BIVVI TALK

‘Star Letter’
The winning letter published this month in Bivi Talk to receive a Victorinox “SwissChamp” Swiss Army knife (RRP £49.95) is Mr G M Biggar.

Wind Farms

Dear Sir

Thank you for your excellent article on wind farms.

I believe that wind generators are an ideal source of power for isolated dwellings or communities which cannot easily be connected to the grid. However, there are two major problems in promoting them as a major source of power. The first is the impact on the environment, which as been admirably covered in your article, and the second is the question of what happens when an anticyclone settles over the country in the middle of winter and we have five or ten days of sub-zero temperatures and no wind? I have yet to see a convincing answer to this one.

I was surprised to read that “wind and water are found in abundance in the Scottish Highlands”. This is certainly true of wind, but I was under the impression that there is not enough water available to run our existing hydroelectric power stations at anything like their full capacity, so I do no think that we can expect much more from this source.

The reality is that nuclear power is the only reliable long term source of energy in sufficient quantities, and the money being wasted on subsidising wind farms would be better spent on research into better methods of disposing of nuclear waste.

Yours faithfully,
Bryan Fleming

Dear MCofS

The debate about wind farms has been building up. I have written on the subject before, but there are a few points that I think need making again.

Any one commenting on wind power needs to ask themselves two questions. First, how much electricity am I using? Second, where is it coming from? Our house used about 3,200 units last year. We buy it, via a utility company, from the National Grid. The Grid obtains supplies from a multitude of sources.

Any one seeking to understand the science of wind driven electricity production and distribution could do worse than look at http://www.itdg.org.uk/. where they will find information sheets in pdf format. It seems that, due to the need to control instabilities in the grid, the maximum wind power supply that a national Grid can cope with is about 30% of the whole. Grid technology can successfully transmit power for up to 6,000 kilometres. Weather systems are generally about 1,000 kilometres across. It follows, then, that the Grid can transmit power from windy areas to be becalmed areas.

Wind farms in remote, scenic areas are an undoubted intrusion. Wind farms in urban or industrial areas are not necessarily an intrusion they can serve to remind an urban population that they are connected to a living planet. I would cite the wind farm in Whitehaven, or the one above Kilwinning as examples.

In order to function, politicians need to be offered alternatives. If not rural wind farms, then what? In the medium to long term, equipment efficiencies, large scale insulation programmes, solar space heating, solar water heating, photo voltaics, tidal power, wave power, bio-fuels, geo-thermal power, ground heat pumps and hydro will al be needed. Burning fossils is not acceptable. Nuclear power is not acceptable. Wind power in now politically attractive because it offers the most rapid increase in renewable capacity. The alternative to wind farms is the large scale installation of grid connected domestic wind generation. See http://www.est.org.uk/. www.almac.co.uk/prove. http://www.renewabledevices.com/. or http://www.sundog-energy.co.uk/.

If I were to install a 2 kilowatt machine on the gable end of my house, designed to operate at a mean wind speed of 7 meters/second, I could produce about 3,500 units a year, making me a net contributor. Sainsburys have installed a 500kw turbine at their warehouse premises in East Kilbride. If every third house and business did the same, that is install grid connected wind driven supply equipment which exceeds their annual demand, the 30% limit would be quickly reached without another wind farm being built. The technology exits, the grant support scheme exists, the Grid regulations exist, all that is missing is political pressure. So far, all the lobbying has been done by the big utility firms, hence big schemes of big turbines.

To conclude, my request to the MCofS is to stop saying to politicians, “No!”, and to start saying, “How about this, instead”.

Yours sincerely
W D Nicholl

Dear MCofS

I found the tone of the article on Windfarms in June’s edition quite depressing. It acknowledged the reason for pursuing a renewable energy policy but appeared to conclude “Yes, but Not In My Back Yard”. I personally find wind turbines to be quite elegant, certainly compare to old-style pylons, and I would be happy to see you campaigning to have these removed and under grounded. Your reference to the proposals over the over ground pylons from Beauly to Denny (p42) was small by comparison, yet I consider the over grounding of that scheme to be more objectionable.

Windfarms offer the opportunity to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, a policy which has an important forbear in the Hydro-electric plants dotted around the Highlands. These schemes involved significantly more distress and upset to local communities, which saw their glens flooded. The legacy, however, is a country which is more economically self-reliant since it is less dependent on imported fuel. Windfarms will continue this important process, and the public interest can be safeguarded through Community Energy Companies, as proposed by Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The crucial question is - what alternative are you proposing?

Yours sincerely
Sandy Slater

Membership Subscriptions Issues

Dear Editor

We agree with the vast majority of comments in your Editorial (March 04) but are very concerned by the suggestion of charging Clubs a “more equitable rate”. Has this been fully thought through?

We are a small affiliated club, without a hut, and our income relies solely on our subscriptions. Almost half of this goes to the MCofS, and for unemployed and retired members it is the whole of theirs. Any increases in our subscriptions over the last 6 years or so have merely covered the increase in MCofS subs and we have only been able to sustain this by increased efficiency in our running costs. Although our members appreciate, and have directly benefited from, the work of your organisation, there are many others out there who belong to no club and are making no financial contribution whatsoever. Target them and encourage them to join instead of clobbering the Clubs who, in effect, have no choice in the matter. If we were forced to increase our subs to £25 – 30 it would have a devastating effect on our membership as people would vote with their feet and leave due to the cost. Any knock-on effect across the country could actually reduce your total club income and put an ever-increasing burden on existing members.

The issue of multiple club membership must also be addressed. We have many members who are already paying £17 a year to you, not much different to the MCofS Individual rate, as they are also members of other affiliated clubs. Who will bother to join their local clubs if they are being charged twice by the MCofS? Why not encourage club members to “upgrade” and join individually and discount their club fees?

We need more information and an assurance that club views will be canvassed on such important matters, along with facts, projected figures and justifications. At the appropriate time detailed proposals should be voted upon at an AGM. Our members who attended the AGM in 2003 felt the motion on fees was not discussed at all. It ended up being a repetition of insurance issues and there was no opportunity given to question and discuss the actual increase in affiliation fees.

We appreciate the work you all do, but please don’t take the Clubs for granted.

Yours truly,
Jo Kinghorn
(President Inverness Mountaineering Club)

Dear MCofS,

Since when did the MCofS become the "National Governing Body" of our sport in Scotland (Vice President Beryl Leatherland in the ‘Comment’ of issue 23)?My dictionary definition of govern is to direct, to control, to rule with authority.If this is how the present Executive and paid officials see their role, then things have come to a pretty pass.The original purpose of the MCofS was to represent the views of the clubs and individual members, not to impose rules and regulations.

As an example of the latter, my own club has used the term 'party leader' since its inception some eighty years ago.With the proper interpretation of the term written into our guidance for members this has worked perfectly satisfactorily.We are now instructed that the term 'party coordinator' should be used. Get real Roger.

I also take exception to Ms Leatherland's snide swipe at Robin Campbell's forthright article in TAC 61. What he wrote has obviously ruffled a few administrative feathers. Robin wrote that the Executive simply up the annual subscription to meet future anticipated expenditure regardless of the clubs' ability to pay. I note that the current accounts show a surplus of some £10,000, enough to give all 9,500 members a one pound refund. I also note that there is a proposed increase of 28% in the club subscription for next year, the bulk of this allegedly due to increased insurance costs.By dint of surfing the net I managed to reduce my car insurance this year by 18%. Incidentally, how many claims on behalf of MCofS members have been submitted over the past few years?

I would propose that the Executive carry out a survey of existing members to ascertain if the present structure and activities of the MCofS meet with their approval.I think that the results might be surprising.

With Best Wishes,
Findlay Swinton.

Grants for Huts

Dear Editor

Other members of MCofS may find a useful a source of funds for environmental projects which our Association tapped into recently.

We applied to ‘CSV Environment’, based in Birmingham but sponsored by Scottish Natural Heritage for Scottish projects, for a grant towards the cost of building a log shed at Stanhope Hope bothy. We got the maximum grant of £50, which just about covered the cost of the materials needed. About half a dozen folk got involved over a weekend, and hey presto we got a wind assisted solar gain timber drying facility.

The grants are intended for projects which make a more visible difference to the local environment. It seems to me that mountaineering clubs are in a great position to spot opportunities where a wee bit of money and a fair bit of effort, can make a big difference. There are lots of possibilities ranging from planting trees to repairing bridges. £50 is not a huge amount of money, but when folk are prepared to spit on their hands and pick up the tools it is surprising what can happen.

For 2005 projects, a local contact is Robert Henderson, CSV Scotland, Wellgate House, 200 Cowgate, Edinburgh EH1 1NQ. Email: rhenderson@csv.org.uk. Website: www.actionearth.org.uk.

Yours,
Joe Duffin,
Borders Bothies Association

Estate Signs and Double Standards:

Dear Editor

I am puzzled by notices put up by three estates; In Glen Dessary the estate notice suggest that mountain bikes do a great deal of damage, so I left mine, and set off up the Rights of Way path from Strathban to Tomdoun. What do I find? Estate vehicles have totally trashed miles of moorland - it would take 5,000 mountain bikes to do anything like that damage.

In Fisherfield, near Carnmore Bothy there is a notice along the lines of “a remote area, please carry out your rubbish”. What do I find? Ten kilometres later, near Larachantivore, but corrugated iron and old fence wire. I sat on the corrugated iron (dry!) so kindly provided by the estate but would have had no compunction about leaving my sardine and bean tins beside their rubbish.

From Glen Lyon, on the road to Loch an Daimh there is a moss covered notice about “Rifles and Deer Stalking”. Undeterred, in June, we set of for Stuchd an Lochain and met a couple from Belgium who wanted to a walk but said they couldn’t go because of the notice. How stupid: I wish I’d ripped the mossy notice down, so that visitors to our country could feel free to walk when shooting was not going to happen.

Can MCofS or any environmental agency do anything to instil any kind of responsibility into such renegade estate owners?

Yours faithfully,
G M Biggar

Dear MCofS

We enjoyed Lisa Hutchinson’s letter in June 2003. We’ve certainly suffered regular exposure to DHMO in the Highlands, but fortunately so far suffered no ill effect to this H₂O! Maybe the landowner hoped he would deter a few people with his notice, or maybe it was really just tongue-in-cheek. Of more serious and determined intent however, is the notice shown. This definitely means, “keep out” and highlights the perils (?) of sheep droppings.

I can’t say I’m convinced and no doubt the members of the Carsphairn Angling Club have some special dispensation or in-built resistance to E-coli, which comes miraculously on the payment of a membership fee to that body? I’m not sure what all the alleged environmentally sensitive ‘Restricted Area Regulation’ numbers is all about, or if indeed it has any validity. What is clear enough is that visitors are NOT welcome.

This friendly (!) notice is at the High Bridge of Ken on the back road from Carsphairn to St John’s Town of Dalry in Galloway. It would be a very pleasant spot to while away time on a hot day with a river cascade reminiscent of the Linn of Dee. It is a ‘right to relax’ rather than a ‘right to roam’, but you certainly wouldn’t feel welcome there, however innocent your intended pleasures.

Yours,
John & Helen Read

HOME WANTED FOR DUVET

Point Five duvet, Eider down, Velcro and stud fastening, Detachable hood, Diamond panels, 31” from collar to hem, Size large, 1.3 kgs. Free to someone who will use it for climbing rather than going to the pub.

David Barrett