UKC

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=589332004

Seems that this is in the very very early stages of planning, but I guess it'll be very concerning to a great many folk on here. Given how pro-wind power the current Government is, there will almost certanly be a large push to get the Lewis wind farm passed. Pylons would then be inevitable?

There are 'Pylon Free Zone' signs all the way up the road from the head of Loch Broom to Ullapool and I know the locals are extremely concerned.

Should any body already know how to get involved in the 'No' campaign, please post. Otherwise I'll look into it and follow this up.

In reply to Graham B:

i think this is fair enough. Anything that brings cheap power to England is surely worth doing

In reply to Greenbanks:
Well fair enough. Any other rounded and thought out view points out there ?

In reply to Greenbanks:
Was that irony or trolling? Hopefully the former as this isn't really a laughing matter. At this rate by the time we achieve our 'green' energy targets there won't be a lot of green places left.

In reply to Graham B:

200 pylons in thousands of sqaure miles. Suspect impact will be minimal? Certainly compared to hydro?

In reply to Graham B:

Dear Graham

I was "assaulted" by aging hippies when I was waiting for the pub to open in Ardgour, with a petition to sign against the wind farms that would spoil "our" environment.

I never saw them on their way north, object to the wind farm that I can see from my front window. I stay in Glasgow.

Norrie

In reply to GFoz:
Less impact than hydro perhaps, but would the impact of a line of pylons through here really be minimal?
http://www.scotland-photo-library.co.uk/photonet/westcoast/63.html

In reply to GFoz:



I agree. It's also worth making the distinction between ecological impact and aesthetic impact. Pylons are pretty horrible to look at, but have a (small) positive ecological effect.

In reply to ml:

Well you might be right. But I'm afraid you can't ignore the fact that the majority of visitors to the Scottish Highlands come here for the "aesthetics". This includes some of the flora / fauna, of course, but if they go away having had a few days of sunshine with some great views BUT haven't seen a White tailed sea eagle or a lesser spotted dog-birtle then, by and large they'll go away happy.

Tourism is the life-blood of the area, like it or not. Tourism relys on aethetics.

In reply to Graham B:

Personally, I think once they've seen Assynt or Coigach at sunset, seeing a pylon next to the road on the way home won't even register....

In reply to Graham B:


Yes, of course. Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I don't consider aesthetic concerns to be less important than ecological ones. I was just making what I thought to be a useful distinction; the term "environmental impacts" just seems awfully vague to me.

In reply to Graham B:

Dear Graham

I do agree with you, it keeps the Australian/South African bartenders in a job. It also allows the B & B owners, who have just moved there, to winter in the Canaries.

Norrie

In reply to GFoz:
Huh ? BUt its going to come ashore in Assynt ! Or at least at a point where you'll be able to see it from Assynt.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

True, perhaps, if a little bitter and cynical. Still, I'd rather have aussie bartenders than none at all.

In reply to Graham B:
And it'd be trashing yet another scenic part of the countryside to connect a power source to the national grid which can only generate electricity when it's windy and so will require some other power station as backup anyway. OK, not in the same league as the Sheildaig Hydro but still another bit of incremental damage of the sort that threatens to destroy so much of our scenery.

In reply to Iain Forrest:
Well, to be honest I can't see that much difference between this and the Shieldaig hydro scheme. This will, I believe, have a bigger impact aesthetically both in terms of area and volume of people.

In reply to Graham B:
I'd rather have aussie bartenders than none at all.

Dear Graham

I would rather do without drink, if that was a solution. There again, I could do as second-homers do, I could take my drink up with me.

Norrie

In reply to Anonymous:

One difference is that the Shieldaig hydro scheme would also have huge ecological consequences as well.

In reply to ml:
Ok, remind me....

In reply to Graham B:


Supersaturation (of nitrogen) downstream, destruction of litoral communities (due to fluctuating water levels), affects on benthic communities (due to changes in temperature profiles), changes in water temperature downstream, barriers to anadromous fish migration etc etc.

In reply to ml:
So where can we register support for the proposal?

In reply to Graham B:

This was on Radio nan Gàidheal about 10 days ago. I agree, I don't want to see all these pylons and they don't look as "acceptable" as the wind farms. Until Scotland becomes independent we are at the mercy of Westmonster on this one though. Not that Jack's bunch know about anything outside the Central belt

In reply to Graham B: Well we have a choice to make do we want green energy or not?

If we want green energy then in some cases (though not all) we have to accept that the best places to site green energy production will be in some of our most scenic areas (eg Lakes/Scotland etc).

If we a re still happy with building green energy production units then we also have to accept that we need some way of getting that energy onto the national grid...

So you have lots of green energy facilities and grid pylons or....a nuclear power plant....

In reply to Graham B:
Found this using google:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/enterprise/inquiries/rei/ec04-reis-highla...

Section 4, "The necessity to upgrade the electricity transmission system", is directly relevant. One thing it suggests is 'undergrounding' sections of the route, which might not be so bad.

Anyone know where to register against (or for, if that's your genuine opinion) the proposal yet? I'm going to mail my MP, but supporting the Ullapool campaign might well be more effective.

In reply to Iain Forrest: I fear that the costs of putting high voltage tranmission lines underground would be excessively high - IIRC this is normally only done in areas of high density human population.

In reply to MJH:
But we don't have any viable sources of green energy yet that can realistically replace fossil fuels or nuclear power. Wind, for example, can't produce a reliable output so needs backup generators for when the wind dies down. It also requires covering huge areas with turbines to generate what amounts to a pretty tiny amount of power. There's a pretty good article in here:
http://www.ochils.com/newsletters/nl77/nl77.htm
Surely it's better to spend the resouces on developing more feasible sources of green power than doing stuff like this?

In reply to MJH:


Not some desolate Glen with 1.4 Gigasheep???

Locals tend to be happily in favour of intrusion/ecological desolation when there is a clear local economic benefit.

Eg: why are such Glens desolate, main answer :overgrazing by sheep and deer. Are local shepherds and local gamies campaigning for an end to this and a return to mixed decidous woodland like Strafarrar or Glen Affric????

Errrmmm....naw

In reply to MJH:

They do it all over swizzerland so maybe westminster could fork out some cash for this as most of it will be travelling in that direction anyway........

In reply to GFoz:
"Locals tend to be happily in favour of intrusion/ecological desolation when there is a clear local economic benefit" - true, but hardly an argument for supporting it when there isn't.

In reply to Anonymous: Switzerland much smaller place and they are much happier "spoiling" their mountains with cable cars!

I am not sure that a wind farm in Lewis will send much energy towards England! However it still does need access to the Grid.

In reply to Anonymous:
What spend money up there where there's no votes??

Heresy...burn the witch.......

In reply to Anonymous:

Yes I agree but you presume Westminster cares adn is prepared to invest.........

In reply to MJH:

Absolute bollox !

What about energy conservation,solar power,tidal,off shore WF,Micro community WF.
The Victorian idea that the countryside is an infinite resource to be exploited for economic gain would be the expected view of a un-reconstructed rampant industrialist but coming from a member of the outdoor community....sheeesh !
We might not have wilderness is this country but the wild places we do have left are pretty damn good.....too good for the likes of General Electric,Enron,Scottish Power,United Utilities et al to desecrate with the financially driven industrialisation of the countryside.

I'm suprised your laissez faire view of the land doesn't extend to ripping up planning regs altogether.
Let's have a Tesco Superstore in Capel Curig,Neon advertising on The Ben,Betting shops in Wasdale...

Philistine !

In reply to Iain Forrest: Sorry I didn't mean to give the impression that I was in favour of this project or not. I am not at all sure that "Green" energy is better.

As you say there would have to be a significant amount of capacity for this project to be worthwhile.

In reply to MJH:

Well Scotland as a region exports power and no guesses to where.

In reply to Iain Forrest:

true but hardly an argument for accepting pretences to high principles at face value.

I can imagine the teuchters (I use the word affectionately) don't want 'outsiders' leccy running through 'their' glens. But in the central belt they put up with the likes of Grangemouth to provide oil for all, including those lucky enough to live hundreds of miles from its pollution.

In reply to Anonymous: PS why should Westminster invest anyway? Surely it would be a matter for the Generator (Lewis wind farm is presumably being devloped by a private company?) and the Transmission Network (National Grid Transco - which is definitely a plc!).

In reply to GFoz:
Aye, that may well be the reasoning of many of the locals. My reason for being against it, though, is that it'd damage some pretty nice scenery for questionable benefit and that every time this happens it makes it a wee bit easier to justify damaging the even better scenery nearby. As a resident of the Central Belt (Bannockburn, not too far from Grangemouth), I'd much rather see it 'spoiled' than the North West. Better on my (fairly unremarkable) back door than ruining somewhere pretty special.

In reply to Iain Forrest:

unremarkable bar one happy midsummer's day in the 14th century

In reply to GFoz:
Aye. Shame we haven't been able to win anything since, though...

In reply to GFoz:


You show a total lack of understanding of the Highlands.......

In reply to GFoz:
Oh of course, - its a CHARITABLE donation ! And there was I thinking it had something to do with JOBS. Silly me.

In reply to M&S :
Agree with Jonno here I'm afraid.

Lets not kid ourselves here. The suits in Westminster are pushing 'green energy' for their own political agenda. There IS NO policy and if there's a clear vision for how the energy for the UK is going to be supplied over the next 50 years I've not seen anything of it.
Wind turbines are springing up ALL over the highlands. There are many many more applications in the pipeline and it is not being regulated properly. Why ? Because we do not have an adequate policy in place.

The nation would be far better off spending an equivalent amount of money on energy conservation (I'll try and lay my hands on some figures I've come across recently) than in a misguided, but politically attractive, attempt to supply electricity from wind power. If the same money was dished out in grants to encourage everyone to put some roof insulation in their attic for ex. Or replacing all light bulbs with low energy ones etc etc.

In reply to Jonno: Sorry Jonno - we are not talking about pie in the sky projects here, but a specific plan!
Anyway all the stuff you are talking about still needs access to the Grid apart from energy conservation (a much better idea) and micro community stuff.

As I said earlier my points were not designed to indicate whether I thought the plan was good or bad - I am not sure.

As for the rest re planning regs......what a load of bollox as you so eloquently wrote.

In reply to Fort Person:


being going there whenever I possibly can for half my life. i say it as i see it.

In reply to Norrie Muir:
Would that be the two turbines up at Eaglesham by any chance Norrie???
Or the one single turbine at the back of EK??

In reply to Fort Person:
In defense of what GFoz said (and I grew up in the Highlands, Dingwall then Fort William), the Highlanders are as bad as anyone else at not wanting to take the pain for someone else's gain. It's just not specific to the Highlands.

In reply to Iain Forrest:

quite. Highlanders would be quite astonishingly remarkable people (some would say unique) if they never had the odd nimby twinge....

In reply to GFoz:

Hi

I work for the industry (in scotland) and as a result would prefer to remain anonymous.

First off, the cost of undergrounding transmission lines is far far greater than overhead lines, and like it not if we underground, it is the end user, ie you and I who will end up paying for it through our normal bills. A lot more.

Additionally the losses are far greater, again ending up with us paying more through our bills. Ask yourself this...are you prepared to pay more to save the country side. FAR MORE!!!

Secondly, the government policies in pushing for wind energy is wrong in my personal opinion. One, wind, or renewable enrgy as the government like to label it, is not sustainable, and can only work within a certain range. We also have to maintain the base load, which like it or not, requires a power station of some sort that runs constantly, or at the very least can come on line extremely quickly, ie minutes. We are currently meeting this demand with nuclear, and putting your feelings aside, it does not produce any gases that are harmful to the atmosphere. Yes there is an issue with disposal of the spent rods...but what, when our aging coal and nuclear plants are decommissioned in 15years or so, is going to supply our base load. I shall leave you to think that one out. bear in mind also, it is envisaged that our gas supplies will also run dry in approx 20 years.

Also why this goverment continues to push for wind when we also have a massive resource in tidal energy (and great leaps in research is being made) is beyond me. We also have a massive resource in our now disused pits, which are constantly releasing methane gas. This gas has now been used in Africa and Europe successfully to produce electricity, yet our government continues to dish the idea in favour of wind. Why is the government so in favour of wind, when it costs so much to establish and requires massive subsidies?

There is also a theory that we are far too late, as the amount of CO2 in the air, is actually reproducing itself, and therefore no matter what we do, CO2 will continue to increase.

Also, there is another concept that alot of people don't talk about, that could help the environment greatly, and that is called Demand Side Management, where we as a user manage and control the amount of electricity we use. ie LESS. is one solution not to try and use less power, instead of trying to satisfy our need to consume more.

Just a couple of thoughts for you to ponder over.

Cheers

In reply to Anonymous:

Have pondered at length. My current strategy is to die before the poo hits the fan.

One question though "and therefore no matter what we do, CO2 will continue to increase." - there was a big letter in I think the Times last week from big bunch of scientists about the potential scope for long term CO2 insertion into eg: slaine aquifers?? Any thoughts??

G

In reply to Graham B:

This scheme sounds like a dead duck to me.

Firstly the crofters of Lewis oppose a wind farm of the size needed to justify such a power line. So you could expect lengthy delays in getting consent to the generating plant - if it were ever given.

Expect the same but more for running pylons across the breadth of the North West Highlands.

I wonder how much the capital cost of all this would be anyway? Remember 40 or 50 miles of undersea cable would also be needed to get the power onto the mainland in the first place.

I think someone's lost the plot here.

While we're on the subject. I wonder why we've not heard of any plans for massive wind farms on the North west coast of Northern Ireland? It's just as windy as the utter hebrides, no fossil fuel resources of it's own and a much larger population near at hand. If I were going to invest money in wind energy I think I'd invest in NI before any other part of the UK.

In reply to Removed User:

Hi Eric (you do know me thru this forum only)

One reason that we have not heard of windfarms on the North West of NI is because that is not where the demand is, it is in the southeast ie London and surrounding. Imagine the cost of transmitting the power from there to London. Also the windfarm developer (or even power station developer) would be penalised heavily as they currently are for not constructing near the load centre.

The irony of the matter is, that although it is trying to be encouraged to build near the load centre, local councils are knocking back planning consents...a case of not in our back yard. hence the reason for lots of power stations further north.

Therefore we suffer as a consequence in the north, and resulting in the electricity infrastructure having to be reinforced to get it south. One benefit for us though, is slighty cheaper electricity.

Anyway, just more to ponder.

Cheers

The industry worker

In reply to Graham B:

Just got back in. Sorry - I was definitely being ironic. Thought I should confirm that. Stop pylons at all costs.

In reply to Anonymous:

Simple. It's the one proven market-ready renewable technology. Any Tom, Dick or AMEC can buy a system off the shelf and start making electricity. Wave and tidal power are not yet market-ready (although they are galloping over the hill at a rate of knots). There's currently just one experimental wave generator working at the moment. There are a range of different systems, and there isn't any single off-the-shelf solution.

In my opinion wind power is one of the first steps along the route to more sustainable non-fossil fuel energy systems. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got at the moment. When better systems are ready, they'll replace wind.

Can I interest you in my idea about despatch management? At the moment, generation despatch is determined by cost and suitability of generation - short-term peak demand, base-load, etc. There's no consideration given to the emissions profiles of the despatched generation, which is why we have the ludicrous situation of dirty coal plants such as Cockenzie being used very inefficiently for peak demand, simply because coal is cheap. Attaching emissions criteria to generation despatch and develping appropriate economic instruments would change patterns of thinking regarding the selection of generation plant away from cheap and dirty towards clean (and yes, probably more expensive).

There's some work being done to try to match small low emissions generation to short-term peak demand. It's related to ideas of demand management which shift patterns of usage so that large industrial users make use of off-peak supply for automated processes, rather than timing such processes to coincide with the tea-time rush.

In reply to tony:

Tony

you mention emmissions profiles linked to Cockenzie...and I agree. However the truth is that they power stations have a choice...clean up their act or get out. The cost again of cleaning up their act is colosall, which again would be passed on to the customers...or they will eventually shut down, and contrcut another one burning gas, which can built reasonably quickly, however remember this may be gone in 20 or so years, what do we then use.

I take your point about wind farms but still standby the fact they are o sustainable and cannot be used for base load. Again, I reiterate about this governments refusal to look at anything bar wind farm. In my first post I mentioned using the disused pits and the methane gas they produce, a technology proven in other parts of the world. this has been recommended, yet the government continues to diss the idea.

The demand side management techniques you mentioned are slowly being intrduced in America. however, the point I was trying to make, is surely everyone as an end user has a responsibility, and instead of trying to supply our greed for more energy, why don't we all try to use a little less. We ALL have a part to play!!!

Remember, take away the demand, and you remove the need for supply.

In reply to Anonymous:

>One reason that we have not heard of windfarms on the North West of NI is because that is not where the demand is, it is in the southeast ie London and surrounding. Imagine the cost of transmitting the power from there to London

So, the cost would be a lot less than from the N of Scotland. The distance from Bangor to Portpatrick is only about 20 miles, and the overland route would be a third of the one from Lewis.

Toby, if we are to have visual polution why not more barrages and tidal flow systems. They may interfere with bird life but where does the line get drawn? When there are no new coal fired stations and nucilar(Bushism) is finishing what do we do?

Perhaps some sacrificial lambs, what are they to be. Tate Modern converted to Nuclear, it would be already connected to the grid.

In reply to Anonymous:

They're not refusing to loook at anything bar wind farms. Wind farms are happening now because they're the only technology that's ready now. There's a lot of funding going into wave and tidal power reseearch, and the SCHRI gives funding for small-scale renewables projects. There's a lot going on - look at what Berwickshire Housing Association are doing with their new-build, or the trials that West Lothian are undertaking with alternative heating programmes.

You're absolutely right about the unsuitability for wind for base load, which is why I've tabled (on behalf of an MSP) Parliamentary Questions on this subject. Wind will have a part to play in a balanced energy portfolio. At the moment, the balance is somewhat out of kilter, but that doesn't mean that we should abandon wind compleletly.


Agree with that one. But, there seems to be an impression amongtsh some people that conservation is all that is needed. Again, it's part of the story. Anyone who thinks it is the whole story doesn't understand the nature of the problem. Electricity use in the home accounts for less than 30% of total UK electricity use. If we still want any kind of industry, we're still going to need electricity.

In reply to tony:
Don't think anyone here has argued that wind power doesn't have a role to play, but it clearly isn't much of a long term solution. The damage done by building wind turbines and pylons in our scenic areas will be long term, though - who will pay to remove them later?
By all means build wind turbines around areas already built up with housing or industry, and maybe in some less scenic wilder areas too (but how to decide where should be sacrificed?). But please, not through the north west Highlands!

In reply to tony:


Who is this astute MSP? Surely not a Labour one......

In reply to Iain Forrest:

Why not build a Nuclear Station in the South East where the demand is????????

In reply to Iain Forrest:

Decommissioning - the removal of equipment and restoration of the site - is often a condition of the planning permission. In Scotland, the appropriate Planning Application Note makes this point explicit, and places a responsibility on the planning authorities to ensure that funding (from the developers) will be available for decommissioning.

Decommissioning a wind farm is a lot more straightforward, cheaper and less polluting than decommissioning coal or nuclear power stations. I don't suppose Scottish Power are looking forward to spending millions on the closure of Cockenzie in a few years time.

In reply to Fort Person:
Good idea.
More seriously, near enough to the demand of the SE without being too close to the major population centres. Or beside Grangemouth where it wouldn't make much difference. Does the pollution from nuclear power actually hurt / kill more people than that from oil refining or coal burning or traffic fumes? Don't people just have a knee-jerk reaction against it because radiation sounds scarier than smog?
Seems to me that nuclear power is the only real option at the moment. Hopefully we can develop better ones soon.

In reply to Fort Person:

No, I'm doing some work for the Greens - Shiona Baird.

In reply to Fort Person:

South East of Scotland, or England?

If it's Scotland, we've got Torness. If it's England, they've got Dungeness and Sizewell. Not enough to keep them going.

In reply to tony:

Good.

I didn't think it would be a Labour who was brave enough to put their head above the parapet and actually get involved in the grey area between Westminster and Holyrood.

In reply to tony:

OK, But if we ever become independent we can let them sort it out themselves. Why no build another reactor or two at one of the SE English stations?

In reply to Fort Person:

When the polititians were going on about how safe nuclear power stations are I suggested that they reuse the Battersea power station site for one, It had everything going for it, right where it was needed, water from the Thames for cooling and people who understood the local grid.
Why did they not build it there, because they were not so sure it WAS safe when they lived in its fallout area if something went wrong.

In reply to tony:
OK, maybe you have a point there. But can you be sure the developers will still be around to fund this in 30 years time? And even if it can all be cleaned up nicely I don't think defacing scenic areas for 30 years while we work out the alternatives is a great idea.
Also, in the meantime it'd probably be easier to get other developments through in these areas - why not build a road or hotel on that hill, there are pylons there anyway?
It's pretty likely that most or all of our 'wild' (I know they aren't really wild) areas will end up developed but surely it's still worth fighting this process to slow it down and keep what we can?

In reply to sutty:

He He, well they still have some green spaces left to concrete don't they?

In reply to Fort Person:> I didn't think it would be a Labour who was brave enough to put their head above the parapet and actually get involved in the grey area between Westminster and Holyrood.


That grey area! That's a very good point. Under devolution, renewable energy is devolved to Holyrood, while 'conventional' power is still a reserved (Westminster) power. It's proving very difficult to get any progress in the Scottish Parliament on the tricky subject of most of Scotland's electricity generating capacity being closed in the next 15 years or so - the answer is always that it's not a Scottish Parliament resonsibility - so when the lights go out, they'll be able to say 'it wasn't our fault!'. There's a question in Parliament on Thursday on this subject, so it'll be interesting to see what the replies are.

In reply to tony:

I agree Tony and I despair at the gutless attitude of the Labour Members in particular. It's like they don't want to affect their career prospects by being bold and having an opinion. The Labour party is crap, end of story.

The Greens, SNP, SSP and some other smaller parties, have to, by their very nature, be bold and look ahead.

What is the point in voting for a party that want's to limit SCotland's powers?

In reply to Iain Forrest:


There's recently been a Scottish Parliament enquiry into renewable energy. One of the strongly recurring themes in the written evidence was the need for strategic locational planning for renewable developments - at the moment, there's a free-for-all, and the Executive gives no direction as to where developments can take place. Each planning authority has to consider each case on its own merits, regardless of the overall contribution to Scotland's energy requirements. There's a good chance that the enquiry report, when it comes out, will make a recommendation to end this free-for-all to be replaced by more stringent set of strategic locational guidelines.

The idea that most of our wild areas will end up developed is, I think, unlikely. Opposition to wind farms is getting stronger by the day. The experience of the Shieldaig hydro scheme demonstrates that when opposition is sufficiently organised, planning authorities are bound to take notice and refuse permission.

In reply to Fort Person:
Sad to say, considering it was Labour who gave us devolution in the first place, but it certainly seems to be that way. (Honourable exception being Sarah Boyack, who does seem to be on the right track)

In reply to tony:
I hope you're right. My thinking about the eventual development of all wild areas works like this - once an area is developed it rarely reverts back to being wild, or at the very least takes much longer to revert than it does to become developed. Therefore, barring an enormous change in the way our civilisation works all wild areas will gradually be developed.
To keep an area 'wild' you have to constantly stop development in it; to take away its wildness the developers only have to win once.
I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

In reply to Fort Person:


If an independent Scotland had an ounce of sense it would do the opposite and focus on its strengths as a relatively resource/energy rich exporter to England.

Oh and charging a phenomenal leasing charge for the continued use of Faslane.

In reply to GFoz:

I agree, but the reasons you mention are some of the many that the Labours et al are so against it.........

In reply to Fort Person:

Having said that was back home at the weekend. Was staying at the home of Scottish Labour's head of press (best pal, don't blame me, I didn't pick his career for him)

Anyway, talking to him and reading the bawz that passes for the Scottish press I think the domestic political culture is so narrow, petty and immature that independence, right now at least, probably would be disastrous.

In reply to Iain Forrest:



Once upon a time, Knoydart was home to a thousand fighting men and their families, and Barrisdale Bay was a thriving port. Look at it now.

In reply to tony: Good point; we harp on about the "wilderness" but most of it has only been so for the last couple of hundred years.

In reply to GFoz:

I see what you mean, but I'm willing to take the risk. The Labour are so anti it though and I don't trust one of them.

As long as a hundred of them are still standing............

In reply to tony:
I did say 'barring an enormous change in the way our civilisation works'. The technology back then didn't allow for destruction on quite the same scale, or at least quite as easily.

In reply to Bhoy:
There is no wilderness in the UK, but there are areas that look and feel quite wild. Obviously I wasn't there at the time, but I bet Knoydart felt wilder a few hundred years ago than it would with today's population but wind turbines on the coast or hills and pylons running through.

In reply to Removed User:
we harp on about the "wilderness" but most of it has only been so for the last couple of hundred years.

Dear Just

My wife is not that old, but she remembers children starting school in Spean Bridge after they closed the school at Carnach (just east of Knoydart).

Norrie

In reply to Graham B:
This 'Angry Corrie' article...posted a few weeks ago...says it all really.
http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tac/tac59/itisntpr.htm

In reply to Jonno:

Dear Jonno

There used to be a good bothy up Glen Dye, till it was wrecked by people taken there by outdoor instructors.

Norrie

In reply to Iain Forrest:


Thats rather an odd thing to say, given the fact that it was technology back then that brought about one of the most dramatic transformations in the highland landscape that has ever been seen (well, in human history anyway).

In reply to ml:
Deforestation. Yeah, you're right of course. Still, it looks a lot better without trees and pylons than without trees but with pylons.

In reply to Iain Forrest:


I certainly can't argue with that, although I do think that it's a real shame that we'll never have the forests back again.

In reply to ml:

Not on the same scale, obviously, but when in Torridon last week for the first time in a few years, I was pleasantly surprised at just how much reforestation is going on.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Thats good to know. However, one of the major barriers to reforestation, is changes in the soil that ericaceous plants (such as heather) bring about. Phenolic compounds produced by these plants cause the leaching of nutrients and metalic ions from the soil, which causes the formation of hard iron pans that prevent water movement (these are often quite obvious on eroded river banks). These effects mean that it is often all but impossible for the native forests to regenerate.

In reply to ml:
However, one of the major barriers to reforestation, is changes in the soil that ericaceous plants (such as heather) bring about. Phenolic compounds produced by these plants cause the leaching of nutrients and metalic ions from the soil, which causes the formation of hard iron pans that prevent water movement (these are often quite obvious on eroded river banks). These effects mean that it is often all but impossible for the native forests to regenerate.

Dear m

Does that mean the ground is knackered.

Norrie

In reply to ml:

Well they were certainly having a good try. I assume the young trees there at the moment have mostly been planted manually rather than self-seeding, but they seemed to be flourishing.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Yes, that could help, I think one of the main effects is inhibition of seed germination, so planting saplings could be a good way round this (although I don't know a great deal about it).

In reply to Norrie:
Well, I suppose it depends on your perspective; the ground is great if you're a heather!

In reply to GFoz:

At which point the English government would pull out and move down the coast to Cumbria or across to NI. I imagine the resultant economic devastation would prove tricky for the SNP.

In reply to John Rushby:
I imagine the resultant economic devastation would prove tricky for the SNP.

Dear John

There is more to Scotland than the SNP, it would not be a great loss anyway.

Norrie

In reply to John Rushby:

And it's so obvious to us all that the Scottish Economy so is sooooo well run from London!

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Pray tell, you don't support the SNP then?

In reply to Fort Person:
you don't support the SNP then?

Dear Fort

You got it in one.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir:
A Labour man through and through then?

In reply to Fort Person:

Dear Fort

I will quote what I posted earlier today on another topic;

“Dear sloper, I thought Labour crawled from the ground, well underneath a stone. Norrie”

And just for you, I think the SNP have crawled from the ground, well underneath a stone.

Norrie

PS I believe in an Independent Scotland and I am not affiliated to any Political Party, I hold them all in contempt, so don’t take it personally.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

It's ok, I'm going the same way as you.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Better a smiling faced Antipodean than a dour Scottish minger!!

In reply to Fort Person:

Dear Fort

There are some people who I hold in more contempt than Political Parties.

Norrie

In reply to theestivator:

I wasn't aware there were any such women in Scotland. They all seem to be friendly and pleasant.

I remember being in a bar somewhere and a middle aged "lady" shouting to her friends "Ma fanny's minging".

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Good, me too but the likes of Jack come top of my list, today anyway. Who is you most hated?

In reply to Fort Person:

Dear Fort

Since it is a climbing form, we done a route on the Ben and Tam called it the Minge.

Norrie

In reply to GFoz:


Don't know much about that, but the other big potential "carbon sink" is (or was assumed to be) forest soils... after 3 years of doing strange things with tons of soil (please don't ask - it cost me what little sanity I had left), we've found that the amount of carbon ending up in the soil actually decreases as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases. And there is a plausible explanation. In other words - give it a few more decades and things are really going to go pear-shaped!

In reply to everybody :
very good.
don't forget to turn yer computers off.

In reply to tony:

Tony

Windfarms are not the only proven "renewable" technology. Again I mention about using the methane gas from our disused pits, which the government constantly knocks back.

Sutty

I possibly mislead you about the distance thing about North West NI. Although its only about 20miles of sea, the cost of submersed cable is massive requiring DC converter stations on both coasts, which the wind developer would have to pay. Therefore because it is costly, developers won't pursue.

Fort Person

The reason you won't see nuclear (or any large power station) being constructed in the SE is simple because the local planning authority won't allow them. A case of not in our back yard. Maybe parliament has to get involved...but hey...don't hold your breath.

Cheers

In reply to Anonymous:

Not mislead me, there is already a cable there so no problems on that score.
Where the problem is is the Harris/Lewis windpower farms. They will have to put cables under the sea for a much greater distance, AND THEN run overland for 600 miles to the SE. Quite a large volts drop even at EHV I think. Will do the calcuations when I get the text books out of the box.

In reply to Graham B:

Not that they were very nice but I had to substitute a path for about five miles of Pylons the other day between Kinloch Hourn and Shiel Bridge.
I would have been better without them but what surer sign that I was going in the right direction.

In reply to Greenbanks: This has got to be a wind up!!

In reply to sutty:

apparently they can't use the same under sea cables