You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us.
|
You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us. |
|
It had to happen. The government is pushing to build a wind farm on the Isle of Skye. A proposal by Amec Border Wind from Northumberland has just been registered. The
proposed site is approximately 2.4km south of Edinbane village, which
translates to the Gaelic for "Fair of Face", sitting on the north west
coast of Skye between Dunvegan, historic seat of the Clan MacLeod, and Portree,
the main town on Skye. The
wind farm will be erected on the nearby hillsides of Cruachan Beinn Mhicaskill,
stretching roughly between Blackhill and Balmeanach.
It will consist of 28 wind turbines, a local substation and monitoring mast, borrow pits, and other infrastructure. The turbine towers will be 67 metres (215 feet) high, blade diameter 66 metres (216 feet), and maximum height to tip of blade 100 metres (330 feet). Each will generate 1.85 Mega Watts power maximum output. In total the maximum output will be 49 Mega watts. The local people are split. The crofters who stand to gain financially via payments to their local grazing committee are in favour and have already started bullying the owners of the neighbouring hotels and other tourist establishments who will lose their views and suffer the damage of the building contractors. Accusations of white settlers are already being bandied about. The hoteliers have real cause to worry. The towers will dominate the landscape and be visible from the Cullins, Mcleods Tables, and Trotternish. There’s nothing unusual in
such battles. Similar ones would be
fought against any sort of power station. The difference here is that
this wind farm, like others proposed in unspoiled sites around the world, is
uneconomic. The capital and
maintenance costs are enormous. Wind
farms do not provide power when it is most needed, because the turbines won’t
work in low winds and have to shut down in high ones.
We still need traditional power stations for the “wrong sort of
weather” days. Wind also
works best far away from industry and population centres.
To get the power to where it is needed requires expensive power lines and
transmission stations. When
all these extra costs are included the project is just not viable.
We know this because it
requires government subsidy. Firstly
there is the climate change levy from which wind power is exempt, despite the
fossil fuels burnt in its construction and maintenance.
It is also being subsidised by grants and cheap loans to Amec Border
Wind, and a range of grants to the crofters and local council.
Many of these latter will be disguised as grants for other things,
education, road upgrades, etc to make it difficult for people like iGreens to
calculate the true subsidy. Many
will be channelled via the European Union.
Look out for industry relocation grants to set up on Skye, presented as
programmes to reduce local unemployment or some such boondoggle.
Then we will see the real environmental damage of the wind farms. Normally the local press
would provide an independent view but they are also hoping for their slice of
government largesse. Mr Brian
Wilson the energy minister is a shareholder in the West Highland Free Press.
Note also that AMEC will be buying the aggregates they need from Sconser
quarry, and guess who owns that - the Highland Council.
A Skye Windfarm Action Group
(SWAG) has been set up. Their
spokesman is Mr John Hodgson, click here
for their website. The spokesman for the
cofters and the local grazing committee in favour of the wind farm is Mr R.
Hilleary
July 2006 updateNot everyone agrees with us. Here is Martyn Bradshaw
Dear iGreens,
Your article about the Edinbane Wind Farm on
the Isle of Skye is certainly an eye opening read! I especially
liked the following:
"The crofters who stand to gain financially via payments to their local grazing committee are in favour and have already started bullying the owners of the neighbouring hotels and other tourist establishments who will lose their views and suffer the damage of the building contractors."
Maybe I can offer you a slightly different
perspective.
I live at Dunvegan on the Isle of Skye and have no
financial interest in this or any other proposal. A vote of local residents in
Edinbane returned a majority in favour of the scheme - something like 57% in
favour, 30% against and a turn out of 92%. Not all these people stand to
gain money from this scheme. Some see wind farms as enhancing the environment,
some see them as a sign of a clean environment, which of course Skye is and
will continue to be. Some see wind farms as an extension to existing
renewables projects such as the Hydro scheme and micro wind turbines. This
island is not a piece of earth to be kept as a theme park for eternity, it is
a vibrant, forward looking community.
You may be aware that in Scotland there is
absolutely no evidence that wind farms deter tourists. In fact, numerous
independent reports and studies suggest the exact opposite, or at the very
least no change. This is backed up by the fact that a high proportion of
tourists visiting Skye are from Europe, where wind farms are common place and
so are not prejudiced by ignorance and fear. Other reports have pointed
out that more tourists are concerned with electricity transmission lines,
mobile phone masts and forestry plantations, not wind turbines. As wind
turbines become more common, people will accept them and the myths peddled
will look even more shaky than they do today.
I don't know if you have visited Skye, it's a
fabulous location. If you have you'll understand this next point, but if not
I'll explain it anyway. Skye is very windy and pretty much all
the time, especially in winter when we need electricity the most. This means
that while of course there will be times the windmills will not be
turning, the vast majority of the time they will, and they will be pumping
clean, cheap electricity into the grid. Now, we constantly hear about how wind
farms don't shut coal power stations, because we still need them for standby
if there's no wind. True, however, the flaw. We will be replacing CO2
producing plants with other forms of renewable energy over the coming years,
and these will not produce CO2 (unless they are nuclear of course). So, yes,
when wind turbines don't turn we will need other sources of power, but they
could be green as well. Just a few examples may be hydro, tidal, solar, wave
or biomass schemes. However, I expect you'll object to all of these as well,
as they will all have an impact on the environment, tourism, wildlife or
something else.
I have to raise another point. You may be
aware that Skye has an existing set of high voltage pylons crossing its
idyllic wilderness. And before you ask, yes you can see them from quote
"the Cullins, Mcleods Tables, and Trotternish" and just about
every other hill on Skye. These pylons are a simple fact of life, they allow
us to have a modern standard of living. Should they be removed in order to
protect peoples views? This existing infrastructure is another basic
reason for the proposal being here on Skye; simply the grid connection already
exists.
Finally, cost. Maybe you should consider revising
your web site. Just last week Mr Blair set us on a nuclear course for
generating our "sustainable" power. Forgive me but in
light of this policy change I feel common sense alone highlights just how
fatally flawed your economic statement now is. There is simply no comparison
between build and maintenance costs of wind against nuclear. You do not need a
degree in economics to see which is going to be the biggest money pit. As
for ongoing running costs, the wind is free and the complexity of a wind
turbine is nothing compared to the complexity of a gas power station or
heaven forbid nuclear. As for grants for locals and the council, well
what's new? Every company from a wind farm company to a factory offer
incentives to the local community. This is not something new.
I hope this adds a different perspective on your
piece. Obviously you are against the scheme, which is your choice. Skye is
indeed an idyllic location and it's environment should be protected. But Skye
is also a dynamic environment, always changing. The wind farm is just another
change which will offer new opportunities to the communities that live hear
all year round. If we fail to tackle the reality of climate change, and
instead leave it all to somebody else while we stand around bickering
then we will all have failed, and this environment that we love will be
destroyed forever. That is not an option. The people of Edinbane have made
their choice, and that choice was in favour of this renewable scheme. It is
time to respect their wishes and start getting behind an energy revolution.
That revolution will benefit Skye, Scotland and the rest of the UK, and
it will allow generations to enjoy this environment for years to come.
Yours faithfully, Martyn
Bradshaw, Bridge Cottage, 24 Kilmuir Road,
Dunvegan, Isle of Skye. IV55 8GT
iGreen commentOne nuclear power station, Sizewell B, has 1188 MW of power capacity. In 2005 Sizewell B supplied 9.12 TWh (Terra Watt hours) of electricity. That is 3% of the UK total electricity consumption - supplied whether the wind was blowing or not. In contrast all 130 wind farms in the UK (including four offshore) (1672 turbines) have 1932 MW capacity. However, because the wind didn't blow or turbines were broken, they generated only 4.2 TWh of electricity in 2005. The choice is not one nuclear power station versus a couple of wind farms, but one nuclear power station versus two to three hundred wind farms, and perhaps 3 or 4,000 turbines.
|
|
You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us.
Send mail to enquiries@igreens.org.uk
with
questions or comments about this web site.
|