Frequently Asked Questions

The deployment of industrial wind turbines has become increasingly widespread, driven by their ability to harness wind as a renewable energy source. However, while the electricity they generate is emission free at the point of use, the wider environmental footprint of wind turbines is far from benign.

The manufacture of turbine components, their transportation, on site construction, and eventual decommissioning all involve significant greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, turbine construction frequently requires extensive peat excavation, which releases carbon that has been stored for thousands of years and undermines claimed climate benefits.

Taken together, a full lifecycle assessment of wind turbines demonstrates that their environmental impacts cannot be ignored. Without meaningful measures to address these impacts, wind energy risks falling short of its portrayal as a genuinely sustainable solution.

Scotland already generates the majority of its electricity from low carbon sources. Despite this, developers of industrial wind turbine sites routinely fail to reflect this reality within their proposals. Instead, companies such as Vestas continue to calculate claimed carbon dioxide savings by comparing wind generation to electricity produced by coal or gas fired power stations.

This approach is fundamentally flawed. Scotland no longer relies on coal fired generation, and with only one ageing gas fired power station and an older nuclear facility remaining, the baseline used to justify new industrial wind developments is outdated. As a result, approvals are being sought on the basis of assumptions that no longer reflect the current or future structure of Scotland’s electricity system.

Despite claims made by the Scottish Government and energy companies such as Scottish Power and Vestas, the assertion that industrial wind turbines repay their carbon debt within a year of construction is not supported by robust or complete evidence.

The figures commonly presented exclude substantial sources of emissions. These omissions include the energy intensive manufacturing process, the mining and processing of raw materials, the transportation of turbine components, the large scale destruction of peatlands to accommodate thousands of tonnes of concrete for foundations, and the emissions associated with decommissioning at the end of an installation’s operational life.

When these factors are properly accounted for, the full lifecycle assessment of each industrial wind turbine raises serious doubts as to whether they meaningfully offset the total carbon emissions generated across all stages of development and operation.

While wind energy is often described as carbon free, it has clear operational limitations that distinguish it from firm generation sources such as gas, coal, and nuclear power. Chief among these limitations is reliability.

Operational data shows that most industrial wind turbines generate electricity for only around thirty per cent of the year. During periods when wind conditions are insufficient, alternative power sources are required to maintain grid stability. In some cases, diesel powered generators are used, a practice that Scottish Power has openly acknowledged at several industrial wind turbine sites.

Although many wind developments include battery storage, these systems are frequently misunderstood. Battery capacity is limited and is often used primarily to supply power needed to restart turbines rather than to provide meaningful electricity during extended periods of low wind. Industrial wind turbines do not operate independently and require external electricity to function. Without that support, they remain inactive.

Weather conditions also place strict constraints on turbine operation. Excessively high wind speeds force turbines to shut down to avoid structural damage or catastrophic failure. Large turbine blades operate only within a narrow wind speed range, meaning that both insufficient and excessive wind result in lost generation. These shutdowns carry financial consequences that ultimately fall on Scottish taxpayers.

In summary, while wind energy itself is carbon free, the reality of industrial wind turbine operation is more complex. Intermittency, dependence on external power sources, and vulnerability to adverse weather conditions all challenge the assumption that wind power alone can provide a reliable and self sufficient energy supply.

Certainly not. LOHA fully recognises the urgent need for all countries to reduce carbon emissions and transition away from fossil fuels. The question is not whether action is required, but whether the current approach represents the most effective and least damaging way to achieve that goal.

If the Scottish Government remains committed to wind energy, offshore development represents a far more logical option than continued expansion on land. Although offshore projects carry higher upfront construction costs, they avoid the widespread and irreversible damage to peatlands, hydrology, rural landscapes, and communities that characterise onshore industrial wind developments.

There are also several alternative low carbon technologies that offer greater reliability, higher capacity, and lower long term environmental harm than large scale onshore wind. These include modern nuclear power, tidal and wave energy, hydropower, and geothermal energy, all of which are advancing rapidly and warrant serious strategic consideration.

Modern nuclear power, particularly through small modular reactors, has evolved significantly from earlier generations. These systems are designed to be safer, produce less waste, and operate more efficiently. Refitting or replacing existing nuclear sites with newer technology would allow Scotland to maintain firm low carbon generation while avoiding further industrialisation of undeveloped landscapes and sensitive peatlands.

Tidal and wave energy also offer substantial advantages. Tidal power in particular is entirely predictable and produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. Large scale projects can be integrated into existing coastal infrastructure, as demonstrated by the Sihwa Lake tidal scheme in South Korea, which delivers substantial capacity with a relatively small physical footprint. By contrast, industrial wind and solar developments typically require extensive land take spread over very large areas.

Geothermal energy represents another underutilised but highly promising option. It has a very low carbon footprint, operates continuously rather than intermittently, and relies on naturally replenished heat within the Earth. Unlike wind and solar, geothermal generation is stable and predictable, allowing accurate forecasting of output. Advances in drilling techniques and heat extraction continue to expand the range of viable geothermal resources, making it increasingly relevant even in regions previously considered unsuitable.

Hydropower remains one of the most established and dependable renewable energy sources. It produces minimal greenhouse gas emissions, has long operational lifespans often exceeding fifty years, and relatively low running costs once constructed. Pumped storage schemes also provide large scale energy storage, allowing excess electricity to be stored and released during periods of high demand. In addition, hydropower projects can support long term employment and regional economic stability.

In summary, LOHA’s position is not opposition to climate action, but opposition to an unnecessarily narrow and environmentally damaging strategy. Given the pace of technological progress, safer, cleaner, and more reliable alternatives are available. The real question is whether Scotland is willing to pursue these options, or continue to rely on solutions that impose significant long term costs on landscapes, communities, and public finances.

No. While developers frequently claim that projects will deliver employment benefits, the majority of jobs associated with large scale wind and energy developments are short term and linked to construction. These roles are typically filled by specialist contractors who travel between sites and do not live locally. Once construction is complete, operational staffing levels are minimal, often limited to a handful of maintenance visits per year.

In most cases, no. Turbine manufacture, component supply, and specialist engineering are largely based outside the local area and often outside Scotland altogether. This means that much of the economic benefit flows to multinational companies and external supply chains rather than to local workers or businesses.

Evidence suggests they do not. With very low staffing requirements, industrial wind sites generate limited ongoing economic activity. Unlike tourism, agriculture, or small scale local enterprises, they do not create sustained demand for local services, accommodation, or retail spending over time.

They can, particularly in rural and scenic areas where tourism depends on landscape quality, tranquillity, and a sense of place. Numerous studies and case examples show that industrialisation of valued landscapes can deter repeat visitors, reduce length of stay, and undermine the appeal of destinations marketed for natural beauty and outdoor recreation.

Often it is not. Developer funded assessments frequently downplay negative impacts or rely on selective evidence. They may focus narrowly on short term visitor numbers while ignoring longer term reputational damage, changes in visitor behaviour, or impacts on niche tourism such as walking, wildlife watching, and heritage based tourism.

Yes. Tourism typically supports a far larger number of long term local jobs than industrial energy developments. Accommodation providers, cafes, guides, shops, and local attractions rely on steady visitor income. Even modest reductions in tourism can result in job losses that exceed the small number of operational roles created by wind or energy infrastructure.

No. Community benefit payments are not compensation and are not linked to actual economic harm. They are discretionary payments offered by developers and are often modest when compared to the scale of landscape change and potential economic disruption. They do not replace lost jobs, businesses, or visitor income.

Not always. Sustainable rural economies are built on long term, place based activity such as tourism, farming, forestry, and small businesses. Large scale energy developments can conflict with these sectors by altering landscapes, restricting land use, and discouraging investment in locally rooted industries.

Because these claims are frequently overstated, poorly evidenced, or based on assumptions that do not hold up over time. Objectors point to the imbalance between short term construction activity and long term economic consequences, particularly in areas where tourism and landscape based livelihoods are central to community wellbeing.

While it is true that domestic cats are responsible for a higher total number of bird deaths each year, this comparison is misleading. It fails to account for the disproportionate impact industrial wind turbines have on rare and protected bird species, and ignores the fact that cats vastly outnumber wind turbines worldwide.

Bird deaths caused by cats overwhelmingly involve common and resilient species such as blackbirds, gulls, and sparrows. In contrast, industrial wind turbines present a significant collision risk to large, slow breeding birds including eagles, owls, kites, and other protected species. Losses within these populations are far more damaging, as even a small number of fatalities can destabilise local or regional populations.

Cats are part of natural ecosystems and have coexisted with bird species for centuries. Industrial turbines, by contrast, are artificial structures introduced into sensitive environments. The deliberate placement of large moving machinery within known flight paths of rare species cannot be justified by comparisons with natural predation.

Where proposed turbine sites intersect established migration routes, foraging areas, or breeding territories near Glencairn, Moniaive, and the surrounding villages, the risk to vulnerable species is substantially increased. Any additional non natural bird mortality is unacceptable, particularly where populations are already under pressure from habitat loss and climate change.

Battery energy storage systems are made up of tens of thousands of lithium ion cells, each of which carries an inherent risk of overheating and failure. If cells are damaged during manufacture, transport, or installation, they can enter a state known as thermal runaway, leading to intense and prolonged fires.

Lithium ion battery fires are particularly dangerous because they generate their own oxygen, meaning they do not require air to continue burning. These fires release highly toxic gases including hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, and methane. Exposure to these substances can cause severe respiratory injury and, in extreme cases, death.

Unlike conventional fires, lithium ion battery fires cannot be safely extinguished with water and are often left to burn out naturally. This process can last more than fifty hours, during which toxic fumes disperse over surrounding areas.

In rural locations such as Glencairn, Moniaive, and the surrounding villages, emergency services frequently lack the specialist equipment or proximity required to respond effectively to lithium ion battery fires. In many cases, the nearest fire service capable of addressing such incidents is located a considerable distance away. By the time specialist assistance arrives, containment is often no longer possible.

Real world incidents, including high profile battery fires involving Tesla installations and consumer devices such as the Samsung Note 7, demonstrate the seriousness of these risks.

Despite these dangers, battery storage units offer limited practical benefit. They are generally used to restart turbines following shutdowns rather than to provide sustained backup power. Claims that such systems can meaningfully supply electricity to large numbers of homes for extended periods are not supported by operational reality.

Industrial wind turbines require a wide range of raw materials, many of which involve environmentally damaging extraction processes. The tower structure is primarily made from steel, while aluminium is used in the nacelle and blade components. Large quantities of copper are required for generators, cabling, and electrical systems.

Many modern turbines also rely on rare earth elements such as neodymium and dysprosium, which are used in permanent magnets. The mining and processing of these materials is associated with significant environmental harm, including toxic waste, water contamination, and landscape destruction, often occurring in countries with weak environmental protections.

Turbine blades are typically manufactured from fibreglass or carbon fibre composites, materials that are extremely difficult to recycle. At the end of a turbine’s operational life, blades are often cut up and sent to landfill, creating long term waste problems.

Each turbine also requires a foundation consisting of thousands of tonnes of concrete. Cement production is a major source of global carbon emissions, and the excavation required for foundations often involves the destruction of peatlands, releasing carbon stored over millennia.

The overall environmental cost of material extraction, manufacture, transport, installation, and disposal is rarely fully acknowledged in developer assessments, despite being central to understanding the true impact of industrial wind energy.

Yes. Many onshore wind developments in Scotland are located on peatland due to elevation and wind conditions. Peatlands are among the most effective natural carbon stores on the planet. Disturbance through excavation, drainage, road construction, and foundation pouring releases stored carbon into the atmosphere and degrades fragile ecosystems.

Once damaged, peatlands can take centuries to recover, if they recover at all. Claims that restoration measures can fully offset this damage are highly contested and lack long term evidence. In many cases, carbon losses from peat disturbance undermine or exceed the claimed carbon savings of the turbines themselves.

Frequently, no. Environmental assessments are typically commissioned and funded by developers, creating an inherent conflict of interest. Impacts on wildlife, hydrology, soils, and cumulative effects are often minimised, fragmented across reports, or assessed in isolation rather than as part of a wider ecological system.

Objectors regularly highlight gaps between predicted impacts and real world outcomes observed at existing sites. These discrepancies raise serious questions about the reliability of environmental assurances provided during the planning process.