WALKERBURN ACTION GROUP

MINCH MOOR WINDFARM

GENERAL INFORMATION AS AT 31 MARCH 2003

BACKGROUND

The Walkerburn area is eligible as a regeneration area for European assistance under the South of Scotland Objective 2 Programme and is also within a zone eligible for National Regional Assistance. 

Over the last year, local residents have started a major regeneration programme covering everything from tourist development to the further development of the village-owned Public Hall.  Bed and breakfast businesses have been booming, the local hotel has re-opened and a footpath by the River Tweed is planned.  In partnership with the neighbouring town of Innerleithen, the village has been granted £180,000 from European and regional funds to help with regeneration projects.  Innerleithen is developing rapidly as a centre for walking and mountain biking, including downhill racing, and both communities are set to benefit from a rise in eco tourism centred around the Tweed Valley Forest Park which opened in 2002.

The UK government has set a goal of cutting fossil fuel emissions by 60% by 2050.[1]  It has an ambition to double the amount of energy produced by renewable sources by 2020 (note that there is no firm target).  We may need 20,000 wind generators to realise this ambition.  Take out the areas of UK which are not suitable/available and imagine the impact!  The government admits that energy efficiency is the best and cheapest way ahead but there will be about £1 billion spent on support to renewables such as wind generation in the next 7 years.  (Official sources show that coal or gas generated power costs £16 per MW hour, nuclear power £19 per MW hour and wind power £28.50 per MW hour[2]).  Household electricity bills will rise by 5 – 15% by 2005.  .

Ross Finnie, Scottish Executive Minister for Environment and Rural Development, has set a target for Scotland to generate 40% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.[3]  In Programme for Gorvernment 2, the Executive set a target of 18% of electricity from renewables by 2010.   However, the Executive has also recognised the need for energy efficiency and current action includes a commitment to a study into energy supply and use in Scotland to inform the development of an integrated strategy for demandside management and renewable generation.

MINCH MOOR WINDFARM

In December 2002, residents became aware that a subsidiary of AMEC plc, an international construction and engineering company, called AMEC Borderwind was planning to build a windfarm on the Minch Moor to the south.  The planning application in 2001 for wind monitoring on the Minch Moor sneeked through without residents becoming aware.  AMEC consulted with the planners and other interested organisations, no doubt emphasising the support for ‘green energy’ and the strong government support for renewables, but there was no consultation with local residents or groups although AMEC repeatedly claim that they have ‘consulted’.  We understand that AMEC has built 6 operational windfarms in UK and has 12 in development.

In October 2002 Walkerburn Community Council was promised a full briefing for the village by AMEC.  This duly took place on 17 January 2003.  The event was well attended but it took the form of a few photographs, a strong visual sales pitch about AMEC and wind power and the opportunity to talk to some AMEC representatives.  It was effectively an AMEC propaganda exercise.  There was no opportunity for group discussion.  (AMEC claim on their website that this very low key presentation was part of their public ‘consultation’).  The plan presented was for approximately fourteen 100 metre high turbines many of which would be directly within sight of most of the village and there was a rough plot.  AMEC officials told us that they intended seeking planning permission in the first quarter of 2003 and planned to start work in January 2004.  Everything was presented as having been already agreed – it was an information day not a consultation day - and we received no assurance that the windfarm would not expand further in future.  AMEC leaflets were circulated – one resident even took a pile to the local Post Office so that more residents could see them and arranged for a report in the village newsletter. 

The tone of the presentation worried many people especially since the windfarm site shown on the AMEC maps included high ground with access tracks on which no turbines were shown.  AMEC has since sent, on request, photographs showing the visual effect on particular groups of houses.  The photographs appear to make much use of wide-angle lenses (thus diminishing the apparent size of objects in mid-frame), white sky and grey or white turbines but the impact is still clear.  AMEC has also produced ‘visualisations:  one householder wrote in February and was assured that no turbines were visible from their house but a March letter from AMEC showed 12 turbines visible from the same house, although only 3 showed more than rotor blades.  AMEC also state that turbine sites have been constantly changed to take effect of local feelings and that the Minch Moor is relatively low in timber value and wildlife richness.[4]  An AMEC official has also said that “the steep inclines in the Border Hills necessitate putting them (turbines) on the topes of hills”[5] in spite of the fact that there is another windfarm close to Walkerburn which is not on the tops of hills.  (The same officer said “we get very little energy from wind” and “I’m not here to put up a windfarm if the people of Walkerburn don’t want it!)

The AMEC leaflet[6] issued at their presentation states that their Minch Moor development will have:

·        Potential to supply more than 14,000 homes – nil in Scotland or anywhere else at present! 

·        Important employment potential – a handful of maintenance jobs after construction? A German company has set up an office in Peebles to service Bow Beat and the potential string of windfarms on the Minch Moor.

·        Benefit for restructuring and improving forest and moorland habitats – for ground nesting birds but for humans?

AMEC asked residents to send in a survey form attached to their leaflet indicating their support for the project.  Most of those who replied accepted AMEC’s word at the presentation that the turbines would not impact on the village or the Southern Upland Way and happily filled in the survey indicating support.  AMEC’s own figures show that they received 76 responses from the 3 communities they visited in January – the town of Innerleithen, the village of Walkerburn and the village of Yarrow.  Of these, 83% were in favour or tended to be in favour of the proposed windfarm but at a time when little information was available and everyone thought the turbines would be out of sight of the village and away from the Southern Upland Way.  Some villagers decided to carry out their own survey: there were 264 respondents of whom 29 supported the AMEC proposal and 235 were against it.

On 24 March 2003 AMEC returned to the village at the request of the Community Council to answer questions about their proposal.[7]  Unfortunately this meeting was called at very short notice (9 days) and in spite of the Community Council attempting to let everyone know, very few people heard about it and only 52 villagers attended.  However, after a lively meeting a vote was taken: 3 villagers abstained, one voted for AMEC and 48 voted against.  AMEC had already written back to the Action Group in answer to a request for information with very little information given – not even the grid references of the turbine sites – and very careful non-answers!  Their answers at the 24 March meeting were similarly non committal.

We understand that the route into the site has been agreed by Scottish Borders Council (SBC) planners as the A72 to Innerleithen, across the River Tweed and along the ‘back road’ to Glenbenna, opposite the main part of Walkerburn, through the houses then up the forest track beside Glenmead Burn and up to Minch Moor.  AMEC figures show very heavy daily HGV traffic for at least 2 months and thereafter, regular heavy site traffic for between 8 and 12 months during construction.  At the 24 March meeting, AMEC officials spoke about using 3 access/exit routes but said that they would seek traffic calming measures for one route which passes the village school at a very tight bend.  This caused some wry amusement because the village has been trying to get traffic calming measures for many years. 

The following is of interest:

a.                  A string of windfarms either have been built or seem to be planned along the major long distance walking route, The Southern Upland Way.  We have heard of 2 more companies planning to use the Minch Moor and have had sight of one planned map area which takes a windfarm to the west of the AMEC site towards Innerleithen, again impacting upon the Way and on mountain bike routes.  We are told that this will not affect tourism.  We do not believe this: there is a cumulative detrimental effect.  Other EU countries believe that windfarms are better sited away from rural tourist areas.  We note also the Visit Scotland Windfarm Report conclusion that the visual impact of windfarms was sufficiently negative to suggest that they should be placed away from areas popular with tourists.  It is very hard to see how the landscape impact of windfarms can be mitigated on such a clear ridge line above the Tweed Valley Forest Park. 

b.                  In other European countries turbines typically must not be sited less than their total length from any public access, and there are strict safety guidelines.  In the Netherlands, sites must be twice the rotor diameter from the boundary of roads, canals or walkways for safety reasons and the German instruction is 5 times the rotor diameter.  (AMEC plan to use a German company to build and maintain the Minch Moor Farm).  Windfarm sites in Europe are often fenced off for safety.  An AMEC representative has said that there are no plans to fence off their site.[8]   There are very real health and safety issues.  There are examples of breakages, fires etc on turbines.[9]  AMEC tells us that “To our knowledge there are no instances of any windfarm related injuries in UK.  In our experience any turbine blade failures have followed the pattern of the failure of the blade at Blyth offshore where the blade broke, yet stayed intact.”[10]   But European visitors may be less than impressed given their own countries’ approach to windfarm sites! The Health and Safety Executive in Edinburgh confirms that there are no guidelines or safety instructions on windfarm siting but there are guidelines on the use of a 10 ft ladder.

c.                  The Minch Moor dominates Walkerburn to the south.  Walkerburn is a 19^th century planned mill village with the houses built on a south facing slope allowing maximum southern exposure to living areas.  The prevailing wind is from the South West, ie from the proposed windfarm site directly towards the village, and it swirls around in a square box shaped valley which magnifies sound from the south.  It is not possible that turbines can be hidden from the village as many are to be sited either on the ridgeline itself or on the forward slope facing Walkerburn, nor is it credible that they will not be heard or that there will be no shadow flicker directly into people’s homes.  We hear forest vehicles and machinery on the Minch Moor. (An AMEC spokesman said that the Minch Moor windfarm would be no noisier in the village than a burn from about 100 metres, but a burn makes a constant sound while windfarm noise varies.  A burn makes a natural sound while a windfarm makes an unnatural and mechanical sound.)  We note that in the USA windfarms are to be sited in areas with little human visitation.  We also note that people living close to existing windfarms in UK insist that they are noisy.[11]  (The noise heard standing underneath turbines is irrelevant – it is the downwind noise which will affect us.)

d.                  The Minch Moor is a ‘shallow’ peat moor and although Scottish Natural Heritage recommend that there should be no development on peat moors they consider that the loss of tree planting on the Minch Moor, which will encourage the black grouse, will more than compensate for the turbines- none of the officers would appear to live in Walkerburn!  Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark are amongst those countries which would not permit such development.  Even in Denmark, possibly the most advanced country in the world for wind energy, the guidance is that since wind turbines are highly visible the effect should be minimised by integrating them into existing industrial landscapes and ensuring that they conform to the local architectural traditions.

e.                  Since the Moor is owned by Forest Enterprise, it has been an easy site to progress from the points of view of both the developer and the Council.  It appears that willing landlords matter more in the Borders than its people or environmental and social argument.

f.                    There is an excellent network of Forestry tracks to the Moor and around the area which are capable, with some upgrading, of taking heavy construction traffic. It is therefore a cheap option for the developer, again regardless of environmental concerns.

g.                  We can find no reason why the hills to the north of Walkerburn have not been selected other than expense, eg a more difficult link to the national grid and the availability of cheap forestry land south of the Tweed.

h.                  We have no clear statement from AMEC on how or where the power lines will run from the windfarm site to the Yair electricity sub station.  AMEC say that the cables from the turbines to the site connection building will be underground but what about from the site connection building to the Yair?  A line of poles seems likely since the route to the sub station is long and rough.  At the very least, we hope that planners will insist on underground cables along the whole route, but we understand that this is unlikely.  Again, Scotland seems set to be willing to accept a higher level of visual pollution than our neighbours.  Note that the planning application for the connecting line is separate from that for the turbines[12], and according to AMEC, will be submitted later – and AMEC will not say whether or not the link will be overground.  (It is strange that our planning system allows a windfarm application to be passed before the necessary links – surely the two planning applications should be connected?)

i.                    A recent Danish study suggests that the impact of overhead power cables leading from windfarms has a great impact on bird mortality though the turbines themselves apparently do not have a great effect.  However, the EU appears to believe that the turbines themselves affect birds and is set to cooperate with the Irish Government to exclude 14% of Ireland’s total land area including many of the best sites for windfarms.  Apparently, ground nesting birds such as hen harriers, like to nest under turbines where they are safe from predators.

j.                     Enormous craters dug into the hillside and filled with concrete are necessary to stabilize wind turbines, which is likely to affect the water table, erosion, and water run-off.  At the 24 March 2003 meeting AMEC officials stated that they would remove the bases and all debris at the end of the windfarm’s life.  We are still suspicious – 25 years is a long way away!

k.                  Nordex AG, a German company, has set up an office in Peebles and a storage facility in the Scottish Enterprise Borders units in Walkerburn,  presumably in anticipation of the massive developments planned in the Borders.  They already maintain Bow Beat and expect to get orders for a number of other windfarms in the area, including on the Minch Moor.  Nordex is expanding into countries such as Scotland and Portugal as growth slows in Germany and Denmark (closure of Danish production site announced on 25 Feb 03).

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

Scottish Borders Council identified the Minch Moor as a Preferred Area of Search for windfarm sites in the  December 1995 ‘Planning Framework for Wind Energy Developments’.  The Detailed Policy Guidance in that document remains a material planning consideration.  It has proven difficult to find out exactly how the preferred areas were identified and the extent to which elected members and/or officers were involved.  One local councillor told us that such designation did not mean there would be a successful planning application but was silent on the subject of why the Southern Upland Way, for example, was ever designated as a ‘preferred’ area for development.  AMEC are clear that they chose the Minch Moor because it is a cheap site to develop and a preferred site.[13]  However, that is past history and the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 - 2011 (approved by the Scottish Executive 12 Sep 02) gives an effective ‘blank cheque’ to developers in the Borders with the greater part of the Borders designated ‘preferred’.  Policy I20 sets out the following for the assessment of wind energy developments:

• The landscape character of the area, as guided by the Landscape Character Assessment,
• The Structure Plan’s environmental policies,
• The impact of noise on residential developments,
• Interference with aircraft activity (don’t try telling Walkerburn residents that military flying never goes near the Minch Moor!)
• A significant risk of ‘shadow flicker’ or ‘driver distraction’,
• Any unacceptable cumulative impacts.
  
  

We note that the principal aim of the current Structure Plan is to encourage growth which supports the development of a sustainable Scottish Borders community and within it the development of individual sustainable communities which:

• Have access to a range of services.
• Benefit from:

-         enjoyment of the Borders’ countryside, rivers, woodlands and coast

-         a high quality level of natural heritage and biodiversity

-         new development which makes best use of resources, is well integrated with its surroundings, and is of a high quality, environmentally sensitive design

-         a high quality, safe and healthy environment, and

-         participate in decisions which affect them

We are concerned that Scottish Borders Council elected members have lost track of the number of existing and planned developments and have failed to make a cost / gains analysis for the Scottish Borders.  We are concerned that a ‘green’ lobby has failed to take into account the facts about wind generation.  The Structure Plan states that the two windfarms at Dun Law and Bowbeat will provide domestic electricity to over 70% of households in the Borders – the Council should check its facts since this is a misleading statement.  Wind power is intermittent and in the foreseeable future will not provide power constantly to one household.  It goes on to state that the Borders will be a net exporter of renewable energy, which is true since Scotland has an existing over-capacity, but again the statement could be misleading especially as it is likely that in the near future that the UK will become a net importer.  The Structure Plan also states that cumulative impact has to be considered on a site by site basis.  Surely the cumulative effect across the Borders ought to be taken into account especially as so much of the Borders economy depends on tourism, and in the north use as part of the central belt dormitory?

Our European neighbours have lived with and developed wind power for longer and to a greater extent than Scotland is planning but little attention seems to be paid either to the lessons learnt or to the rationale behind their current policies – we can find no similar situation in which the Minch Moor type of development would be permitted.  The idea that the Borders should be the renewable energy capital of Britain may appeal to SBC councillors but probably not to their electorate.  And it is difficult to see how the current plans fit in to the aim of the Structure Plan, Policy I20 or to the Policy I19 on Renewable Energy which states that the Council supports the development of renewable energy sources that can be developed in an environmentally acceptable manner.

The problem for the residents of Walkerburn is that councillors and AMEC seem to feel that the Minch Moor site has been agreed … and at least one of the other 2 companies we know about also seems to feel that everything is ‘full steam ahead’.

An AMEC official suggested that the Council had stated that turbines must not be visible from Traquair House, and from some other major ‘landmarks’.  We asked the Council to confirm what had been said and in his reply the Assistant Head of Development Control wrote,  “At preliminary meetings (with AMEC) attended by representatives from this department, the Council’s landscape architect and a representative from Scottish Natural Heritage, discussion on visibility and visual impact did take place and suggestions were put to AMEC.  These suggestions were based on the possible visual impact of the proposal from a wide range of viewpoints and not merely from Traquair House.”[14]  We have been unable to ascertain what the “wide range” was but apparently 700 people living in Walkerburn did not count, in spite of the 1995 policy guidance which suggests that development should be avoided when there would be an adverse effect on ‘the setting of, and prospects from, settlements’ or ‘any listed building’.

We understand that North Devon Council and Torridge District Council have commissioned the Energy for Sustainable Development to get into communities and advise them on all alternatives and find out what they want. Alternatives that suit the area, do not impose and bring revenue and jobs into the community.

Mark Townsend in the Observer of 2 June 2002 reported that the British Wind Energy Association had admitted that it was targeting Scotland because political support can get applications pushed through the planning process.  Alison Hill, the spokeswomen, apparently said, “We will go where we are welcome.  At the moment Scotland is very welcoming.”  Why?  Because in Wales and England the cumulative effect of more than one windfarm in an area is leading to applications being rejected.  In the period June 1999 to May 2000 over 26% of applications in England and Wales were rejected as opposed to just 2% rejections in Scotland.

ACCESS TO THE SITE ON MINCH MOOR

Walkerburn residents accept that there will be major traffic disruption only during the year taken to build the site (loads of equipment and materials can be 5.5 m/18 feet wide or more) but there are a number of outstanding questions

a.            We understand that AMEC will pay to replace the car/bike park at Innerleithen bridge part of which we are told will have to be demolished to make the turn onto the back road possible for the heavy vehicles.  Mountain biking for fun and competition is a rapidly growing tourist sport and the current park at Innerleithen is well used.  There appears to be no discussion on compensation for the loss to local businesses in the Innerleithen/Traquair/ Walkerburn area during the year of the build.

b.            We understand that AMEC will upgrade the access road from the A72 in Innerleithen to the site, but have yet to have this confirmed.  The public road between Innerleithen and Glenbenna, where the forest track begins, is not suitable at present for HGV and is generally used by residents and tourists alike for walks and cycling. Who will pay to restore this road after use by HGV? 

c.            The access through the houses at Glenbenna is narrow.  There are young families and elderly people in these houses whose quality of life is going to be destroyed for the period of build.  Is the outcome truly worth this?

d.            At present, there is a network of walking, riding and cycling trails in the forest to the south of Walkerburn.  The use of these trails will be heavily disrupted, if not suspended, during the construction phase and many will be damaged by HGV.   Who will compensate local tourist businesses?  Rebuild the tracks?  And what happens to the riding trails once the turbines are in place – horses don’t like turbines.[15]

e.            At the meeting with between AMEC and villagers on 24 March, the AMEC officials suggested that the road through Walkerburn, past our school, would be used as an ‘exit’ from the site.  The officials seemed surprised that we might object to heavy traffic on a very narrow road around two very sharp bends past a school.          
 

VISUAL IMPACT

Some people find the turbines attractive but will we when they dominate the southern view from everywhere in the village, or when a string is visible on the Southern Upland Way?  This is a rural landscape that sells itself to tourists on the basis of its ‘natural’ and ‘unspoilt’ beauty.  There would not be the same impact if the windfarm development were on the high ground to the north since this is less visible from most general tourist bike and walking routes.  Equally, since tourist traffic by road tends to follow the Tweed, Yarrow and Ettrick valleys, they would be less obtrusive north of the Tweed valley 

The industry tell us that wind turbines have been a feature of the cultural landscape of Europe for more that 800 years.  Where?  Not in Scotland!

The turbines proposed are 100 metres tall unlike the 60 metre tall masts at Dun Law or the 75 metre masts at Bowbeat, for example, neither of which sites is close to a village.  Ours will be BIG and very close to the village – the nearest will be less than  2 miles from the centre of the village.  We note that in other parts of Scotland there are guidelines that windfarms should be 10 miles away from villages and towns.

EFFECT ON TOURISM

£1.7m of public money will be spent this year promoting tourism in the Scottish Borders.  The annual income from tourism is about £152m and 6% of the working population of the Borders is employed in tourism.[16]

As far as we can ascertain no one has researched the cumulative effect of a string of highly visible turbines in an area of unspoilt upland scenery which attracts tourists precisely because it is “untouched by man”.   Hence the Continental view that wind farms should be built near centres of other industrial development, on land already contaminated by industry, or where there are large man-made structures which already dominate the landscape.

The general feeling amongst those locally who are engaged in providing tourism services is that the effect can only be adverse.  The July 2002 study carried out by VisitScotland in which 26% of visitors claimed that they would be less likely to visit an area with a windfarm, 38% felt they spoil the scenery and there was a general consensus that they should not be sited in tourist areas.  74% felt that windfarms were not an added attraction.  Most tourists would prefer not to see a windfarm during their visit.[17]

Policy E22 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan  states that development proposals which are considered likely to have a significant and sustained adverse impact on tourism will not be permitted.

The Tweed Valley Forest Park, stretching from Peebles to Selkirk along the line roughly of the A72 and the Minch Moor, has just scooped a high commendation in the Dynamic Place awards which recognise excellence in the development of rural environments.  The Park has been in operation for less than a year and is already playing an important part in attracting tourists.  Scottish Borders Forest District Manager told the Peeblesshire News that “…the area is getting a huge reputation for its mountain biking, and the new walking trails are pulling in visitors from all over…The development of the Tweed Valley Forest Park is still in its early stages, but already it is contributing directly in terms of employment through small local businesses and the tourism revenue obviously has spin-offs for the local economy.  The Forestry Commission aims to build on this and make the most of this fantastic area of the Borders.”[18]  All our findings suggests that Mr Simpson is correct in his assessment of the Park’s value as a tourist attractor.  Innerleithen, in particular, is set to benefit as a pleasant shopping town in the heart of the Park and close to excellent mountain biking trails including a world standard downhill race area.  The aims of Forest Enterprise sit uneasily however with their support for the AMEC, and presumably the other, developments along the Southern Upland Way.  Quite apart from the impact once turbines dot the skyline of the Forest Park, the period during which the roads around the site and the construction area are out-of-bounds to bikers and walkers for safety reasons will impact upon the current drive to attract tourists.

SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE

Scottish Natural Heritage is a government body that works with Scotland’s people to care for our natural heritage.

We understand that Scottish Natural Heritage in Feb 02[19] suggested the following principles on the location of renewable developments such as windfarms:

• Development should be guided to landscapes which are already developed or visually man-modified and relatively close to centres of population.  (The latter point hardly applies to the Minch Moor though it can be argued that Forestry over the past 30 years has ‘visually modified’ the landscape, but we now have a more enlightened approach to forestry.  That last great impact on our environment happened without sufficient debate, and we got it wrong.  It will be sad if an unenlightened approach to windfarm location repeats the mistakes for the next 25 years.)
• SNH should support development where it can be accommodated without significant adverse impact on the landscape character.  (A series of windfarms down the Southern Upland Way will affect the landscape character – and in our view adversely.)
• The potential for a few very large windfarms within or relatively close to the Central Belt or major population centres should be explored. 

ECONOMICS

There seems to be general acceptance of the fact that wind generation is not yet economically effective.[20]  But we all accept that there is a need to cut dirty power generation.  (We could save by being more energy efficient more power than we can generate from the wind.)   Denmark, which produces 13% of electricity from wind power, has halted its programme of subsidy for wind farms on the basis that their wind farms are “the greatest economic and environmental disaster for [their] country” [Professor Bjorn Lomborg, Environmental Minister, Denmark].  Denmark has the highest unit cost electricity in the EEC.  Indeed, Denmark’s current wind power projects are offshore, as are the next generation wind power projects in the UK .  Wind power will become more efficient, especially off shore, and other green technologies such as wave power may prove economic in the long run.  We are worried that, in the rush to appear ‘green’, our politicians will leave us with an environmental disaster and cost the taxpayer a fortune in subsidies to companies which bring little to the local economy except during the construction phase.

According to the industry’s own publicity the wind turbine industry is now a 6 billion USD business employing approximately 50,000 people worldwide[21].  The goal is to increase wind energy’s share of total power consumption from 0.3% today to 12% by 2020 according to the European Wind Energy Association requiring a USD 630 billion investment.[22]

In March 2003, Powergen announced that it is investing £120 m in renewable energy sources, including wind turbines, in a bid to become the UK’s leading green electricity generator because they know that this will increase their profits.[23]

Germany’s E.ON-Energie AG estimates that wind energy drives up the cost of power produced in its conventional plants by about 1.5 cents a kilowatt hour.  They project that the additional cost of using wind energy by 2011 will be between Euros 23 billion and Euros 51 billion.

Shares in wind energy companies such as Vestas A/S, NEG Micon A/S, and Nordex AG have declined as orders from those countries which lead in wind energy development have dried up.  “This industry is in trouble” according to some fund managers.  Why should this be in spite of US tax credits and subsidy regimes in most countries?  Because the systems currently being put in place do not make economic sense and increasingly countries such as Germany and Denmark are aware of the environmental impact.  So, are the companies now targeting more compliant governments, like Scotland?

Ofgem has apparently suggested to Ministers that power stations furthest from their customers should pay more to have their energy transmitted.  Good economic sense since 10% of electricity is lost in transmission.  But surely this will make it even less economic to site windfarms in Scotland for customers in SE England?  Ofgem also suggest that if the UK’s targets to exoand renewables are met, and all existing power plants run to the end of their projected lives, then the surplus capacity in electricity generation will grow from the current 25% over peak demand to about 60% in 2010.[24]

The estimated cost of the link from the Isle of Lewis windfarm to Liverpool is apparently more than £450 million.  Who pays?  At present the taxpayer.

The national network will have to be rebuilt and reinforced in order to cope with intermittent power from windfarms.  The cost of this?  That seems to be unknown by everyone.

Renewables can make a significant contribution to electrical energy supply but the intermittent nature of wind power means that windfarms cannot provide a reliable source of power.  The Royal Academy of Engineering estimates that for every 22 GW of windpower installed, 16 to 19 GW of conventional plant capacity would have to be available to provide back-up at a cost possibly in the area of £1billion.[25]

The intermittent nature of wind power also creates technical problems for the grid connection to the extent that many experts believe that the costs of upgrading and stabilising the grid mean that greater emphasis should be given to developing and deploying energy storage technologies.[26]

An HSBC report on extracting value from renewables in the UK, published in early 2003, demonstrates why companies are interested in investing in windfarms but also suggests that for the tax payer and the consumer the economics are less rosy.  Electricity suppliers are required to supply a percentage of their total sales from electricity generated from renewable sources.  In 2002-03 the requirement is 3%, rising to 10.4% by 2010-11.  To meet this supply obligation renewable technologies would have to achieve about 13 GW of installed capacity by 2010.  Current renewable production can not even meet the 3% target so anyone who can provide another source of renewable energy has a very ready market.  

COMMUNITY COUNCILS

The 3 local Community Councils (Walkerburn,  Innerleithen and Traquair, Yarrow and Ettrick) are set to produce a fact sheet setting out the pros and cons so that local residents can write with knowledge to the Council should they so desire.[27]

NOISE

There are 2 potential sources of noise from a wind turbine: mechanical noise from the gearbox or generator, and aerodynamic noise from the rotor blades.  We are told by the industry that mechanical noise has virtually disappeared due to better engineering.  Manufacturers try to ensure a smooth surface on rotor blades and care is taken not to damage blades during installation in an attempt to cut down aerodynamic noise. 

Wind power companies suggest that the turbines ‘whisper’, in the decibel range of about 35 db each when the wind is at lower speeds, louder under other circumstances and dependent upon the gear and its mechanisms.  However, factors other than decibels must be considered when measuring the impact of noise from turbines:

¨         The larger the turbine the higher the noise levels, and these turbines are among the tallest, the blades alone measure 66 metres in diameter.[28]

¨            Placement of the turbines also affects how sound travels, and placement on a high ridge is ideal for ‘broadcasting’ the noise over a wider area. 

¨         In areas where there is constant background noise, the sound of turbines is not as intrusive.  Happily, this is a tranquil, very quiet area, with little background noise, which makes noise easily discernible.

¨         The sound produced by a wind turbine is not constant; it is rhythmic, with a ‘thwump’ as the blades rotate.  This also adds to its intrusiveness.

¨            People living as far as 2 km and perhaps further will hear the turbines, and those living closer (Glenbenna and the back road) will live with the noise of what has been described as an old boot tumbling inside a dryer – 24 hours a day, every day.

¨            According to research on low-frequency noise, which is the type of noise generated by wind turbines, ‘the effects of low-frequency noise are of particular concern because of its pervasiveness … and reduced efficacy of many structures (dwellings, walls, and hearing protection) in attenuating low-frequency noise compared with other noise … Loudness judgments and annoyance reactions are sometimes reported to be greater for low-frequency noise than other noises for equal sound-pressure level’ [Berglund B, Hassmen P, Job RF. Sources and effects of low-frequency noise.  Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1996 May; 99(5):2985-3002].  So, typically out of doors people can not detect low-frequency noise from a wind turbine but the natural resonance in houses means that the noise is amplified inside at a higher, audible frequency.  This is the ‘noise’ usually complained about by people who live near windfarms, but it is easy for the companies to dispute its existence! 

¨A whisper is rated at 30 decibels. 

We are told that noise levels from windfarms in Denmark have halved in the 3 years to 2001 but we are also assured by Danish groups living next to windfarms that this still means a lot of noise if you live downwind – the low thump-thump-thump is said by many people who live within 2 to 3 miles of windfarms to disrupt sleep and cause stress[29].  (Walkerburn is downwind of the Minch Moor site).  The answer from the wind industry suggests that noise toleration is subjective, eg people live beside busy roads. 

SIGNAL INTERFERENCE

We are told that wind turbines can interfere with television signals in buildings up to 10 km away.  Mobile phones, radios, and other electronic equipment are also subject to interference.  However the British Wind Energy Association says that it can be readily fixed.  In 1994 the BBC and ITC recommended that developers should pay the costs of such ‘fixing’. 

GREEN ENERGY

A huge amount of emphasis is placed by AMEC and others involved in wind farm development on their ‘green’ credentials but there are a number of important points which are seldom mentioned:

·        Fuel cell technology is expected to become more effective in the next two decades making hydrogen production, storage and delivery systems effective for electricity generation.  This will provide a constant source of power rather than the intermittent variety provided by the wind.[30]

• There is an argument that research and development into alternative power is reduced because suppliers can claim green credentials thus avoid pollution levies and gain credits whilst using an inefficient system such as windpower.

·        Electricity generation currently accounts for 28% of the country’s CO2 emissions.  There is an urgent need to consider policies which lead to cut backs across all CO2 emissions.  The Royal College of Engineering suggests that the actual amounts of carbon dioxide emitted should be the basis for any Climate Change Levy rather than the current system which is based on energy used and the origin of that energy thus encouraging inefficient use of windpower and rapid development of windfarms regardless of real green or economic effects.  We need to encourage energy efficiency and fuel switching to genuine low carbon alternatives.

·        The UK produces about 3% of reported global CO2 emissions.  There is an argument for helping developing countries clean up their act.  The Clean Development Mechanism within the Kyoto Protocol is specifically designed to encourage this type of investment.  And this is likely to have a far greater impact on world CO2 emissions than expensive windfarms in the Scottish Borders.

·        The manufacture of cement from chalk or limestone involves a chemical reaction in which carbon doxide is given off at a rate of 500 kg/tonne.  The cement industry is responsible for 8-10% of the global total of CO2 emissions.  And wind turbines require huge cement bases. 

Scotland has already met the government’s targets for green generation through the use of hydro-electricity.

There are conflicting reports on the impact of turbines on bird life.  A recent DTI report complains both of a lack of proper data and the poor quality of what we do have in UK.

TECHNICAL NOTES

No one in the Action Group is an expert but we have gleaned the following from open sources:

• The average turbine produces only 25% of its theoretical capacity. To guarantee continuous supply, 100% of its capacity has to be duplicated by more conventional forms of power generation.  Wind turbines usually start operating at wind speeds of about 4 to 5 metres per second, reach maximum power at about 15 metres per second and close down at 25 metres per second.  The blades are often kept rotating even when electricity is not being generated as a safety measure.  The Scottish Executive’s Energy Division characterises windpower as intermittent and states that there would be an increase in generation from other sources to compensate.  They also state that it is unlikely that renewables generated electricity will replace some conventionally generated electricity.  The supply companies buy the green electricity while maintaining generation from conventional power stations.  The statement often made by the industry that a 1,000 KW wind turbine will displace annually 2,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from other sources, eg coal fired power stations, is misleading since it will not displace any at present.  Nuclear power is, of course, as clean as wind power in terms of production and does displace other sources!
• The expected lifetime of the average wind turbine is 120,000 operating hours.
• Met Office wind data suggest that mainland UK is not ideal for wind generation.  A hypothetical wind power capacity of 7,300 MW installed throughout the country would give a likely output nationally of less than 200 MW.[31]
• Modern turbines only require a maintenance check every 6 months so they do not create jobs locally.
• Turbines generally have to be spaced between 3 and 9 rotor diameters apart in order not to shade one another too much.  This is why windfarms typically have to be strung out so widely and become so visually obtrusive unless great care is taken with siting.
• A single aluminium works uses 220 MW, more than is produced by every existing turbine in the UK.
• According to the Scottish Executive’s Energy Division (Jan 02) Scotland has a surplus of generating capacity and exports 25% to England and Wales.
• There is currently very limited potential for ‘electricity storage’.  Fuel cell or chemical storage will eventually become available, but at a cost.  This creates a problem now for wind generation because the excess available potentially when the wind is blowing can not be stored for use in peak times when it is most needed and the occasional over-capacity pumping into the grid can cause instability especially given the current infrastructure in Scotland. 

OTHER PROTESTS

Torridge District Council has stood firm against land wind turbines and has instead encouraged offshore wind power stations, solar energy, biogas (as in Holsworthy), and hydroelectric power.  Moreover, Torridge is extending and developing its kerbside recycling schemes, another positive programme to protect the environment.  These policies have worked for the people of Torridge and Devon because it encourages renewable energy enterprises yet protects the tranquil countryside for its communities, for agriculture, and for tourists. 

The Barningham High Moor Coalition has just managed to stop a windfarm being built in the North Pennines on a ridge which would have been highly visible, just like the Minch Moor.

This note will be updated on a monthly and as required basis.  If you want a personal copy, please contact Denise Hanks, Stoneyhill, Walkerburn EH43 6AA or Colin Kerr, 75 Tweedholm Avenue, Walkerburn EH43 6AP.  We regret that we have to ask for £1 per copy to cover our costs, plus any postage, but email copies are free!