New Scottish Offshore Wind Farm Ranks In At Number Three

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

Scotland’s Energy Minister, Fergus Ewing, announced on Wednesday the formal consent for two adjacent offshore wind farm applications to be located in the outer Moray Firth, which will combine to be the world’s third largest offshore wind farm with up to 326 wind turbines.

“Scotland has the potential to lead the development of an exciting, new renewables industry as offshore wind moves into deeper waters,” said Mr Ewing on Wednesday. “Offshore renewables represent a huge opportunity for Scotland; an opportunity to build up new industries and to deliver on our ambitious renewable energy and carbon reduction targets.”

The Moray Offshore Renewables Limited (MORL) and the Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Limited (BOWL) will be capable of generating up to 1,866 MW of clean electricity, and are set to be located off the Caithness coast. With enough energy to power over one million Scottish homes, the project is set to be worth £2.5 billion to the Scottish economy.

“These wind farms alone could generate gross value worth up to £2.5 billion over their lifetime and generate up to 4,600 jobs during peak construction and up to 580 once in operation,” Mr Ewing added.

“The Scottish Government is committed to the successful and sustainable development of an offshore wind sector, which could lead to a potential inward investment of £30 billion and support up to 28,000 direct jobs and a further 20,000 indirect jobs, generating up to £7.1 billion for the Scottish economy. As this industry develops, our enterprise agencies are working to secure supply chain development for Scotland.”

Unsurprisingly, given the need for environmental protection, the applications were granted consent under strict guidelines which are set to mitigate and monitor a range of potential impacts the offshore farm might have on the local ecosystem.

Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Our Latest EVObsession Video

I don't like paywalls. You don't like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Here at CleanTechnica, we implemented a limited paywall for a while, but it always felt wrong — and it was always tough to decide what we should put behind there. In theory, your most exclusive and best content goes behind a paywall. But then fewer people read it!! So, we've decided to completely nix paywalls here at CleanTechnica. But...
Like other media companies, we need reader support! If you support us, please chip in a bit monthly to help our team write, edit, and publish 15 cleantech stories a day!
Thank you!

CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.

Joshua S Hill

I'm a Christian, a nerd, a geek, and I believe that we're pretty quickly directing planet-Earth into hell in a handbasket! I also write for Fantasy Book Review (, and can be found writing articles for a variety of other sites. Check me out at for more.

Joshua S Hill has 4403 posts and counting. See all posts by Joshua S Hill

20 thoughts on “New Scottish Offshore Wind Farm Ranks In At Number Three

  • Australia should be surrounded by wind farms but the Australian government is too stupid to combat climate change. God help us all.

    • Onshore wind still has countless options in Australia and has a lower cost than offshore. The federal government at present may succeed in stopping national projects (for a period), but if a state decides to take a separate stance to renewables, well the investors are just waiting for the nod to go ahead. ACT government forward thinking has investors eager and similar to Scotland will bring many economic benefits too.

      • I hope that is true Alex. I have zero faith in Tony Abbott.

        • Oh you’re definitely not alone there, there is a long, long list of people with the same feelings as you.

  • Yes. It will happen. It is now simply a race of two tipping points in avoiding the worst, and a race of destruction vs. what we can save. It’s also an old story of people/animals blooming and dieing off. We just have a chance to switch it to a much more positive world, or just the opposite. Now is truly a time to act. Sustained effort is our best and only hope, basically. Each one of us who cares should work at it to some degree, taking our share of responsibility) I think more effort should switch to blocking further approval of more gas and oil infrastructure. Coal is shrinking fast. Renewables have already proven they will hit grid parity even with the absurd lack of accounting for externalizations from fossil fuels. Norway, just moved investments, Goldman did $40B days ago. It’s happening. We must stop the tar sands. Stop more investments for finding new reserves, switch all investments rapidly and completely out of fossils & into Wind, solar, electrification of heating, cooling, transport, industry; grid development, efficiency. The jobs will explode; ARE exploding! The health benefits will save trillions, save water. It’ll be a fraction of the toxicity and impacts on life.

    • Blocking oil and gas infrastructure is a waste of time and resources. Spend the effort and investment on developing sensible alternatives. Let the market take care of the rest.
      You will win far more support and will make far fewer enemies

      • I agree. It’s impossible to get people to stop driving. And that, for now, means that they will use petroleum.

        The answer is to give people an acceptable alternative. Put your energy into getting more people into EVs and PHEVs.

        As electric car sales volumes increase prices will come down.

        Electric cars are so much cheaper to operate than gasmobiles. Get the purchase price down closer to that of a gasmobile and the market for tar sands oil will disappear and those companies will go bankrupt.

      • Thanks for engaging Rick,

        It reasonable to promote a solution rather than just fighting a problem, but in this case the two are interrelated, I think. The more pressure and expense, both politically, and economically that is foisted on fossil fuels, the more likely we may make the switch to a clean energy economy in time. The last couple of years has ended the myth of renewables’ inability to completely and affordably RE-power the world. It is now simply a race for survival, literally. Markets are starting to hint at the profound transition, but fossil fuels investors and proponents are in denial. And because markets are simply too slow to advert the absolutely verified developing threat of catastrophic global warming, we need to work defensively as well. I would love to be true friends with everyone, however, some are currently willing to harm others for their own benefit. These folks will not change course willingly, and so should be opposed through penalties as well as opportunities. Opposition through lawsuits, protest, civil disobedience, political shaming, have been, and will remain, key components of slowing, stopping and reversing the damage of these effectively psychopathic corporations and their human associates. It isn’t all about the positive news which is truly a wonderful development. There are “enemies” in high places that must be opposed. To my fellow citizens, who have yet to understand the foolishness of climate denial, or of apathy, resistance, fear, etc; I will always try to engage in discussion, but the time for patience is of another era.

        • I can understand your thinking, but believe that radical activism is counter productive in a situation as important as this one. I think that most people, with access to information’ now believe in global warming and that includes large corporations.
          Change will come, but a backlash from people whose lives you may disrupt is not what we want. A tremendous number of people depend on the energy industry,directly or indirectly, for their livlihood, and sudden change can be very painful
          I know a response is that the planet is more important than money, but to most parents, the immediate needs of their children will trump everything else The many hungry of the world could not care less about anything other than where their next meal may come from.
          Although there are exceptions, most corporations do change course, either willingly, or in a forced response to changing conditions
          A good example is the publishing industry which has had to adjust to the internet phenomenom. Not all succeed and the roadside is littered with failed ventures. This all happened over a very short period
          Another danger is that by stressing the urgency of action too strongly, many may see the situation as hopeless and get what they can while they can. Activism is often percieved as harming others itself.
          From my view I see tremendous progress being made already, and not just by alternate energy but by efforts to make conventional energy as clean as possible.
          The key is still to convince the general population to use less carbon intensive methods to fill their tansportation and energy needs.
          I may be overly optimistic but I think changes will come in time to prevent catastrophe, if not in time to prevent some discomfort. In the meantime I wll continue making my home as efficient as possible and i will continue driving the most efficient auto that is practical. I have also built my home a little stronger in case the storms get worse. I also used our Air Miles for puposes other than travel.
          We are not trying to save the planet here, but rather to preserve civilization for what it’s worth We must be very careful One major global conflict, caused by energy disruption, could set progress made in the struggle against climate change, back to a point from which we could not recover.
          I also do not believe we have enemies in high places. Rather they are either poorly informed or in some cases idiots. In other cases they may actually see the road ahead clearer than we do and may not be as wrong as we believe.
          In any case rapid progress is usually not accomplished by conflict but rather by co-operation.

          • Hi Rick,

            Long delay but I haven’t forgotten your concerns.
            It is unfortunate that people, through ignorance, can become reactive rather than thoughtful, whatever one’s political stripes, self-included. However, non-violent civil disobedience, such as we see by groups like Greenpeace, and individuals like MLK have been very important for educating, warning and challenging the general society to live better and be more moral. Most people are too busy to want to concern themselves with another’s problem, and
            sometimes even ignore their own root problems to continue (again self-included; we are all human). and so sometimes need to come face to face with the even greater pain of those suffering from an injustice.

            Our option for a win-win solution is here now but enough
            delay means a lose-lose scenario. I wish real happiness for all. But some, for example, the Koch Brothers who are in “high places”, seem to care little about the impacts of their business practices. Some have called for declaring their actions crimes against humanity, which I feel may be warranted based on the scientific evidence.

            Regarding the concerns of workers dependent on harmful
            practices such as coal mining and other fossil fuels, I sympathize to some extent, and I would certainly support my tax dollars funding their unemployment and re-training for a different job. But a job is not inherently a holy thing. If it is wrong livelihood, such that is based on the harm of others and the destruction of future generation’s ability to make their own livelihood, then shouldn’t we also sympathize with the victims of that type of job as well? Luckily, this is now clearly a false choice. There are far more jobs per delivered unit of energy from wind and solar and energy efficiency than coal, gas, nukes and oil.

            You have a very reasonable approach in not wanting to
            disrupt people’s lives, but I don’t share your confidence on the timing. If your child was taking too long to run out of a burning house you would use your loudest voice to shock & scare them to their senses. I don’t prescribed violence, but violence is certainly a likely result of predicted effects of
            climate change; just ask the US military commanders.

            My aim is to create a reasonable transition, though my
            “reasonable” may be your “radical”. I hope we both are successful in adding to the transition in our own small ways.

            Also, below links to an article on jobs per energy type:


            Thanks again for your views.

          • Well said, I think this was one of the most sincere speeches by any president. He had looked into the abyss of human extinction and by this time had transformed from a cold warrior to seeing the war’s unnecessary fallacy. The MIC assassinated him through cold calculation rationalized by fear and greed (their tears and needs). It was a coup that is still largely in place to this day. It brings up a spiritual dimension to the human condition: the inherent mortality and injury we all face that can drive us to evil even when at the same time we also posses love and a desire for righteousness. But there are no excuses in nature or heaven.

          • Beautiful. If only!

          • You’re welcome.

          • A thoughtful response. I have spent a little extra time considering your views before responding.
            First of all my radical is probably not that different from yours. Peaceful, orderly demonstration is not radical. However, any action the includes physical violence or property damage is in my opinion not only radical but criminal. Simple civil disobedience such as chaining yourself to a tree or equipment is, in my book not very radical, but shows a level of committment.
            As you infer, there are individuals who do not care about the damage they may do to society, the planet or other individuals. If that were not so, there would be no such thing as drug lords or even pushers. As for the Koch brothers I do not have enough information to form an opinion. It does seem that they are trying to preserve their position and wealth at all costs.
            My concern is not for loss of jobs, and I am not sure how you determined that from my comments. A transition to cleaner energy will probably create more jobs than it will cost. My concern is with communities where the loss of local industry can cause economic stagnation or collapse. It is pretty unreasonable not to expect a backlash from this quarter. You may have noticed that wind farms and industrial scale solar is usually located in the boondocks. This in itself is not a problem. The problem is with the rapid removal of traditional industry from their historical locations without consideration for replacement industry.
            Another concern is the strong tendency to place the blame, for almost everything that is wrong, on industry.
            Industry is only catering to the needs and desires of the consumer which is where the true resposibility lies. It is within the power of every adult person in the developed world to greatly reduce their impact on the environment. The proliferation of McMansions, huge pickups and SUVs that I see indicates to me that the public is far from being on board, at least in North America. If your position is that many people have little choice but buy electricity from the Koch brothers then they should be reducing their consumption to the bare minimum or investing in roof top solar.
            Activism is an effective way to publicize simple, easy to understand problems, such as saving a historical building or a patch of old growth forest.
            It also works well when it can utilize an emotional response. The pictures of baby seals being slaughtered for their fur evoked a strong response in almost everyone. A picture of someone cracking an egg (baby chicken) evokes no such response.
            I am reluctant to compare society to a child, but your analogy of screaming louder to hurry them up will often have the opposite effect. They may freeze in shock or look around in confusion while the house burns down around them. What is needed is to run back and take them by the hand.
            The issue of climate change is large and complex and the dangers are not absolutely verified in the eyes of much of the public. Religious fervor does not make many converts. Reasonable argument that thoughtfully considers all alternatives will.
            As for violence being the predicted effect of global warming. The U.S. army has much reason for bias on that argument. The threat of violence is their reason for being. It appears that people do not need much excuse for violence and it is pretty easy to predict.
            As for predictions of armegeddon. People Have been inundated with them ever since the advent of mass media and the response to them is less and less unless the the threat is clear and nearly immediate. The Y2K bug was seen as a real threat, even if poorly understood, and got considerable response. The average person, however, looked after business as usual and woke up to an unchanged world. Wolf has been cried so often that the public is pretty sceptical whenever a new threat appears on the horizon.
            Much activist involvement is simply seen as getting in the way of ordinary people trying to get on with their life. When demonstrations are used for poorly thought out. emotional, religious or idealogical reasons it makes things even worse.
            Cleantechnica is one of the most balanced environmental sites that I have seen, but even here I have seen claims that are so far from reality as to be laughable. This is what needs to stop if we expect reasonable people to come on board.
            As for a reasonable transition. It is absolutely necessary, and not only to reduce global climate change. We are rapidly running out of oil and coal is just too polluting.

          • Thanks again, I think you’re right on most points, but

            rather than defending emotionally desperate protesters, or defending climate
            “alarmists” (just in the last few days I’ve been sadly, terrifyingly,
            swayed by the arguments of Prof. Guy McPhearson, look for his recent interview
            with Thom Hartmann), I’ll point to what I’ve been sharing with government
            representatives and media as a very positive message:

            Thanks again, I think you’re right on most points, but

            rather than defending emotionally desperate protesters, or defending climate
            “alarmists” (just in the last few days I’ve been sadly, terrifyingly,
            swayed by the arguments of Prof. Guy McPhearson, look for his recent interview
            with Thom Hartmann), I’ll point to what I’ve been sharing with government
            representatives and media as a very positive message:

            Stanford Plan for 100% Wind, Water & Solar (WWS) for all
            energy purposes (heating, cooling, transportation, industry) by 2030-2050


            100% WWS, 50 Plans for 50 States (includes jobs est.):


          • Interesting that you should give me one very pessimistic source followed by a very optimistic outline. It has been a good discussion. Thank you.

          • I have learned from our exchange. Thank you and kind regards.

  • Just to make sure I understand, we are talking about a peak capacity of nearly 6 MW per device.

Comments are closed.