Iconic Images of Scotland -
Time for a Change of Policy

by Alistair Todd

Think of those iconic images of Scotland: Suilven and Canisp, An Teallach, Creag Meagaidh and more. Currently they each have a unique landscape character. Soon they may be united by a common presence - wind factories!

This subject seems to be tearing the mountaineering community (and local communities) apart judging by the articles and letters in The Scottish Mountaineer. We go to the hills to get away from such debate and rancour. Maybe you do. Maybe you don't mind a few turbines turning gracefully on the horizon?

Of course WE have to do something to stop global warming. Maybe it makes us feel better if wind factories are erected and we can go back to our energy-inefficient houses and cars. It's always someone else who causes the problem, after all.

The tools used in the renewable energy debate are divisive and unfair – expediency, misinformation, incomplete information, redistribution of tax-payers' money to instigate and fund renewable energy developments.

As is the propaganda - the 'doing our bit for the environment' self-righteous attitude and euphemistic language of the land-managers and developers and Government who wish to 'harvest' energy from these 'farms' as if they are 'natural', 'organic' good for you and belong in the landscape.

When were you in the hills last time and noticed a new wind factory in the distance? They are proliferating unchecked. Skiing in the Cairngorms this winter I could see them; climbing Astral Highway on Ben Nevis last weekend I noticed something unfamiliar in the distance. If even a small number of the proposed developments go ahead it will not be long before there will be no vistas in Scotland free of a wind factory in every direction.

The Mountaineering Council of Scotland has a duty to inform its membership that while our rulers have dropped the phrase 'on-shore wind-farm developments' from policy statements, there are no less than 64 applications for onshore developments in process on the 'Section 36 Renewable Energy Consents' website. So far only one has been refused.

Our membership agreed a 'Development in Mountain Areas Policy' at the 1994 AGM (read it here). Its principles still guide the Council's view on such developments. Given the apparent lack of engagement with wind energy developments by our members, perhaps members' views have changed significantly and there is now a need for a change in our policy.

 YOUR COMMENTS 

Jim Brown says:
The proliferation of windfarms has to be halted now! These monstrosities are spoiling our great outdoors.The visual impact is bad enough but they are spoiling many of our iconic panoramic views.

from Ian Tolley:
A good intro to this subject, Alistair. I for one would be extremely disappointed - no, make that disillusioned and enraged - if the MCofS were to water down its attitude towards protection and conservation of Highland Scotland. And especially with regard to windfarms. If the MCofS does not defend the mountains wholeheartedly, who will? I think the proliferation of windfarms in and aroung highland Scotland is a misguided disaster, and I will do anything (well, almost...) to halt, or at least temper, their encroachment. Even if I feel like King Canute in the process. The future plight of polar bears and humans will be changed not an iota by the development of upland windfarms (except that a small number of human beings will become wealthy rather quickly) but something of the unique character of a unique part of Europe will be damaged in a way that cannot be easily rectified.

I also find it sad that many so-called 'green' organisations are among those most behind the fairly indiscriminate siting of windfarms. Maybe they show their true colours, and buy into the same kind of attitude that has caused many of our current difficulties on the planet i.e. every inch of the earth is there for humans to exploit for their own ends.'There's an empty space. Let's fill it up with a few turbines.' The ancient Greeks called this 'hubris', excessive pride, and it gets humans into all sorts of trouble....

A quick trawl through the yes2wind website is instructive on the topic of visual intrusion. It states that reactions are subjective, and that many people find windfarms 'elegant'. It may well be that windfarms in more urban areas can even add life to a dead and depressing landscape, but I defy anyone to find elegant the monsters that now loom over the once picturesque settlement of Tomatin, between Inverness and Aviemore. This 'subjective' argument treads on dodgy ground. If beauty is purely subjective, let's put pneumatic drills in the concert halls instead of Mozart. It's all the same really, and some people find that grating drill sound most useful in getting in touch with their darker side.

This website also points out that most of our landscapes are human-created and have been altered over the course of time. So why not, the idea goes, simply embrace windfarms as further changes to our landscapes. But that's the whole point!!! Most of Britain's landscapes are the product of human acivity. We know that highland Scxotland, too, looked very different 1000 years ago, but it is one place where that part of life outside the totally human can be experienced. Can't these few remaining corners of tranquility be left in peace? Doesn't that add to our experience as human beings?

Another one from Ian Tolley:
I have got a copy of a leaflet called 'Let's talk renewables', autumn 2006, which was delivered through my Inverness letterbox. It contains a rather clever article outlining all the anxiety and anger surrounding the building of hydro-electricity projects in the Highlands over 50 years ago. Loss of tourist trade etc etc. These anxieties have apparently proven unfounded, and the implication is that those same fears exist about windfarms and that they, too, will prove nothing but hot air. I find this approach demeaning and patronising: 'given time, the plebs get used to anything'. But there are special factors involved in windfarm upland construction that go beyond anything the Highlands have had to suffer over the past 100 years.

Firstly, windfarms are a totally alien intro to the landscape. A reservoir for hydro-electricity, however unsightly its shoreline may be, is a pale imitation of something natural to this landscape ie a loch. Those horrible Forestry Commission plantations of the 1960s are at least composed of trees. But the metallic, regular, uniform nature of a 'windfarm' is the antithesis of what yhe Highland landscape is. The term 'factory' is a better appelation than 'farm' in this respect. It is a piece of metal industrial plant, and is as suited to the Scottish uplands as chimpanzees are to the Arctic.

Secondly, obviously but rarely mentioned: they move (at least when the wind blows, but not too hard). A sense of calm and tranquility in a world primarily dedicated to frenzied activity is one of the great attractions and psychological benefits of the mountains. They act as a counter to an imbalance in modern society (that's what I feel, anyway), and to get to the top of a mountain to see these things waving at you is disturbing to say the least. Once more, they just don't belong; in fact they are an insult to the hills.

On the subject of tourism, yes2wind quotes how some wind turbines in Denmark have become a tourist attraction. This may well be, and good luck to them (seriously!). Denmark is not a country famed for its wild and mountainous landscapes, however, and it is another mistake to tar all windfarm proposals with the same brush. "My family used to visit Scotland to do Beinn Alligin and the Forcan ridge" says Fred from Guilford. "Now we go for the windfarms." I don't think so.

Oliver Francks:
For anyone actually interested in the pure facts on wind energy (I am assuming this includes the MC of S..right?) I can recommend reading the E.ON Wind Report 2005 [link] and J.A.Halkema's Facts and Fiction report [link] for example.

Both will help to dispel any doubt lingering in the mind that wind farm development isn't anything more than some short term political gain for some and short term financial gain for others whilst being a long term waste of resources and a source of environmental damage for most of the rest of us.

I see no need for a change in the MC of S' stance on development in rural/mountain areas and hope for none! Please...

Alan Hunter:
Firstly, let me say, I agree with all the comments stated so far. However, this is where I am now confused and need help - what are the alternatives ? Fossil fuel is 'bad' and is running out, nuclear does not make sense and the consumer society shows no sign of cutting back on energy consumption. So where do people think we should go from here?

Glenn Hardie:
I agree with the need for renewable energy but I would rather see more time and money spent on tidal/wave power energy. The windfarms we see now are an eyesore,being in the hills and seeing these things does not give you that feeling of being away from it all. Could these windfarms not be put out at sea in some kind of manmade constuction?

John Allen:
I prefer the term 'Electricity Factories'. They are industrial developments (factories) that make a product (electricity), but sited in places of outstanding natural beauty. How bizarre is that! 'Wind farms' indeed. They are not farms (animals, crops) and don't make wind (wind is their fuel). Why are we so gullible as to accept the euphemism 'wind farm'? I'll tell you. Because the instant money grabbers (developers) think they can delude the public (they can) and thereafter denounce our argument about beauty in favour of convenient verbal outpourings about saving the planet. Makes my blood boil! And I've just had three great days on Skye.

Neil Snellgrove:
The Scottish hills are a scarce (and deminishing resource). We must do all we can to protect one of the most outstanding landscapes in Europe. Wind farms are an example of short-term politically driven responses to very complex problems. Covering the scottish hills with 'renewal energy farms'is short-sighted, ill-conceived and an environmental nightmare. Please do all you can to oppose the indiscriminate development of these farms.

Stas Burek:
I very rarely contribute to discussion forms such as this, but this vehement tirade against windfarms needs some counterbalance.

First, some general points. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is happening, and that a significant contributor to global warning is the increasing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, to satisfy the world's increasing and insatiable appetite for energy. Our per capita energy consumption is about 2.5 times the world average. The Highlands of Scotland will not be directly affected by any of the predictions of rises in sea-level, but there will be unforeseen and unpredictable effects. Already skiing in Scotland has all but disappeared (over only the past 15 years), and winter climbers are seeing that favourite routes are covered in less snow and ice, and for shorter periods. As people who enjoy the outdoor environment, we must understand and appreciate this.

Now for some specific points. I agree with Alasdair Todd when he says that 'WE have to do something to stop global warming'. So, what does he do? What do YOU do? Do you know how much carbon dioxide your car emits when you do that 100-mile journey (each way) to climb that Munro? At least the builders of wind farms are doing something to offset your contribution to global warming.

I also agree with him when he says that 'the tools used in the renewable energy debate are divisive and unfair'. But the charges of 'expediency, misinformation, incomplete information' and propaganda apply to both sides. And quite frankly, the amount of 'tax-payers' money to instigate and fund renewable energy developments' pales into insignificance when compared with amount of taxpayers money spent on developing and subsidising nuclear power, which hasn't delivered the cheap power that it was supposed to.

We are all victims of incomplete information - we can't know everything about a subject, especially if we are not specialists in it - but please don't accuse others of misinformation or propaganda unless you have independently-verifiable evidence. Incidentally, Oliver Francks (above) suggested reading Halkema's Facts and Fiction report: whilst Halkema makes a big thing about wind turbines operating at only about 30% load capacity, he doesn't mention anywhere that a typical coal-fired power station operates at only about 35% efficiency - to get 1000kWh out of the power station, you have to put in 3000kWh of coal. How's that for 'incomplete information'?

I also find Alistair Todd's assertion odd, that he could see a wind farm when he was skiing in the Cairngorms. So, by implication, skiing paraphernalia is OK, but a wind farm is unsightly? Methinks there is self-interested selectivity here! Ski lifts are also extremely electricity-hungry, and at a time of high energy demand - where should we go for all that electricity?

I could go on.

But don't me wrong. I don't think that we should develop windfarms everywhere - I don't want to see wind turbines on the Five Sisters ridgeline. I completely agree with the MCofS Development Policy. It is a reasoned document - maybe a bit bland, but leaving options open - unlike the contributions to this discussion forum. I believe that wind energy is one part (not the only part) of an overall integrated strategy for providing the energy that we so obviously demand, and that we must explore and develop any resources that we have, with sensitivity. After all, no-one would want to see a nuclear power station on Loch Torridon, either. Unlike most other forms of energy production, wind turbines can be taken down and decommissioned quickly, leaving no long-lasting impact on the environment.

Finally, from 10 kilometres distance, during typical Scottish weather conditions, even with 'good' visibility, wind turbines aren't really that visible - I find the main A9 possibly more intrusive as I stand on top of the Drumochter hills.

Finally, finally: what do I see when I see a wind turbine? I see an elegant structure, turning lazily in the wind, a tribute to Man's ingenuity to harness the forces of nature to provide us with the energy we need, without pollution or any other lasting damage to the environment.

Sandy Slater:
Thank goodness for a bit of measure and reason from Stas Burek. I also find wind turbines quite elegant. No I don't want them on every skyline, but I'm sure there was the same tirade when hydro-electric dams were being built across the Highlands. Now they are recognised as a far-sighted and green contribution to energy production. The MCofS position is too bland and needs better definition - where would it find wind turbines acceptable and where not? And, please remember while people are beating on about wilderness - these remote glens used to be home to whole communities. The bothy you stay in used to be someone's house. The remote country has a heritage, and its human heritage is part of its fascination, every bit as important as the nice view. I get fed up with the persisting Victorian viewpoint of "Unspoilt wilderness". So evidence of "industrial activity", such as a stalking path, dam, fence post or stone bridge, isn't some abomination on an unspoilt landscape.

And wind farms don't spell the end of the world - doing nothing but shouting NIMBY just might. And why doesn't MCofS have an opinion about alternative renewable energy sources like tidal and run-of-the-river hydro as a "better" way of addressing the problem?

The MCofS published an 'Energy Statement' in 2004 which addresses some of these points. It can be read here.

Jon Foote:
Stas says "wind turbines can be taken down and decommissioned quickly, leaving no long-lasting impact on the environment." This ignores the access tracks and the concrete foundations - no lasting impact?

"... from 10 kilometres distance ... wind turbines aren't really that visible ". Because the blades move, they draw attention to themselves in a way that stationary structures don't - I don't have to look directly at a wind turbine to notice it, because our peripheral vision is good at spotting movement.

Finally, finally: what do I see when I see a wind turbine? I see an industrial structure which I can accept in some settings, such as Crosby beach (Liverpool), but not in others, such as most of the Highlands and Islands. Have a look at mid-Wales if you want to see what these "elegant" structures do to previously non-industrial landscapes.

Ian Tolley again:
Despite being a writer of one of those 'tirades' that he mentions, I do agree with a bit of what Stas Burek says! I wish to comment on one theme, however, which is the implication that anyone who objects to the development of wind factories in upland areas is therefore selfish, irresponsible, and doesn't care about global warming. This is unfair and untrue, as is the accusation of nimbyism. On a personal level, this type of wind factory is the ONLY segment of the spectrum of renewables that I have qualms about but, for the reasons that have been amply described, these 'developments' need to be looked at as a special case. The MCofS Energy Statement is excellent in this way, pointing to other areas that could be concentrated on - microgeneration etc. And I don't think it is the MCofS's responsibility to come up with a full statement or coherent plan for meeting the energy needs of the UK. This is not part of its brief, unlike that of politicians, who have notably failed to do so thus far.

I also take exception to the depiction of mountain people as necessarily gas-guzzling Munroists - this is a generalisation that is not justified. For the record, I live in Inverness, but don't own a car. Many people consider this to be mad, but I get around a lot of the finest mountain areas of N.W. Scotland by public transport and using my feet.

And when I see a wind turbine - well, I agree with what Jon Foote says. I think there are places that could actually be improved by their presence, areas of urban wasteland needing regeneration (of soul, as well as economically). Ironically, these are places least likely to get a turbine on their skyline.

Neil Lamont says:
Get a Grip

We need more electricity, about 4,800,000,000,000 WattHours more on average each year since 1998.

Efficiency savings will never solve this, it can only ever slow the growth in demand.

We have few options in solving this problem I'm going to outline them briefly.

Wind generation Turbines are visible, and no-one wants them in their back yard, and everywhere in Scotland is someone's back yard, so I guess that's that idea blown away?

Tidal / Offshore Wind Still in testing, is not ready for large scale development and already maritime agencies are saying not in out waters because they may be a danger to shipping?

Nuclear Not a single death in the UK since the first experimental power station Dounreay (May 1958), but the media continues to tell us we don't want it? France continues to produce 80% of its power this way, without incident, and is the largest exporter of electricity in Europe

Biomass Still contributes to CO2 emissions, so not as green as some would have you believe, it is more sustainable than fossil fuels...

Hydroelectric expansion The potential for expansion is small, and the lasting impact is large

I guess my opinion is obvious, but specifically in relation to 'on-shore wind' its important to remember that apart from a concrete base, they can be removed as soon as either :-

1. the aliens tell us a new way to produce electricity
2. we all pack up and move back into caves
3. we accept that nuclear is safe, and relatively clean

74% of our electricity comes from fossil fuel and even as far back as 2004 we were importing electricity from abroad.

If we are even going to make a dent in this CO2 spewing insult to common sense we need to accept all of the generation methods listed above, and more, and if we need to see wind turbines now and again well that?s the cost of sitting here on the internet when you could be out walking.

PS. I have no connection to any electricity producer of any type, but I am a physicist, and have been considering these issues for several years, you may disagree, but in the end we all want and need electricity. I'm a new member to MCS, and I have to admit I'm stunned by the anti wind power stance taken by this organization.

I believe in the need for conservation, but isn't closing fossil fuel power stations a higher priority than aesthetics?

We need to stop global warming in its tracks before Scottish winter climbing becomes impossible. This is happening in my lifetime, and yours.

Andy:
The problem i have with wind farms situated in wild uplands is that they cannot ever provide enough energy to replace even one coal fired power station. They only work around 30% of the time, they have a lifespan of 25 years, so when you take into account the CO2 generated during construction and installation (which until recently was not taken into account by sepa) your not really saving much CO2.

Having spoken to someone in the energy industry, he tells me these a a quick fix - a stop gap until a decision on nuclear is made (which it will be ) and these companies have no intention of renewing these turbines in 25 years time. (the cost without subsidies would be immense).

In europe, esp holland they situate turbines around industrial zones, (and they have thousands of them) where the power is needed not hundreds of miles away, however they still have lots of other power stations. Global warming/climate change is not going to be stopped by a few thousand turbines in Scotland...in fact with only 0.5% of atmospheric Co2 coming from human sources I get the impression that the human factor has been greatly overplayed.(although theres nothing wrong with trying to make people be less wasteful).

Finally in reply to "Already skiing in Scotland has all but disappeared (over only the past 15 years),"

I don't know where you've been over the last 15 years but skiing is still definatley here, with some of the best seasons (for snow cover) happening in the last 10 years. Even in one of the mildest winters in recent years (2006/7) we had skiing from nov- april.

The climate has always been changing and always will.

Stuart Burns:
It's all about making money from the subsidies available and nothing to do with being Green. If the government was serious about CO2 reduction, it would be pushing heavily reduction measures such as house insulation & energy efficient light bulbs. I'm totally against wind farms in wild locations but quite happy to see them on Brownfield sites - why are there no turbines on the tops of tower blocks in cities? (No subsidies ??)

Oliver Francks again:
Apparently guilty of being part of a tirade against wind energy I had a quick look at what I wrote above and decided that it was far too short to be a tirade so I've come back with something more deserving of the epithet.

Firstly, what's misinformation? My own definition..information designed to mislead maybe? Or even lack of pertinent information? Kind of like a contributor to this discussion leaving out they were, for example, earning their living from the "renewable energy" sector, you know, that kind of thing. Of course you can't accuse the wind energy lobby of total misinformation all the time. How's this for refreshing honesty;

"This factor of 'non-firm' or intermittent' generation is often cited as a detriment of wind energy, with a popular question being 'what happens when the wind stops blowing'. Not a lot really, as electricity continues to be provided by other forms of generation, such as gas or nuclear." (BWEA Website!) Ha-Ha - incredible!

I say "total misinformation" because what this amazing statement doesn't say/is covering up, is that in order to cover the completely random/lack of supply from wind turbines you have to have a conventional/nuclear plant as backup, running (because you can't just switch power plants on and off like your lights) at "standby" inefficient levels(much more polluting). You see - that's what's always left out. That wind is unreliable and will never form a realistic reliable source for society's electrical energy needs. All the wind turbines that are being built are a side show, a smoke screen; every one of them has to be backed up by conventional/alternative supplies and always will. The target is to have 10% of UK energy delivered by alternative sources (mainly wind it seems). This simply means huge numbers of turbines are going to be built that then have to be backed up by sleeping (hence inefficient and polluting) power plants. Crazy right? Double the pollution than if you simply run the power plants at their full efficiency and save the environmental cost of building wind turbines.

Secondly what's efficiency? (What's "load capacity"? a term nowhere to be seen in Halkema by the way) Well efficiency is more or less a ratio of what you put in to what you get out. Wind is kind of free input so windfarms are totally efficient right? You get something out for nothing right?......Wrong, of course. You have to build a wind turbine, you have to put it up and you have to maintain it - all costs, in terms of energy and money. If you have to put it up and maintain it at sea, those costs are many times greater; not a low impact alternative at all except in a "not in my back yard" visual sense. In a physics sense wind energy input to output for a wind turbine is limited to 60% efficiency. As a global average, coal fired power stations do indeed run at about 35%efficiency. That's it then, wind wins right?......Wrong again. Efficiency is only a piece of the equation when it comes to generating a supply of energy capable of sustaining the needs of society. If a wind turbine can only generate a meaningful supply of electricity across Beaufort 4-7 and not above and not below it doesn't take a genius to realise that the supply generated is next to useless since the wind does not blow constantly at around this speed anywhere. The production factor is a much more useful figure to quote i.e. how good is a device at producing a steady stream of electricity. For a latest generation massive wind turbine this production factor might reach 30-35%? (Actual production factors typically vary between 13 and 25%) whereas for a common or garden power plant turbine the production factor is over 90%. Where do you want the electricity to come from that is powering industry or even the intensive care unit at your local hospital!?

I really can't help thinking that all the time and money being wasted on this laughable enterprise could be much better employed elsewhere; like research into increasing the efficiency of existing, reliable and working technology or alternative technologies that have high production factors; that provide a real alternative! Did you know that power plants that use hot water generated, to power nearby houses' central heating systems, run at efficiencies of 70-80% and production factors of 90+%. Modern coal fired plants at 45%, gas plants at 60%. What if all that wind-turbine-money went into low energy light bulbs, insulation and the actual building of these low energy houses that we saw on tomorrows world 25 years ago!

Like it or not 20% of the electricity coming out of your socket now, is generated by nuclear power. Given that fossil fuels will run out, or rather become cost ineffective as they do, governments will have to increasingly turn to this source for their energy needs, if no other revolutionary means of generating steady kilowatt-hours is developed. Unless society decides it would rather take the moral high ground of the Stone Age, your and my demands for electricity ensure this. Not wanting to be the first to admit this, political parties are playing the green game as a screen while they wait for a cold fusion miracle or the other side to "go nuclear" first. If the politicians of today thought for one minute that they could be held accountable/responsible for their decisions in some future court of law the truth would be swift coming. While that is not the case the present charade continues, the vested interests take advantage, the countryside gets ruined.

Misinformation only works if you don't take the trouble to inform yourself, something everybody should be bothered to do. Those of us that have, welcome the pressure that a body such as the MCofS can provide in attempting to keep the Scottish hills free of what are laughingly called "wind farms".

P.S. I have no connection whatsoever to any generator of electricity..well except for the wall plug of course.