Volcanic weather

In conversation with a number of locals, it was clear that the influence of the the Icelandic volcano was significant, if not sever for us as ground dwelling beings.

The thin layer of dust every day on the car, the unexpected precipitation in very large rain drops and the intermittent snow/hail falls were evidence that the dust was causing water vapour to form around it and crash to the ground in short, sharp falls. The dust is probably good for the ground, as it carries minerals and is bring moisture to a usually less damp (I really hesitate to use the word 'dry') soil in these islands.

And then I saw a video the Mr Eugenides had of an Oklahoma hail storm, and thought that we really have nothing to worry about.



Mr E thinks we are all doomed: I think we need to be less pessimistic and rise to the immense challenge.

Eishken wind farm

According to a very badly written, poorly researched, and vacuous piece of journalism in the Scotland on Sunday, the Eishken wind farm is due to be approved by the Minister during his visit later this month.

I must confess to mixed views on this outcome, which I believe is being approved for all the wrong reasons. I gave evidence to the Public Local Inquiry, so my position on the application has been clear for a long time.

The source said the farm would get the green light when energy minister Jim Mather visits Lewis later this month to discuss economic issues. The scheme will be given planning permission, the source suggested, even if the public inquiry found against it. He told Scotland on Sunday: "The decision is going to be made shortly and find in favour. Because of the financial downturn everyone is keen to boost the economy. The minister is going across on April 16 to talk about energy and the economy, and it's a fair bet that's when it will be announced."

There you have all the signs of poor - indeed, very bad - Government decision making, where political priorities take the lead over proper consideration of the facts.

Planning Permission will be granted, regardless of the PLI decision.
Wasn't it a waste of time and money (£1m?) to hold the PLI when the decision is going to be disregarded anyway. The avoidance of due process is setting a dangerous precedent, but also opens the decision for legal challenge by opponents.

And this is what will happen.

Impact on Arnish
Give the 'importance' of this approval for the economy of the islands, wouldn't it have made sense to have taken this decision a long time ago to ensure continuity of work for Arnish? Or did it only become 'important' when they ran out of other ideas?

Unless Bi-Fab can be granted the tenancy of Arnish promptly then the planning requirement to build the turbine towers at Arnish may lapse, meaning that any benefit for the islands will be reduced. [There is another story here, but one I cannot currently comment on].

Expect to see a mad rush to get the paperwork signed before the visit so that the Minister can 'open' the facility that his actions previously closed.

Political impact....
Oh, this will be so much fun to watch.

Both the MP and MSP opposed the windfarms, and promised they would never be built.

Now they will have to support their Minister in giving approval; which will have a serious impact on their credibility and prospects for re-election.

With every other (very limited) attempt to rejuvenate the local economy having failed, suddenly the Government believe that renewables are the way forward - exactly what the Comhairle and HIE have been telling them for years, and exactly what they have opposed over the years. But having no other ideas, they are having to backtrack and reverse their position with the minimum political damage.

This is an appalling decision, based on a failure of other ideas, a serious misunderstanding of the issues surrounding the islands' economy and renewable energy, and the Government is being forced into an embarassing corner by their own elected representatives.

Bad Government - bad processes - incompetence and ineptness - but the right decision at the end of the day.

Fuel costs and a fuel duty regulator

The members motion being debated today in Parliament is in standard form, but makes no mention of any proposal for a fuel duty regulator to be set-up.

That the Parliament notes that the price of diesel is now over £1.30 in the Western Isles and across Scotland’s island and remote communities, making it probably the most expensive diesel in the western world; further notes that fuel costs now represent an ever increasing burden in the Western and Northern Isles, not least for businesses and fishermen, some of whom report 80% increases in diesel costs in the last two years; notes that the main company delivering fuel to the islands deposits fuel at differing costs at different ports on the west coast despite the fact that the same vessel is used; notes the irony of an oil-producing nation putting its motorists, businesses, fishermen and rural businesses in this impossible position, and finally notes the various measures that exist in parts of France, which make cuts in fuel duty in the remotest areas.

Presumably the suggestion about a regulator will come in the debate, and it will make very interesting reading to see just how that can actually be introduced, as the calls to date have been vague and unclear. And impractical.

As an example, when petrol costs 107.9p per litre it is split 32.60p for the product, 50.35p for the fuel duty, 8.88p for the retailer and 16.07p in VAT.

As I understand it, the proposal is that the Government yield should remain constant by varying the fuel duty.

So if the price of petrol ex-refinery increases by 50% to 48.90p and with 8.88p to the retailer, the Government should still take only 66.42p, giving a pump-price of 124.2p. (Which includes VAT of 18.5p and fuel duty at 47.92p)*

The the effect is to slow the growth in prices, not prevent them

Oh, yes; and slow any drop in prices too.

Then there is a hugely practical problem for some of those whom this measure is targeted at.

Bus operators and fishermen can reclaim the duty by completing a form certifying consumption and the duty rate applicable. These forms allow for three or four rates in any one year, but under this proposal, the applicant (or his accountant!) might have to schedule 200 different daily rates to make the claim. And someone then has to check this.

Of course, the motion is nonsense and more about grandstanding that achieving anything, as the Treasury will pay no more attention than if it was the subject of a poll on this blog.

The fundamental dichotomy is that we are all (supposedly) trying to stop our addiction to fossil fuels and promoting green energy, whilst car drivers are screaming that their petrol costs are going up.

Global demand is currently just behind global supply, and demand is expected to increase as the Chinese economy grows. What happens when supplies dry up? Provide subsidised bread to the masses to keep them happy, or the harsh face economic truths? Personally, I expect oil prices to continue to rise, and we will all have to make efforts to reduce consumption - or be made to through fiscal measures.

As far as the islands are concerned, the real ambition should be to have a duty-free and VAT-free status, like the Canaries, which will encourage growth and a self-sustaining economy at minimal cost to the Public Purse. Anything else but is a sticking plaster.

* According to Angus MacNeil MP, the yield to the Treasury should stay the same. So he presumably means that if increased prices reduce demand then the fuel duty rate will increase to ensure no loss to the Exchequer.

No comment required...

From the Gazette:

Climate change set to destroy Salmon?

SCOTLAND's wild salmon stocks could be facing serious decline if action is not taken to limit the effects of climate change, according to experts.

The country's rivers support one of the largest Atlantic salmon resources within Europe. The cold water fish, found in temperate and arctic regions of the Northern hemisphere, has a complex migratory lifecycle in both marine and freshwater phases, and experts believe climate change is affecting both of these stages.

Peat cutting

With Calum 'Steallag' MacLeod getting big coverage in the Guardian and the Gazette for his vast increased production of tarasgeirs (peat irons) there is just one very small sound of caution.

The Stornoway Trust Chairman, Iain MacIver, was interviewed

There are concerns, however, about the environmental impact of the trend. Iain MacIver, chairman of the Stornoway Trust, one of Lewis's largest landowners, said that since the cessation of peat-cutting most of the peatlands had won protection under wildlife legislation. And most peat banks available outside the traditionally cut areas were already heavily depleted. "There's nowhere left, unless we start getting into the designated zones".

This is actually a potentially very serious and dangerous position into which the community is being driven.

The banks on the designated peatlands cannot be re-opened without permission from .... well, from just who? Presumably, any attempt to re-open these banks will have to pass the test of environmental purity that SNH, RSPB the John Muir Trust and umpteen other unelected and far distant organisations will apply. And what are these tests? No doubt they will be 'developed' as the applications are submitted.

But the report by Richard Lindsay (University of East London) which was initially used by RSPB to justify their stance on the LWP application called for a complete and total ban on all economic activity on the designated land. I read that report carefully and there were to be no new peat roads; old peat roads were to be unmaintained and allowed to degrade; no moorburn; and, no peat cutting. Each and every one of these activities was inimicable (in the view of the self-proclaimed expert) to the preservation of the moor in it's current state, and eventual return to the original 'pure' state.

Although the report used to be on the web, it seems to have disappeared around the time it was systematically demolished by Boreas Ecology, but this report has formed the basis of the entire approach adopted by the RSPB, and I expect the unelected and unaccountable will try to use this 'justification' to prevent even the most basic economic activity on the moor.

Remember, the locals don't know how to protect the moorland; but all the do-gooders do.

Renewable energy

There are few politicians who do not pay lip service to just how much they support renewable energy, and just how important it is in ensuring that we have a balanced energy supply in the future.

I say "lip service", because almost without exception there is an important caveat to their statements. A prime example came about this week.

An SNP MSP has expressed concern about the visual impact of wind farm developments in his constituency. "Wind farms must be sited in appropriate locations that do not diminish an area's scenic character." Mr Crawford added that he was a supporter of wind farms and their ability to generate "clean, renewable" sources of energy and said they were vital to meet the targets set by the Scottish Government to reduce the country's carbon footprint.

And I could quote numerous examples from our own MP and MSP.

With the UK now having to deliver 15% of its energy needs from renewables by 2020, the options are starting to get limited.

As a report in the Sunday Herald today points out,

The amount of electricity that would be generated by the 153 wind farms currently held up in the planning queue is enough to provide 60% of all Scotland's power, and could easily replace the nation's nuclear power stations at Hunterston in North Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian.

Bizarrely, all of which means that nuclear seems more - not less - likely as a result of the attitude of the nimby SNP MSPs.

This is going to be exacerbated next week, as I am very reliably told that the decision on the Lewis Wind Power scheme will be for refusal.

Obviously, I'll be very disappointed if that is the case - but I'm delighted that there will be no Public Inquiry as demanded by our parliamentarians - but I understand that a new application for the Stornoway Trust lands only will then be submitted, and is likely to be approved. In other words, the turbines are only unacceptable in some places.

But the development of renewable energy in the islands will be pushed back a few years, and we will face further uncertainty and depopulation in the meantime.

Whatever the decision turns out to be, it is not about winners and losers, but about doing the best for the islands, and I trust that both sides in this debate will work together in the future with that aim in mind.

Nuclear plans awry. Again!

The dishonest way in which Tony Blair tried to force new nuclear power stations on the public hit the buffers last year when the Courts ruled that it was "seriously flawed" and "misleading".

You will remember that his strategy was not to do anything until there were no options BUT nuclear, and then present it as a fait accompli. Tony being Tony, he lost interest in his plans half way through and ended up driving to get someone else to drive through his plans, but without enough thought and planning going into it.

Thankfully.

Now the latest review of the review has - according to the BBC - concluded that "Poor consultation practice wastes people's time and can seriously undermine people's trust in government", and that the whole process should start again, and this time address the real issues - which they detail.

It looks like the Government are now on a hiding to nothing with this, but because alternatives have been strangled at birth to try to make nuclear the only option, we face a serious energy problem in this country in the coming years. This will leave us reliant on other countries to meet our energy needs, and entirely at the mercy of the markets, whilst wave, wind and hydro are virtually ignored by Ministers and every new application meets with barrages of opposition.

Can anyone tell me what we are going to do for power if every alternative is unacceptable?

Uncertainty over windfarms 'killing' communities

I'm copying the story straight from the Gazette:

The uncertainty in Lewis over the windfarm issue is 'killing' communities, according to Moorland Without Turbines.

Chair of the organisation, Catriona Campbell said that islanders were 'sick with worry' over the issue. She pointed out that this month marked the third anniversary of the windfarm planning applications 'that would see the Isle of Lewis transformed into one of the biggest windfarms in the UK'. In 2004, Lewis Wind Power applied for 234 turbines on Barvas Moor, and Beinn Mhor Power applied to build 133 turbines on the nearby Eishken Estate. Other applications are also in the system' leaving a cloud of uncertainty over the island', she said. "At the outset, everybody said that this should not turn into another Lingerbay quarry saga. But that's exactly what's happening. These proposals are a noose hanging over the affected communities," she added.

MWT and I have long agreed that an early decision on the applications was necessary, as the best thing for the community was to have a decision and for us to then live with it -- whether we agreed with it or not.

Clearly, I totally support the applications.

It is just a pity that Donald Trump wasn't financing the turbines, as a speedy decision seems to be guaranteed by the Executive in cases involving millionaires. Despite a promise from the Energy Minister, to speed up decisions, this only applies to new applications. And if the Executive order a PLI, you can add 3-5 years to the entire process.

Not exactly what MWT expected (or were promised) when they supported our MP and MSP in the last elections.

But the expected announcement of a rapid growth of offshore wind would possibly remove the need for onshore wind, and keep everybody happy/happier.

But, to do that you need the inter-connector. And if everyone had been pulling in the same direction from the beginning, we could have had an inter-connector promised to allow us to exploit off-shore wind, and the possibilities of tidal and wave power.

That was the long game that the Council was engaged in, but some who should have understood this never engaged with the Comhairle to find out what was actually going on.

And sadly, we might all lose out as a result.

Climate change inaction

With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issuing its starkest warning yet on the impact of climate change, Gordon Brown was well placed to make some headline grabbing announcements today.

And he certainly started well, when talking about the big picture need for new technologies:
I believe it will require no less than a fourth technological revolution. In the past the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, the microprocessor transformed not just technology but the way our society has been organised and the way people live.

And he addressed the issue of renewable energy:
Britain is "absolutely committed to meeting our share" of the EU's 2020 renewable energy target, he said. It could mean the UK will have to produce between 40 and 50% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 - the current figure is about 5%. BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said this would be "staggering", but he said that the government was seeking to negotiate down the EU target

So what do we get?

A hotline, and a plan to stop single-use plastic bags.

Oh, and a plan to make Britain a 'World Leader' in building a low carbon economy. It was not specified how this was to be measured, how it was to be achieved, or even what it meant.

The only thing we are 'world leaders' in is making vague pronouncements about aspiring to become 'world leaders', or becoming 'world class' or some other vacuous phrase.

Another hopelessly wasted, useless, photo opportunity. with no substance.

Coastal Protection

It is excellent news that Mike Russell has announced extra funding of £250k for flood defences and access (escape road) schemes in the Western Isles.

I sincerely hope that they can be fully implemented as soon as possible, as they are desperately overdue and it is only a matter of time before the same threats come upon us.

However, I have a problem with the coastal protection schemes. The Wallingford report prepared for the Comhairle in the 1990's made it clear that the vast majority of schemes were a waste of money and time, as the sea would bypass any defences.

Having said that, if I lived near any of the four locations, I would be screaming for the defences to be built.

But take a step back and look at the cost, the change of long term success in many of the areas, and the cost of the options and the sensible course of action is to move the human inhabitants away from danger.

Castle MacSween in Torlum was built on the sea's edge and is now about 1km from the sea, like Beaumaris in North Wales. The schools at Linaclete and Seilebost will almost certainly be under serious threat in the next 10 years, and my advice has long been simple: "Close them, lose them, and built on solid ground well above the tidal limits." I hope that those who would be King Cnut take this simple advice.

Geore W Bush on climate change

Ofgem charging

It is excellent news that Ofgem are to reconsider the charging regime applying to 'remote' renewable energy sources.

Alex Salmond has been bitching about this for some time, and the recent HIE report has certainly brought the truth of the matter home. This is great news for the Highland and Islands as Rob Gibson MSP is reported to have commented in the Scotsman, "there was no way that any part of the Highlands and Islands could hope to develop renewable energy production if the charges went ahead."

Obviously the prospects for the community plans in Point, Barra and many other places on the islands stand to benefit hugely, with lower costs meaning higher returns to the community. It also allows the possibility for larger community schemes to come on line,and crucially allows the potential for tidal and offshore wind in the Western Isles to be fully exploited.

The numerous opportunities should be opening up in front of us.

So why no comment from our MP and MSP? Are they so opposed to the large wind farms that they will sacrifice the communities ambitions for their own narrow view?

Renewal energy

Low emission cars came about because California mandated that a certain percentage of the vehicles on their roads had to be low emission by a fixed deadline. The State's buying power meant that the manufactures complied, and a virtuous circle began. In a similar, the smoking ban in Wales lead to a UK wide smoking ban.

The development of renewable energy - that is at a cost-effective and efficient price - requires Government incentives and direct action to distort the market to drive it in a particular direction. The decision to ban traditional light bulbs in favour of low energy models is such an example. The price advantage is still with the traditional models, but soon, as volumes grow, the energy efficient models will drop in price and people will realise that it is cheaper and better in the long run to buy the fluorescent bulbs.

So it with a glad heart that I see that the Democrats in the House of Representatives have decided to give further tax breaks to renewables in a further effort to stimulate their development. If anything will achieve this aim, it will be the sheer might and buying power of the US.

If anything can try to stop this, it is the puppet/muppet in the White House and his paymasters in the oil companies who see the loss of £8,000,000,000 in annual subsidies as part of a complementary disincentive programme.

Yes, the US Government pays £8bn in subsidies to Big Oil. Why? How can that be justified when Exxon alone makes $10,000,000,000 per quarter or $1,300 per second, all of which goes to private shareholders.

However, the outlook for the planet is good, and I suspect we will see new and unexpected delivery mechanisms sooner rather than later, and covering the whole range of possibilities.

Pairc windfarm

The RSPB and MWT have both severely criticised the proposed windfarm development at Pairc on a number of grounds.

Nothing new there, you might think, and right you are too.

Despite both organisations claiming to support windfarms in principle, neither have provided a single constructive contribution to the debate over the location of any developments
in the Western Isles, preferring to object to virtually every development, and failing to get involved in community schemes.

However, in this application I think that they might be correct in one aspect of their concerns. I have serious reservations over the cumulative impact of the three large scale proposals on the islands.

Now, this doesn't mean that I object to the proposals, per se, just that I think that the three together may be too much. If either of the others is refused or seriously amended then I might change my view, but at present I am swithering.

It is incumbent upon the new Government to quickly come to decisions upon each of the applications in front of them. It is only right that cumulative impact be considered in coming to each of the decisions (and I would be astonished were it not), along with all the other factors.

There are three applications for the islands sitting on the Ministers desk: Beinn Mhor Power, Lewis Wind Power and the community scheme for three turbines at Ardhasaig for the North Harris Trust.

These three have significant community benefit implications for the islands, but the Pairc scheme does not, and is the subject of a hostile community buy-out which the landowner has tried to prevent through the clever use of interposed leases. He hopes this will keep the profits in his pocket, even if the buy-out goes ahead. It may not be a planning consideration, but it is a factor which I hope the Comhairle will consider.

Intermittent power supplies

It's not just wind that is an intermittent power source, nuclear can be too. Despite what the nay-sayers claim.

However, if a wind turbine goes wrong it might spectacularly self-destruct, but at least it doesn't cause death and contamination across a wide area.

And the moral of this little tale - we need to diversify our power generation sources.

Standards Commission

Readers of the Stornoway Gazette may remember that a complaint was lodged with the Standard Commission just before the elections, claiming that a number of members were in Breach of the Code of Conduct. This was specifically as a result of our involvement in various bodies dealing with the windfarm applications.

I was specifically accused of having compromised my objectivity by being a member of the 'Focus Group' to discuss the detail of benefits with developers, whilst also being Chair of the Environmental Services Committee. The decision is that none of us contravened the Code and the case is closed, but it raises wider issues.

I was placed onto the Focus Group because of my specialist skills and knowledge of the planning system combined with my business and professional skills. Would some of the public prefer that the Comhairle negotiate from a position of weakness rather than have the best skills available?

I also recognised the possibility of a conflict, so that I removed myself from active participation in the Focus Group when there was a live planning application if front of the Comhairle, which as it turned out, meant the vast majority of the time.

The role of the objector needs to be looked at, and he has graced these pages before. Murdo "Esso" Morrison lives in Wishaw, where he is a JP and frequent contributor on anti-windfarm themes to the Stornoway Gazette, in fancy, overblown and generally insulting terms. One attributes such "Lord of the Manor" attitudes to his experiences as a Tory Candidate in the Western Isles, a place he visits briefly and occasionally.

As a retired publicity man for Exxon, Murdo is well placed to advise the wider community on the harm that windfarms can bring to an area, compared to the benefits of traditional sources. However, not one to let a single conflict of interest affect his judgement or his pension, Murdo has another string on his bow.

His holiday home.

The reason for Murdo's ire is that he believes that the view from his holiday home - the old family home - will be adversely affected by the windfarm development, and consequently that his not insubstantial income might be diminished. Does that conflict of interest ever get mentioned in his complaint?

What particularly irritated me was an offensive and threatening email I received from Murdo in 2006. One Sunday - obviously after a long leisurely heavy lunch - Murdo threatened my three houses (?!?), and promised I would get what was coming to me(!), based entirely on a complete misreading of my entry in the Register of Members Interests. I was very close to reporting it to the Police, but instead emailed back advising that I would do so if ever wrote anything similar again. Perhaps the Justices of the Peace Committee in North Lanarkshire would be interested...

No doubt Murdo is sitting back furious with the Standards Commission for not agreeing with him. So can I suggest he use his energies on opposing the ship-to-ship transfers in the Forth, which is near at hand, and given that he has such important and invaluable experience of how oil companies operate. Or perhaps his pension is more important.

Grid connection

Bloomberg report that Scottish & Southern may have to compete with third party companies to deliver electricity to the grid. This is particularly focussed on renewable projects in the islands.

This is excellent news for the Western Isles, as it raises the possibility of different connections, which I have highlighted before. I don't think that it changes the chance of the application being approved or rejected, but it does have one huge benefit which I hope everyone will support.

The worst case scenario - and I have said this repeatedly - is that the large scale applications for wind power in the islands get approval, but then are not developed due to problems with the transmission network i.e. the pylons between Beauly-Denny are refused.

This would create planning blight in the Islands, while no-one knew what was happening, or whether the best/worst was going to occur.

This new plan gives the proposals (if they are approved) another way to be delivered - the AMEC owned cable, I have long forecast as being the most likely outcome.

Causeways

After the fatal storms of over two years ago we were promised action to replace and renew the causeways and improve the situation for the people of Uist.

WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING!

There is no sign of anything happening, and although the money has been promised (repeatedly, and ad infinitum) and we have been promised that the work is starting, we are now too far into the year for the work to be done before next year at the earliest.

Having driven across these causeways a lot over the past week, the state of most of them is appalling and urgent action is required before they are destroyed in the coming winter storms. Many of the causeways still have substandard (or non-existent) edging which is dangerous and far from attractive for visitors.

Of particular concern is the Gramsdale to Grimsay section where, I understand, lorries are experiencing difficult under-wheel conditions, and hauliers are concerned about the causeways deteriorating rapidly before next year.

But, the big trick is still being missed. These causeways should also be tidal barriers, harnessing the massive and strong currents to gerneate electricity on the islands. The previous Scottish Executive refused to countenance this possibility. New Executive, new thinking?

Time for a quick win, if our MP and MSP are prepared to lobby for this. There's the challenge. It shouldn't affect the timescales, but will cost more, in the short-term. Or were the promises of sustainability only for election purposes?

Summertime

You can tell the summer is here, as we have had two days with hail rather than rain.

Any suggestions for the odd weather, other than global warming, of course?

Carbon sequestration

BP have pulled out of the innovative plant proposed for Peterhead, to store CO₂ in subsea chambers.

Can I just point out that this is NOT carbon-free electricity, but merely the storage of the carbon generated. It is actually, "carbon-release deferred" electricity.

I still have my doubts about carbon sequestration as a policy.....