Renewable Energy - Presentations

BWEA CONFERENCE – GLASGOW OCTOBER 2003

IAN JARDINE, Chief Executive, SNH

“Making sure the environment wins”

SLIDE 1 - TITLE

Thank you for inviting me to speak at this conference. I would like to offer you my perspective, from within an environmental agency, on what is happening in renewable energy - and what we may expect to continue happening for some decades to comeits future. I believe if renewable energy is pursued sensitively, the environment should be the winner. If it is pursued carelessly, then the environmental damage caused could outweigh the benefits. I want to outline what I think needs to happen to make sure the environment wins.

SLIDE 2 – ROLE OF SNH

Briefly, for those of you who don’t know us, SNH is the government agency with responsibility for all aspects of the natural heritage in Scotland – its wildlife, habitats, and landscapes. You see here the main purposes we were given 12 years ago in our founding legislation. Our role is to conserve and enhance the natural heritage of Scotland, to foster its understanding and help its enjoyment. We are also required to ensure that anything done to the natural heritage is ‘undertaken in a manner which is sustainable’.

SLIDE 3 – CLIMATE CHANGE

We start from a position of strong support for renewable energy. As an organisation SNH recognises, better than many, the significance of climate change, caused by our burning of fossil fuels. It poses us huge challenges in our work. By the end of this century, some of our well-loved bird species will disappear from our mountains as a result of increase in temperatures. Some of our precious coastal habitats will be inundated by sea-level rise. This is environmental disruption on a huge scale. Quite apart from its impact on human populations across the world, we expect it also to cause unprecedented change in Scotland’s wildlife and habitats.

SLIDE 4 – ENERGY WHITE PAPER

Against that background, SNH very much welcomes the various moves Government has made to move to an energy economy based on low carbon emissions.

We’re delighted that Government has adopted, in the Energy White Paper, the challenging target of a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050.
We are pleased to see a wide-ranging programme proposed, which includes all these elements [point to slide]new energy efficiency measures, low carbon transport fuels, and changing patterns of energy use at a domestic and personal level, to really reduce our carbon emissions – as well as electricity from renewable sources. Electricity only accounts for around a fifth or a quarter of our energy needs. We do not want to see new renewable electricity developed only to satisfy an ever-increasing demand by society to use more and more energy.
We supported the Scottish Executive's aim of achieving 40% renewable electricity by 2020, using a mix of different technologies. Scotland is well endowed with renewable resources. We think it is reasonable that Scotland should capitalise on the economic oppporttunitiesopportunities which this offers, and at the same time make a more-than-pro-rata contribution to UK emission-reduction targets. We do think that a 40% target can be met, without undue effect on the natural heritage, given sensible planning and sensible choice of schemes. But the bit about 'using a mix of different technologies' is important, and I want to come back to that.

SLIDE 5 – SNH POLICY ON RENEWABLE ENERGY

So within that context, SNH strongly supports renewable energy as a major component of the battle against climate change. But that support is tempered, as you would expect, with some caution:

Scotland boasts an outstanding natural heritage – and we do not want to see that quality sacrificed. The quality of people’s day-to-day surroundings contributes to their quality of life. Most sorts of renewable energy have an impact on the natural heritage. So our job is to encourage careful choices of the types of renewable energy, and the most appropriate locations, to try to ensure that adverse impacts are minimised.

It is especially important that we look after those areas which are valued either nationally or internationally.

How does this position of support square with what is actually happening in Scotland?

SLIDE 6 - CHART OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES

Here is a view on what is happening, from our own database of renewable energy projects. It shows the generation capacity either installed, or approved, for installation, or somewhere in the consent systems, for each technology, in Scot, in Scotland. It shows very graphically that almost all the proposals are onshore wind - this red bar for hydro mostly the large-scale hydro installed last century. (There are quite a number of small-scale hydro schemes either installed or in the consents system - if carefully designed their impact on the natural heritage can be very localised - but in terms of generation capacity they do not amount to much in total.)

To date, the Renewables Obligation has been outstandingly successful in providing the incentives needed, but mainly for a single technology - onshore wind. Things are just too good for onshore wind, leading to a 'rush for wind'. It is not yet leading towards the mix of technologies which is the Executive's - and our - aspiration. We believe that this issue should be addressed urgently, and at least in the context of the 2005 review of the Renewable Obligation Scotland arrangements - giving Cconsideration is urgently6 needed as to how to bring on other technologies -, so as to achieve the mix of technologies for 2020 which the Executive has called for.

The public, by and large, only know about the red bits on this chart. They know about the long-standing hydro schemes, and they may have seen one or two of the few wind farms already installed. But as yet they are not fullyproperly aware of the numbers of windfarms which are in the pipeline, or of the potential scale of their impact.

SLIDE 7 - WINDFARM COVERAGE ACROSS SCOTLAND

This map shows something of what is happening in onshore wind - where are all the windfarms which are either installed, or approved, or somewhere within the planning system from scoping stage on. It shows the widespread scatter of interest in windfarms, clustered around the main gridavailable major transmission routes. If all these schemes were successful in the planning system, the total installed capacity would be around 4800 MW - whereas only 3600 MW or so is enough to meet a 40% target -, without considering the contribution made by the contribution made by other types of renewabletechnologies.

What's more, if I were to also plot all the windfarms which are under confidential discussion, that would double the number of points - actually it would add more than 160 further schemes, and add well over 2500 MW to the total potential generation capacity. It wouldn't change the overall distribution. Some areas, like North Ayrshire, the northern Borders, and Caithness, are being very actively explored.

This map may be evidence of the success of Government's renewables policy, but it also causes me some concern. Commercial-scale windfarms are major developments. They have a very significant land-take, especially for access tracks.

As to their visual and landscape impacts, personal reactionsviews differ – sometimes markedlysharply. 'They are man-made, artificial structures which intrude on natural landscapes.' 'They have an elegant, sculptural form which is symbolic of a new clean, green generation.' Both sentiments are no doubt genuine, and in context they may be equally valid. But the context is important. But whatever one’s personal reaction, wWindfarms are undeniably large and highly visible structures, and. Because of their movement, they attracts attention at long range. So Tthey do affect the appearance of a landscape, and over a considerable distance.

Some landscapes are better able to assimilate such structures than others. Careful choice of location and sensitive design can help to minimise any adverse visual impactSome landscapes can accommodate them better than others. But in the sort of numbers, and on the scale we are talking about, and with the increasing size of turbines, they are bound to change the landscape. The development of renewable energy in Scotland will be the single most significant transformation of the landscape we have seen over the last 50 years.

As a nation we cannot therefore duck the question of where we find such change acceptable, and where we do not. In SNH we do not think that it will be found acceptable in areas highly valued for their scenery - like National Parks and National Scenic Areas. We do not think they are appropriate in those areas of Scotland which are renowned for their sense of wildness - a quality which is becoming scarce in Western Europe. Let us not forget that Scotland is a country which sells its scenery – as it forms the basis for our largest single industry, tourism. We should think very carefully before putting such a valuable asset at risk. But we think there are other areas where the existing landscape is less widely valued - within the Central Belt or parts of Aberdeenshire for example - where a degree of landscape change canshould be accepted in the interests of addressing climate change. Let us not forget that Scotland is a country which sells its scenery – as it forms the basis for our largest single industry, tourism. We should think very carefully before putting such a valuable asset at risk.

A wave of development of this scale, if not very carefully guided, could lead to such a major change in the Scottish landscape that it will provoke a public reaction. I do not believe that public attitudes to such a change have yet been adequately explored. What we have seen are studies of public reactions to individual windfarms. That is very different from exploring what people’s views are to changes in the landscape on the scale which this map indicates may be possible.

Lessons should be learned from the process of commercial afforestation in the 1950s through to the 1970s. Large monoculture forests were planted in areas as far apart and diverse as Galloway, Argyll and Sutherland. The public woke up to the scale of landscape change taking place, and to the impact on valued natural heritage assets which it was causing - loss of native woodland, blocking of recreational access, and polluted rivers. tThat led to a major change towards a more mature and integrated forestry policy., in which multiple benefits are the guiding principle. And Iit has led to a very significant public cost, in putting right what are now judged to be past mistakes.

If that kind of public reaction is to be averted, it needs sound planning from the outset. That means looking at the environmental sensitivity of different areas to this type of development, and appraising their capacity to accommodate it. It means consideringhaving regard to the cumulative impact of a number of windfarms in any area, and the capacity to accommodate them. Thise issue need to consider cumulative impacts has been flagged, but the issue – which is indeed a challenging one - iis not yet being tackled effectively. Planning authorities are struggling to makereach a view on how to make judgements on cumulative impact. TheyPlanning authorities need to be bolder in identifying the capacity of their area. SNH has helped a number of authorities already to undertake windfarm landscape capacity for windfarm studies which lead in that direction.

One clear difficulty is the lack of any clear national framework setting what share any one planning authority should accommodate, in the light of to its capacity to absorb such development. setting out what share any one planning authority should accommodate. Renewable energy is not like new housing, for which a planning authority is able to make a reasonable prediction of new demands within its area over the foreseeable future. Given the extensive experience to datewhich now exists of windfarms developments across the country, I believe that such such a framework would now be a very achievable objective – not a top-down framework delivered from the Executive, but one developed in liaison between planning authorities and national government, such that each region within Scotland could recognise an appropriate share. relative to its capacity to absorb such development. Once equipped with such a view, each Each planning authority would then be better able to plan strategically. Such a framework might have a relatively short lifetime, given the pace of change in the renewables field. But it would be helpful to planning authorities, and I believe thatultimately it would also help avoid wastage of resources by developers by providing a better steer on those applications likely to be successful in the consents systems.

SLIDE 8 – LOCATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR ONSHORE WINDFARMS

SNH has offered a strategic view on the land most suitable for wind farms, by publishing locational guidance. Our aim is not to stop windfarm development, but to guide it to the most suitable areas in environmental terms. This map sets out natural heritage sensitivities to wind farms development. The map shows just over 25% of the land area of Scotland as of lowest sensitivity and most suited to wind farms development - that's the green area. At the other end of the range, there is a further 25% zoned as of highest sensitivity on account of landscapes or habitats valued at national or international level - that's the orange area.

I should stress that this guidance relates to windfarms, not to small scale wind developments of a domestic or small business scale. We think these can be accommodated satisfactorily in most areas.

This we believe is a helpful starter kit, .but Pplanning authorities need to go much further, in analysing the capacity, and y of the low-sensitivity areas to accommodate windfarms, and so come to a soundly-based view on the scope for windfarms development in each area.

SLIDE 9 – NATURAL HERITAGE IMPLICATIONS - MARINE DEVICES

I want to turn now to Tthe marine environment which seems likely to be an important arena for the future. Last year we commissioned a report on the environmental impacts of marine renewables technologies. From that study of potential impacts we have tried to answer a very simple question - which of these technologies would we prefer? Which have the least natural heritage impacts? Here is the kind of hierarchy which we are foreseeing:.

Offshore wave devices - if wave power devices are moored, rather than bottom founded - they offer the potential for lots of energy with limited adverse environmental impacts. One will needClearly though there is a need to be cautious, though, about the extent to which abstracting wave energy will alter coastal processes.

Tidal stream devices follow closely behind. Tidal channels of highest tidal velocities should be avoided – because these tend to have very special and sensitive marine habitats. But elsewhere, extensive natural heritage impacts should be avoidable. Devices which sit below the surface of the sea will score well in having little navigational risk or visual impact.

Offshore wind farms come some way down the list. They are likely to have fewer Vvisual and landscape impacts than land-based windfarms, and these impacts will decrease with the distance offshore. Bird effects, as on land, will largely be a question of avoiding any preferred areas for feeding or breeding areas, and identifying and avoiding any daily migration routes. Noise disturbance, especially from underwater piling, is likely to be a key issue, particularly in waters with valued dolphin populations. Our provisional assessment is that offshore windfarmsthey will have fewerlesser natural heritage impacts than for onshore wind development of a comparable scale, but more than tidal stream or offshore wave devices.

A common Probably the biggest single issue for all of these to address is navigational risk. Its likelihood may be small, if effective navigational systems are in place, but the potential environmental harm from any shipping accident, and in particular if it involves an oil tanker, is potentially very serious.

Finally, and a long way below, come tidal barrage schemes, which involve wholesale change to the estuarine environment. For these, environmental impacts are widespread and not easily reversed. Our estuaries provide over-wintering for large flocks of wading birds, and all the major Scottish estuaries have areas safeguarded as Special Protection Areas.

That brief picture should hearten those of you who are working to test marine devices, and particularly wave and tidal stream, over the coming years. We are in no doubt as to the challenging nature of the environment, and the engineering problems which will have to be overcome, but we also think it probable that there is a valuable prize to be won in terms of renewable energy in return for a comparatively moderate level of adverse environmental impact. We welcome the set up of the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, which has been done with a close regard for environmental sensitivities, and wish success upon those developers who will venture their devices into the waters there.

Looking towards the development of marine renewables, let us try from the outset to have a planned approach. We like the approach adopted by the DTI for offshore wind, in conducting an Strategic Environmental Assessment SEA ahead of any licensing. We recommend that an SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment should done for marine renewables in Scottish waters. This should cover all marine technologies, and it should cover all Scottish waters and the seas outwith territorial waters too, so that it properly enables strategic choices to be made. It should take into account all the environmental sensitivities of coastal and marine areas. There is time to undertake such an SEA before real commercial pressure begins; developers tell us that commercial devices may be available, at least on a small scale, from 2006 or 2007 on. Llet us make use of the time before then to undertake a sound and helpful SEA.

Other technologies

I do not have time to refer to all renewable technologies, but we are not forgetting them. While there is scope for sensitively-designed small hydro schemes, we believe that the scope for further large hydro schemes is strictly limited. Biomass has not yet taken off on any scale in Scotland, but given the extensive resource on the mainland of unused forestry residues, it must be a technology with good prospects for the future, and with very little in the way of natural heritage impact.

SLIDE 10 - Transmission

I do not have time to refer to all renewable technologies, but we are not forgetting them – particularly the scope for biomass. Given the extensive resource of unused forestry residues, it must be a technology with good prospects for the future.

But let me say a word about the grid.Finally, Tthe transmission requirements to enable a 40% target have still to be worked out. Marine areas will not be exploitable if the transmission infrastructure is not available to connect it to. The gridTransmission itself will have substantial environmental consequences. There is an outstanding need to look at the environment within the process of assessment of transmission options. One needs to look at which areas are actually best suited to onshore renewnables development, the conclusions of a marine SEA, and how such areas can be best connected by an enhanced grid, with least environmental damage. That way the best environmental option can be found for the development of Scotland's renewable energy. SNH would be very pleased to contribute to such an exercise. Thinking to date about the grid has been dominated by issues of cost, feasibility and timescales. These of course are hugely important. But if this Government claims to be a joined-up government, environment should be there too.

SLIDE 11 - Conclusions

In this talk, I have trailed five key issues which I think need to be addressed if we are to be sure the environment is to win out of renewables. I will not repeat these but I will show this final slide as a reminder of these five points.

We want to see a mix of technologies, including marine. That may necessitate adjustment to the incentive regime, which just now is favouring wind.
Planning authorities should think harder about cumulative impacts and capacity, and seek to define the scale and extent of potential windfarm development in their area.
The capacity of different parts of Scotland for onshore windfarms should be guided by a national framework, developed in liaison between the Executive and planning authorities.
A Strategic Environmental Assessment should be undertaken for all types of marine renewable, covering all Scottish and surrounding waters.
Environmental sensitivities should be taken into account from the start in planning upgrades to the transmission system.