Colette Douglas Home
It is cheering to know that some good came from the weather that has lashed
the country. On December 10 our onshore wind turbines generated enough
electricity to supply 6,340,000 homes: three times the number of households
in Scotland.
And, according to the environmental charity WWF Scotland, wind generated
enough power to supply more than 100 per cent of our needs during six out
of the past 12 months: January, February, March, October November and December.
There is something to be marvelled at in these figures. There’s comfort in
knowing that the country has harnessed a natural and renewable means of
keeping the lights on. But it also begs the question: do we need more
onshore wind farms?
Clearly the system works. It is already giving us twice what we need in
those months when the wind blows. The downside is that we have no way of
storing excess. In fact, at a cost to the consumer of £1 million a week, we
pay wind farm companies to stop production when the grid can’t cope.
Also, those six months of over-supply need to be balanced against the other
half of the year when we have less reliable wind and less reliable supply.
For example, in June, onshore wind farms produced only 37 per cent of our
electricity needs and in September 41 per cent.
The answer to those months of lighter wind is to maintain a back-up supply
provided by gas, coal or nuclear power stations. Not everyone agrees. The
WWF Scotland report states that, by 2030, Scotland could be powered almost
entirely by renewables, with no need for carbon sources or nuclear. It is
arguably a wonderful prospect. If it can be delivered with the existing
number of wind farms, backed up by hydro-pumped storage, offshore wind
turbines, solar panels, wave power and so on, underpinned by a reduction in
demand, who could fail to celebrate? But Scotland seems to be intent on
putting up more and onshore wind farms.
Why? The figures suggest we have enough already for half of the year and
require some other form of generation for the other half. When do we reach
the stage of balancing electricity generation against other interests? How
much more scenery can we afford to blight without having a significant
adverse impact on our tourist industry?
There are other unintended consequences. Across the country there are
landowners with acres of unprofitable, unfertile acres who go to bed at
night praying for a wind farm on their land. It has already made overnight
millionaires of some. There are a few saintly and public spirited lairds
who have turned their backs on the filthy lucre. But most are only human
and take the chance to endow their estates for another generation.
When a big wind farm company blows into a community, largesse follows. The
companies make hefty profits and are even paid to switch off their turbines
when they produce too much electricity for the grid to cope. In the last
twelve months this compensation amounted to £53.1m; more than £1m a week.
So some lucky landowners hit the jackpot. Wind farm owners profit from
subsidies. Scotland gets green electricity but the consumer pays a premium
for it. It’s particularly unpalatable to see that extra cost going towards
“compensation” for private companies that act as Mr Big to the community
closest to their wind farm.
The Government has committed itself to a target of meeting 100 per cent of
our electricity consumption from renewables by 2020. At this time, in what
promises to be a lull between referendums, it will be keen to forge ahead
with its existing policy, to claim victory in all its doings.
But Nicola Sturgeon, a seemingly thoughtful woman, should ask herself if
this really is how we want to configure Scotland. We have powerful
organised interests making huge sums of money lobbying for more onshore
wind turbines. Meanwhile, lovers of the landscape are scattered individuals
who find it difficult to have their voice heard. The Scottish Conservatives
say the Holyrood Parliament received 5,942 complaints about wind farm
proposals in 2014, double the 2,951 in 2013. They are calling for a halt to
wind farms and, for once, I agree with them.
One of our greenest organisations, the John Muir Trust, is speaking out in
hope of protecting wild places. Head of policy Helen McDade said that,
while the trust agreed that Scotland needed to cut energy use and reduce
carbon emissions, it is concerned about the number of inappropriate wind
farm developments going through the planning process.
She said: “The Trust is aware of several major industrial developments
proposed in Wild Land Areas, for instance Glencassley and Sallachy in
north-west Sutherland, Allt Duine beside the Cairngorm National Park and
Talladh A Bheithe in Rannoch, adding up to hundreds of turbines. These
landscapes should be protected for their value to Scotland and it would be
unfortunate if this report was used to justify continual degradation of our
wildest landscapes.
“There are more developments than ever before being applied for within our
best wild landscapes due to the excessive subsidies paid to onshore wind
development. There needs to be a national energy commission set up to
consider the costs and benefits of various energy systems, with a focus on
most benefit from public subsidies and taxes.”
More wind farms would inevitably further multiply the already staggering
cost of “compensation”. More landscape would be blighted with a knock-on
effect to the important tourist industry.
The pleasure we all take in the country we live in would be diminished. The
unspoiled beauty of Scotland’s landscape is a matter of pride to its
people. For country dwellers it is a daily pleasure. For us in the city a
weekend or holiday serves as a reminder of how fortunate we are to occupy
this part of the planet.
Of course, we want to play our part in cutting carbon emissions but
despoliation is not right way to set about saving. Wind turbines have
proven themselves to be effective up to a point. Surely that point has now
been reached.
There are other things we can do. We can build houses that are energy
neutral. We can make existing houses energy efficient. We can offer grants
and subsidies to promote greater use of solar power. We can maximise all
other means of renewable energy production to fulfil our needs for the six
months when the wind is not enough.
It will cost; of course it will. But isn’t it a better way to spend money
than destroying more landscape to build more turbines that command a
subsidy to be switched off?
We need a centralised, informed, objective strategy with which to move
forward for the benefit of all. So let’s have that national energy
commission and meantime let’s halt the building of onshore turbines.
0 Comments