Scrapping Lewis Wind Farm plan would save money
Unfortunately, the letter by Stephen Boyd et al (February 4) does not quantify the economic benefits which are claimed for the Lewis Wind Farm. The other side of the coin is the cost to the electricity consumer, which can be readily estimated.
The recent government consultation document on The Future of Nuclear Power gives a cost of onshore wind output of up to £62/MWh, although generators could actually be receiving in excess of £80/MWh.
However, the cost to consumers is greater than this because of the need for backup generation when the wind is light (or blows too strongly), and also because of the costs of extra transmission capacity to move the power south.
The capital and operational costs of this backup, required to maintain the normal standard of security of supply, could amount to some £20/MWh. The extra costs of transmission reinforcement from the north of Scotland would exceed £15/MWh before including the cost of the cable to the mainland. So the total cost to consumers for wind power could be in excess of £100/MWh compared with a mix of nuclear, coal, and gas power stations at £40/MWh (including carbon costs).
Thus, for a 400MW wind farm on Lewis the extra cost to electricity consumers would be more than £60m per annum, a figure which, I would suggest, is far in excess of any benefits to the island's population.
There are also less quantifiable costs to society in general for the loss of visual amenity and for the damage to the environment. Part of these costs will be reflected in a reduction in tourist activity.
Surely it would make more
economic sense to support direct investment in infrastructure, transport and industry to create permanent job prospects at a fraction of the cost, and at the same time preserve the landscape and tourist industry.
Sir Donald Miller,
Chairman SSEB/
ScottishPower 1982-1992;
Colin Gibson,
Power Network Director,
National Grid Group 1993-1997, Biggar.
I must thank Ian MacGillivary for his honesty in publishing the costs of the project to install a grid in the island of Eigg (Cost of eleiggtricity, Letters, February 6). As they say, however, the devil is in the detail: £20,000 to install 1Kw of photo voltaic cells? Can they ever produce enough electricity, at a cost comparable to mains electricity even to pay back the interest on the capital? I think not.
If this is an example of the real costs of "green" electricity let us stay brown, or nuclear. It will be infinitely cheaper. Photo voltaics are a waste of money.
Drew Duncan,
Paisley.
Environmental organisations are as keen as everyone else to support a sustainable economy for our remote islands. We are convinced that exports of renewable energy can form part of such an economy. However, this does not require damaging sensitive environments on Lewis, or, indeed, anywhere else. The open letter to the Energy Minister by the business and engineering community misses the point by insisting that large-scale development is the only solution for island communities.
We welcome the indication that the Scottish Government is clearing the backlog of large wind farm applications, and encourage it to approve all those which do not adversely impact on commercial, community or environmental interests. Research suggests that Scotland can meet its renewable electricity targets and support a strong renewables industry without intruding on areas designated for their national or international significance for wildlife or landscape.
Appropriate renewable generation projects coupled with energy efficiency measures are the best energy strategy for communities throughout Scotland. This is also a cost-effective way of contributing to government energy policy goals: reducing carbon emissions; ensuring security of supply; maintaining competitiveness and tackling fuel poverty.
There is a range of options available to the Scottish Government to tackle the carbon emissions that contribute to global climate change. Care must be taken that in dealing with one environmental problem we don't create another that damages communities, wildlife and landscapes.
Dan Barlow, Acting Director WWF Scotland; Stuart Housden, RSPB Director Scotland; Simon Milne, SWT Chief Executive; Duncan McLaren, Chief Executive FoE Scotland.
Thank you for printing the lovely, lyrical letter from Michael Robson of Port of Ness (February 7) - it brightened up the whole day. It would be good to have at least one letter of similar style amid all the facts, figures and political arguments which regularly assail us.
I enjoy a good debate, but it is important to have an occasional breath of fresh air.
Alison Duncan,
Dunoon.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 2:11am Fri 8 Feb 08
Excellent Letters -following on those yesterday against the absurdity of destroying the landscape of Lewis to generate, intermittently, electricity for wasteful export over 700 miles from Lewis to Lewes, Sussex over 700 miles away.
There remains the continuing absurdity of wind-farms peppered over a number of other Scottish landscapes as well as those in the pipeline. Scotland has no need of these. As a reader pointed out yesterday, they are made possible only by bungs to landowners and power companies to provide carbon trading credits for spivs in the City of London. For such and end, at such a cost has much Scottish landscape already been destroyed.
What on earth is the Scottish Government doing in continuing to be an accomplice in this Scotland-destroying scam?
Excellent Letters -following on those yesterday against the absurdity of destroying the landscape of Lewis to generate, intermittently, electricity for wasteful export over 700 miles from Lewis to Lewes, Sussex over 700 miles away.
There remains the continuing absurdity of wind-farms peppered over a number of other Scottish landscapes as well as those in the pipeline. Scotland has no need of these. As a reader pointed out yesterday, they are made possible only by bungs to landowners and power companies to provide carbon trading credits for spivs in the City of London. For such and end, at such a cost has much Scottish landscape already been destroyed.
What on earth is the Scottish Government doing in continuing to be an accomplice in this Scotland-destroying scam?
Posted by: GML, right here on 10:09am Fri 8 Feb 08
Cynicus is right to suggest that any additional electrical generating capacity will be for export, since Scotland has a very large surplus of generating capacity and for decades has sold large quantities of electricity to England and Northern Ireland. This no doubt informs Sir Donald Miller's perspective. He wonders why we need to build more capcity since there is already too much. Windpower is not as cheap as gas generation, but is commercially competitive with nuclear and clean coal. Building new power transmission lines is an issue,of course, since the renewables sites are not the same as the old generation sites.
In the long run, the existing power plants will reach the end of their working lives and we will neeed new capacity. This is where renewables should come into their own, given Scotland's abundance of wind, rain, hills, rivers, tides and waves. Since it takes ages to build this capacity, I don't think it is wrong to start building some now.
Sir Donald's expertise does not extend to tourism. The idea that the windswept, rain-soaked, bleak moorlands of Lewis are a tourist attraction is just a joke, frankly. I think "Europe's largest wind farm" would be a far more appealing attraction. Many people like wind turbines, just like many people like Dutch windmills. In Denmark they show them to you proudly as a symbol of their modernity and green-ness.
Cynicus is right to suggest that any additional electrical generating capacity will be for export, since Scotland has a very large surplus of generating capacity and for decades has sold large quantities of electricity to England and Northern Ireland. This no doubt informs Sir Donald Miller's perspective. He wonders why we need to build more capcity since there is already too much. Windpower is not as cheap as gas generation, but is commercially competitive with nuclear and clean coal. Building new power transmission lines is an issue,of course, since the renewables sites are not the same as the old generation sites.
In the long run, the existing power plants will reach the end of their working lives and we will neeed new capacity. This is where renewables should come into their own, given Scotland's abundance of wind, rain, hills, rivers, tides and waves. Since it takes ages to build this capacity, I don't think it is wrong to start building some now.
Sir Donald's expertise does not extend to tourism. The idea that the windswept, rain-soaked, bleak moorlands of Lewis are a tourist attraction is just a joke, frankly. I think "Europe's largest wind farm" would be a far more appealing attraction. Many people like wind turbines, just like many people like Dutch windmills. In Denmark they show them to you proudly as a symbol of their modernity and green-ness.
Posted by: Neil 9% Growth, Glasgow on 10:24am Fri 8 Feb 08
It takes a wiful disregard of reality for GML to say that becauise we are currently exporting electricity this means that when, in a few years, we have lost 50% of our capacity the same will apply. We should be building for that day now. Indeed we should have been doing so 8 years ago. It will be to late to start after the lights go out.
Mabosa on the other hand demonstrates exactly why most of the "environmentalist" movement are not entitled to the name. She actively wishes to cover Scotland with thousands of expensive, subsidised & largely useless windmills knowing perfectly well that we will thus ruin the scenery she despises & also knowing that no remotely honest person claims they can replace the nuclear 7 coal capacity we are going to lose. Anyone who wishes to sacrifice the environment on the altar of poverty, blackouts & Ludditism is no "environmentalist".
It takes a wiful disregard of reality for GML to say that becauise we are currently exporting electricity this means that when, in a few years, we have lost 50% of our capacity the same will apply. We should be building for that day now. Indeed we should have been doing so 8 years ago. It will be to late to start after the lights go out.
Mabosa on the other hand demonstrates exactly why most of the "environmentalist" movement are not entitled to the name. She actively wishes to cover Scotland with thousands of expensive, subsidised & largely useless windmills knowing perfectly well that we will thus ruin the scenery she despises & also knowing that no remotely honest person claims they can replace the nuclear 7 coal capacity we are going to lose. Anyone who wishes to sacrifice the environment on the altar of poverty, blackouts & Ludditism is no "environmentalist".
Posted by: scathe, Western Isles on 11:45am Fri 8 Feb 08
[quote]However, this does not require damaging sensitive environments on Lewis, or, indeed, anywhere else.[/quote]
I am staggered that the some of the authors of this letter have the front to do so.
Now that there is a public furore about the Lewis Wind Power application refusal it seems to be the done thing to jump on the bandwagon, and my, look at the hangers on. Throughout almost 4 years that campaigners (on and off island) and real nature conservationists have fought to save the precious environment of Lewis, the WWF, FOE and Greenpeace, have promoted this windfarm on their Yes2wind site.
For a brief period Greenpeace allowed misreporting in the media, giving the impression that they objected to the proposal when in fact they didn't. They were of the opinion that it should be built in stages, presumably so that the 'incremental' damage could be monitored. WWF and FOE were, as far as I am aware, completely silent. During that time the Lewis proposal was taken off Yes2wind, but not for long. It is now listed again with the other major windfarms on Lewis.
The Pairc Windfarm and Muaitheabhal Windfarm sited on the Pairc Peninsula in SE Lewis, are to be located in one of the densest breeding areas for Golden Eagles in the EU, and one of the most important areas for White-tailed Sea Eagles in the UK. They are to be sited entirely on peatland habitats including rare and very fragile valley mires, which are afforded priority protection in the EU. Estimates indicate that the Pairc windfarm alone will be probably the biggest eagle killer in the UK.
It is clear that the same conservation principles apply to these sites as to the Lewis Wind farm, the only difference being that the Peninsula is not designated as an SPA although the Muaitheabhal Windfarm is located in the Pairc IBA for Golden Eagles. For the record it would qualify for SPA status for both Golden Eagles and White-tailed Eagles.
Despite this, the Government's assessment for the Lewis Wind Power scheme alludes to these as the alternative for delivering the interconnector, which also shows in the new draft National Planning Framework - suggesting these projects a foregone conclusion ?
Maybe we should be clear then about any claims made by the Government as to wanting to meet their environmental obligations. The Lewis Windfarm decision, if a refusal, will be more about tokenism and the fear that the EU would levy a large fine, and perhaps the fact that AMEC are not known buddies of the SNP. (In contrast to SSE PLC, the developers of the Pairc Windfarm, who are)
The real proof of Scotland's principles and attitude to the environment will not be the Lewis Wind Power decision but what happens on the Pairc Peninsula.
The authors of the letter above should state their positions.
(Oh, and ditch the hangers on!)
However, this does not require damaging sensitive environments on Lewis, or, indeed, anywhere else.
I am staggered that the some of the authors of this letter have the front to do so.
Now that there is a public furore about the Lewis Wind Power application refusal it seems to be the done thing to jump on the bandwagon, and my, look at the hangers on. Throughout almost 4 years that campaigners (on and off island) and real nature conservationists have fought to save the precious environment of Lewis, the WWF, FOE and Greenpeace, have promoted this windfarm on their Yes2wind site.
For a brief period Greenpeace allowed misreporting in the media, giving the impression that they objected to the proposal when in fact they didn't. They were of the opinion that it should be built in stages, presumably so that the 'incremental' damage could be monitored. WWF and FOE were, as far as I am aware, completely silent. During that time the Lewis proposal was taken off Yes2wind, but not for long. It is now listed again with the other major windfarms on Lewis.
The Pairc Windfarm and Muaitheabhal Windfarm sited on the Pairc Peninsula in SE Lewis, are to be located in one of the densest breeding areas for Golden Eagles in the EU, and one of the most important areas for White-tailed Sea Eagles in the UK. They are to be sited entirely on peatland habitats including rare and very fragile valley mires, which are afforded priority protection in the EU. Estimates indicate that the Pairc windfarm alone will be probably the biggest eagle killer in the UK.
It is clear that the same conservation principles apply to these sites as to the Lewis Wind farm, the only difference being that the Peninsula is not designated as an SPA although the Muaitheabhal Windfarm is located in the Pairc IBA for Golden Eagles. For the record it would qualify for SPA status for both Golden Eagles and White-tailed Eagles.
Despite this, the Government's assessment for the Lewis Wind Power scheme alludes to these as the alternative for delivering the interconnector, which also shows in the new draft National Planning Framework - suggesting these projects a foregone conclusion ?
Maybe we should be clear then about any claims made by the Government as to wanting to meet their environmental obligations. The Lewis Windfarm decision, if a refusal, will be more about tokenism and the fear that the EU would levy a large fine, and perhaps the fact that AMEC are not known buddies of the SNP. (In contrast to SSE PLC, the developers of the Pairc Windfarm, who are)
The real proof of Scotland's principles and attitude to the environment will not be the Lewis Wind Power decision but what happens on the Pairc Peninsula.
The authors of the letter above should state their positions.
(Oh, and ditch the hangers on!)
Posted by: Cynicus, Scotland on 12:05pm Fri 8 Feb 08
[quote]With a sensible mix of wind, tidal, biomass and hydro generation, we could rid ourselves of fossil and nuclear.[/quote] -Mabosa Ritchie, Glasgow on 8:24am today
This is cloud-cuckoo land. We will NEVER "rid ourselves" of the basload guarantors. The best that we can achieve, if we demand continuity of supply, is a reduction on our dependency.
Whatever the method of generation, we ought to localise it as much ats feasible, to the point of consumption. The National Grid is a wonderful engineering achievement from another age. Transmission waste was not an issue when electricity was plentiful and cheap. The grid should be used, increasingly, to guarantee security of provision in parts of the country where greatly enhanced local generation, renewable or otherwise, falls short of demand.
With a sensible mix of wind, tidal, biomass and hydro generation, we could rid ourselves of fossil and nuclear.
-Mabosa Ritchie, Glasgow on 8:24am today
This is cloud-cuckoo land. We will NEVER "rid ourselves" of the basload guarantors. The best that we can achieve, if we demand continuity of supply, is a reduction on our dependency.
Whatever the method of generation, we ought to localise it as much ats feasible, to the point of consumption. The National Grid is a wonderful engineering achievement from another age. Transmission waste was not an issue when electricity was plentiful and cheap. The grid should be used, increasingly, to guarantee security of provision in parts of the country where greatly enhanced local generation, renewable or otherwise, falls short of demand.
Posted by: Neil 9% Growth, Glasgow on 1:09pm Fri 8 Feb 08
The grid allows the whole system to run much nearer capacity. If there is a sortage in one area another can take up the load. Without the grid we would have to have [bold]many[/bold] more generators with many more staff & of course more money. Considering that we already are facing lights going out i don't think this would help.
The grid allows the whole system to run much nearer capacity. If there is a sortage in one area another can take up the load. Without the grid we would have to have
many more generators with many more staff & of course more money. Considering that we already are facing lights going out i don't think this would help.
Posted by: GML, right here on 2:52pm Fri 8 Feb 08
Neil 9%
Actually I agree with you. We should be building new capacity, as it takes ages to get it done. I am all in favour of 9% growth too. We only disagree about what the right technology choice is. To me the whole nuclear 'issue' in Scottish terms is a bogus political one, driven from London like so many wrong policies before (eg the poll tax, and how about ID cards...). Keep the existing plants which we have already paid for going as long as possible, while we organise ourseleves take advantage of our comparative advantage in renewables.
It's stopped raining now, but it is still very windy...
Neil 9%
Actually I agree with you. We should be building new capacity, as it takes ages to get it done. I am all in favour of 9% growth too. We only disagree about what the right technology choice is. To me the whole nuclear 'issue' in Scottish terms is a bogus political one, driven from London like so many wrong policies before (eg the poll tax, and how about ID cards...). Keep the existing plants which we have already paid for going as long as possible, while we organise ourseleves take advantage of our comparative advantage in renewables.
It's stopped raining now, but it is still very windy...
Posted by: Neil 9% Growth, Glasgow on 5:03pm Fri 8 Feb 08
GML after that courteous response I can only apologise for jumping on you about the remark about us currently exporting electricity. It is a remark I have seen used to often to justify the "we can afford to rely on windmills" crowd.
I still think you are wrong about renewable being competitive with nuclear (with the exception of hydro which makes a very good fit), but it is a reasonable disagreement rather than idealogical assertion & that is less usual than I would like it to be. I take the RAE figure modified by France producing at 2.5US cents but it is quite possible our regulators could drive that up.
http://www.raeng.org
.uk/news/publication
s/list/reports/Cost_
Generation_Commentar
y.pdf
GML after that courteous response I can only apologise for jumping on you about the remark about us currently exporting electricity. It is a remark I have seen used to often to justify the "we can afford to rely on windmills" crowd.
I still think you are wrong about renewable being competitive with nuclear (with the exception of hydro which makes a very good fit), but it is a reasonable disagreement rather than idealogical assertion & that is less usual than I would like it to be. I take the RAE figure modified by France producing at 2.5US cents but it is quite possible our regulators could drive that up.
http://www.raeng.org
.uk/news/publication
s/list/reports/Cost_
Generation_Commentar
y.pdf
Posted by: Fred Bear, Cheshire on 10:52pm Fri 8 Feb 08
Neil 9%
Just to add to your point. Before the grid, we had localised power systems which required total plant redundancy across the country approacjhing 100%. After it was built, plant redundancy was less than 30%, and the consequent cost savings met almost the total costs of setting up the grid.
Neil 9%
Just to add to your point. Before the grid, we had localised power systems which required total plant redundancy across the country approacjhing 100%. After it was built, plant redundancy was less than 30%, and the consequent cost savings met almost the total costs of setting up the grid.
Posted by: comhairle, Isle of Lewis on 12:15pm Wed 13 Feb 08
scathe,11:45:
[quote]Throughout almost 4 years that campaigners (on and off island) and real nature conservationists have fought to save the precious environment of Lewis, the WWF, FOE and Greenpeace, have promoted this windfarm on their Yes2wind site.
For a brief period Greenpeace allowed misreporting in the media, giving the impression that they objected to the proposal when in fact they didn't. They were of the opinion that it should be built in stages, presumably so that the 'incremental' damage could be monitored. WWF and FOE were, as far as I am aware, completely silent. During that time the Lewis proposal was taken off Yes2wind, but not for long. It is now listed again with the other major windfarms on Lewis.[/quote]
The level of Yes2wind's desire for meaningful debate on the subject of onshore wind is illustrated by their regular removal of contributors to their forum (including all their posts), not for reasons such as bad language or abusive comments, but simply because they do not like or welcome opposition, especially articulate comments that might actually make their followers think twice. That's a no-no. They basically support any onshore windfarm, anywhere, whatever they say about each application being judged on its merits. On this application, WWF, FOE and Greenpeace have been and remain a disgrace. At least the RSPB, SNH and a number of environmental bodies have been consistent in their opposition.
scathe,11:45:
Throughout almost 4 years that campaigners (on and off island) and real nature conservationists have fought to save the precious environment of Lewis, the WWF, FOE and Greenpeace, have promoted this windfarm on their Yes2wind site.
For a brief period Greenpeace allowed misreporting in the media, giving the impression that they objected to the proposal when in fact they didn't. They were of the opinion that it should be built in stages, presumably so that the 'incremental' damage could be monitored. WWF and FOE were, as far as I am aware, completely silent. During that time the Lewis proposal was taken off Yes2wind, but not for long. It is now listed again with the other major windfarms on Lewis.
The level of Yes2wind's desire for meaningful debate on the subject of onshore wind is illustrated by their regular removal of contributors to their forum (including all their posts), not for reasons such as bad language or abusive comments, but simply because they do not like or welcome opposition, especially articulate comments that might actually make their followers think twice. That's a no-no. They basically support any onshore windfarm, anywhere, whatever they say about each application being judged on its merits. On this application, WWF, FOE and Greenpeace have been and remain a disgrace. At least the RSPB, SNH and a number of environmental bodies have been consistent in their opposition.
Features
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (10)
