As National Wind Week draws to a close, we are all being asked to "embrace wind" and turn a blind eye to the real impact of poorly-regulated industrial expansion on some of Scotland's most wild and beautiful landscapes. British Wind Energy Association's (BWEA) claim that the minimum footprint of a turbine is as little as 25 square metres is a classic example of the marketing hype surrounding onshore wind energy.

As National Wind Week draws to a close, we are all being asked to "embrace wind" and turn a blind eye to the real impact of poorly-regulated industrial expansion on some of Scotland's most wild and beautiful landscapes.

British Wind Energy Association's (BWEA) claim that the minimum footprint of a turbine is as little as 25 square metres is a classic example of the marketing hype surrounding onshore wind energy. This figure may be technically accurate, but it does not take into account the roads, quarries and other infrastructure that are required for any major civil engineering project.

The controversial Muaitheabhal wind farm proposal at Eishgein on Lewis gives a better indication of the scale of damage that poorly-sited wind farms can inflict in remote areas.

According to the developer's own figures, the proposed 53-turbine development will require 41km of new roads and a total land take of 760,000 square metres, much of it within a National Scenic Area. This adds up to a 14,340-square-metre footprint per turbine, a far cry from the BWEA's dainty figure of 25 square metres.

Research indicates that the current UK policy will require a 20-fold increase in wind power. If offshore wind generation is not encouraged, and large-scale onshore wind developments are not kept to brownfield sites near the large centres of population, we will be asked to "embrace" the industrialisation of scenic and ecologically valuable areas such as Shetland and the Western Isles for many years to come.

Web link: http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/displa...