The head of the Ramblers in Scotland has called for a halt to what he called the country’s disastrous energy policies that have seen its world-famous landscapes desecrated by windfarms.
Convenor Dennis Canavan said it was a scandal that energy companies were receiving public money not to run their wind turbines.
The call came in the light of the revelation that six windfarm operators were paid £900,000 not to run their turbines for several hours last month.
Mr Canavan, an ex-MP and MSP, said the next Scottish Government should carry out a fundamental review of the role of windfarm development in energy strategy.
He said: “The windfarm gravy train needs to be stopped before it crashes into the buffers.
“It is an absolute scandal that these windfarm operators are being paid excessive levels of subsidy to produce electricity and then even more subsidy to not produce it! Why should citizens throughout Scotland have to pay the hidden subsidies contained within their electricity bills so that this nonsense can continue?
“When voters go to the polls on Thursday they need to understand that, over the last ten years, successive governments in both Holyrood and Westminster have put in place disastrous energy policies.
“Scotland’s world famous landscapes are being desecrated at huge cost to every citizen while leaving the energy companies and large private landowners laughing all the way to the bank.”
The Ramblers Scotland convenor said a balance has to be struck between renewable energy and protection of the countryside. “I welcome the desire of politicians across all parties to substantially increase the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources,” he added. “But this cannot be done in a sensitive and cost effective way while there is excessive reliance on large scale onshore windfarms.
“The next Holyrood government must seriously consider a halt to all such onshore development while the Westminster government develops a new UK-wide scheme to focus financial support for large scale windfarm development onto offshore locations and an associated subsea grid network.
“The industrialisation of our wild and beautiful mountains and moors with wind turbines and roads must stop. I do not want to see any politicians elected to Holyrood who support the blowing away of our money in such crazy ways. Scotland needs politicians with the vision and initiative to devise a practical renewable energy policy without vandalising our natural heritage.”
Voters in Scotland will go to the polls on Thursday to elect MSPs to Holyrood. Alex Salmond’s Scottish National Party has run a minority government for the last four years.
John Sturman
04 May 2011For too long, people using electricity from fossil fuel and nuclear power do not pay its full cost and they are therefore being 'subsidised' by others. The environmental/pollution costs are not borne by the users. What about the costs from coal power stations that electricity users do not pay in their bills: acid rain causing forest destruction, lake acidification, destruction of our lovely ancient buildings and monuments from acid rain, destruction of landscapes through open cast coal mining, mine waste and ash spoil tips, river pollution from mine water, house subsidence, health cost of miners - silicosis, increased incidence of asthma and cancers from particulates, taking cooling water from rivers etc. etc. All that without even touching on possible costs arising from man made global warming.
Its about time electricity users pay to offset some of the environmental destruction wrought from power stations.
Another point - NO land in the UK is natural/wild (whatever Canavan means by 'wild'?). Its ALL been created by humans and the vast majority of Scotland is an industrial farmed landscape, grazed into an un-natural condition. If Canavan wants truly wild landscapes then stop rambler access as they cause giant scars on the hillsides through footpath erosion.
2020 future
04 May 2011And what about all those coastal communities who value their landscapes equally? Canavan's view is just NIMBYism.
All energy sources come at a cost. Windfarms are the most mature source of renewable energy available and they have to go somewhere.
Gas plants are also paid 'subsidies' not to generate - spinning reserve. No-one is talking about this in the news.
If you want a private electricity market then you have to make it worthwhile for generators to invest. As a nation we've decided that we need to invest in renewables.
We've therefore put in place the economic levers to make sure it can compete with traditional fuels for investment.
Without supporting renewables we're offering an innate subsidy to fossil fuel generators by not requiring them to pay for the serious environmental damage they cause.
Let's not continue to waste time picking over the same old parochial views on wind.
phil jones
05 May 2011The fact is that wind can only ever supplement a reliable base load generating system, and nuclear power is the only system currently able to offer this base load capacity with low carbon credentials.
In the 1950's we were world leaders in the developemnt of nuclear power. (military use was probably the prime driver). The labour left and the campaign for nuclear disarmament sought to demonize nuclear power and this legacy we still have today in most reporting on the subject . The conservatives sold off our assets and expertise to a foreign company called Westinghouse.
Successive governments have prevaricated for at least a decade in starting to renew our ageing nuclear power plants. Yet China and India are now building new plants which will use a safer nuclear material called thorium; its more plentiful and less dangerous to handle.
We don't need to despoil more countryside if we build on the sites of existing power stations and we can use the existing power distribution lines. So please Government; get off the fence and activate some realistic strategic planning policy.
Windup
07 May 2011Actually domestic consumers pay ~15p/kWh for our electricity. The cost of wind energy is about 2.5p/kWh and with the ROC incentive, the artificial cost is 7.5p/kWh.
Nuclear costs are roughly the same, 3p/kWh build and refuelling costs plus 5p/kWh decommissioning costs, 8p/kWh.
John Graham
11 May 2011Another definition of NIMBY is Next Idiot Might Be You. Dennis Canavan has obviously researched the subject and I would advise anybody faced with the threat of wind farms in their area or on walking routes to do this thoroughly. I agree with Phil that modern Nuclear needs to be considered. Life has moved on from the days of CND and those people actually did none of us any favours. There is now thorium and pebble reactors. Mini reactors have been developed by westinghouse/toshiba and several other US manufacturers and are progressing through approvals as we speak. This may possibly provide us with local power supplies negating the need for massive over-head transmission lines. Fusion reactors; so long in development; are now a realistic possibility. A few years away still but the science has now been proven. Practicalities and costs are still issues, I agree. As to 2020, lost cause. Wind requires balancing with spinning reserve and that is going to add greatly to the cost of renewable. That is not a subsidy to gas my friend. That is an additional subsidy to wind! As to John. Land is rarely totally natural. Fencing, afforestation, muirburn and stalkers tracks are part of our high places. But look at the trees and the mosses that show the air is pure. Lay back in the heather and watch the Eagle soar. Not perfect may be but for those that can see, as near damn perfect as can be. And go to the hills with the Holyrood Follies, their thousands of tons of concrete, their wide access roads, the crane pads and the incessant noise when they are working; about 20% of the time. Not wind power generators but subsidy junkies! That is a wildness that will never be turned back. I know which I want to pass on to my children, so Dennis. Well done for standing up to be counted!
W.B.Askam
30 November 2011These subsidies should be made illegal. Loading the exess cost of these machines onto the ones that can not afford them is very antisocial.