|
Shetland's |
|
Read all around the world, daily |
|
February letters |
||
| ||||||
|
28 February -
Thanks brilliant readers
23 February 2007 Shetland isn't Texas HAVING read the letter by Kent Beuchert (Shetland News 22/2/07 - www.shetland-news.co.uk/pages/Letters/letter_page.htm) I investigated a little on the internet this morning. Firstly I'd like to point out the differences between the wind resource in Shetland and in Texas. Here are a couple of links which show the differences, (www.infinitepower.org/reswind.html and www.windatlas.dk/Europe/landmap.html). Wind power may not be a solution for all power needs but Shetland has as good a chance as any of making it work. Secondly I'd agree with Ken that alternative energy sources have always suffered from not having adequate abilities to store power. However I'm not sure how keen people will be to build the massive reservoirs which would be needed by the Seadog system. This is just removing one eyesore to build another. This is one advantage of the Pelamis system, it is contained offshore and doesn't involve onshore construction which is pretty much guaranteed to be met with objections by some groups. Stuart Eunson stuart.eunson@strath.ac.uk 23 February 2007 Bin da bomb da morn ON SATURDAY 24 February (tomorrow), thousands of people will demonstrate their opposition to the government's plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system. "Bin The Bomb" events will be held at midday all over Britain. Trident is a weapon of indiscriminate mass slaughter, aimed not at armies in battle, but at civilian populations across the world. The use or even the threat to use such a weapon would be a grotesque and indefensible crime against humanity. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed by Britain in 1970 and Blair's intention to replace Trident flies in the face of our commitments. In July 1996, the United Nations General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice in The Hague to make a ruling on the legality of nuclear weapons. The judges ruled that the threat or use of such weapons would be contradictory to humanitarian law. They were split however on the precise banning of their use where the "survival of the state" was at risk leaving a loophole which has been exploited by governments ever since. Tony Blair seems to have forgotten the wording, and has subtly changed the wording in the government white paper, from "survival of the state" to the "threat to our vital interests". The costs of Trident at present have been stated as £4 million a day. Replacement figures have been publicised at between £15 and £20 billion, but that figure apparently omits the running costs to 2055 and the huge rebuilding programme at Aldermaston where the new weapons will be built. Independent assessments put the total figure closer to £100 billion. Many people believe that this kind of money can be far better spent in building peaceful relations between nations, improving health and education at home and abroad, and that replacing Trident is an aggressive and provocative act, likely to increase world tension and provoke more terrorism. A number of people in Shetland who support the "Bin the Bomb" gatherings are hoping to mark the event with a vigil and petition signing at the Market Cross in Lerwick, between 12am and 2pm to coincide with the national demonstrations. The Shetland event will be called "Bin Da Bomb" and will feature a model of Trident being ceremonially "binned". Anyone wishing to register their opposition to the replacement of Trident nuclear weapons will be welcome to join the vigil. Jill Slee Blackadder jill.blackadder@zetnet.co.uk 23 February 2007 Not so easy with BA HAVING always wanted to visit the Shetland Isles since I was a child, I finally made it in February last year and again in December (two week Christmas break). It was quite a painless task. I literally just typed in to the British Airways web sit where I intended to travel from (Bristol) and my intended destination (Sumburgh), the dates I wanted to fly out on and the dates I wanted to return on. Once these were confirmed I could then go ahead and book my holiday in Shetland via the internet directly with the landlady/landlord, everything was so easy. Now for the BUT - this year I have been trying to book a flight for November with British Airways and all of a sudden things are not quite so easy. I can not book any seats as they are telling me that they are cutting the BA Connect services, and can not tell me how I am supposed to book a flight to Shetland, and as I can not book a flight I will not be able to book any accommodation. And as I read about the record number of tourists staying in the Shetland Isles I was just wondering if anyone else is experiencing this kind of difficulty in arranging flights, or if any of your readers has a solution to my problem of getting from Bristol to Sumburgh (without a 6 hour wait between flights). Regards Michael Clark michael.clark50@btopenworld.com 22 February 2007 Wind farms are useless AS A former advocate of wind power, I am someone who has come to the conclusion that current wind technology is so primitive that I deem it by far the poorest alternative energy. So poor that I would wait for some of the attractive newer technologies to be commercialized before ever wasting money erecting wind turbines. The wave power machines that your article was concerned with I consider by far the worst wave technology. It is almost as unreliable as wind and is also scant in its output capacities, as is wind power. Why anyone would even consider this wave technology when machines as beautifully engineered and powerful as the Seadog are just around the corner remains a mystery, although I note that the machines in question are apparently being constructed by Scottish firms. No matter, Seadogs are a brilliantly simple design that can be constructed by even marginally industrialised locales. I note that recent tests in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrated remarkable power outputs and using its own hydroelectric generation techniques that qualify this power source as a primary power source on the grid (a base load provider), which alone elevates this technology light years ahead of wind, which hasn't seen any advances in its basic technology in 2000 years. I note that in seas of moderate to strong chop, merely one square mile wave farms of these machines can produce as much electricity as 3020 1.5 MW $2.5 million apiece wind turbines. Statistics like these make me question any authorities who express a preference for wind farms because they are a "proven technology." What wind farms really are are examples of a primitive, yet overly complicated technology, using a very ephemeral, non dense energy source that is both unpredictable, unreliable, of meagre output, and virtually never around during periods of peak demand (in Texas during this past year, during peak demand, wind farms were producing an insignificant 2.5 per cent of capacity). Wind farmers consistently receive the lowest possible prices for their generated electricity, befitting its status as the least valued energy on the grid. No matter how you slice it, wind power is a really stupid and expensive way to generate electricity. I wonder how long it will be until those wind turbines start getting torn down to make way for practical forms of alternative energy generation, and to remove those useless eyesores on the environment. Mistakes lke this always seem to happen when the populace becomes hysterical about some new perceived danger and "demands action." It's almost as certain as the sun rising tomorrow that in this environment, the decisions made will be fast, based on ignorance, and with little logic involved. Impressively big, expensive wind turbines, that are available NOW fill the bill quite nicely as a sop for the ignorant masses. In the U.S., the fact that after two years of frantic wind farm construction, wind power constitutes just 1/4 of 1 per cent on the nation's electrical capacity is unknown by the populace, now satisfied that "wind is making a difference" on the basis of glowing (and totally ignorant) press articles that talk in terms of tons of nasty CO2 avoided by the advent of this new 100 megawatt windfarm, which they fail, through ignorance mostly, to point out will never be capable of producing more than a paltry 25 megawatts of actual power. You see, the nameplate capacities stamped on the side of the wind turbines are totally meaningless. Kent Beuchert Tampa, FL kbeuchert@toast.net 21 February 2007 Can't wait for hamefarin AT LAST some news regarding the Hamefarin. I was posted (RAF) to FSU Mossy Hill on Mainland in 1965, our eldest son being born in Lerwick Infirmary that year. He is still very proud of his birthplace and has a Shetland flag ready to be raised once he finds a suitable flagpole. We lived in the Hayes at Virkie next the old airport buildings - the croft being owned by Whites in Lerwick. Jimmy Black I think was the manager. We remember our days in Shetland with great affection and have returned once since emigrating to Australia in 1973. The friendliness was almost overwhelming. Where else could you get a collar stud sent down from Lerwick on the local bus for six pence - and that may have included the cost of the stud as well. I played football for Mainland and remember well the rides in Muckle Tom's Mercedes which was used for taking sheep about. He owned not only land about Toab, Virkie etc but also the General Store. We used to go tatty-picking for him but received payment in the form of credit in exchange for our labours. I could go on for hours but I won't. I look forward to being at the Hamefarin in 2010. Regards, Ken Allen Virkie@bigpond.net.au 17 February 2007 Where do RSPCA stand on cod? CLAIMS that conditions in organic cod farms are "horrific" were dismissed as groundless yesterday by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The "No Catch" organic cod from farms in Shetland is sold on the basis that it is better than buying from over-fished stocks. However the use of 24 hour low-level artificial light to stop the caged cod maturing has caused a rift between the organic certification bodies the Soil Association and the Organic Food Federation. The RSPCA said: "We could not see any evidence of the lighting compromising the welfare of the fish." In regard to the above if the artificial light source is compromising the young cod from being able to display natural behaviour (in this case stopping the fish from maturing, spawning ) surely this goes totally against the RSPCA`s Duty of Care which they have forced upon the new Animal Welfare Bill. The Duty of Care (RSPCA) categorically states that any animal kept MUST be able to demonstrate natural behaviour(s). Perhaps the RSPCA would like to make a statement on exactly where they stand on this issue. Andrew Meads Safewings Wildlife Conservation Projects Isham Northants NN14 1HP Tel: 01536 726113 13 February 2007 Looking for my grandmother I AM trying to find information about my paternal grandmother. Her name was Margaret Jean McPherson and I think she was born in November, 1889. She died in April 1960 aged 70. I know that she left Lerwick to live in Pembrokeshire and married William Williams. She had four children - two boys and two girls. My Father, Robert McPherson Williams, was her eldest son and he was lost at sea on a fishing trawler in 1950 when I was two years old. I now live in North Wales but I am very keen to trace back my Scottish roots. As all my grandmother's children are now deceased, I would love to hear from anyone who knows anything about my family. Thank you very much, Margaret Susan McPherson Crawford fi_crawford@yahoo.com 12 February 2007 Turning us into criminals IT'S NOT all that often we get fine sunny days in Shetland, but when we do it is great to be able to sit at the Sands of Sound, the Knab, or even the Fort and enjoy the day with maybe a few cans of beer. Not any more, the police are determined to make criminals of us. Much easier to arrest a peacable soul enjoying the day than to track down and arrest the thugs who roam the streets beating up anyone they wish - they might fight back. More restrictions on law abiding people will only breed resentment and make the task of the decent officers that much more difficult. There were already laws covering breach of the peace and assault to deal with the unruly members of society, maybe the police should concentrate on enforcing them and Shetland would be known as a safe place to live. Alistair Inkster aliinkster2000@yahoo.co.uk 9 February 2007 A town full of "tired" shops WELL, here we go again - 'The Chris Hodge Inquiry'. This is a man with get up and go. He has invested a good deal of money into Lerwick. He is providing a service that appeals to his customers. What's the problem? I have this week trawled through Commercial Street trying to buy a present for my grandson who will be 13 next week. I had the choice of two cards out of five shops, and couldn't find any shop that could sell clothes to fit him. Is it any wonder we do mail order? All we hear is we can't take custom out of the town. The 'town' is not doing it for me. There is no choice. Where is the enticement? We have half a dozen tired shops selling unappetising products, their interiors haven't changed in decades, the quality of the goods does not live up to the prices, some are overpriced and others look like seconds from a market. These shopkeepers must realise we now have internet options and we have always had mail order. If they want to survive they will have to buck their ideas up. This attitude that Lerwick shop owners have is unreal. Why shouldn't we have the same choice as mainland shoppers? If they offer the right goods at the right price, we will buy them, otherwise let the best man win. It's time they caught up with the new century. We see the deals that can be had on everything - from bathrooms, kitchens, furniture, clothes. Why should we be ripped off when we can get a better deal somewhere else. There are some shops that do have the odd bargain, but it's a hard search. I wish there were more people like Chris Hodge. Let's have a buzz around Lerwick, let's get a bit of life in Commercial Street. There's nothing like a bit of competition. It's obviously not what is wanted, but what is needed, and when the police sort out the Saturday foray of juvenile disorder (that's another story), it might be quite a pleasant day out. carole.radford@tiscali.co.uk 9 February 2007 Still involved in child reform MANY thanks for carrying the story 'Shetland child line stays local' regarding the 24 hour child protection information line that will run initially in five pilot areas in Scotland - and particularly for including the local numbers to contact if people have concerns about a child. Just one teeny correction, if I may: Although Shetland is not part of the pilot area for the new national child protection phone-line being set up as a result of the reform programme (which in fact is a number that will provide general information and refer people through to local contacts where appropriate), it is not really correct to say Shetland is not part of the child protection reform programme. Shetland Child Protection Committee has in fact had close links and involvement with the reform programme (set up following the publication of the national report and review of Child Protection 'It's everyone's job to make sure I'm alright') throughout its three year existence. The main message of the reform programme is that we all have a role to play in keeping children and young people safe and making sure they get the help they need when they need it. We know that as high a proportion of the children in Shetland suffer abuse and neglect as elsewhere in Scotland, so it's really important for everyone to know how to make contact with professionals who can help them. Thanks again for including the local numbers to ring. Here they are again: 01595 744421 is the main office-hours number, or 01595 695611 out of hours, the Children's Reporter on 01595 692436 or the police anytime on 01595 692110. Kind Regards Helen Watkins Child Protection Coordinator 91-93 St Olaf St LERWICK 01595 744435 helen.watkins@sic.shetland.gov.uk 8 February 2007 Wind farm's another bridge THE VIKING project is beginning to show all the characteristics of another Bressay bridge saga: A) A high visibility 'iconic' project - how hearts must have swelled with pride on hearing it described as 'the biggest of its kind in the world'! B) Dubious financial basis, relying on unquantified grant aid or subsidy. C) Public consultation exchanged for PR spin. The difference is that this time there is no well-funded organisation to express opposition. Instead we are told to expect a 'roadshow' to mould public opinion. Of course. We are paying for this, but will it be objective and balanced? How much money has the project already cost us and were we consulted? Of course the Viking project has to be very large for one simple reason: it has to be able to justify the £500 million cost of the interconnector. Big project = big funding = big salaries and big profit opportunities for those involved. Benefits are supposed to filter down to the community via the Charitable Trust - more big salaries and profit opportunities. With the current thinking it is impossible for the promoters to think of scaling it down to just meet Shetland's needs, so it has to be justified on the noble premise of supplying green energy to Scotland. But how 'green' is it? How long will it take to repay the massive carbon costs of the installation and the interconnector? Current thinking is based on supplying the grid, which needs to have about the same input as output - demand must be balanced by supply. With new proven storage methods available, this thinking is now outdated. Excess supply can now be stored for future use, enabling local community systems, or even a Shetland-wide system to be a practical possibility. The interconnector means massive cost, environmental damage and a revenueopportunity for the Crown Estate. Shetland would be dependent on it for power supply when our turbines are not working. Let's forget about building egos and the interconnector and think about looking after Shetland's needs. With tidal generation soon becoming available, as the Viking website admits, wind turbines will be instantly outdated. Who will pay the decommissioning costs? Will the Lang Kames be reinstated? Before we start counting the doubtful benefits, let's count the actual costs. There are currently government grants available to give 100 per cent funding to community renewable energy projects, which deliver the benefits directly to the community involved. Why are we not looking at these to supply Shetland's needs? There is an alternative that will provide more income with no outlay. While the oil companies have been whining about production falling, they've been keeping quiet about oil price rises. Last year almost £4 billion worth of oil passed through Sullom Voe. Of that, at 1p per barrel, the SIC received about £600,000 - less than 0.02%. Bearing in mind the oil companies are posting record profits and are having to do less work for their money, raising that figure to a miserly 2.5 per cent would bring Shetland £100 million per year at no environmental cost. It's our oil after all. Small is beautiful. Shetland is small. Shetland is beautiful - let's keep it that way. This is no place for anything that describes itself as 'the biggest in the world'. Stuart Hill Ocraquoy 01595 693654 info@udallaw.com P.S. Forget the soft and fluffy term wind 'farm'. The Lang Kames project will be an industrial complex of massive size. I prefer to think of it as a WITCH - Wind Industrial Turbine Complex at Home. Watch out for the wicked WITCH of the North! 5 February 2007 This wind farm is very big IN REPLY to the letter from Tony Erwood in the Shetland News on 2 February, I of course welcome such remarks, as, in my view, it is a sign of a healthy debate around the whole wind farm issue. Firstly, the peat does not have to be burned to produce the carbon figures quoted. It just has to be dug out or disturbed and allowed to dry. So the figure of 55kg per cubic metre of peat is just the oxidation of the carbon during the drying out process. Secondly the figure of 78 square km. Sometimes, I don't think, the whole vast scale of the wind farm is fully appreciated. This is planned to be the biggest ever wind farm in Europe - if not the world. A colossal undertaking. Now, it may be that not every square km of the area is actually excavated, but if not there will certainly be 'islands' of peat between the turbines which will ultimately dry out. I have been informed that the depth of peat in the East Kames can be up to 3m deep - perhaps more. So my assumption of 1m depth may too optimistic. Another factor I did not mention is that the ongoing degradation of the peat can extend up to 250m around the development simply due to disturbance and the alteration of the hydrology. In fact, I have also been informed that my estimate of 78 square km maybe too conservative. Yes, we can debate the area affected. But my whole point is that based on evidence from previous wind farms built on peat, they are at best carbon neutral. This should be the starting point in the whole debate. The claim from Viking Energy that the whole windmill scheme is a 'green powerhouse' is spurious. There is no such evidence for such a claim. Their estimation of a saving of 2 million tonnes of CO2 is also in error. Let's just have a rational debate without all this misinformation from the developers. Paul Featherstone Kergord Hatchery Weisdale ssltd@zetnet.co.uk 2 February 2007 Peat arguments don't stack up The figures in Paul Featherstone's letter on the impact on the peat bogs by the construction of the proposed wind farm (Thursday 1st February) seem rather pessimistic. Firstly I can't see an area of 78sq km being excavated, but only the area associated with the concrete bases and the access roads. Secondly, the figure of 55kg of CO2 released per cubic metre presumably only results if the stuff is burnt and that isn't necessary, it only has to be moved to elsewhere on the site. So, the only CO2 production would be by the diggers and lorries involved. I wonder how that would compare with the total saving in CO2 output at Lerwick power station resulting from the five Burradale wind turbines since they were put into service. Tony Erwood, Lunna House, Vidlin. tony@lunnahouse.co.uk 1 February 2007 Wind farm plans don't add up SO, Shetland's proposed giant wind farm was conceived in an Inverness toilet. No surprise to me, and I think that is probably where it should have stayed. I cannot recall such a massive local project being proposed on such a wave of euphoria as this extremely risky venture. I have no desire to see the central mainland of Shetland covered in wind generators and I find the way in which this is being approached worryingly optimistic. Questions regarding peat disposal and the network of roads required, which will be substantial bearing in mind these generators are physically twice the size of those on Burradale, are given scant regard. Other issues such as 'shadow flicker' are also surfed over on this euphoric wave. Granted, these issues should all be addressed in the public consultations, but questions must be asked, especially by our councillors, some of whom at least do not appear entirely convinced of its viability. Relating to this public consultation it concerns me that any legitimate voices of reason are already being branded as purveyors of 'disinformation' by the SIC's renewable energy consultant. However it is the economics of it that I find most worrying. I am no expert on wind farm economics but just examining Viking Energy's own website figures makes for disturbing reading, I wonder how many of our councillors have given it thorough scrutiny? As a complete layman may I endeavour to show how it looks to me; I stress again these are Viking Energy's figures. Capital cost £450 million - 10% invested equally between Viking Energy and Scottish and Southern Electricity - 90% to be raised from commercial investors. This capital cost figure has already been raised by 33.3% to £600 million. Operating cost from £33 to £42.5 million, average £38 million. Transmission cost from £24 million to £60 million, average £42 million. Revenue - £154 million. These are all annually based figures - Viking Energy's extrapolations are based on averages so let's add up on that basis and the lower capital cost figure. Revenue- £154 million Capital borrowing annual repayment - £32million (based on 5% over 20 years.) (based on loans of £405 million) Operating cost - £ 38 million Transmission cost - £42million Total- £112 million Profit - £42 million Looking healthy isn't it? Now lets look at the worst-case scenario. Given that SSE have reported already that capital cost is looking more like £600 million - a 33.3% increase and we haven't even started! Revenue - £154 million Capital borrowing annual repayment - £42.8 million (based on 5% over 20 years.) (based on loans of £540 million) Operating cost - £42.5 million Transmission cost - £ 60 million Total - £145.3 million Profit - £8.7 million Now that doesn't look quite so healthy. It represents a profit margin on revenue of just over 5.6%. If capital costs can jump by 33.3%, what is to stop operating or transmission costs doing the same? Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) and their associated Recycled Value are only guaranteed until 2027, only twelve years into the project's lifespan. There is no guarantee that Climate Change Levy Exemption (LECs) will remain at all. If these were withdrawn at Viking Energy's quoted figures total revenue would drop from £154 to £145.67 million, leaving a profit of only £0.37 million. With 53.8% of a MWh unit price dependent on these three elements that makes me feel rather uncomfortable. We should also bear in mind it is not only what the UK government may do but also what vagaries could be subjected on renewable energy policies and incentives from Brussels. Of course none of these figures include the £22.5 or £30 million which the SIC, namely us, will be investing through Viking Energy, or whatever will be pumped in between now and 2015. A cornerstone of the argument for this project is Shetland's wind energy efficiency; Burradale wind farm has recorded average output since commissioning of 52%. To give Viking Energy their due they have conservatively used output of 45% in their revenue calculations. However nothing appears to be factored in regarding energy loss when transmitting over such a considerable length of cable. Transmission losses over the UK grid as a whole are generally quoted as 1.5%, perhaps not too significant, but given the distance from Shetland to major users what is Viking Energy looking at? Also given this increased wind efficiency it is fairly likely that turbines in Shetland will not last 20 years. I believe this figure is based on current installation examples, not ones facing the rigours of Shetland's weather! All this of course is dependent on the interconnector cable, final costing for this could be anybody's guess and will most likely require some financial input from SSE and Viking Energy, again namely us. It appears this requirement has now jumped from two cables to four, yet another change. So there you go, my arguments might be flawed but I am just looking at their own figures. If this goes ahead I believe it could be the mire in which the SIC will sink the last of our oil revenue. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the Shetland public hasn't started objecting to this yet because they are too sensible to think it could actually happen. The sad thing is in the meantime the SIC will throw money at it, currently quoting combined development costs with SSE of £2 million; given that Viking Energy's development budget for 2006/07 is £990,000, presumably this has already been spent. What they should be looking at is the opportunity of embracing renewable energy in its true spirit by making Shetland self sufficient through renewables, not exporting, and setting a shining example to the world on how it should be done. It is also worth pointing out that in e-mail correspondence with Viking Energy last year I am still waiting for an answer to my query on the economics of it all. I also wish to point out I am not associated with Shetland Against Windfarms Group. Billy Fox Brennek Quarff Tel 01950 477576 fox.b@virgin.net 1 February 2007 Tourists will love wind farm IF ONE were to take a slightly more optimistic viewpoint than Mr Graham, one could feel encouraged that a small country like Scotland could make such a huge impact (0.1%) on global Co2 production. And what an example to display, perhaps one that other countries might follow. Just think, if 10 equally small countries converted to wind or other renewable sources, they would, between them, produce a colossal 1% reduction. Beyond that, it might not then take another 90 countries adopting similar practices to achieve a staggering 10% reduction if some of those countries were even just a bitlarger than ours. My point is that the impact of these initial changes is huge, not insignificant at all. From tiny acorns., but then again on Shetland we might be forgiven for forgetting what mighty oaks look like. On a slightly different note, but keeping within the same tune, I am inclined to think that the presence of the largest wind farm in Europe would reinforce Shetland's eco-tourism credentials rather than damage them. Many visitors come to Shetland for its "wilderness" qualities. An, admittedly, huge wind farm demonstrates Shetland's commitment to the environment and will produce an equally huge positive response in the minds of the public at large, although doubtless not in the minds of Mr Graham and Mr Dobson. Joseph Rocks Busta House Hotel Brae reservations@bustahouse.com 1 February 2007
Leave the peat bogs alone |
|
