Some fair points raised, particularly about the yield/output from the Settle and New Mills projects. We looked at their figures way back (it seems like an eon ago now) in early 2010 and realised that they had overestimated. We discovered that they had had several technical difficulties due to some errors in the installation process - not sure about the exact details, but I'm sure James will fill those in later - or that they had had technical difficulties leading to more downtime than expected. We're learning from their experience: we looked at our output figures in detail and applied a very conservative efficiency factor to them. We've also asked Kingston University to run independently another set of output calculations for the scheme. All this means we are doing our level best not to overestimate or oversell the project. We live here - we don't want to lead anyone up the garden path, particularly if we have issued shares in the project to members of this community.
The correspondent doesn't seem to realise that the Ham Hydro project is one of many projects in the area which HUG is involved in that are encouraging and facilitating sustainability in all its forms: the allotment and the Low Carbon Zone/Street Champion project (this is particularly relevant to his point about energy saving - though I don't know where the 89% figure about heating comes from) to name just a few. If you are reading this blog for the first time and live in Ham, please get involved in these projects and support your local community group.
The funding for the Low Carbon Zone is mainly public - the Ham Hydro scheme will be entirely privately funded - that's why it's so important that it is community-owned. We have fought hard for this opportunity, rather than for a wholly commercial firm to develop the project and for the benefits not to be reinvested here. We aim to supply electricity for the equivalent of 600 homes, not 100 as stated by the correspondent below - that's a significant contribution to energy supply in our local area.
On the point about damage to the aquatic environment - please point us to any evidence you may have to back up this statement. Again, we live here, and have no interest in damaging our local environment - what would be the point of that?