I NOTE your article regarding remote island wind (“Renewable energy boom
driven by £557m auctions”, The Herald, July 24). Sustainable Shetland would
like to respond to this article, and the Department for Business, Energy &
Industrial Strategy (DBEIS) press releases that prompted it, from the
Shetland perspective.
Scotland is set to enjoy a new renewable energy boom, according to your
article, and islands like those in Shetland are ideal locations for the
development of wind power “because of their natural stormy environments”.
One might be forgiven for thinking that the writer of this article had his
tongue in his cheek. Even the most ardent supporters of wind power will
concede that not everyone in Scotland – or Shetland – will enjoy this
apparent boom, and that stormy conditions mean more frequent shut-downs of
wind turbines – and more prolonged construction periods and risk of peat
slides. The vast cost of transmitting this intermittent power to the UK
mainland is also less than ideal.
Lord Duncan, who urges “local communities, developers and other
stakeholders to work together to ensure that such projects deliver lasting
benefits to the islands”, wishes to see Shetland become a platform for all
manner of renewable energy sources from all over the North Sea and North
Atlantic. He seems oblivious to the cost of all of this and as to whether
or not it will represent value for money to electricity consumers.
The reason for this article was the previous day’s two press releases
issued by the UK Government. One of these trumpeted that Claire Perry,
Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth, was going to announce the
next round of Contract for Difference (CfD) auctions for offshore wind, and
that “remote island wind” would be eligible to take part. In fact she
appears to have forgotten to do the latter, although the next day she did
announce consent for a fracking operation in Lancashire.
In any case, the fact that £57.50 is being heralded by Ms Perry as the
going rate for a “strike price” for offshore wind electricity generation
must have implications for the viability of Viking Energy, and the other
developers who are queuing up to sink Shetland under hundreds of massive
wind turbines. This is something that Viking Energy seems unwilling to
comment on. If it is a so-called community project, the community should
have a right to know. Viking Energy continues to try to railroad its
project through against significant local opposition. It continues to spend
large sums of Shetland Charitable Trust money without any guarantee that it
will be successful in the CfD auction.
The preferential CfD treatment for remote island wind has simply encouraged
over-development of wind energy in locations that are, in reality, far from
ideal.
Frank Hay,
Chaiman,
Sustainable Shetland.
Burnside, Voe, Shetland.
I HAVE read many letters and articles referring to rising sea levels as a
result of supposed global warming. Our country is surrounded by the sea but
I have not observed or heard of anyone else having observed that
phenomenon. I understand that the Maldives are still above water and
friends who have visited recently report a boom in the building of tourist
hotels. I recently flew from Glasgow to Dubai to Sydney to Auckland and
back. All these airports are just a few feet above sea level. I didn’t see
any evidence of panic building of sea defences.
Next time someone tells you the seas are rising, just say “ok, prove it”.
Stuart Young,
The Larches,
Laggan Bridge.
0 Comments