Carbon Neutral
The deployment of industrial wind turbines, which harness the power of wind- a renewable energy source, have become increasingly prevalent in recent times. It is pertinent to note that while wind turbines rely on an emission-free source of energy, the production, transport, installation, and disposal of them are anything but environmentally friendly.
Each of these processes leads to the emission of a sizable amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. Furthermore, the construction of wind turbines often involves removing large amounts of peat, releasing carbon that was sequestered for thousands of years.
In conclusion, a comprehensive lifecycle evaluation of wind turbines highlights the need to mitigate their adverse environmental impacts to realise their potential as a genuine renewable energy source.
Scotland currently generates the majority of its electricity through low-carbon methods. However, the companies responsible for industrial wind turbine sites are neglecting to incorporate this fact into their proposals. Currently, RES and EnergieKontor calculate CO2 reductions by comparing wind energy to that produced by coal or gas-fired generators.
It’s important to note that Scotland no longer relies on coal-fired generators for electricity production. Additionally, apart from one aging gas-fired generator and an older nuclear power station, the approval of industrial wind turbine sites are being based on outdated information.
Despite assertions from the Scottish Government and energy companies like Scottish Power, Res Group, and EnergieKontor, the idea that industrial wind turbines offset their CO2 debt within a year of construction is not supported by accurate data.
The figures presented by Scottish Renewable and these companies do not encompass the manufacturing process, mining of materials for turbine production, transportation costs for each component, the substantial destruction of peat lands for pouring thousands of tons of concrete for foundations, and the decommissioning process when the industrial wind turbine site reaches the end of its operational life.
When considering all these factors for each industrial wind turbine, the comprehensive figures reveal that, over the entire operational lifetime, they may not effectively offset the true CO2 emissions produced across these various stages.
While it is acknowledged that wind energy is considered a carbon-free source, it is imperative to recognise its inherent limitations as an unreliable energy source when compared to fossil fuel alternatives such as gas, coal, and nuclear power.
Data indicates that the operational efficiency of most Industrial Wind Turbines is limited to approximately 30% of the year. During periods of inactivity, alternative energy sources, such as diesel-powered generators, become essential. Scottish Power has openly acknowledged the utilization of diesel generators during downtime at various industrial wind turbine sites.
Although industrial wind turbine sites typically incorporate battery storage units, the notion that these can sufficiently cover periods of downtime is not entirely accurate. Contrary to common belief, a significant portion of the electricity stored in these units is often utilized to restart the turbines themselves. It is noteworthy that these turbines require external electricity to operate, and without such sources, they would remain inactive.
Furthermore, adverse weather conditions, particularly excessive wind speeds, necessitate the shutdown of industrial turbines to prevent potential severe damage or destruction. The large blades of these turbines require optimal conditions for electricity generation, and deviations from ideal wind conditions, either too little or too much, result in turbine shutdowns incurring substantial costs borne by the Scottish taxpayers.
In conclusion, while wind energy is indeed carbon-free, the operational intricacies and dependencies of industrial wind turbines extend beyond common perceptions, involving considerations such as intermittency, reliance on additional power sources, and susceptibility to adverse weather conditions.
Certainly not; indeed, we hold the firm belief that it is imperative for all countries globally to mitigate their carbon emissions.
If the Scottish Government is committed to wind energy, the logical alternative to onshore installations is offshore. While the construction costs for offshore industrial wind turbine sites may be higher, such a choice would obviate the extensive disruption of Scotland’s peatlands and rural landscapes associated with onshore developments.
Several sustainable alternatives exist, surpassing wind energy in both capacity and environmental impact. Some noteworthy options include:
- Small Nuclear Reactors
- Tidal and Wave Energy
- Hydropower
- Geothermal Energy
A few example of why alternative energy sources are more viable:
Nuclear Power
Acknowledging concerns surrounding nuclear power, it is essential to note that advancements in technology have yielded smaller reactors that are safer, cleaner, and generate less nuclear waste than their predecessors. Furthermore, repurposing older nuclear stations with this updated technology could preserve existing landscapes and peatlands, sparing them from disruption.
Tidal and Wave
Tidal energy stands out as a noteworthy eco-friendly power source, distinguished by its absence of greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, it occupies minimal space, as exemplified by the Sihwa Lake Tidal Power Station in South Korea, the world’s largest tidal project boasting a 254MW installed capacity. Established in 2011, this project seamlessly integrated into a 12.5km-long seawall constructed in 1994 to safeguard the coastline from flooding and facilitate agricultural irrigation.
In comparison, expansive wind farms like the Roscoe Wind Farm in Texas, USA (400km2) and the Fowler Ridge Wind Project in Indiana (202.3km2) dwarf tidal installations. Even solar farms, exemplified by China’s Tengger Desert Solar Park (43km2) and the Bhadla Industrial Solar Park in Rajasthan, India (45km2), generally require more land.
Geothermal Energy
Geothermal energy stands out as an environmentally friendly alternative to conventional fuel sources, such as coal and fossil fuels. The carbon footprint associated with geothermal power plants is notably low, making it a cleaner option when compared to traditional fossil fuels. While some pollution is linked to geothermal energy, it remains relatively minimal in comparison.
Considered a renewable energy source, geothermal energy relies on naturally replenished hot reservoirs within the Earth. This characteristic renders it both sustainable and capable of lasting until the Earth’s destruction, estimated to occur in approximately 5 billion years.
Despite global energy consumption currently standing at around 15 terawatts, the potential energy available from geothermal sources far exceeds this figure. Although most reservoirs are presently untapped, ongoing research and development in the industry hold promise for an increased number of exploitable geothermal resources. Estimates suggest that geothermal power plants could potentially provide between 0.0035 and 2 terawatts of power.
Geothermal energy proves to be a reliable source when compared to other renewables like wind and solar power. Its consistent availability for tapping distinguishes it from the intermittent nature of wind or solar energy.
For effective electricity generation, geothermal systems require water temperatures exceeding 150°C to drive turbines. Alternatively, the temperature difference between the surface and a ground source can be harnessed. The ground’s resistance to seasonal heat changes, in contrast to the air, allows it to serve as a heat sink or source with a geothermal heat pump just two metres below the surface.
Geothermal energy’s predictability sets it apart, as its power output remains stable compared to the fluctuating nature of solar and wind energy. This predictability facilitates accurate calculations of energy generation.
A key advantage of geothermal energy lies in its natural occurrence, eliminating the need for fuel extraction as required by finite resources like fossil fuels.
The current surge in exploration and technological advancements in geothermal energy promises to enhance its efficiency. Ongoing projects aim to address current limitations, fostering the continued growth and improvement of this industry. As technology evolves, many existing drawbacks associated with geothermal energy are anticipated to be mitigated.
Hydropower
Hydropower, or hydroelectric power, presents numerous advantages, establishing it as a prominent and widely embraced renewable energy source. Hydropower derives from a renewable energy source, dependent on the natural water cycle. Its consistent generation is contingent upon the presence of rainfall and water flow, rendering it a sustainable energy alternative.
Hydropower yields minimal levels of greenhouse gas emissions when juxtaposed with power generation based on fossil fuels. Its implementation contributes substantively to the reduction of carbon footprints and the amelioration of climate change.
Following the construction of a hydropower plant, operational and maintenance costs remain comparatively low. While the initial investment for erecting a dam or hydroelectric facility may be substantial, ongoing costs generally prove more economical than those associated with fossil fuel power plants.
Hydropower facilities boast extensive operational lifespans, frequently exceeding 50 years. This prolonged durability significantly enhances the overall cost-effectiveness of hydropower projects.
Certain hydropower systems, such as pumped storage, offer energy storage capabilities. Surplus electricity generated during periods of low demand can be utilized to elevate water to an upper reservoir. Subsequently, this stored water can be released to generate electricity during periods of peak demand.
The construction and maintenance of hydropower projects generate employment opportunities, thereby contributing to local and regional economic development.
In Summary:
Given the dynamic nature of technological progress, there exists safer and cleaner alternatives to the currently proposed solutions. The contention is whether to embrace these alternatives rather than adhering to the status quo.
THE ECONOMY
While certain companies engage local businesses for tasks like erecting dry walls or clearing routes for heavy transportation lorries to access sites, EnergieKontor has explicitly declared that their industrial wind turbine sites will not generate local employment opportunities.
While some individuals may assert their involvement in site work, it is typically through their existing employers, resulting in no additional employment prospects for the local community.
Companies like Res Group and EnergieKontor maintain dedicated teams of engineers, crane operators, electricians, and construction personnel, as mandated by contractual obligations. Once these sites are fully operational, it is exceptionally uncommon to find local individuals employed on a long-term, paid basis.
Contrary to the figures presented, inquiries directed at communities residing closest to existing industrial sites reveal a markedly different perspective. While statistics may indicate support from individuals residing further away and unaffected by these sites, a reverse sentiment emerges from those in closer proximity. Numerous local businesses, including B&Bs and hotels, report direct declines in profits when construction begins on proposed sites.
Examining existing industrial sites in the local area, it becomes apparent that most are situated away from towns and have not impacted them to the extent anticipated with the introduction of colossal turbines ranging from 656 to 820 feet in Newton Stewart and Glentrool. The imposing scale of these structures renders surrounding buildings diminutive, and the consistent noise generated by the massive blades is likened to a perpetual airplane takeoff.
Moreover, it is noteworthy that tourists, particularly those who appreciate the countryside, vehemently oppose the allowance of such sites. A significant portion of Newton Stewart’s tourism comprises hillwalkers, sightseers, cyclists, and individuals seeking the serene and tranquil attributes of the region. All of these aspects stand to be compromised if these proposed sites receive consent.
The Environment
While the statistics support the assertion, they do not encompass the substantial impact on ‘Rare Species’ resulting from interactions with industrial turbines, nor do they take into account that there are more cats than industrial turbines throughout the world.
The avian casualties attributed to cats typically involve common species such as Black Birds, Seagulls, and Sparrows. In contrast, turbines pose a significant threat to larger birds, including Eagles, Owls, and other rarer species.
While it is acknowledged that cats are natural hunters and unfortunately contribute to bird fatalities, the introduction of artificial machinery to this equation is deemed unacceptable. Arguing for the acceptance of such consequences based on the premise of Mother Nature is considered imprudent.
Given that the proposed turbine sites are situated directly within the flight paths of numerous rare bird species in Scotland, the associated risks are markedly heightened. Any additional non-natural bird fatalities are deemed undesirable, particularly given the vulnerability of these species.
The peatland currently undergoing destruction has endured on the hillside for centuries, capturing significant quantities of carbon from the Earth’s atmosphere over the course of its existence. Any disturbance to this peatland risks the release of the sequestered carbon, contributing to elevated CO2 levels.
Beyond its carbon sequestration role, the peatlands serve as crucial elements in preventing flooding in the lower regions of our hills, a concern particularly relevant to the lower-lying town of Newton Stewart. The replacement of peatland with concrete diminishes the hills’ capacity to absorb water during heavy storms or adverse weather conditions.
The River Cree and Penkiln Burn are already susceptible to flooding, and the introduction of additional water, further elevating water levels, poses a substantial risk to areas like Old Minnigaff and various locations within Newton Stewart.
It is imperative to note that the peatlands being substituted by the Scottish Government and associated companies do not match the scale of the peatland being destroyed. Furthermore, unlike the existing peatland, the replacement lacks the additional benefits of having captured and stored substantial quantities of CO2 emissions from the atmosphere.
The natural attributes of our peatlands function as both a natural defense mechanism against CO2 emissions and a natural deterrent against flooding. Disturbing this delicate ecological balance poses an unacceptable risk.
Battery storage units are composed of tens of thousands of lithium-ion cells, which are highly susceptible to overheating and combustion. If these cells are damaged during manufacturing and subsequently installed in the units, the risk of the battery entering a state known as thermal runaway is extremely high.
In the event of thermal runaway in lithium-ion batteries, the ensuing fire does not require oxygen, as the battery itself generates the necessary oxygen to sustain combustion. When on fire, these batteries emit a toxic gas called Hydrogen Fluoride, capable of causing lung damage and, in extreme cases, death. Additionally, the fires produce hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, methane, and other hazardous chemicals.
Unlike conventional fires, lithium-ion battery fires cannot be extinguished with water; in fact, water may exacerbate the fire’s lethality. Typically, these fires are left to burn out naturally, a process that can last over 50 hours. Throughout this period, the surrounding air becomes saturated with the aforementioned toxic chemicals, spreading to the nearby areas. In instances such as Newton Stewart, the local fire service lacks the capability to combat such fires, and the nearest service, potentially able to intervene, is over 80 miles away in Glasgow, requiring almost a 1 hour and 55-minute drive. By the time assistance arrives, it would likely be too late to mitigate the fire.
Past incidents, such as the Tesla unit fire in the United States, serve as examples of the severity of these fires. In such cases, fire services had to maintain a safe distance and let the fire burn out. A smaller-scale example is evident in the Samsung Note 7 devices, which experienced battery faults, prompting a widespread recall due to the risk of fires.
Considering the associated risks, it can be argued that the benefits of these units are outweighed. In most scenarios, these units are primarily designed to restart industrial turbines when they are shut down due to high winds or maintenance. They are incapable of sustaining power for more than 30 minutes for 150,000 homes. Consequently, these battery storage units contribute to the existing array of risks associated with industrial wind turbine sites.
Wind turbines comprise a variety of materials, encompassing metals and minerals. The following highlights some of the key minerals and metals commonly present in a wind turbine:
Steel
Typically, the tower structure of a wind turbine is constructed from steel, an alloy of iron and carbon.
Aluminium
Utilised in various components like the nacelle and blades.
Copper
Industrial wind turbines incorporate copper in generator coils and other electrical components.
Rare Earth Elements (REEs)
Neodymium and dysprosium, classified as rare earth elements, are employed in manufacturing robust permanent magnets found in the generator of many contemporary industrial wind turbines.
Fibreglass or Carbon Fibre
These materials are commonly employed in the production of wind turbine blades.
Concrete
The foundation of a wind turbine tower is often composed of thousands of tons of concrete.
Plastic
Various parts of a wind turbine, including specific components in the nacelle, may incorporate plastic materials.
It is noteworthy that the precise composition of a wind turbine can vary based on the specific design, model, and manufacturer.
GALLOWAY NATIONAL PARK
Hands Off Our Hills (HOOH) – Official Statement Regarding the Galloway National Park Proposal and Industrial Wind Turbine Sites.
30th September 2024
As an organisation, Hands Off Our Hills maintains a neutral stance on the proposal for the Galloway National Park. We recognise that there are potential benefits and negatives to a National Park, and there are varied opinions on the matter. However, as an organisation, it is important that we remain impartial and open to all perspectives.
While we acknowledge that the creation of a National Park may not directly prevent wind turbine developments, historical evidence from other National Parks shows that it could help slow the volume of applications and approvals for such projects. We are not trying to mislead anyone on this point, but rather provide a balanced view based on factual information.
The Scottish Government is currently reviewing potential amendments to the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), which may allow renewable energy projects, including wind turbines, to be considered within newly designated National Parks. However, it is important to highlight that this proposal has emerged from a limited consultation process, with approximately 50 responses received across Scotland.
This limited engagement raises concerns about the transparency and inclusiveness of the process. Any amendments to a National Framework such as NPF4 should follow established procedures, ensuring broad consultation, full transparency, and adherence to proper regulatory guidelines. This includes allowing for thorough public and stakeholder participation, ensuring that all voices are heard, and that the changes reflect a comprehensive and balanced approach to national planning, this doesn’t seem to be the case in this instance and Hands Off Our Hills will be questioning the process.
It is important to clarify that while Paragraph 4(B) of NPF4, as of 13th February 2023, states that “development proposals for wind farms in National Parks and National Scenic Areas will not be supported,” this does not amount to a blanket prohibition. Rather, it indicates a presumption against such developments but does not entirely preclude their consideration under exceptional circumstances.
To date, no large-scale wind turbines have been constructed in Scotland’s two existing National Parks—Loch Lomond and The Trossachs, and the Cairngorms. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 ensures that any development in these protected areas undergoes rigorous scrutiny, distinct from developments outside National Park boundaries, particularly with regard to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage.
Any potential changes to NPF4 would not guarantee the approval of wind turbines within newly designated National Parks, such as the proposed Galloway National Park. Rather, these amendments would allow for the possibility of renewable energy projects being considered “if required,” introducing flexibility while maintaining the integrity of the planning process. Speculation regarding the removal or amendment of Paragraph 4(B) remains premature, as no draft publication has been made public to date.
Crucially, future applications for industrial wind turbine sites would still be subject to stringent assessment, including compliance with the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Wind Turbine Spatial Framework, which continues to classify National Scenic Areas as Group 1—areas where wind farms “will not be acceptable.” There is currently no proposals to change or modify the Wind Turbine Spatial Framework and Hands Off Our Hills will continue to campaign effectively against such proposals.
We strongly encourage all stakeholders, including the media, and other organisations to engage with the facts and ensure that discussions surrounding the proposed Galloway National Park and potential renewable energy developments remain accurate and well-informed. Misrepresentation of these facts can cause unnecessary confusion and hinder meaningful dialogue, potentially bordering on illegal behaviour. It is important that individuals conducting research do not rely on shared comments or opinions presented as factual evidence, but instead seek out verified information to contribute constructively to the ongoing discussions.
As an organisation, Hands Off Our Hills remains committed to our core campaign goals, but we also recognise the importance of continued and constructive dialogue with key stakeholders, including NatureScot, the Energy Consents Unit, the Galloway National Park Association, and renewable energy companies. It is crucial that we use every opportunity to ensure that our voices are heard in the management of renewable energy projects within the Galloway Hills. Should a Galloway National Park be established, we stand ready to engage with any changes that may arise and if required adjust our campaign accordingly.
We will continue to facilitate open discussion regarding the proposed Galloway National Park on our platforms, but we kindly request that all members, stakeholders, and media respect our organisation’s neutral stance. We also ask that unwarranted behaviour is avoided, we fully understand that becoming a National Park would not stop wind turbine developments and nor are we attempting to state otherwise, what we are stating is that it could potentially slow down the current onslaught of applications and approvals that are occuring across the whole of Dumfries and Galloway.
Please note that personal views expressed by our administrators should not be misconstrued as official positions of Hands Off Our Hills, we are all entitled to our own personal opinions outside our administrative roles, and we openly allow our team members to put forward their personal opinions.
Any official stance by Hands Off Our Hills will be communicated in the same formal manner as this statement.
We unequivocally assert that the Galloway Hills are not for sale. These hills do not belong to any individual, corporation or organisation, and we strongly oppose any attempts by large international companies to acquire or exploit this land. The Galloway Hills are an invaluable part of our natural heritage, and we are dedicated to safeguarding them from commercial exploitation. Our position is clear: the Galloway Hills are not a commodity. Hands Off Our Hills will continue to stand against any efforts to sell, industrialise, or damage this unique landscape and its areas of historical significance.
We hope this statement clears up any misconceptions, false assumptions and misquoted phrasing that may have arisen about our position. Should anyone wish to clarify our stance further, please do not hesitate to contact us via our website: www.handsoffourhills.co.uk.
Kind regards,
Hands Off Our Hills
For further information about the proposed Galloway National Park, please visit their website: Galloway National Park Association