Revolt news208 of 4.5.06 and other issues are sent bcc and free. To
subscribe or unsubscribe simply email me. Email addresses which fail for
three consecutive issues will be removed in any case. For further
information please see .
For your convenience ... these news issues are usually in plain text
because attachments may take time to receive and may be difficult for
some to open. We try to keep it simple.
1. Further to news that Highland Council will be objecting to the Beauly
- Denny line, the full report to its PDET Committee on 12 April was
agreed and can be seen on the Council web site. Windfarm objectors are
still concerned (APPENDIX A).
2. Discouraging news about roof top turbines (APPENDIX B): structural
and vibration problems seem to mirror those of a larger scale, as with
the eagerness of politicians to be seen to have them. Better future
design is hoped for, but problems of ineffectiveness remain.
3. Snips from news@all-energy issue 63 of April 2006 are at APPENDIX C.
4. Letter in the Sunday Telegraph 23 April 2006 "41 scientists debunk
global warming" is signed by the 41 scientists (APPENDIX D). They oppose
the president of the Royal Society (Lord Rees) who is championing global
warming alarm like his predecessor Lord May. Lord Rees replies in the
Sunday Telegraph 30 April. But the argument is not about global warming
or not, it is about reasonable doubt as to the extent of its man-made
component.
5. On the subject of political correctness and stifling dissent in
science, Baroness Susan Greenfield is centre stage in the Royal
Institution and the Social Issues Research Centre coming together to
issue Guidelines on Science and Health Communication. The SIRC has been
criticised for its disparaging approach to concerns about health effects
of mobile phones and its strenuous support for their social benefits.
6. Front page articles by Nic Fleming in the Telegraph 26th and 29th
April purported to report what SAGE is recommending on EMF. Don't
believe all you read in the papers! SAGE has not yet reached conclusions
though it expects to report later this summer. Meanwhile, media comment
would be speculative or taken out of context, and hence likely to be
inaccurate or misleading.
7. Following the article on 26th, the Scottish parliament had a brief
debate (questions and answers) on EMFs and SAGE in connection with the
proposed Beauly - Denny 400 kV line (APPENDIX E).
8. The Telegraph on 29th April included a piece on Dermot Finnegan's
experience with National Grid and the impact on his property, reported
in earlier Revolt news. That is a very unsatisfactory case complicated
with many aspects.
9. BASSLINK CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION INC - MEDIA RELEASE 29 April
2006 (APPENDIX F).
10. Forty percent of what? The Scottish Executive keeps changing its
ground as it realises its 40% renewable electricity generation goal is
unrealistic (APPENDIX G). That goal is what lies behind the Beauly -
Denny powerline proposal, and many more to come.
11. The charity Children with Leukaemia, a co-sponsor of SAGE, has
asked a cross-party group of MPs to look into EMFs in order to
"encourage Government to take bold steps which may be recommended by
SAGE by demonstrating parliamentary and popular support for the
precautionary principle". The group has formed a Parliamentary
Commission chaired by Dr Edward Stoate MP. It will seek views at four
open meetings starting on May 8th and 15th. Enquiries: Catherine Nestor
on 020 7930 3581 or email .
12. The Welsh Affairs Committee is to hold an Inquiry into Energy in
Wales. It will take oral evidence on Monday 8 May at the National
Assembly for Wales. Enquiries: Jane Trew, Assistant to the Committee, on
020 7219 3264 or e-mail .
*****
*****
APPENDIX A COUNCIL'S WINDFARM CURB STILL FAILS TO APPEASE PROTESTERS
09:00 - 15 April 2006
Public pressure has convinced Highland Council to curb its hunger for
windfarms, but not enough according to opponents of giant turbines.
In the face of strong objection, planners have revised their maximum
limit for production from onshore wind by 2050 by almost 20% and have
cut their number of "preferred" areas for major windfarms from 11 to
three - all on the eastern side of the region.
The rethink by the authority's green-energy working group completes a
"treble whammy" of disappointment for energy firms in the Highlands this
week. Planning applications from Scottish and Southern Energy for
overhead pylons and doubling the size of the Beauly sub-station were
both rejected.
Anti-windfarm campaigners are not jubilant, however.
Inverness business consultant David Henderson, a former economist with
Highlands and Islands Enterprise, said: "The scaling down does not alter
the principles of my objections.
"The preferred areas will be more compact than previously suggested, but
will remain highly destructive and degrade areas of unspoiled beauty.
Donald Trump wouldn't want to put a golf course near any of these."
Bob Graham, of Highlands Against Wind Farms, said: "Despite some clever
juggling by the consultants, this very expensive rewrite is based on the
same flawed principals as the original."
The rethought strategy, drawn up in secret meetings by councillors,
developers and officials of various Government agencies, followed 11
weeks of consultation on a previous draft including six public meetings
and council debate involving input from pressure groups.
The Highland planning committee will decide on Wednesday whether to
recommend approval of the revamped 58-page document in a full council
vote on May 4.
*****
*****
APPENDIX B Home wind turbines dealt killer blow
Jonathan Leake, Environment Correspondent, The Sunday Times April 16,
2006 (short extract from the article)
ROOFTOP wind turbines may have become the accessory of choice among
'greener than thou' politicians, but a new study suggests that they are
not only incapable of saving the planet but may even damage your house.
David Cameron, the Tory leader, and Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister,
are two politicians who plan to mount the devices on their London homes
in, respectively, Notting Hill and Croydon.
However, a study commissioned by Building for a Future, a journal
specialising in sustainable construction techniques, has found that
rooftop turbines are plagued by technical problems and seldom generate
significant amounts of power, especially in towns and cities.
The report finds that a typical rooftop turbine produces no more than a
quarter of the average home's power needs, at best, and that in urban
areas this is likely to be more like 10%-15%, because wind blows around
towns in turbulent, unpredictable gusts.
In addition, older houses can face serious structural damage from the
powerful sideways forces generated as the wind pushes against the
turbines. This can be a particular problem if the turbines are mounted
on chimneys.
(cut)
*****
*****
APPENDIX C Snips from news@all-energy issue 63 April 2006
4.TRANSMISSION / NETWORKS
4.1.Beauly-Denny, third way called for
The Highland Council planning committee raised a formal objection to the
upgrade of Beauly-Denny transmission line, but recognises that in
principle the upgrade is a key infrastructure improvement for the
Highlands and Islands www.scottishrenewables.com/newsitem.asp?id=104
more at www.theherald.co.uk/news/59991.html
4.4.The state of our networks
Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks welcomed the Energy Networks Association's
first annual report into the state of gas and electricity networks
7.3.Wicks wants more microgeneration
UK Government launches strategy to increase local level energy
production and reduce carbon emissions with the launch of the
Government's first ever Microgeneration Strategy
*****
*****
APPENDIX D 41 scientists debunk global warming alert
The Sunday Telegraph 23 April 2006 Letter
The president of the Royal Society, Lord Rees of Ludlow, asserts that
the evidence for human-caused global warming "is now compelling" and
concerning (Letters, April 19).
In a public letter, we have recently advised the Canadian Prime Minister
of exactly the opposite - which is that "global climate changes all the
time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible
to distinguish from this natural 'noise' ". We also noted that
"observational evidence does not support today's computer climate
models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the
future".
Full list of signatories (41 mainly leading scientists in relevant
disciplines) (Filed: 23/04/2006)
Lord Rees replies 30 April:
CO2 consensus
Prof Bob Carter and his 41 colleagues criticised me for describing the
scientific evidence for human contributions to climate change as
compelling (Letters, April 23).
In 2001, a working group on the science of climate change for the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report by climate
researchers, involving 123 lead authors and 516 contributing authors. It
concluded that assessments based on physical principles and model
simulations indicate that natural factors alone are unlikely to explain
the recent observed global warming, and that uncertainties in our
understanding do not prevent identification of the effect of greenhouse
gas emissions from human activities.
Since 2001, the scientific evidence has continued to mount, despite the
denials by Prof Carter and his colleagues. Atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations, already at a level unprecedented in the last million
years, have risen by 2 per cent more.
(Lord) Rees of Ludlow, President, The Royal Society, London SW1
*****
*****
APPENDIX E Scottish Parliament debate 27 April 2006
Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the Scottish Executive what input the
Minister for Health and Community Care has had to Cabinet discussions
about the health implications of the proposed Beauly to Denny
transmission line.
The Minister for Health and Community Care: Cabinet regularly discusses
issues related to health. However, Scottish ministers operate on the
basis of collective responsibility and do not disclose details of
private deliberations.
Roseanna Cunningham: That is a rather disappointing response. New
concerns are being expressed about the health implications of overhead
power lines, which were made public only yesterday and of which I hope
the minister is aware, and the likely recommendation of the
stakeholder advisory group on extremely low frequency electric and
magnetic fields, which advises the United Kingdom Government, is that
planning guidelines be changed to ensure that domestic residences are
not built within 230ft of power lines or in locations where inhabitants
would be exposed to certain strengths of electromagnetic fields-I hope
that the equivalent position would apply when a new line is being
proposed. In light of those developments, will the Minister for Health
and Community Care now make clear his own position on the proposed
Beauly to Denny power line, particularly in connection with its route
and the possible health implications for nearby communities, especially
where there are children?
Andy Kerr, Minister for Health & Community Care: My first answer related
to the fact that we do not discuss in public matters that go on at
Cabinet. However, I can advise the member that I am of course aware of
recent reports on the subject. The scientific community remains
uncertain about the issue, so it has of course recommended that the
precautionary principle should apply. Under the planning process, any
concerns raised with Scottish ministers in environmental impact
assessments and in responses from statutory consultees or any other
bodies or individuals will be fully considered. That allows us to take
in recent reports as part of our consideration.
Dr Michael Clark, spokesperson for the Health Protection Agency, said:
"There is no hard evidence of a risk but there is a hint of one in work
done abroad and in a study here of a weak association between childhood
leukaemia and living near power lines."
We have to balance the scientific advice, always taking cognisance of it
and, above all, always ensuring the safety of communities here in
Scotland.
Mr Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland & Fife): Given the scientific
uncertainty, would the Executive be prepared to release information
about the position that the Scottish Executive has been taking with
respect to SAGE, on which it has a representative? In particular, has
work been done in Scotland by the Executive's representative to examine
precautionary distances between power lines and housing that apply in
other countries?
Andy Kerr: The Executive officer who participates in SAGE reports back
to us regularly. We should ensure that we take the findings of any study
in the round. Research has found a statistical association but has not
established a causal link. Other scientists remain unconvinced. We are
constantly aware of the work of the National Radiological Protection
Board and other organisations that give us advice on these matters, and
our decisions will always be taken in the best interests of the health
of the people of Scotland.
Murdo Fraser (Con, Mid Scotland and Fife): Does the minister consider it
acceptable that Scottish and Southern Energy has not given any
consideration to health issues when considering the route of the
proposed new power line? Given that there is, at best, a
reasonable doubt about the impact of electricity lines on health, should
that not be a material factor in the determination of the application?
Andy Kerr: As I have said previously, we will consider all aspects of
the matter as and when Scottish ministers have to make their judgments.
In responding to members' questions, I am simply trying to find a
balance in relation to the scientific findings. No definite causal
association between childhood leukaemia and exposure to EMFs and power
lines has been made. There are differences of opinion. The job of the
Scottish Executive is to examine all the available current research and
to take its decision based on that. I repeat that this is about
adopting a precautionary principle, ensuring that we do not endanger
Scotland's population.
*****
*****
APPENDIX F BASSLINK CONCERNED CITIZENS COALITION INC
MEDIA RELEASE 29 April 2006
The handing over of the management of the Basslink interconnector from
National Grid (NG) to Hydro Tasmania gives no cause for applause says
Basslink Concerned Citizens Coalition, (BCCC); nor has it been
"accepted" by all of the landholders (as stated by NG spokesperson ABC
12 noon 29 April 2006)
According to BCCC Chair, Mr Keith Borthwick, Basslink is a monument to
reckless energy planning by both the Tasmanian and Victorian States and
Federal governments. Filled with hope for export revenue by the
introduction of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target scheme, the
Tasmanian government committed itself to a contract to build Basslink
from which it could not extricate itself. They were egged on
by a Victorian government desperate to shore up its sources of peak
power energy, and a Federal Government desperate to shore up Tasmania's
basket case economy.
We were told that Basslink would be viable, and we are not convinced.
The Tasmanian Hydro will pay $94 million per annum for the use of
Basslink with net revenues from the cable unlikely to reach anywhere
near that amount. The Tasmanian Government has admitted that the project
will run at a loss in the forthcoming years.
More than one politician has described Basslink as being "Good for
Australia," but as the losses are being borne by the Tasmanian
Government from its share of GST revenue, it is the rest of Australia
that is subsidising the project.
We were told that Basslink provides green energy but it does not.
Tasmanian Hydro will be relying on the importation of cheap off-peak
brown coal energy from Victoria through Basslink to ensure its supply of
peak power to the mainland.
The State and Federal governments required that a marine monitoring
program be instituted as a condition of approval. But what we have is a
watered down version with NG being allowed to avoid monitoring the
effects of the cable on the marine habitat. They have has still not
proved that its operation does not affect the marine environment, such
as changing the migration route of whales in Bass Strait.
We were told that the Gippsland commercial fishermen's anchors would not
affect the cables, which were meant to be safely buried in the reef and
seabed. Four weeks ago NG announced that the fishermen would be provided
with new anchors so as not to affect the cable.
We were told that the overhead Basslink cable in Victoria was safe but
landholders are now being advised that fences running parallel to the
cable may give off induced electric shocks that could be fatal. Because
the viability of the project was so "finely balanced", the Victorian
government was unwilling to apply the precautionary principle and failed
to insist that more modern underground technology be used.
To hide the shortcomings of Basslink we have been subjected to an
avalanche of "spin" from all interested parties. Contrary to the NG
spokesman, the company has nurtured the goodwill of the affected
communities through selective sponsorship. Small grants to local groups
and co-sponsoring of local events do not make up for spoiling the scenic
environment and causing landholders incredible stress and anxiety with
unwarranted poor management.
The Joint Assessment Panel appointed by the three governments appeared
to conduct itself with the objective that it was not there to stop the
project but rather to ease it past any obstacles. The only time that the
project faced possible defeat was when the Victorian Parliament voted on
the amendments to the relevant Planning Schemes to allow Basslink to be
built in Victoria. But a coalition of the Liberal and Labor parties
ensured the passage of the Bill without demanding any concessions
for Victorians affected by the project.
We can only hope that some lessons have been learnt and that the future
projects will receive just and proper assessments before governments are
committed to proceeding with them. Maybe we are already seeing an
indication of this with the refusal of planning permission for the Bald
Hills wind power project. Energy policy is too fundamental to our
economy to be treated in the ad hoc fashion that we have seen since the
advent of the national electricity grid.
There has to be an energy plan, devised for the whole country, which
takes into account both the needs of the economy and the needs of our
environment. One wonders if our current governments are capable of such
a task.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Media Information Keith Borthwick, Chair BCCC 5148 2292 BH, 5197 7364 AH
mobile 0427 482 292
*****
*****
APPENDIX G 'Green energy goal has been 'fudged'
Kathleen Nutt Sunday Times 30/4/2006
THE Scottish executive has been accused of deceiving the public over the
potential for renewable sources to meet the nation's energy needs.
Politicians and scientists have reacted angrily to a government
commissioned report which admits that the executive's target of meeting
40% of energy needs from green sources by 2020 applies only to part of
each year.
The report reveals that, depending on the development of renewables, the
target would apply for between one month and six months of each year.
For the remaining time the country would rely on conventional sources of
energy.
The partnership agreement, which was drawn up by Labour and the Liberal
Democrats as the framework for coalition government, states: "We will
work towards our target for 40% of Scottish electricity generation to be
from renewable sources by 2020 as part of our commitment to addressing
climate change."
Last year the executive changed the target from 40% of the electricity
generated to 40% of energy demanded, a lower figure as Scotland exports
some of its electricity.
Until now ministers had not mentioned that the 40% figure applied to
just part of the year. Executive officials yesterday said that it was
necessary for the target to be met only some of the time.
However, scientists and opposition politicians accused the executive of
being "deceitful" and of "shifting the goal posts".
Murdo Fraser, the deputy leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said:
"The executive is dissembling and effectively fudging the issue so it
doesn't appear to have back-tracked. They now realise that as we get
closer and closer to 2020 it's going to be impossible to meet the
target."
Professor James Lovelock, a world renowned environmentalist and
scientist who devised the Gaia concept of the earth, described the study
as "one of the most obfuscating pieces of research" he had ever read.
"The target should mean 40% for every day of the year," he said.
"It gives the impression the authors were trying their best to come up
with the answers the politicians wanted. The target of 40% is monstrous
nonsense. They haven't a hope in hell."
(snipped)
*****
*****
--
Mike O'Carroll