Talking turbines

In 2004 I suggested that it was time we weighed the value of wind power as an energy source against the damage being done to the visual and natural environment. Four years on, not a lot has changed, except that the number of operating and planned wind farms has increased, and the size of the windmills has escalated hugely. As a result, their siting has become extremely controversial, such as the one proposed for the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides, one of the largest in Europe, and currently awaiting a decision in the hands of Scottish ministers.

It was not just the 181 giant turbines that disturbed people in the western isles. It was the fact that this massive industrialisation would have changed the character and culture of the area, with an additional 141km of road, eight electrical substations, 30km of overhead cables, 137 pylons, nearly 30km of underground cables and five rock quarries. In addition, a sub-sea cable would have been laid for 60km across the Minch to Ardmair Bay, just north of Ullapool, from where an ultra-high voltage grid line would have had to be built across one of the most scenic areas of Scotland and thence to Denny in central Scotland where the power is actually needed. It is said it would eventually produce up to 600mw and bring employment to the under employed western isles, but these claims are disputed.

I continue to receive pleas from constituents all over Scotland about the damage that wind farms are doing, or expected to do, to many parts of the country’s natural habitats and beautiful landscapes, north and south, islands and mainland. This must be repeated many times throughout the EU. Onshore wind farm projects are finding it more difficult to get planning approval in the UK because residents are increasingly fighting them. These residents are sometimes dismissed as NIMBYs (“not in my back yard”) by ardent renewable energy fans, but one can hardly blame them. Wind turbines generally convert rural landscape into industrial landscape and it is highly debatable whether wind power is a sufficiently satisfactory source of energy to justify the desecration, due to the intermittency of production and the number of turbines needed to produce a significant amount of power.

Wind farms currently generate 2.8 per cent of Europe’s energy and their development is a slow business when one recalls that the first modern wind farms were built in Denmark nearly thirty years ago. That may be because persistent lobbying by anti-wind power and wildlife protection groups and a myriad of local campaigning residents has ensured lengthened and more careful scrutiny by planners. And yet, while Sweden gets 39.8 per cent of its power from renewables (heavily hydro), the UK only gets 1.3 per cent. With a target of 20 per cent by 2020 (and 40 per cent in Scotland), we have a long way still to go. Can we possibly see the people of a country like the UK accepting this by the wind farm route?

It seems that one possible solution, apart from speedily signing up nuclear power and hastening development of other renewable options (eg, tide), is for the wind farm industry to interact earlier and more directly with local communities. It is also imperative that local authorities and government work harder to garner public opinion and to position themselves firmly in the role of protectors of the environment in its broadest sense in their search for new sources of energy.

While there is much to be said against wind power onshore – destruction of the natural environment, low output for high input both in financial and energy terms, noise pollution and danger to wildlife - I do not wish to be the Jeremiah at the EWEA conference on March 31. So I am also taking on board some of the counter-arguments – that onshore wind power is only a part of the new sustainable energy market and that the technology is improving all the time, reducing noise and improving the design and safety elements of the turbines. And probably most important of all, that output will defray the cost, both financially and in carbon emissions, of installation more and more quickly.

That leaves the aesthetic question: there are some people who do not mind the appearance of turbines, some love and admire them. They are surely less unsightly than a power station, although they take up far more space. In areas of natural beauty, however, they are intrusive. On the other hand, the landscape will be affected by climate change in any case. Therefore all our efforts to reduce carbon emissions are important in the fight to minimise its impact. If we can do this while keeping in mind that the rural environment is an important resource, beyond its economic value, we may be able to ensure sensitive areas are more widely designated and less sensitive locations are identified, where wind farms would be more readily acceptable.

• Previous article
• Next article