EVERYONE loves a windmill. Everyone loves viable green energy. But will everyone love windfarms when they dominate a landscape? There are currently a number of planning applications in the pipeline which, if they go forward, will dramatically change the eastern Ochils landscape.
Wind power is now being harnessed as never before by means of turbines which rise to over 100 metres - higher than a 22-storey building. But wind is an unpredictable resource and that is why, in the past, it was primarily used for pumping water and grinding corn. Turbines operate between wind speeds of 10mph and 55mph, which means they are effective between 17% and 30% of the time - less than one third of the year. The coldest weather we have, when domestic and other heating demands are at their peak, is in the middle of a winter high-pressure zone - when there is no wind.
As electricity cannot be stored in significant amounts, this means that the generating capacity to meet our demands must be available, and in a form that can be readily switched on at the required level and also switched off. With wind power, there is always the overhead of investment needed for full backup capacity and the operational costs to have it on standby and to be able to run it when needed. The fluctuating nature of wind power becomes more difficult to manage as it becomes a higher percentage of total generated power. If too much is produced, then that also presents problems for the national grid.
The Westminster government has set a target of 10% of electricity to be generated from renewables by the year 2010. The Scottish target is for renewable power to be increased from the current 12% (all hydro) to 20% by 2010 and 40% by 2020. On the surface, this seems a laudable objective, but at what cost? To achieve the Scottish target would need 8000-12000 2.5MW wind turbines (minus whatever is generated by increased hydro), which means that a lot of people will see turbines a lot of the time when travelling through the country.
The visual impact of windfarms is inescapable - they have to be in exposed, windy positions which by their very nature are visible for miles around. Anyone who has driven along the A68 over Soutra or the M6 near the Howgills will have seen the turbines at close quarters - although these turbines are about half of the size of the ones now proposed.
A few turbines in a relatively unprepossessing landscape is one thing, but hundreds clustered in scenically beautiful locations is a very different matter - especially as Scotland's greatest asset (apart from its people) is arguably its scenery. Is it justifiable to degrade this?
What is clear is that the bulk of the benefit, financial or otherwise, appears to be going outside Scotland, whereas Scotland will bear all the long-term environmental cost. It is astonishing that Perth and Kinross Council does not have a policy document on windfarms, yet with proposals near Dunkeld and the Sma' Glen, as well as in the Ochils, there will be a big impact on the area's precious scenery.
It would make sense to have the sources of power close to the consumer, but are there windfarms on the Downs or in the Cotswolds? Scotland is at present a net exporter of electricity, producing up to 30% more than it needs. Norway, after looking at windfarms in Denmark, has decided against offering any subsidies or favoured treatment. Denmark, with its high level of wind-generated power, has the highest electricity costs in Europe.
To what extent should Scotland's scenery be compromised, and who will benefit from it? Through no effort on their part, landowners will have their wealth boosted massively, receiving £5000-£15000 per 2.5MW or 3MW turbine per year. But other local residents will see a diminution in the value of their properties. As an incentive, wind power companies are putting money into communities - an indicative figure is £1100 per megawatt generated per annum. Is this the right way round - shouldn't the community be the main benefactor? And are the amounts reasonable when power companies stand to make big profits? Highland councillors are arguing that £5000-£10000 per megawatt per annum should go to the community.
Consumers will pay higher electricity costs: wind power costs four times the cost of conventional generation. And those who enjoy the current relatively unspoilt environment (including many who benefit from tourism) will bear the immediate cost and will, in the main, get no benefit.
So, focusing on the Ochils, we should be clear what might happen and what the costs will be. These planning applications have been submitted:
Lochelbank: 20 turbines, 125m high, National Windpower
Knowehead: 29 turbines, 120m, British Energy
Snowgoat Glen: 12 turbines, 96m, National Windpower
Green Knowes: 46 turbines, 95m, ScottishPower
Glenfarg Reservoir: 1 turbine, 68m, ScottishPower
Balado: 3 turbines, 100m+, Glen Devon Development
There could also be applications for Upper Glen Devon, Rossie Ochil, Innerdouny Hill, Rushie Hill and Arndean. In total, all this could approach 200 turbines, mostly 90m+ in height. The impact of just the formally submitted applications would be a very intrusive presence in the eastern Ochils and visible from nearly all the high remote ground. In Scotland as a whole, there are 190 current or proposed sites including the biggest proposed site in Europe: 1000 turbines in Ardnamurchan.
There is a tendency to overlook both the short-term impact (which could extend for a number of years) and the impact on the surrounding land. A 100m turbine is three times the height of a typical power pylon. The housing on top of the mast is almost the size of a double-decker bus, the blades are 45 metres long and the concrete foundation for each turbine measures 15m x 15m x 3m deep.
All of this would need a major construction effort. Existing roads might need to be improved. Access roads capable of carrying very heavy vehicles would need to be constructed. The blades come as a unit - how are they to be transported in? The aggregate for the foundations would be quarried locally, and access roads would be a permanent feature, with maintenance needed. The power would have to be taken to the national grid, so pylons would be required. At the optimum windspeed of 29mph, the ends of the blades rotate at 120mph and birds would be killed. Migrating geese would be a particular concern in the Ochils. Local communities may have cause to ponder whether the donation to their community really is a net benefit.
So turbines will destroy a local environment. (How far you extend "local" depends on your point of view.) But will they save the wider environment? Will they help combat the greenhouse effect? They will make a contribution. They will save on use of the standby power generation facility, but saving another renewable resource (eg hydro) would only apply if it enabled more potential energy to be saved. Overall, 10000 big turbines would reduce UK emissions by only 0.05%, whereas the EU calculates potential savings of up to 18% through more efficient use of existing energy.
Rightly or wrongly, windfarms are going to be built as a result of government subsidies and incentives. So there must be clear acceptability criteria. The Ochils are not designated as national park, forest park or area of outstanding natural beauty, and this is one of the key problems - their beauty is not adequately recognised. The Pentland and Lomond hills and even Lochore Meadows come under these categories, along with such areas as the South Downs, none of which compare scenically. Were the Ochils located down south, windfarms on the scale proposed would not be allowed.
Perhaps the guidelines for a windfarm should be that it isn't constructed:
and that it is constructed:
and if constructed close by residential property, communities should be compensated
To define objective measures is not easy. But surely the first requirement is to avoid an unplanned rush by developers keen to boost profits by buying off landowners and communities.
Is there too big a price to be paid for locating windfarms in the Ochils? If any are to be located in the area, then where? FotO believes a well-thought-out Scottish strategy should be in place before any permissions are granted. Hopefully political thinking will be reviewed as the very tangible cost to the environment is realised.