YOUR report on the plans to replace our onshore wind turbines with even larger structures should be of concern to everyone who values Scotland’s natural beauty (“Scotland’s ageing wind turbines could be replaced with super-sized structures”, The Herald, November 20). No other European country is plastering its wild mountain and moorland areas with power stations of industrial scale, complete with huge turbines, pylons, substations and hill roads. With 3,200 turbines in operation and another 2,300 under construction or awaiting planning permission, it should be obvious that Scotland is already well past saturation point for huge turbines on land.

The future is offshore. Norway, for example has few land-based turbines – in September I drove the length of Norway from Larvik to Tromso and recall seeing only one wind farm, well away from people and their magnificent wild landscapes. The Norwegians build their wind farms offshore, where the smooth, laminar flow of wind allows the turbines to operate at maximum efficiency, unlike their poor relations on the Scottish mainland.

Anyone in the Scottish renewables industry will confirm that offshore is the future – today all the necessary knowledge and skills are available and, with costs falling with every offshore turbine, there is no need for further onshore development. The 5MW turbines in the Beatrice Field off the Caithness coast have been put in place on time and on budget. Already a 10 MW turbine is under development for future deployment. Large-scale onshore wind is yesterday’s technology, only pursued by commercial companies chasing public subsidy while bribing local communities to support their planning applications.

Now we need to identify those parts of Scotland dominated by large-scale wind farms so that visitors can recognise those areas to avoid if they want a hill walk without turbines. I look forward to the day when Visitscotland produces its “no-go areas” brochure in a desperate attempt to kid the rest of the world that Scotland still is a magnificent country to come to for unspoilt natural beauty.

Dave Morris,

2 Bishop Terrace,

Kinnesswood, Kinross.

SOME years ago rural folk were slightly “comforted”by the assurance that wind turbines would be in their communities for a generation only, until the subsidies ran out. Then sites would be decommissioned and operators would pay for the clean-up. Most were not naïve enough to believe that would necessarily happen or the thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel in the bases would be removed or the miles of access tracks would ever disappear but the turbines would go. “Temporary” was the word used and some were, no doubt, convinced industrial wind might be a necessary evil as a stepping stone to more reliable generation. Maybe they didn’t object to developments because they believed what the SNP administration was telling them.

Then we started to see the words “in perpetuity” and realised that wind turbine installations may well be there forever.

Now the watch word is “re-powering” and even bigger turbines are to be placed on existing sites.

This is an outrageous abuse of political power. If this is to be the future then serious demands should be met. Those that were given planning permission prior to any mention of “in perpetuity” should remain temporary structures. They should be decommissioned as promised.

Those that are to be re-powered, and it can only be the most recent approvals, must have full ecological surveys done as existing turbine bases will not be in the right place for these significantly larger machines. They will also have greater visual impact and be potentially noisier.

They must be treated as new applications with full planning fees paid.

Why should we bankroll this industry any more than we do already? If they fail in any area the wind farm must be decommissioned.

To do anything less confirms that we were quite simply lied to and it should be challenged.

I would also ask if an increase in size of turbine mean more subsidies if the original contracts have not run out? If so that is another cost that will burden the consumer.

Lyndsey Ward,

Darach Brae,

Beauly.

THE suspiciously precise figure of 241.85 tons of CO2 to build and install a “typical” wind turbine is quoted by George Herraghty (Letters, November 20), without any reference to the hundreds of tonnes of CO2 that a gas-fired power station might generate per hour. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology reports lifetime gas-fired power stations emissions equivalent to 400-600g of CO2 per kWh, and offshore wind at 9-13g.

If we are to reduce green subsidies, then we must tax fossil fuels more. If the Scottish Tories contend that the oil price has fallen too far for Scotland to pay for itself, their Westminster Government should have plenty of room to raise some taxes on petrol to compensate. Yet petrol duty has remained frozen since 2011.

And if Ian Moir (Letters, November 20) wants a plan to grow the economy, may I suggest we start by rebuilding maybe three per cent of Scotland’s housing stock each year to a passive heating standard?

Alan Ritchie,

72 Waverley Street,

Glasgow.

NOT for the first time you have printed a letter from Ian Moir (November 20) in which he produces his quite fantastical electricity generation figures and his ridiculous consequential financial implications for Scotland.

He states ‘’ to phase out 150TWh of gas”, implying that this has been done by the Scottish Government.

In fact 150TWh is about five times the annual demand for electricity in Scotland, and would require about 20,000MWs of gas capacity working at an annual load factor of 70 per cent – about 20 large gas fired power stations. Where were these stations?

And could I point out to Mr Moir that the Scottish Government has not “phased out” a single MW of capacity as, a) all generating plant in Great Britain is privately owned, and b) energy policy is reserved to Westminster.

On the back of his above fantasy figure of 150TWhs Mr Moir then computes that the difference between his assumed 4p/unit figure for gas and his assumed 16p/unit for renewables produces a figure of £18 billion/year. Actually that piece of arithmetic is correct. But for some reason he somehow thinks that this translates into a £6bn annual hit to Scotland’s public services, which will be a surprise to anyone with a knowledge of our public finances.

Nick Dekker,

1 Nairn Way,

Cumbernauld.