Two offshore renewable projects win over £100 million EU funding

Nice to see the announcement of two offshore renewable projects winning over £100 million of European Union (EU) funding.

The EU energy commissioner has confirmed a grant of £36 million (40 million euros) for a proposed offshore wind farm near Aberdeen.  The Aberdeen Bay project would see some 23 wind turbines sited between one and three miles offshore, in an area extending about three miles from the Bridge of Don to Blackdog. The scheme is a joint venture between Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group (AREG) and Swedish utility company Vattenfall.

A further £67 milion (74 million euros) has also been approved for an offshore platform to be located between Shetland and the Scottish mainland, which will be part of the North Sea Grid, and will permit the connection of wind farms in eight European countries.

Wind farm war has usual casualty

It’s odd that I seem to be finding more interesting tales regarding wind farms after I decided to try and ignore them than when I had a spell of watching how they were developing, but the wider view is still providing some relevant information, and revealing some skeletons in the cupboards of both the pro and anti wind brigades.

The Viking Energy wind farm project, for 150 turbines in Shetland, is a joint venture between Scottish and Southern Energy and the island community.

Save Our Scenic Moray (SoSM) is a group opposed to the proposed Dorenell wind farm, near Dufftown in Moray.

Both have had their knuckles rapped by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for making unsubstantiated claims in their brochures.

That casualty I mentioned, its name begins with the letter ‘T‘.

Naughty wind farm developers

The ASA upheld four complaints against a leaflet published by Viking Energy in May:

• claims that 50% of the profits would stay in the Shetland Community were wrong, since 5% of the amount within that figure would go to four local shareholders.
• two claims that up to £30 million could go into the Shetland economy each year and £18 million could be earned by the public purse, were not flagged up clearly enough as mere estimates.
• claims made in the leaflet that atmospheric pollution created during construction of the wind farm could be balanced out by fewer than three years of wind farm operation, were unsubstantiated.

While Viking Energy admitted their wording was “clumsy”, it denied any suggestion it was trying to mislead, and issued an apology. Not surprisingly, opponents to the development have made the most of this finding, and say it casts doubt over the benefits claimed by the developer.

Naughty wind farm opponents

The ASA also upheld a number of complaints about a SoSM leaflet, saying that it must not be issued again in its current form and that it must contain “robust evidence” to support future claims. The leaflet had been reported to the ASA by Pendragon Consultants, acting on behalf of renewable energy company Infinergy.

The consultants challenged SoSM  claims that the wind farm was a threat to Whisky Glens, that rare golden eagles would die in turbines and that the plan presented “a danger of wildlife disturbance, pollution of rivers and loss of habitat”, and if the group could substantiate claims it made that a wind farm would deter visitors from returning to the area and accommodation providers would suffer “a cash loss”.

 

Another wind farm sunk

I had been considering dropping all references to wind farms. There have been a few schemes proposed near me (by which I mean not in my back yard, but within say 50 miles radius), and because these were half-baked ideas, parachuted into beauty spots, I didn’t mind writing about them in relatively non-neutral negative terms. However, I began to think this was giving me the appearance of being against wind farms, which is not the case, although I would be happy to be classed as being against wind power, provided this was understood as being against not the principle, but the blind adoption of wind power as if it was some sort of miracle answer to renewable energy requirements, which it clearly is not. And there’s a world of difference between expressing a negative opinion, and fostering a negative campaign.

That said, wind farm news is back in, since I merely note how it is progressing. If current news is generally about refusals at the moment, that’s not under my control, and the balance will surely be redressed in future, as approvals are bound to feature more frequently, as developers get the message and propose their installations in more appropriate locations where they cause less offence and potential harm.

WPR Wind Ltd first applied for permission in 2005 to build the 14-turbine Stacain wind farm, near Inveraray, back in 2005, but the plan has now been refused after Scottish ministers decided it would pose a threat to golden eagles. A public inquiry was held after objections from Scottish Natural Heritage and RSPB Scotland, and ministers agreed that “wind turbines would introduce a risk of collision for golden eagles”.

The decision was welcomed by Andy Robinson, RSPB Scotland conservation officer for Argyll and Bute, who said, “We need more wind farms but not at any cost to the natural environment… We must deliver much needed renewable energy where it doesn’t harm Scotland’s most precious wildlife.”

Black Craig wind farm appeal dismissed

After what seemed to amount to little more than a bribe , packaged as a so-called potential community benefit of £64,000 per annum proposed when the developer (Argyll Windfarms) recently met with members of Bute Community Council, and a planning appeal by the developer behind the proposed 32 MW Black Craig wind farm, which would have seen 16 wind turbines slapped into the view across Rothesay Bay, Scottish ministers have refused to grant planning permission after the original planning application was rejected at the local level.

Ministers agreed with inquiry reporter Karen Heywood, whose view was that permission for Argyll Windfarms Ltd’s development should be denied because of the “significant detrimental landscape and visual impact” of the turbines. The decision was reached after a public enquiry which took place last April, and was held in the village hall at Colintraive.

Ms Heywood was reported to say: “Although I reach no definitive conclusion that the wind farm would have a detrimental impact on tourism in the local area and in Bute in particular,” Ms Heywood wrote, “I do have reservations about the potential impact of approval of a wind farm, especially given my conclusion that the wind farm would be likely to be a focal point in the views from Port Bannatyne and Rothesay.”

The announcement was posted by The Buteman, where a full report appears, together with further comments, which suggested that local feelings were such the decision was neither for nor against wind farms in general, but about the where they are sited, and that following a similar refusal at Corlarach earlier this year, it would have been incongruous for this nearby proposal to have been accepted.

The developer was reported to be reluctant to provide The Buteman with a full comment until their legal team went over the report:

“At the moment we are just reviewing their decision,” company director Mungo Tulloch told The Buteman. “We are very disappointed with the news.”

A simple acceptance of the official result and a graceful withdrawal by the developer might have done the cause of wind farms considerably more good, rather than reaching for the corporate lawyers!

For more coverage of the Black Craig application in The Buteman, see also:

Community council objects to wind farm – October 26, 2006
New submission for Black Craig wind farm – September 20, 2007
Wind farm turmoil returns as inquiry begins – April 15, 2009
Wind farm developer poses £64,000 question – September 2, 2009

…and for the Corlarach development:

Bute waits for wind farm hearing – December 6, 2007
Wind farm plan is thrown out – January 29, 2008
Corlarach inquiry set to begin – January 16, 2009
Wind farm appeal rejected by ministers – May 28, 2009

As this is one of my all time favourite views, all I can say is good riddance to bad rubbish (especially since the developer has did not simply accept the appeal decision), and we can only hope that proposals by some politicians to have the planning process bypassed in order to push through wind farm construction regardless of local opinion never see the light of day.

Rather than whining and trying to introduce inappropriate legislation to ride roughshod over local opinion, they would be better advised to stop worshipping at the god of the wind farm as the answer to renewables, which it clearly is not, and get on with the job of promoting better solutions based on water, and on finding wind farm sites which avoid upsetting people, and making them feel as if they are simply being marched over and ignored. They might find that many of the objections magically disappear, and maybe even turn into support.

Wind farm bribery

I keep getting told there’s no such thing as subsidies where wind farms are concerned, yet the evidence always seems to contradict this.

Just because a payment or handout doesn’t have the official title “Subsidy” stamped on it doens’t mean that it isn’t (a subsidy).

Renewable Obligation Certificates are handed out to developers on the basis of the generation capacity they install, costing them nothing (funded by the government/taxes) and which can be traded.

Renewable Obligation Certificates (or ROCs) store details of how electricity was generated, who generated it, and who eventually used it. Since April 2002 all UK licensed electricity suppliers have been obliged to obtain a proportion of the electricity they sell from a selection of eligible renewable sources such as wind and solar power. For every 1,000 units (1 MWh) of green electricity an energy company generates they receive one ROC. A company that generates more than its renewable obligation can sell ROCs to energy suppliers who have failed to meet their RE obligation. In this way power companies are financially motivated to invest in renewable energy generation projects.

Back in 2004, a large electricity provider that likes to promote wind power used to refer to the subsidies they received for building wind farms, they even had a statement on their web site to the effect that the money was so good, they were able to install wind farms on remote and difficult to access sites they would never have considered otherwise.

Unfortunately, the adverse publicity that has arisen around the squeezing of wind farms onto easier to access sites in recent years has led to purging of such content from wind farm owners’ web sites, so without a proper reference to back up the quote, I can no longer refer to it formally, or dare name the provider.

However, there is a current story rumbling along, where the proposed Black Craig wind farm opposite Rothesay Bay has already been rejected Argyll and Bute Council.

Argyll Windfarms has offered to donate £64,000 per year towards community projects on Bute, provided their scheme is granted planning permission.

It would seem that as well as subsidies no longer being called subsidies, the same is true in of payments made to sweeten an otherwise unpalatable deal.

Argyll Windfarms have said they will set up a “community benefit” fund of £160,000 per annum to last the 25 year life of the Black Craig turbines, if Scottish Ministers overturn the refusal decision of Argyll and Bute Council. The amount appears to be dependent on the installed capacity, and amounts to £5,000 per MW by the 16 planned turbines. If the number of turbines is reduced, the community may be penalised as there may be a reduction in the proposed benefit.

Speaking for the Bute Community Council, one member has said that there is little doubt that the money could benefit the community, but that it is not likely to bring about a dramatic change in in the opinion of those who object to the wind farm on the basis of environmental issues, visual impact, or its effect on tourism.

If I wanted to, and I don’t, I wouldn’t have to try and give wind farms a bad name nowadays – their developers can do it all on their own.

Black Craig wind farm developer dangles £64,000 annual community benefit

As noted recently, an appeal by West Coast Energy Ltd against Argyll and Bute Council’s refusal of plans to build a 14-turbine wind farm on Corlarach Hill, facing directly into Rothesay Bay, was dismissed.

At the same time, it was noted that there was another appeal under inquiry with regard to a 16-turbine installation on Black Craig, directly north of Corlarach, by Argyll Windfarms Ltd.

In the past, I’ve been taken to task for suggesting the wind farms received a subsidy, and eventually gave up explaining that I wasn’t referring to direct subsidies, payments or grants, but to the indirect subsidies which apply to the electricity generated by renewable sources. Two sources have provided this indirect subsidy: The Renewables Obligation, which is an artificial market administered by the government’s Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem); and The Climate Change Levy.

For a fuller and more comprehensive description of the process, which I’m not even going to attempt in this space (it can get complicated, even though the idea is simple, but the government’s involved, so what else would you expect?) you can download and read a Word document which gives fuller details here. It’s even got pictures, which might make it easier for some of the folk who have had a go at me – their command of English suggests reading might not be one of their strong points.

Returning to Black Craig, Bute Community Council (BCC) has been told that the developer has suggested that there might be a ‘community benefit’ of £64,000 a year coming Bute’s way – part of an overall payment scheme for the wider area of £4.4 million over 25 years – should the scheme receive planning permission. The developer is reported to be “keen” to meet representatives from Bute to discuss ‘community benefit’.

Also, a local councillor warned that there might be consequences should BCC decline to enter talks until after a final decision is made by Scottish ministers on the fate of the project. He suggest that it may be too late to enter discussions should the project be given the go-ahead, and that the developer may then just do as it pleases once it has approval for the scheme. The councillor pointed out that the law states there should be a ‘community benefit’ of some kind from any wind farm project, and suggested it would do no harm to at least talk to the developer.

That warning, however, cut no ice with a number of BCC members, with treasurer Ian Hopkins suggesting that he felt the offer was “just blackmail”.

The fate of the Black Craig project currently lies in the hands of Scottish Government.

Ministers reject Corlarach Hill wind farm appeal

While I like to try and provide a sort of balanced review of renewables, but happily admit to shoving yesterday’s dated, knee-jerk, wind farm technology to the bottom of the pile in favour of most hydro based systems (and don’t want to venture into exotic systems that won’t bear fruit for many years), I can’t hide my delight at the recent news that an appeal by West Coast Energy Ltd against Argyll and Bute Council’s refusal of plans to build a 14 turbine wind farm on Corlarach Hill, facing directly onto Rothesay Bay, was dismissed after ministers decided that the project did not meet established guidelines set out by environmental legislation.

Formal opposition to the development dates back to January, when concerns about the plan were aired during a public inquiry held in Dunoon.

Full details of the reasoning behind the decision, by Scottish Government reporter William Patterson, are still to be released.

Philip Norris, from the Dunoon and Cowal Marketing Group, who was a key witness at the appeal said: ”I am obviously delighted, and I think all the people in Bute and Cowal will be very relieved. The right place for a large wind farm is where the landscape is featureless, not here, where the landscape quality is important for tourism. By rejecting that proposal, their decision corresponds to the established guidelines set by the government. Common sense has prevailed.”

While this should mark the end of the road for the Corlarach Hill proposal, its seems there is still another appeal under inquiry, with regard to a 16-turbine installation on Black Craig, directly north of Corlarach, by Argyll Windfarms Ltd.

BREAKING NEWS: Ministers reject wind farm appeal

Corlarach Hill plans dismissed after inquiry

“Common sense has prevailed”

Philip Norris, Dunoon and Cowal Marketing Group

Published Date:
28 May 2009

By Atholl Simpson

Reporter

PLANS for a 14-turbine wind farm on Corlarach Hill in Cowal, directly facing Rothesay Bay, have been rejected by Scottish ministers.

An appeal by West Coast Energy Ltd against Argyll and Bute Council’s refusal of the plans was dismissed after ministers decided that the project did not meet established guidelines set out by environmental legislation.

Further details of the reaso

ADVERTISEMENT

ning behind the decision, by Scottish Government reporter William Patterson, have yet to be released.

News of the decision, which was announced on Thursday, will delight those who have opposed the construction of the wind farm, and who voiced their concerns about the plans during a public inquiry in Dunoon back in January.

“I am obviously delighted, and I think all the people in Bute and Cowal will be very relieved,” said Philip Norris, from the Dunoon and Cowal Marketing Group, who was a key witness

“The right place for a large wind farm is where the landscape is featureless, not here, where the landscape quality is important for tourism.

“By rejecting that proposal, their decision corresponds to the established guidelines set by the government.

“Common sense has prevailed.”

An inquiry report into a similar appeal for a 16-turbine installation on Black Craig, directly north of Corlarach, by Argyll Windfarms Ltd is still being compiled.

Aberdeen wind farm will be offshore

Placing wind farms where they should always have been – out of sight and offshore where the reliable and powerful wind lies – the waters between Bridge of Don and Black Dog off the coast of Aberdeen look set to see a wind farm development following the confirmation of a 40 million euro funding boost from the European Union.

The plan should see 23 turbines installed between one and three miles offshore.

The wind farm project is a joint venture between Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group (AREG) and Swedish utility company Vattenfall.

Aberdeen Central Labour MSP Lewis Macdonald said: “Other countries like Sweden and Holland have already built large-scale offshore wind farms, but no-one has done so yet in the kind of challenging environment found in the northern North Sea.

Anacondas and other snakes

Interestingly, the news comes at the same time as the announcement of the Anaconda wave power device, developed by Checkmate UK, and being tested in the tanks of a QinetiQ facility in Gosport, Hampshire. The device is basically a huge rubber, water filled tube, which depends on the distortion and bulges of it walls – caused by the motion of the waves against it – to gather energy, which is transferred to turbines at the end of the tube, which then drive generators.

It is claimed that a group of 50 full-size Anacondas – each 200 metres long – could provide electricity for 50,000 homes, and the seas off the northen Scottish coast are identified as one of the potential location for the devices.

This is still a new idea, and the developers will need to achieve very long lifetimes for the device together with very high reliability, qualities required to withstand decades of battering by the waves , and these will have to be reconciled and combined with low capital and maintenance costs and high-energy conversion efficiency.

Although it seems to have missed the online news reports, or I just can’t find it because I don’t know the product or project name, there was also news this week of a similar, but mechanically based device which worked in a similar way to the Anaconda, and is also a snake-like device. I only saw one short report on the news, and there didn’t seem to be a repeat on later programmes.

In this case, the device consisted of a number of  long floating cylinders connected as a chain. Between each of the long cylinders is a smaller cylinder containing a pump connected by sliding links to the larger cylinder on either side. As the chain or snake follows the waves, the flexing cause the links operate the pumps inside the smaller cylinder, and these are then used to drive turbines, and then generators.

Although the system is flexible, being made of metal and containing mechanical linkages and pumps which have to lie in the waves means the system – as seen in the version that was reported at least – has many mechanical parts exposed to the elements, which would need to be appropriately engineered and maintained to ensure their longevity in that exposed and hostile sea environment. Perhaps later developments could separate the parts in some way, and have the minimum of mechanical parts exposed, while mounting pumps, turbines, and generators remotely, and more protected.

I hope this one is reported again.

Wind farm radar

Things have been quiet on the wind farm front recently, or my news feeds have just decided they’re not newsworthy at the moment, so I had to look further afield for this story.

Over in Texas, it seems that they think thousands of migrating birds could be killed by the rotating turbine blades, so they have developed a radar system that can detect their approach and predict if they are likely to arrive at the wind farm. The installation, which is operated by Spanish operator Iberdrola, opened late last month, uses radar systems originally developed for NASA and the US Air Force to detect approaching birds from as far as four miles away, analyse weather conditions, and then determine whether they are in danger of flying into the rotating blades. If so, the system is programmed to shut down automatically until they have passed.

Normally, the birds would pass thousands of feet above the farm, but conditions such as storms can force them down from their safe altitude, and down into the area of the farm. The total shutdown period using this system is estimated to be about 40 to 60 hours per annum during migration time.

A number of wind farms have been turned down because of such concerns, but it’s not clear if this technology is limited to American sites, or has wider applications.

Of course, this has done nothing to please conservation groups, who still want the wind farms sited far from migration routes, claiming that they still cause major disruption to birds’ nesting grounds and habitat

Wind farm wars

In a spooky coincidence, the BBC has published a feature entitled “Where the wind farm war is waged” less than 24 hours after I blogged about the apparent relationship between the recent  increase in popularity of hydro power systems and the number of disputes, campaigns and public enquiries being raised against wind farm proposals (and whispered the word “conspiracy”).

Over the past five years, the Scottish Government reports 35 such encounters as those subject to an impending wind farm development in their area have taken the application to the public enquiry process, which can be lengthy, as it stumbles from the local council – where the first rejection or opposition is lodged, then to a later public discussion held near the proposed site, and yet later the Scottish Government will deliver a decision on the proposal, based on advice from its own reporter.

Some believe the process is flawed, and have suggested that even after being refused permission, about 50% of wind farm appeals are successful. They say this makes the approval process little more than a farce, and that central government is overriding local government in order to further policies such as The Scottish Climate Change Bill, which give the Scottish Government powers to ensure that no local authority can undermine action on climate change.

Those affected have said that just because they are not in an overpopulated area, it does not mean that it is acceptable for them (Scottish Government) to rain down an endless supply of wind turbines.

Public Inquiries held between 01/01/04 and 26/01/09

Scottish council	Windfarm	Status
Aberdeenshire	Laurencekirk	Refused
Aberdeenshire	Clashindarroch	Refused
Aberdeenshire	St John’s Hill, Stonehaven	Approved
Aberdeenshire	Clochnahill	Approved
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar	Muaitheabhal, Isle of Lewis	Decision pending
Dumfries and Galloway	Harestanes, Dumfries	Approved
East Ayrshire	Stonyhill, Muirkirk	Refused
East Ayrshire	Kyle, Dalmellington	Refused
Fife	Rossie, Cupar	Refused
Highland	Beinn Rosail, Sutherland	Refused
Highland	Achany Estate, Sutherland	Approved
Highland	Borrowstoun Mains, Thurso	Refused
Inverclyde	Corlic Hill/Devol Moor, Greenock	Refused
Moray	Hills of Towie, Banffshire	Approved
North Ayrshire	Clydeport, Largs	Refused
North Ayrshire	Green Hill, Kelburn, Largs	Decision pending
Orkney Islands	Merranblo	Refused
Orkney Islands	Gruff Hill, Orkney	Refused
Perth and Kinross	Abercairney, Perthshire	Refused
Perth and Kinross	Drumderg, Perthshire	Approved
Perth and Kinross	Greenknowes, Glendevon	Approved
Perth and Kinross	Tillyrie Farm, Kinross	Refused
Perth and Kinross	Snowgoat Glen, Perthshire	Refused
Perth and Kinross	Lochelbank, Perthshire	Approved
Perth and Kinross	Corn & Coulshill Farms, Perthsire	Refused
Perth and Kinross	Mellock Hill, Kinross	Refused
Perth and Kinross	Griffin Forest, Nr Aberfeldy	Approved
Perth and Kinross	Calliacher Nr Aberfeldy	Refused
Scottish Borders	Fallago Rig, Scottish Borders	Decision pending
Scottish Borders	Halkburn & Bow Farm, Galashiels	Approved
Scottish Borders	Toddleburn, Oxton, Lauder	Approved
Scottish Borders	Langhope Rig, Scottish Borders	Approved
Scottish Borders	Drone Hill, Scottish Borders	Approved
South Lanarkshire	Upper Clyde, South Lanarkshire	Approved
South Lanarkshire	Penbreck & Carmacoup Forest	Refused
Argyll and Bute	Black Craig	Public inquiry to be held
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar	Pentland Road, Isle of Lewis	Public inquiry to be held
Highland	Baillie Windfarm, Caithness	Public inquiry to be held
Highland	Hill of Stroupsters, Caithness	Public inquiry to be held
Midlothian	Auchencorth Moss, Midlothian	Public inquiry to be held
Perth and Kinross	Calliacher, Strathtay	Public inquiry to be held
Perth and Kinross	Findownie Hill, Dunkeld	Public inquiry to be held
South Lanarkshire	Nutberry Hill	Public inquiry to be held
Source: Scottish Government