´óÏó´«Ã½

´óÏó´«Ã½ BLOGS - Douglas Fraser's Ledger
« Previous | Main | Next »

Offshore nimbies

Douglas Fraser | 13:06 UK time, Sunday, 20 March 2011

How much is a view worth? We've become used to campaigners against onshore windfarms warning about the harm to the scenery.

Now we've got three scalps from the wind energy sector with the knocking back of proposals for turbines close to the coast of the Solway Firth, Wigtown Bay and the south-west of Kintyre.

This follows local opposition to the idea of huge turbines within 12 miles of shore. And being that close, these farms fall within the remit of the Scottish government.

Its announcement on Friday was strangely quiet about the success of people power in knocking back the plans.

Richard Lochhead, the environment secretary, laid stress instead on the six zones that are getting outline planning approval; off the firths of Tay and Forth, east of Caithness and west of both Islay and Tiree.

He claimed that they could be producing six gigawatts of power within nine years, enough to power three million homes.

That seems an improbable figure for six small sea zones, which would at least require unlimited access to capital, rapid investment also in grid links and steady high winds - which have been notably absent for another winter.

Expect more excited claims with announcements about the sector before the government is effectively dissolved for the election campaign on Tuesday night.

And that's just in the short-term. The map of medium term prospects for near-to-shore wind farms includes large areas off the Moray coast, south of Barra, the northern Minch, north and west of Lewis, north of Sutherland and around Shetland.

Tourism hit

The report on green energy from the deep blue sea sought to quantify the value of a sea view, as well as other economic impact from offshore renewables.

To say the figures are imprecise would be something of an understatement.

But the harm to other parts of the economy from all 10 of the short-term projects originally proposed (one, at the Bell Rock, was withdrawn) shows some impact to commercial fisheries, up to £1.65m, with nearly as much harm to shipping and ports.

It's tourism which takes the big hit, as people are reckoned to shun areas with turbines spoiling the view. That could do £3.8m of harm, with recreational angling taking another hit of £1.2m.

Then again, it could be rather less. At the lowest end of the scale and assuming the best, the cost to others, including tourism and fisheries, could be as little as £340,000.

Or looked at over the next 50 years, the total harm to the economy from this first phase of inshore marine wind farms could be £169.

Then again, it could be £1m.

Nuclear tainted

These calculations, and the access to capital for this industry, become rather more important as the gears are suddenly crashed on the question of future of energy supply.

Nuclear has been tainted, in a big way, by continuing events at Fukushima-Daiichi - a long way from Islay and the Moray coast, but closely tied in to the future shape of energy supply.

If the next generation of nuclear is now in doubt, with the UK government now warning of soaring insurance costs, the financial argument is skewed back towards fossil fuels and renewables.

Gas is the fossil fuel of choice, being cleaner, and with the liquid natural gas tanker market developing fast, along with shale deposits allowing American - and perhaps soon European - producers to reduce their energy dependence on volatile parts of the world.

But renewable power also requires regulatory help. Some of it came from Ofgem on Friday, when the regulator set out the sticks and carrots by which it wants energy companies to invest in new grid networks.

There are technical financial decisions to be made about the rate of return on investment that can be assumed, and the rate of depreciation of assets, and on that basis Ofgem has now set out its pricing regime.

So by setting a relatively high rate of return, and by assuming those grid assets will depreciate over 42 years instead of 20, lots more investment could become possible.

What it announced certainly seemed to please the energy companies' investors, if the stock market is any guide.

It's less clear that it will please customers. Remember this new investment has to be funded, and that's where households and businesses will feel the heat.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    It's an odd feature of UK planning law that no one is entitled to any view at all from private property.

    Objections are only valid that relate to such views from public land.

  • Comment number 2.

    Ironically they will probably discover that it is possible to generate electricity from turbines placed underwater,out of sight,using underwater currents.

    We could probably reduce our need for electricity by ensuring that every new building had solar panels, geothermal energy, wind-turbine power and small scale hydro-electricity.

    The need for large scale power installations could be a thing of the past and not have the same negative effect as when a power station fails and a wide area has a major power outage.

  • Comment number 3.

    Planning authorities are still allowing new housing and other buildings to be erected without real consideration of energy use. The current regulations are far too weak. Insisting on modern, reliable energy-efficient equipment being fitted, and roofs being oriented to the south to benefit from solar power would greatly reduce energy need, but the planners need to have strong, enforcable rules from central government to make this happen. Why is there NO desire in government to insist on this?

  • Comment number 4.

    Why does the government not make it illegal to build a housing development without building a power supply to service it ? At least a communal heating source could be installed with the build, whether it is wind , coal or candle powered is irrelevant. If we do not start building either coal or nuclear plants in the very near future , I suspect that not only will electricity become scarce but also unaffordable except to those on benefits. Windmills and wave machines, though popular with the lost souls of the green party may sound good but will not cook the fish suppers.

  • Comment number 5.

    Why is anyone who defends something they hold dear always a nimby? It's time tired hacks came up with something a bit more original.

    The view is only part of the issue. Dig deeper and you will find that none of the profit from these developments flows back to Scotland.

    In 15 years or so highly inefficient, fossil/nuclear supported and heavily subsidised (by tax payers) wind power will contribute about 1% of our electricity. If households were encouraged to make a modest 3% energy saving there would be no need for wind farms anywhere in Scotland.

Ìý

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.