Wind farms keeping us fuel poor

The Tory MEP Struan Stevenson has calculated that the Duke of Roxburghe could net 1.5 million a year, the Earl of Moray 2m and the Earl of Glasgow more than 300,000 from wind farms on their land.

Mr Stevenson – of course – thinks the solution is to dump wind farms and the Scottish Tories back a one-year moratorium on new wind farms and a halving of wind subsidies.

And yet the Conservative environment spokesman, Jamie McGrigor, and Tory MSPs Alex Fergusson and John Scott are all set to benefit financially from wind turbine development. Double standards apart though – why is this a problem?

First, unlike Saudi Arabia, Scotland is a democracy where one would expect wealth – including the wealth that arises from natural assets – to be shared.

Second, fuel poverty causes hyperthermia and chronic ill health – so a cash share in the country’s wind earnings would be a quick way to cut bills and save lives.

Thirdly, high energy costs deter industry by turning energy-rich Scotland into an energy-expensive location for new business.

Finally, it could be otherwise, as the intriguing tale in yesterday’s Scotland on Sunday of the “wind crofter” demonstrated. Under the Energise Scotland scheme, smallholders, crofters and communities host small turbines and get free electricity while developers pay for the kit and sell excess energy to the grid.

There may be better schemes around – but “wind crofting” demonstrates the empowering potential of wind income split more evenly. A small turbine can reduce individual energy bills to zero and still make a profit for investors – as long as that individual owns land.

And there of course is the rub. Scotland may be a northern energy emirate, but ordinary Scots pay the highest electricity bills in Europe because 60 per cent of “our” land is owned by just 1,000 people – and the disappointing interim report by the Land Reform Review Group suggests this shameful picture is not about to change.

Now, admittedly land ownership and the possibility of free or discounted electricity have not featured strongly in the wind farm debate so far. Battle lines have been drawn instead over appearance, intermittency and cost – and though a vocal minority won a ban on new wind farms in “scenic areas”, they’ve failed to dent the consistent majority for wind energy in regular opinion polls.

Dig deeper in the data however and its clear wind energy is more popular in cities than country areas. Is that because of visual interference or financial unfairness? We’ll probably never know.

So what’s to be done? Struan Stevenson’s solution is to ditch “expensive and unreliable” wind energy. Yet if anything is “expensive and unreliable” it’s gas. Britain was just six hours from running out in March when energy regulator Ofgem reported, “higher gas prices have been the main driver of increasing energy bills over the last eight years”.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) says “fossil fuel price volatility is a bigger driver of energy price variation than the impact of climate change policies,” and DECC figures show the Renewables Obligation was 1.1 billion compared to nuclear decommissioning costs of 2bn in 2009-10. Finally Bloomberg New Energy Finance has predicted onshore wind will be cost competitive with gas and coal generation by 2016.

Sticking with wind in a varied energy mix is worthwhile. Letting lairds trouser millions in wind cash is not. Neither is missing the opportunity to completely recast the energy debate in Scotland for the advent of renewables and the prospect of independence.

Currently Scotland’s economic model for renewables is oil. Big companies make big profits, the government gets tax revenues, the sector and the North East get jobs and everyone’s happy(ish) – though of course Alex Salmond would rather hold on to the oil revenues. So far, so centralised. Indeed, as Bill Jamieson pointed out in yesterday’s Scotland on Sunday, so dangerously centralised.

What cash benefit reaches the average inhabitant of this oil-rich nation? Next to none. And Chancellors are quite happy to keep it that way – on both sides of the border.

Somehow the public hoped and presumed the renewable energy bonanza would be different.

The industry does offer community benefit – a sum per megawatt of wind generated locally. But some communities have not spent their wind cash and few have performed land buyouts to become joint wind developers – even though Duke-sized hand-outs await. What are communities waiting for?

Proposed gift from wind energy company

Selectmen will hold a public hearing next week to decide whether to accept a $40,000 gift from a wind farm developer, should the company's proposed facility be approved by a state agency after an appeal.

The payment would serve as compensation for any perceived damages to the scenery created by the wind project, proposed for the northwest part of town, according to a letter from Antrim Wind Energy LLC.

The company had proposed building a 30-megawatt facility with 10 wind turbines, each 500-feet tall, on privately owned land near Tuttle Hill and Willard Mountain. Antrim Wind Energy, a subsidiary of Portsmouth-based Eolian Renewable Energy, planned to sell energy produced at the facility to regional buyers, according to the project's website.

But in February the N.H. Site Evaluation Committee denied the project's application. The committee has the final word on large alternative energy projects and had been reviewing the Antrim proposal since 2011.

The Antrim project was rejected due to an "unreasonable adverse effect" on the aesthetics in the region, primarily the visual aesthetics, Michael J. Iacopino, attorney for the committee, said at the time. The committee's decision on the Antrim project was the first time the body has ever flat-out denied a project.

Per law, Antrim Wind Energy has 30 days to file for a rehearing after the Site Evaluation Committee issues a written order about the decision. Iacopino said in February the written decisions generally take about a month, but the Antrim paperwork has not been released.

The wind company is eager to see the written order, Eolian CEO Jack Kenworthy said. He anticipates the company will file for a rehearing because the committee seemed to turn down the project for a specific, isolated concern, he said.

During the committee's 11 days of hearings and three days of deliberation on the Antrim Wind project, the wind facility's possible negative effect on the scenery in the Gregg Lake area was identified as a concern, according to Antrim Wind Energy's letter to the town. The company's motion for a rehearing will include a proposal to address those visual concerns.

The details of Antrim Wind Energy's plans to address the concerns are still being developed, according to the letter. But the proposed $40,000 payment to Antrim to improve the Gregg Lake area is part of the plan to help the company's cause.

Kenworthy said $40,000 was an amount the project could handle paying, while also being enough to help mitigate any perceived damages to the area.

If Antrim Wind Energy is granted a permit, the company would be required to make the one-time payment within 6 months of the facility starting commercial operations, according to the letter. The payment is compensation for any perceived visual impairments to the Gregg Lake area, but the ultimate use of the money will be at the town's discretion.

Town Administrator Galen A. Stearns said selectmen will decide whether to agree to the gift after the public hearing.