Renewable Energy Report - Part 2
Posted: Monday, 05 July 2004 |
Comments
Hi Pondhead, yes thats'a good one. The report is both critical of the Executive's strategy but supportive of renewables in general arguing for more diversification:
"The Renewables Obligation (Scotland) scheme has been successful, but in a single direction that of promoting onshore wind power. It has led to the invigoration of the market for wind power by energy companies, but without developing other sectors...The Executive¹s current renewables policy is unintentionally working against the development of renewable energy sources other than onshore wind power."
Blog Blog from Glasgow
Noticed the largest onshore windfarm to date is being built in my (former) neck of the woods.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3867735.stm
Personally, I'd rather see windfarms here than in any of the islands, if ever there was a landscape that needs tarted up, it's ayrshire.
richard from london
After a quick look at the report I could only find only one short paragraph relating to visual impact of wind farms on tourism. It seems to dismiss any objections firstly because there is no data and secondly because wind farm developers say there is no problem....if we accept this reasoning then how about applying this ruling to Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh - why are there no windfarm planned for there?
:101:" Much of the concern expressed by the petitioners related to the potential cumulative impact of wind farm development on areas of rural Scotland. There was a generally held concern amongst the petitioners that wide scale development of wind farms could be detrimental to the scenic quality of the landscape and so have an adverse impact on the Scottish tourism industry. While concerns have been expressed about the tourism industry, there is no reliable data on the cumulative visual effect of wind farms on tourism available. Those who support the development of wind power challenge assertions about potential negative impacts of wind farms on the tourism sector"
pondhead from mull
Hey Blog Blog, do you live here and are you going to have to live the consequences.Actually hving met you you seem a reasonable bloke and maybe you're playing devil's advocate in the interests of keeping island blogging alive.
But get real, please. Far too little is being done with research and development of other renewable resources. The costs, up here, even with grants for those of us who want (and there's quite a few) to do our bit are being priced out of the market just for solar energy for our own homes. The only people who will benefit from present policy are those who are in a position to benefit from a fortunate location to a suitable area and who have money to invest - no other locals will benefit because local Councils will spread the dosh to meet other needs. There will be no reduction in energy bills because the profits above tax will go elsewhere and the wind farm operators will,over and above the sexy financial benefits offered, demand a monopoly denying any other acceptable wind farm developments. This is a purely personal opinion but based on information received and specific questions asked.
Sunset from Tobermory
Hi Sunset, no I don't live on Mull, I'm just reporting on an important new report on Windfarms and Renewable energy that's just come out.
Mike
Blog Blog from Glasgow
Here's an interesting piece from today's Scotsman, which points to the issue of onwership rather than aesthetics being a central issue. I'm interested to know if this would change your view at all Sunset?
JOHN ROSS
"Like the hydro dams, the windfarms will transform the landscape"
- CALUM MACDONALD
AN MP has warned that communities must not miss out on vast sums of money from the development of windfarms.
Calum MacDonald, the MP for the Western Isles, says large-scale windfarming promises the biggest scenic and economic change in the Highlands and Islands since the building of the hydro electric dams over half a century ago.
Hydro power brought huge benefits as households and business were plugged into mains power at a uniform price. But he warned: "The 57 hydro dams in remote Highland glens produce many millions of pounds worth of revenue a year, the great bulk of which never touches any Highland community but is siphoned off as profits for financial institutions and shareholders across the UK."
He added: "Like the hydro dams, the windfarms will transform the landscape and come to be regarded just as fondly, I hope, by future generations. But unless we take action now to harness this new technology for the common good, we will end up in 20 years’ time again bemoaning the fact that most of the hundreds of millions of pounds it will generate ends up in shareholders’ pockets elsewhere in the UK, with only a tiny percentage left behind in the communities of the Gaeltacht."
Mr MacDonald said over the next three years there are plans to build windfarms producing 2,250 megawatts in the Highlands, the equivalent of almost the entire UK output of renewable energy today and three-quarters of all the new output planned for Scotland.
Later this year it is expected AMEC and British Energy will lodge a planning application for over 200 turbines producing up to 600Mw in North Lewis. In Pairc, Scottish and Southern Energy has been talking about a 250Mw farm and in Eisken Estate there are plans for up to 125 turbines producing another 250Mw.
The Highlands has just two operating windfarms at present, but two others have been approved in Skye and Caithness, while plans have been submitted for another 450 turbines across the area.
Mr MacDonald said the plans offer the opportunity of the revenue being captured by communities and re-invested locally, but added: "Just as with the money from the hydro dams, it could slip from our grasp unless we act together to secure it."
The going rate for community benefit funds from developers is about £1,000 per/Mw per year, but Mr MacDonald says it is a small percentage of the revenues generated by wind farms. Highland Council is pressing for a figure of £5,000 per/Mw, but some have proposed double that figure.
In Eisken, the proposed developer has undertaken to pay £350,000 per year into a community fund, but the anticipated revenues are at least £35 million a year.
The MP added: "If the Eisken project goes ahead as proposed, we would have a situation in ten years’ time where £350,000 a year is being retained in the islands for community benefit, plus perhaps another million pounds in wages and local taxes, but around £35 million is being exported each year into bank accounts located hundreds of miles from the Highlands, far less the Hebrides."
Blog Blog from Glasgow
Hi, John, sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid your Scotsman quotes fail to convince. Our landscape is attractive enough - certainly in the view of many visitors who come here for scenic beauty.
Where we might have some common ground are the comments by Calum MacDonald that the paltry sums of money offered by developers (it's not as yet a requirement for them to do so) to communities are totally inadequate compared with the money that the developers and their investors will get (see Oban Times 8 July). I don't know where you live - perhaps you'd enlighten us? - but I shall continue with my stand that far too much reliance is being place on onshore wind farm and too little encouragement for other alternatives that are less intrusive on the environment. Pondhead's quote from the report (above) says a lot about my viewpoint.
Sunset from Tobermory
I.B.H.Q. is your Ö÷²¥´óÐã host, moderator and friend for Island Blogging.
RSS Feed