Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

Campaign fails to stop wind-farm proposal



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 May 2008
A WIND farm has been given the go-ahead despite a local campaign to keep the turbines out of an area of unspoilt countryside.
Plans to build the £25 million development at Langhope Rig, an area of countryside three miles west of Ashkirk in the Borders, were cleared following a five-day public inquiry.

There were about 350 letters against siting the wind farm in an area d
escribed as a tranquil spot popular with walkers and tourists. The plans for ten 400ft turbines submitted by Airtricity were originally turned down by Scottish Borders Council, which decided the impact on the landscape would be unacceptable.

But a Scottish Government planning reporter reversed the decision following an appeal by Airtricity.

Carolyn Riddell-Carre, the environment and planning representative on Scottish Borders Council, said rural areas were expected to take too many wind farms. "It's like fly-tipping," she said. "People think of open space and think they'll heap things on it, whether it's rubbish or a bunch of turbines."

Ms Riddell-Carre said the turbines would be much better placed near built-up areas close to the national grid. "If they are really as welcome as that, they should have them on top of Arthur's Seat," she said.

"If these were called wind factories rather than wind farms people wouldn't love them so much. These are enormous wind turbines. They are vast."

Deborah Bohn, part of a group called Against Wind Farm At Langhope Rig (Awfal), said: "This is a spot that's characterised by utter tranquillity. These turbines will be visible from every hill in the Borders. The eye will be drawn to them. We have been fighting this for two years.

"We have given it our best. There was a huge amount of opposition, but this didn't apparently carry enough weight. I'm sad, but it was worth a try and hope it may discourage other wind farms in the central Borders."

Simon Heyes, the general manager for Airtricity in the UK, said the company was delighted with the decision.

The Scottish Government recorder mentioned a local survey had suggested just over half the population supported the wind farm. At full capacity, it will generate enough electricity for about 12,000 homes.

• One of the ScotsmanDebates series will discuss wind farms at Jedburgh Town Hall at 7pm on 14 October. E-mail for tickets – scotsmandebates@scotsman.com – or write to David Lee, ScotsmanDebates, The Scotsman, 108 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AS (please say how many tickets and include a phone number).

AT A GLANCE

• A single average-sized turbine produces enough electricity to meet the needs of about 600 households.

• Just over 1 per cent of the world's energy is produced by wind.

• It accounts for nearly 20 per cent of electricity production in Denmark.

• Germany has the most installed wind power in the world, followed by the United States.

• The UK is the windiest country in Europe, but ranks ninth in the world in terms of installed wind power.

• The Scottish Government has set a target of producing 50 per cent of the country's electricity from renewables by 2020.

• The largest wind farm in Scotland is at Whitelee, near Glasgow, with 140 turbines. ScottishPower Renewables recently applied for permission for an extra 36 turbines.





The full article contains 558 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 20/05/2008 06:42:51
"People think of open space and think they'll heap things on it, whether it's rubbish or a bunch of turbines"
How can you tell the difference between rubbish and turbines? they are both useless and unwanted by normal people.
This decision continues to demonstrate just how much the Scottish Executive are in the pockets of the wind industry. The wind madness rolls on and rural Scotland is paying the penalty.
2

Richard Havers,

The Borders (not near Langhope!) 20/05/2008 07:16:40
Interesting use of statistics.

In the article it says the site will produce enough wind to power 12,000 homes. Given that there's ten of them that's 1200 homes each. In the at a glance feature it says that the average turbine produces enough energy for 600 homes. This must make these twice the size of the average turbine. Conversely are we really building turbines that only power three hundred homes?

Of course the wind industry spouts hot air on all this using terms like "maximum capacity." No wind farm operates at maximum capacity, most of them operate down in the thirty per cents.
3

Saoghal Beag,

20/05/2008 08:12:02
and hunterston operates below 15% of its capacity.
4

Hmm ...,

20/05/2008 09:48:53
... sorry JayDeeTee - these are sprouting in other countries as well, marring their landscape. Mainly in developing economies and funded by the EU.

Our answer is easy - remove the government subsidies and see how many applications are made by power companies to build these things. That would demonstrate the cost/benefit of operating them. As things stand, absentee landowners get good money from providing the land and the power companies get free electricity, the government having paid for building the turbines.

More Labour waste, throwing money at something is the assumption that it will have a payback.
5

Venachar,

20/05/2008 09:49:06
Try the south coast of Spain, particularly through the Gibraltar Straits the hillsides are covered in turbines, quite a sight actually.
Personally I prefer to have the lights on - so keep with the wind and wave powered research and hopefully some good will come back to Scottish manufacturing.
6

Boy Wonder,

20/05/2008 09:50:00
The "windustry" is able to buy people off, whereas the opposition can't. That's what's happening.

These turbines are monstrosities and they will come down sooner rather than later.
7

Galaman,

Galashiels 20/05/2008 10:47:51
How about "semi-folly" as a more suitable title than "windfarm"? For half the time that they exist, like any type of folly they serve no function whatsoever.
Aye, so this semi-folly (sorry, windfarm) "will generate enough to power 12,000 homes". Maybe so, but only when the wind is blowing- and not too strongly.
8

Saoghal Beag,

20/05/2008 12:08:40
4, 4, 7, 8 and nuclear is even more unreliable than wind energy, so what's your answer?
9

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 12:40:26
Wind farms are being built and operated successfully all over the world. After hydro they are the only alternative power generating technology to function reliably and efficiently. Only the noisy nimbys are against them.
10

Saoghal Beag,

20/05/2008 12:47:43
Fred, the nimbys with support from the US, the nuclear indutry and Leibour supporters who are still daft enough to be taken in by thier party's lies.
11

Agent 99,

20/05/2008 12:49:20
[9] So you were suckered too about the "reliability" of nuclear. Ask the French (72% of power used in France comes from nuclear), and the Swiss whose power stations seem to have been running reliably for years.

You might reply that the issue is UK stations, but that's not really the point, since the British have been useless at engineering since the 1940's. It is possible to build highly reliable and safe nuclear plants.

What's not possible is to engineer the wind velocity just when half the population wants to boil a kettle.
12

Agent 99,

20/05/2008 12:54:41
[11] a worthless attempt to politicise the issue.

A reliable and dependable electricity supply is just about all that prevents breakdown of this society. Thus, the provision of electrical energy is far too important to be left to the whims of politicians. The people arguing against wind dependency here realise this; you clearly don't. Perhaps you should try going without power for a week in the depths of winter.
13

A Scot in America,

20/05/2008 12:56:48
Must be the anti-windmill faction today are a group heavily invested in oil. Windmills are a gracefull answer to part of our renewable energy needs. The "not in my back yard" group need to get a grip.
14

Saoghal Beag,

20/05/2008 13:18:24
Agent 99. i am not suckered about the reliability of nuclear, i just believe the reported figures from the DTI, you saying that is all lies?

I agree a reliable and dependable electricity supply is paramount, but i am not so stupid to lurch from one form of limited fuel source to another. Chances are we have between 20 and 50 years of reliable uranium sources. The point though is that it will run out in the near to medium future and a commitment to nuclear only delays decisions that will have to be made in the future.

I also believe that centralised generation is not necessarily the most secure option. it is all to easy to remove them from the grid by taking out pylons, should terrorist choose that approach.

Dispersed and varied energy generation is what we need.

When half the population wants to boil a kettle we will, as we do now, depend on hydro.

Naturally the nuclear industry supports more nuclear, the nimbys oppose, well everything and Leibour support nuclear. that is not politicising the issue just the truth.

The truth is that nuclear in the UK is the most unreliable enrgy source, the most heavily subsidised and when the whole life cycle is considered and energy source that is in deficeit.
15

Professor22,

lochgelly 20/05/2008 13:50:12
WHAT A BUNCH OF NIMBY'S

Option 1: Hydro, wave, solar and wind power
Option 2: Nuclear

Unless we all agree to go back to living in caves then thats the only two options.

Earth to Nimby's: Get a grip, Scotland has more green space than what it knows what to do with.
16

Saoghal Beag,

20/05/2008 15:17:05
agent 99.

as regards the latest and currently still under construction French nuclear plant based on a US design...

In April 2008 the French nuclear safety agency (ASN) reported that a quarter of the welds inspected in the secondary containment steel liner are not in accordance with norms, and that cracks have been found it the concrete base. EDF stated that progress is being made on these issues raised very early in construction.

The design proposed for the UK.

17

New Town Resident,

20/05/2008 16:12:05
~15&17 SB

can you help me please with some basic questions i've been wondering about?

a. what is the subsidy in terms of £/MWh of nuclear generation in GB? Please could you give the source of the info.
b. what is the subsidy in terms of £/MWh of wind generation in GB? ditto re source
c. who pays for these subsidies and how?
d. do you have any views on the stability of the Danish power grid?
e. how do electricity prices in Denmark compare with here?

tks very much.
18

Saoghal Beag,

20/05/2008 16:45:56
sorry new town just heading out.

do you want all the nuclear subsidies?

as regards teh stability of the danish grid you are no doubt focusing on wind generation alone, whereas copenhagen has an effective and diverse generation portfolio. i do no advocate wind as the be all and end all answer far from it.

got to run got a life
19

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 20/05/2008 16:46:54
The stupidity and lack of knowledge about windfarms by people like Saoghal Begg is unbelievable.
The report was about a windfarm and not about nuclear power stations.
For SB to imply that a windfarm is an alternative to a nuclear power station is completely crazy as well as being technically impossible.
We expect good old Fred to come in with his love of windfarms but it would be nice if the anti nukes and the great greenwashed would come up with a proposal for electricity generation excluding nuclear that will keep the lights on.
We have the stupid situation at the moment where rocs are worth more than the electricity !!!
It is high time that the likes of SB realised that windfarms are about one thing only - money !!!
Whether SB likes it or not, our old nuclear power stations will be replaced with nice shiny new ones which will produce power 24/7
A question for Fred - what is going to happen to the 2000 tonnes of reinforced concrete in every turbine base and just how much co2 was produced in the production of that concrete, also how much c02 has just been released by mother nature with the eruption
of the volcano in Chile.
Windfarms are a scam - full stop!!
20

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 17:41:14
20. The concrete is not visible as it is turfed over and can be left in place. Why waste energy digging it up merely to dump it somewhere else.

Anyway, in my opinion wind farms are here to stay until some new and as yet unproved power source is developed.

It is easy to calculate that the CO2 produced in the cement manufacture is compensated for in just a few days of turbine operation.

In any case all kinds of power stations use large amounts of concrete in their construction.

Finally, volcanic emissions of CO2 are negligible compared to manmade emissions.
21

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 20/05/2008 18:56:56
Any technology that bases it self on intermittent power sources, is stupid.
22

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 20/05/2008 19:12:25
Oh dear, Fred is really struggling now! he wants to sweep the wind industry dirt under the carpet while at the same time wants the nuclear industry to remove every last vestige of its existence away.
He also needs to remember that we do not need any more electricity than we already produce therefore windfarms are not required at all.
I would also like him to explain how a windfarm will pay back its concrete co2 emissions in a few days when Longannet and Cockenzie are not burning any less coal.
As for volcanoes, he needs to study the science a bit more because they spew out a lot more than man ever will, indeed in th epast the planet has had much higher concentrations of co2 than at present.
Sorry Fred, but windfarms are an unecessary blot on the landscape that is costing Scotland dearly.
23

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 20/05/2008 19:12:26
Oh dear, Fred is really struggling now! he wants to sweep the wind industry dirt under the carpet while at the same time wants the nuclear industry to remove every last vestige of its existence away.
He also needs to remember that we do not need any more electricity than we already produce therefore windfarms are not required at all.
I would also like him to explain how a windfarm will pay back its concrete co2 emissions in a few days when Longannet and Cockenzie are not burning any less coal.
As for volcanoes, he needs to study the science a bit more because they spew out a lot more than man ever will, indeed in th epast the planet has had much higher concentrations of co2 than at present.
Sorry Fred, but windfarms are an unecessary blot on the landscape that is costing Scotland dearly.
24

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 19:48:37
25. Mr 'Highlands against Turbines' nabodican is telling fibs again:

The wind turbines in Scotland and elsewhere are generating useful power. The reason that Longannet and Cockenzie are not generating power is that total demand has increased.

As for volcanoes, it is well established that they produce on average only around 10% of the amount produced by man.
25

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 19:50:15
26 should read: 'not generating less power'
26

Saoghal Beag,

20/05/2008 20:58:06
Nabodican, have i not said there is a need for diversified and dispersed generation. That is not wind before everything but with an eye to the future it is providing future generations with reliable power sources not dependent on finite fuels.

As i pointed out to start with in scotland nuclear is the most unreliable power source with its unplanned outages and its planned outages to rectify identified unplanned problems.

Nuclear is a white elephant and a financial liability for current generations and a liability for future generations.

Without roc turbines pay for themselves in 6 years rather than three.
27

Saoghal Beag,

20/05/2008 21:36:20
18 since many of the subsidies are not direct that is not necessarily the easiest question to answer.

Aside from the investment in nuclear R&D the first major subsidy for any nuclear plant comes with the discounted borrowing rates supported by the Government (US see Energy Policy Act 2005, and Finland operate this way.) Without these massive discounts no nuclear plants would be built since the bulk of the investment comes in initial capital. In addition to these subsidies Finland has gauranteed Ariva 60 year supply deals. When those deal were removed from the UK supply market as anti-competitive it cost the government £3bn+ (the FT actually puts the cost at £5b).

Then there is security.

then there is decommisioning, currently £3b+ for Dounreay.

Then there is transport and storage of waste. Waste is a wee bitty of a problem for nuclear.

There is no such thing as a gneration technology without subsidy.

28

Colin, Glasgow,

21/05/2008 12:16:58
#29 “There is no such thing as a generation technology without subsidy”

This is very true. (It is especially true of fossil fuel when the external cost of pollution is taken into account.) But in comparison to the amount of electricity generated, the subsidy needed for nuclear is low. See the following figures for US energy subsidy:

http://www.issues.org/22.3/realnumbers.html

Given that the UK hardly does any fission R&D these days I expect the UK figures would be even lower.
29

unge,

NZ 22/05/2008 09:25:29
So a farmer has diversified and is now going to produce food and power from a working farm - good luck to the man. I can't see his sheep being too bothered

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.