Tuesday’s scribes discuss the benefits transport timetables, gasification, an incinerator in Dundee and minimum alcohol pricing.
Good case for integrated transport timetables
Sir,-I was interested in your report (September 24) about the lack of integrated transport in Dundee.
A particularly bad example is in the early morning.
The ScotRail train from Carnoustie and all stations north arrives in Dundee at 0634 but, unfortunately, the CrossCountry train for Edinburgh and England leaves at 0632, two minutes earlier.
There is not a connection to Edinburgh until 0708 nor to Glasgow until 0652.
This is sheer bad planning.
Different companies are involved but this is not an excuse for not integrating the trains.
This is not new. First ScotRail have known about it for years yet have done nothing.
The long-distance train cannot be delayed but the Carnoustie train could run a few minutes earlier as there is no other train on the line.
At Dundee, the two platforms are adjacent, so only a short walk is required.
Peter Murray Spencer.11 Castleroy Crescent,Dundee.
Gas hope for future
Sir,-The incinerator nuisance to be suffered by residents at Dundee docks (September 25) is a typical result of Scotland ignoring the benefits of the gasification process for destroying domestic waste.
Gasification is vastly superior to incineration, as it eliminates all by-products, including CO2 and particulates.
These plants are widespread throughout Europe, and Scotland is missing out on their benefits.
Incinerators belong to the dark ages and have a limited future anyway, as sites become more difficult to find for obvious reasons.
Gasification plants also generate electricity.
UK plants already in operation at Teesside, Lancashire and in Lincolnshire safely destroy millions of tons of domestic waste and, between them, generate 1900 megawatts of electricity, roughly enough to continuously supply thousands of homes without any noxious side-effects for the occupants of those homes.
Malcolm Parkin.15 Gamekeepers Road,Kinnesswood,Kinross.
Little benefit in biomass plant
Sir,-It is difficult to understand why Dundee City Council has not been more active against the proposed building of an incinerator in the middle of a city with a population of 140,000.
Port of Dundee owners, Forth Ports, apparently decided that the port would be more financially viable as an industrial estate.
The advantages put forward have little benefit for the people of Dundee and will damage the perception that potential investors will have of Dundee as a modern city waiting to move on through the 21st century.
The supposed benefits put forward by Forth Ports are firstly that the plant will provide employment for 40 workers. These jobs are mainly low-skilled, minimum wage jobs that will probably go to foreign workers.
The second advantage put forward is that it meets the targets put forward by the Scottish Government for the production of renewable energy.
This plant will provide enough energy to supply Dundee with most of its energy needs.
It does not mean that we will get this energy free but will have to pay normal market rates.
The third advantage is that the plant will generate power which could be used as a source of heat for new developments along Dundee waterfront.
What is not clear is how this heat will be distributed. There is no existing infrastructure and because of the situation of this plant, any distribution will be expensive and difficult to build. It is noted that it may be possible to find a high user of energy to move into the port area.
This would mean another heavy industrial plant being built, such as a cement factory, which relies on plenty of energy.
Richard Thomas.16 Chandlers Lane,Dundee.
Efficacy of alcohol pricing
Sir,-I was astounded to read your editorial (September 23) apparently supporting the duplicitous behaviour of our opposition parties in opposing a minimum price for alcohol.
Contrary to all professional bodies and experts, these parties have produced a ragbag of reasons against the proposal including rubbishing the UK Government-commissioned independent report from the University of Sheffield, and, most disgraceful of all, claiming that there is no evidence that higher prices would reduce alcohol consumption.
The evidence of most integrity is that published in peer-reviewed journals subject to scrutiny by independent peers prior to publication such as the definitive USA review of 2002 in Alcohol Research and Health, volume 26, (2002) pages 23 to 34, which cites data from 14 other publications and
European data in the examples as well as the data from the UK Institute of Alcohol Studies of 2006 and 2008.
For those who believe it will not stop binge drinking but hit the ordinary drinker, I refer to the following observations Australia started linking liquor taxes to alcohol content two decades ago. The market share for light beers has since gone up to represent 30% of sales, with nearly 40 varieties of low-alcohol beers.
Since earlier this year, when the Saskatchewan government moved to price liquor according to alcohol content, the province has noticed a decline in public drunkenness and binge drinking. The hypocrisy of our opposition parties still to claim to be proud to support science and Scotland’s science base is astounding.
Professor (Emeritus) W. J. Harris.18 Queen Street,Carnoustie.
Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL.