http://www

Vestas has/is installikng two UK windfarms using 2MW turbines, one at Great yarmouth 3 km offshore

so – why does this one need to be in 10m of water and at a distance of only 1 km offshore? If shipping is restricting windfarm placement, then it would appear that the site of Aberdeen is not a good one in the first place.

1. North Hoyle: North Wales. 4-5 miles off the coast, depth 7-11m. 30 x 2mW turbines [http://www.natwindpower.co.uk/northhoyle/]

2. Scroby Sands:

This is phase 1 of the norfold windfarm project. 30x2Mw turbines, locarted 3 km off the coast at Great Yarmouth. It is of note that phase two is intended to be at a further distance so that visual impact will be minimized of eliminated from the coast. [http://www.edp24.co.uk/Windfarms/asp/implications/Constraints_D2.asp#visual2ii]

3. Egmond aan Zee

4. Irish wind energy online

The turbines will generally be built in relatively shallow water - less than about 30 metres in depth.

The Department of Marine has indicated that a minimum distance of 5km offshore is appropriate. Shorter distances would need to be justified. In other parts of Europe, there are offshore projects closer than 5km to the shore — see list of sites developed elsewhere.

Although it is possible to build structures in water deeper than 30m (for example the oil platforms in the North Sea), it is very expensive and would not be economically viable for offshore wind turbines.

5. Shallow water technology is generally seen as upto between 20-30m depth, this is the limit for current researched monopole designs. Hence the Aberdeen project could be moved significantly further offshore

Deep water technologies involve attaching the tower to a floating platform instead of a monopole – this type of technology is well suited to being pioneered by the north east. Since available materials and skills are already existing here.

Marine life

Bottle nose dolphins migrate regulary along the coast to and from the moray firth to Aberdeen. The ability to view Dolfin’s fishing off Aberdeen is a key feature of Aberdeen’s few natural attractions. It should be noted that there are many tourist locations around the world that boast dolphin viewing as the main reason for visiting that site (eg Monkey Mia, West Australia). There is concern that acoustic pollution, caused by the turbines, may disturb the dophin’s natural behaviour, so that they no longer visit Aberdeen and we lose a key natural attraction which Aberdeen has to offer.

Aesthetics

A key feature of Aberdeen is the ability of residents and visitors to be able to enjoy a natural view of the sea and coastline. The proposed turbines are very large, their position is very close to the shoreline and their density and number is also high. We therefore expect there to be a large and detrimental change the skyline of the coastline views previously enjoyed by so many.

Effect on watersports

Kitesurfers regularly use the coastal water from the don mouth north to Balmedie park. A kitesurfing centre is registered and based at Balmedie Park. This region is particulary suitable to kitesurfing due to the shape of the beach, prevailing wind conditions and, at least without this new proposal, no obstructions. Kite surfers are attached to their kite by lines which are between 15 and 40 meters. They would certainly be at risk if they were near a wind turbine.

Kitesurfers travel at 15 to 30 Knots, thus they could potentially travel 1 Km offshore in a mere 60 seconds. It is therefore unlikely that kitesurfing could continue in this area following the contruction of the windfarm

The piles of the windfarm may effect the surf. Windsurfers and Kitesurfers should reasonably expect 1km of safe sailing area from the beach. Windsurfers and surfers regularly use the region of the beach from

The proposed wind turbines are 5 MW. These represent the largest so far developed. A working example of a 5 MW turbine is that of

These have a 120m tower with 61 m blades attached, giving a blade span of 126 m and a ground to tip height of 183m. Thus 150 m in the scope report appears to be an underestimate. The first turbine of this type to be commissioned will be in the moray firth a distance of 26 milers offshore – this is quite a difference from the 1 km proposed for the Aberdeen project! Why do the tubines need to be so near to the shore? Because the developers and proposers think they can get away with it. There is not even a 2MW tubine this close to the coastline in the british isles.

Recommendations

Turbines should be placed at least 2 Km offshore, i.e. the position of the first row. If the second row was a further 600m offshore then the depth of the turbines would be between 18 and 24m. 5 Mw towers are certainly capable of this depth.

Others Views:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/enterprise/inquiries/rei/ec04-reis-windfarmawarene.htm

What opportunities are there/should there be for local community involvement in, and economic benefit from, renewable energy schemes?

Given the present Executive's pressure to ensure maximum development of wind farms there are few opportunities for local communities to benefit to any significant degree. Short term employment, for unskilled labour only, and grants by wind farm developers to local community councils to secure local support for their developments cannot be construed as benefits.

There is no long term economic benefit to local communities in the present renewable energy schemes proposed by the Executive.

There are, however, many disadvantages for the local community through loss of tourism. It is reported that tourism in

Denmark

dropped some 50% in areas with large scale wind farm development. Communities in Cornwall and Devon are also voicing concern.

The value of private property could be substantially reduced for those whose homes are located close to wind farm developments*⁹

We further believe that local communities have a responsibility for identifying their own measures for moving to renewable energy sources. Such an approach would create a higher degree of involvement and ownership within the community. However, as is proving the case with the large scale development of wind farms local communities often have little or no say in how such developments are taken forwards.

As mentioned throughout this submission the onslaught in Scotland of the large scale onshore wind farms (which remain idle for some 70% of the time) will, if not checked in time, have a disastrous effect not only on our environment but also on our economy. Tourism will be directly affected as will the cost of electricity. The ecology and environmental sustainability of large tracts of land will be adversely affected by the siting of such farms. It would appear that we run the risk of destroying large areas of this country in an attempt to somehow mitigate the relatively nominal environmental impact of current power generation methods.

Offshore wind farms offer the dual benefits of increased efficiency and reduced visual impact in comparison to onshore wind farms. Any adverse affects to human health from wind turbines would be mitigated by siting turbines offshore. This must surely be a positive desire. However, because they are more expensive to build than onshore wind farms, there is less profit for the developers and hence the current clamour to develop onshore sites.*¹⁰. Despite having environmental problems affecting sea traffic, offshore technology is rapidly advancing thus enabling the construction of such sites as Scroby Sands. “

Comments on the proposed Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm

Other Windfarm Plans and background