Learned something worthwhile

Tony Erwood clearly knows what he is talking about (Technology is advanced; SN 2.5.12) and like him I was surprised by Andrew Halcrow’s apparently extravagant claim about achieving 10 times the power in the future from new types of wind turbine (Speculative profits before people; SN 2/5/12).

I was saddened that Sustainable Shetland’s tradition of presenting their arguments with accuracy and logic appeared to have gone out of the window with the arrival of their new chairman, however Andrew’s evidence to back up his claim was completely new to me and while more information is needed it looks like an extremely promising development which has the potential to make wind power both competitive and less objectionable in terms of environmental damage.

Thanks Andrew, I’ve learned something worthwhile.

That is the problem with arguments “from authority,” pulling rank by qualifications and experience while simultaneously underestimating the potential of human ingenuity to find new solutions – we don’t learn.

Advertisement7 of 10

I don’t think I’ve seen Tony Erwood write to rubbish the new technology and I don’t think anyone has disparaged him for his perfectly reasonable comment so it surprises me all the more that Dr Helen Erwood, who presumably knows less about aerodynamics than Tony, has felt it necessary to jump to his defence, in the process dismissing fellow scientist Professor Trewavas as a “plant scientist” who does not “have any credentials for being an expert in wind turbine technology”. (Not enough facts; SN 6/5/12)

For someone lecturing from the ivory tower of scientific “authority” (“wi a string o letters eftir her nem”) this was rather careless since as I understand it, Professor Trewavas was simply reporting the work of an acknowledged expert, Professor John Dabiri, California Institute of Technology, who supplied this fascinating insight, aided by the study of fish shoals and backed up by the published papers detailed in Professor Trewavas’ submission.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Inquiries/Trewavas_Prof_Tony.pdf

Help keep Shetland’s news open to everyone

Good local journalism takes time, care and people on the ground. Membership helps us keep reporting the stories that matter to Shetland — and keep them free for everyone to read. Members get a weekly newsletter created especially for them, local ads only, and can bookmark stories and join the conversation in the comments.

Already a member? Sign in.

£3 per month Billed on or shortly after the 7th of each month. Cancel anytime. £5 per month Billed on or shortly after the 7th of each month. Cancel anytime. £10 per month Billed on or shortly after the 7th of each month. Cancel anytime. Choose another amount Explore all membership options. Choose between monthly, quarterly, annual or one-off payments.

Continue Back to article

 

Professor Trewavas, therefore, requires no more than the ability to report clearly in English and to have sufficient background knowledge to present his submission in terms of the issues at hand.

I daresay his expertise in plants may have contributed to his motivation for making this submission. While I have often criticised large scale renewable energy as a complete waste of money I will soon change my mind if it can be shown to be competitive AND crucially, not destroy the beauty of Scotland.

If borne out in practice, there’s no reason why this type of development couldn’t be deployed close to or at centres of demand like Edinburgh, say, at Leith Docks – or how about Princes Street Gardens?

John Tulloch
Lyndon
Arrochar
tullochj22@btinternet.com