Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-104)
MR MAF
SMITH, MR
NIALL CRABB,
MR JIMMY
FERGUSON AND
MR ALAN
MORTIMER
1 FEBRUARY 2005
Q100 Ann McKechin: The figures provided
by Mr Robertson do not include the cost of the damage to the environment
or the cost of decommissioning of nuclear energy or the cost in
terms of climate change. These are factors but they are not built
into the figures Mr Robertson quoted to you. Am I right in saying
that?
Mr Ferguson: That is why I declined
to comment on figures for social and nuclear. It is very unclear
what the figures are.
Q101 John Robertson: Is there a factor
built in for adverse weather that would cause the turbines to
be switched off if that gets any worse? Do you know exactly what
the weather is going to do in years to come?
Mr Mortimer: On every site we
measure the wind speeds and determine the wind regime. The average
shutdown due to high winds, that you refer to, amounts to round
about 1% in a year.
Q102 John Robertson: But it is getting
worse. If you can do this, I suggest you tell the weather girl
in the morning so that we know what the weather is going to do.
Mr Mortimer: If the wind speed
increases, then the average production of the wind farms will
go up because the amount they produce at lower wind speeds will
increase by more than the extra loss they will get in very high
wind speeds when they shut down in a gale.
Q103 John Robertson: I am thoroughly
confused by all the figures being bandied about. You were talking
earlier about the mix of types of renewables. Can you tell us
what you think is the most appropriate form of renewable energy
for Scotland? I did not get an answer to my earlier point about
the difficulties that hydro was facing. You mentioned the Glendoe
scheme. I understood there was considerable objection in the area
of the Glendoe scheme, in much the same way as there is over wind
farms. On that basis, I wonder whether you would support the view
that it is time for a national strategy for these renewables,
at least in planning terms, so that people know where they stand
rather than the rash of applications that we have seen to meet
the BETTA deadline.
Mr Smith: The current policy is
primarily the planning policy within the Scottish Executive. We
would support clarification about what that means in terms of
delivery of projects. For example, and we are guilty as well,
we have said 40%. That is not an official clarification of what
that will mean in terms, for example, of the number of megawatts
or megawatt hours being produced and what you could expect from
each of those technologies. We have told you today that we would
expect wind could achieve all of that, which would equate to 70
wind farms. That starts to clarify what would be needed. Within
the Scottish Executive forum on renewable energy development for
Scotland, the industry executive discussion group, they have a
report on biomass and a report on wave and tidal which could come
out with figures about what they see as realisable and realistic.
We think there is a need for that. In terms of the other area
relating to wind energy and the interest in new applications,
what is missing from the planning framework is cumulative impact;
that is, how to make decisions when you have more than one scheme
proposed and there is interest from a number of developers. Guidance
for local authorities would help on that. However, it is important
to note that there is a national planning guidance which does
guide local authorities or the Scottish Executive when it decides
with larger schemes how to assess individual schemes. There is clear
guidance from Scottish Natural Heritage about, for example, different
landscape designations, and that again helps to guide developments.
There are very clear steering messages already in the system to
develop that and tell them where they should go and what types
of sites they should be seeking to bring forward but it does not
tell local authorities or the public at large the amount or the
level that we will need.
Q104 John Robertson: What about the point
about hydro and what is happening there?
Mr Smith: If I may, I will turn
that round and say that there is not a form of generation we have
yet found that everyone likes. That is part of the problem we
are faced with and I suggest it is part of the problem you have
in your inquiry. We have got out of the habit of consenting new
generation. For example, the hydros we benefit from in Scotland
and the conventional stations we have in Scotland are a result
of the time when either it was easier to make those decisions
or we were more prepared to make those decisions. It now seems
we are not prepared to make the decisions that do need to be made
if we are going to have the right mix of generation and sufficient
schemes for us to build. There is no reason why a modern hydro
should not be more acceptable than those previous schemes. The
environmental regulations are now much stricter, and that is appropriate,
but that does not mean that the scheme should not be able to get
through that and receive the consent it needs.
Mr Hamilton: In my previous life I was
a local councillor. I was also Chair of Strategic Planning. It
sounds as though Maf Smith is saying that—
Chairman: There are now going to be two
divisions, which will take half an hour. In light of the time,
it would be very unfair of us to keep the witnesses here. I understand
that Mr Mortimer has to leave at 4.20. We are going to write to
you with the rest of the questions. It may be, however, that we
have to ask you to come back at a later date. I am sorry about
that but this is democracy. Thank you very much for your attendance
today, gentlemen.
| 
