This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to estivator: That's fantastic news if true. Very happy about this.
In reply to estivator:
to my mind a triumph!
i know we need reneables but lest use tidal , were an island and our tides are more reliable than out winds
to my mind a triumph!
i know we need reneables but lest use tidal , were an island and our tides are more reliable than out winds
In reply to Nicholas Livesey: why is it fantastic news?
In reply to JackKeen:
Why?
What about marine life?
Where would you site them?
Estuaries?
> (In reply to estivator)
>
> to my mind a triumph!
>
> i know we need reneables but lest use tidal ,
>
> to my mind a triumph!
>
> i know we need reneables but lest use tidal ,
Why?
What about marine life?
Where would you site them?
Estuaries?
In reply to Richard Bradley: I don't think that covering ecologically sensitive land in wind turbines is a good idea. Wind power on an industrial scale is not the answer to our climate problems.
In reply to Richard Bradley:
I would prefer to see turbines in the built environment and not in the countryside.
They didn't appear to be taking into consideration the populations of golden eagles and other rarer birds of prey there.
In Norway turbines have been responsible for reducing the population of eagles in the local area.
> (In reply to Nicholas Livesey) why is it fantastic news?
I would prefer to see turbines in the built environment and not in the countryside.
They didn't appear to be taking into consideration the populations of golden eagles and other rarer birds of prey there.
In Norway turbines have been responsible for reducing the population of eagles in the local area.
In reply to IainRUK:
This i dont know, but we have more water arround us than we have land to live on and the tides are more reliable than our winds
not if ti caused damage to them no, id be more in favour of the sunken turbine approach then the barage approach.
We have still lots to learn on both wind and tidal power, lets not make mistakes rushing to a soloution, id like to see more development before we commit large areas of our remaining wilderness in this overpopulated land to any industrial processes.
And ok it can be argued rollout funds later develpment, well maybe that is so but this is where we need grater governemt intervention.
Its too big a problem for it to be left to market forces.
> (In reply to JackKeen)
> [...]
>
> Why?
>
Nick summed it up "windpower on an industrial scale isn't nesessiarly the soloution" to our current environmental and energy problems. Windpoeer has been overhyped and siezed upon IMO, most likely as its the first readily avaible proposal. Certainly not sufficiently advanced and efficient to upset areas of natural beauty by what is still "prototype" technology. However our urban areas allready are junk so place em there, coudn't every skyscraper have a turbine on it as part of its planning> [...]
>
> Why?
>
> What about marine life?
>
> Where would you site them?
>
> Where would you site them?
This i dont know, but we have more water arround us than we have land to live on and the tides are more reliable than our winds
> Estuaries?
not if ti caused damage to them no, id be more in favour of the sunken turbine approach then the barage approach.
We have still lots to learn on both wind and tidal power, lets not make mistakes rushing to a soloution, id like to see more development before we commit large areas of our remaining wilderness in this overpopulated land to any industrial processes.
And ok it can be argued rollout funds later develpment, well maybe that is so but this is where we need grater governemt intervention.
Its too big a problem for it to be left to market forces.
In reply to IainRUK:
Nant Peris
> (In reply to JackKeen)
> [...]
>
> Why?
>
> What about marine life?
>
> Where would you site them?
>
> Estuaries?
> [...]
>
> Why?
>
> What about marine life?
>
> Where would you site them?
>
> Estuaries?
Nant Peris
In reply to Lone Rider and JackKeen: I agree totally. Also to build this wind factory on a carbon sink is just plain stupid if indeed its purpose was to reduce carbon emissions.
In reply to Nicholas Livesey: They could issue/provide a challenge to the turbine manufacturers: they can build their wind farm but the turbines need to be entirely bio-degradable! (with the exception of the generator and slip ring)
In reply to Lone Rider:
Didn't think they span that fast.
Giant air blenders?
> In Norway turbines have been responsible for reducing the population of eagles in the local area.
Didn't think they span that fast.
Giant air blenders?
In reply to estivator: Was always very likely to be rejected, either by the Scottish government or the European Commission as it was very difficult to see how the developers could really take account of protected areas & UK responsibilities under the 1979 Birds Directive & the 1992 Habitats Directive. Fairly sure I posted the same a year or two ago
In reply to estivator: Does this have any impact on the Beauly-Denny pylons - or is the justification for that more to do with offshore wind and wave generation?
In reply to estivator: Interesting...
The EU has just set binding CO2 tragets on members states and the Scottish Government firstly refuses to consider nuclear power and secondly just refuses to build wind turbines in the windiest part of the UK.
It's about time the Scottish Executive stopped burying it's head in the sand and told us WTF are they going to do!
The EU has just set binding CO2 tragets on members states and the Scottish Government firstly refuses to consider nuclear power and secondly just refuses to build wind turbines in the windiest part of the UK.
It's about time the Scottish Executive stopped burying it's head in the sand and told us WTF are they going to do!
In reply to estivator: I would actually be in favour of the wind farm.
but the iddea of making wind farms out to sea would be better than on good land
but the iddea of making wind farms out to sea would be better than on good land
In reply to Mark Stevenson: What they are going to do is make Scotland the green powerhouse of Europe. Powered on hot air and bullsh*t.
In reply to DougG: Thames gateway maybe. But you wouldn't want to upset stockbroker belt now, would you?
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
People should understand what the Scottish Government can and can't do and what it is. Scotland is not a member state of the EU, yet. And who is 'us' that they should tell?
> (In reply to estivator) Interesting...
>
> The EU has just set binding CO2 tragets on members states and the Scottish Government firstly refuses to consider nuclear power and secondly just refuses to build wind turbines in the windiest part of the UK.
>
> It's about time the Scottish Executive stopped burying it's head in the sand and told us WTF are they going to do!
>
> The EU has just set binding CO2 tragets on members states and the Scottish Government firstly refuses to consider nuclear power and secondly just refuses to build wind turbines in the windiest part of the UK.
>
> It's about time the Scottish Executive stopped burying it's head in the sand and told us WTF are they going to do!
People should understand what the Scottish Government can and can't do and what it is. Scotland is not a member state of the EU, yet. And who is 'us' that they should tell?
In reply to dan bailey:
They get built in upland locations because that way the amount of power generated per pound invested is maximised. More wind = more power for each turbine built.
They get built in upland locations because that way the amount of power generated per pound invested is maximised. More wind = more power for each turbine built.
In reply to i.munro: Yes well, til you factor in the costs of transmission lines and access roads. And then there's the non-financial costs.
In reply to dan bailey:
We can supply enough coal for our power stations, but we have to import the 'hot air and bullsh*t'. Is that your only contribution to Scotland?
We can supply enough coal for our power stations, but we have to import the 'hot air and bullsh*t'. Is that your only contribution to Scotland?
In reply to Norrie Muir: yes, that's my only contribution to Scotland. What do you give us?
In reply to Norrie Muir:
They can make sure planning policy supports the energy policy of the UK government.
They can make sure planning policy supports an alternative energy policy and advocate that policy
They can be as antagonistic as possible towards the UK government for the purposes of short-term electoral gain and ignore future UK energy needs
Guess which option they choose.
Scotland is not a member state of the EU, yet.
Scotland is part of the EU
And who is 'us' that they should tell?
The population of Scotland and the rest of the UK
> (In reply to Mark Stevenson)
> [...]
>
> People should understand what the Scottish Government can and can't do and what it is.
> [...]
>
> People should understand what the Scottish Government can and can't do and what it is.
They can make sure planning policy supports the energy policy of the UK government.
They can make sure planning policy supports an alternative energy policy and advocate that policy
They can be as antagonistic as possible towards the UK government for the purposes of short-term electoral gain and ignore future UK energy needs
Guess which option they choose.
Scotland is not a member state of the EU, yet.
Scotland is part of the EU
And who is 'us' that they should tell?
The population of Scotland and the rest of the UK
In reply to dan bailey:
Perhaps he would like to commit to opposing Berrier Hill, as should any environmentalist or mountain-lover. http://www.blencathra.net
Perhaps he would like to commit to opposing Berrier Hill, as should any environmentalist or mountain-lover. http://www.blencathra.net
In reply to MG:
They are supporting a massive offshore windfarm at Robin Rigg in the Solway. Cynics might say it's because it intrudes more on the English side of the Solway
> (In reply to Norrie Muir)
> [...]
>
> They can make sure planning policy supports the energy policy of the UK government.
> They can make sure planning policy supports an alternative energy policy and advocate that policy
> [...]
>
> They can make sure planning policy supports the energy policy of the UK government.
> They can make sure planning policy supports an alternative energy policy and advocate that policy
They are supporting a massive offshore windfarm at Robin Rigg in the Solway. Cynics might say it's because it intrudes more on the English side of the Solway
In reply to MG:
Perhaps they looked at the case on its individual merits.
You might also want to consider Westminster's lack of support for BP's proposed Carbon-capture scheme at Peterhead; you could rephrase the above argument in precisely the same pejorative terms, but with the positions of London and Edinburgh reversed.
Neither of these approaches are particularly helpful, of course.
> They can make sure planning policy supports the energy policy of the UK government.
> They can make sure planning policy supports an alternative energy policy and advocate that policy
> They can be as antagonistic as possible towards the UK government for the purposes of short-term electoral gain and ignore future UK energy needs
> They can make sure planning policy supports an alternative energy policy and advocate that policy
> They can be as antagonistic as possible towards the UK government for the purposes of short-term electoral gain and ignore future UK energy needs
> Guess which option they choose.
Perhaps they looked at the case on its individual merits.
You might also want to consider Westminster's lack of support for BP's proposed Carbon-capture scheme at Peterhead; you could rephrase the above argument in precisely the same pejorative terms, but with the positions of London and Edinburgh reversed.
Neither of these approaches are particularly helpful, of course.
In reply to DougG: > (In reply to MG)
>
Which is just as bad if not worse. Energy policy (and planning) needs to be coherent across the country, not approached on a piecemeal basis
>
If you are saying the governments bickering is not helpful I agree. If you are saying we should ignore the fact they are bickering, I think that is nonsense.
>
> [...]
>> [...]
>> Perhaps they looked at the case on its individual merits.
Which is just as bad if not worse. Energy policy (and planning) needs to be coherent across the country, not approached on a piecemeal basis
>
> You might also want to consider Westminster's lack of support for BP's proposed Carbon-capture scheme at Peterhead; you could rephrase the above argument in precisely the same pejorative terms, but with the positions of London and Edinburgh reversed.
>> Neither of these approaches are particularly helpful, of course.
If you are saying the governments bickering is not helpful I agree. If you are saying we should ignore the fact they are bickering, I think that is nonsense.
In reply to DougG:
Any details of that?
Sounds interesting.
> (In reply to MG)
>
>
>
> You might also want to consider Westminster's lack of support for BP's proposed Carbon-capture scheme at Peterhead;
> You might also want to consider Westminster's lack of support for BP's proposed Carbon-capture scheme at Peterhead;
Any details of that?
Sounds interesting.
In reply to Norrie Muir:
Alex Sammond has effectively made a unilateral decision to devolve energy policy by opposing UK Government policy on nuclear power.
By 'us' I mean the UK electorate as in this case Scottish 'planning policy' may effects the long term ability of the UK as a whole to meet international agreements.
The principle of subsidiarity enshrined in the Maastricht treaty cuts both ways - Alex Sammond and the SNP can't have their cake and eat it as far as climate change is concerned.
> People should understand what the Scottish Government can and can't do and what it is. Scotland is not a member state of the EU, yet. And who is 'us' that they should tell?
Alex Sammond has effectively made a unilateral decision to devolve energy policy by opposing UK Government policy on nuclear power.
By 'us' I mean the UK electorate as in this case Scottish 'planning policy' may effects the long term ability of the UK as a whole to meet international agreements.
The principle of subsidiarity enshrined in the Maastricht treaty cuts both ways - Alex Sammond and the SNP can't have their cake and eat it as far as climate change is concerned.
In reply to MG:
No, it's the people that are affected by any decisions made by those administrations. Fortress blighty died a long time ago.
> (In reply to Norrie Muir)
> [...]
>
> They can make sure planning policy supports the energy policy of the UK government.
> They can make sure planning policy supports an alternative energy policy and advocate that policy
> They can be as antagonistic as possible towards the UK government for the purposes of short-term electoral gain and ignore future UK energy needs
>
> Guess which option they choose.
>
>
They haven "chosen" none of the above. When the argument can get above the level of a 2 year old then it's worth debating. > [...]
>
> They can make sure planning policy supports the energy policy of the UK government.
> They can make sure planning policy supports an alternative energy policy and advocate that policy
> They can be as antagonistic as possible towards the UK government for the purposes of short-term electoral gain and ignore future UK energy needs
>
> Guess which option they choose.
>
>
> Scotland is not a member state of the EU, yet.
>
> Scotland is part of the EU
>
> And who is 'us' that they should tell?
>
> The population of Scotland and the rest of the UK
>
> Scotland is part of the EU
>
> And who is 'us' that they should tell?
>
> The population of Scotland and the rest of the UK
No, it's the people that are affected by any decisions made by those administrations. Fortress blighty died a long time ago.
In reply to Donald M:
It really is not helpful when you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being at the level of a 2 year old or similar. From the BBC:
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has said there is "no chance" of more nuclear power stations being built in Scotland.
Well yes, the whole of the UK population.
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
> They haven "chosen" none of the above. When the argument can get above the level of a 2 year old then it's worth debating.
>
> [...]
> They haven "chosen" none of the above. When the argument can get above the level of a 2 year old then it's worth debating.
>
It really is not helpful when you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being at the level of a 2 year old or similar. From the BBC:
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has said there is "no chance" of more nuclear power stations being built in Scotland.
> [...]
>
> No, it's the people that are affected by any decisions made by those administrations.
>
> No, it's the people that are affected by any decisions made by those administrations.
Well yes, the whole of the UK population.
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
The whole point of devolution is to have policy and planning amongst other things, made closer to the places it affects.
If the devolved Government decides to take a different path from that of the UK government then all will have to live with that. If Edinburgh just followed London all the time it would be a puppet goverment.
The whole point of devolution is to have policy and planning amongst other things, made closer to the places it affects.
If the devolved Government decides to take a different path from that of the UK government then all will have to live with that. If Edinburgh just followed London all the time it would be a puppet goverment.
In reply to IainRUK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/may/25/oilandpetrol.news
On the face of it a pretty rubbish decision.
On the face of it a pretty rubbish decision.
In reply to MG:
You misunderstand me, I was pointing to your argument re the 3 paths and which one has been "chosen" when we all know that neither has decided to always oppose the other. I don't see the point of even trying to pretend this is the case.
Em, and a whole load of other people.
> (In reply to Donald M)
> [...]
>
> It really is not helpful when you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being at the level of a 2 year old or similar. From the BBC:
>
> Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has said there is "no chance" of more nuclear power stations being built in Scotland.
>
>> [...]
>
> It really is not helpful when you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being at the level of a 2 year old or similar. From the BBC:
>
> Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has said there is "no chance" of more nuclear power stations being built in Scotland.
>
You misunderstand me, I was pointing to your argument re the 3 paths and which one has been "chosen" when we all know that neither has decided to always oppose the other. I don't see the point of even trying to pretend this is the case.
>
>
>
> [...]
>
> Well yes, the whole of the UK population.
>
>
> [...]
>
> Well yes, the whole of the UK population.
Em, and a whole load of other people.
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
I never know Salmond spoke for the Scottish Labour Party as well. You may not know it, but most Unionists in Scotland oppose nuclear energy and Weapons of Mass Destructions. Keep up your narrow view of Scotland. And I do like your ill-informed patronising comments.
> (In reply to Norrie Muir)
> [...]
>
> Alex Sammond has effectively made a unilateral decision to devolve energy policy by opposing UK Government policy on nuclear power.
>
> By 'us' I mean the UK electorate as in this case Scottish 'planning policy' may effects the long term ability of the UK as a whole to meet international agreements.
> [...]
>
> Alex Sammond has effectively made a unilateral decision to devolve energy policy by opposing UK Government policy on nuclear power.
>
> By 'us' I mean the UK electorate as in this case Scottish 'planning policy' may effects the long term ability of the UK as a whole to meet international agreements.
I never know Salmond spoke for the Scottish Labour Party as well. You may not know it, but most Unionists in Scotland oppose nuclear energy and Weapons of Mass Destructions. Keep up your narrow view of Scotland. And I do like your ill-informed patronising comments.
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
I am not a supporter of the SNP, yet, however, I don't mind how many nuclear power stations are built in the UK, as long as they are not built in Scotland. I don't mind being a NIMBY.
> (In reply to Norrie Muir)
>
> The principle of subsidiarity enshrined in the Maastricht treaty cuts both ways - Alex Sammond and the SNP can't have their cake and eat it as far as climate change is concerned.
>
> The principle of subsidiarity enshrined in the Maastricht treaty cuts both ways - Alex Sammond and the SNP can't have their cake and eat it as far as climate change is concerned.
I am not a supporter of the SNP, yet, however, I don't mind how many nuclear power stations are built in the UK, as long as they are not built in Scotland. I don't mind being a NIMBY.
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
> (In reply to Norrie Muir)
> [...]
>
> Alex Sammond has effectively made a unilateral decision to devolve energy policy by opposing UK Government policy on nuclear power.
>
>
Was it Salmond who decided this? > [...]
>
> Alex Sammond has effectively made a unilateral decision to devolve energy policy by opposing UK Government policy on nuclear power.
>
>
In reply to dan bailey:
I didn't say that was how it should be just how it is. I personally would like to see them built in cities where noise,aesthetics & wildlife aren't considerations & there are no transmission losses. This electricity would however be more expensive.
> (In reply to i.munro) Yes well, til you factor in the costs of transmission lines and access roads. And then there's the non-financial costs.
I didn't say that was how it should be just how it is. I personally would like to see them built in cities where noise,aesthetics & wildlife aren't considerations & there are no transmission losses. This electricity would however be more expensive.
In reply to i.munro: Agreed. I think a healthy mix for the UK would be big offshore windfarms, smaller scale urban ones, lots of investment in wave/tidal subsea turbine technology, modern coal burning power stations and nuclear.
In reply to IainRUK:
Here, for example.
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/05/23/afx3751539.html
> Any details of that?
Here, for example.
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/05/23/afx3751539.html
In reply to dan bailey:
A big drive for improved energy efficiency ought to be in there somewhere.
> I think a healthy mix for the UK would be big offshore windfarms, smaller scale urban ones, lots of investment in wave/tidal subsea turbine technology, modern coal burning power stations and nuclear.
A big drive for improved energy efficiency ought to be in there somewhere.
In reply to DougG: Oh yes, i forgot that one
In reply to estivator:
Two wind farms turned down here by Denbighshire CC yesterday. One...on the other side of the valley from me...was for 15 x 300' turbines. The highest in Wales !
The other was for 25 near Llyn Brenig where there are already 25 built by the Spanish, owned by the yanks.
Trouble is. Another development near here was rejected two years ago. the planner Officer recommended against it and the council PC voted it down by 19 to 1.
The developer appealed. The WAG sent an unelected civil servent up from Cardiff to quell the restless natives and upheald the appeal. Despite the local people, community councils,planning officer and council PC voting it out.
That democracy in Wales for you !
Two wind farms turned down here by Denbighshire CC yesterday. One...on the other side of the valley from me...was for 15 x 300' turbines. The highest in Wales !
The other was for 25 near Llyn Brenig where there are already 25 built by the Spanish, owned by the yanks.
Trouble is. Another development near here was rejected two years ago. the planner Officer recommended against it and the council PC voted it down by 19 to 1.
The developer appealed. The WAG sent an unelected civil servent up from Cardiff to quell the restless natives and upheald the appeal. Despite the local people, community councils,planning officer and council PC voting it out.
That democracy in Wales for you !
In reply to dan bailey: When does the phrase "stop exponential population growth" enter this debate?
The tide / wind / coal / nuclear debate is irrelevant detail.
The tide / wind / coal / nuclear debate is irrelevant detail.
In reply to DougG:
I've said before, that should be the first priority.
Only energy conservation & wind can be accurately costed over the proposed life of the installation.
Coal & gas (apart from other considerations) are vulnerable to rising costs of extraction. Nuclear has yet to be determined costs of disposal.
You've also missed out solar, biomass, geothermal but I'm convinced that the costs of these are about to fall steeply so conservation should be the priority in the meantime.
>
> A big drive for improved energy efficiency ought to be in there somewhere.
> A big drive for improved energy efficiency ought to be in there somewhere.
I've said before, that should be the first priority.
Only energy conservation & wind can be accurately costed over the proposed life of the installation.
Coal & gas (apart from other considerations) are vulnerable to rising costs of extraction. Nuclear has yet to be determined costs of disposal.
You've also missed out solar, biomass, geothermal but I'm convinced that the costs of these are about to fall steeply so conservation should be the priority in the meantime.
In reply to Nicholas Livesey:
No, it isn't.
Unfortunately, the real solution - that people make a real effort to minimise their energy use by, for example: not wasting energy on frivolous things like fireworks and christmas lights, not leaving electrical equipment on standby as a matter of habit, driving economically and minimising their transport mileage to essential use only, turning their central heating down and putting a jumper on, turning the air-conditioning in their car off, only having one tv in the house, and so on - are unacceptable to the vast majority of people.
> Wind power on an industrial scale is not the answer to our climate problems.
No, it isn't.
Unfortunately, the real solution - that people make a real effort to minimise their energy use by, for example: not wasting energy on frivolous things like fireworks and christmas lights, not leaving electrical equipment on standby as a matter of habit, driving economically and minimising their transport mileage to essential use only, turning their central heating down and putting a jumper on, turning the air-conditioning in their car off, only having one tv in the house, and so on - are unacceptable to the vast majority of people.
In reply to AdrianC:
the answer my friend is flying and has wings..
Tricky one to sell politically
> (In reply to dan bailey) When does the phrase "stop exponential population growth" enter this debate?
>
>
the answer my friend is flying and has wings..
Tricky one to sell politically
In reply to AdrianC:
Well, I had high hopes of SARS; bird-flu still has potential; wars are a good option; but we humans seem to be relying on climate change/oil shortages to do enough to reduce the human population - and although drastic, it really will only have a significant effect over a couple of hundred years...
Unless either the education of people, or energy use rationing - on a worldwide scale - come into effect.
Currently, the policy seems to be to let the market regulate itself, with pricing being the limiting factor.
Petrol/diesel has gone up to nearly £5 per gallon, and still people drive like fuel economy is irrelevant. It's more important to get there faster, air-conditioning on full blast - with the windows wide open - than to drive within the speed limit...
> (In reply to dan bailey) When does the phrase "stop exponential population growth" enter this debate?
Well, I had high hopes of SARS; bird-flu still has potential; wars are a good option; but we humans seem to be relying on climate change/oil shortages to do enough to reduce the human population - and although drastic, it really will only have a significant effect over a couple of hundred years...
Unless either the education of people, or energy use rationing - on a worldwide scale - come into effect.
Currently, the policy seems to be to let the market regulate itself, with pricing being the limiting factor.
Petrol/diesel has gone up to nearly £5 per gallon, and still people drive like fuel economy is irrelevant. It's more important to get there faster, air-conditioning on full blast - with the windows wide open - than to drive within the speed limit...
In reply to estivator: just stick em in, don't worry about the bog.
In reply to dan bailey:
and the jobs it creates.
> (In reply to i.munro) Yes well, til you factor in the costs of transmission lines and access roads. And then there's the non-financial costs.
and the jobs it creates.
In reply to Donald M:
When the oil runs out in an independant Scotland, you will be throwing the f*ckers up on every hill and selling them to the English grid like no tomorrow. You have hills and wind. We have a population of 60 million and no room to swing a bag of Polish coal.
We need power, so what is the answer?
When the oil runs out in an independant Scotland, you will be throwing the f*ckers up on every hill and selling them to the English grid like no tomorrow. You have hills and wind. We have a population of 60 million and no room to swing a bag of Polish coal.
We need power, so what is the answer?
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Make London dependant on power generated within 20 miles of it's centre.
So wind turbines all along the M25...
> We need power, so what is the answer?
Make London dependant on power generated within 20 miles of it's centre.
So wind turbines all along the M25...
In reply to Lone Rider:
They would have done, just as the potential impact on the archaeological heritage was assessed.
However, the consultants are employed by the developer, so one may suspect that the aim is to produce a report which presents the proposal in a favourable light to the planning authority.
> (In reply to Richard Bradley)
> [...]
>
> They didn't appear to be taking into consideration the populations of golden eagles and other rarer birds of prey there.
>
> [...]
>
> They didn't appear to be taking into consideration the populations of golden eagles and other rarer birds of prey there.
>
They would have done, just as the potential impact on the archaeological heritage was assessed.
However, the consultants are employed by the developer, so one may suspect that the aim is to produce a report which presents the proposal in a favourable light to the planning authority.
In reply to Dominion:
Well, they are racking the Thames Estuary up with farms and have a nuclear power station mothballed at Blackwell so London is prolly ok ironically
Well, they are racking the Thames Estuary up with farms and have a nuclear power station mothballed at Blackwell so London is prolly ok ironically
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Severn barrage, Dee barrage, in fact every wide estuary could have one.
As was said on question time tonight, if the sea level rises a bit you can say goodbye to all the wading birds there, bu they will find new wetlands at a higher level.
Good bit of lateral thinking that was.
Severn barrage, Dee barrage, in fact every wide estuary could have one.
As was said on question time tonight, if the sea level rises a bit you can say goodbye to all the wading birds there, bu they will find new wetlands at a higher level.
Good bit of lateral thinking that was.
In reply to sutty:
I like leggy birds
> (In reply to Nevis-the-cat)
>
> you can say goodbye to all the wading birds there,
>
> you can say goodbye to all the wading birds there,
I like leggy birds
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Well, I mentioned London specifically, as it contains more than 10% of the population of the UK - and that's erring on the conservative side with an estimate of 8.25 million "urban" population... (12-14million for the "metropolitan" - cachement - area)
(UK Population at 2001 census just under 59million)
So, is London - with somewhere between 14% and 23% of the total UK population - snywhere near self-sufficient in energy?
Well, I mentioned London specifically, as it contains more than 10% of the population of the UK - and that's erring on the conservative side with an estimate of 8.25 million "urban" population... (12-14million for the "metropolitan" - cachement - area)
(UK Population at 2001 census just under 59million)
So, is London - with somewhere between 14% and 23% of the total UK population - snywhere near self-sufficient in energy?
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Who is this "we" and "us"? Much of the coal burnt at England comes through Scotland. Scotland already exports power!
> (In reply to Donald M)
>
> When the oil runs out in an independant Scotland, you will be throwing the f*ckers up on every hill and selling them to the English grid like no tomorrow. You have hills and wind. We have a population of 60 million and no room to swing a bag of Polish coal.
>
>
> We need power, so what is the answer?
>
> When the oil runs out in an independant Scotland, you will be throwing the f*ckers up on every hill and selling them to the English grid like no tomorrow. You have hills and wind. We have a population of 60 million and no room to swing a bag of Polish coal.
>
>
> We need power, so what is the answer?
Who is this "we" and "us"? Much of the coal burnt at England comes through Scotland. Scotland already exports power!
In reply to Donald M:
We burn Polish coal. It might come through Scotland, but independance will stop that.
We burn Polish coal. It might come through Scotland, but independance will stop that.
In reply to Norrie Muir:
He doesn't but he's currently First Minister so speaks for 'Scotland' almost as much as Brown does for the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6982308.stm makes it very clear that the Labour party agree with my main point which is that the current Scottish Government (i.e. SNP) policy is crap. To quote Labour's energy spokesman:
"Scotland cannot be powered by Alex Salmond's bluster alone. It is time for him to get real on renewables."
> I never know Salmond spoke for the Scottish Labour Party as well.
He doesn't but he's currently First Minister so speaks for 'Scotland' almost as much as Brown does for the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6982308.stm makes it very clear that the Labour party agree with my main point which is that the current Scottish Government (i.e. SNP) policy is crap. To quote Labour's energy spokesman:
"Scotland cannot be powered by Alex Salmond's bluster alone. It is time for him to get real on renewables."
In reply to Donald M:
Your point is irrelevent. The issue is one of energy consumption.
The UK has an ambitious target to reduce CO2 emissions by 2020 which obviously includes Scotland. On top of that, Scotland loses 40% of it's electricity generating capacity in 2023 when it's two current nuclear plants close.
If the ruling party won't embrace new nuclear and won't take hard decisions on wind power then I don't think it's to much to expect for them to explain exactly what they are going to do.
As much as I'm normally un-impressed by the current UK Labour government at least they now have the vague beginings of an energy policy - new private sector nuclear + East cost offshore wind + Severn barrier. You can disagree with it but at least they've actually come up with a policy and not just platitudes (which they've done for the last few years!).
> Scotland already exports power!
Your point is irrelevent. The issue is one of energy consumption.
The UK has an ambitious target to reduce CO2 emissions by 2020 which obviously includes Scotland. On top of that, Scotland loses 40% of it's electricity generating capacity in 2023 when it's two current nuclear plants close.
If the ruling party won't embrace new nuclear and won't take hard decisions on wind power then I don't think it's to much to expect for them to explain exactly what they are going to do.
As much as I'm normally un-impressed by the current UK Labour government at least they now have the vague beginings of an energy policy - new private sector nuclear + East cost offshore wind + Severn barrier. You can disagree with it but at least they've actually come up with a policy and not just platitudes (which they've done for the last few years!).
In reply to Dominion:
I couldn't agree more. But as you say, people won't do it. I think that electricty should be rationed I really do. We should be allowed (depending on the number of occupants and other factors) only a certain amount of power per week. When we have run out on tuesday or wednesday a couple of times we will soon learn to use the power more frugally.
> (In reply to Nicholas Livesey)
>
> [...]
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> Unfortunately, the real solution - that people make a real effort to minimise their energy use by, for example: not wasting energy on frivolous things like fireworks and christmas lights, not leaving electrical equipment on standby as a matter of habit, driving economically and minimising their transport mileage to essential use only, turning their central heating down and putting a jumper on, turning the air-conditioning in their car off, only having one tv in the house, and so on - are unacceptable to the vast majority of people.
>
> [...]
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> Unfortunately, the real solution - that people make a real effort to minimise their energy use by, for example: not wasting energy on frivolous things like fireworks and christmas lights, not leaving electrical equipment on standby as a matter of habit, driving economically and minimising their transport mileage to essential use only, turning their central heating down and putting a jumper on, turning the air-conditioning in their car off, only having one tv in the house, and so on - are unacceptable to the vast majority of people.
I couldn't agree more. But as you say, people won't do it. I think that electricty should be rationed I really do. We should be allowed (depending on the number of occupants and other factors) only a certain amount of power per week. When we have run out on tuesday or wednesday a couple of times we will soon learn to use the power more frugally.
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
Em, and the Lib Dems think the Labour one is crap, Snp thinks the Labour one is crap, Labour think the Lib Dem one is crap, and Tories think the Lib Dem one is crap.
> (In reply to Norrie Muir)
> [...]
>
> He doesn't but he's currently First Minister so speaks for 'Scotland' almost as much as Brown does for the UK.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6982308.stm makes it very clear that the Labour party agree with my main point which is that the current Scottish Government (i.e. SNP) policy is crap. To quote Labour's energy spokesman:
> "Scotland cannot be powered by Alex Salmond's bluster alone. It is time for him to get real on renewables."
> [...]
>
> He doesn't but he's currently First Minister so speaks for 'Scotland' almost as much as Brown does for the UK.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6982308.stm makes it very clear that the Labour party agree with my main point which is that the current Scottish Government (i.e. SNP) policy is crap. To quote Labour's energy spokesman:
> "Scotland cannot be powered by Alex Salmond's bluster alone. It is time for him to get real on renewables."
Em, and the Lib Dems think the Labour one is crap, Snp thinks the Labour one is crap, Labour think the Lib Dem one is crap, and Tories think the Lib Dem one is crap.
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
You appear to be either extremely naive or unaware of the massive back log of other windfarm applications. Rejecting the Lewis one doesn't mean that the entire policy is broken. Are you in favour of the Lewis windfarm proposal then?
There was a report in the papers last week showing that it takes between 29 and 45 months to get a decision on these windfarm applications. The government is trying to streamline that.
But as you say it's about consumption which further erodes the case for the Lewis application as it's virtually at the complete opposite corner from where the main population centre in the UK is. I'd be in favour of a few turbines here and there to generate power locally in Lewis backed up by other sources.
You appear to be either extremely naive or unaware of the massive back log of other windfarm applications. Rejecting the Lewis one doesn't mean that the entire policy is broken. Are you in favour of the Lewis windfarm proposal then?
There was a report in the papers last week showing that it takes between 29 and 45 months to get a decision on these windfarm applications. The government is trying to streamline that.
But as you say it's about consumption which further erodes the case for the Lewis application as it's virtually at the complete opposite corner from where the main population centre in the UK is. I'd be in favour of a few turbines here and there to generate power locally in Lewis backed up by other sources.
In reply to Nicholas Livesey:
Agree with your sentiments there but unlikely to happen. Society has become very consumer based in it's outlook and unfortunately the population at large don't take responsibility for their actions. That isn't helped by the very polarised nature of debates about wind power, nuclear etc which encourages people to adopt entrenched positions.
Agree with your sentiments there but unlikely to happen. Society has become very consumer based in it's outlook and unfortunately the population at large don't take responsibility for their actions. That isn't helped by the very polarised nature of debates about wind power, nuclear etc which encourages people to adopt entrenched positions.
In reply to Donald M:
Its also not helped by the fact that a sensible debate on renewables and nuclear is virtually impossible as most people simply do not and never will understand the issues involved. I'm not sure how someone can hold an opinion of any merit with out at least a basic understanding of the physics of radiation, how power generation actually works, load centers and energy supply and demand. Its a hopeless situation which the government will struggle to sort out until it just listens to experts and ignores the public (obviously not going to happen). Any attempt at education just tends to be blown out the water by some idiot from green peace saying the exact opposite...
Its also not helped by the fact that a sensible debate on renewables and nuclear is virtually impossible as most people simply do not and never will understand the issues involved. I'm not sure how someone can hold an opinion of any merit with out at least a basic understanding of the physics of radiation, how power generation actually works, load centers and energy supply and demand. Its a hopeless situation which the government will struggle to sort out until it just listens to experts and ignores the public (obviously not going to happen). Any attempt at education just tends to be blown out the water by some idiot from green peace saying the exact opposite...
In reply to Donald M:
Note this change to the planning structure is not specifically for windfarms but all projects of national infrastructure importance (though I think it is fair to say it was mostly aimed at nuclear!).
I haven't really looked at the new Planning Bill in detail but do you know if it will apply to Scotland or not? I would imagine not, as if it did it would cause a heck of a lot of controversy as eg Scottish Exec/Govt turns down a project, which gets called in by Westminster and approved...
Sorry that is pretty much a nonsense argument. Transmission losses are relatively small (2-3% IIRC, distribution losses are much higher but obviously they apply to locally generated electricity). Locally generated power is not the panacea that some in the green movement would have you believe - there are massive efficiencies of scale both in generating efficiency (if we talk about say combustion technology) and emissions control. And we will still need some baseload or backup generating capacity from nuclear/coal/gas etc.
> There was a report in the papers last week showing that it takes between 29 and 45 months to get a decision on these windfarm applications. The government is trying to streamline that.
Note this change to the planning structure is not specifically for windfarms but all projects of national infrastructure importance (though I think it is fair to say it was mostly aimed at nuclear!).
I haven't really looked at the new Planning Bill in detail but do you know if it will apply to Scotland or not? I would imagine not, as if it did it would cause a heck of a lot of controversy as eg Scottish Exec/Govt turns down a project, which gets called in by Westminster and approved...
> But as you say it's about consumption which further erodes the case for the Lewis application as it's virtually at the complete opposite corner from where the main population centre in the UK is. I'd be in favour of a few turbines here and there to generate power locally in Lewis backed up by other sources.
Sorry that is pretty much a nonsense argument. Transmission losses are relatively small (2-3% IIRC, distribution losses are much higher but obviously they apply to locally generated electricity). Locally generated power is not the panacea that some in the green movement would have you believe - there are massive efficiencies of scale both in generating efficiency (if we talk about say combustion technology) and emissions control. And we will still need some baseload or backup generating capacity from nuclear/coal/gas etc.
In reply to MJH:
I was referring to the Scottish planning system, I've no idea about the one south. I'm pretty sure it was aimed at getting a decision on wind quicker, not nuclear.
I was referring to local wind generation in Lewis backed up by the current diesel station. There are about 20,000 people in Lewis and I can't see a decent argument for the 181 turbine proposal which would generate power for places hundreds of miles away. Much of the Norfolk Broads could be covered with turbines, or Cornwall say. Probably less windy but the saving made in tranmission costs could be used to build more turbines. Win win for everyone
I was referring to the Scottish planning system, I've no idea about the one south. I'm pretty sure it was aimed at getting a decision on wind quicker, not nuclear.
I was referring to local wind generation in Lewis backed up by the current diesel station. There are about 20,000 people in Lewis and I can't see a decent argument for the 181 turbine proposal which would generate power for places hundreds of miles away. Much of the Norfolk Broads could be covered with turbines, or Cornwall say. Probably less windy but the saving made in tranmission costs could be used to build more turbines. Win win for everyone
In reply to Donald M:
Absolutely. When Scotland is exporting 25% of its power south of the border, the inefficiencies involved in supplementing the central belt and below with power from the north is crazy. Its merely convenient pragmatism that finds it easier to squish an islander than suffer the "not in my back yard" complaint of the central belt's middleclass.
> But as you say it's about consumption which further erodes the case for the Lewis application as it's virtually at the complete opposite corner from where the main population centre in the UK is. I'd be in favour of a few turbines here and there to generate power locally in Lewis backed up by other sources.
Absolutely. When Scotland is exporting 25% of its power south of the border, the inefficiencies involved in supplementing the central belt and below with power from the north is crazy. Its merely convenient pragmatism that finds it easier to squish an islander than suffer the "not in my back yard" complaint of the central belt's middleclass.
In reply to MJH:
Not true. Transmission losses are very much a significant issue over the long distances proposed in the LWP project. While, yes, transmission losses can be small, even less than your quote, e.g. 1.5%, distances are usually proportionally small, or have been specifically addressed in extra high and extra high voltage power lines. This is precisely what necesitates the proposed 400kV Beauly-Denny (and eventually Ullapool Beauly) powerline. It really is shoddy to take an inefficient renewable, which is not fit for purpose anyway, and sacrifice the landscape to make a bad job very slightly less inefficient.
> Sorry that is pretty much a nonsense argument. Transmission losses are relatively small (2-3% IIRC, distribution losses are much higher but obviously they apply to locally generated electricity).
Not true. Transmission losses are very much a significant issue over the long distances proposed in the LWP project. While, yes, transmission losses can be small, even less than your quote, e.g. 1.5%, distances are usually proportionally small, or have been specifically addressed in extra high and extra high voltage power lines. This is precisely what necesitates the proposed 400kV Beauly-Denny (and eventually Ullapool Beauly) powerline. It really is shoddy to take an inefficient renewable, which is not fit for purpose anyway, and sacrifice the landscape to make a bad job very slightly less inefficient.
In reply to all:
I would like to see people stopping thinking that there is one solution to all our power needs.
The simple fact is that there is much woolly science going on to support politics, and that is never a good thing. The 'Carbon' emissions (which carbon exactly? Dioxide, Carbon Black, Graphite for instance) science is based on a little actual research and plenty of 'everybody knows' type theory. In these days it is almost impossible to get funding for scientific research unless it is connected to either climate change or nanotechnology.
And then the hope seems to be that nanotechnology is going to help with climate change in some way.
Transmission losses are high - Drax power station for instance, by the time the energy has reached is destination, the over 2/3rds of the inital power has been lost. That is a lot of coal.
Due to the 'carbon' arguement that effectively means that you are left with two options: Nuclear and Renewables. The supporters of each seem entirely opposed to the other. Greenpeace are totally opposed to either as one is nuclear (nuff said wrt. Greanpeace) and the other spoils the landscape.
One thing is clear enough to me is that not enough funding is going into helping people do home generation and insulation methods for existing properties. admittedly, the target for all new houses to be 'zero carbon' by 2012 is a step in the right direction, but there are an awful lot of inefficient old houses which aren't coming down anytime soon.
I'd love to home generate, but with payback times for renewables on your home lasting into the 20 year region, it simply is not an option financially. I can't be the only one in this boat.
I would like to see people stopping thinking that there is one solution to all our power needs.
The simple fact is that there is much woolly science going on to support politics, and that is never a good thing. The 'Carbon' emissions (which carbon exactly? Dioxide, Carbon Black, Graphite for instance) science is based on a little actual research and plenty of 'everybody knows' type theory. In these days it is almost impossible to get funding for scientific research unless it is connected to either climate change or nanotechnology.
And then the hope seems to be that nanotechnology is going to help with climate change in some way.
Transmission losses are high - Drax power station for instance, by the time the energy has reached is destination, the over 2/3rds of the inital power has been lost. That is a lot of coal.
Due to the 'carbon' arguement that effectively means that you are left with two options: Nuclear and Renewables. The supporters of each seem entirely opposed to the other. Greenpeace are totally opposed to either as one is nuclear (nuff said wrt. Greanpeace) and the other spoils the landscape.
One thing is clear enough to me is that not enough funding is going into helping people do home generation and insulation methods for existing properties. admittedly, the target for all new houses to be 'zero carbon' by 2012 is a step in the right direction, but there are an awful lot of inefficient old houses which aren't coming down anytime soon.
I'd love to home generate, but with payback times for renewables on your home lasting into the 20 year region, it simply is not an option financially. I can't be the only one in this boat.
In reply to estivator:
Radio nan Gàidheal were reporting this monring that a community cooperative is nearly ready to submit an application for a small number of turbines, less than 10 I think. The aspiration appeared to be that the power would be used locally i.e. amongst the islands but that if a new inter-connector is approved (unlikely id the AMEC application is refused) then power could be exported.
Radio nan Gàidheal were reporting this monring that a community cooperative is nearly ready to submit an application for a small number of turbines, less than 10 I think. The aspiration appeared to be that the power would be used locally i.e. amongst the islands but that if a new inter-connector is approved (unlikely id the AMEC application is refused) then power could be exported.
In reply to Al Urker:
Not sure you are correct in saying that Greenpeace are against wind with a a blanket approach.
I agree with you re energy efficient homes but I just don't see it happening to the extent it happens in other countries. Inverness has houses being built everywhere and the ones I've been in have their standard 30cm insulation in the loft but that's about it. A step forward yes but the design of housing developments has a long way to go in terms of planning for reduction in car use etc.
Not sure you are correct in saying that Greenpeace are against wind with a a blanket approach.
I agree with you re energy efficient homes but I just don't see it happening to the extent it happens in other countries. Inverness has houses being built everywhere and the ones I've been in have their standard 30cm insulation in the loft but that's about it. A step forward yes but the design of housing developments has a long way to go in terms of planning for reduction in car use etc.
In reply to Jimbo W:
Which is why the Beauly-Denny upgrade is needed - that isn't really disagreeing with my point that transmission losses are relatively small.
You may think that wind is not fir for purpose but that is a separate argument. I probably agree with you, but given that we have to increase our share of renewables (and I think the SNP wants to increase Scotland's share to 40%) then we have to accept some sort of compromise.
It is pie in the sky thinking to think that if you reject large wind projects, have no new nuclear (I suspect Scotland's plants will be shut by 2023) and possibly end up closing existing coal plants by 2015/16 (I don't know if any of Scotland's plants have FGD fitted or not) that you still will be supplying energy for England.
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> [...]
>
> Not true. Transmission losses are very much a significant issue over the long distances proposed in the LWP project. While, yes, transmission losses can be small, even less than your quote, e.g. 1.5%, distances are usually proportionally small, or have been specifically addressed in extra high and extra high voltage power lines. This is precisely what necesitates the proposed 400kV Beauly-Denny (and eventually Ullapool Beauly) powerline. It really is shoddy to take an inefficient renewable, which is not fit for purpose anyway, and sacrifice the landscape to make a bad job very slightly less inefficient.
>
> [...]
>
> Not true. Transmission losses are very much a significant issue over the long distances proposed in the LWP project. While, yes, transmission losses can be small, even less than your quote, e.g. 1.5%, distances are usually proportionally small, or have been specifically addressed in extra high and extra high voltage power lines. This is precisely what necesitates the proposed 400kV Beauly-Denny (and eventually Ullapool Beauly) powerline. It really is shoddy to take an inefficient renewable, which is not fit for purpose anyway, and sacrifice the landscape to make a bad job very slightly less inefficient.
Which is why the Beauly-Denny upgrade is needed - that isn't really disagreeing with my point that transmission losses are relatively small.
You may think that wind is not fir for purpose but that is a separate argument. I probably agree with you, but given that we have to increase our share of renewables (and I think the SNP wants to increase Scotland's share to 40%) then we have to accept some sort of compromise.
It is pie in the sky thinking to think that if you reject large wind projects, have no new nuclear (I suspect Scotland's plants will be shut by 2023) and possibly end up closing existing coal plants by 2015/16 (I don't know if any of Scotland's plants have FGD fitted or not) that you still will be supplying energy for England.
In reply to Al Urker:
I suspect you are confusing terminology - transmission refers to high voltage networks ie above 110 kV and the network is specifically designed to keep losses low (max 2-3% but often lower). This is the national grid.
Distribution is the step between the grid and your house and where losses are much higher somewhere in the region of 12-13% IIRC.
The bulk of your 2/3 loss I suspect refers to the loss in thermal combustion, though CCGT plants can have much higher efficiencies 55%+ (even higher if a use can be found for the heat).
> (In reply to all)
>
> Transmission losses are high - Drax power station for instance, by the time the energy has reached is destination, the over 2/3rds of the inital power has been lost. That is a lot of coal.
>
> Transmission losses are high - Drax power station for instance, by the time the energy has reached is destination, the over 2/3rds of the inital power has been lost. That is a lot of coal.
I suspect you are confusing terminology - transmission refers to high voltage networks ie above 110 kV and the network is specifically designed to keep losses low (max 2-3% but often lower). This is the national grid.
Distribution is the step between the grid and your house and where losses are much higher somewhere in the region of 12-13% IIRC.
The bulk of your 2/3 loss I suspect refers to the loss in thermal combustion, though CCGT plants can have much higher efficiencies 55%+ (even higher if a use can be found for the heat).
In reply to MJH:
Here's a large wind project for Scotland, apparently going to be exporting to England.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2863095.stm
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> [...]
>
> It is pie in the sky thinking to think that if you reject large wind projects, have no new nuclear (I suspect Scotland's plants will be shut by 2023) and possibly end up closing existing coal plants by 2015/16 (I don't know if any of Scotland's plants have FGD fitted or not) that you still will be supplying energy for England.
> [...]
>
> It is pie in the sky thinking to think that if you reject large wind projects, have no new nuclear (I suspect Scotland's plants will be shut by 2023) and possibly end up closing existing coal plants by 2015/16 (I don't know if any of Scotland's plants have FGD fitted or not) that you still will be supplying energy for England.
Here's a large wind project for Scotland, apparently going to be exporting to England.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2863095.stm
In reply to Donald M:
I am in favour of a coherent (and pragmatic!) energy policy.
Whether that policy is to put a 200% tax on electricty starting tomorrow, build a nuclear power plant in every town or cover the Highlands in wind turbines I'll listen to the arguements. You can make a very convincing case for half a dozen approaches and provided it forms part of a coherent plan I could probably be persuaded by most of them.
Unfortunately with every single option your run into NIMBYs and a large numbers of voters with fundementally incompatible beliefs.
The main point I was making is that some politicians seem to be trying desperately hard to avoid making any of the hard decisions needed.
> Are you in favour of the Lewis windfarm proposal then?
I am in favour of a coherent (and pragmatic!) energy policy.
Whether that policy is to put a 200% tax on electricty starting tomorrow, build a nuclear power plant in every town or cover the Highlands in wind turbines I'll listen to the arguements. You can make a very convincing case for half a dozen approaches and provided it forms part of a coherent plan I could probably be persuaded by most of them.
Unfortunately with every single option your run into NIMBYs and a large numbers of voters with fundementally incompatible beliefs.
The main point I was making is that some politicians seem to be trying desperately hard to avoid making any of the hard decisions needed.
In reply to Donald M:
I think that pretty much sums the situation up. It's a political football which is leading to decisions being made in a piecemeal and incoordinated manner.
> Em, and the Lib Dems think the Labour one is crap, Snp thinks the Labour one is crap, Labour think the Lib Dem one is crap, and Tories think the Lib Dem one is crap.
I think that pretty much sums the situation up. It's a political football which is leading to decisions being made in a piecemeal and incoordinated manner.
In reply to MJH:
Well your point would be valid if these projects were proposed as a coherent whole - working together. But they are not. LWP is proposed independently and without any mention of the clear necessity for the Beauly-Denny powerlines, despite every man and his dog knowing thats the case. Yet, not only has an official relationship between these projects been established, but there isn't even a formal proposal for a high voltage powerline between Ullapool and Beauly (which will also, clearly be necessary).
Most of the scientific (rather than lobby group's) analysis of these projects e.g. that carried out by the Royal Society, find that the lack of honesty in dealing with many issues, of which transmission is only one, is an integral part of these type of proposals, synchronous with intransigence to consider alternatives, such as underwater high voltage DC down to solway from the hebrides. The latter would also not require the upgrade of the central belt - tyneside transmission, which are already saturated, and for which concrete upgrade proposals don't exist.
The compromise is probably to stop relying on any sort of grid system at all, accept that there has to be intermittancy in supply, relying rather on local production for local people. Nuclear won't work as a backup, only as a steady state base-line supplier, and I agree ruling nuclear out is probably folly (but as I understand it from the documents i've read, while the SNP have ruled out new nuclear, they are prepared to upgrade and to continue to invest in current projects and existing technologies at existing sites extending well beyond 2023. Also, clean coal power technology has definitely been given the thumbs up by the SNP and is an intrinsic part of their energy policy for the future. Wind is useless at back-up or as baseline supply, as are other renewables, especially to keep an inherently instable system like the national grid operational, because the governor response ability in such renewables is very poor and frequency fluctuations are not readily controllable. The compromises you suggest are likely to be huge, and people don't realise how huge, but not having a national grid is, at least for Scotland, one possibility. But the disingenuousness intrinsic to LWP, Beauly to Denny, and the lack of scientific credibility make this latest decision a very good one, not least because a very poorly thought out slippery slope has probably been avoided....
> Which is why the Beauly-Denny upgrade is needed - that isn't really disagreeing with my point that transmission losses are relatively small.
Well your point would be valid if these projects were proposed as a coherent whole - working together. But they are not. LWP is proposed independently and without any mention of the clear necessity for the Beauly-Denny powerlines, despite every man and his dog knowing thats the case. Yet, not only has an official relationship between these projects been established, but there isn't even a formal proposal for a high voltage powerline between Ullapool and Beauly (which will also, clearly be necessary).
Most of the scientific (rather than lobby group's) analysis of these projects e.g. that carried out by the Royal Society, find that the lack of honesty in dealing with many issues, of which transmission is only one, is an integral part of these type of proposals, synchronous with intransigence to consider alternatives, such as underwater high voltage DC down to solway from the hebrides. The latter would also not require the upgrade of the central belt - tyneside transmission, which are already saturated, and for which concrete upgrade proposals don't exist.
> You may think that wind is not fir for purpose but that is a separate argument. I probably agree with you, but given that we have to increase our share of renewables (and I think the SNP wants to increase Scotland's share to 40%) then we have to accept some sort of compromise.
> It is pie in the sky thinking to think that if you reject large wind projects, have no new nuclear (I suspect Scotland's plants will be shut by 2023) and possibly end up closing existing coal plants by 2015/16 (I don't know if any of Scotland's plants have FGD fitted or not) that you still will be supplying energy for England.
> It is pie in the sky thinking to think that if you reject large wind projects, have no new nuclear (I suspect Scotland's plants will be shut by 2023) and possibly end up closing existing coal plants by 2015/16 (I don't know if any of Scotland's plants have FGD fitted or not) that you still will be supplying energy for England.
The compromise is probably to stop relying on any sort of grid system at all, accept that there has to be intermittancy in supply, relying rather on local production for local people. Nuclear won't work as a backup, only as a steady state base-line supplier, and I agree ruling nuclear out is probably folly (but as I understand it from the documents i've read, while the SNP have ruled out new nuclear, they are prepared to upgrade and to continue to invest in current projects and existing technologies at existing sites extending well beyond 2023. Also, clean coal power technology has definitely been given the thumbs up by the SNP and is an intrinsic part of their energy policy for the future. Wind is useless at back-up or as baseline supply, as are other renewables, especially to keep an inherently instable system like the national grid operational, because the governor response ability in such renewables is very poor and frequency fluctuations are not readily controllable. The compromises you suggest are likely to be huge, and people don't realise how huge, but not having a national grid is, at least for Scotland, one possibility. But the disingenuousness intrinsic to LWP, Beauly to Denny, and the lack of scientific credibility make this latest decision a very good one, not least because a very poorly thought out slippery slope has probably been avoided....
In reply to Jimbo W:
how would not having a national grid work? lots of local grids for more built up areas and individual/small group generation for small isolated communities?
how would not having a national grid work? lots of local grids for more built up areas and individual/small group generation for small isolated communities?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...