Walkhighlands

What is it with these people?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1657062/new-battle-at-glencoe-over-hydro-plans/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PJ%20Daily%20Newsletter%202019-01-19&utm_term=Press%20and%20Journal%20-%20Newsletter

Transitioning to renewable energy and sustainable ways of living is essential if we are to avoid catastrophe in the coming decades, which will be a lot worse than a blot on the landscape now. Hydro schemes have to be constructed where there is suitable topography. Glen Coe is an unfortunate choice for a hydro scheme, it would be better to choose a valley with low secnic value where it will have minimal visual impact. It should be possible to construct such a scheme to blend in as naturally as possible with the surroundings. I would prefer offshore wind farms as far as minimilising visual intrusion goes. Unfortunately, to supply the UK with 100% renewable energy requires country-sized renewable generation facilities, so it is going to be a case of either having wind/solar farms covering thousands of square km, importing renewable energy from abroad (maybe putting solar generation facilities in other peoples deserts), or drastically cutting down our per person energy consumption, which will require that ugly phrase known as lifestyle changes. Whatever route we go, it is going to require some difficult choices somewhere.

The irony, of course, is that in order to protect the environment we apparently have to desecrate our upland areas with hydro schemes and windfarms.
Given that the old aluminium smelter in Kinlochleven used hydro power, I can see that there's a case for saying that hydro has been in the area for 100 years already. I suspect that the proposals will be scaled back when they "listen" to opinion, or am I just being cynical?

davekeiller wrote: I suspect that the proposals will be scaled back when they "listen" to opinion, or am I just being cynical?

It's the same old story, submit proposals they know are going to have objections raised against them, proposals are upheld, the company's go away ammended and re submit scaled back proposals and there passed.
The thing here is, the scaled back proposals were always the preferred option for these companies, how folks are that gullible to think otherwise is beyond me

Tidal turbines are the way forward, not pitifully small hydro-electric schemes on scenic rivers in tourism-dependant areas.

Caberfeidh wrote:Tidal turbines are the way forward, not pitifully small hydro-electric schemes on scenic rivers in tourism-dependant areas.

Hydro schemes are probably cheaper to install/maintain

Where exactly is this? i looked on the maps but can't find Inveriggin anywhere?

Caberfeidh wrote:Tidal turbines are the way forward, not pitifully small hydro-electric schemes on scenic rivers in tourism-dependant areas.

This.

scoob999 wrote:Where exactly is this? i looked on the maps but can't find Inveriggin anywhere?

An old name, not mentioned on maps but the bit beside the visitor centre, slightly in direction of the village.

Kevin29035 wrote:

scoob999 wrote:Where exactly is this? i looked on the maps but can't find Inveriggin anywhere?

An old name, not mentioned on maps but the bit beside the visitor centre, slightly in direction of the village.

The Inverigan Burn is named on OS maps as the Allt Fhiodhan, on the north side of Meall Mor. There is another article about it here: https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-oban-times/20190110/282862257026679
As far as I can tell , the proposed development is wholly within the existing commercial forestry plantation, and there is already an access track, so in the big picture of micro hydro schemes this is probably not the most offensive.

Weighing up the long term benefits of renewable energy versus scenery degradation is tricky. However, it's worth remembering that micro hydro schemes individually make a pretty small contribution to the overall renewable energy production in Scotland - the one above is rated at 350 kW. Which would you rather have for roughly the same power output - one large reservoir scheme like Glendoe, a couple of large windfarms, or 300 micro hydro schemes like this one?

The big problem in Scotland (the way I see it) is the people in government are generally stuck inside their central belt bubble and even outside of the big population areas you never hear of any of our politicians sticking up for the "wee bit hill and glen" apart from a couple of minutes at Murrayfield.

In 1903 John Muir took President Roosevelt out into the wilds of Yosemite on a 3 day camping trip and convinced him to protect the wild land.
https://nationalparksadventure.com/the-camping-trip-that-changed-the-nation/

I suggest one of our great outdoors people takes our very own Nicola Sturgeon out on a 3 day wild camping trip in Glencoe, taking in the Aonach Eagach and other wondrous parts of Glencoe, to convince her to stop destroying Scotland.

I nominate Paul or Helen Webster for the task but if all else fails maybe Caberfeidh is the person to get the job done.

Perhaps if, perish the thought, Paul and Helen failed, then Cabefeidh might take her to sea and apply appropriate old time nautical tortures till success were assured...........................

For anyone who believes that small hydro schemes are worth it, this letter was in the paper yesterday:

There is an appalling delusion that Scotland can be powered by hydro electricity. In 2012 there was even a press release claiming that 100% of Scotland's homes would be hydro powered by 2017. The 2017 data was recently released so I can now examine that claim.
In 2012 Scotland's hydro generated 4.8 TWh (terawatt hours) of electricity, and Scotland's homes consumed 11 TWh. So 44% of Scotland's homes were powered by hydro.
In 2017 Scotland's hydro generated 5.4 TWh, and Scotland's homes consumed 9.8 TWh. So 55% of Scotland's homes were powered by hydro. Not 100%. And little to show for 370 new hydro schemes.
Yet another tall tale on renewables debunked.

I’m far from convinced that Hydro schemes around Glen Coe are a great idea.

However,

In 2012 there was even a press release claiming that 100% of Scotland's homes would be hydro powered by 2017.

I’ve never heard of this claim. Which is quoted by pony23 quoting a ‘letter in the paper’ from ‘somebody’.

In 2017 Scotland's hydro generated 5.4 TWh, and Scotland's homes consumed 9.8 TWh. So 55% of Scotland's homes were powered by hydro. Not 100%.

This is obviously complete nonsense. The main source of energy is my house, like a great many houses across Scotland is gas.

As for electricity according to http://www.hi-energy.org.uk/renewables/hydro-energy.htm Hydro power produces about 12% Scotland’s electricity. And there is plenty of scope for increasing that figure.

Renewables, according to https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0054/00541605.pdf generated 54% of Scotland’s electricity in 2015.

Scotland is making great progress in terms of moving to renewables for electricity production.

However electrcity is just one energy source. We are, as my wee hoose demonstrates, still very much dependant on oil and gas the for bulk of our day to day energy.