You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yet another windfarm proposal, this time above Comrie, in Glen Lednock.
https://www.glenlednockwindfarm.co.uk/&source=gmail&ust=1752133866321000&usg=AOvVaw18SBDv5ykQcBh28l2-spH C"> https://www.glenlednockwindfarm.co.uk/
I'm in correspondence with the local group 'Save Glen Lednock'. I'd copy in some of the email content but it's quite long, happy to forward on to those who might be interested.
For my part, I want to avoid knee-jerk NIMBYism, however the scale of the scheme (in particular, the size of the turbines and the works required to access the glen) seem disproportionate. The turbines are too big to use existing access routes so entire new tracks need to be created parallel and very close to the existing minor road through the glen. I'm also very sceptical of the motivations behind the turbine selection, i.e. could they use smaller turbines that don't require such destructive access track creation and the potential trimming or felling of trees lining some public roads between Perth and Comrie? (the statement regarding trimming and felling is from Save Glen Lednock, I'm still looking through the planning docs).
Overall, the whole thing points to a failing of the process in many respects, how can non-technical local lay-people effectively digest 321 technical documents that form the application and put together a coherent objection? Especially since the whole thing has been done very quietly and approx 3 weeks of the 7 allowed for 'respresentations' have already lapsed.
Anyway... I'm sort of resigning myself to the project getting greenlit, several years of unsightly construction and some temporary access restriction. At least the silver lining is a nice new gravel track up the glen although the existing road is almost gravel enough!
Bigger turbines are more efficient.
Sorry, but I don't have any issue with wind turbines and the production of more renewable energy massively outweighs the impact of what, in the long run, will be a minor flesh wound that will heal itself.
YMMV obvs.
It's going to be no more an industrial eyesore than the existing brown wasteland of bare hillside and sheep devastated wet desert. The last time I was in Glen Lednock, there was an excess of deer too and a mucking great concrete dam holding back an industrial reservoir of water.
Plus all of these Amazon datacentres and the like need to get their cheap and reliable power from somewhere. People (and our wishes) are somewhat secondary to that...
Sorry, but I don't have any issue with wind turbines and the production of more renewable energy massively outweighs the impact of what, in the long run, will be a minor flesh wound that will heal itself.
To be fair I agree with this for the most part, I'm trying to reconcile myself with the longer term view (I sort of alluded to this with my silver lining comment...). I still think there's a bit of sledgehammer vs. nut on this particular scheme though, a good compromise might have been smaller plant that required less earthworks, balancing reduced efficiency against the lower embodied carbon emissions of the construction period.
It's going to be no more an industrial eyesore than the existing brown wasteland of bare hillside and sheep devastated wet desert. The last time I was in Glen Lednock, there was an excess of deer too and a mucking great concrete dam holding back an industrial reservoir of water.
The windfarm itself perhaps but all the additional access infrastructure is going to affect the lower glen which is really pretty and tranquil (perhaps the reason for my knee jerkiness, every time I ride up there I'm struck by how lovely it is).
However both replies are helping de-escalate my initial fears.
I think you'd find that the difference in the amount of earthworks required between larger and smaller turbines to be minimal ..... if any. They would likely put in a new access track regardless.
It's very likely that the number of turbines will be reduced. This is a common negotiation tactic I've seen deployed elsewhere.
As with the OP I'm often conflicted about windfarms in general as they can improve access. Inevitably though it's about providing energy to folk some distance away and there's little financial benefit to folk more local. It's easy not to be a NIMBY when your "back yard" isn't affected. If we had a policy of all energy generation being located closer to where it is being used, we'd already be using less than we are.
Relevant to this thread.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0v3z5x8nxo
Don't expect to pay less for your electricity. Do expect more windfarms, hydro and power lines.
Don't expect to see higher paid jobs moving north. Do expect to see a continued reliance on poorly paid tourism jobs, further depopulation, closure of schools, poorer public transport etc.
Inevitably though it's about providing energy to folk some distance away and there's little financial benefit to folk more local
I find this argument fascinating. Unless you live subsistence life in a local stone and thatch croft burning peat or wood... Almost every thing you require needs those far off places to have energy.
If the wind happens to not be blowing nearby other far off places are sharing their energy.
Space is a resource, it's a valuable one for sure but its still a resource. Most of scotland is a barren unnatural wasteland. Sticking a few windmills on it is perfectly sensible. Aslong as they are designed correctly and build well ofcourse.
And what sharkbait said. Not that much difference in earthworks and less large ones is a significantly better than more smaller ones. Bigger ones are more productive not just to the size but taller ones get cleaner air.
They should stick them up in the hills above Edinburgh or the nice commuter ares of England .
Would save a lot of cabling 😄.
The English are just ignorant , post above is an example .
The English are just ignorant , post above is an example .
If thats directed at me... Its not me thats coming across as ignorant.
Yours sincerely
Joshvegas of Peebles
Thing is, the further south you go in the UK the less good an idea it is to build onshore wind turbines. It’s a better idea to build solar farms. So there are lots of solar farms where it’s sunny, turbines where it’s windy and people get to make reasonable objections or NIMBY about how they’re getting picked on over ‘everyone else’.
If memory serves the offshore wind turbines are more evenly distributed (because the wind on the sea is more evenly distributed).
There must come a point where there is enough windmills in the mix of energy generation. We need a variety of sources more so with renewables. Problem is windmills are now proven tech and relatively easy and cheap to build with short lead times so in the push for renewables we just get more and more of them
Someone will surely be able to work out or estimate when there are too many in the mix leading to either a lot of non running fossil fuel generators or other sources easy to turn on and off or the risk of brownouts in times of low wind. The dreaded winter high pressure event. I don't know where this point is but I guess we are about at it now particularly for Scotlands needs.
We are now hitting the point where tidal turbines which can provide smooth baseline energy if properly sited and are now proven to be reliable with one in use for more than 6 years continuousl?> I think ( and I know I have banged on about this a lot) that its time for more tidal, more offshore wind and that we really are either at the point or soon to reach it when we have enough wind turbines in the mix. tidal has had pathetic levels of investment historically. I think its time is now
New large scale tidal turbine is here
https://www.waterbriefing.org/home/technology-focus/item/18439-world%E2%80%99s-most-powerful-tidal-turbine-to-be-launched-in-scotland
FFS - formatting is bolloxed and I cannot edit - I don't mean more offshore wind
I will also point out that kinderdjik in the netherlands - an often photographed line of old windmills is now seen as a picturesque view - what the difference between them and the graceful turbines we build now? Both industrial power generation sites 🙂
I would also like to point out it that if you look at a map of windfarms the hills around edinburgh and the central belt are full of them.
Question Power lost per km of high tension cable run? Scotland with 10 % of population produces more that double that of England. Is it not that everyone wants cheap power but not in their back yard. Just look at HS 2 we could have had it up and running to Inverness and Aberdeen , need to put nation first . Spain and France can do big infrastructure projects quite fast. Lots of wasteland on the grouse moors running down the Pennines. Severn tidal project?
Question Power lost per km of high tension cable run?
About 5% depending on the actual electricity being fired down it.... Over 1000km. So all in not really a big deal.
Penines is a fair question. Its about the only place in england with a relatively high average windspeed. I don't know how many are there or why if they aren't thats the case. But average wind speed is only part of it. Consistently present wind, clean turbulence free wind are pretty vital for a sensible location. Then there are the practicalities of building, you need to be able to access and construct the site. Its basically a big checklist of stuff. Including planning and environmental considerations.
What i say might sound arsy but it is true. Electricity has to come from somewhere. Scotland has that ability, much less of England does. If they aren't near you, you are literally expecting someone else to put up with having a windfarm or whatever instead so you can have energy. So unless you are prepared to remove yourself from the grid and expect higher costs* for goods because they are produced, imported distributed using higher energy costs its probably better to have a wind farm than a fracking site or an open cast coal mine.
Now. I am not in any way saying they should be built everywhere. I am not saying there shouldn't be rigorous consenting, planning and local engagement. I am not saying there shouldn't concessions to help mitigate the impact on locals. I am not even saying in certain circumstances a windfarm shouldn't be rigourously contested. i think turning up to an engagement meeting and asking difficult questions and calling out obvious ommisions and errors to any proposals should be encouraged. But based on real issues not "destroying scotland natural areas" or which there are very very few.
And if you start playing the England Scotland patriotism nonsense then.. You're just a bit of a knob.
*Not necessarily monetary costs
I too am really torn by this - any renewables should be in the 'best' place they can, and we should leave no stone unturned.
The reason I am now increasingly pessimistic about onshore wind is for a few reasons:
- we still have not put any way enough effort into reduced energy demand. There needs to be a HUGE government project to insulate every home possible -but unfortunately big business is interested in ££££££££ windfarms and nuclear, not having to update nanna's house for £.
- we still have not increased our resilience and storage enough - as I understand it there needs to be a lot more battery (chemical, mechanical, heat, it matters not) storage, likely nearer where the energy is used.t
- we still have not maximised the 'on building' generation and storage - home solar with battery, business solar and battery etc. Why is not every supermarket or industrial 'shed' covered in solar with an onsite battery, rather than eating up greenspace? (the reason is cost and hassle to the businesses who install such schemes). This has big resilience and financial 'wins' IMO.
- the dysfunctional energy market where turbines (or other sources) spin but are paid not to generate (for reasons of grid and storage), the pricing loaded against electricity as a hangover from when we had coal power stations, the 'driven by the international market' acceptance. There is just a lack of vision (GB Energy anyone?) to drive significant changes forward.
- the fact that there are still unbuilt, off-shore wind and now tidal turbines - we should drive forward on those before more onshore wind is created. I can see a day where we do start getting in to tidal and suddenly some of our less efficient onshore wind farms will be abandoned.
- after all the above is done, then I think we could look at more onshore wind.
And I do believe that there is a north-south divide in energy (and the attendant benefits from 'mining' it_ - and still an attitude from ministers and many members of the public that do not want a change from the status quo of South East priority, elsewhere can be ignored.
Is it just me that thinks they are quite beautiful? I live in Harrogate and we have a cluster on Skipton Road (near RAF Menwith Hill). I love watching them as I drive/ride by. I'd be happy for more to be planted.
Thanks all, apologies I am reading all this just not had time to get my own thoughts in order!
I think I agree with the sentiment of Matt's post the most, in that I DON'T object to windfarms in principle, but when clearly the site isn't the best site available (as is the case here, the access route from Perth involves passing through two small communities and widening/tree felling/tree trimming along access routes just to get the turbine in) then I guess I start objecting to the mechanism by which our national energy infrastructure seems to be getting developed based on the profits of private investors and not the best sites for the job.
For example, there are bare hills much closer to Perth and the A9 which are quite clearly a better choice for a windfarm in every respect, better access, better topography, large windfarms already adjacent, numerous well graded access tracks already in place. So why are they not being used? Presumably because this particular investment company doesn't own the land, and presumably ALSO because the land is managed as grouse hunting estate and is thus probably very expensive to buy in the first place. My point being that the choice of Glen Lednock is not being driven by practicality or its objective suitability as a location.
Ultimately though this sort of objection is pointless as it's an objection to political process rather than specifics of the development.
Finally for what it's worth, I live in Auchterarder and have no objections whatsoever to my most local windfarms (Glendevon/Ben Buck/Braes of Doune) which at least seem relatively sensibly sited with access immediately off relatively major A-roads and not through small villages etc. etc.
I agree with your point about there being much better places - even locally - for a windfarm. But as you say, depends on who owns what bits of land and what they want to do with it.
I too can see Braes of Doune windfarm from my house - and it seems a sensible place, and I would not object to more going in around that area subject to my points above. So far from being a NIMBY, I am actually a PMCTMBY.
That is estate is famous for being 'barren' grouse shooting - you can see the biodiversity drop as you cross into their land.
Transmission losses in this report 8-15 %
So better to site near to where required
Transmission losses in this report 8-15 %
So better to site near to where required
You need to look at those numbers again. the lines themselves are not 8%
They are pretty to look at though.
lets not forget generators pay access charges to the grid. the further north you are the more you pay. This is to give incentives to create generating capacity near to the consumer in theory. ( I would argue its actually for very different purposes) So again following that theory its best to have generating capacity further south.
Its not just the losses in the lines that count - its also the cost of the infrastructure to transmit the energy.
but when clearly the site isn't the best site available (as is the case here, the access route from Perth involves passing through two small communities and widening/tree felling/tree trimming along access routes just to get the turbine in)
You're objecting because some trees are going to be cut down - which they probs would anyway and would definitely be replanted, grow back? Really?
Re Scottish power to the England - it works both ways.... There's far more power stations in England and in those pesky winter highs the power will be flowing in the other direction.
Tidal: I suspect it's just not eco omic Vs wind, otherwise it would have been don.e already
Tidal: I suspect it's just not eco omic Vs wind, otherwise it would have been don.e already
I think it's been a serious technical challenge.
It's also had the Tories cut any research funding, and Brexit saw the end of a lot of European funds and collaboration.
And finally, again big companies want to do what they know. And after 30+ years of wind turbine work, that's what they know (onshore and offshore).
I suspect with the growing progress there will be accelerating progress this decade. But I think, like wind and solar had, it needs government subsidy to kick start it.
certainly needs government investment. the Scots government has put a little in but its not something they can do on the scale needed without cutting elsewhere.
Tidal is all ready to go with the investment . If it were in England it would be getting it but Westminster will not invest in Scotland even for UK wide strategic projects as this is
We have tidal flow turbines working now on a pilot plant scale and as above a 2mw turbine has just gone in
You're objecting because some trees are going to be cut down - which they probs would anyway and would definitely be replanted, grow back? Really?
Old growth deciduous trees lining an old Roman road, yes. And I think you're being willfully obtuse about this.
If it was the last viable site for a windfarm in Scotland then yes, have at it, but it's not. It's just the most convenient site that this particular company spotted that would allow a quick return. I think we're justified in being a bit unhappy about that situation.
As it happens I can see that there is no real point in objecting so I'm already in the process of trying to disengage and make peace with it, so you'll excuse me if I meekly flounce out of my own thread 😂
if its old growth trees then they should be protected
A letter of objectuon linked to on Parkwatch. Seems to make good points.
So based on the photo. A barren landscape devoid of natural flora and fauna and a dirty great man made reservoir. And "it will spoil the landscape".
Just to add. I haven't read the rest yet.
I do intend to but working