UKC

Posted on FB but if true what would be the impact upon the valley?

http://saveourrivers.org/2018/07/20/glen-etive-under-threat/

My fave swimming pool in Scotland is in the river Etive but surely small hydro schemes would just dam the rivers, extract some water then release it further downstream once it had done its work?  If the collecting dams are designed very carefully and the turbines well landscaped, most people probably won't even realise they are there.  Or is it the canoeists who are worried about their sport? In that case, surely they can only canoe when there's a decent flow and small hydro schemes would not take 100% of the water at the dam?

Can someone explain?

This is another consequence of the hydro schemes proposed for the glen

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2018/07/19/grampian-clubs-remote-inbhirfh...

Classic outdoor person's NIMBYism.
They like to think as themselves as Green, leave no trace people, who presumably support 100% Carbon neutral power generation for Scotland, but if a scheme impinges on their 'pristine' playground that they've driven 100s of miles in their shit belching internal combustion engine powered vehicles ...

I'd like to hear the true facts about the supposed water pollution.  Stirring up minerals in the water?  I've always thought many people pay stupid money for mineral water!

Here's a link to the list of planning documents associated with one of the developments that the canoeists object to: https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&a...

As far as I can tell the plan is to run an pipeline, above ground, down the glen to the power station at the junction with the river Etive:  https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/files/1C070C06F10E3111640246961A8A8910/pdf/... and a track will run up beside the pipeline.

I'm not sure whether a high voltage power line will need erected to take the power back out of the glen, certainly the dwellings in the glen won't consume anything like that much.

Here's a summary of this scheme: https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/files/FE3FDBB950083AB93FC87FD13899C6D5/pdf/...

When running at full capacity it will generate 1.6 MW.

Here's a photo of the site of the second scheme that is being objected to: https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/files/B1C69952AE1F4173147AB0676A387C55/pdf/... you can see it's the corrie below Ben Starav. The blue line marked on the bottom photo is the pipeline and the yellow line is a track.

I haven't gone through the rest of applications yet but if they're all of the same character then I don't believe the detrimental impact to the character of the glen is worth 10 MW of power when it's pissing down with rain and not very much at all when it's a dry Summer. I'd rather have another half dozen wind turbines in the central belt. Those not familiar with the numbers should note that Britain's electricity consumption lies somewhere between 25000 and 40000 MW depending upon the weather:  http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk .

That the glen smells of an open sewer and resembles a rubbish tip should not be ommitted from the challenges this magical place faces.

The whole Glen?

Yes, some control needs to be put in place to prevent the worst excesses of the piss artists/campers who abuse the Glen and other Scottish beauty spots every Summer. However walk a few yards away from the road and you will find yourself untroubled by rubbish, fire damage and jobbies.

Of course not. Some of the best Corbetts are in Etive. But for 95% of the glen’s visitors, the road is the glen.

Absolutely agree.

For me, Glen Etive is one of Scotland's jewels. I've walked along a fair bit of the river. It's a lovely place to be, amazing gorges, waterfalls, salmon lying in the pools.....

Classic outdoor person's NIMBYism

I’m not necessarily against responsible and sympathetic hydro in Glen Etive but one of the proposals directly affects the Inbhirfhaolain hut run and owned by the Grampian Mountaneering club. Some people here will have stayed in what is a rustic but beautiful climbers hut. The hut has no running water and people staying there have to take water carriers to the burn that the hydro plant will be built on. The outfall discharges next to the designated point where hut users collect water and without a clean water supply at this point the hut will in effect become uninhabitable. Secondly the large and noisy turbine building will be just over 100m away affecting the stunning view down the glen and the peace and quiet the hut enjoys. I urge people to send an objection against this planning application as there is a real chance that we will loose a beautiful climbers hut in an idillic location if the planning application is granted.

*Places developer's cap on head and smiles in a smarmy manner*

"Oh well if that's your objection we can resolve it - we'll build you a nice little hut further upstream with a proper toilet and even free electricity from the turbine. We can even build a nice access road and car park. And donate cash to your club. And....."   etc. etc.

Rustic? It’s a midden that is in drastic need of an upgrade! The composting toilet has improved the sparse arrangement of the hut though.

i supppse if the development does go ahead then people could walk a bit further and collect water upstream of the scheme - or get them to run a pipe into the hut - change can bring benefits as well

You can call Inbhirfhaolain a midden if you like.  To many, including those who lovingly maintain it, it is a climbers hut with character.  The Carn Dearg huts at Braedownie- new vs old - might fit your scenario more accurately, but not Inbhirfhaolain.  If you have encountered any of the "low impact" run of the river schemes that litter the Highlands currently, you will be in no doubt that it will destroy not just the environment around Inbhirfhaolain but the ambience of one of Scotland's most beautiful glens.

I've never been to the place, but the lubrication needed to keep hydroelectric mechanical parts functioning 'happily' generally has an impact on water quality, I gather. 

I agree*. The developers seem to view these things as money generators and care little if anything about landscape protection.

I walked past the hydro development at Maldie Burn (Loch Glendhu) on the CWT a few years ago. The actual generator building was built into a bank and quite well hidden, which was nice. The access track from Kylestrome was pretty ugly, but something like it already existed before the scheme was installed. What saddened** me was the noise generated by the turbines, which was audible for quite some distance along the lochside, and the vehicle track that was bulldozed right over the hillside to Achfary. It felt like a real act of vandalism.

* Usual disclaimers: I'm not against renewable energy. Climate change is real and cause by humans.

** I keep talking about being "saddened" by such things. This is starting to feel rather passive to me, and I wonder what I should do about it.

Having just come back from Loch Glendhu I can say that the track up the hillside that was used during construction of the hydro scheme is now virtually invisible as they dug it over on completion, though the track up the loch side is still the same. The hydro plant itself is also much quieter. It is now a good example of how a scheme can be done well without impacting on the waterfalls there and the general view.

I live in Glen Etive, its to be shared by everyone, very interesting that the views of the people who live there are never heard in the MSM, the biggest impact on the glen was the 1000s of tones of tarmac for the road, never hear anyone complaining about that, all land is important, what about the children living in the cities whose lives are being cut short due to vehicle pollution, how many objectors drive vehicles in the cities, we live in a me me me society

Is that you, John S?

So what are your views on the hydro scheme?

yes

To be honest I think the forestry has far more impact than that wee strip of main road that ends on the lochside.

I am not against them,

I want to work with people, no matter the outcome hopefully we will all learn to respect other peoples needs and aspirations,

on a personal point I would like more people to have the  opportunities I have,

glens are for living communities,

at present I have two jobs, working 7 days a week and on minimum wages,

not complaining but everything has a price,

many people work longer, harder and for less money than me and no access to the countryside,

how can we help them to get access to their countryside

So what I am saying is my view of the hydro schemes do not undermine any of my personal guidelines

which I use everyday,

I do think all the generator buildings should be underground which the developer is more than willing to do, but SNH want many of them visible above the ground,

people are objecting to stop them, are people taking the time or even have the time to make the scheme better

long reply and off topic sometimes but it takes so long to write your views with out giving back ground information for the reasons for your views

got to go now, cheers

Yes to forestry, and its a wee strip off road too, would the river run hydro's be  less impact than forestry

So a partially subterranean sound proofed building, built out of aesthetically pleasing material, with a cold water feed to the bothy would in effect remove 99% of objections. 

From the bothy community, perhaps. There are other communities who use the glen who would feel differently.

Perhaps they'd prefer a coal fired power station nearer to their homes. 

It's a conundrum, people find beauty in moving water, which is also a good source of energy. There just needs to be bit of tolerance. The UK is covered in oldmills etc in ruins, most were sighted because of their means to generate energy for water, there must be hundreds of micro generation possibilities left untapped. 

Do you support the scheme/s? All of them, or just some of them?

I've not heard this view from SNH before. Can you elaborate?

Do you genuinely believe that a few 1.5MW run of river schemes are worth the environmental damage involved to create them? I don't.

There are plenty of large scale hydro schemes around that I support. Indeed I've worked on quite a few of them. Foyers, Quoich, Shin, ... I don't fully agree with flooding large areas, but I do agree with your point that concessions have to be made in order to generate 'green' energy. Micro hydro is little more than an attempt to generate money, with very little intention to create meaningful 'green' energy.

To summarise, I believe micro hydro is a complete waste of time, and would much rather support investment in a few much larger schemes (wind, solar, hydro, tidal, ...) than many small schemes.

I'm not convinced that the damage would be that extensive or long lasting.

Micro hydro is clearly less productive than a giant plant, but I don't think there is much public appetite for flooding more valleys or large scale wind projects. I agree tidal and wave are under researched and under used at present. But for the present it not so much as nimbies, but a case of don't build in a place I call precious despite only visiting it once 20 years ago. 

The more population dense the UK becomes, the more power generation it will need, I don't see any change until housing or building regs catch up, housing is insulated better, cheaper to rjn and power generation become a part of the build plan. The same can also be said of water useage and supply. 

From a quick check of the drawings it is partially subterranean and will be  uilt out of aesthetically pleasing material. The bits that stand out to me are the pipebridge/access bridge and, mainly, the intakes. They seem to be a full river span and pretty obtrusive. 

No reason why the walkways can't be of timber and pipe worked painted brown or clad etc.. perhaps a small plantation of native trees around it. 

Our opinions differ, fair enough. I have another vested interest though as a WW kayaker who uses some of these rivers. My views are therefore driven by regularly kayaking/walking/climbing in the area, a desire for green energy, a desire to maintain/protect our habitat (local and global), experience working on hydro plants, and a background as an engineer. I don't know the answer, but I don't think this is it.

Completely agree.

Not sure I agree with that. I think it's more a slow build up of investment into the research. If more funding were directed towards this aspect, we would be a lot further down that tidal/wave road.

I think we share a similar view here. More power generation is needed to keep up with population growth. But I think we both recognise that using less power is actually more important.

We seem to disagree about the impact of these poposed schemes, which is fair enough. I've put my objections in writing. I wonder if they take notice from people that put in letters of support?

I agree but the plans/drawings don't mention that.

We perhaps agree more than disagree, but I can't see there being many more resv. schemes like Tryweryn that benefit paddlers. I think common ground needs to be found between all vested interests.

Perhaps a national survey of all water courses, height drop, peak and mean flow, distance from grid  etc..  then decide the absolute optimum location. A practical approach rather than one driven by only sentiment. 

I agree, more schemes like the T (that benefit paddlers) are not likely, and also not needed. Nothing should be built for the benefit of paddlers. But if a proposal was made for flooding an entire glen (instead of many micro hydro schemes), then I think I would be swayed towards that... Tough choice! Tidal/wave would be better though.

FWIW my choice isn't driven by sentiment alone, if that's what you were implying.

No. As you have knowledge in this sector, but thousands sign online petitions on subjects they have no knowledge of in places they've never visited. It's like a hobby to be enraged online. 

Haha thanks, I understand!

You're missing the point. The contribution of these schemes towards the national demand for electricity is negligible.

This development is equal to about 6 wind turbines, maybe 4 if they are offshore, or less than 1% of the capacity of conventional power station, coal, gas or nuclear.

Others have also said that they do not object to micro hydro schemes in the right location but feel strongly that Glen Etive is not the right place. I feel exactly the same.

Your dismissal of those who object to the scheme as armchair conservationists who spend little time in the Glen is offensive. One poster has already stated they paddle that river, others are regular visitors to the club hut, I first visited the glen 40 years ago and have been regular visitor to it ever since, like many other climbers and walkers from the central belt.

But 20 next to nothings become something. It has to start somewhere. 

Yes. So what perhaps having a  vast range of varied energy sources, nearer to end users is better than many eggs in one basket and miles of pylons linking it.

No one objects to many things in principle, provided by are never anywhere near them. 

I didn't name anyone here, I was speaking generally. Why is it offensive, surely the idea of the planning process is the most reasoned argument wins(unless it relates to the snp and trump), although being ukc you can only have an opinion if you conform to the majority view?

Yes I never said your or their opinion didn't count. I was referring to the likes of 45degrees petitions of x and y, which even when I agree with a cause I won't sign as the data they present is often extremely dodging and scientifically incorrect. 

I think with a practical approach and a slightly bigger budget the needs of most parties can be met. 

at this moment in time I have no concerns about them being stopped or constructed, my concerns is the glens in Scotland are becoming "play parks" and not living communities, I want to stay positive and when I have tried to be open and honest on other sites people think that's a weakness to be exploited, life is too short to be entertainment for those fools

when I first met the developer the plan was to put them under the ground, when challenged about the new design it was pointed out that was due to SNH demanding this to be done

nothing becoming about it; they already are: grouse moor, deer forest, and so forth.

if you want a living community; I know I do, more people should live in the highlands; then more commercial activity is needed and will happen.

just as a side note; the feed-in tariff for small hydro dropped significantly not so long ago. The worst of the not-really-commercially-viable-but-make-the-landowner-a-easy-income-claimed-from-the-gov have already produced first power.

agreed on your points, but not as wage slaves