View Full Version : John Thurso and energy
captain chaos
22-Nov-05, 20:59
A quote from the scotsman today
John Thurso, the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross MP, said the site would be too remote from where the electricity would be used. "There is not the transmission capacity to take the electricity from Dounreay to the Central Belt. I would love it if it came to Dounreay because it would bring lots of jobs, but it won't."
If there is not the capacity to take power from a new station then how come there is capacity for as many wind turbines as you can build.!!!!
Sounds like double standards.
All power is transmitted at the same voltage
A modern station generates the same as approx 500 wind turbines so when do we reach a limit of turbines in the North of Scotland.
Bobinovich
22-Nov-05, 21:09
Very interesting point - I hope we get some substantiated answers. If not would it worth a letter directly to John Thurso himself?
Funny how we are too far for Nuclear Power station but perfect For wind farms. How come this anomily
I might just do that But thinking again when do politicians listen to the constituants
Interesting point indeed. Ive become a John Sinclair (Thurso) fan since he first got elected in 1997 so I suspect he will have a good answer to your question. If not, then I am sure his answer will be well informed.
All politicians have quick reoly But rarely do they say anthing.
You miss the point CC, I think.
An average nuclear power station can produce 1300 Megawatts (MW) whereas windfarms like the Causwaymire's 22 windmills one only produce 50. Now, most of the electricity is needed in highly populated areas like the Central Belt of Scotland so it doesn't make sense to spend what would be 100's of £millions on the large power lines to deliver electricity the 250 miles from here to Glasgow.
The present power lines as far as I am aware can only carry a few hundred MW, so a few windfarms could be connected without major investment. I'm sure the powerline operators Scottish and Southern Energy are keeping an eye on the total capacity creeping up as windfarms are connected, and by the time a couple more are switched on the powerlines south could be up to full capacity - presumably there will be no more windfarms (for now at least).
captain chaos
22-Nov-05, 23:35
I have taken Bobinovich's suggestion and set the following email to John Thurso.
If and when he replies and if he will allow me to post his reply I will do so
Tuesday 22 November 2005
Dear John Thurso,
Given your recent comments in 'The Scotsman' newspaper today, 22 November 2005, regarding the inappropriateness of sitting a new power station at Doorway I would like to ask you to clarify the following point.
If, as you say, it would not be feasible to transmit power for that distance from a new power station, why is it considered possible to transmit the same power from wind turbines in this area?
At present in the highland area we have 200 approved and operational wind turbines.
A further 249 turbines in the Application stage
And 700 scoping development.
To my calculations that is the equivalent of 2 new power stations. Even the 200 is the equivalent to what Hunterston could generate .The 249 in the application stage are the equivalent of Torness. Yet we don’t have the capacity for A new station at Dounreay?
I have placed a copy of this email on the Caithness.org web site and with your permission would like to post your reply
Yours sincerely,
Captain Chaos
George Brims
22-Nov-05, 23:39
IIRC, the fast reactor at Dounreay had a generating capacity of 250 MW, and I assume the lines South from that area were able to carry that but not much more (unless they built them bigger in hopes that a bigger generator might be built at a later date).
Last time I was in Scotland (July/August) I noticed a lot of signs along the A9 complaining about "mega pylons". Was there some plan to stick up more and bigger pylons?
The 'no pylons' signs refer to plans for a new power line between Beauly and somewhere on the west coast - I don't think there are any plans to run new lines up to Caithness or the North coast.
The Pepsi Challenge
23-Nov-05, 10:26
With more wind farms, there's more money in it for Mr. "Thurso."
The 'no pylons' signs refer to plans for a new power line between Beauly and somewhere on the west coast - I don't think there are any plans to run new lines up to Caithness or the North coast.
Bad news - there are indeed plans to upgrade both lines from the north. Needed to export all the onshore wind energy planned for Caithness and Sutherland. More power in fact than from any single nuclear power station they might consider for the north. So what is John Thurso talking about? It's too far for nuclear power but OK for wind energy????
I have taken Bobinovich's suggestion and set the following email to John Thurso.
If and when he replies and if he will allow me to post his reply I will do so
Tuesday 22 November 2005
Dear John Thurso,
Given your recent comments in 'The Scotsman' newspaper today, 22 November 2005, regarding the inappropriateness of sitting a new power station at Doorway I would like to ask you to clarify the following point.
If, as you say, it would not be feasible to transmit power for that distance from a new power station, why is it considered possible to transmit the same power from wind turbines in this area?
At present in the highland area we have 200 approved and operational wind turbines.
A further 249 turbines in the Application stage
And 700 scoping development.
To my calculations that is the equivalent of 2 new power stations. Even the 200 is the equivalent to what Hunterston could generate .The 249 in the application stage are the equivalent of Torness. Yet we don’t have the capacity for A new station at Dounreay?
I have placed a copy of this email on the Caithness.org web site and with your permission would like to post your reply
Yours sincerely,
Captain Chaos
Excellent!! Can't wait for the reply. If the Highland council renewable energy strategy is adopted they plan 2000MW of onshore wind by 2020 along with all the associated upgrades and superpylons. Though he's been asked John Thurso has yet to comment on this strategy and has not made any statement about the distance of wind produced electricity from end user.
The Pepsi Challenge
23-Nov-05, 12:33
Money talks.
Rubha_an_Tuir
23-Nov-05, 14:20
My limited Knowledge....ahem......Powerlines are measured in MVA. I believe Dounreay was capable of producing approx 240MVA and the 275kV line rated at 350MVA. (Plenty room) There are 3 lines from Dounreay, a 275kV and 2 x 132kV lines @120MVA each , I think they run as far south as Beauly and Shin, where they pick up hydro supplies. There is is absolutely no reason Dounreay can't be a Power Station to supply the Central belt. (Extra line transmission capacity would be required of course, the line is currently a low profile line) but 250 miles is an easily bridgeable gap. (Southern England has very few powerstations of their own, the majority of their electricity comes from the Midlands and Northern England and French Nuclear of course)
The power lines from Dounreay consist of a row of pylons with 3 cables attached but there is room for 3 more cables on the other branches. I am assuming that the capacity can be doubled from Caithness without the need for bigger pylons. Any experts out there willing to comment?
for interest http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk
Hmmmm John Thurso is not short of a bob or two is he?
John Thurso declared remunerated directorships as Chairman of International Wine and Spirit Competition Ltd (organisers of an annual wine and spirit competition), Chairman of Fitness Industry Association Limited (representing the fitness industry as a trade body), Chairman of Ulbster Holdings Ltd (managing family estates in Scotland), Chairman of Thurso Fisheries Ltd (managing family estates in Scotland), as Director of three wholly owned subsidiaries of Ulbster Holdings Ltd, Ulbster Estates (Sporting) Ltd, Lochdhu Hotels Ltd and Sinclair Family Trust Ltd, and as Director of Millennium and Copthorne Hotels PLC (an international hotel company); remunerated employment as a Lecturer at Cranfield University relating to his previous employment, a donation to his constituency party from Mr John Lewis, estate in Caithness, and registrable shareholdings with Walker Greenbank PLC (2 per cent of its share capital being owned by Ulbster Holdings Ltd which he owned 100 per cent), Ulbster Holdings Ltd and Thurso Fisheries Ltd.
The Pepsi Challenge
23-Nov-05, 15:48
Exactly. "Thurso" would gladly accept water mills powered by little hamsters so long as it was lining his pockets. I still don't understand why an upper class aristocrat who lives in Caithness barely a few months of the year can be qualified to represent the county in parliament. No offence to Tinks, but could you really see him sympathising with them or anyone else poor and in trouble at one of his surgeries? Yeah, right.
I think you'll find that in this country the only qualification he needs to represent his constituents is to be elected by them, which of course he was.
Caithness was always a Labour stronghold until the sitting MP defected to the SDP/Lib alliance. If it wasn't for the old Labour loony left then Caithness would still be a Labour stronghold.
The Pepsi Challenge
23-Nov-05, 17:28
You're right, habit can be a nasty thing to shake.
Rheghead wrote:
Caithness was always a Labour stronghold until the sitting MP defected to the SDP/Lib alliance. If it wasn't for the old Labour loony left then Caithness would still be a Labour stronghold.
I would like to see evidence of that - I don't think it is true. Apart from Robert McLennan what Labour MP has represented Caithness?
Caithness was always a Labour stronghold until the sitting MP defected to the SDP/Lib alliance. If it wasn't for the old Labour loony left then Caithness would still be a Labour stronghold. That's a bit of an exaggeration. Like much of the Highland region after the Clearances, Caithness was fiercely anti-Tory and was a Liberal stronghold until Bob Maclennan won a very narrow victory for Labour in the landslide of 1966. His victory was usually "blamed" by the Liberals on the huge number of city-dwelling incomers to Caithness during the Dounreay construction period. He made the constituency his own by winning in 1970, 1974 (twice) and 1979 -- all for Labour. He held on in 1983 after he'd joined the SDP in 1981, and won again in 1987, 1992 & 1997 for the Liberal/SDP Alliance & Lib Dems. Not a bad record if you ask me!
Anyway, that's a total of just 5 Labour wins in all, and the seat was held by Labour by one man for a "meagre" 15-year period. So, I wouldn't say that "Caithness was always a Labour stronghold".
As a kid I always admired Bob Maclennan -- not quite sure why though. Perhaps it's because I'd never previously met anyone who spoke as "posh" as he did, so I probably thought he must be very important!
Yeah, I'm a political saddo -- I am quoting all this stuff from memory, so please forgive any (hopefully minor) inaccuracies.
__________________________________________________ ____________
Edit: there's a biography of Bob Maclennan here (http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/record.jsp?type=page&ID=31&liberalbiographies=liberalbiographies). Phew, I was pretty accurate!
Was the MP before Bob not a Tory?
No just checked your history and it was indeed a Liberal.
Caithness was fiercely anti-Tory and was a Liberal stronghold until Bob Maclennan won a very narrow victory for Labour in the landslide of 1966.
Not so, Caithness was Tory from 1950-1964, a narrow victory over Labour, yes the liberals won in 1964 but only held the seat for 2 years, Labour won in 1966 to 1981 until Maclellan's defection. My point being that Caithness was a labour stronghold until the defection to the SDP, which was made up of traditional Labour MPs (the gang of 4, still the real labour imho).
I reiterate, if it wasn't for the loony left, we would have a labour MP now.
I still don't understand why an upper class aristocrat who lives in Caithness barely a few months of the year can be qualified to represent the county in parliament. No offence to Tinks, but could you really see him sympathising with them or anyone else poor and in trouble at one of his surgeries? Yeah, right.
I have worked with John Thurso and found him interested and effective in dealing with problems facing EXACTLY the people you describe. Prior to be elected he came to see me to ask about the role my organisation held and how he could help if he was elected. Following his election he did exactly what he said he would do and was helpful in a variety of ways. these ways often impacted on exactly the sorts of people you are talking about pepsi.
I have said in another thread that the inablility of people to see outside their own sphere of experience is strange to me. I think John thurso can do that and i have seen him demonstrate that on several occasions. I have been very glad of his support and help in a variety of situations. He made a REAL difference at times to the help we could offer to people
Yes, George Mackie was the sitting Liberal MP at the 1966 election, and Maclennan won by just 64 votes! I vaguely remember campaigning for Mackie on the streets of Thurso during the first '74 election -- but only because my school-mate came from a staunch Liberal family and it was fun playing politics and wearing an orange rosette! I voted for Bob Maclennan when I eventually had the opportunity.
____________________________________________
Edit: So much for my memory, the Liberal candidate in 1974 was Michael R Burnett (again from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caithness_and_Sutherland)). George Mackie last stood in 1970.
The Pepsi Challenge
23-Nov-05, 18:36
I respect your opinions Squidge, so I'll take your word for it. In my experience it's been a different experience, however I won't bore you - or the board - with my own personal laundry list. Thanks for the reply, though. Appreciated ;-)
I reiterate, if it wasn't for the loony left, we would have a labour MP now.
Disagree - in Caithness people tend to vote for the man rather than the party.
The Pepsi Challenge
23-Nov-05, 18:50
I hate this. But yeah, scotsboy is right.
And Maclennan's heart was with the Labour party until the loony left wrecked it. When the SDP joined the liberals it was only political pride that prevented the old SDP from rejoining New Labour under John Smith.
Otherwise why didn't Maclennan win the seat for Liberals from day 1?
go figure...
Not so, Caithness was Tory from 1950-1964, a narrow victory over Labour, yes the liberals won in 1964 but only held the seat for 2 years, Labour won in 1966 to 1981 until Maclellan's defection. My point being that Caithness was a labour stronghold until the defection to the SDP, which was made up of traditional Labour MPs (the gang of 4, still the real labour imho).
I reiterate, if it wasn't for the loony left, we would have a labour MP now. Lol, I really wasn't sure about the anti-Tory bit, and I just knew I should have checked. Even I'm not old enough to remember that period. Thanks Rheggers! :)
I really thought David Robertson had been a Liberal. However, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caithness_and_Sutherland) at least, he was an Independent MP from 1959-64, but had been Tory MP from 1950-59. I've learned something today! Anyway, Caithness & Sutherland had a Liberal MP for almost 3 times as long as it had a Tory MP between the years of 1918 and 1966, so I wasn't too far wrong overall ;)
Would the constituency have a Labour MP now if the loony left hadn't been so powerful in the early 80s and Bob Maclennan hadn't joined the SDP in 1981? Who knows? I agree that it's likely, but history might have been very different if Jim Callaghan had gone to the country in Autumn 1978 when he would likely have won, so TBW wouldn't have come to power in 1979, and Benn & Foot wouldn't have been so powerful in the early 80s. There are lots of "ifs" there. But, yeah, I tend to agree that the current MP would likely be Labour if things had been different around 1980. :rolleyes:
Disagree - in Caithness people tend to vote for the man rather than the party.
I agree with you, but I would like to challenge that ethos, if the desire to vote in a true representative can be overcame by voting in a Tory for 14 years then I do question the logic to have a 'local' man.
I'm not sure why there is an assumption here that John Thurso is in favour of windfarms because as far as I know he is not. In any event he is one of the hardest working MPs I have ever experienced (and I've moved around a lot), always replies to letters/emails and takes queries up with the relevant ministers. As for outside interests, I would always prefer to have an MP who has experience of life outside parliament. He has a home up here, holds regular clinics. Why knock him just because he has a title? Sad.
captain chaos
23-Nov-05, 19:59
I see as per usual we have deviated slightly from the subject but hey ho that’s life.
I have had a quick reply from John Thurso but he did not give or deny permission to post so have asked him for clarification before posting.
I have also copied the email to Jamie Stone and asked for his comments.
Will let you know how it goes.
CC
Not so, Caithness was Tory from 1950-1964, a narrow victory over Labour, yes the liberals won in 1964 but only held the seat for 2 years, Labour won in 1966 to 1981 until Maclellan's defection. My point being that Caithness was a labour stronghold until the defection to the SDP, which was made up of traditional Labour MPs (the gang of 4, still the real labour imho).
I reiterate, if it wasn't for the loony left, we would have a labour MP now.
I Do believe that Robertson Was Independant MP
I Do believe that Robertson Was Independant MP
He was latterly, but he was elected as a Tory, as with all defectees, they give up the party whip then carry on voting as per their roots until they come across a petty issue that seems to consume all their common sense.
Bill Fernie
24-Nov-05, 01:09
With regard to Captain Chaos on the grid capacity. Take a look at section 9 of the Highland Council Renewable Energy Strategy that shows the consideration to expansion of the Dounreay to Beauly transmission lines. See Section 9 at http://www.highland.gov.uk/plintra/planpol/ren/strat-cons.pdf
An upgrading of the capacity would allow for an increase in Alternative Energy schemes not just in Caithness but posssibly Orkney and the Western Isles.
If additional grid capacity is added it makes it at least possible for other sources of power to come on stream from the north including nuclear. The increased transmission capacity would have the merit of opeing up the options.
One thought could be that it may not be an either nuclear or alternative energy projects it might be both in the future if there is continued threats to gas supplies or if the price stays anywhere near the levels it has reached this week.
As one slide shown at the public meeting in Halkirk on Tuesday showed we could be only within 10 years of demand for electricity outstripping the total capacity from all sources to meet demand. With a one and half per cent increase in demand coming year on year for electricity and the news this evening suggesting that large gas users may neeed to close down their operations due to the high cost the decisions will need to made sooner rather than later.
A read through all of the quite complex data in the Highland council Renewable Energy Strategy will show that this is not just question of choosing to have a friendly choice of a more benign form of power production it will be about survival of many things including manufacturing competitiveness, the economic well-being of the whole country and if we get it wrong the potential to make it impossible for people on low incomes to meet heating costs and other apsects of their lives that depend on fuel and electricity not to mention that everyone will bear the costs of higher energy prices reproduced in eveything we buy from a house to a loaf of bread. the days of low cost energy we are told are coming to an end and with many other countries now industrialising at a rate never before seen in history -competiton for scarce resources like oil and gas are likely to intensify.
If you have not yet read it take look at http://www.highland.gov.uk/plintra/planpol/ren/ren_wg.htm
There are summaries if you cannot bear to read the whole lot. Also specific summaries for each area of Highland.
There is still plenty of time for eveyone to make their thoughts about the Energy Strategy known to the council and it will help if plenty do.
He was latterly, but he was elected as a Tory, as with all defectees, they give up the party whip then carry on voting as per their roots until they come across a petty issue that seems to consume all their common sense.Again, according to Wikipedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caithness_and_Sutherland) (Sir) David Robertson was elected as a Tory in 1950, 1951 & 1955, but as an Independent in 1959. The latter claim is also reported here (http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge59/i04.htm), so it's most probably correct:
Caithness & Sutherland
[S] Independent hold
D Robertson Ind 12,163 65.39%
RK Murray Labour 6,438 34.61%
Electorate: 26,716; Turnout: 69.62%;
Majority: 5,725 (30.78%)
It seems he resigned the Tory whip in January 1959 (http://www.alba.org.uk/timeline/1945to1967.html) and was re-elected as an Independent in October 1959. Does anyone know why he resigned the whip?
I know the above is getting a bit off-topic, so let's get a bit closer to where we started: maybe history will repeat itself. Here's an excerpt from Stephen Cashmore's article DOUNREAY 1953 - DECISIONS AND DELAYS (http://www.iprom.co.uk/archives/dounreay/coldwar1.htm) from the Higland Archives:
Never one to miss a profitable chance, David Robertson took the bold step of volunteering his constituency as the best possible place for Hinton’s new atomic factory. Did Sir David have any idea of what was involved? Possibly not. He knew that his Parliamentary seat was not entirely secure, Caithness being traditionally a liberal stronghold, and he was anxious to bring off some high profile coup which would seal his credentials as a true Man of the People, and get him re-elected into the bargain. He took a letter from his briefcase and handed it to Sir Christopher.
See, I'm in good company when I described Caithness as being a liberal stronghold. ;)
See, I'm in good company when I described Caithness as being a liberal stronghold. ;)
In antiquarian terms yes, but not in modern times.
Lets just accept that the Caithnessian electorate are a real fickle bunch, eg. in 1945 when the whole UK dumped a tory led coalition and made a landslide return of a Labour Gov. the Caithnessians overturned their Liberal majority and returned a Tory.
Go figure...
Rheghead wrote:
I do question the logic to have a 'local' man.
Who mentioned local? Certainly not me.
A read through all of the quite complex data in the Highland council Renewable Energy Strategy will show that this is not just question of choosing to have a friendly choice of a more benign form of power production it will be about survival of many things including manufacturing competitiveness, the economic well-being of the whole country and if we get it wrong the potential to make it impossible for people on low incomes to meet heating costs and other apsects of their lives that depend on fuel and electricity not to mention that everyone will bear the costs of higher energy prices reproduced in eveything we buy from a house to a loaf of bread. the days of low cost energy we are told are coming to an end and with many other countries now industrialising at a rate never before seen in history -competiton for scarce resources like oil and gas are likely to intensify
Please, please can you explain how onshore wind provides the answer to any of the above?? This is a genuine query and given that it is more than likely that a new Highlands covered in turbines is just round the corner it would ease my pain enormously if I could believe that the rewards outweighed the sacrifice.
If you are not able to explain could you please direct me to the documentation that proves what is written in the strategy?
Why when we have the resource for the alternatives of offshore wind (ready to go) and tidal (between 8 and 12 years away) would we even consider onshore wind?
captain chaos
24-Nov-05, 18:48
A Reply from John Thurso
Dear Mr xxxxxxx
Many thanks for your e mail.
The short answer is that I believe many of the same arguments apply. I have been corresponding in detail with both the Highland Council and the Scottish executive on the subject for some years and I will send you copies of the correspondence.
Kind regards
John Thurso
I received a large envelope from the House of Commons this morning. It takes a lot of reading. Will try and summarise......
Basically, he seems to be in favour of small scale renewable energy initiatives located in the vicinity which requires the power.
He is not in favour of over production in the county (which we now have) unless there is a benefit to the county i.e. lower cost or free electricity.
He seems to be in a battle with Highland council and the Scottish executive, each blaming the other for a lack of strategy in siting wind farms in Scotland.
I hope this is a true reflection of his stance as it’s difficult to summarise a ream of paper into a few sentences.
Although I still do not know his views on nuclear power rather than the party line (I will be asking)
My personal view of our MP after reading through the paper work is that he is committed to Caithness and is fighting for his constituents, which I will admit was not what I was expecting.
My thanks to John Thurso for his efforts and allowing me to post his reply
Bill Fernie
24-Nov-05, 19:02
Re the request for more information than is in the proposed strategy document. I do not have any references othe than the draft strategy that is on the Highland council web site. If you come across any I would be interested to read them. Post the links here if you get hold of any. - thanks
A Reply from John Thurso
Dear Mr xxxxxxx
Many thanks for your e mail.
The short answer is that I believe many of the same arguments apply. I have been corresponding in detail with both the Highland Council and the Scottish executive on the subject for some years and I will send you copies of the correspondence.
Kind regards
John Thurso
I received a large envelope from the House of Commons this morning. It takes a lot of reading. Will try and summarise......
Basically, he seems to be in favour of small scale renewable energy initiatives located in the vicinity which requires the power.
He is not in favour of over production in the county (which we now have) unless there is a benefit to the county i.e. lower cost or free electricity.
He seems to be in a battle with Highland council and the Scottish executive, each blaming the other for a lack of strategy in siting wind farms in Scotland.
I hope this is a true reflection of his stance as it’s difficult to summarise a ream of paper into a few sentences.
Although I still do not know his views on nuclear power rather than the party line (I will be asking)
My personal view of our MP after reading through the paper work is that he is committed to Caithness and is fighting for his constituents, which I will admit was not what I was expecting.
My thanks to John Thurso for his efforts and allowing me to post his reply
Well done John Thurso and thanks to Captain Chaos for taking the time to share this with the rest of us. At last. It's been apparent for ages that Highland Council and the SE have been blaming each other and passing the buck. The truth would be wonderful.
Have Highland Council/officials forgotten that the SE 2020 target is for generation of renewable energy NOT onshore wind. It's true that some areas in Scotland/UK have little option and must do their share of the dreaded onshore wind (as we have) because they do not have the alternative renewable resources available to them. WE DO.
Re the request for more information than is in the proposed strategy document. I do not have any references othe than the draft strategy that is on the Highland council web site. If you come across any I would be interested to read them. Post the links here if you get hold of any. - thanks
How do we make sensible, reasoned, intelligent comments on the draft HRES without the evidence which substantiates the claims made throughout the document/s??
Capt. Chaos said: "Although I still do not know his views on nuclear power rather than the party line (I will be asking)"
I asked John T. this at one of his Vote for Me meetings just before the election this year. He said he was fine with nuclear. He also said some other Scottish Libdems were pro-nuclear, although the Liberal manifesto at the time was no nuclear no way no how. According to John T, being a Liberal means you can hold your own views - just don't make them a number one priority if they differ from the party view.
Don't know what the illustrious Mr Stone is thinking though. He wanted hydrogen highways last I heard.
How do we make sensible, reasoned, intelligent comments on the draft HRES without the evidence which substantiates the claims made throughout the document/s??
KittyMay,
Maybe you can find the evidence to substantiate the claims on the British Wind Energy's website.
KittyMay,
Maybe you can find the evidence to substantiate the claims on the British Wind Energy's website.
Surely not!!!
Hope you all watched Question Time last night but for those who didn't JT made it clear he does not follow the party line on this. Also lots on the subject in the following programme but unfortunately I fell asleep even though what i heard sounded very interesting. Wish these programmes went out earlier. For those who are really interested and want to find out more, why not join either CWIF ( see http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk) and/or CREF (see http://www.caithnessrenewed.co.uk/index.htm ). Both these are in favour of renewable energy but CWIF is more anti-windfarm. Both can provide masses of information.
John Thurso did very well last night on Question Time. Was impressed! So, he does support nuclear. Great idea that Dounreay could be a research and development center for alternative renewable energies. He also got in a bit about his support for wet renewables and we now know thanks to Captain Chaos that he does not support onshore wind (he must have read all the independant reports on wind energy which Highland Council have chosen to ignore in favour of those produced by the wind industry).
John Thurso may indeed be 'our man'. He appears to be listening to his constituents. He'll certainly get my vote - even with the handle bar moustach and posh voice. What's his chances of de-brainwashing our councillors?
What's his chances of de-brainwashing our councillors?
In a time when our MP has been proven to listen and do and councillors have been proven to do the complete opposite then I don't hold much hope :(
A read through all of the quite complex data in the Highland council Renewable Energy Strategy will show ETC
Bill
There are huge issues to tackle, but we can only take on things our own size, or slightly bigger.
Why has the Highland REWG decided to take on a UK size contribution to a world-wide problem?
As a Highland Councillor, did you sanction this as a policy? When you agreed to setting up REWG did you expect it to set targets beyond SE requirements?
Didn't you expect that REWG would come up with a reasonable approach to windfarm planning issues?
Are you not a bit surprised at the Strategy Recommendations?
ywindy
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.