Farms: The visual proliferation of wind farms in Scotland
Productivity | Information | History | View | Quality
3505View
Produced by the Wild Land Research Institute for the John Muir Trust this short animation shows the spread of wind farms and their visual impact from 1995 to 2015. We have published this animation to bring home to the public, and especially to politicians at national and local level, the long term consequences for Scotland’s wild land of the decisions they make when considering wind farm applications that would impact on wild land.
Comments
-
Funny seeing the anti-green energy types getting nuttier and dumber by the day.
-
Hmm... why not model the visual impact of roads, chimneys, buildings, farms, mobile phone masts hydro plants, open cast mining or pylons?
I agree wild lands should remain wild (and free of development as far as possible) but this work is stretching it a bit to put it mildly and disappointing for a trust that is supposed to care about the environment. According to the map apparently I should be able to see 50-100 turbines standing on top of the Pentlands - maybe that's possible if I squint hard but if it is I can also see a lot of other things too (although not Cockenzie anymore). Has that made the Pentlands less wild? No I don't think so, but I think the recent scar of a roadway built by the army in the Pentlands has - did JMT say anything about that? Or is it just being able to see a wind turbine in the distance that they are obsessed about? It appears that the map includes many farmer's small wind turbines - see Orkney for example where there is only a handful of large wind turbines yet it is all green on the map. Now I guess this might be equally 'bad' if you have some sort of ideological objection to generating electricity from wind but I think most people would see a difference. I always thought the JMT main focus was about protecting wild areas from development rather than being an Anti-wind farm campaigning organisation but I guess this demonstrates that that's not true.
To Angus - yes you need backup but so do all power plants. The key point is to burn less fossil fuels, produce less CO2 and import less - when turbines generate and displace power from conventional power stations that is exactly what happens - its not some sort of made up conspiracy! Wind power is actually one of the most reliable parts of a portfolio of generation - whilst the output fluctuates with the wind the chance of a GW of generation going offline and being unavailable for months or more is minimal, but that can and does happen with conventional power plants with single points of failure. -
I live on the Black Isle and wind turbines shinning like beacons during sunlit days surround my home on a 180 degree plane. If they provided a reliable energy source not requiring conventional fossil fuelled backup then maybe it would be a fair offset for visual destruction. But many scientific and technological experts pour scorn on wind technology. I think a growing number of people are now seeing through this red herring which receives support from politicians with suspect agendas and eco organisations that wish to trash the Scotland's natural heritage.
-
I be interested to know what data has been used to create the graphic. It appears to be based on zones of theoretical visibility, which are graphic plans usually provided by developers as part of a planning application and that tend to extend 25-35km from the wind farm. The key word here is 'theoretical'. Visibility could just be a few blade tips or all turbines from top to bottom. Similarly, visibility could be from 2kms away or from 32kms away. Clearly there is a big difference in these scenarios, so its a little unwise to suggest that these kinds of experiences should be treated the same. An interesting graphic but I'd suggest taking it with a big pinch of salt if the data is based on ZTV plans.