The Guardian reports on how the world’s first large-scale floating wind turbine in the US is facing multiple environmental and financial challenges whilst in the UK the Times reports on the struggle for Scotland’s largest offshore wind-farm to get planning permission noting: “Scotland’s attempt to be a world leader in renewable energy will collapse in the next seven days unless legal moves to save a £9 billion wind farm off the east coast go ahead, ministers were warned last night.” In a comment piece the paper argues that the Scottish offshore project and Hinkley both highlight how poor planning for major projects is threatening to derail UK energy policy.
Energydesk 1st Aug 2016 read more »
Scotland’s attempt to be a world leader in renewable energy will collapse in the next seven days unless legal moves to save a £9 billion wind farm off the east coast go ahead, ministers were warned last night. The scheme for four giant offshore operations with the potential to power 1.4 million homes has been eight years in the planning and is one of the largest in Britain. Despite winning government consent, it was unexpectedly rejected by a Scottish judge last month. Ministers have until the end of the week to challenge the decision as the deadline for lodging an appeal is August 8. Marine Scotland, which advises the government on coastal management, is “carefully considering” the judgment.
Times 1st August 2016 read more »
There are close parallels between the fate of Scotland’s biggest offshore wind project and the Hinkley Point nuclear plant in England. Both depend on the private sector yet need government support and both are now in abeyance because of government decisions. The Firth of Forth wind farms needed approval from the Scottish government before they could go ahead. Consent, as it is known, came after a lengthy period of consultation, discussion and debate. These huge turbines, set far out in the sea, have the potential to disrupt bird and marine life. Not surprisingly, therefore, both the companies involved and the government’s marine agency devoted much time to assessing the environmental impact. Millions of pounds were invested in the project by various international firms, which concluded that they could build the wind farms without impacting too greatly on the rich bird colonies of the North Sea. In addition, however, they needed the approval of Marine Scotland, which is charged with bringing objective evidence to bear. That evidence appears now to be shaky, or rather the way it was assessed has proved less than satisfactory, according to Lord Stewart, the judge who conducted a judicial review. He has ruled against the project, not on the environmental evidence itself, but on the way that evidence was assessed, shared and passed on to the objecting organisations. Scotland, it seems, does not have a particularly open and transparent planning process. If it had, the legal challenges and the resulting rejection of the scheme could have been avoided.
Times 1st August 2016 read more »