is given accurate information about the adverse impact of wind power, claiming green energy plans have denied the public the right to question the alleged benefits of wind power in reducing harmful emissions, or to raise the negative effects of wind power on health, the environment and economy.

She said no British-based wind farm developer has ever been required to explain the benefits of wind power.

The question of the Scottish Government’s Renewables Routemap came up. The committee was shocked to discover that, despite the pronouncements of Fergus Ewing MSP and First Minister Alex Salmond, the Scottish Government’s Renewables Routemap 2020 and Energy Policy Statement are still officially only drafts.

So officials have relied on these drafts in giving the go-ahead for more than 3,500 wind turbines, granting planning without proper scientific justification based on a draft.

In addition, many authorities did not prepare an independent Strategic environmental assessment but meekly accepted those submitted by the developer.

Many of these presented CO2 savings which did not take into account the need for back-up generators and other infrastructure. Scottish and UK authorities will now struggle to prove they complied with rules on public participation. Alex Salmond should be summoned before the UN Compliance Committee to explain his wind fixation and his draft legislation. The UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee is expected to rule soon.

• Clark Cross is a retired chartered accountant and anti-wind farm campaigner.
Source: The Scotsman

11th January 2013

Mountaineers Call for Councillors to make a Stand to Defend National Beauty Spot

First Minister Accused of Making Misguided Statements While Allowing Scotland’s Countryside to be Industrialised

Just two weeks into the Year of Natural Scotland and Highland Council looksset to back a wind farm scheme which would damage some of the nation’s best mountain landscapes.

Council planners are recommending that councillors do not object to a proposal by major power company SSE to build 27 huge turbines at Dalnessie, Lairg. The development would ruin some of the best remaining wild lands in Scotland. The final decision, though, rests with the Scottish Government.

The Mountaineering Council of Scotland which, along with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)objected to the proposal, has warned that if the council does not reject the proposal, and the Scottish Government subsequently support the project, the outcome will be the loss of an important national resource.

David Gibson, MCofS Chief Officer, said: “Just a few days ago Alex Salmond declared that ‘in this Year of Natural Scotland, there is no better time to enjoy Scotland’s great outdoors’. Unless he acts right now it will be the last time that people will have the chance to see the fabulous mountain landscapes round Dalnessie in their natural state. After that they will be reduced to an industrial site.

“Right now the Year of Natural Scotland looks like an empty slogan. If it is to have any meaning at all the First Minister should stop making misguided statements and get on with delivering policies that will protect our countryside. Time and time again we hear the same mantra from the Scottish Government saying that appropriate protection for our wild land exists. The truth is exactly the opposite.

“Highland councillors must make a stand by rejecting these proposals and taking seriously their obligations to protect our natural heritage. We believe the scheme is contrary to the Highland Council’s own wind farm spatial planning policy - part of the proposed development lies in the Ben Klibreck Special Protection Area and also it is in a SNH Strategic Locational Guidance Zone 3, which presumes no large scale wind farm development. Highland Council planning committee will be asked to vote on the scheme on 15 January. The report prepared by its planners notes that the Scottish Government has still not declared its final policy position on wind farms and wild lands. This guidance is urgently required due to the large number of industrial scale wind farms which threaten our countryside.

The MCofS has stated previously that it believes that inappropriate wind farm developments could have a severe impact on tourism and on the valuable jobs they provide in fragile rural economies. Recent reports showing a 12% drop in Scottish tourism last summer make the case more urgent than ever.Dalnessie wind farm, if approved by Ministers, would be close to mountains of great national importance, and highly popular with hill walkers and visitors alike, including Ben Klibreck, Ben Hope, Ben More Assynt, Ben Hee and Ben Loyal.

Notes for editors

For the latest tourism figures see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-20970279

For the First Minister’s statement on the Year of Natural Scotland see http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/01/Scotlands-national-parks10012013

About the MCofS

Contact David Gibson 07845 919 150 or davidg@mcofs.org.uk or call 01738 493 947 in normal office hours.

The MCofS represents, supports and promotes Scottish mountaineering. Founded in 1970 by the Association of Scottish Climbing Clubs, MCofS is the only recognised representative organisation for hill walkers, climbers and ski-tourers who live in Scotland or who enjoy Scotland’s mountains.

The MCofS also acts for members of the BMC or British Mountaineering Council on matters related to Landscape and Access. The organisation provides training and information to mountain users to promote safety, self-reliance and the enjoyment of our mountain environment.

MCofS has 11,400 members, representing hill walkers, climbers and mountaineers, funded through a combination of membership subscriptions; non-governmental grants; and investment from sportscotland, which supports public initiatives and services in mountain safety, mountain weather information services, mountain leader training and the development and promotion of mountaineering activities.  MCofS is a not for profit company limited by guarantee and incorporated in Scotland.  Company number SC322717.

For further information about the MCofS and for our manifesto, Protecting our Mountains: The MCofS Manifesto on Onshore Wind Farms, see http://www.mcofs.org.uk/lps.asp


8th January 2013

‘Natural Scotland’ photographer attacks SNP’s wind-farm gold rush

A SCOTTISH photographer whose iconic images are being used to promote the Year of Natural Scotland tourism drive has criticised the SNP’s “Klondike” gold rush approach to green energy, which he warned was destroying the very landscape that the initiative aims to promote.

Colin Prior has spent decades capturing stunning photographs of the country’s most beautiful wilderness areas, including new photographs of the Cairngorms recently released by tourism agency 
VisitScotland in the run up to next year’s campaign.

But he warned that while he supports the Year of Natural Scotland (YNS) and the agency, he says the majority of Scottish vistas which he has pictured over the past 25 years are now blighted by wind farms thanks to a relentless renewables policy which risks ruining Scotland’s unique landscapes for future generations.

“I am definitely not criticising what VisitScotland is or isn’t doing this year for YNS, but over the years it has become obvious to me why people come and visit Scotland, and despite all the drum beating that goes on about what Scotland has to offer it’s what it doesn’t have that attracts them.

“Up until recently, Scotland’s landscapes were somewhere that one could escape the reach of development and commercialism. Empty glens and remote beaches, where, if you chose wisely, you could spend the day without meeting another person – how rare is that in most of Europe’s landscapes.


“I often meet people from France or Italy who live at close proximity to the Alps and who visit Scotland each year for one thing – peace and solitude.

“The ski lifts, mountain huts, signage, paths, and crowds are something they wish to avoid and they head for Scotland – a country which had an endless expanse of undisturbed places. No longer – the turbines have already changed the perception of Scotland to the outside world.

“Whilst I believe that it is crucial that we find alternative energy sources to fossil fuels… I am not convinced that covering Scotland with subsidised turbines is a price worth paying.”

Calling for a “common-sense” approach to choosing locations for wind farms, such as the successful development near Glasgow at Whitelee, Europe’s largest wind farm, he added: “I have a book coming out of 25 years of panoramas.

“Most of the pictures are the big mountain views and if I took them again now I would have to use Photoshop to take the wind farms out of them.

“I’m afraid that the Scottish Government has forsaken the landscape of Scotland for generations to come.”

However, the Scottish Government refuted the criticism, citing rising tourism numbers and a VisitScotland study showing that wind farms would not deter most people from visiting the country

A spokeswoman added: “The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that the renewable energy sector and the tourism industry continues to flourish side by side, in a sustainable manner.

“The Year of Natural Scotland will inspire our people and our visitors to celebrate Scotland’s outstanding natural beauty.”
Source: The Scotsman

3rd January 2013
Wind farm protesters backed by planning minister Nick Boles
People opposed to onshore wind farms should not have their views “ridden over roughshod”, the planning minister has told the energy minister in a private letter.

Nick Boles told John Hayes, a fellow Conservative, that “local people have genuine concerns” and “wind farms are not appropriate in all settings”.

The Daily Telegraph has been told that Mr Boles warned Mr Hayes in the letter that people “bitterly resented” having onshore wind farm developments imposed on them by planners after an inquiry.

The intervention will be a major boost for communities which are fighting the construction of turbines near their homes.

It is also the first evidence of a Tory ministerial alliance against Liberal Democrat attempts to introduce more onshore wind turbines.

Mr Boles is looking to build an informal alliance against wind turbines with Mr Hayes, a near constituency neighbour, without having to get agreement from Ed Davey, the Lib Dem Climate Change Secretary.

Campaigners are fighting to halt the spread of wind turbines, with communities complaining that they blight properties and harm wildlife, particularly bats and birds.

There are currently 3,350 onshore turbines, generating five gigawatts (Gw) of power, which is enough for 2.4 million homes. Improvements mean that the approximately 2,682 turbines awaiting construction will produce about five Gw, with around a further 3,063 turbines — producing 7GW — in the planning system.

Many in the planning stage are in Scotland. Not all of these projects will be built — in England about half of all onshore wind projects do not receive planning approval.

To meet current targets, the Government is expected to need up to 13Gw of onshore wind by 2020.

Mr Boles, who is in charge of planning policy in England, wrote to Mr Hayes’s department to form part of a consultation into the community benefits of wind farms.

The letter, sent on Dec 20 to Mr Hayes after the consultation had closed, was described to The Daily Telegraph by a Whitehall source. In it, Mr Boles throws his weight behind communities fighting new onshore turbines. “We should be working with communities rather than seemingly riding roughshod over their concerns,” he wrote.

“Proposals allowed on appeal by planning inspectors can be bitterly resented,” he added. “We have been very clear that the Government’s policies on renewable energy are no excuse for building wind farms in the wrong places.

“We need a package of measures that can command broad public support which is consistent with our emphasis on local and neighbourhood planning which puts local communities in the driving seat. We should be quite clear that local communities and their accountable councils can produce their own distinctive plans to help shape where developments should and should not take place.”

Last night, a source close to Ed Davey said: “We don’t want to impose wind farms on communities but onshore wind remains an important part of our overall energy package.”

In November, Mr Hayes said there was no need for more onshore wind farms that were not already in the planning system, adding it was “job done” in terms of the number required for renewable energy targets.

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “The whole point of the planning system is to ensure that developments happen in the right places and take into account local concerns.”

The department wanted communities “to feel greater benefit from hosting onshore wind farms. There are some terrific examples of best practice out there, where people feel positively about their local wind farms and we want to learn lessons from these.”

Jennifer Webber, the director of external affairs at RenewableUK, the body representing the industry, said that a record amount of onshore wind capacity had been approved at local level in 2012, suggesting growing community support. She said analysis showed that for every megawatt of wind energy installed “the local community benefits to the tune of £100,000” over the wind farm’s lifespan.

Mr Boles has emerged as a covert champion of opponents of wind power since he was appointed planning minister in the September reshuffle. Last month, he suggested wind farms should not be less than 1.4 miles from homes.
Source: The Telegraph

3rd January 2013
Wind farms vs wildlife
The shocking environmental cost of renewable energy

Wind turbines only last for ‘half as long as previously thought’, according to a new study. But even in their short lifespans, those turbines can do a lot of damage. Wind farms are devastating populations of rare birds and bats across the world, driving some to the point of extinction.

Most environmentalists just don’t want to know. Because they’re so desperate to believe in renewable energy, they’re in a state of denial. But the evidence suggests that, this century at least, renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change.

I’m a lecturer in biological and human sciences at Oxford university. I trained as a zoologist, I’ve worked as an environmental consultant — conducting impact assessments on projects like the Folkestone-to-London rail link — and I now teach ecology and conservation. Though I started out neutral on renewable energy, I’ve since seen the havoc wreaked on wildlife by wind power, hydro power, biofuels and tidal barrages. The environmentalists who support such projects do so for ideological reasons. What few of them have in their heads, though, is the consolation of science.

My speciality is species extinction. When I was a child, my father used to tell me about all the animals he’d seen growing up in Kent — the grass snakes, the lime hawk moths — and what shocked me when we went looking for them was how few there were left. Species extinction is a serious issue: around the world we’re losing up to 40 a day. Yet environmentalists are urging us to adopt technologies that are hastening this process. Among the most destructive of these is wind power.

Every year in Spain alone — according to research by the conservation group SEO/Birdlife — between 6 and 18 million birds and bats are killed by wind farms. They kill roughly twice as many bats as birds. This breaks down as approximately 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per year. And these figures may be conservative if you compare them to statistics published in December 2002 by the California Energy Commission: ‘In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.

’Because wind farms tend to be built on uplands, where there are good thermals, they kill a disproportionate number of raptors. In Australia, the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle is threatened with global extinction by wind farms. In north America, wind farms are killing tens of thousands of raptors including golden eagles and America’s national bird, the bald eagle. In Spain, the Egyptian vulture is threatened, as too is the Griffon vulture — 400 of which were killed in one year at Navarra alone. Norwegian wind farms kill over ten white-tailed eagles per year and the population of Smøla has been severely impacted by turbines built against the opposition of ornithologists.

Nor are many other avian species safe. In North America, for example, proposed wind farms on the Great Lakes would kill large numbers of migratory songbirds. In the Atlantic, seabirds such as the Manx Shearwater are threatened. Offshore wind farms are just as bad as onshore ones, posing a growing threat to seabirds and migratory birds, and reducing habitat availability for marine birds (such as common scoter and eider ducks).

I’ve heard it suggested that birds will soon adapt to avoid turbine blades. But your ability to learn something when you’ve been whacked on the head by an object travelling at 200 mph is limited. And besides, this comes from a complete misconception of how long it takes species to evolve. Birds have been flying, unimpeded, through the skies for millions of years. They’re hardly going to alter their habits in a few months. You hear similar nonsense from environmentalists about so-called habitat ‘mitigation’. There has been talk, for example, during proposals to build a Severn barrage, that all the waders displaced by the destruction of the mud flats can have their inter-tidal habitat replaced elsewhere. It may be what developers and governments want to hear, but recreating such habitats would take centuries not years — even if space were available. The birds wouldn’t move on somewhere else. They’d just starve to death.

Loss of habitat is the single biggest cause of species extinction. Wind farms not only reduce habitat size but create ‘population sinks’ — zones which attract animals and then kill them. My colleague Mark Duchamp suggests birds are lured in because they see the turbines as perching sites and also because wind towers (because of the grass variations underneath) seem to attract more prey. The turbines also attract bats, whose wholesale destruction poses an ever more serious conservation concern.

Bats are what is known as K-selected species: they reproduce very slowly, live a long time and are easy to wipe out. Having evolved with few predators — flying at night helps — bats did very well with this strategy until the modern world. This is why they are so heavily protected by so many conventions and regulations: the biggest threats to their survival are made by us.

And the worst threat of all right now is wind turbines. A recent study in Germany by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research showed that bats killed by German turbines may have come from places 1,000 or more miles away. This would suggest that German turbines — which an earlier study claims kill more than 200,000 bats a year — may be depressing populations across the entire northeastern portion of Europe. Some studies in the US have put the death toll as high as 70 bats per installed megawatt per year: with 40,000 MW of turbines currently installed in the US and Canada. This would give an annual death toll of up to three -million.

Why is the public not more aware of this carnage? First, because the wind industry (with the shameful complicity of some ornithological organisations) has gone to great trouble to cover it up — to the extent of burying the corpses of victims. Second, because the ongoing obsession with climate change means that many environmentalists are turning a blind eye to the ecological costs of renewable energy. What they clearly don’t appreciate — for they know next to nothing about biology — is that most of the species they claim are threatened by ‘climate change’ have already survived 10 to 20 ice ages, and sea-level rises far more dramatic than any we have experienced in recent millennia or expect in the next few centuries. Climate change won’t drive those species to extinction; well-meaning environmentalists might.

The second edition of Clive Hambler’s Conservation (Cambridge University Press) is out now.
Source: The Spectator.

28th December 2012
Plans for windfarm on Cloanaig Estate in Kintyre

Energy firm PI Renewables have announced plans for a windfarm at Eascairt on the Claonaig Estate in Kintyre. Although in the early stages, the proposal is for up to 11 turbines being built. The location sits between the already consented Cour windfarm on Kintyres east coast and Freasdail near Whitehouse which is in the planning stages. If all three proposals were installed, this would mean a further 32 turbines of at least 100mt in height stretching from the west coast to the east coast. It is claimed by the developers that the wind farm would 'Only be visible from the West Coast of Arran'.

Source : Argyllshire Advertiser

20th December 2012
Wind turbines will not last 25 years says new study

Anti windfarm campaigners in Sutherland say they are not surprised by new research which has found that many costly onshore turbines are wearing out prematurely.

Data collated in the UK and Denmark suggests they last between 10 and 15 years – and not the “20 to 25 years” projected by the industry.

Energy economist Professor Gordon Hughes of the University of Edinburgh found that after a decade’s operation, the contribution of the average UK windfarm to meeting electricity demand drops by a third, probably due to wear and tear.

The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) charity, which commissioned the review, says it applied “rigorous statistical analysis to years of actual windfarm performance data” to gauge the efficiency of the turbines.

REF says that rate of decline means it is “rarely economic to operate windfarms for more than 12 to 15 years,” after which time they need replacing.

Its director, John Constable, warned that the revelation had “profound consequences for investors and government alike”.

He said: “This study confirms suspicions that decades of generous subsidies to the wind industry have failed to encourage the innovation needed to make the sector competitive.

“Bluntly, wind turbines cost too much and wear out far too quickly to offer the developing world a realistic alternative to coal.”

Professor Hughes, who has advised the World Bank on energy and environmental policy, said the findings raised important implications for policy towards wind generation.

He believes people will still invest in the technology because of “generous subsidies to the industry”. But he suggested that the current structure of contracts offered to wind generators should be modified “since few wind farms will operate for more than 12 to 15 years”.

Golspie-based Allan Tubb of Landscape, a pressure group which has opposed Sutherland’s windfarms, said: “Wind turbines have never been able to match up to the promises. It is a very expensive way to generate unreliable electricity.

“Major windfarms in Sutherland are built on deep peat. A Scottish Government report has shown that disrupting peat bogs releases carbon into the environment and predicts windfarms built on deep peat require more than 25 years to pay back these carbon emissions by the generation of electricity.”

He added: “The industry regulator Ofgem relies entirely on information provided by the operator of a wind turbine without its own independent access to metering and without the ability to monitor performance.”

Fellow objector Peter Daniels, of Loth, said: “This latest report comes as no surprise. I’m all for green energy, but they’ve got it wrong with windfarms.

“They’re an eyesore, they release CO2 when built on peatland and now they’re costing customers millions of pounds a year for often standing idle.

“Mr Salmond will get his come-uppance pretty soon, I would say.”

The new data was instantly questioned by wind farm operators.

Jenny Hogan, of the trade body Scottish Renewables, said: “Our oldest commercial windfarms in Scotland are around 16 years old and none of them have been decommissioned or repowered.

“Technology is advancing all the time and windfarms are no different.

“Everyone who drives a car understands parts will need to be replaced and there will also come a time when you want to trade in for a better, more suitable model. It’s not much different for windfarm operators.”

The Scottish Government declined to comment on the new data.

In a statement, it said: “Scotland’s clean, green energy resources are delivering thousands of high quality jobs and hundreds of thousands of pounds of investment to communities across Scotland.

“Wind power is already making a meaningful contribution to Scotland’s power supplies, with onshore wind meeting around 18 per cent of forecast Scottish energy demand for 2011.”

Source: Northern Times

19th December 2012
Research queries onshore wind farm costs

Onshore wind farms are more expensive than widely thought because their economic lives are shorter than the wind industry has suggested, a study has found.

The performance of an average UK onshore wind farm slumps by as much as a third after 10 years, according to research published on Wednesday by the Renewable Energy Foundation, a charity that questions the cost of UK onshore wind subsidies and their effect on household electricity bills.

That means a wind turbine’s economic working life is closer to 10 or 15 years rather than the 20 to 25 years used in some projections, said the study’s author, Professor Gordon Hughes, a University of Edinburgh economist, who used data from British and Danish wind farms.

“The fact that their performance declines over time means their costs are far higher,” said Prof Hughes, who said his findings suggested the lifetime cost of building and operating an onshore wind farm was £185 per megawatt hour.

The finding is at least double that of many industry and government estimates. If accurate, it would cast doubt on the widespread view that the costs of onshore wind are gradually nearing those of conventional fossil fuel-powered generators in many countries.
However, the Department of Energy and Climate Change rejected Prof Hughes’ findings. “Our expectations of wind turbine lifetimes are based on rigorous analysis and evidence,” the department said. “Britain’s oldest commercial turbines at Delabole in Cornwall have only recently been replaced after 20 years of operation, and the technology has come on in leaps and bounds since that project started generating in 1991.”
RenewableUK, the UK’s main wind trade group, said if what the study was claiming were true, then investors would be deserting the industry.

“The fact that investors have remained confident in the wind energy sector demonstrates their confidence in the technology,” said Dr Gordon Edge, RenewableUK’s director of policy.

“Importantly, wind farm developers only earn money for the clean electricity they actually generate, so it’s very much in their interests to make sure that their turbines are maintained throughout the 25-year lifespan of the wind farm to an optimum level, which includes upgrading as the technology improves.”

Dale Vince, the founder of Ecotricity, one of the UK’s oldest renewable energy companies, said study was “just more anti-wind propaganda”.

“Today’s turbines have been designed and built to last 25 years,” he said. “In fact Ecotricity’s first turbine was built 16 years ago using old technology and is performing better than ever and will still be around for its 25th birthday.”

The European Wind Energy Association said it was common knowledge that wind turbines built 20 or 15 years ago used less advanced technology than today’s turbines.

“Owners of old wind turbines can replace them with much more powerful new and more silent ones,” it said. “Should we stop wind turbine owners and investors doing so? Certainly not.”

Source: Financial Times


17th December 2012
'Agreement reached' on Scottish planning fee increase

Planning application fees in Scotland will rise by 20 per cent after an agreement was reached between the planning minister Derek Mackay, council leaders and other key stakeholders last week, the Scottish government has announced.

In a statement issued last week, Mackay said that, under the agreement, which is subject to approval in the Scottish Parliament, planning fees will increase by 20 per cent.

The statement said that the increase would generate between £4 million to £5 million to support the work of planning authorities and would see Scottish planning fees remain lower than those in England and Wales for most categories of development.

A Scottish government consultation document published in March had proposed fee increases for residential, retail and energy generating developments. The consultation had proposed to set the maximum fee at £100,000 - up from a current cap of £15,950.

Homes for Scotland chief executive Philip Hogg said that the minister had "set fees at a far lower level than envisaged in his consultation". Hogg said that the fees "will not negatively impact the industry’s ability to promote new projects".

Mackay’s statement also said that a "high level group" would review planning performance and look at proposals to link performance with wider reform of planning fees.

The statement added that the Scottish government will pursue a statutory mechanism to "penalise authorities who underperform in the longer term".

Mackay confirmed £673,000 of one-off funding to help local planning authorities deal with wind farm applications.

The minister also announced £55,000 of additional funding for Planning Aid for Scotland to increase young people’s involvement in planning and to deliver pilot projects to investigate alternative ways of delivering charrettes, design workshops through which local people are helped by experts to draw up development plans for their communities.

In addition, Mackay said that the Scottish government would provide an additional £20,000 to Heads of Planning Scotland for training support.

Mackay said: "Following discussions with stakeholders and further meetings a commitment around further performance has been reached, in that context new resources through planning fees will help planning authorities deliver.

"The increase is designed to allow authorities to improve performance, while keeping overall planning fees in Scotland lower than the English equivalent.

"We know that some planning authorities are experiencing particularly high volumes of applications for wind turbines, and the extra funding being announced today will help by supporting assessment, bringing in expertise, or more staff, to deal with the applications.

Source: Planning Resource.

12 December 2012
Independent Scotland ‘would see energy bills increase significantly’
UK Energy Secretary Ed Davey has claimed it is logical to assume that energy bills will rise “significantly” for Scottish families after independence if the burden of paying for the country’s renewable sector falls upon consumers north of the Border.

Speaking at a Scotsman Conference on energy in an independent Scotland yesterday, Mr Davey claimed subsidies which are currently borne by 26 million households across the UK could instead be shared among Scotland’s 2.5 million homes.

He warned that would mean a “significant” increase in household bills.

But his claims were rejected at the conference by SNP energy minister Fergus Ewing who

accused the UK government ministers of rushing to Scotland like an “abstentee landlord” fearing that Scotland, with its rich oil and renewables reserves, was set to leave the UK.

Mr Ewing said UK ministers would end up accepting a continuation of the current single energy market across the UK after independence, on the grounds that, without Scottish energy feeding into the national grid, the “lights would go out” on England.

However, Mr Davey’s claim was then backed by a leading academic at the conference, former World Bank economist Professor Gordon Hughes, who described Mr Ewing’s claim that England would need Scotland’s energy riches after independence as

“exaggerated”.

The conference on energy came after E.on became the last of the “big six” energy suppliers to put up its bills from early 2013, with a move to boost prices by more than £100 a year.

Prices are to rise by between 6 per cent and 10 per cent, with the companies blaming both the rising wholesale market and the cost of cutting the nation’s carbon emissions through a shift to green energy.

All companies are required to buy a certain amount of their electricity from renewable sources, with the extra costs then diverted as the main support mechanism for renewable energy projects.

With Scotland playing host to a disproportionately large share of renewable projects across Britain, Whitehall ministers argue that it benefits from a UK-wide system which means all households pay for those subsidies.

Mr Davey said: “We will be working up a number of papers looking at the benefits of Scotland in the UK and showing how Scotland benefits from being in the UK,” he said. “It will show the benefits of being able to support the costs across

26 million households.”

Asked whether the costs would rise if Scotland became independent, he said: “It is logical that bills will go up and we are talking about a significant amount.”

After independence, he added “England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be faced with a question about where they buy their energy from”.

He said “there are other options” apart from Scotland. “I am afraid that the idea there is only one place that England, Wales and Northern Ireland would go is simply not the case,” he added.

In the meantime, however, he said he wanted to “champion” Scottish renewable energy, insisting it had a “fantastic” future.

However, those claims were hotly contested by Mr Ewing who claimed that there would be a “mutual need” between England and Scotland after independence which would lead to the retention of the current single energy market, with the cost or renewable subsidies spread evenly through the UK.

He said: “The UK needs Scottish energy. Scotland can and will guarantee electricity to keep the lights on. We don’t want our good friends in England to be physically in the dark”.

He added the SNP would lobby hard for an integrated British market, claiming new legislation enshrined in Mr Davey’s new energy bill had already set out “in principle” that energy contracts could apply to “support generation that is located outside the UK”.

Mr Ewing’s comments follow a speech by First Minister Alex Salmond in September in which he said Scotland and the rest of the UK’s energy sector would “continue in a shared marketplace”.

Speaking later, however, Prof Hughes said England could either produce more home-grown renewable energy – especially by converting coal fired stations to biomass – or could opt, after Scottish independence, to renegotiate its target to produce 20 per cent of all its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Another speaker, David Wilson, the director of Energy and Climate Change at the Scottish Government, insisted however that a UK-wide system would work after independence.

He said: “We feel the scope for interdependence and cross border jurisdiction to really work is very considerable.”

“Meanwhile, Richard Yamm of Pelamis Wind Power told the conference that clear-headed decisions would be required over the independence issue. “We need to consider independence very carefully,” he said. “There is no place for emotional debate. We need to see a proper debate, not on ideology but on reality.”
Source: The Scotsman

12 December 2012
Tiree wind farm project 'on hold' for 12 months

Plans for an offshore wind farm near Tiree have been delayed by ScottishPower Renewables.

The company said the Argyll Array scheme had been put on hold for 12 months.

The firm said it would use the time to study reports on the potential environmental impact of the project, alongside other agencies.

There are concerns it could affect basking sharks and seabirds, including Great Northern Divers.

The RSPB has previously said the area is rich in marine life, with dolphins, killer whales and basking sharks all sighted around the island.

It said the area is also regularly used by foraging and passage seabirds and other migratory bird species.

The Argyll Array site is located 5km off the coast of Tiree, and covers about 360 square kilometres.

A lease for the offshore site was granted by the Crown Estate in October last year.

But ScottishPower Renewables said its plans had now been halted for a year.

Environmental studies A spokesman said: "ScottishPower Renewables has put the Argyll Array wind farm project on hold for 12 months.

"During this period, the company, acting as a responsible developer, will work alongside other agencies to study the results of initial detailed environmental studies of the project area.

"The pause in the project programme will also enable the company to monitor the industry's progress in relation to improvements in turbine, foundation and vessel technology, with a view to developing a technical solution that is fit for purpose in dealing with the physical characteristics of this site."

Following the announcement, the No Tiree Array campaign said: "We are asking ScottishPower Renewables what exactly this announcement means.

"Does it mean a further 12-month delay in any planning application? Or does it mean SPR is considering abandoning the project?"
Source: BBC

11th December 2012
Argyll grandmother takes UK and EU to the United Nations over plans to turn Scotland into windfarm ‘hedgehog’
A community councillor from Argyll is mounting a landmark legal challenge against the UK and the EU at the United Nations in Geneva this week over their renewables policies, on the grounds that the public is being denied the truth about the alleged benefits, and the adverse impact, of wind power.

Christine Metcalfe, who represents Avich and Kilchrenan Community Council, claims that the UK Government and the EU have breached a fundamental tenet of citizens’ rights under the UN’s Åarhus Convention, and she will appear before the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to explain why.

Mrs Metcalfe will present her council’s case at a hearing before UNECE’s Compliance Committee next Wednesday alleging that the UK and the EU are pursuing renewables policies which have been designed in such a way that they have denied the public the right to be informed about, or to ascertain, the alleged benefits in reducing CO 2 and harmful pollution emissions from wind power, or the negative effects of wind power on health, the environment and the economy.

In an interview with The Independent, Mrs Metcalfe said: “Our challenge is a democratic one: the UK and EU are by-passing the proper environmental and economic assessments and legally-binding procedures related to democratic accountability. Scotland, she said, is being turned into a ‘hedgehog’ as a result, being covered with more than 3,500 wind turbines without due regard for the growing scientific evidence which shows they have a profoundly damaging effect on the local ecology and on people’s health. “Such devastating changes might be merited if we had the information to enable us to understand the benefits. Many of the supposed claims by government are now proving to be the opposite of what they say.”

“Instead, the onus should be on the developers to prove the positive. No wind farm developer has ever had to explain the benefits of wind. Evidence tells us that wind power performance shows not only no reduction in CO 2 and other harmful emissions, but the very reverse. But Alex Salmond is driving an aggressive green agenda like an express train across Scotland, bludgeoning anyone who gets in the way as being a Luddite and anti-green.”

Indeed, she claims that Scotland’s renewables strategy – its Routemap 2020, now in its second edition – is a disingenuous and deeply flawed document that was published without public consultation.

Yet Mrs Metcalfe, who is 69, is not a political animal: “I’m not a crusader, I’m not a campaigner but an ordinary person who is fighting for grass-roots democracy. I just want the information to help me understand there this is taking us.” Taking the UK and the EU to the United Nations is not what she expected when she retired to Argyll, with her husband, Peter, from England 22 years ago. Their home is on the edge of Loch Avich, close to Kilmelford, and they were drawn to the area because of their love for the wild scenery. They have access to hundreds of acres of wetlands that are home to otters, Osprey, Sea Eagles and Golden Eagles.

The catalyst for Mrs Metcalfe and her community council’s decision to launch the UN challenge was their experience of the Carraig Gheal wind farm and problems surrounding the access route – known as the West Loch Awe Timber Haul Route – in the AKCC’s locality; an area of great beauty and a nesting area for Golden Eagles among other rare species.

When the council discovered the wind farm’s access route was being built through an area close to where the eagles nest, it contacted the Forestry Commission, owner of the land and co-developer, for more information about an alternative route. But the FC was unwilling to provide more and the AKCC was forced to send out Freedom of Information notices, claiming the commission had destroyed important documents. “That’s when we decide to hold the authorities to account,” she said.

If the committee upholds the complaint, the UN has the power to require the UK and EU to adhere to its ruling, as they are signatories to the international treaty known as the Åarhus Convention. Legal experts predict that if the tribunal finds in her favour, the decision could have a big impact on all wind farm projects throughout the country, as developers will be forced to make far more comprehensive “benefit statements” with their planning applications, and governments will have to back up claims about the alleged benefits.

More pertinently, Mrs Metcalfe claims that some communities in Scotland are being driven to a state of civil war: “Wind farms are splitting communities and dividing friends. Some land-owners are being so generously rewarded for selling or leasing their land to developers that they are turning a blind-eye to what’s really happening.” Others, she said, who have the temerity to question the alleged benefits, are being subjected to death threats, insults, and burglaries, right across the country.

With her at the tribunal at the UN’s offices at Avenue de la Paix in Geneva will be her counsel, John Campbell QC, one of Scotland’s leading advocates and a planning expert, and Pat Swords, an Irish chemical engineer and environmentalist, whose own challenge to Ireland’s energy policy was upheld by the UNECE compliance committee earlier this year. He has now called for a judicial review of Ireland’s Renewable Energy Action Plan.

Representatives of the UK’s DEFRA and the EU are also expected to attend the hearing.

While Mrs Metcalfe admits to a few nerves about the 1800 km journey to Geneva, she is resolute: “I’m doing this for those who don’t have a voice. The lack of debate, and information about the negative effects of wind power, means that people and the environment in my country are being treated by the government as collateral damage.

Whatever the outcome of Geneva, there will be repercussions because the short-comings of the current energy policy, based on the rush for wind, will be exposed.”

Source: The Independent


4th November 2012
Wind farm noise does harm sleep and health, say scientists

Wind farm noise causes “clear and significant” damage to people’s sleep and mental health, according to the first full peer-reviewed scientific study of the problem.

American and British researchers compared two groups of residents in the US state of Maine. One group lived within a mile of a wind farm and the second group did not.

Both sets of people were demographically and socially similar, but the researchers found major differences in the quality of sleep the two groups enjoyed.

The findings provide the clearest evidence yet to support long-standing complaints from people living near turbines that the sound from their rotating blades disrupts sleep patterns and causes stress-related conditions.

The study will be used by critics of wind power to argue against new turbines being built near homes and for existing ones to be switched off or have their speed reduced, when strong winds cause their noise to increase.

The researchers used two standard scientific scales, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, which measures the quality of night-time sleep, and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, which measures how sleepy people feel when they are awake.

“Participants living near industrial wind turbines had worse sleep, as evidenced by significantly greater mean PSQI and ESS scores,” the researchers, Michael Nissenbaum, Jeffery Aramini and Chris Hanning, found.

“There were clear and significant dose-response relationships, with the effect diminishing with increasing log-distance from turbines.”

The researchers also tracked respondents’ “mental component scores” and found a “significant” link – probably caused by poor-quality sleep – between wind turbines and poorer mental health.

More than a quarter of participants in the group living near the turbines said they had been medically diagnosed with depression or anxiety since the wind farm started. None of the participants in the group further away reported such problems.Each person was also asked if they had been prescribed sleeping pills. More than a quarter of those living near the wind farm said they had. Less than a tenth of those living further away had been prescribed sleeping pills.

According to the researchers, the study, in the journal Noise and Health, is the first to show clear relationships between wind farms and “important clinical indicators of health, including sleep quality, daytime sleepiness and mental health”.

Unlike some common forms of sleep-disturbing noise, such as roads, wind turbine noise varies dramatically, depending on the wind direction and speed. Unlike other forms of variable noise, however, such as railways and aircraft, it can continue for very longperiods at a time. The nature of the noise — a rhythmic beating or swooshing of the blades — is also disturbing. UK planning guidance allows a night-time noise level from wind farms of 42 decibels – equivalent to the hum made by a fridge.This means that turbines cannot be built less than 380-550 yards from human habitation, with the exact distance depending on the terrain and the size of the turbines.

However, as local concern about wind farm noise grows, many councils are now drawing up far wider cordons. Wiltshire, for instance, has recently voted to adopt minimum distances of between 0.6 to 1.8 miles, depending on the size of the turbines.

Dr Lee Moroney, director of planning at the Renewable Energy Foundation, said: “The UK noise limits were drawn up 16 years ago, when wind turbines were less than half the current size. Worse still, the guidelines permit turbines to be built so close to houses that wind turbine noise will not infrequently be clearly audible indoors at night time, so sleep impacts and associated health effects are almost inevitable.

“This situation is obviously unacceptable and creating a lot of angry neighbours, but the industry and government response is slow and very reluctant. Ministers need to light a fire under their civil servants.”

The research will add to the growing pressure on the wind farm industry, which was attacked last week by the junior energy minister, John Hayes, for the way in which turbines have been “peppered around the country without due regard for the interests of the local community or their wishes”. Saying “enough is enough”, Mr Hayes appeared to support a moratorium on new developments beyond those already in the pipeline.

He was slapped down by his Lib Dem boss, Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, but is unlikely to have made his remarks without some kind of nod from the top of Government. George Osborne, the Chancellor, is known to be increasingly sceptical about the effectiveness of wind power, which is heavily subsidised but delivers relatively little reduction in carbon dioxide.

Wind farms generate about a quarter of their theoretical capacity because the wind does not always blow at the required speeds. Earlier this year, more than 100 Tory MPs urged David Cameron to block the further expansion of wind power.

Whatever the Government decides, however, may not matter.

The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that the EU will shortly begin work on a new directive which may impose a binding target for further renewable energy, mostly wind, on the UK. There is already a target, which is also Government policy, that 20 per cent of energy should come from renewables by 2020.

But Brussels is considering imposing an even higher mandatory target to be met over the following decade, according to Gunther Oettinger, the EU energy commissioner. “I want an interesting discussion on binding targets for renewables by 2030,” he said earlier this year.

Two weeks ago, a senior member of his staff, Jasmin Battista, said that Mr Oettinger was “open to” forced targets, though no decision had been made.

The European Parliament has voted for mandatory increases in renewables by 2030 and Mr Davey has also said he favours them. The issue will be considered at a European Council of Ministers meeting next month.

Source: The Telegraph.


Wind farms facing fresh restrictions
WIND farm developers could soon be forced to argue why their applications should be the exception to a general rule that the Borders now has enough such schemes, if a new regulatory policy is eventually adopted by the region’s planners.

Currently the planning system treats every wind turbine application on its merits, but that could soon change due to a possible new set of criteria which applications would have to meet in order to justify being an exception to the general proposition that the Borders is ‘full up already’ when it comes to turbines.

Planning officials at Scottish Borders Council are now proceeding with investigations into the possibility of adopting such a ‘by exception’ policy after consultation responses on the main issues for the next proposed Local Development Plan (LDP) flagged up high levels of public concern on wind farms.

The issue of the consultation responses to the main issues report was discussed at last week’s meeting of the full council.

Councillors heard there was “a strong body of opinion” that now considers the Borders to have reached saturation point when it comes to turbines and would prefer that such a ‘by exception’ policy is taken forward by the council.

In order to test this issue further, councillors endorsed the commissioning of a consultancy study, to report by the end of the year, that will set out what it calls a robust assessment in terms of economic benefit, landscape impact and community perception of current and future potential wind farm proposals.

Councillors agreed that finalising the wind farm element of the LDP should be delayed until the further studies were completed.

The council’s deliberations coincided with Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond announcing a new target to generate the equivalent of half of Scotland’s electricity needs from renewable energy by 2015.

Mr Salmond revealed the target at the RenewableUK conference in Glasgow this week, but it comes, ironically, at the same time as controversy erupts over claims by Westminster, energy minister, John Hayes, that the UK had enough onshore wind farms.

And SBC planning committee vice-chair, Councillor Nicholas Watson (Leaderdale & Melrose, BP), thinks an ‘exception only’ policy is now the best way forward for this region to deal with turbine applications.

“So many wind farms have now been built that we have to be extra careful about future development. And I feel an ‘exception’ basis would be the best way as part of a new policy in the Local Development Plan.”

But Mr Watson admits there are serious risks that such a policy faces being challenged by Scottish Government ministers.

He said: “That’s why have to tread carefully. Any policy has to be well backed up with information and turbine studies.

“I don’t know of any other local authority in Scotland which operates such a policy, but the Borders has now reached tipping point when it comes to turbines.”

Planning chief Brian Frater told councillors last week that any new policy would have to be “robust and based on best evidence”.

Councillor Michael Cook (East Berwickshire, Ind), executive member for HR and Corporate Improvement, told the meeting that wind farms were the cause of more polarised opinion than anything else when it came to planning issues.

“There is a general perception in East Berwickshire, when it comes to wind farms, that the area is under seige by developers, he said.

Mr Cook said in strategic [government] terms, the policy on wind farms was “misconstrued and anti-democratic” in terms of council policy.

Mr Frater added that such a policy would need to be supported by the government, so decisions were not overturned by reporters.

Leading Borders anti-wind farm campaigner, Professor Jack Ponton, who chairs the Save Lauderdale campaign, said it would be “wonderful news” if SBC was to adopt an exception-based policy on turbines.

“But it comes at a time when Alex Salmond is calling for even more turbines to cover the Scottish countryside, so SBC would be up against people [government ministers] who want more wind farms but don’t have to live near them in the Borders,” commented Professor Ponton.

“But I think this shows that Borders councillors are listening and responding to the opinions of the local communities they serve.”
Source: Southern Reporter

2nd November 2012
Windfarm community benefit payments fall short of council demands


Windfarm developers are short changing communities with their cash agreements.

Payments fall behind levels set by the council and now a move is afoot to beef them up by turning agreements into requirements.

Council bosses want to make a Section 75 Agreement part of any future planning permissions they grant.

That would mean developers signing up to community benefit contributions in line with the council’s policy.

The planning, housing and environment services committee is being asked to agree the move to ensure developer’s “make the appropriate financial contribution in accordance with the council’s community benefits from wind farms policy”.

Economic development boss Ewan Green will tell members: “At present the policy is implemented through negotiation and voluntary agreement. The policy is not legally enforceable and developers cannot be required to comply with it.

“As a result the current outcomes being achieved are providing less funding for community benefits than the levels set in the council’s agreed policy.”

Mr Green points out more wind farm schemes are at various stages in the planning pipeline.

“These could provide substantial levels of funding for both local and strategic community benefit if the council policy can be fully implemented.

“As an illustration, Kilgallioch, a 288 MW scheme north east of New Luce, alone could provide up to £1.44 million annually for local and strategic community benefit.”

Members will be told other local authorities are moving in the same direction.

The Scottish Government determines windfarm applications of more than50 MW and consequently they would have to be informed if the Section 75 Agreement suggested is accepted and asked to take account of the council policy.

Source:  by Doug Archibald, Dumfries & Galloway Standard | Nov 2 2012 | www.dgstandard.co.uk

2nd November 2012
£7bn wildfarm cuts forced by shark love life

THE love life of the basking shark has forced major cuts to a planned £7bn windfarm off the Scottish coast.

Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) have scaled back the  enormous scheme off the Inner Hebrides after campaigners pointed out it is a breeding ground for the world’s second-biggest fish.

The 300-turbine project at Skerryvore Reef off the coast of Tiree will be cut by a third after a survey spotted nearly 1,000 of the 30ft sharks in the area in one day.

And campaigners are still pushing for the project to be scrapped entirely, saying the 30-square mile site should continue to be a haven for the sharks

They say scrapping of the windfarm would, they claim, also protect Scotland’s tallest lighthouse, Skerryvore.  The 165ft structure would be dwarfed by the 650ft turbines, according to campaigners.

Robert Trythall, spokesman for the No Tiree Array (NTA) group, said: “One third down, two thirds to go. We can see the finishing line now and we’re more determined than ever to get this thing sunk.”

A survey carried out in August by the SPR found the remote western location is popular with the sea giants as they spotted 914 in one day.

The NTA hope that the findings of other surveys, due to be published next year, will prove their own claims the off-shore energy site would have an irreversible and destructive impact on the coastline.

Basking sharks are frequently spotted in Scottish waters, including Ailsa Craig, Shetland, and the waters surrounding the Hebrides.

Their mating season occurs in early summer and the ideal location for their amorous activities is shallow reef areas such as the windfarm site near Tiree

The area is also home to one of the UK’s largest water birds, the great northern diver.

Scottish Natural Heritage and Exeter University are currently tagging the basking sharks as part of a survey – the findings of which will be published in spring 2013.

Despite their size, basking sharks sustain themselves on the sea’s tiniest creatures, swimming at around 3mph with their 3ft mouths wide open filtering plankton.

The creatures filter around 220,000 gallons of water an hour, the equivalent of an Olympic swimming pool every three hours.

A Scottish Power Renewables spokesman said: “In order to minimise potential impacts on birds, including the great northern diver, we are considering a revision to the design of the windfarm to exclude either part or all of the Skerryvore Reef area, including the overall size of the windfarm.

“Doing this would also avoid an area where basking sharks are present as well as avoiding Skerryvore Lighthouse.

“We have been carrying out comprehensive surveys in the area since 2010 to better understand the ecology around the site.

“This work is necessary for any proposed development and will shape and inform the design of the windfarm and our future planning application.”

The future of windfarms was the subject of a massive political row this week after after newly-appointed UK Energy Minister John Hayes vowed to halt wind farm projects.

In a newspaper interview on Tuesday, just before a RenewableUK conference in Glasgow, the Tory politician agreed with campaigners who said on-shore turbines blight the landscape.

Mr Hayes said too many turbines had been allowed to “pepper” the countryside and “enough was enough”.

His comments threatened a rift with the government’s Liberal Democrat coalition partners and David Cameron told the Commons during Prime Minister’s questions the following day: “There has been no change towards renewable energy.

“Let me explain exactly — we have got a big pipeline of onshore and offshore wind projects that are coming through.”

Source: Deadline News

2nd November 2012

Turbine proposal creating a storm on island  

What would Katie Morag have made of it?

A wind turbine higher than Edinburgh’s Scott Monument towering over her beloved island.

Would Grannie Island have backed the 250ft structure? But this isn’t the Struay of Mairi Hedderwick’s imagination, rather it is Coll, which inspired her to write her globally acclaimed Katie Morag books. Islanders are now faced with a plot line that concerns them.

By a narrow vote, Argyll and Bute councillors have approved the building of the giant wind turbine for local landowner and businessman Neil Smith.

There are already a dozen far smaller turbines. But islanders say as it will be on a rocky outcrop the new one will be almost as high as the 341ft Ben Hogh, Coll’s highest point, and will dominate the landscape of the low lying island and destroy the first view as people arrive.

While Mr Smith does have support on the island, and the community council remains neutral, the councillors heard from the Protecting Coll Group, which says it represents 102 of the houseowners on Coll where the Electoral Roll is just 137

The group’s spokesman Colin Scott spent 40 years as a rural land agent dealing with land and estate management including major environmental projects. He has lived on Coll for the last four years.

He said councillors had to think of the view visitors arriving by ferry from Oban got of the island which shaped their first impressions as they approached Arinagour. He said: “The ferry crosses the sea of the Inner Hebrides approaching the low horizon and flat landscape of the Isle of Coll that sits like a fish in the sea beyond. The essential character for all to see is that of a flat island, swept by wind, and marked by its horizontal nature. It has had that character for all of history.”

He warned the turbine would change that utterly. It would be visible above Arinagour “thereby at a stroke removing the captivating first impressions of the island for the first time visitor and the person returning home alike”.

He added: “The turbine blades will appear above the village-scape, inserting jarring incongruity into the view.”

He said the suggestion in the council’s planning report that the effect would be “negligible”, defied commonsense.

Another islander, who wanted to remain anonymous, said: “We would love to mount a legal challenge, but we won’t have the money. We would love to speak out, but are nervous.”

But Angus Kennedy, whose family have lived on Coll for generations said he had no fear for the value of his property or the integrity of the site or the wildlife.

He said he had spoken to visitors and tourists to the island and was not worried people would stop visiting.

Mr Smith told The Herald the idea had started as a community project in 2008, but at that time there wasn’t sufficient capacity on the grid. He added: “By the time there was capacity in 2010 the community was completely involved in fundraising and management to build a new community hall. So there was no appetite for a wind turbine.”

He had pursued the project, originally for two turbines, before one was dropped.

He added: “But we have made an offer to the community that if they can get planning permission we would give them the land free to build their own turbine and cover all their costs out of our turbine’s profits up to the planning stage.”

Source:  David Ross, Highland Correspondent | The Herald | 2 November 2012 | www.heraldscotland.com

31st October 2012

Ten years too late, it’s good riddance to wind farms – one of the most dangerous delusions of our age

The significance of yesterday’s shock announce-ment by our Energy Minister John Hayes that the Government plans to put a firm limit on the building of any more onshore windfarms is hard to exaggerate.
On the face of it, this promises to be the beginning of an end to one of the greatest and most dangerous political delusions of our time.
For years now, the plan to cover hundreds of square miles of the British countryside with ever more wind turbines has been the centrepiece of Britain’s energy policy — and one supported by all three major political parties.
Back in 2008, when Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced his wish to see the country spend £100 billion on windfarms, the only response from the Tory leader David Cameron was to say that he should have done it sooner.
It was the only way, they all agreed, Britain could meet our commitment to the EU that, by 2020, we must produce nearly a third of our electricity from ‘renewables’ — with  the largest part provided by tens of thousands more  wind turbines.
Yet now, out of the blue, has come this announcement by the Coalition Energy Minister that from now on there is to be a moratorium on building onshore turbines other than those for which consent has already been given.
Bonanza
What made this even more piquant was the fact that Mr Hayes chose to drop  this bombshell just hours before attending a conference in Glasgow staged by  RenewableUK, the professional lobby group for Britain’s wind industry.
These are the very people who for years have been making fortunes out of the greatest public subsidy bonanza of modern times. Now Mr Hayes is to stop their gravy train in  its tracks.
It will give them the  biggest shock of their professional lives.
The ramifications of such a policy U-turn stretch in all directions, not least to Brussels, where our EU colleagues won’t be taken in for a moment by Mr Hayes’s disingenuous claim that Britain doesn’t need more onshore windfarms because we are now on course to meet our ‘renewables’ target without them.
But nowhere will this announcement be greeted with more delirious surprise than in all those hundreds of communities across the land where outraged local protest groups have formed in ever greater numbers to fight the onward march of what they see as the greatest threat to Britain’s countryside for centuries.
Ludicrous
I have been following this extraordinary story for ten years ever since, in 2002, I first began looking carefully at what really lay behind this deceptive obsession with the charms of wind power. It didn’t take me long, talking to experts and reading up on the technical facts, to see that the  fashionable enthusiasm for wind energy was based on a colossal illusion.
I first warned about what I called ‘the greatest mistake in our history’ in an article in the Mail almost ten years ago.
I described the claim that it would be the answer to all our future energy problems as a catastrophic failure of judgment. I feared that windpower was stupendously inefficient and ludicrously expensive and that by falling for the greatest energy hoax of our time, the Labour  government could be  consigning Britain to a very dark future.
So unreliable are wind turbines — thanks to the wind’s constant vagaries — that they are one of the most inefficient means of producing electricity ever devised.
Indeed, the amount of power they generate is so derisory that, even now, when we have built 3,500 turbines, the average amount of power we get from all of them combined is no more than what we get from a single medium-size, gas-fired power station, built at only fraction of the cost.
No one would dream of building windfarms unless the Government had arranged to pay their developers a subsidy of 100 per cent on all the power they produce, paid for by all of us through a hidden charge on our electricity bills.
The only way the industry managed to fool politicians into accepting this crazy deal was by subterfuge — referring to turbines only in terms of their ‘capacity’  (i.e. what they could produce if the wind was blowing at optimum speeds 24 hours of every day). The truth is that their average actual output is barely a quarter of that figure.
Yet it was on this deception that the industry managed to fool pretty well everyone that windfarms could make a contribution to Britain’s energy needs four times larger than reality — and thus was ‘the great wind scam’ launched  on its way.
For years our politicians continued to fall for this racket, as they ruthlessly bent the planning rules to ensure that nothing stood in the way of the turbines.
Meanwhile, ever more rural communities fought to stop the countryside around their homes being threatened with these monsters.
At long last, the penny began to drop with a growing number of MPs being besieged by constituents who wanted to know why our green and pleasant land should be disfigured for no obvious purpose other than to enrich the developers, and landowners such as David Cameron’s father-in-law Sir Reginald Sheffield, who has cheerfully admitted that the turbines on his Lincolnshire estate earn him £1,000 a day.
Earlier this year, 100 MPs, led by Chris Heaton-Harris, MP for Daventry, called for an end to building any more onshore turbines, on the grounds that the public should no longer be expected to pay out hundreds of millions of pounds a year in subsidies for something which was both useless and a crazy waste of money.
It was this groundswell of opposition, coming mainly from the Tory shires but winning support from MPs of all parties, which recently led David Cameron to appoint John Hayes as our new Energy Minister — with the private brief that he must find a way to curb those windfarms which are so massively unpopular.
Hence last night’s startling U-turn — which will destroy the long-standing all-party consensus on the issue.
The Lib Dems — led by our technically illiterate Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey — the Labour Party and Brussels will scarcely be able to contain their anger.
For countless others, this blast of realism will send up a cheer of relief across Britain — apart from Scotland, which has devolved powers. First Minister Alex Salmond has laughably pledged that, within eight years, it must derive all its electricity from ‘renewables’. (He has never explained what happens when the wind drops.)
In terms of seeing off the great wind delusion, however, this is only what Churchill once described as ‘the end of the beginning’.
Pitiful
When all those MPs finally became brave enough to recognise that onshore wind turbines are both useless and a waste of money, what they omitted to say was that the same objections apply twice over to those we are erecting in the seas around our coasts.
It’s not just that the thousands of offshore turbines that the Government still wants built will not only produce amounts of electricity scarcely less pitiful than those onshore. Because they are so much more expensive to build, they attract  subsidies not at 100 per cent but at 200 per cent.
Thus, every reason that led John Hayes to strike such a blow yesterday for common sense in respect of onshore windfarms also applies, with redoubled force, to those vast offshore wind factories.
Until our politicians finally have the courage of their newfound convictions and halt this madness, too, one of the most bizarre follies of our age will not have been finally chucked where it belongs — firmly into the rubbish bin  of history.
Source: Daily  Mail

31st October 2012

Minister slams wind farms policy

The Tory energy minister has condemned the "peppering" of wind farms across the countryside, insisting: "Enough is enough."

In remarks bound to inflame coalition tensions, John Hayes said the spread of turbines "seems extraordinary" and they should no longer be "imposed on communities".

He revealed he has ordered a new analysis of the case for onshore wind power, saying policy should not be based on a "bourgeois Left article of faith".

The intervention will delight scores of Conservative MPs who have been urging David Cameron to block further expansion of onshore wind farms, but infuriate Liberal Democrats.

Mr Hayes, who was appointed to the brief in last month's reshuffle, is believed to support a moratorium on new onshore wind farms. Energy Secretary Ed Davey was reportedly so concerned about his new deputy's views on the issue that he acted to limit his responsibilities.

Quoted in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, Mr Hayes said: "We can no longer have wind turbines imposed on communities. I can't single-handedly build a new Jerusalem but I can protect our green and pleasant land. We have issued a call for evidence on wind. That is about cost but also about community buy-in. We need to understand communities' genuine desires. We will form our policy in the future on the basis of that, not on a bourgeois Left article of faith based on some academic perspective."

He insisted only a minority of proposed wind turbines were needed to meet green targets set by the Government. "If you look at what has been built, what has consent and what is in the planning system, much of it will not get through and will be rejected. Even if a minority of what's in the system is built, we are going to reach our 2020 target," Mr Hayes said. "I'm saying enough is enough."

The minister said new research on wind turbines would make a far wider assessment of their impact on the rural landscape and property prices.

"I have asked the planning minister to look again at the relationship between these turbines and the landscape," he said. "It seems extraordinary to have allowed them to be peppered around the country without due regard for the interests of the local community or their wishes."

Mr Hayes said the impact of onshore wind farms on environments had been "neglected" and renewable energy needed "genuine community support". He added: "The salience of aesthetics to discussions about renewables has often been neglected. All that we do must be sensitive to local environments."
Source: Gazette Live

31st October 2012

Alex Salmond accused as Scottish mountains are 'industrialised' by wind farms

Alex Salmond has been accused of a "failure of leadership" amid claims he has "done nothing" to protect Scotland's landscapes from becoming industrialised.

Alex Salmond will deliver a keynote address at a renewable energy conference today amid claims that he has "done nothing" to protect Scotland's mountain landscapes from wind farms.

The Mountaineering Council of Scotland accused ministers of a "failure of leadership" for allowing the "industrialisation" of some of the country's most important natural assets.

The charity said VisitScotland now recognised that badly sited wind farms would drive visitors away, and Scottish Natural Heritage was concerned about the cumulative impact on mountain scenery. It has written to companies attending the RenewableUK exhibition and conference in Glasgow, calling on them to work out how to "harmonise clean energy production with the preservation of Scotland's natural heritage".

David Gibson, the mountaineering council's chief officer, said: "Some wind farm proposals are incredibly inappropriate and are leading to the industrialisation of our most beautiful, wild and open mountain landscapes.

"Right now, as companies gather for RenewableUK 2012, a public inquiry is taking place into the truly dreadful Allt Duine scheme to build 31 immense turbines in the heart of the Monadhliadth Mountains." The group called on the First Minister to make a stand for Scotland's natural heritage in his speech at the annual event organised by the country's largest renewable energy trade association. Mr Salmond claimed recently there was no evidence that wind turbines damaged scenery.

Mr Gibson said Scotland needed a national planning policy for onshore wind, adding: "There is a serious risk that poor practice in wind farm location will undermine public and investor confidence in the industry itself."

With hundreds of applications in the pipeline, anti–turbine groups want a moratorium on new developments that would affect the highest mountains.

The appeal by the council follows a warning by Neil Oliver, the television historian, over the "destructive and intrusive" nature of wind turbines.

He said: "We've become squeamish about oil and gas–powered stations and we're definitely squeamish about nuclear power. We should be grown up enough to understand that if our energy is to come from turbines, it will come with a price.

"If you want renewable power, then you'll have to live with a landscape that is completely altered by turbines so that every view on land and seascape will be compromised."

Meanwhile, the campaign group Communities Against Turbines said new research at Heriot–Watt University indicated that wind speeds in central Scotland had dropped by an average of five per cent a decade since the 1970s was further evidence of the "futility of the obsession with onshore wind".

31st October2012
Renewables ‘to provide half of Scotland’s electricity by 2015’

HALF of Scotland’s entire electricity needs must now be generated through green energy by 2015, the First Minister has 
announced.

The ambitious new target is the latest set by the SNP government in its bid to produce all the nation’s electric power from renewable sources by 2020.

Alex Salmond yesterday also revealed new figures showing Scotland’s electricity generation capacity is expected to exceed demand by about 35 per cent in 2015, allowing the nation to meet its own power needs while producing a “vital surplus” for the rest of the UK.

The announcement at the latest UK renewables industry conference in Glasgow follows growing confidence in the 
administration after Scotland exceeded its previous interim goal of 31 per cent by 2011, creating 35 per cent instead.

Yesterday also saw the publication of record figures in an annual UK report into renewables which showed that wind – “led by Scotland” – is on track to power one in ten homes by 2015, and to be second only to natural gas as the largest single source of UK electricity by 2020.

Addressing delegates at the RenewableUK 2012 Annual Conference and Exhibition at the SECC in Glasgow, the First Minister described Scotland’s renewables success as a “massive economic opportunity”.

Mr Salmond said the new target would bring thousands more jobs to a sector which already employs 11,000 thanks to £2.3 billion of investment in projects north of the Border.

He said: “Last year, we published a routemap for renewable energy for Scotland, outlining how we would meet the equivalent of 100 per cent of Scotland’s electricity demand from renewable sources by 2020. Today, we are publishing an update to that routemap. It shows clearly the progress that has been made in the last year.

“In the light of that progress, I can announce that we have set a new interim target – by 2015, the equivalent of 50 per cent of Scotland’s electricity demand will be met by renewable sources.

“This target is ambitious, but also achievable. It is based on current data about capacity which is operational, under construction, or has been consented.

“I believe creating more clean energy is essential for Scotland and this target provides three benefits in particular – energy security; environmental sustainability; and employment opportunities.”

When the SNP came to power in 2007, it inherited a target of producing 50 per cent of Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020, five years later than the new target.

Mr Salmond added that the latest target would also improve progress on another SNP goal, that of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 42 per cent by 2020, the first annual deadline of which was missed this year.

Environmentalists in Scotland said that failure showed greater focus on reducing carbon emissions from homes and transport was still needed, although they welcomed the latest drive to improve green energy production.

Dr Dan Barlow, head of policy at WWF Scotland, said: “Scotland is already making good progress in realising our green energy potential and this commitment will help maintain confidence in the sector and support thousands of new jobs.

“It’s vital we build on this progress with similar ambitions aimed at improving energy 
efficiency in our homes and tackling emissions from transport, in order to deliver a truly low-carbon Scotland.”

Earlier this month, Ofgem warned that overall UK electricity production could exceed peak demand by just 4 per cent in 2015, a sharp decline on the current level of 14 per cent.

However, RenewableUK reported a record year in 2011-12, with wind energy output rising by a quarter, or 1,825MW, last year UK-wide.

For the first time in five years, the UK also saw a rise in the number of onshore windfarm proposals approved by councils, up to a record 1,701MW, compared with 1,142MW last year – a leap of nearly 50 per cent.

RenewableUK chief executive Maria McCaffery said: “We have taken significant strides forward … 2011-12 saw overall capital investment in the offshore wind industry rise by 60 per cent to £1.5bn and a record amount of onshore wind capacity approved, with Scotland leading the way.

“These strong figures underline the importance of a secure trading climate to attract investment, especially in difficult times. Although we still have a long way to go, we are firmly on track and gathering momentum.”

Campaigners in Scotland opposing wind farms, however, maintain that the SNP is obsessed with the “turbinisation” of the country at the expense of the landscape and tourism.

A public inquiry is under way into plans for a wind farm beside the Cairngorm National Park, which opponents say would be like “building a Tesco in the Grand Canyon”.
Source:The Scotsman

30th October 2012

Historian Oliver attacks ‘uglifying’ wind turbines

Television historian Neil Oliver has launched a blistering attack on the Scottish Government and its green energy plans.

Oliver, best known for presenting the BBC’s Coast series, spoke out against the increasing numbers of “intrusive and uglifying” wind farms, warning they could ruin every view in Scotland.

The 45-year-old also accused Donald Trump, the American billionaire, of presiding over the “wholesale destruction” of an irreplaceable stretch of Scottish coastline.

In an outspoken critique of the future of Scotland’s landscapes, he went on to urge corporations and elected representatives to tell the truth and not hide behind spin.

He said: “I’ve got to the point where I wish politicians and big companies would just talk to the population like grown-ups. Wind turbines, whatever you think they look like, are destructive and intrusive.

“They involve massive amounts of cement, which is an extremely ungreen material, and pre-suppose the construction of power lines either with pylons or underground cables.”

The Stirling-based academic said the public needed to hear the unvarnished truth about the hard choices that lay ahead.

“We’ve become squeamish about oil and gas-powered power stations and we’re definitely squeamish about nuclear power. We should be grown-up enough to understand that if our energy is to come from turbines, it will come with a price.

“That price might be that in the future we live in a country that is in many ways uglified. If you want renewable power then you’ll have to live with a landscape that is completely altered by turbines so that every view on land and seascape will be compromised.”

Oliver accused Alex Salmond of ingratiating himself with the rich, and attacked Labour and the Tories for wanting to preserve the union for self-serving reasons.

The broadcaster, who also hosted A History of Scotland, claimed it was ironic and “almost the stuff of a Biblical parable” that Trump had raised fears that the siting of wind turbines in the North Sea would ruin the beauty of his Aberdeenshire golf complex.

Lawyers for Trump last week demanded a public inquiry into plans for a wind farm near his Balmedie course.

He added: “There’s an irony in the fact that Trump is upset about something which he feels will destroy the landscape. We’re too grown-up as a people, I hope, to be fooled by the idea that you can have the world’s most prestigious golf course, hundreds of holiday apartments and a fivestar hotel and therewon’t be any consequences from that.

“That dune system, which was almost unique in Scotland, has been scraped away by an army of bulldozers.”

On the referendum, the Renfrewshire-born historian said: “Independence is a powerful word and it begs the question: what are you independent of? On the one hand you say you want to be freed from Westminster, but there is always going to be someone out there you’ve got to get into bed with that compromises some of your ideals.

“You can argue that Salmond wants independence for the good of the people of Scotland, but it’s also for his professional advancement. Likewise, the unionist parties don’t want it because of all the well-rehearsed reasons.”

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Scotland has astounding green energy potential and vast natural resources and we have a responsibility to make sure our nation seizes this opportunity to create tens of thousands of jobs and secure billions of pounds of investment.”

Source: The Herald.

30th October 2012
The case for protection of Wild Land
RELENTLESS campaigning against the disappearance of our planet’s most precious and most limited resources will not have gone unnoticed by many.

It is surprising, therefore, how little has been said about the plight of Scotland’s wild land; an asset that any country would be proud to boast of, but one that we as a nation are leaving exposed to continual and increasing harm.

Having spent the past 40 years or so climbing, backpacking and trekking in some of the world’s wildest places, I have a great familiarity with Wild Land – a concept which refers to those places of a certain character, uninhabited and often remote, where it is hard to see the influence of human activity. Such places, untouched by human hands, form some (if not most) of our country’s most spectacular landscapes.

Generally comprising the four main qualities of perceived naturalness, ruggedness, remoteness and absence of modern human artefacts, the importance of Wild Land extends far beyond its visual aspect.  Wild Land also provides us with clean air and water, helps to regulate the climate and – as an undeniable attraction to tourists – provides a vital contribution to our economy. Indeed, a Scottish Natural Heritage study found that Wild Land provides more financial benefit to our country than agriculture and forestry combined. Not only this, but it is difficult to overlook the intrinsic societal value fundamental to ideas of Scottish identity and culture – associated with these stunning landscapes. A new survey, conducted jointly by Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority, the Cairngorms National Park Authority and Scottish Natural Heritage, has also revealed widespread public support for action to protect wild land.

For many of us, the enjoyment of Wild Land can be inspirational. It links us to the physical elements of the natural world that are so far removed from our modern lives, and allows us to find solitude and spiritual refreshment. For me, it is the attempt to try and form a ‘connection’ with the wild landscape that I treasure the most. But our ability to enjoy and benefit from this great part of our national heritage is increasingly under threat.

This precious, limited resource is disappearing at a startling rate and – unless better protection is provided soon – we will lose the remaining areas as well. It is baffling, but developments continue to surface on these celebrated landscapes, irrespective of the damage they are causing. The government appears not yet to have recognised that the visual impact of building upon Wild Land is both devastating and irreversible; under current regulation, inappropriate developments on Wild Land can be opposed through the planning process but there is no guarantee – and often little hope of success.

The loss of our country’s impressive scenery is not a potential fear, or something that will happen in the distant future. Scotland’s wild land is being eradicated as we speak; despite the fact that over 90% of respondents to a Scottish Natural Heritage study agreed that Scotland’s areas of Wild Land should be protected.  Although some areas are safe, this is sadly the minority. In England and Wales very little wild land is at risk, thanks to national landscape designation, but in Scotland only about a third of these landscapes enjoy such safeguarding.

It is a crime that areas so plainly unsuitable for development have not yet been given statutory protection. Leading wild land charity the John Muir Trust suggests that a wild land designation would be a clear marker to developers that proposals in that area would be unlikely to be granted permission. Scottish Natural Heritage, however, feel that such a designation method would lead to confusion, and favour a complementary approach that would involve National Scenic Area designation and other national and local planning policies.

The proposed Allt Duine scheme is one of 11 wind farms consented or planned near or on the edge of the National Park in an area of wild land and is going to be a test case for its protection. If the Allt Duine proposal is granted permission, the landscape, visual and wild land impacts will be devastating.

Whichever route we go down, it is clear that the status quo provides completely inadequate protection for the great Scottish outdoors. It is also clear, furthermore, that we need to take significant steps if we are to have any hope of retaining the beauty of our countryside. The issue in both cases is how, and how quickly, we are going to make these changes happen – because time is something we don’t have.

Cameron

Source: Mountain media.

28th October 2012

Revealed: Pressure wind farm companies put on councils
The full extent of the pressure wind farm companies are putting on Scotland’s planning system to build on ‘unsuitable’ sites can be disclosed today.

Official figures obtained by the Daily Telegraph show they have quadrupled the number of appeals they have lodged against council decisions to reject planning permission.

Scotland’s local authorities received 14 appeals for rejected wind farm applications in 2008, a total that increased to 31 in 2011 and 60 so far this year.

Even where the appeals are also rejected, wind farm companies are increasingly demanding the SNP administration in Edinburgh overturn the decision.

The number of cases where a Scottish Government reporter has approved a wind farm has increased from a low of two in 2009 to five in 2011 to 19 so far this year.

Earlier this year planning chiefs warned MSPs Scotland’s countryside is in danger of becoming a “wind farm landscape” as ever more sensitive sites are targeted to achieve Alex Salmond’s green energy targets.

Councils have complained that many energy companies are submitting “opportunistic” applications in unsuitable areas in the hope that overstretched planning departments wave them through.

They are being forced to divert millions of pounds of council taxpayers’ money to deal with the influx after SNP ministers refused permission for a moratorium on wind farm applications.

Struan Stevenson, a Tory MEP, said the figures illustrated the “war of attrition” being waged by energy companies to force through wind farm applications.“

They are wearing down the planners and trampling over local democracy,” he said.

“It’s the poor old council taxpayer that has to meet the cost of this and it’s the poor old electricity bill payer paying the subsidy for wind farms.”

Mr Salmond wants to generate the equivalent of all Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by the end of the decade, a target that will require thousands more turbines.

The figures, which were published by Derek Mackay, the Local Government Minister, show five councils are bearing the brunt of the pressure from the renewables industry.

The number of planning appeals in Fife has increased from one in 2008 to five in 2011 to 15 so far this year. Alex Rowley, the council leader, led calls for a moratorium after complaining of a flood of unsuitable applications.

Meanwhile, the number of appeals received by Dumfries and Galloway Council has risen from one in 2008 to three last year to 10 so far in 2012.

Aberdeenshire, another area under pressure from wind farm developers, has received eight appeals so far this year compared to one in 2008.

East Lothian Council handled one such appeal in the four years between 2008 and 2011 but have received six so far this year. Precisely the same increase has been recorded in Moray.

Although SNP ministers recently announced a £300,000 fund to help councils deal with the cost of wind farm applications, anti-turbine campaigns said the money was a “drop in the ocean”

The Daily Telegraph disclosed last month that Perth and Kinross Council alone has spent almost precisely £1 million in recent years dealing with wind farm planning appeals.

But energy companies can also ask the Scottish Government to intervene if the council refuses the application, does not consider it swiftly enough or attaches conditions they find unacceptable.

Ministers assign a planning reporter who can conduct a full-scale public inquiry in particularly contentious cases.

According to the figures, a Scottish Government reporter approved one wind farm application in Dumfries and Galloway in the four years between 2008 and 2011. The total for this year alone is five.

East Lothian had never had such a case before this year, but has had two already in 2012.

Scottish Government reporters have also approved two wind farms in Inverclyde having never done so since at least 2008.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said councils across the country have raised with ministers the problems raised by wind farm applications, including their number and “the cumulative visual impact on the natural landscape”.

But the Scottish Government said ministers want to see “the right developments in the right places” and the “great majority” of its decisions on major wind farms are supported by local planning authorities.

A spokesman said reporters do not overturn council rulings in two-thirds of cases and recent reforms to the planning system have reduced costs by streamlining the process.

Jenny Hogan, director of policy at Scottish Renewables, the energy company trade body, said: “The increase in planning activity is an indication of the renewable energy sector’s success in Scotland, an industry which is already supporting thousands of jobs.

“There’s a variety of reasons why planning applications go to appeal, and it’s important to remember that the appeals process is an essential part of any democratic planning system.”

Source: The Telegraph.


22nd October 2012

VisitScotland admits wind farms could harm tourism

SCOTLAND's tourist chiefs have admitted for the first time that wind farms could have a detrimental effect on tourism.

VisitScotland opposed plans for a 10-turbine development at Minnygap, Lockerbie.

The views are contained in a Dumfries and Galloway Council planning committee report that will go before councillors on Thursday.

VisitScotland's position emerged as a planning inquiry gets under way today into the Allt Duine wind farm, which would see 31 turbines built half-a-mile from the boundary of Cairngorms National Park.

The intervention by the agency into the Lockerbie proposal comes days after Alex Salmond claimed wind farms "enhance our appeal as a country".

The submission from the tourist body states the "proposed development appears to be visible from the Southern Upland Way, which is an important part of the tourism offering".

"There have been a number of applications for wind farm developments along the route. Should all of these be granted there could be a cumulative detrimental effect on walkers."

Tory MSP Murdo Fraser, convenor of the Scottish parliament's energy and tourism committee, said: "If wind farms will damage tourism in one area of Scotland, this is surely the case the country over. This is a message communities reliant on the tourism trade have been trying to get through to the Scottish Government for years."

VisitScotland has maintained it is not against the principle of wind farm development, and released a survey earlier this year that claimed four out of five tourists visiting Scotland do not see wind farms as a problem.

Campaigners have welcomed its position on the proposal.

Susan Crosthwaite, chairwoman of Communities Against Turbines Scotland, said: "It is very welcome that VisitScotland are at last taking a proactive approach to objecting."

A VisitScotland spokesman said the body understood and supported the drive for renewable energy. He added: "When consulted as part of the formal planning process, VisitScotland recommends tourism concerns are taken into account when granting planning permission, and encourages sensitive siting of developments at all times."

Critics of the Allt Duine development claim the wind farm proposed by RWE Innogy, for land west of the A9, would industrialise a precious area of the Highlands, and be a link in a chain of wind farms that would encircle Scotland's biggest national park.

Given its proximity to the national park, many believe it presents the Government with a landmark decision to make.

Ministers had always been due to decide the fate of the development because of its size, but the inquiry was triggered after Highland Council voted three to one against the plan.

The application is opposed by other statutory consultees including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Cairngorms National Park Authority, the John Muir Trust and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland.

Duncan Bryden, convener and planning chairman of the Cairngorms National Park Authority, said: "If allowed to go ahead, this wind farm would transform the Monadhliath skyline and contribute to the gradual encircling of the north-western boundary of the Park – with turbines visible from iconic high points like the Ptarmigan Restaurant."

Jenny Gascoigne, RWE npower renewables' wind development manager, earlier said the turbines would be shielded from view by the ridgeline that forms the park boundary.

The turbines would not be visible from Kincraig, Kingussie or Aviemore or along the A9 corridor, she added.
Source: The Herald

21st October 2012

Scottish tourism chiefs have finally admitted wind farms could drive away visitors.

In a move that’s sure to put them on a collision course with the Scottish Government, VisitScotland has opposed a development near Lockerbie on the grounds it “could have a detrimental effect” on holidaymakers.

It is highly unusual for the taxpayer-funded agency to step in directly to challenge a wind farm application.

The intervention, which comes only days after Alex Salmond claimed wind farms “enhance out appeal as a country”, heaps more pressure on the SNP to order a moratorium on further development.

Critics last night described it as a significant development. Tory MSP Murdo Fraser, convener of the Scottish Parliament’s energy and tourism committee, said: “If wind farms will damage tourism in one area of Scotland, this is surely the case the country over.

“This is a message communities reliant on the tourist trade have been trying to get through to the Scottish Government for years.”

A Sunday Post probe recently revealed there are 131 onshore wind farms in Scotland.

Another 304 are under construction, have received planning consent or are going through the planning process.

If those in the planning stage are developed, it could result in more than 5,000 turbines across the country.

Opponents have warned their unrelenting spread is damaging Scotland’s natural beauty and threatening the £11 billion-a-year tourism trade.

However VisitScotland has repeatedly said it is not against the principle of wind farm development.

In April it even released a survey which concluded four out of five tourists visiting Scotland do not see wind farms as a problem.

However the agency’s response to a controversial 10-turbine bid a Minnygap, Lockerbie appears to be at odds with that view.

It is contained in a Dumfries and Galloway Council planning committee report which will got before councillors on Thursday.

The report states that the “proposed development appears to be visible from the Southern Upland Way which is an important part of the tourism offering in the area.

“There have been a number of applications for wind farm developments along the route of the walk. Should all of these be granted there could be a cumulative detrimental effect on walkers.”

David Gibson, of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, said: “This intervention is long overdue.

“I hope the Scottish Government sit up and take notice and orders a moratorium on wind farm developments.”

Angela Kelly, of the anti-windfarm group Country Guardian, added: “The whole spirit of Scotland has been destroyed by wind farms.

“I hope this move will lead to more objections in future. It is better late than never.”

A VisitScotland spokesman said it understands and supports the drive for renewable energy.But he added: “When consulted as part of the formal planning process, VisitScotland recommends that tourism concerns are taken into account when granting planning permission, and encourages sensitive siting of developments at all times.

“Ultimately, it is for the local planning authority or Scottish ministers to make the final decision as to whether or not a development proposal is approved.”

Source: The Sunday Post.


20th October 2012

Alex 'Butcher' Salmond has destroyed Scotland

Today is the Scottish National Party conference in Perth. At some stage, SNP leader Alex Salmond will no doubt be crowing, as he is wont to do, about his success in transforming Scotland into the "Saudi Arabia of renewables". This is inaccurate. What he has actually done is transform Scotland into the Saudi Arabia of tourism, which is to say he has turned a once-beautiful country into a vast, inhospitable desert which no one in their right mind would want to visit.

Scotland's landscape was, until recently, one of the great glories of our national heritage. What made it so special was its vastness, its remoteness, its stark, unspoilt magnificence. Though, of course, man has played his part in shaping it – the stone walls and bothies built by crofters, the patchwork colours on the hillside caused by burning sections of heather on the moor in order to provide new shoots for the grouse – but till now his presence has been discreet and has enhanced the country's beauty rather than detracting from it. No more, however. Wind farms have ruined everything.

This must-read article about the devastation wrought on just one part of Scotland – remote and rugged Caithness – says it all. It was written by a man who genuinely loves and appreciates nature – as opposed to all those misanthropic environmental zealots who are destroying the planet while pretending to save it with "renewable energy". Here's a sample:

While it was still unspoilt I recently had a gentle walk from the top of the road, over the wet moor and down to the Berriedale water where it flows through the gorge under a shaky suspension footbridge.

The red deer rut had begun and stags roared to each other from skyline locations across the valley. The wind was cold, the sky bright, the heather already dying, real autumn though only mid-September.

Those who want wind farms see only the pound signs and have no understanding of the value of a wild Highland landscape like this one or how 20 or 30 giant turbines will turn it into yet another industrial site.

Places in this world which have not visibly been trampled and subdued by man are increasingly rare. Already, up on the Scaraben ridge, the Sudoku grid of the Boulfruich intrudes jarringly into the eastward view.

Absolutely nowhere in Caithness is safe from the marching white monsters.

LOCH Calder remains unspoilt, fortunately the council had the sense to repeatedly refuse permission for three huge windmills on the hill top to the east. But the forests to the west are for sale… an obvious temptation for yet another site.

And the Broubster wind farm has come back, a proposal for 20 or 30 huge turbines at the top end of Broubster Forest which, with Limekiln and Baillie Farm, would mean the western fringe of the county becomes nothing but a mass of giant whirling concrete blades.

Already Baillie Farm is surprisingly prominent from the loch with only three towers up so far and the blades not even attached.

Yet they still call Caithness the land of big skies. In a few years’ time this will be sheer nostalgia.

I weep for the rural Scots and what has been done to their countryside by the Chavez of the North, Alex Salmond. He has devalued their properties, blighted their views, stolen their tranquillity and wiped out their tourist income – all so that a few greedy landowners and mostly foreign-owned Big Wind conglomerates can make a fat fortune through the massive subsidies they receive for producing intermittent, overpriced and useless energy.

I'm sorry I'm unable to join today's protests outside the Perth conference by Scottish anti-wind-farm groups. I share their outrage at Salmond's ludicrous claim that wind farms do not detract from the Scottish scenery. Here's what Linda Holt of the protest group Communities Against Turbines Scotland (CATS) has to say:

"Instead of parading around the world as a great green leader, Mr Salmond needs to get out into the Scottish countryside and meet the communities, including tourism stakeholders, whose lives and businesses are being ruined by turbinisation.

No one (apart from politicians) comes to Scotland to see a windfarm. No one wants to live next door to a windfarm. No one climbs a mountain to see a windfarm.

If Mr Salmond's main experience of windfarms is pretty photos or glimpses from a passing car, he might just be able to fantasize that they are not giant, noise and flicker emitting structures which dominate their surroundings for miles around. In reality, windfarm landscapes are alien, alienating places, hostile to man and beast.

Many people in Scotland will be horrified to hear these remarks from the First Minister, including the poor beleaguered officers in planning departments across the country and in Scottish Natural Heritage, the agency charged by the government to protect the Scottish landscape. Government is about more than enticing industrial wind developers to your country at any cost."

Donald Trump, fighting a massive offshore development opposite his golf course, puts it even more bluntly. Of Salmond, he says,

“He will go down, far and away, as the dumbest and most destructive leader in the history of Scotland."

Trump is right. No man in history – not Edward "Hammer of the Scots" Longshanks, not even the "Butcher" Cumberland – has ever wrought such havoc on the fair land of Scotland as Alex "Butcher" Salmond. His name will live in infamy.
Source: The Telegraph


18th October 2012

Councils don't know how much they're spending on windfarm applications

The majority of councils across Scotland have no idea how much they are spending on processing windfarm applications as firms inundate them with planning applications.

Only nine local authorities were able to give any kind of indication about how much was spent dealing with submissions, and only two were able to work out an overall cost – totalling nearly £750,000.

Most said that the vast number of windfarm applications coming into the planning system was making it difficult to calculate the overall cost, and given windfarm applications were part the general planning process, no exact cost could be given in many instances.

As a result, the Scottish Conservatives have called for the Scottish Government to calculate the sheer cost burden of such applications on councils.

Three local authorities this year asked for a moratorium on windfarm applications, such was the financial and resource burden of such large-scale applications.

But this has been rejected by the SNP, which instead wants to encourage even more bids to suit its renewable energy policy.

The revelation comes as anti-windfarm protestors prepare to march in Perth on Saturday to coincide with the SNP conference.

City authorities like Glasgow and Edinburgh received no windfarm bids, due to their urban setting, but Scottish Borders said £227,000 had been spent working on applications since 2007, while in Orkney that cost was nearly £500,000.

Four other councils spent tens of thousands on consultant and legal fees, meaning the total spend of only six relatively small authorities was around £800,000 over five years.

And with two authorities failing to respond, that suggests the total cost across Scotland could run into several millions of pounds.

Scottish Conservative Mid Scotland and Fife MSP Liz Smith said:

"We know councils all over Scotland are really struggling to cope with the sheer burden large-scale windfarm applications bring, particularly if there are several of them.

"But it is extremely worrying that so many of these local authorities are unable to outline to overall financial cost of this, especially when at least three have called for a moratorium.

"And if we look at those who have been able to quantify costs, the suggestion has to be that this cost must run into several millions.

"It is nothing for a major energy firm to throw in speculative applications for completely inappropriate windfarms, but councils then have to pour in all kinds of resources to resolve it, even if it's a completely unrealistic submission.

"Council tax payers should not have to foot the bill for the SNP's obsession with windfarms.
"It is bad enough that the views of communities are ignored when council rejections of windfarms are overturned in Holyrood.

"We now need the Scottish Government and local authorities to work together to estimate some kind of cost to all this.

"That would allow an informed decision on moratoriums to be made, meaning hard-pressed council resources could be better used."

The following councils were able to detail a total cost of windfarm applications since 2007:
Orkney - £488,886
Scottish Borders – £226,990

The following councils spent the following on legal and consultant fees since 2007:
Clackmannanshire - £2350
Midlothian – £56,158
North Ayrshire – £13,767
South Lanarkshire - £10,085
Overall known total - £798,236

City authorities like Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen did not receive applications for windfarms in that timeframe.

The following councils were unable to produce a figure:
Aberdeenshire
Angus
Argyll and Bute
Dumfries and Galloway
Dundee
East Ayrshire
East Dunbartonshire
East Lothian
East Renfrewshire
Falkirk
Highland
Inverclyde
Moray
North Lanarkshire
Perth and Kinross
Renfrewshire
South Ayrshire
Stirling
West Dunbartonshire
West Lothian
Western Isles

Both Fife and Shetland failed to respond.

Source: Scottish Conservatives.


11 October 2012

Salmond’s defence of wind turbines reaps hurricane  
Alex Salmond has defended onshore windfarms, saying they do not spoil the countryside and actually make Scotland more attractive.

Campaigners branded the first minister “out of touch” last night – and warned that his stance on the issue would cost him victory in the independence referendum.

The SNP leader told delegates at a renewable energy conference in Edinburgh that he did not think there was any serious evidence that windfarms were incompatible with the landscape.

He insisted visitors were attracted to Scotland partly because of its green credentials and said offshore windfarms would be even more successful than onshore ones.

The Scottish Government – which has claimed tourists are largely indifferent to sensitively sited turbines – has set a target of generating 100% of electricity from renewables by 2020.

Highland anti-windfarm campaigner Lyndsay Ward said she was “stunned and horrified” by Mr Salmond’s “out-of-touch” stance.

“There is a burning question that people threatened by industrial windfarm development are asking themselves,” she said.

“If this government cannot be trusted to care for the environment, and protect people in rural communities from predatory windfarm developers, then how can it be trusted with independence?”

Ms Ward, who owns a B&B at Beauly, claimed some guests told her they were “absolutely horrified” by the prospect of the landscape being peppered with turbines and would think twice about visiting Scotland in the future.

Moray Council planning convener Douglas Ross said the first minister’s comments were “ridiculous”, “quite incredible” and illustrated how out of touch he was.

The Conservative councillor claimed the remarks would reinforce people’s fears the SNP was determined to erect turbines in inappropriate areas to meet green energy targets.

Mr Ross said: “These are ridiculous comments from the first minister and fly in the face of most comments I hear about wind turbine applications coming to the planning committee.

“Reasons for refusal can be on the grounds of visual intrusion on the landscape, so for the first minister to say they have no impact is quite incredible”

Peter Argyll, chairman of Aberdeenshire Council’s infrastructure services committee, said many residents across the region would disagree with Mr Salmond’s comments.

“People across Aberdeenshire are expressing concern about the impact turbines are having on lifestyle, landscape and way of life, which would appear to contradict the first minister’s views,” he said.

Murdo Fraser, convener of Holyrood’s economy, energy and tourism committee, said Mr Salmond’s “staggering defence” of windfarms would not be appreciated by communities across Scotland. “If turbines were such an aesthetic hit, why do they attract such widespread opposition?” the Conservative MSP said. Anti-windfarm campaigners are staging a march and rally in Perth on October 20.

Talking about turbines and the scenery, Mr Salmond said yesterday: “I don’t think there’s any serious evidence that they are incompatible.

“On the contrary, I think one of Scotland’s attractions is that we are a green country committed to renewable energy.”

Mr Salmond predicted offshore windfarms would be an even “greater success” than onshore developments – despite US billionaire Donald Trump’s vocal opposition.

“There’s no amount of foot-stamping that’s going to distract the Scottish Government from discharging its responsibilities.”

Source:  By Cameron Brooks | The Press and Journal | 11 October 2012 | www.pressandjournal.co.uk

6th October 2012

Blimp to be flown in Perth and protest against SNP wind policy  

It’s BLIMP AHOY! for organisers of Scotland’s biggest-ever anti-wind protest as a local group is given permission to fly a blimp in central Perth.

Weather permitting, the blimp will be launched from the North Inch on Saturday October 20th directly behind Perth Concert Hall where the First Minister will be giving his keynote speech at the SNP’s autumn conference.

Members at Wednesday’s meeting of Perth’s Common Good Committee were unanimous in their decision permitting the Gask and Strathearn Protection Society (GASPS) to fly the blimp.

GASPS is fighting a proposal by Stroud company Ecotricty for four 125 m turbines near Tibbermore a few miles west of Perth.

Campaigners from across Scotland who are organizing a national protest against SNP wind policy in Perth on the same day commented:

“This is a fantastic opportunity for people to get an idea of how high turbines really are, and how their visual impact stretches over a huge area. Too often people, including decision-makers, fail to realize the true scale of turbines until they are erected, by which time it is too late.

“When a blimp has been flown at proposed wind farm sites, it has often come as a huge shock because developers’ photomontages invariably play down the height of their proposed turbines. Blimps help people to realize that turbines which developers say would be ‘hardly visible’ or ‘just the tips of blades would be seen from their property’ would in fact tower above them, dominating every aspect of their lives at home and in their community.

“Developers often refuse to allow campaign groups to fly a blimp and it can often seem like an unnecessary expense for small groups. We hope the Perth blimp will encourage windfarm objectors across Scotland to consider flying their own blimps as an invaluable tool for raising public awareness.“

Being in the centre of Perth, the GASPS blimp will be seen by thousands of people. If the Scottish Government gets its way, few people in Scotland will be able to avoid seeing these monsters on the skyline where they live, work or travel.“We’re writing to every MSP, Scottish MEP and MP plus Councillors from all over Scotland to invite them to Perth to view the blimp.

Turbine heights of 125m to 150 m – up to 500 feet – are now the industry standard and no one can imagine this without a guide. Too many politicians don’t understand the devastating impact wind farms are having on ordinary people every day and the environment they live in and cherish.

Politicians are responsible for the decisions to place these factories in the midst of communities – often too close to homes. If our elected representatives have reservations about current government wind policy, we hope they will show they also want change and will join the demonstrators.

It is vital that any political party or individual member concerned with turbine proliferation, and the fictions promoting it, turn up, support this protest, and be counted. Their support will encourage support for them in the ballot booths.

Our powerful message to the government is that if it cannot be trusted to care for the Scottish environment, and protet Scottish people in rural communities from predatory wind farm developers then it cannot be trusted with independence.

GASPS Chair Brian Simpson commented: “We’re very grateful for the Council’s go-ahead for what is an important public information exercise. People just do not realise the true scale and impact of 125m-high turbines until they are erected by which time of course it’s too late in the day to engage in the planning process or to do anything about them.“

Wind farm developer Ecotricity want to put four of these huge industrial structures between Tibbermore and Methven where they will dominate the landscape and the people living in it and be seen for miles around. Flying a blimp the height of the turbines will give the people of Perth and the Strathearn Valley an idea of what is in store for them if Ecotricity gets the go-ahead.”

Groups fighting local turbine developments from the Shetlands to the Borders as well as individuals and other organisations who object to SNP wind policy will be coming to Perth for what is expected to be Scotland’s largest-ever popular protest against wind.

The organisors are stressing that it is a family-friendly fun event, with children encouraged to come along in the guise of animals on land and sea threatened by wind turbines. There will be prizes for the best painted faces, masks and costumes. Further details may be found on facebook at Protest Against SNP Wind Policy or at http://www.gasps.info

Source:  Contact Lyndsey Ward on l.ward.no36@btinternet.com 01463 782997 07899 035135


1st October 2012

Wind farm operators 'paid millions more than previously thought' by Grid to turn off turbines
Operators of wind farms were paid £34 million to switch off turbines during gales - millions more than previously thought - it was reported.
Figures also showed that last week energy firms were effectively handed £400,000 by householders for doing nothing, under the arrangement.
The wind farms are paid to stop by the National Grid, which cannot cope with the extra energy produced by the high winds.
But the exact structure of the payments - that are passed on to householders in the form of higher energy bills - have been mired in secrecy.
It was previously known that the Grid had paid £15.5 million in the form of "constraint payments" to operators in 2011-12 in England and Scotland. This represented money given to them to shut off supplies when supply outstripped demand.
However, figures relating to so-called "forward trades", in which the National Grid pays out when the weather is expected to be stormy, have now also been revealed by a newspaper.
Limited information about this money, which is paid out even before a turbine is shut down, was published on an obscure section of the National Grid website.
These "forward trade" payments amount to £18.6 million, bringing the total payments for that year to £34.1 million, far higher than previously reported, according to the Daily Mail.
Meanwhile on Monday and Tuesday last week during high winds, the National Grid paid £16,118 in compensation to wind farm operators. But the total figure including forward payments was £387,000, the newspaper said.
Murdo Fraser, a member of the Scottish parliament, said: "The revelation that vast sums are being paid to wind power developers will just lead to more and more people questioning government policy."
National Grid spokesman Chris Mostyn said constraint payments were just one of the "tools" used to help "balance the network minute by minute and keep the lights on".
He added: "We are always working with the industry to improve and develop the way we operate the Grid, as well as investing millions of pounds in the coming years to help move the power to where it's needed."

Source: The Telegraph


Wind farms given £34m to switch off in bad weather: Households stung by secretive payments

Wind farm operators were paid £34million last year to switch the turbines off in gales.
Two days last week saw householders effectively hand £400,000 to energy firms for doing nothing.
The arrangement compensates wind farms for the National Grid’s inability to cope with the extra energy produced during high winds.
The exact structure of the payments is mired in secrecy – even though families have to carry the cost in the form of higher power bills.
Hidden payments discovered by the Mail show that wind farms are given much more money than previously thought.
It was always known the National Grid made ‘constraint payments’ – cash given to operators to temporarily shut down their turbines when electricity supply outstripped demand.
But what was not made public were details of so-called ‘forward trades’, in which the National Grid agrees a pay-out when the weather is expected to be stormy.
The money is paid out even before a turbine shuts down.
Limited information about the forward trade deals is published in an obscure section of the National Grid website – and in a format that even energy experts have struggled to interpret.
The National Grid has admitted £15.5million was paid out to energy operators in the form of conventional constraint payments in 2011-12 in England and Scotland.
But for the first time it has emerged that an even greater sum – £18.6million – was paid out in forward trades. It means the total payments for that year were £34.1 million, far higher than previously reported.
Lee Moroney, of the Renewable Energy Foundation, said: ‘The UK electricity market needs to become very much more transparent.
‘Wind farms are already heavily subsidised and it is only right that all payments made to wind farms to reduce output are in the public domain, so that consumers, who ultimately bear these costs, are able to judge whether the charges are reasonable.’
Murdo Fraser, a member of the parliament in Scotland, where many wind farms are sited, said: ‘Why have the authorities been so anxious not to release this information? Is it because they feared this would undermine any remaining public confidence in renewable energy policy?
‘People will wonder if they were trying to cover up the truth.
‘The revelation that vast sums are being paid to wind power developers will just lead to more and more people questioning government policy.’
Details of which energy firms scooped the money is kept secret because of ‘commercial confidentiality’.
Although the figures cover all forms of power generation, including coal and gas, energy experts say the overwhelming majority relates to wind energy.
On Monday and Tuesday last week, when it was exceptionally windy, the National Grid said it paid £16,118 in compensation.
But only when prompted by the Mail did it admit the true figure – including forward trades – was £387,000.
Yesterday National Grid spokesman Chris Mostyn said: ‘We have a number of tools available to help us balance the network minute by minute and keep the lights on, and constraint payments are just one of those tools.
‘Our incentives are set by the regulator to operate the network as cost-effectively as possible, and it currently makes up less than 1 per cent of the average domestic bill.
‘We are always working with the industry to improve and develop the way we operate the Grid, as well as investing millions of pounds in the coming years to help move the power to where it’s needed.’
Up to 32,000 wind turbines could be built in England and Wales over the next 40 years to meet government targets. Many of the existing sites are owned by foreign firms which have made record profits in recent years.
Source: Daily Mail

30th September 2012

The hush-hush map that paints Scotland green

It is the map of the country which lays bare for the first time the full extent of the Scottish Government’s drive to convert the nation to wind power.
Scotland’s familiar rugged outline is peppered with at least 535 huge wind farms – taking up an estimated three to five per cent of the total land mass of Scotland – many of them located in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Officials at Government quango Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) published the “wind farm footprint map” last month, quietly releasing it on their website with little or no fanfare.
However, even this crowded document does not tell the whole story as it only includes wind turbines of more than 164 feet in height – twice the height of the Falkirk Wheel – and ignores hundreds of smaller projects.
There are 178 wind farms already installed, such as Europe’s largest at Whitelee, where 215 turbines tower over Eaglesham Moor south of Glasgow, or approved, such as the controversial Viking Wind Farm on Shetland.
However, there are 357 – almost exactly twice as many – still in the pipeline, either at the application stage or at the earlier scoping, or investigation, stage.
The Clyde Wind Farm occupies 18 square miles between Biggar, in Lanarkshire, and Moffat, in Dumfries-shire, and was opened by Alex Salmond in June.
However, power giant SSE Renewables is already seeking to expand it by 10 square miles. In total, the wind farm would have 209 turbines up to 465 feet high.
On the Ayrshire and Wigtownshire border a mass of existing and proposed wind farms could be the biggest cluster to date.
Some estimates predict that more than 400 turbines could end up being built here on the Galloway Moors, with 18 wind farms proposed for this small corner of Scotland.
Further north, the picture is almost identical – although the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and Cairngorms National Parks represent vast swathes of turbine-free land.
On the northern bank of Loch Ness, above Glenmoriston, is the planned Bhlaraidh wind farm. Although it comprises “only” 36 turbines, it would potentially have the largest footprint of any wind farm in Scotland.
SNH has raised concerns about pollution affecting salmon and mussels in the River Moriston, and also highlighted the impact on the wild and dramatic views available to visitors to this part of the Highlands.
This area around Loch Ness also has proposals for wind farms at Druim Ba (23 turbines), Corriegarth (20), Dell (20) and Stronelairg (at 83 turbines, potentially the largest in the north).
In addition, biologist Dr David Bellamy was among the vocal critics in 2010 when ministers approved the 33-turbine project at the nearby Dunmaglass Estate in the Monadhliath hills.
To the south east of Inverness there is another rash of proposals – at Allt Duine near Aviemore (31 turbines), Glenkirk (26), Kyllachy (23), Moy (20), Tom na Clach (17) and Daviot (13).
However, perhaps the most crowded part of the map is Caithness, with around 60 wind farms proposed or operation between Scrabster and Dunbeath.
In neighbouring Sutherland, the Strathy North, South and Forest wind farms comprise 131 wind turbines – all of them surrounded by land described by the RSPB as being of “international importance”.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has announced a £300,000 fund to help local authorities deal with being inundated with the massive number of wind farm applications by developers.
A fierce debate about wind farms, and Alex Salmond’s determination to turn Scotland into a wealthy exporter of renewable electricity, is already raging in many parts of the country. But not surprisingly, it appears to be particularly fierce in Caithness. If all of the proposed projects go ahead, the county would be generating around 13 times more electricity than it needs.
However, the big question asked by many is whether or not this can be successfully exported all the way to England – especially when English consumers may be able to rely on nuclear power or even shale gas. A spokesman for the John Muir Trust said the map showed that new safeguards had to be put in place to extend the protection offered by Scotland’s National Parks.
He said: “Scots have a special connection to our landscape. It is part of heritage and perhaps in danger of being destroyed by a combination of energy corporations making huge profits from subsidies, landowners making sizeable sums of money as well as governments that just want to meet targets rather than look at the overall impact of this programme.”
He added that in the current climate, where wind farms “overwhelmingly get approval”, it would be reasonable to assume most of the proposals on the map will be given the go-ahead.
Despite the detail contained in the latest version of the map, SNH said it was “impossible to say” exactly how much of Scotland’s countryside is taken up by wind farms. However, a source admitted that some opposition parties at Holyrood were very keen to find out the exact figure – which perhaps explains why it is not available.
A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said: “The Scottish Government agrees that we must protect our magnificent landscapes, and wants to see the right onshore wind developments in the right locations. There are already a number of landscape designations which offer significant protection to our landscapes.
“We also ask local authorities to identify areas requiring significant protection in their development plans. There are no wind farms in our two National Parks, and Scotland’s planning system provides the necessary protection to ensure wind farm developments do not impact adversely upon our protected landscapes and wild land.”

Click here to view the map in full.

Source: The Express.


£300,000 fund to help tackle rash of wind farm proposals
A FUND to help planning authorities deal with large numbers of wind farm applications has been opened.
The Scottish Government is providing £300,000 for local authorities which are experiencing a significant rise in the number of planning applications for wind turbines.
It comes after Aberdeenshire and Fife councils asked for a temporary halt to new applications earlier this year, after being deluged by proposals from developers.
From the fund, £280,000 will go directly to the local authorities and £20,000 will be used by the Scottish Government to monitor how the money has been spent, find out the most effective approaches, and provide advice for the future.
Planning minister Derek Mackay said: "We know some planning authorities are experiencing particularly high volumes of applications for wind turbines, and the funding will help by bringing in expertise, or more staff, to deal with the applications."
Source: The Herald

25th September 2012

Invading army of wind turbines is damaging tourism industry

I share the concerns of John Milne and Alex McIntosh and many other correspondents about the relentless march of columns of large concrete structures across Scotland's magnificent scenery (Letters, September 24).

It is like an invading army taking over our country, and instead of opposing it the Scottish Government is actively encouraging the intrusion.

I simply cannot understand this official policy, and I fear it will lose the SNP many votes in the forthcoming independence referendum. Offshore wind farms and the urgent development of wave, tidal and hydro power are far better options with far fewer negative effects.

Tourism is one of Scotland's major industries, earning many millions of pounds every year.

Probably the main attraction for overseas tourists and visitors is the delight of constantly changing views of the surrounding countryside, a natural asset which is the envy of many other countries.

Yet we are in danger of severely damaging this industry, losing many thousands of jobs and ruining the countryside in pursuit of artificially created targets of renewable energy to reduce CO2 emissions, of which Scotland produces just a tiny fraction of 1% of the world's output.

It is not just the turbines that are an eyesore. The hillsides are scarred by access roads, concrete foundations and underground cables, and now it is reported that large swathes of forestry plantations are to be scythed down to allow wind access to yet more of these man-made monstrosities.

And when they reach the end of their useful life in 20 years, who is going to pay for their removal and the restoration of the land to its former beauty? Not the landowners, I'm sure, who are enjoying generous annual subsidies for the use of their land, and not a Government that will argue public funds can be put to better use.

Perhaps it is already too late, but I live in hope that common sense may yet prevail, and our political masters will put an end to this wilful destruction of so much of our beautiful land.

Iain AD Mann,
7 Kelvin Court,
Glasgow.

How timely. Your front-page story was merely the symptom ("Revealed: Salmond's forest wind farm plans", September 22).

The illness was revealed in Magnus Gardham's elegant diagnosis of the health of Scottish parliamentary democracy ("Complaint questions health of Scottish democracy", The Herald, September 22).

The former says much about how a Government agency, in pursuit of its policies, will sell or lease land to developers for wind energy. The latter says much about the lack of questioning of those policies, or their impact on the people of Scotland.

The impact of energy policy decisions will be felt most immediately in the rural communities bordering on forestry land, such as at Cloich Forest in the Scottish Borders, where perhaps the best those communities can hope for is that Forestry Commission Scotland and the developers will be obliged to obey to the letter the guidelines set out to preserve wildlife, birdlife and the natural environment, tourism and the visual environment, together with the natural water supplies essential to rural houses, farms and livestock; and comply with or exceed the laid-down setback distances.

The vast sums paid to landowners and developers for wind farms with a collective efficiency of a meagre 25-28% have to be found. They are found in the inexorably increasing charges the user pays for electricity.

And so the impact of the Scottish Government's energy policy and its devotion to wind energy will be felt most keenly by the growing number of Scots who will join those already in fuel poverty.

James Taylor,
Stewarton House,
Eddleston,
Peebles.

I wholeheartedly agree with the reaction of your correspondents to the Scottish Government's blind, headlong rush to cover our beautiful wild places with massive industrial structures.

It boasts that Scotland has the most ambitious renewables targets of any country in the world, never stopping to think this might suggest we are alone in getting it all wrong.

Developers and venture capitalists are queuing up to assist the Government in pursuing this folly.

Ann Cowan describes what is happening to our landscape as a disaster in the making; I suggest that, in large measure, the disaster has already happened (Letters, September 24).

W Alex McIntosh's suggested timescale of three years before we have no beautiful landscape left to enjoy may not be wide off the mark (Letters, September 24).

Only last week I ventured to White Coomb, a hill above the Grey Mare's Tail near Moffat, an area owned and protected by the National Trust for Scotland because of its scenic beauty, and was shocked when looking to the north towards Tinto and Broad Law to see, over a 180-degree panorama, an almost unbroken array of wind turbines where two years previously there had been none.

I fear the Southern Uplands of Scotland are already beyond redemption. According to Scottish National Heritage the proportion of Scotland's land visually unaffected by man-made structures fell from 41% in 2002 to 28% by the end of 2009 and is probably much lower by now.

When will our politicians awake from their delusion that creating an environmental disaster in the blind hope of preventing another is a good idea?

Andrew Mitchell,
4 Glenpark Avenue,
Prestwick.

Source: The Herald.

11th September 2012

Scottish councils paying millions to block wind farms

Scottish councils are being forced to spend millions of pounds fighting wind farm developments on unsuitable sites, according to new figures obtained by the Daily Telegraph.

Officials at Perth and Kinross Council have calculated they have spent almost precisely a million pounds dealing with appeals from green energy companies that have had planning permission refused.

In all but a handful of cases, the original decision to block the application was upheld on appeal but the local authority’s legal and consultancy fees are borne by the public purse despite budgets being squeezed by spending cuts.

Fees paid by the developers are capped at £15,950, meaning any administrative costs above that amount are funded by the taxpayer. The public purse is also being forced to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs if developers win their appeal.

The figures are the first indication of the scale of the financial burden on Scottish councils of dealing with a torrent of wind farm applications, many of which are speculative, and the subsequent appeals.

Perth and Kinross Council’s problems are being replicated at rural local authorities across the country, some of whom have unsuccessfully pleaded with SNP ministers to announce a moratorium on new developments.

Alex Salmond’s targets for Scotland to generate the equivalent all its electricity from green sources by the end of the decade requires a rapid expansion in the number of onshore wind farms, with 1,800 applications last year alone.

The country’s most senior planning officials warned MSPs Scotland risks being turned into a “wind farm landscape” as applications are received for ever more sensitive sites.

Ann Cowan, a Tory councillor representing Strathearn, obtained the figures from the local authority’s officials. She said: “It’s putting a dreadful burden on councils not just financially but also the work by officials that goes into it.

“Councils are pretty pushed for money nowadays and to spend this amount of money trying to protect the countryside from predator development is terrible.

“It’s win-win for the applicants because they know it’s going to cost them next to nothing and if they get approval then they are quids in.”

The figures show the council has been forced to spend £998,450 dealing with appeals by green energy companies against 18 decisions to refuse planning permission, an average of £55,469 each.

In only three cases since 2004/05 have councillors rejected schemes against their planning officials’ advice, whereas in the remaining 15 they acted in accordance with recommendations that the plans be thrown out.

On appeal, the developers won planning approval for five of the 18 wind farms and were awarded £337,244 legal costs in respect of two that were originally refused by councillors against planning officials’ advice.

However, the remaining 13 planning applications were rejected again on appeal. According to the figures, these appeals cost the council a total of £375,661 in legal and consultancy fees.

Alex Rowley, the leader of Fife council, complained in June that many green energy companies were submitting "opportunistic" applications in areas that were not suitable.

Aberdeenshire Council has also called for a six – month halt after receiving 800 applications in 14 months. SNP ministers refused their request but recently announced they are considering increasing the fees that councils can charge.

Michael Rieley, policy officer at Scottish Renewables, which represents green energy firms, said they “recognise the limited resources available to local authorities and that is why we are engaging with the Scottish Government on the level of fees paid by developers."

He said they are also helping develop new “best practice” guidelines for companies wanting to make new applications.

Source: The Telegraph



9th September 2012

Are wind farms saving or killing us? A provocative investigation claims thousands of people are falling sick because they live near them
The symptoms they claim to have suffered may vary – including dizziness; increased blood pressure and depression – but the theme remains the same
It was Uplawmoor’s tranquillity and wild beauty that drew civil servant Aileen Jackson to settle there 28 years ago.
She’d had enough of life in the big city. Now she wanted somewhere quiet and rural to start a family, keep her horses, and enjoy the magnificent views down the valley and out to sea to the western Scottish isles of Arran and Ailsa Craig.
Then, two years ago, she says, it all turned sour.
A neighbour with whom she and her family had been friends decided to take advantage of the massive public subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.
He put up a 64ft-high wind turbine which, though on his own land, stood just 300 yards from the Jackson family’s home.
The sleepless nights caused by its humming were only the start of their problems. Far worse was the impact on their health.
Aileen, a diabetic since the age of 19, found her blood glucose levels rocketing – forcing her to take more insulin and causing her to develop a cataract, she says.
Her younger son, Brian, an outgoing, happy, academically enthusiastic young man, suddenly became a depressive, stopped seeing his friends and dropped out of his studies at college.
Aileen’s husband William, who had always had low blood pressure, now found his blood pressure levels going ‘sky high’ – and has been on medication ever since.
So far so coincidental, you might say. And if you did, you would have the full and enthusiastic support of the wind industry.
Here is what the official trade body RenewableUK has to say on its website: ‘In over 25 years and with more than 68,000 machines installed around the world, no member of the public has ever been harmed by the normal operation of wind farms.’
But in order to believe that, you would have to discount the testimony of the thousands of people just like Aileen around the world who claim their health has been damaged by wind farms.
You would have to ignore the reports of doctors such as Australia’s Sarah Laurie, Canada’s Nina Pierpont and Britain’s Amanda Harry who have collated hundreds of such cases of Wind Turbine Syndrome.
And you’d have to reject the expertise of the acoustic engineers, sleep specialists, epidemiologists and physiologists who all testify that the noise generated by wind farms represents a major threat to public health.
‘If this were the nuclear industry, this is a scandal which would be on the front pages of every newspaper every day for months on end,’ says Chris Heaton-Harris, the Conservative MP for Daventry who has been leading the parliamentary revolt against wind farms, demanding that their subsidies be cut.
‘But because it’s wind it has been let off the hook. It shouldn’t be.’
Wind Turbine Syndrome. Until you’ve seen for yourself what it can do to a community, you might be tempted to dismiss it as a hypochondriac’s charter or an urban myth.
But the suffering I witnessed earlier this year in Waterloo, a hamlet outside Adelaide in southern Australia, was all too real.
The place felt like a ghost town: shuttered houses and a dust-blown aura of  sinister unease, as in a horror movie where something terrible has happened to a previously thriving settlement but at first you’re not sure what.
Then you look to the horizon and see them, turning in the breeze…
‘The wind farm people said we’d be doing our bit to save the planet,’ said one resident.
‘They said these things were quieter than a fridge. They said it was all going to be fairy floss and candy.
‘So how come I can’t sleep in my own house any more? How come sometimes I’m having to take 15 Valium tablets a day? How come, when I used to be a pretty mellow sort of person, I’m now so angry it’s only a matter of time before I end up in jail?’
I’ve since heard dozens of similar stories from nurses, farmers, panel-beaters, civil servants, businessmen and forestry workers across the world, from New South Wales to Sweden and Pembrokeshire.
The symptoms they claim to have suffered may vary – dizziness; balance problems; memory loss; inability to concentrate; insomnia; tachycardia; increased blood pressure; raised cortisol levels; headaches; nausea; mood swings; anxiety; tinnitus; palpitations; depression – but the theme remains the same.
Here are ordinary people who settled in the country for a quiet life only to have their lives and property values trashed at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen.
In December 2011, in a peer-reviewed report in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Dr Carl Phillips – one of the U.S.’s most distinguished epidemiologists – concluded that there is ‘overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate’.
According to a study by U.S. noise control engineer Rick James, wind farms generate the same symptoms as Sick Building Syndrome – the condition that plagued office workers in the Eighties and Nineties as a result of what was eventually discovered to be the Low Frequency Noise (LFN), caused by misaligned air conditioning systems.
The combination of LFN and ‘amplitude modulation’ (loudness that goes up and down) leads to fatigue, poor concentration and dizziness.
And sleep specialist Dr Chris Hanning believes it stimulates an alert response, leading to arousal episodes throug the night that make restful sleep impossible.
‘I’ve spoken with many sufferers and sadly the only treatment is for them to move away from the wind farm.’
But if the problem is really so widespread, why isn’t it better known?
The short answer is money: the wind industry is a hugely lucrative business with millions to spend on lobbying.
What’s more, until recently, it benefited from the general public mood that ‘something ought to be done about climate change’ and wind power – supposedly ‘free’, ‘renewable’ and ‘carbon-friendly’ – was the obvious solution.
‘For years among the metropolitan elite it has been considered heretical to criticise wind power,’ says Heaton-Harris.
In the last decade, however, a host of evidence has emerged to indicate it is not the panacea it was thought to be.
From economists such as Edinburgh University’s Dr Gordon Hughes we are told that wind energy is unreliable and intermittent, with no real market value because it requires near 100 per cent back-up by conventional fossil-fuel power.
From research institute Verso Economics we are told that that for every ‘green job’ created by taxpayer subsidy, 3.7 jobs are killed in the real economy.
It is said that thanks to the artificial rise in energy prices caused by renewable subsidies, expected to reach £13 billion per annum by 2020, at least 50,000 people a year in Britain are driven into fuel poverty.
And newly released Spanish government research claims that each turbine kills an average 300 birds a year (often rare ones such as eagles and bustards) and at least as many bats.
Yet still, despite collapsing share prices and increasing public scepticism, the industry continues to grow.
As Matt Ridley noted recently in The Spectator, there are ‘too many people with snouts in the trough.’
Aristocratic landowners have done especially well, such as the Earl of Moray (£2 million a year from his Doune estate) and the Duke of Roxburghe (£1.5 million a year from his estate in Lammermuir Hills).
South of the border, the Prime Minister’s father-in-law Sir Reginald Sheffield makes more than £1,000 a day from the eight turbines on his Lincolnshire estates. Even smaller landholdings can generate a tidy profit: around £40,000 per year, per large (3MW) turbine, for no effort whatsoever.
The biggest winners, though, are the mostly foreign-owned (Mitsubishi, Gamesa, Siemens) firms for whom wind was until recently a virtually risk-free investment.
In Britain, onshore wind farms are subsidised by a levy on consumer bills at 100 per cent; offshore wind is subsidised at 200 per cent: no matter how little energy the turbines actually produce, in other words, healthy returns are guaranteed.
The debate over wind farms has aroused huge passions.
‘I’ve had death threats. I’m told I’m a witch. I’ve had my reputation trashed in the newspapers,’ says Australian campaigner Dr Sarah Laurie.
‘And for what? All I’ve ever done is say, “People are getting sick and something should be done to stop it.”’
When Aileen Jackson protested about some of the 23 new turbine projects proposed for Uplawmoor, she too was threatened.
Her car, she says, was vandalised; broken glass was strewn in her horses’ field; on two occasions she found her horses’ anti-midge coats had been cut off and slashed to pieces, the horses left covered in blood from where they rubbed themselves against a fence to stop the itching.
There’s no suggestion anyone locally concerned with wind farms was involved. 
But legitimate proponents of wind farms are candid about the benefits.
‘There’s so much money to be made from these things, that’s the problem,’ says Jackson.
‘You’ll talk to the farmers and they’re quite open about it. “I’ve worked hard all my life and this is my pension plan,” they’ll tell you.’
What horrifies the communities threatened by wind farm developments is how powerless they are to stop them.
At Northwich in Cheshire, I attended the annual meeting of National Opposition to Windfarms (NOW), where lawyers including Lord Carlile (NOW’s chairman) advised local protest groups on how to challenge wind developments in their area.
The desperation was palpable. Current planning laws have a presumption ‘in favour of sustainable development’.
Wind farms are deemed vital to Britain’s EU-driven campaign to cut its carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. Arguments about wind turbines’ public health impacts seem to cut little ice with planning inspectors.
The whole system has been rigged in the industry’s favour. One of the biggest bones of contention is regulation of acceptable noise levels.
In Britain, wind developers are bound by ETSU-R-97, a code that places modest limits on sound within the normal human hearing range – but which fails to address the damaging aspect of wind turbines: infrasonic (ie, inaudible) Low Frequency Noise.
But according to RenewableUK’s ‘Top Myths About Wind Energy’ section, accusations that wind farms emit ‘infrasound and cause associated health problems’ are ‘unscientific’.
It quotes Dr Geoff Leventhall, author of the Defra report on Low Frequency Noise And Its Effects: ‘I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines.’
And Robert Norris, head of communications at RenewableUK, says: ‘There’s no evidence to link the very low levels of noise produced by wind farms with any effects on people living nearby.
‘Low frequency noise isn’t a problem. Extensive measurements taken repeatedly by scientists across Europe and the USA show the level of sound is so minimal that it can’t be perceived, even close up.’
However, Robert Rand of Rand Acoustics in Maine, who has done work on wind farms and been a consultant in acoustics since 1980, says: ‘All wind turbines produce low-frequency noise. The reason it doesn’t show up on wind industry tests is that the equipment they use excludes low-frequency noise.’ 
Dr John Constable Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation adds: ‘Audible noise disturbance from wind turbines, particularly at night, is known to be a very serious and fairly common problem, but low frequency noise is a mystery.
'No one knows enough about it to say anything definite, one way or the other. This is one of those cases where more research really is needed.’
Dr Alec Salt, a cochlear physiologist at the Department of Otolaryngology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, has studied the topic since the Seventies.
‘The idea that there is no problem with infrasound couldn’t be more wrong,’ he says.
‘The responses of the human ear to  LFN are just enormous. Bigger than to anything in the audible range.’
Audible sound stimulates the inner hair cells on the cochlea (the auditory portion of the inner ear), but LFN triggers the outer hair cells, sending neural signals to the brain. Military special ops departments have known about it for some time.
A 1997 report by the U.S. Air Force Institute For National Security Studies notes: ‘Acoustic infrasound: very low frequency sound which can travel long distances and easily penetrate most buildings and vehicles.
'Transmission of long wavelength sound creates biophysical effects, nausea, loss of bowels, disorientation, vomiting, potential organ damage or death may occur.’
Yet as Dr Phillips notes, instead of protecting the public, governments are actually complicit by encouraging wind farm development via generous subsidies.
‘It’s ridiculous. Here is an industry which is putting the health of tens of thousands of people at risk. If this were a pharmaceutical company sales would have been suspended by now. ’
His views are shared by orthopaedic surgeon Dr Robert McMurtry, once Canada’s most senior public health official: ‘Whatever you think about climate change, you can be sure that wind energy is not the solution.
'There is an abundance of evidence to the show that infrasound from wind farms represents a serious public health hazard. Until further research is done, there should be an immediate moratorium on building any more of them.’
Newspaper columnist Christopher Booker called wind farms ‘the greatest political blunder of our time’ and ‘a monument to an age when our leaders collectively went off their heads’.
But a recent statement by energy minister Charles Hendry says: ‘Studies have considered the noise phenomenon known as amplitude modulation (AM) but show that to date only one wind farm in the UK has presented a noise nuisance to residents. The issue has since been resolved.
'We will keep the issue of AM under review and welcome the additional research on AM that RenewableUK have commissioned,’ in answer to a parliamentary question from Chris Heaton-Harris.
Heaton-Harris is not impressed.
‘Wind farms are destroying people’s lives, destroying the environment, destroying the economy – but instead of opposing it, all three main political parties are committed to building more of them.
'And it’s not accidental. This is a stitch-up between the wind lobby and its friends in Parliament and it’s an outrage.
'It’s the biggest health scandal of our age and the metropolitan elite just don’t care.’
Source : Daily Mail

6th September2012

Wind turbines: unsightly and expensive, but are they also a health risk?

I have a small confession to make; I am a bit of a closet green. My rubbish is carefully sorted out for recycling, I walk and cycle to the shops and the bulldozing of the British countryside for buildings makes me feel uneasy.

There is a strong case for renewable energy in that it will make us a lot less reliant upon oil from the politically unstable Middle East. And who knows, it may have prevented the invasion of Iraq from happening. The UK is the windiest place in Europe and gives the country an unlimited source of energy.

Just before you think I am writing love letters to Caroline Lucas (or indeed, Natalie Bennett), one of James Dellingpole’s Watermelons, there is much to detract from wind farming. The costs of generating 1 Megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity is £65 for gas, £62 for coal, and £95 for nuclear. Onshore wind ranks in at £90 and offshore wind an eye watering £150.

It is of course possible that, like mobile and smartphone batteries, research and development could make them more efficient. As mentioned here by the Montana Environmental Information Center:“Turbines…[have a] 33% increase in average capacity in just three years. Today’s…turbine has a 2.3-megawatt capacity; 7-megawatt turbines will be available soon.

”However a disturbing paper from The King Juan Carlos University found in 2009 that “Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.

”As I previously mentioned, I have concerns about concreting the countryside – and wind farms are more than capable of inciting NIMBY sentiments. UKIP’s Energy Spokesman Roger Helmer is a leading critic; they have also attracted the opprobrium of the National Trust, its Director Of Conservation Peter Nixon saying, “We have a duty to protect beautiful places, and believe that any wind energy proposals should be located, designed and on a scale that avoids compromising these.

”And now wind power has a major new headache in the shape of the health of the people who live in the vicinity of wind farms. To explore this new challenge further, I caught up with Canadian Professor, Carl V. Phillips, for this exclusive interview:

DA: Perhaps you could give The Commentator a background to your career so far?

CVP: I was a professor of public health for about 15 years, working on a combination of epidemiology, public policy, and environmental health. Before I went to graduate school, I did some work for the electric power industry. Currently I run my own university-style research shop, and do economic and epidemiologic consulting. I have been working on the Industrial Wind Turbines (IWT) issue for about 2.5 years.

I understand that there may be health risks associated with living near wind turbines. Can you expand on that?

There is a consistent pattern of many people who live near IWTs suffering from a class of diseases caused by chronic stress reactions: insomnia, fatigue, headaches, inability to concentrate, mood disorders (e.g. depression or being quick to anger), and the like. It is likely that this reaction creates cardiovascular problems too. It is not too surprising that this occurs, since some (not all) people will have an ongoing “fight or flight” reaction to certain types of noise, and IWTs produce types of noise (cyclic and low-frequency) that are known to be especially disturbing.

There are other alternatives proposed for the causal pathway, such as non-stress-mediated effects via the ears (both hearing and the balance system), which might explain particular symptoms like balance problems and tinnitus. But whatever the causal pathway, the effects are quite clear.

In terms of severity, a large portion of the exposed population apparently experiences some of the problems to a bothersome extent, and a few percent experience problems so severe that it basically destroys their lives. Or it forces them to flee their homes. Their homes then end up selling at prices well below what they would be worth if there were no nearby IWTs, if they can sell them at all; that loss in value is a good measure of how substantial these negative effects are to people.

Is there evidence from medical papers that this is the case?

The vast majority of the evidence is not in medical papers, but is in the form of thousands of individual “adverse event reports” – volunteered information by individuals reporting on their own diseases. This is the type of monitoring that informs us about unexpected drug reactions and anything other adverse reaction to something that was not expected.

Systematic study has been limited because it depends on volunteer work from the community. Normally we would require that an industry fund independent research into the risks of an exposure they were imposing on people, or the government would fund the studies. But in this case the government is complicit in the problem and so no one is requiring the energy industry exercise the due diligence that would be demanded for, say, a pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical.

A tiny fraction of the subsidies (paid by us, of course) to the energy industry to support these projects would be enough to do plenty of systematic studies, so no one can claim that there is no money available. There is just a concerted effort to avoid gathering evidence.

That said, this does not keep us from having very good evidence in this particular case. The nature of this exposure and the diseases it causes give us a case where adverse event reports are more informative than population surveys and averages. Individuals are able to “cross over” from being exposed to unexposed (by spending time away from home, or when there is no wind for long periods) and the disease go away. So a large portion of the adverse event reports include people doing that experiment and discovering that when the exposure is removed, the disease disappears, but when the exposure is resumed the disease recurs.

Such scientific reasoning seems to baffle a lot of people who are only capable of reading the conclusion statement of article abstracts. But if you ask any real scientist – or a moderately intelligent 12-year-old – to interpret that evidence, they will immediately recognize that this real-world experimental evidence is more informative about causation than subtle statistical differences between populations. Apparently some people lose the reasoning ability of 12-year-olds when they are paid to do so.

That said, there is evidence in medical papers and systematic studies. It confirms what we know from the adverse event reports and their crossover studies. Indeed, there is enough such evidence that if this were, say, industrial chemical pollution, the environmentalists and public health activists would be demanding bans, and some probably would have already happened.

Does that mean that the evidence is mostly not peer reviewed?

That is correct. But this does not really matter. Some who want to deny the scientific evidence do not understand that peer reviewed publication is mostly just a scorekeeping method for professors (while others pretend to not understand because that supports their rhetoric). The most serious sciences have long sense moved away from this model. The peer review process in health science is really mostly editorial, not scientific. Reviewers never see the data or even know most of the methods that were used, and they certainly cannot audit the data collection process to make sure it is accurate. They see only what you eventually read in a journal, so obviously they cannot provide any more of a review than any reader of the article can.

It would be possible to take the adverse event reports and publish them in a peer reviewed journal, but why? That would obviously not make them any more or less credible (indeed, I did this with a few of them, just to make that point). The same is true for any statistics-based study, though these tend to end up in journals so that the authors can get credit for them. But it does not make them any more likely to be good science.

Is there any evidence that the health risks could be psychosomatic?

This is the claim that the industry and their hirelings have fled to, now that they can no longer get away with claiming that there are no effects. They blame the victims. It is a standard ploy.

A favorite claim is to suggest that because there is evidence that some people irrationally fear certain invisible health hazards (“toxic chemicals” and radiation, in particular), and there are a few documented cases of that fear apparently causing groups of people to report symptoms, that this is what is happening with IWTs.But this just a legalistic ploy, not a scientific claim (compare, for example, the claims made by cigarette companies when they are sued by a lung cancer victim). To say this might be happening is just a speculative hypothesis, and no one has ever produced a shred of evidence to support it. If defending against a lawsuit, throwing out a speculative alternative explanation is standard practice, but it should not be taken seriously in making public policy decisions, let alone drawing scientific conclusions.

Moreover, even as speculation this claim is absurd on its fact: a phenomenon that occasionally causes a self-feeding mass hysteria in a small community could not affect thousands of people who have never communicated in any way; people do not react to a simple observable exposure (noise from a machine waking them up at night) with the vague fear they have about invisible carcinogens.

The evidence clearly shows that the effects do not fit the typical interpretation of “psychosomatic” – that the disease exists only because people think it is exists. There are a lot of people who were quite sure there was no risk, or who embraced the installation of IWTs, who then found they were suffering from the diseases.

Those who want to deny the science like to play word games, taking advantage of the fact that stress reactions are mediated through the subconscious mind, and suggesting that somehow this means the diseases are not “real”. But the diseases that do more damage to people’s quality of life than any others — depression and chronic pain — are entirely “in people’s heads”.

The involvement of the mind does not mean that people can just decide to not have the diseases any more than they can decide to not have an infection. If there were a way to make the diseases stop happening or go away through psychological intervention, that might have some implications for what we should be doing. But since no such intervention has ever been seriously proposed, let alone demonstrated to work, the whole point is rather moot.

I think that anyone who claims “these problems exist only in people’s heads, so we should not worry about them” should pledge to never take an analgesic and to refuse anesthesia for dentistry or surgery. After all, the pain sensation is something that exists only in their heads.

What should be done about wind turbines?

The health risks are clearly established by the evidence. What is needed is a complete cost-benefit analysis of this whole endeavor. There is no analysis out there that shows that installing IWTs makes any sense, all costs considered, and the failure to show that means that this is all just lunacy from the perspective of good public policy. (I suppose, more precisely, such an analysis has never been reported. Presumably the industry has done the analysis and would have reported it if they like the results, but decided to suppress it because it looks really bad for them.)

Such an analysis would compare the energy contribution of IWTs (the net contribution, that is, after accounting for the inefficiencies that come from having a power source that “decides” for itself when to turn on) to the costs of production and installation, as well as the health costs and the horrible environmental impact.

It is a potentially valid argument to say, with quantification, “yes, there are costs, and here they are; but here are the benefits justify the costs, including the harms to people’s health”. In free countries we usually demand very positive net benefits before we inflict harm on innocent victims, but sometimes that is considered justified. However, given that the IWT industry and proponents do not try to make such an argument, but rather seek to deny that there are any costs (health, environmental, electric grid efficiency loss), and refuses to even quantify the claimed benefits, it is pretty clear that they do not think an honest analysis supports their position.”

For a more extensive interview you can go to my blog and read more thoughts here.

Source: The Commentator.

29 August2012

Misinformation about energy subsidies
A new study by independent consultant Stuart Young explodes the myths that all forms of electricity generation are subsidised and that oil and gas receive far more subsidy than renewables.
Contrary to popular myth, electricity generation by coal and gas is not subsidised at all by taxpayers or consumers while subsidy for renewables is expected to total £1.78 billion in 2012
According to the new peer-reviewed paper released today by Communities Against Turbines Scotland (CATS)

•  claims that gas, oil and coal prices were subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010 are totally misleading

•  they are predicated upon a highly inventive and dubious notion of “subsidy”

•  the £3.63bn “fossil fuel tax breaks” are an imaginary relief on a level of taxation on domestic fuel which never has and almost certainly never will be levied

•  On the other hand, the £0.7bn subsidy to wind with which it was compared is indeed a true subsidy to assist an unreliable technology which is likely to rise to at least £1.06bn for 2012, and to which a further £0.72bn subsidy to other renewables and an unknown sum for Feed-In Tariffs need to be added.
  

•  The anticipated £1.78 bn subsidy to renewables in 2012 will be paid for by 66 million people in the UK - which means £27 per head of population or £65 per household

•  This figure excludes the cost of the Feed-In Tariff, VAT at 5% (and your electricity supplier’s profit margin)

Susan Crosthwaite, Chair of CATS commented:
"For years the wind industry's propaganda machine has been pulling the wool over people's eyes, pretending green energy is free yet deserving of ever more subsidy. Every time electricity bills rise, supporters of wind point the finger at fossil fuel prices, insisting that wind subsidies can't be to blame because all forms of electricity generation are subsidised.”
“This is a blatant untruth. Stuart Young has shown that oil and gas receive no meaningful subsidy while wind will cost consumers over £1.8 billion in covert subsidy by the end of the year.”
CATS also believes that wind energy is a flawed technology and that if you took away the subsidy, no one would build any more turbines.
On top of the ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificate)and FITs (Feed In Tariffs) - the subsidy schemes for wind - consumers have to fund the on-costs of wind energy. This means the ever increasing costs of expanding and upgrading the grid to collect the energy from thousands of turbines spread across the UK, plus the costs of maintaining and developing base-load generation (for when the wind doesn't blow).
Susan adds, “When SSE announced price hikes of 9% in domestic gas and electricity prices last week, it had to admit that the cost of distributing energy to customers’ home is up 9% since last year and mandatory environmental and social initiative costs have risen by as much as 30%.
“The self-serving response of the wind lobbyists and their misguided supporters in green NGOs like Friends of the Earth to such announcements is to call for even more renewables. More renewables means more guaranteed profiteering for the wind energy companies and their hangers-on, but for the rest of us, it means ever higher bills, fuel poverty and an economy crippled by some of the highest energy prices in Europe."
Notes for Editors
1. Stuart Young is an independent consultant and committed campaigner against windfarm development. He is the author of "Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation November 2008 to December 2010", commonly known as "The John Muir Report" http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/Report_Analysis%20UK%20Wind_SYoung.pdf
He can be contacted at 01847 851813, 07717 295235 or at asksyc@btconnect.com
2. Communities Against Turbines Scotland (CATS) is an umbrella group representing communities and individuals struggling against the relentless development of wind turbines. www.communitiesagainstturbinesscotland.com
For Further information:
CATS - Communities Against Turbines Scotland
www.communitiesagainstturbinesscotland.com
Press officer: Linda Holt
01333 720378 / 075909946

22nd August 2012

SNP proposes wind farm 'propaganda' for the classroom

SNP minsters are planning to undermine community opposition to wind farms by having teachers tell schoolchildren that turbines benefit the environment, according to official guidance just published.

Updated advice issued by the Scottish Government stated that councils should include green energy in the school curriculum or after-school activities “to provide a foundation for balanced decision-making in later life”.

It also recommended that renewable power companies embark on public relations campaigns so that the intermittent power and visual impact of turbines are not “portrayed as show-stoppers or roadblocks”.

Fergus Ewing, the Scottish Energy Minister, said the guidance would ensure wind farm planning applications “go more smoothly for everyone involved”.

But opposition parties last night accused the SNP of infecting classrooms with pro-wind farm propaganda in order that they achieve their green energy targets.

Scottish ministers want to generate the equivalent of all the country’s electricity needs from renewable sources by the end of the decade but planning chiefs have warned this could mean the countryside being turned into a “wind farm landscape”.

Mary Scanlon, Scottish Tory energy spokesman, said: “Children are very impressionable and filling their lessons with political propaganda on wind farms is not acceptable.

“Guidance may be useful but the fact is the SNP wants to continue developing wind farms across Scotland, often in the face of strong local opposition.”

The document is the result of the GP Wind Project, a Scottish Government-led EU project that examined the obstacles to more wind turbines being built.

They were developed in conjunction with “interested parties” including Western Isles Council and the power companies SSE and Scottish Power Renewables.

It was published by SNP ministers after communities, council planning authorities and developers complained the current system is not fit for purpose.

Green energy companies have warned they are unlikely to meet SNP energy targets unless planners speed up the processing of applications, while local authorities has said they are facing a deluge of opportunistic proposals on inappropriate sites.

Although the new guidance states developers should provide “early planning and mapping” details, many of the recommendations deal with how they can overcome “entrenched perceptions” about wind farms.

The latter section recommends that green energy firms do not ignore concerns such as wind farms’ environmental impact but instead portray them as manageable.

In addition, the companies are told to start websites and visitor centres for specific projects as seeing turbines up close can change people’s minds.

However, the most radical plan is “involving energy and environmental issues in school curricula or extra-curricular activities”.

Among the other proposals to overcome public opposition is “encouraging clusters of wind farms” with spaces in between so the landscape is not dominated by turbines.

Mr Ewing said: “The Scottish Government wants to see the right developments in the right places and this guidance will help to ensure that, while also making sure there are fewer unsuitable applications and that communities are properly consulted and informed.”

He also announced the formation of an “onshore wind task force” that will examine other ways to “improve” the way wind farm applications are dealt with.

Source: The Telegraph

22nd August 2012


Scottish government issues official wind farm planning guidance

Ministers aim to speed up planning decision making by offering clearer guidelines for wind farm developers

The Scottish government has today issued a new set of guideline best practices for wind farm planning applications, designed to speed up the planning process and make it easier for developers, communities and planning authorities to assess project proposals.

The new guidelines set out a series of best practices that largely focus on developers working closely with affected communities right from the start of the planning process and taking steps to limit environmental impacts.

They were developed by the Good Practice (GP) Wind Project, which is backed by EU funding and has taken soundings from a wide range of interested parties, including planning authorities, the RSPB, local council Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, and energy giants SSE and ScottishPower Renewables.

The launch was accompanied by an announcement from Scottish energy minister Fergus Ewing that the government will convene a new "onshore wind taskforce" to investigate further means of improving the planning process and enhancing communication between all interested parties.

"I'm delighted to launch these materials, developed with industry, planning authorities and stakeholders, which aim to make the planning process for wind developments go more smoothly for everyone involved," he said in a statement. "The Scottish government wants to see the right developments in the right places, and this guidance will help to ensure that – while also making sure there are fewer unsuitable applications and that communities are properly consulted and informed.

"This project supports our drive to promote engagement with communities and consultees from the very beginning of a plan's development."

His comments were echoed by David Gardner, director of SSE Renewables (onshore), who predicted the new guidelines could also benefit developers outside of Scotland.

"All development projects should be constructed and operated in a responsible way and SSE Renewables is committed to this," he said. "Many other countries across Europe will benefit from Scotland demonstrating a leading role in delivering good practice in renewable energy development, but we can always learn to do better, and sharing good practice across the industry in this way is a very positive step."

Source: Business Green

22nd August 2012

CLARK CROSS: WIND FARM PROGRAMME DOES NOT HAVE PROPER AUTHORITY

"All those who oppose the relentless march of Triffid turbines and the accompanying pylons across our beautiful landscapes owe a debt of gratitude to Pat Swords, a chemical engineer who took on the EU and won."

Read full story: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/opinion/comment/clark-cross-wind-farm-programme-does-not-have-proper-authority-1-2413965

Mr Swords asked the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) to investigate the failure of the European Commission to properly implement its renewable energy programme in accordance with the Aarhus Convention, which requires access to information; public participation in decision-making; access to justice in environmental matters; and a demonstration that the EC had not met these requirements.

This hugely important decision in favour of Mr Swords means that the renewable energy programme, as it stands, is proceeding without “proper authority”.

All UK planning authorities, including Scottish ministers, must comply with the legislation incorporated in the Aarhus Convention.

This ruling will help all those who disagree with the mad dash for wind and the extra costs to the consumer.

The Scottish Government’s dictatorial attitude was shown recently when it ordered councils to identify land where turbines can be located.

All local authorities are required to complete an environmental assessment of the project when considering wind turbine applications – not the developer, as currently happens.

Therefore the emissions savings, fuel savings and climate change benefits which would justify the approval of wind turbines planning consent should be transparent, credible, realistic and readily available to the public.

The UK is the only country in the world to have agreed to legally binding CO2 reduction targets. Our First Minister frequently boasts that Scotland has “the best CO2 reduction targets in the world”.

The Scottish Government have frequently overturned local democracy by granting planning permission.

Did they carry out the checks required by the Aarhus Convention? I doubt it.

Those who are willing to fight to save our landscapes should e-mail me at clark
cross@inchmuir.freeserve.co.uk.

• Clark Cross is a retired chartered accountant and wind farm campaigner

Source: Aarhus


11th August 2012

ARE WIND FARMS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH?

LIKE creatures from The War Of The Worlds they frantically wave their arms across the scenery as if semaphoring to some distant ally. Not only is it impossible to avoid them, placed as they are but their ceaseless movement draws the eye from wherever else it may rest. Nobody with an ounce of respect for the countryside could have permitted their erection.
These were the words as long ago as 1995 of Sir Simon Jenkins, now chairman of the National Trust. He was describing a wind farm perched on the Cemmaes mountain ridge in mid-Wales. Once an “unsullied panorama of British landscape” it had been “defaced” by the construction of 24 giant wind turbines.
Since then great swathes of the UK’s greenest pastures have been ravaged, the landscapes not only assaulted by the alien structures but also by the access roads dug to build and service them.
Rare Red Kites from the Brechfa Forest play Russian roulette flying among the turbines of the Altwallis wind farm north of Carmarthen in Wales. Retired pilot Terry Neil and wife Kathryn live on Lan Farm two thirds of a mile away.
“We moved here in 1997 and found this place at the end of a little valley set in beautiful scenery,” Terry says
“It was a place of great natural beauty and very serene. We moved here for that reason and then they put 10 of these things on the hill above us. We get shadow and flicker from the turbines and Kathryn has migraines she never did before.
There are 10 original turbines and we’re desperately fighting another development of 28. The new ones will be even larger at 426ft high.”
As their case shows it is not just the devastating blight on our countryside caused by the 3,209 wind turbines installed across the UK to date. Our health is also at stake.
Reports from across the world suggest turbines can trigger a range of problems from migraines and disrupted sleep to heart disease, tinnitus, vertigo and panic attacks.
Leading American doctor Nina Pierpont studied symptoms displayed by those living near such turbines in the US, UK, Italy, Ireland and Canada and identified what she dubbed as Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS).
Rather than the high-frequency sounds produced by wind farms that can be disruptive but are relatively harmless, WTS is triggered by low-frequency sound waves or infrasound, which can cause visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance – abnormal stimulation of parts of the inner ear.
STAND directly beneath the rotating arms of a turbine and the chances are you won’t hear much. But depending on the topography, wind direction and weather conditions, a few hundred feet away it’s a very different story.
One person who knows this better than most is Jane Davis, a retired health visitor and midwife who lived on a farm half a mile from the Deeping St Nicholas wind farm in Lincolnshire. The eight turbines were built in 2006 and within three days of their becoming operational the Davis family noticed a constant hum emanating from them.
“We had issues with various loud noises and low-frequency sounds that created a hum in the house all the time, not just when the turbines were turning,” says Jane.
Within weeks they developed a long list of grave health problems. Jane’s father-in-law John suffered a heart attack and developed tinnitus, hearing loss, vertigo and depression.
Mother-in-law Eileen suffered pneumonia and kidney and bladder problems and husband Julian developed pneumonia, depression and an increased heart rate. All of them suffered from sleep deprivation. None of them had any significant health problems before.
Coincidence? Perhaps, but there have been further scientific studies carried out on the low-frequency sound waves the turbines emit and their possible effects on the body.
American professor Alec Salt, who has conducted extensive research on the effects of amplitude modulation on the inner ear, claims: “The wind industry has taken the position that if you cannot hear the infrasound then it cannot affect you. We disagree strongly. Although subjective hearing is insensitive to infrasound, the ear itself does respond to such sounds. In addition, after long-term exposure it is scientifically plausible that the brain learns that the infrasound represents an external signal and locks in on it. In our view, the possibility that wind turbine noise may have adverse effects on humans cannot be dismissed.”
Wind power companies deny the existence of WTS, saying studies carried out so far are “not robust”.
Jane Davis and her family sued Fenland Windfarms Ltd for noise nuisance in a five-year legal battle she describes as “worse than fighting cancer”.
“We finally got to court last summer. We had three weeks in the High Court and I was eight days on oath and five in the dock,” says Jane. “The case was adjourned so more noise monitoring could be carried out. But the day before the noise evidence was due to be heard, on November 29, 2012, the case was settled out of court.”
This is all Jane can say. In January of this year the family’s house was purchased by Fenland Windfarms Ltd for £125,000, 20 per cent below the valuation given by estate agents. It remains uninhabited.
Over the past decade especially, since the Renewables Obligation was brought in by Tony Blair’s government in April 2002 to ensure an increasing amount of energy is sourced from renewable resources, the wind farm industry has been booming. Not least because farms receive signifi cant subsidies in the form of Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for every megawatt hour of energy they produce.
IF WE assume a ROC is worth on average £45 and a typical large 260ft high onshore turbine in the UK with a capacity of 1 megawatt (MW) produces 2,628 megawatt hours (MWh) per year a single turbine will yield £118,260 per year in ROCs.
The largest wind farm in the UK, Whitelee near Glasgow, has 140 turbines so we can estimate it receives £16,556,400 per year in ROCs alone.
It’s no surprise investors have taken note. In the UK today there are 336 operational onshore wind farms, 69 under construction, 263 that have consent to build and 345 in planning. There have been so many applications to build wind farms we’re well on course to far exceed government targets of 30 per cent renewable electricity by 2020 – so much so that ROCs will be cut by 10 per cent from April 2013.
The problem with wind energy is that if it is not utilised as soon it is produced it is wasted. When there is no wind we have to rely on other sources including nuclear power. And when the wind is blowing at full force much of it is wasted because all the energy cannot be converted into electricity at once.
Wind power may have a part to play in our quest for renewable energy but our obsession is excessive.
Regulations should be imposed on the industry and an investigation of infrasound’s impact on our health needs to be commissioned with an agreed distance set between potential wind turbines and residential areas. The latest research suggests nothing less is required.
Source: Daily Express
9th  August 2012

SNP tells Scottish councils: You cannot delay wind farms

SNP ministers have refused permission for Scottish councils to call a temporary halt to the construction of more wind farms despite complaints they are being inundated by “opportunistic” applications.

Derek Mackay, the Local Government Minister, wrote to Fife and Moray councils rejecting their requests for a moratorium because it would cause “undue delay” to developments.

But he faced accusations of riding roughshod over the concerns of local communities in the SNP’s rush to generate the equivalent all of Scotland’s electricity from green sources by the end of the decade.

Moray Council said the request for a moratorium had received “significant support” from local people and described the response as a “bitter blow”.

The written requests from the two local authorities are Scotland-wide test cases, with planning departments across the country struggling to cope with the volume of applications from green energy firms.

The SNP target for 2020 requires large and speedy expansion in the number of onshore turbines and local authorities received 1,800 applications last year alone.

Fife Council complained to the minister that green energy companies are routinely ignoring official guidelines and asking for permission to build turbines in areas that are not appropriate.

The country’s most senior planning officials have also warned that Scotland risks being turned into a “wind farm landscape” as ever more sensitive sites are required to meet the targets.

Mr Mackay’s rejection of a moratorium came two months after he wrote to all councils instructing them to set up areas for building more turbines.

Mary Scanlon, Scottish Tory energy spokesman, said: “This dictatorial approach by the SNP is unacceptable in a democracy.

“When it comes to issues of renewable energy the SNP will do anything to force through its policies, completely ignoring the very legitimate concerns of local people.”

Moray Council’s planning and regulatory services committee decided to request a moratorium during its meeting on July 3 while it consulted residents on new planning guidance for wind farms.

Councillor Allan Wright, the local authority’s leader, said he was “disappointed” by the SNP’s decision to reject a “reasonable” request.

Councillor Douglas Ross, the committee’s chair, added: “This response will be a bitter blow to many people across Moray who felt it was a sensible and proportionate move.”

Alex Rowley, the leader of Fife Council, complained in June that many green energy companies are submitting “opportunistic” applications in areas that are not suitable.

Although Fife and Moray were the first to make written requests, Aberdeenshire has also called for a six-month halt after receiving 800 applications in only 14 months.

But a Scottish Government spokesman said ministers are considering more ways of helping councils deal with green energy planning applications.

“We do not believe that a moratorium on wind turbine applications is appropriate – it would simply cause undue delay and uncertainty for everyone involved in applications,” he added.

Source: The Telegraph

8th August 2012

Island of Lewis wind turbine plan scrapped

An electricity company has abandoned plans for a multi-million pound wind farm on the island of Lewis.

Plans for 26 turbines on the Pairc Estate have been withdrawn because of the danger to bird life, Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) said.

RSPB Scotland welcomed the move commending the company for a "responsible decision".

The scheme had potential to harm sensitive bird species including golden eagles and merlin the RSPB said.

SSE has agreed in principle that a local developer should take over the lease, with a view to a smaller development.
Environmental consideration Aedán Smith, RSPB Scotland, said: "We have been concerned about this proposal for a number of years.

"SSE should be commended on this responsible decision which recognises the importance of this site for sensitive species."

He said: "We hope SSE and other wind farm developers will continue to apply similar thinking and consideration to other sites where there are environmental concerns.

"Although much of Lewis is important for wildlife, there is still scope to develop wind farms as long as they are well sited and designed."

SSE has agreed in principle that a local developer should take over the lease, with a view to a smaller development.

Source: BBC

7th August 2012

Energy bills to soar by more than £300 a year because of obsession with wind power, report claims

Britain's 'obsession' with wind farms will push up family electricity bills by more than £300 a year, a report said today.
The Government's green energy plans for the next eight years are a £124 billion 'blunder' that will hit every UK household, a senior British economist has also said.
In a stark warning Professor Gordon Hughes, who has produced a study on how wind energy will hit energy costs, said that British consumers simply cannot afford to subsidise wind power.
By 2020 average electricity bills will be around 58 per cent higher - a £320 increase - just because of the flood of wind turbines planned for Britains's coastlines, fields and seas, he said.
Completing the gloomy picture, Professor Hughes believes for all the huge investment in wind farms Britain's greenhouse gas emissions may not even fall.
Wind energy provides almost 2 per cent of global electricity worldwide, a figure expected to approach 10 per cent by 2020, costing Britain an estimated £124 billion.
'The key problems with current policies for wind power are simple,' he said.
'They require a huge commitment of investment to a technology that is not very green, in the sense of saving a lot of CO2, but which is certainly very expensive and inflexible.
'Unless the current Government scales back its commitment to wind power very substantially, its policy will be worse than a mistake, it will be a blunder.
'The average household electricity bill would increase from £528 per year at 2010 prices to a range from £730 to £840 in 2020.'
The report has been published by former Chancellor Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Their study has been handed to the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change study for the Economics of Wind Power Committee.
Meanwhile, Professor Ian Fells, who is Professor of Energy Conversion at Newcastle University and an advisor the Commons and Lords, also said that windfarms are too costly.
Instead he claims that combined gas cycle plants could produce the same amount of green energy for £13billion – nearly 10 times cheaper than wind power.
'Wind energy is the most expensive way of generating renewable electricity,' he said.
'It will also cost jobs. We are already seeing some industrial firms packing up and moving abroad. The increasing price of energy is going to be the next big political problem.'
However, the Government was keen today to defend its green energy policies.
'Wind power is a homegrown, secure and sustainable source of energy with an important role as part of a balanced energy mix,' a spokesman said.
'Over-reliance on any one technology could have serious consequences for consumer bills. That’s why we want to see a diverse energy mix with renewables, nuclear, clean coal and gas all playing a part.'
Source: Daily Mail

6th August 2012

Evidence of the Adverse Health Impacts of Industrial Wind Turbines

This is a supporting document for the report “Wind Turbines – The Untold Story” to provide more information in support of the comment: “There is a growing body of evidence that adverse health impacts are real and that they are occurring at greater distances from turbines than previously recorded.”
Read report here: Adverse Health Impacts



5th August 2012

RES is pleased to announce the dates for the Blary Hill Wind Farm public exhibitions.

We will be holding exhibitions, to present our current proposals at the following times:

 Thursday 23rd August, 2pm - 8pm: Glenbarr Village Hall

Saturday 25th August, 10am - 3pm: Victoria Hall, Campbeltown

The exhibitions are open to everyone and we look forward to meeting you.

For more information visit the exhibition page of the website or contact Rachel Anderson.
Source:RES


RES is pleased to announce the dates for the Freasdail Wind Farm public exhibitions.

We will be holding exhibitions, to present our current proposals at the following times:

Friday 24th August, 2pm - 8pm: Whitehouse Village Hall

Saturday 25th August, 10am - 3pm: Victoria Hall, Campbeltown

The exhibitions are open to everyone and we look forward to meeting you.

For more information visit the exhibition page of the website or contact Rachel Anderson.
Source: RES


2nd August 2012

SSE increases holding in Wind Towers Ltd

SSE has agreed to acquire from Marsh Wind Technology Ltd its 40.05% share in Wind Towers Ltd, taking SSE's total shareholding in Wind Towers Ltd to 80.1%  The remaining 19.9% of ordinary share capital is held by Highlands and Islands Enterprise.  The transaction is expected to be fully completed in the next couple of weeks.

Wind Towers Ltd ("WTL") is a joint venture established in February 2011 to purchase the Skykon wind turbine tower manufacturing and assembly plant at Machrihanish, Campbeltown. WTL commenced tower manufacturing at the Machrihanish site in August 2011. Since then the company has realigned production and expanded its facilities. WTL has aggressively pursued market opportunities and has been successful in securing orders from a number of different clients. In addition to producing wind turbine towers for onshore wind farms, the site is now well placed to begin production of turbine towers for offshore wind farms, which will enable WTL to participate in the next phase of offshore wind developments.

The senior management team based at the plant will not change following this announcement and total employment at the facility is expected to remain around 100.

Jim McPhillimy, SSE's Managing Director, Group Services, said:
"A robust and sustainable supply chain offers significant value to renewable energy developers in Scotland. We recognise that SSE has an important role in helping create this and that is why we have  entered into a range of strategic alliances and investments to secure this supply chain for Scotland. Wind Towers Ltd is an important link in that chain and its strategic importance to SSE is reflected in our decision to increase our share in the joint venture."

Douglas Cowan, HIE's Area Manager for Argyll and the Islands, said:
"Investments made in developing the infrastructure, combined with the skills of the local workforce and its experience in the marketplace, means the Machrihanish facility is winning orders and attracting market interest.   As the UK's largest generator of electricity from renewable sources, SSE can continue to support the growth of Wind Towers Ltd's and its place in the renewable energy supply chain."
Source: SSE

1st August2012

RES Glenchamber wind farm appeal decision criticised

Politicians in southern Scotland have criticised the decision to allow an 11-turbine project in Wigtownshire to proceed on appeal.

RES has received the go-ahead for the Glenchamber scheme between New Luce, Kirkcowan and Glenluce.

The company said it would bring significant social and economic benefits to the area.

But Conservative MSP for Galloway and West Dumfries, Alex Fergusson, called it a "kick in the teeth" for democracy.

And Dumfries and Galloway Labour MP Russell Brown said people were "sick to death" of wind farms being "forced" upon them.

Dumfries and Galloway Council refused the proposal last year due to concerns over its "significant adverse impact" on the landscape in the area.

However, the decision was overturned by a Scottish government reporter.

Heather Donald, RES development project manager, said the company was "delighted", adding: "Glenchamber is an ideal location for a wind farm.

"Harnessing the wind is an efficient, reliable and sustainable way to supply clean energy for people living in Scotland.

"The wind farm will also provide significant economic and social benefits for the local community."

Mr Brown claimed the decision had "railroaded" through another wind farm which he said was not wanted.

"Public support for wind energy is evaporating because we are sick to death of wind farms being forced upon us," he said.

"The Scottish government seems to think it has free range to do whatever it wants in Dumfries and Galloway, regardless of what local people think.

"It is time we take a stand and show the government we won't be pushed around anymore."

Mr Fergusson said he did not believe the location was right for the development.

"I have no problem with wind farms being part of the general mix of energy generation that this country requires, but they need to be sited in the right places," he said.

"The local council officials, backed by the elected councillors, took the informed view that this particular proposal was not in the appropriate location and rejected it accordingly.

"By overturning that decision the Scottish government is overriding local knowledge, local opinion and worst of all, local democracy."

In her report, the Scottish government's reporter concluded that the scheme's contribution to the generation of renewable energy outweighed any adverse impact.

She said she was satisfied the plans "would not make this part of Dumfries and Galloway a less attractive tourism or recreational destination".

However, 26 conditions were attached to the approval.
Source: BBC

31st July 2012

Windfarm supporters are taking us for fuels

GUEST-BLOGGED by Graeme Pearson

IF you read this column and have no worries about the cost of gas and electricity, you are lucky.

Our fuel bills are beginning to look like mortgage payments and there seems no end to the misery.

The SNP Government's delivery of a commitment to renewables has helped drive up the cost of energy.

We are now seeing international power companies and venture capital funds invest in Scotland to obtain vast profits, all at our expense.

Initially I took no interest in this issue. After all Alex Salmond trilled heartily on the subject of free wind, green energy, sustainability and Scotland leading the world in terms of new technology.

But I have learned from many people across Scotland that there are downsides to the Government's approach that we must consider before it gets too late.

I also know that those who have reservations on the subject of the Government's energy strategy are often ignored and marginalised.

Windfarm subsidies paid by you, the consumer, have topped £1billion this year and are due to rise considerably, adding to the cost of our fuel bills.

The downside to these industrial processes - they can hardly be called windfarms - in the midst of our most beautiful countryside across Scotland are only now being realised by communities.

I have more than 600 letters from individual communities affected by the commercial development of wind turbines across the country.

They have an impact on our environment, tourism, the health of those living nearby and the values
of properties.

At the same time, communities fighting back find themselves overwhelmed by big-business interests determined to make profit from Scotland, no matter what the cost to us as a people.

The most recent scientific advice indicates that not only are turbines unreliable in terms of their efficiency and output, they are expensive to run.

The extension of turbines into the sea will generate even higher costs.

It is time to revisit the subject of energy in light of current scientific and technical knowledge to assess demand and provision before we pay even more for our power.

The Government must come clean on the costs and the service we can expect in terms of power provision for the future. This will become all the more significant should Scotland separate from the United Kingdom. I find it difficult to believe other nations will be happy to continue to subsidise our energy strategy as they do now.

The Government should also stop offloading responsibility for these developments on to local authority planning committees, ill prepared for the decisions they need to make.

America is fuelling its economic recovery on the back of cheap energy provided by gas, a fuel cleaner than coal or oil and a dependable source for the future.

If we are to compete, we need to ensure we are not left supporting a cause that will fail to deliver at a cost we can afford.

People are in fuel poverty. They are making decisions about whether they should eat or heat. It cannot continue.

Advice suggests we can save up to 70 per cent of our energy needs by effectively insulating our buildings.

Surely we should be seeing a greater effort in this activity rather than happily allowing our homes to pump hot air into the environment. After all, I thought that was what Government ministers did?

Source: Daily Record

31st July 2012

Small wind turbines 'halve' bat numbers

A boom in the use of small wind turbines could be halving bat numbers in areas where they are put up, new research has suggested.

The Stirling University study recommended micro turbines should not be sited within 20 metres of the animals' habitats.

Research at 20 such sites across the UK recorded a fall in bat activity of up to 54%.

Micro turbines are installed mainly for domestic and farmland use.

Schemes which pay people for creating green electricity are said to have helped fuel a rise in their popularity.

The Stirling research, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, involved halting micro turbine movement at the 20 sites and examining the effect on the activity of birds and two species of bat, the common and soprano pipistrelle.

While bird activity was not significantly affected, turbines did reduce bat numbers, it concluded.


The university's Kirsty Park, who led the research team, said: "Reducing our carbon footprint is important, but we also need to understand the implications of renewable energy technologies for wildlife conservation.

"Current planning guidance on the siting and installation of new small wind turbines is very limited so our findings will provide valuable information and help create more sensible and useful guidelines."

Dr Park said further research was needed, but said: "Based on our results, we recommend that turbines are sited at least 20 metres away from potentially valuable bat habitat.

"This will help us to maximise the benefits of renewable energy generation whilst minimising potentially adverse effects on wildlife."

The research, said to be the first of its kind, is being published in US science journal PLoS ONE.

Source: BBC News


30th July 2012

Scotland gets its first marine energy park in Pentland Firth

SCOTLAND’S first marine energy park was officially launched yesterday in one of the most turbulent stretches of waters in the world.

• The narrow channel between Orkney and Caithness has some of the world’s fastest tides

The Pentland Firth, the narrow channel between Orkney and Caithness, boasts some of the fastest tides and biggest waves around the globe. This has already attracted a host of energy developers, and yesterday’s announcement aims to build on its international profile.

The park will incorporate the world-leading European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) where testing of a wide range of innovative wave and tidal energy devices by numerous firms is under way.

The park will be promoted globally by the UK and Scottish governments to attract both private companies to invest in the area and marine energy students from universities.

Westminster’s energy minister, Greg Barker, said: “Marine power is a growing green, clean source of power which has the potential to sustain thousands of jobs in a sector worth a possible £15 billion to the economy by 2050.”

He said energy from waves or the tide had the potential to generate 27GW of electricity in the UK alone by 2050, equivalent to the power generated from eight coal-fired power stations.

The UK’s first marine energy park, located off south-west England, was announced earlier this year. The area around Orkneywas chosen as the next location because of its high tidal stream.

Speaking as the seas raged off Scrabster Harbour in Caithness, Mr Barker said: “This stretch of water is home to the European Marine Energy Centre, currently unrivalled in the world. This park will help bring together local knowledge and expertise to spur on further development.

“It’s great to see Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters confirm their place on the marine power map with the launch of the second of the UK marine energy parks.”

EMEC opened in 2003 with £30 million of public funding from the Scottish and UK governments, local councils and the European Union. It has 14 berths for testing tidal energy technology and the operators said it was now self-sufficient.

Companies such as ScottishPower Renewables and E.ON use EMEC to test wave power capture machines.

Scottish energy minister Fergus Ewing said the the park’s creation “proves Scotland continues to be the jewel in the crown of all wave and tidal activity”.

He said: “Progress in Scottish wave and tidal renewables has been staggering, but the Scottish Government recognises that more financial support is needed to help the sector achieve its fullest potential.”

Richard Yemm, founder of Pelamis Wave Power and representing the marine energy industry yesterday, said: “This marine energy park creates an even more solid platform for commercialisation of the sector in these waters, while maximising economic benefits for the local community.

“Collectively, Pelamis and our customers E.ON and ScottishPower Renewables are developing 200MW of wave farm projects within the new Marine Energy Park. Today’s announcement further underpins our commitment to this region, and puts in place another cornerstone for the next stages of our commercial development.”

Source: Scotsman

28th July 2012 :

'No new' SSE hydro power stations after subsidy cut.

SSE said the new regime will not affect existing plants or those under construction.  The main operator of Scottish hydro power stations said it does not expect to build new ones due to a subsidy cut.

SSE, which trades north of the border as Scottish Hydro, had planned several new hydro schemes in the Highlands.

It also warned changes to Whitehall's support regime for renewable power could significantly harm biomass burning and wind farm development.

RWE/nPower, which has hydro power development plans as well, also issued a warning.

It argued the level of support for hydro was "not enough and will have a very serious impact upon future projects of 5 megawatts and above".

The news comes after the government announced a 30% reduction in the Renewable Obligation Certificates companies receive per unit of energy produced.

That has been awarded at the same rate as onshore wind farms, and after a Whitehall battle, they are also facing a cut of 10%.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) announced the reductions on Wednesday, which were less than had been expected for wind farms, but on condition that could be reviewed again soon.

'New uncertainty' Although the DECC statement only applies south of the Border, industry experts believe there is little flexibility for the Scottish government to offer more generous subsidies without hitting Scottish customer bills disproportionately.

Scottish Renewables, representing the industry, warned on Wednesday the DECC announcement could lead to cutbacks in investment on hydro, and challenged the Scottish government to increase support from Whitehall's levels.

SSE said the new regime will not affect existing plants or those under construction.

"Nevertheless, it means SSE no longer expects to develop any new conventional hydro electric schemes and the scope to increase generation of electricity from biomass at coal-fired power stations is significantly reduced," the firm said.

The statement went on to say the review of onshore wind farm subsidies for projects after March 2014 "introduced a new uncertainty that could potentially restrict the future development of this technology".

Pump storage Scottish Hydro/SSE has four projects in development, two of which are too small to qualify for ROC payments.

One that does qualify is on the Kildermorie Estate near Alness in Easter Ross. It was to have a capacity of 7.5 megawatts, which it says is sufficient to power 9,400 homes.

That project had reached the stage where it was ready for construction to start.

The other scheme being stopped is at Glenisla near Alyth on the Perthshire-Angus border. It's rated at 10 megawatts, and planning was much less advanced.

Two much larger SSE projects are for pump storage - pumping water uphill using excess power from other sources when demand is low, and then releasing the water when demand surges.

They are both rated at 600MW, capable of powering 230,000 homes, for short periods at least, and a smaller such development is being planned for an expansion of the existing Sloy station near Loch Lomond.

But as they are not conventional hydro stations, they do not currently get any subsidy. SSE has not put these pump storage projects on hold.

Source, BBC News

26th July 2012
Forget lower subsidies, the wind industry has a much bigger problem brewing
On the face of it, this has been a pretty good week for the wind industry. After a worrying month or so, in which George Osborne seemed to be listening to his party’s MPs, they appear to have got away with a mere 10% reduction in the large subsidies they get paid to produce (and sometimes not to produce) wind energy.

But if I were in the business, a piece of news that has received rather less attention might be making me feel just a tiny bit tense. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) – which sets property valuations for the purposes of council tax – appears to have accepted that having wind turbines near your house can (and does) reduce the value of houses.

Until now, all suggestions that this is the case have been firmly rejected by the industry. But this week the Sunday Times reported the case of a couple living 650 yards from a large windfarm near Braunton in Devon. They aren’t trying to sell their house, but nonetheless, local estate agents value their house at £100,000 less than they did before the windfarm  was built, a result of the persistent noise and flickering (when the sun is behind the blades).

The result? The VOA has moved them from band F to band E. That saves them £400 a year. This makes sense.

We’ve written here often about land taxes and how land with the most value should be taxed more than other land. Council tax is the closest thing we have in the UK to a land tax, and it seems right to me at least that a negative land tax should be applied to property blighted by noise loud enough to be considered a statutory nuisance by the VOA.

But if you were the owners of such a property would that be enough? I suspect not. So what would you do about it?

My guess is that, now you had definitive legal proof that your finances had been materially affected by the windfarm, you would sue the windfarm developer. That’s exactly what Jane Davis from Lincolnshire did in 2008. After having her request for a council tax cut approved she went on to sue the windfarm owners (including EDF) in the High Court. The case ended last year in a settlement that included a very tight confidentiality agreement (although according to the Sunday Times, the windfarm owners bought the house from Davis).

So how big a problem is this for the windfarms? So far, at least five homeowners have had their properties re-banded as a result of windfarms. But the real number is probably much, much higher – only those applications that go to appeal are made public. “We do not record the number of occasions where a band challenge is made by a taxpayer due to the proximity of a wind turbine/farm”, says the VOA.

I don’t suppose this will stop the blanket of turbines moving across the country, but if all the homeowners suffering losses as a result of them sue, it is going to make the windfarm owners even more grateful than they already are to the Lib Dems and their efforts to keep subsidies high. It might even make them think twice about siting huge turbines within shadow distance of people’s bedrooms.

Source: Moneyweek.