I’d agree with a Tory MP but this is a very interesting article and should be read by all Scots who care about the country.
’’For peat’s sake, stop these wind farms before they do real harm
By STRUAN STEVENSON
Conservative MEP
MANY giant wind turbines in Scotland will be built on deep peatland, causing
immense damage to the environment and releasing vast quantities of carbon.
Hundreds of applications are in the planning pipeline, many of them in
wholly inappropriate locations that would threaten endangered flora and fauna and
industrialise some of Scotland’s most spectacular landscape. Worse still, by
destroying deep peatland, these wind farms would create more carbon emissions
than they would ever save.
Peat is a global carbon sink, storing millions of tonnes of carbon during the
thousands of years the peat is formed from rotting trees and plant material. The
first thing a contractor does before building a giant windmill on peatland is
to drain the area, thus releasing all of the stored carbon into the atmosphere. The
peatland is also subsequently destroyed as a carbon sump, stopping further
carbon storage. Damage to peat can extend as much as 250m on either side of
turbine foundations and access-road installations. So the peat will gradually
dry out over the years, resulting in an ongoing release of carbon. This can
easily be calculated once the total extent of the planned development is known,
using the fact peat contains 55kg carbon/cubic metre – three times as much as
a tropical rainforest.
Of course the big power companies are keen to disprove this theory and
regularly trot out “experts” to say drainage of the peat is not necessary and that
damage to the environment will always be minimised. To suggest a wind farm
can be built without draining peat first is nonsense. Once the roads and
turbines have been built, the peat will be breached and drainage of the peat bog
will occur naturally. This is basic hydrology! Drains will then have to be
installed to take excess water off the site – otherwise the area will flood.
This is called peat run-off and it will continually flow into adjacent
watercourses, causing potentially the deaths of many freshwater and marine organisms
from suffocation.
Taken together with the construction of the mammoth steel towers, huge metal
sails, vast concrete foundations under every turbine, borrow pits, drains,
connecting roads, overhead power lines and pylons, the carbon footprint from
every wind farm built on deep peat far exceeds any environmental savings it may
aspire to.
The decision to refuse approval for the Lewis wind farm is a hopeful sign
the Scottish government is alert to this danger. But similar applications exist
for giant wind farms on deep peatland at Dava Moor (Grantown-on-Spey),
Gordonbush (Sutherland), Edinbane (Skye), Kergord Valley (Shetland) and in many
other locations. They should all be stopped.
It is fascinating that the country with the third-largest record of emissions of greenhouse gases after the United States and China is Indonesia – not because of its industrial output, but as a result of carbon emissions from the destruction of its rainforest and, more importantly, the drainage of its natural peat bogs.
Peatland is a global lung. Let it breathe.’‘
Andy Gibb, 3 months ago
So thats the natural effect….and here is the human cost…from The Scotsman 13/3/08:
Wind farms ‘could drive away tourists and mean big job losses’
Joe Quinn
WIND farms could cost the Scottish tourism industry millions of pounds and hundreds of lost jobs in a “worst case scenario”, a report warned yesterday.
The findings came in research that found wind farms had the potential for hitting jobs in tourism.
The research was commissioned by the Scottish Government from Glasgow Caledonian University to assess what effect official priorities for wind farms were likely to have on tourism, for good or ill.
Four areas were studied – the Borders; Caithness and Sutherland; Dumfries and Galloway, and Stirling, Perth and Kinross.
For each area, the researchers estimated the likely impact on the tourism economy by 2015 of all the wind farms needed to meet the renewables obligation, compared to a situation where there were no wind farms.
It was estimated that Stirling, Perth and Kinross would lose £6.3 million in tourism income and 339 jobs; Dumfries and Galloway £4.1 million and 277 jobs; the Borders £1.7 million and 81 jobs, and Caithness and Sutherland £700,000 and 30 jobs.
But the researchers say these totals cannot be added up to give a Scotland-wide figure – as any tourists put off visiting an area with many wind farms were likely to head somewhere else in Scotland.
The job figures are not immediate – some “adjustment” may already have taken place.
The rest relates to a reduction in the number of future jobs to be created by tourism spending, and does not take into account jobs created by the wind-farm industry.
A survey showed 39 per cent of respondents were “positive” about wind farms, 36 per cent had no opinion either way and 25 per cent were negative.
The report said: “The results confirm that a significant minority, 20 per cent to 30 per cent, of tourists preferred landscapes without wind farms.
“However, of those, only a very small group were so offended that they changed their intentions about revisiting Scotland.”
It went on: “If the renewables target is met via substantial wind-farm development, Scottish tourism revenues in 2015 are forecast to be only 0.18 per cent lower in 2015 than they would have been if there were no wind farms in Scotland.”
This change would mean that in 2015 there would be some £4.7 million less in the Scottish economy, the report said.
For national planning purposes, the report concludes that having several wind farms in sight at any one time is “undesirable”.
It says the loss of value when moving from medium to large wind farm developments is not as great as the initial loss.
“It is the basic intrusion into the landscape that generates the loss of value for tourists,” it said.
“Overall, the finding of the research is that if the tourism and renewable industries work together to ensure that suitably sized wind farms are sensitively sited, whilst at the same time affording parts of Scotland protection from development, then the impacts on anticipated growth paths are expected to be so small that there is no reason to believe that Scottish Government targets for both sectors are incompatible.”
Jen Whyte, 3 months ago
Thanks for that Andy
hilarydougill, 3 months ago
We progress forward to fall backward. Progress is not always progress!! Somebody, somewhere will be making a lot of money rest assured!!!!!
Jen Whyte in reply to hilarydougill’s comment, 3 months ago
That’s what makes me so angry … it’s all about money as it’s been proved that the efficiency of these turbines is only about 17%
robtclements, 3 months ago
The Diogensian in me would like to check the facts behind these opinions. If they are accurate, the caution is justified….
(using current technology, ethanol is a complete scam, better served @ continuing third world impoverishment than combatting global warming; although in the long term using new technologies it may be a valuable replacement for oil)
... but special interest advocates tend not to be interested in fact. I doubnt that these reports are, either
It would seriously surprise me, for eg, if anyone would be dumb enough to build a windfarm in a peatland (but if anyone was, they’d probably vote Tory). These systems are not windmills designed to drain the peat to create farmland – they are power resources designed to exploit the maximum value from natural wind conditions. By definition, peatlands are not windy areas; so why on earth would you waste the money putting wind turbines there? Presumably to create a strawman argument to look as though there was a negative case against the technology – no other alternative makes sense
I doubt that the tourism argument is any less bs. Noone – & i mean noone – can sensibly argue what makes tourism work; but the movement towards ecotourism suggests that wind turbines @ least have the potential to add as many UKP to the local economy as the loss of fake wilderness postcards might subtract. The results quoted sounds like a classic case of designing a study to get the result the paymasters wanted. Was it chaired by Lord Hutton, i wonder?
lianne, 3 months ago
Not being a local, I can’t comment on the accuracy of the charges here but I can certainly support the concern having just endured a year’s worth of hearings in my own township that resulted in approval for a number of wind farms to go up nearby. I have to question – as Robert does – why anyone would even consider wind turbines on peatland in the first place but you wouldn’t want them in the highlands either! I wish you well in your endeavor to raise awareness of the potential harm to the environment but I suspect that when money is the ultimate goal, concern for the environment will not be a high priority – except to offer phony assurances that all is well! Good luck Jen, my dear friend!
PhotogeniquE IPA, 3 months ago
interesting stuff. I’m a global-warming cynic I’m afraid. I would be more inclined to take seriously the proponents of the argument if, behind the arguments, there weren’t huge corporate entities making millions out of the whole save-the-planet movement. Like war; the people who benefit are the corporations.
All the wind-farms now, and proposed, are not going to have a significant impact on the problem, if indeed there is actually a problem, anymore than me not leaving my TV on standby is going to help Polar Bears.
Jen Whyte in reply to PhotogeniquE IPA’s comment, 3 months ago
It is a sad fact Dave as you say that there will be no significant impact on the problem and why we need all these windfarms in Scotland with all the water we have and the huge hydro schemes is beyond me …. well actually that is not true as we have found out that the electricity that is to be made here will be piped straight down across the border (and the Argyll one was to be piped straight across the Irish Sea??? to the most highly populated areas where obviously there is not enough space to put up windfarms.
And people wonder why we want independent government. Scottish oil is almost finished now everyone wants our wind!!!???