FEW would disagree that wind turbines have a significant role to play in powering Scotland’s future.
The country has long been at the forefront of the UK’s green energy efforts, setting ambitious greenhouse targets, leading the way on cleaner technologies and wind farms have been central to this. Indeed, existing turbines currently produce enough energy to generate 98 per cent of the country’s electricity demand.
Turbines are due to be “supersized” in the coming years, as the current windmills reach the end of their operational lives, rising in stature from 100m to 170m so they can harness “better” wind, contributing more to the grid and helping cut consumer bills.
But what if they also reduced the natural, emission-lowering carbons in the ancient peatlands in which so many of them are built? According to a report funded by the Scottish Government, this is a possibility.
In the most detailed assessment of replacing current wind farms to date, report authors concluded there was insufficient evidence to infer wind turbines do not damage the capacity of peatlands to store carbon.
As well as suggesting upgrading work should therefore start on turbines not build on peatland, the scientists also said the foundations of new , bigger turbines ought to be built from scratch, since adding to existing structures was more expensive and potentially damaging to the environment.
Anti-wind farm campaigners Scotland Against Spin said the report raised big questions about the carbon balance and called for upgrade plans to be halted. The Scottish Government, meanwhile, support supersizing, and have sought to reassure critics by vowing to assess and minimise any impact on peatlands.
Whether this will be enough action remains to be seen. After all, it would be horribly ironic if the turbines producing our clean energy were harming the ancient, iconic environment in which they stand, reducing its ability to lower emissions. It would also be unacceptable.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel