Here in the Scottish Highlands, we are now suffering from serious over-development of wind energy. Big players have moved in and are coercively forcing through really massive projects with 200 ft high turbines and enormous pylons, plus massive substations etc. With our existing wind generation, hydro, and now the developing wave energy, we already generate far more electricity than we can possibly use. Many years ago the hydro electricity was used to power industries based locally - such as aluminium. Now there is the Beauly Denny power line that stakes power south, and there are plans for a sea connector from Peterhead to Drax in Yorkshire that will carry enough electricity to power every home in Scotland.

It is coercive, destructive, corporate exploitation for short term private profit and it is destroying the land and the communities. It's rather like the Railway Mania of the 19th c where investors started to propose railways everywhere. And the turbines and other infrastructure planned are so intimidatingly massive, and so lacking in any real consultation with those affected, that the newly elected MP for Caithness is demanding more nuclear power instead. It's mad of course, and I told him so, but there's a huge backlash building here.

Obviously I am a supporter of renewable energy in principle but am concerned about the situation. If England opens up for wind power perhaps that might take the pressure off us a bit; but if the same mania catches on there with firests of 200m high turbines and the grid upgrades to match, it won't take much for the ban on onshore wind to be reinstated. So beware.

A big backlash is now starting here against renewables in general, apart from small scale, local or domestic production for personalor community use. Of course the oil industry, a strong lobby here since the 1970s, are making the most of this; but no one is talking about assessing future demand and aiming to reduce that. How much generation capacity and grid upgrading do we really need? I think that the current feeding frenzy by corporate investors is a bubble that could burst.

Ripple's model is good because it makes a direct connection between the consumer and the production - our turbines are not there to power huge datacentres or AI, but ordinary people and their houses. I think it's really important to stress that difference, and to keep a focus on a decentralised, democratised, community led model with smaller projects serving local and regional markets. This would reduce the need for long-distance supply of energy with all that implies. The same goes for solar. Panels on roofs are cheap and efficient. Covering many acres of potentially productive land and ecology with panels is not good for people or planet. The other technology that has huge potential is wave energy - Orkney is leading the world in this at the moment but suffers from serious under-investment.

Perhaps Ripple might consider for a future project buying and existing windfarm rather than building another one? And looking at other technologies too, like run-of-river hydro and wave energy?

De facto ban on on shore wind in England overturned