ALASDAIR Galloway in response to my letter of November 30 makes reference
to the Scottish weather. I am baffled by this comment, as I thought it was
obvious that, even in the summer, wind is required to power wind turbines.
However, with an average demand of 2,000 MW there would be a 10,000 MW
overcapacity if the Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon vision is achieved, which
means a £6 billion a year constraint payment bill.
Can I also point out I did not claim there “will be no wind in the winter”.
To rephrase, to provide extra clarity, what I claimed was that over the
2,160 hours of the winter period there would be insufficient wind for 500
of these hours to operate wind turbines, hence the need to import
electricity for these hours. Note also that, irrespective of these costs
being demanded as a poll tax on energy or via the tax system, both options
remove the same amount of cash from the pockets of Scottish households.
The question I would put over the demise of Cockenzie and Longannet is why
were the stations not converted to operate on shale gas from Grangemouth,
thus providing energy at £25 per MWhour instead of the £90 per MWhour
generated by wind farms? This would ease the plight of the 35 per cent of
Scots living in fuel poverty.
Can I also make the point that I did not mention the Euro or any Scottish
share of UK debt since all I provided was a reference to an article by
Pinstripe (“SNP focuses on security but figures fail to add up”, The
Herald, September 12)? Can I reiterate that how cash is removed from the
pockets of Scots is irrelevant as the total taken is the same whether it is
removed by VAT, income tax or a poll tax on energy bills so I am puzzled by
the smokescreens? However, what Mr Galloway, Scottish Grid or Scottish
Renewables have failed to show is that the data is incorrect. Can I assume
that these figures will be the accepted data on the impact of renewable
subsidies in an independent Scotland?
Ian Moir,
79 Queen Street, Castle Douglas.
0 Comments