U.K. Locals Rebel Against Wind Power

Our Edinburgh Editor just posted about Wind Power in Scotland.

Controversy is rife...but I saw a comment somewhere recently about the furore over Wind Power killing birds in the context of cars killing animals aplenty but we do not ban cars as a result.

Interesting debates though...

Namaste

Al

Aren't those winding, spiral ones supposed to be bird safe? Why do we never hear about those ones?

The killing birds debate is an interesting one: I have just come back from Aberystwyth, Wales where the RSPB feed Red Kites daily (they're rare and need encouraging to stick around and breed) right next to a wind farm...

The bird excuse is nothing but a strawman. As long as the farm is not in a migration path it's fine. But the peat thing sounds like a valid concern. Doesn't peat release CO2 and methane? Methane being the one to worry about?

This kind of story is really important to think about, so apologies, I'm going to make a long serious comment.

This controversy sounds pretty typical of objections to other big wind projects in the US. And those debates are really interesting because they seem to pose two completely different ideas of what a "clean" or "natural" environment is.

One of them -- the no-big-wind POV -- wants to keep the area in dispute "clean" and "pristine", in whatever people believe to be their natural or traditional state. It's an environment for looking at, for cherishing in a sentimental way. (That's why in the US the controversies usually occur in scenic areas, not forlorn high deserts few use for recreation or real estate speculation.) This perspective posits that humans are just visitors violating some natural state. The environmental costs of human occupation are shoved off somewhere else... say, to a far-off power-plant.

The other point of view tries to integrate humans into the environment. It says yeah, we're here, and we're going to try to live in some way that's respectful of the nonhuman world. It's not always pretty. There are effects. Maybe it will take some time to balance out the carbon. But at the end of the day (or decade) it's better for everybody that humans learn how to live with their own garbage.

It's the difference between, say, a national park and a county obsessed with permaculture.

I guess a big wind power plant is kind of halfway between those extremes, because it's big, not purely focused on local needs. But I'd take big wind over big nuclear anyday. Even in my backyard.

The problem with the wind versus nuclear argument is always the sheer size of the wind farms needed to replace a nuclear power station. The Lewis wind farm would only provide a fraction and look at the hatred that has stirred up. Moreover as the wind doesn't blow all the time (even on Lewis) you need to have a nuclear power station to back up the wind farms. So the choice is do you want the environment destroyed by wind farms and a nuclear power station or a nuclear power station. Always seems like a no brainer to me.

According to Lewis windpower the roads will be max 5 meter wide. That is a fraction of the 30 m menioned in the article. This is so typical of the wind energy debate. Numbers that are sucked from a thumb are cited as solid fact.

I am reminded of a song by a great British band, The Kinks:

We are the Village Green Preservation Society

God save Donald Duck, Vaudeville and Variety

We are the Desperate Dan Appreciation Society

God save strawberry jam and all the different varieties

Preserving the old ways from being abused

Protecting the new ways for me and for you

What more can we do

I agree with bottleman, windmills are great but developing on undisturbed land is bad either way. Why cant they build the things in an area allready under use.

I am reminded of a song by a great British band, The Kinks:

We are the Village Green Preservation Society

God save Donald Duck, Vaudeville and Variety

We are the Desperate Dan Appreciation Society

God save strawberry jam and all the different varieties

Preserving the old ways from being abused

Protecting the new ways for me and for you

What more can we do

160 miles of road!
If wind actually worked well, it might be worth it. But wind power is so expensive that it boggles the mind. The costs are so much bigger than the price of the turbines. For each MW of wind turbine, you need to build an on demand power plant capable of the same output, and build 3x transmission towers, cables, etc, and ruggedize the grid, and hire people to manage the bumpy unpredicatble output. It all amounts to electricity at about 5 times the current price.

Don't forget that those nice wihte towers will be rusty industrial installations in 10 years.

Which european country has the highest precentage of wind? Ans. Dennmark, with Germany in second. Which two countries have the dirtiest electricity in europe? The same two. france and Sweden produce electricity with 1/8 the carbon per kwh of Denmark or Germany,

160km of road 30m wide?!?!?

Obviously cant be correct. that's like building a hundred miles of motorway!

The CO2 released from the peat will take "years" to offset??? How many years? 2 or 100.

This is clearly written by a biased source...

So there is a dirty side to wind power?

Wind farms should be offshore. They would be hardly visible. And use those flywheels posted earlier this week to help store and clean the energy.

MLyons - the environment is already being destroyed. The nice open space you see being filled with wind turbines is not going to stay that way if we continue to heat the globe, stash radioactive waste in unstable places, drive petroleum-powered vehicles. Already what you are looking at, though pretty, is compromised by these activities. Wind power will slow its degradation to some extent.

Why not ask people to get rid of their Plasma TV, Electric chocolate fountain, Hair straighteners, Tumble dryer?? Take out the problem at source.

If only there was a way to link what we have with this constantly mentioned energy 'need'. If you think it should be Not In My Back Yard then surely someone has to say Not In My House.

microgeneration is key for the solar/wind generation debacle. Why destroy unused land when there are billions of roofs with countless square feet of unused space. Legislation should be passed requiring solar panels and/or micro wind generators on every new bulding that will have electric outlets...also included in said legislation should be more tax incentives and grants to retrofit existing buildings.

The argument that wind requires the same amount of back-up sounds plausible, but is incorrect:
1) Yes, the outptut of a single windturbine is very variable, but the output of all windturbines on the grid combined is much more steady.
2)All power generation requires back-up, especially nuclear power stations tend to go offline unexpectedly. Yet, there is not a seperate back-up for each individual powerplant. They share a back-up. Wind can share in this back-up as well. Several studies have shown that at least 20% of the electricty can be generated by wind with only negligable extra back-up required.
3) The amount of wind cannot be controlled, but it can be predicted. The amount of instantanious (spinning) reserve needed for wind energy is therefore determined by the uncertainty in the prediction rather than by the installed power as win opponents often assume.
4) Coal and nuclear powerplants have only two modes: "off" or "full power". They will allways need to be supplemented by natural gas and/or hydropower plants to respond to changes in user demand. They are themselves not suitable for back-up.

In response to Pieter's post - the output of all windturbines on the grid may be more steady. However an example of the fundamental problem is that during last winter there was a period of three days in the UK where there was a high pressure centred over the UK that brought very low temperatures over that whole period, but - guess what - no wind whatsoever across the whole country. This is a very different scenario than for other forms of power generation and means that you can't provide back-up for wind power in the same way, with the same ratios.

Essentially this means that the whole amount of wind power generation has to have back up to protect against scenarios like this. Otherwise there will just be no power available for some of the population at certain times.

And any other backup that is provided on the grid for other power stations will still be needed for those stations in case they fail. It can't just be shared with the windturbines.

Can any of the wind "skeptics" on this site point to an example of a wind farm - preferably, one on earth - needing to be "backed up" by nuclear or coal?

Can any of the wind "skeptics" provide data backing up the assertion that it is ungodly expensive, and that the towers will be "rusty industrial waste" in 10 years?

No?

Well, then I suggest you enjoy your peat. It'll surely be gone in 30 years thanks to global warming.

Wind power is far less expensive than nuclear and natural gas, and now competes with coal on price (at least, it does here in the U.S.). And the towers that hold up the new 1.5MW turbines will last for at least the 30-year-life of the contracts for the power they produce. at least.

To the person who suggested that nuclear has a smaller footprint than wind - give me a break. You've clearly never visited a uranium mine or nuclear waste storage facility. You also gloss over the amount of carbon emissions associated with developing uranium.

The anti-wind forces are in deep denial of the reality of our energy situation, but I suppose they have a lot of company.

To Mateosf: Your obvious disdain for people who do not agree with your positive perspective on wind power is clear. Is this constructive, though? We are all engaged in a debate and there are many different factors for and against all forms of energy generation - therein lies part of the problem.

Just dismissing other people's points does not help the process.

I am personally somewhat of a sceptic of some of the assertions made in favour of wind power, which often seem to conveniently disregard some of the problems that exist with this form of generation - see my previous post, which I note that you have not addressed.

But I am sure that it forms part of the solution - although my personal view is that the focus should possibly be more on the use of wind in microgeneration rather than on a grid scale, partly for the reason that I quoted in my post.

Mateosf can you provide data that wind power is less expensive than nuclear per kilowatt? Or the life expectancy of wind turbines? Third and fourth generation nuclear can solve many waste problems and even produce their own fuel. Integral Fast reactors to be specific.

Jilted:
Wind power is cheaper than nuclear per kWH. I´ve read it in countless sources. 'The cost of wind-generated electricity has fallen from 38¢ per kilowatt-hour in the early 1980s to 4¢ to 6¢ today.- Earth Policy Institute"

'Table 2. Estimated True Costs of Electrical Power
Type of Plant Cost per kWh
(in cents) Nuclear 10.0-15.0 Wind 5.0-12.0' - http://www.greens.org/s-r/11/11-09.html

I got this information in a quick one minute search. I´m sure I could post tons more supporting site figures. And I am also sure that there are sites that support figures showing nuclear to be cheaper - I saw two, both from nuclear power associations. What a coincidence. And no doubt some would say that the figures that support wind power come from ´biased´ green sources. No doubt. But their objective is not to sell energy; it is to save the environment. So I trust the sources who have the same objectives as me.

As far as I know, current wind generators have lifespans of several decades. I already did one search. If you don´t believe this statement, you can do a quick search.

As for your comments on new nuclear fast breeder reactors, I totally agree. I think new nuclear plants can solve many of the problems that environmentalists have complained about for decades. But a number of safety issues remain.

Ya I found 2 sites, and I suppose you could play the numbers anyway you want.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4631737.stm
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

You link I'm a little wary of, in table 2 it has coal as a 0.2 for health and environmental cost. Seems a little low considering how much CO2 it releases.

Anyway my contention was not that wind maybe cheaper than nuclear, but that Mateosf asked for data backing up the wind skeptics assertions, yet did not provide any data backing up his own assertions.

JiltedCitizen's URLs prove interesting reading. The second one (for those who don't have the time to read it through) gives the following basic comparative figures for cost in p/kWh, derived from a UK Royal Academy of Engineering study:

Nuclear - 2.3
Gas (CC) - 2.2
Coal - 2.5-2.6
Onshore Wind - 3.7
Offshore Wind - 5.5

If you include the costs of the carbon emissions (for Gas and Coal) or backup (wind), the figures for these energy sources go up very significantly.

The cost of decommissioning for nuclear is apparently considered in these figures.

I would note that this paper is pulled together by a nuclear lobbying body, although the figures are apparently sourced from independent organisations. There may, however, be other views on these costs from other bodies that have not been selected to be quoted in this paper.

These figures do not in themselves rule out any form of energy generation as long as society is prepared to pay the costs. But they do put some perspective onto what the cost would be.

My concern about windpower revolves not so much around cost as the practicality of it on a grid scale given its unreliability. I fear that we will invest vast amounts on wind and STILL have to invest just as much as ever in other forms of energy generation as well. This means that windpower would not be an alternative way of spending money on energy generation, but would be an additional cost.

And, because of the problems of back up and the infexibility of other forms of power generation, we may end up with there being no significant reduction in carbon emissions even when the wind is blowing...

Nick,
Pieter and several others have already basically answered your question. And you are right, we need to discuss rather than insult. So I will discuss with you and hope that you trust this stranger enough to accept what he says as truthful. For I as you want solutions that make things better and not worse.
First, wind does not need the kind of back up as you seem to suggest. Large area power grids have a multitude of power generating sources tied in all supplying energy. In a renewable energy grid system, wind will be one of many renewable sources. And as one reader noted already, different wind generators in different locations offset each others low production periods. (Your example of a low pressure phenomenon that completely stopped all UK wind production is highly misleading considering that the UK has so few wind turbines up and running. If the UK truly had widespread distributed wind energy with hundreds of thousands rather than just a few thousand turbines, a weather phenomenon that could cause there to be absolutely no wind anywhere on or offshore of the UK would be something that would happen once in a lifetime, if it is within the realm of the current known laws of physics at all. One does not rule out something because of possibilities that are microscopically small. A meteorite could hit my house, but I do not build a bunker house.) Wind would be one source in the UK, as would wave power, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, biomass, etc. Many of these present the kind of 'back-up' problems you mentioned for wind - sun does not always shine. But when it doesn't, that usually means wind blows and waves churn. And vice-versa. Having many sources in many locations tend to balance each others low and high energy production waves. And for those unique moments when total renewable energy dips below normal, biomass is available. Since biomass energy production depends on the amount we humans, and not nature, decide to pump out at any one time. Second, large scale energy production is only one part of the solution. Along with that goes microgeneration, which I think a more important part of the energy solution. Individual homes and businesses and buildings need to produce as much energy as they can with PV and micro wind generators and micro hydro generators, etc. and have them tied to the grid as well. When homes produce more than they use, they send it off to homes that are producing less at that moment than they are consuming, balancing each other out. Thirdly, and just as important is the need for efficiency. Homes need to become more efficient in energy consumption - CFLs rather than incandescents, A fridges rather than C, turn stuff off when not in use, etc. Same goes for businesses, government buildings, NGOs, schools, etc. The amount of wasted energy is ridiculous and simply becoming more energy efficient could eliminate most if not all of the needs for new energy production.

Wind by itself is not a solution. It is part of the total solution. Nuclear is not part of the future and is not part of the solution. Whether it is needed in the short term until an energy efficient, renewable energy powered future is with us is debateable. I could see it as a necessary evil in China or maybe India as energy needs are skyrocketing beyond belief. In the UK, arguments for nuclear are specious and self-serving. Energy efficiency measures, microgeneration grid ties, and slowly increasing wind and other renewables seem more than capable to meet and exceed the UKs 'growing' energy 'needs'.

Houston, I am broadly in agreement with the points you put, particularly the points about microgeneration and energy conservation. I don't think that the points I have made are in contradiction to this.

The one area where there may be some difference between us is in the area of large scale use of wind energy, about which I remain sceptical. Wind energy is not like other forms of energy generation, and the incident that you so blithely dismiss in the UK was very real, and probably not as rare as you dismissively suggest. I suspect that you may be approaching that issue from an American perspective of a very large country which invariably has many climatic conditions across it. This is not always the case for smaller countries than yours.

The place where I do take issue is where you say "many sources in many locations tend to balance each other". I'm not sure if you are aware of the tentativeness of the word "tend" in this statement, but unfortunately large-scale energy generation, if this is the energy strategy that is pursued, can't be based on hope and things that "tend" to happen. Certainty is necessary if people are able to depend on the source of energy, as they currently do, and statistical probability can be a misleading and invalid measure.

Of course we MAY move into a future where people are prepared to accept an unreliable source of energy, but Society as a whole is unarguably not ready to accept this yet, and I haven't heard previously a suggestion that this is in our future. That being the case, unreliable sources of energy like wind will require solid backup.

You appear to accept this in your subsequent statement that biomass will somehow magically leap into this gap, but certainly in the UK there has been no suggestion so far that we will be pursuing this as backup for wind, and I question whether we have the acreage available to produce biomass on a sufficient scale for it to perform this role as well as form part of the normal energy mix (which IS proposed). Agricultural land is not an infinite resource and some of it is needed for food production, particularly in a future when it may not be possible to move food around the world to the degree that we do today.

The areas that I am in total agreement with you are those of the pressing need to improve the efficiency with which we use energy, and the desirability of microgeneration. These should unquestionably be part of the future and this is where I personally feel that wind energy has most to contribute. I just believe that we are kidding ourselves if we think that wind energy is the answer on a large scale as a primary source of centralised energy generation.

Incidentally I base this entirely on the arguments that I have put forward - I have no view or interest in the desirability or otherwise of seeing wind turbines in the landscape, just to emphasise that this is not part of my issue with wind energy.

If any of the people posting above had bothered to read the environmental statement written by the developers Amec and British energy, they would see that the figures quoted are calculated by the developers themselves. The numbers are NOT sucked from a thumb. They ARE solid fact. There is an incredible amount of ignorance here, with people posting supposedly wise words about something they know nothing about!

Andrew, I'm afraid that I can't work out from your post what you're actually saying, except that you say that certain figures (not specified) have been calculated by the developers and are therefore solid fact. Furthermore you say that there is an incredible amount of ignorance here without specifying which "wise words" you're referring to.

Additionally, if you have a URL for the environmental statement it would be very helpful to quote it rather than just berating people for not having seen something they probably don't know even exists.

The final point that must be made is that figures quoted by a developer are obviously going to come from a very biased perspective and have to be read with a sceptical approach. They may indeed be valid (not that I know what they actually say) but they may also be over-optimistic and unrealistic.

I have certainly seen other studies into wind power from supposedly authoritative sources which are internally inconsistent and therefore open to question, particularly in the area of a realistic duty factor.

There is a lot of ignorance in all quarters, not just from people posting to Treehugger!

Nick,

I think Andrew was addressing his ire at those supporting wind farm development on that island for whatever reason rather than skeptics of wind farm development like yourself. Andrew is obviously against wind farms and no doubt supports the overall thrust of your opposition. He is berating wind farm supporters who questioned figures used by the anti-wind farm lobby.

As for your other statements:
'Wind energy is not like other forms of energy generation, and the incident that you so blithely dismiss in the UK was very real, and probably not as rare as you dismissively suggest. I suspect that you may be approaching that issue from an American perspective of a very large country which invariably has many climatic conditions across it. This is not always the case for smaller countries than yours.'
I live in Spain. My perspective is from that of Spain. A country not much larger than the UK. One that also is developing its wind potential through wind farms at one of the fastest rates in the world and is third (I think) in total wind power installed. It is from this perspective that I tell you that your skepticism is misplaced. Spain, that I know of, has not experienced such a weather phenomena that has caused a 'blackout' in wind production for several days as the one you mentioned for Great Britain. The laws of thermodynamics causes wind. When one area is hotter in relation to another, hot air rises above the hotter land or water and that air is replaced with cooler air from a cooler place. That is why winds in the northern hemisphere blow from north to south on an almost continous basis. That is why coastal areas have almost constant strong breezes (temperature differences between land and sea), that is why mountain areas also have fairly constant winds back and forth (temperature difference between mountain masses and lowlands), and that is why it is extremely difficult to believe that a weather phenomena could shut down the thermodynamics patterns in a land mass as large as Great Britain, especially considering that it is an island with a number of highland areas. Your mention of such a phenomena would be the first one I have heard of. And I am not questioning that you read from some source that you trust that something like this happened and I am not questioning that you fully understand what that source meant, what I am questioning is whether this phenomena really did shut down all thermodynamics flows on Great Britain and whether this was a once in a lifetime thing - which is what I believe if the event really did even out all temperature differences on Great Britain and all around it.

Nick,

I think Andrew was addressing his ire at those supporting wind farm development on that island for whatever reason rather than skeptics of wind farm development like yourself. Andrew is obviously against wind farms and no doubt supports the overall thrust of your opposition. He is berating wind farm supporters who questioned figures used by the anti-wind farm lobby.

As for your other statements:
'Wind energy is not like other forms of energy generation, and the incident that you so blithely dismiss in the UK was very real, and probably not as rare as you dismissively suggest. I suspect that you may be approaching that issue from an American perspective of a very large country which invariably has many climatic conditions across it. This is not always the case for smaller countries than yours.'
I live in Spain. My perspective is from that of Spain. A country not much larger than the UK. One that also is developing its wind potential through wind farms at one of the fastest rates in the world and is third (I think) in total wind power installed. It is from this perspective that I tell you that your skepticism is misplaced. Spain, that I know of, has not experienced such a weather phenomena that has caused a 'blackout' in wind production for several days as the one you mentioned for Great Britain. The laws of thermodynamics causes wind. When one area is hotter in relation to another, hot air rises above the hotter land or water and that air is replaced with cooler air from a cooler place. That is why winds in the northern hemisphere blow from north to south on an almost continous basis. That is why coastal areas have almost constant strong breezes (temperature differences between land and sea), that is why mountain areas also have fairly constant winds back and forth (temperature difference between mountain masses and lowlands), and that is why it is extremely difficult to believe that a weather phenomena could shut down the thermodynamics patterns in a land mass as large as Great Britain, especially considering that it is an island with a number of highland areas. Your mention of such a phenomena would be the first one I have heard of. And I am not questioning that you read from some source that you trust that something like this happened and I am not questioning that you fully understand what that source meant, what I am questioning is whether this phenomena really did shut down all thermodynamics flows on Great Britain and whether this was a once in a lifetime thing - which is what I believe if the event really did even out all temperature differences on Great Britain and all around it.
The place where I do take issue is where you say "many sources in many locations tend to balance each other". I'm not sure if you are aware of the tentativeness of the word "tend" in this statement, but unfortunately large-scale energy generation, if this is the energy strategy that is pursued, can't be based on hope and things that "tend" to happen.

'Certainty is necessary if people are able to depend on the source of energy, as they currently do, and statistical probability can be a misleading and invalid measure.' Wind is certain, as is the sun, the waves, the earth's heat, the rivers running, etc. They were with man at its birth and will be there long after man is gone. Wether wind blows strongly and for long in southern Wales throughout the day is not. But wind will blow there often. The sun will also shine and the waves will also roll in. Add them all together and you get a balanced system. One that is highly reliable and completely certain. When this system does not produce as much energy as what is being consumed, biomass can supplement the excess. There are numerous sources of biomass. The UK grows wheat. The stalks can be burnt to generate electricity rather than burned in the fields as is currently the practice in much of the world. The UK raises livestock. It can produce methane from manure and other animal wastes. Methane gas that can be used to generate a heat or electricity. The UK has a large number of farming WASTE sources that can be used as biomass. It can also develop algea biomass. There are no shortages of biomass for energy production. There would be a serious shortage if biomass were being considered as a primary source of energy. Luckily, policymakers are not. Biomass as backup is sufficient. Wind, solar, wave, etc. as a combined primary is the base. This combination is as reliable as anything there is today.

'certainly in the UK there has been no suggestion so far that we will be pursuing biomass as backup for wind.'
I do not know whether the UK government has been or not discussing integrating biomass as a mainstream source of energy development and relegating its role as primarily one of backup. I do know that biomass development IS discussed in the UK for energy development from numerous quarters, including governmental ones. In any case, the government and society can not develop a completely renewable energy system overnight. It will take decades to put every piece of the puzzle in place, and it is wise of the government to start concentrating on the bigger pieces first, such as wind. And to slowly shift from the current system to a new one. In this shift, reliance on the already existent fossil fuel and nuclear plants will continue. And I suspect that they will remain the backup until they can be completely fased out. Any other route is economic folly.

Lastly, as a demostrative example of my arguments, I live in a fairly self-sufficient ecohouse out in the countryside. I have a wind generator and PV panels that give me electricity. I also have a small gasoline generator as a back up for my house. My wind generator and PV complement each other and give me a constant reliable stream of energy. So much so that I have as yet not had to use my back up generator at all for household electricity. As I add more electrical appliances in my house, maybe I will need to use it. Or maybe not if I buy super efficient appliances. And if I end up needing more energy, I can alway buy more PV. I have plenty of space and prices are coming down all the time. Secondly, I sue the sun to heat my house. My house is passive solar designed so the sun provides most of my yearly space heating needs. As a secondary backup, I have a small highefficiency masonry stove to heat the living and dining room area. On four to six weeks of the year this sun-wood combination is not enough, so I burn paraffin in a small paraffin heater. But I am designing an active solar heating system to provide addtional solar energy to the bedrooms and will be adding extra insulation. I am slowly shifting my current energy sources as my finances and time schedule allow. Eventually, my backup masonry stove will be enough and I will never have to burn paraffin again. Thirdly, I have a solar water heater for heating my house water. It is backed up by a natural gas demand water heater. Currently I don't have the solar water heating panel attached, so I am using only natural gas. But my water usage is so efficient, that I only use one 20kg bottle every six months - and I use this bottle for cooking too. When I hook the solar panel up, my gas usage will plummet. And I am currently designing a greenhouse-biogas digester system. I have eight dogs and plenty of crap that I could efficiently use to create methane. Once this is done, I will have enough methane to meet both my water heating and cooking needs, and I will have eliminated all need for purchasing fossil fuel gas. I am slowly shifting my energy consumption. As for cooking, I eat a lot of fresh foods, and I eat a lot of foods that do not need cooking. I also bake, stew, boil, and broil a lot of food - in my solar oven. And I also do food reheating in my microwave, powered by renewable energy. I have over time changed the patterns and sources of energy consumption for cooking and continue to do so. Eventually, all my cooking energy will come from onsite renewable sources. If I can slowly andn methodically become basically self-sufficient with local renewable resources, than so can most people, most businesses, most institutions and most nations. The UK is lucky enough to be wealthy and blessed with a number of abundant renewable energy sources that it can exploit. Wind is an integral part of that solution, because that solution will only come about by integrating every exploitable renewable source at every level at every location and at every possible instance. You eliminate large wind farms, you eliminate the renewable energy solution. You eliminate waves, you eliminate the solution. And so on.

Folks, this is an interesting thread. I'm on Cape Cod in New England US and would be interested in some international perspective. We have a massive 400MW Wind Farm proposal off our shore which is very controversial. Previous threads have discussed the ability to spread wind variability over a large region and get a consistent power source. Here, in New England, we have distinct Grid systems, seven I believe (www.iso-ne.org for details). There are constraints getting excess power from one Grid system distributed to other areas that have a need for power generation. The Cape Cod region currently has sufficient power with typical power generation, one Nuk, NG, some oil fired plants. There's no additional capacity to send this excess, on the Grid, to where it's needed; specifically Boston Metro.

Massachusetts State Green energy laws and subsidies are strongly encouraging the development of renewable energy sources. That's a great thing.

This single project, though, will consume all of the available regional 'green' Grid capacity and effectively preclude other projects, tidal for instance in South East Massachusetts. That's my primary concern.

Sorry if I'm describing a small geography in the NE US.
These really are, though, very regional issues, not national issues.

Are there other regulatory concerns in UK or Spain?

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5108666.stm for the effects of siting windfarms in important areas for birds. The Lewis windfarm would also be right in the migration path of birds flying from the Arctic (Iceland, Greenland, etc) to Britain and mainland Europe - that is why the Icelandic government objected to it. The figures for roads, etc, given are not from the RSPB, they are from the developers, and so probably an underestimation of the damage. See http://www.lewiswind.com/application/environment/index.php for their Environmental Statement. The windfarm is to be sited on blanket bog in Lewis simply because of it's distance from centres of power and population, and because the developers think they have a chance of getting away with it. To object, e-mail energy-consents@scotland.gsi.gov.uk before 29th January.