walkhighlands

This forum is for general discussion about walking and scrambling... If writing a report or sharing your experiences from a route, please use the other boards.

Glen Coe Hydro Scheme

Re: Glen Coe Hydro Scheme

Postby Sgurr » Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:49 pm

We need another W.H. Murray who spear-headed the resistance to a reservoir and dam in Glen Nevis in the early 50s
User avatar
Sgurr
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 3524
Munros:282   Corbetts:222
Grahams:219   Donalds:89
Sub 2000:569   Hewitts:134
Wainwrights:149   Islands:58
Joined: Nov 15, 2010
Location: Fife

Re: Glen Coe Hydro Scheme

Postby pony23 » Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:24 pm

To Gareth Harper,
2 questions for you: do you ever look up official data on anything; or do you come up with ideas in your head which are true because you say so, or because you want it to be true?
(in the same way that when Trump was asked for evidence he replied "I'm the evidence")

Here's the evidence proving that the figures in the letter are not "complete nonsense"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/767027/Sub-national-electricity-and-gas-consumptio-summar-report-2017.pdf
Look at table 1 and chart 1 and the relevant facts are there

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/regional-renewable-statistics
Download Regional Statistics: Generation, look at 2012 and 2017 on the spreadsheet, the other data needed (hydro, Scotland) are there

Nobody can dispute this data because it's from the govt/BEIS and these people tell us that AGW is real and renewables are good. (I notice your data is from a renewables propaganda body)

The 100% claim was in The Times and it was noted down in 2012 by folks who actually understand electrical engineering, and the claim was probably made by a hydro trade body. The 2017 data was only released this month. I'm not surprised that you're not aware of it, but no doubt had you seen it you would have enthusiastically believed it without question or checking. The Times later removed it from the website; probably just house keeping, as editors don't understand engineering either.

You have my full permission to respond and say who was right and who was wrong.
pony23
Wanderer
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sep 20, 2013

Re: Glen Coe Hydro Scheme

Postby davekeiller » Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:27 pm

Actually, I think you're both right - you're looking at different parts of the statistics and interpreting them differently.
About 54% of the electricity generated in Scotland in 2015 was from renewables (according to stats published by the Scottish Government) and about 12% was from Hydro, so Gareth's stats are broadly correct.
However, domestic use accounts for about 40% of total electricity consumption, so it's not unfair to divide the total generated by hydro by total domestic consumption and reach the conclusion that in 2017 (a different year to the stats Gareth quotes) and say that hydro was the equivalent of 55% of domestic electricity use.
BUT
As Gareth implies, we don't just use electricity to power our homes. Most of us use gas for some combination of central heating, hot water and cooking. If you take this into account, then hydro accounts for a much smaller proportion of domestic energy supply.
davekeiller
 
Posts: 277
Munros:143   Corbetts:17
Grahams:4   Donalds:3
Hewitts:19
Wainwrights:20   
Joined: Oct 25, 2013

Re: Glen Coe Hydro Scheme

Postby Gareth Harper » Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:05 pm

As Gareth implies, we don't just use electricity to power our homes.


Indeed, we need to clear as to whether we are talking about energy or power as a whole, or just simply electricity.

Also, the electricity grid cannot differentiate between a factory, a hosiptal or a home etc. It’s miss-leading to try and attribute hydro to homes only.

Pony23 quotes ‘a letter’ published in ‘the paper’, referring to non-existent press release from 2012.
Gareth Harper
 
Posts: 284
Munros:166   Corbetts:47
Grahams:18   Donalds:30
Sub 2000:5   
Joined: Aug 25, 2013
Location: Ayrshire

Re: Glen Coe Hydro Scheme

Postby pony23 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:02 am

Gareth Harper, why would someone invent a press release like that? After all, we see such press releases every week.

The point I'm making is that it's not worth spoiling remote glens for the tiny amount of energy produced. If you want the real reason for hydro schemes and other renewables, follow the money.
pony23
Wanderer
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sep 20, 2013

Re: Glen Coe Hydro Scheme

Postby jupe1407 » Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:42 pm

UPDATE

All seven schemes up for review were granted planning permission (subject to conditions) in Glen Etive

(Source: Grampian Club)
User avatar
jupe1407
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 1259
Munros:230   Corbetts:15
Grahams:6   
Sub 2000:1   
Joined: May 15, 2012
Location: Forfar

Re: Glen Coe Hydro Scheme

Postby Paul Webster » Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:53 am

User avatar
Paul Webster
Site Admin
Walker
 
Posts: 5202
Munros:282   Corbetts:222
Grahams:64   Donalds:39
Sub 2000:113   Hewitts:133
Wainwrights:134   Islands:92
Joined: Jan 6, 2007
Location: Nr Grantown-on-Spey

Re: Glen Coe Hydro Scheme

Postby gammy leg walker » Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:59 pm

Can't seem to share a link but it now seems there is renewed hope this may not go ahead, enough councilors have made an objection for further discussion
User avatar
gammy leg walker
Walker
 
Posts: 3183
Munros:250   Corbetts:7
Grahams:3   Donalds:3
Sub 2000:2   
Islands:7
Joined: Jan 30, 2010
Location: Central Region

Re: Glen Coe Hydro Scheme

Postby Sgurr » Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:52 pm

Heard the MCS on (I think) Radio Scotland this morning, and they only object to 3 on the east side, as the other 4 are all concealed by forestry, and they can use the existing tracks to get in. Sounds fair enough.
User avatar
Sgurr
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 3524
Munros:282   Corbetts:222
Grahams:219   Donalds:89
Sub 2000:569   Hewitts:134
Wainwrights:149   Islands:58
Joined: Nov 15, 2010
Location: Fife

Re: Glen Coe Hydro Scheme

Postby Sunset tripper » Sat Feb 23, 2019 4:51 pm

Sgurr wrote:Heard the MCS on (I think) Radio Scotland this morning, and they only object to 3 on the east side, as the other 4 are all concealed by forestry, and they can use the existing tracks to get in. Sounds fair enough.


The MCS come out with very reasonable suggestions but things like this they get all wrong - I realise they are expressing their members views but their statements often seem like massive own goals.

Like the Arrochar car parks where they said their members would be happy to pay £3 or £4. For a start why mention the £3 they have basically said £4 is acceptable. I realise they are well intentioned and it probably wouldn't make any difference what the say but I think they should be saying £0 for parking and no hydro schemes and then settle for £2 and a couple of hydro schemes. Its basic negotiating tactics and the MCS seem a bit naive to me.

Though I do agree with you what they say does sound fair.

I'm pretty sure we'll get 7 hydro schemes same as the £9 parking. :(
User avatar
Sunset tripper
 
Posts: 1600
Joined: Nov 3, 2013
Location: Inverness

Previous



Walkhighlands community forum is now advert free

We need help to keep the site online.
Can you help support Walkhighlands and the online community by setting up a monthly donation by direct debit?



Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DavidQ and 18 guests