pylons

[the second coming]

I was driving down the A9 the other day, after getting up after being woken by my electric alarm, switching on the light and boiling up the kettle for a brew, so as I passed the picturesque lochs, dams storing up hydro power, past the lovely blanket foresty, bordered by scenic telegragh poles and electricity transmission lines. I was even fortunate enough to see a few 275kV pylons for the transmission network.

But the thing that really caught my eye was the really pretty large, yellow, white and black painted billboards advertising the anti-pylon sentiment of local landowners and viewers of our lovely countryside. I didn't know graffiti was the vogue.

I was just wondering if anyone shares or is wondering about the hypocrisy of such notices, perhaps I'm missing the point, your thoughts on the matter are most welcome......

ps, before anyone quotes wholesale export of renewable generated electricity to the south of the UK, take a fleeting thought on the last 3 weeks when Scotland has been a net importer of electricity following the failure of Longannet Power Station, Hunterston Power Station, limited export from Tourness and the restricted output of Cockenzie Power Station. Just as well the Borders and Dunfries and Galloway didnt complain about a 400kV transmission network and interconnector up to the Central belt eh!!

[Bobbyian]

What do you think was more disturbing the Posters or the Pylons?
I can apreciate someones dissapointment when for years hes been looking at some nice scenery and sombody sticks a great big Pylon,Windturbine or even a forest.... I can remember when all uproar when people realised that these little trees that where planted in the 60`& 70´s are Growing into big trees and one couldn`t see the views any more... but I imagine that is forgotten now.

[ywindythesecond]

I was driving down the A9 the other day, after getting up after being woken by my electric alarm, switching on the light and boiling up the kettle for a brew, so as I passed the picturesque lochs, dams storing up hydro power, past the lovely blanket foresty, bordered by scenic telegragh poles and electricity transmission lines. I was even fortunate enough to see a few 275kV pylons for the transmission network.

But the thing that really caught my eye was the really pretty large, yellow, white and black painted billboards advertising the anti-pylon sentiment of local landowners and viewers of our lovely countryside. I didn't know graffiti was the vogue.

I was just wondering if anyone shares or is wondering about the hypocrisy of such notices, perhaps I'm missing the point, your thoughts on the matter are most welcome......
ps, before anyone quotes wholesale export of renewable generated electricity to the south of the UK, take a fleeting thought on the last 3 weeks when Scotland has been a net importer of electricity following the failure of Longannet Power Station, Hunterston Power Station, limited export from Tourness and the restricted output of Cockenzie Power Station. Just as well the Borders and Dunfries and Galloway didnt complain about a 400kV transmission network and interconnector up to the Central belt eh!!

Pylon protesters are NIMBYs. They don't look at the cause, only the effect on themselves.

[bothyman]

Pylon protesters are NIMBYs. They don't look at the cause, only the effect on themselves.

I thought the Nimby's were the ones that were going to be using the power?? not the one's who were having to look a the Turbines/Pylons .
If they want the Power why not put the Turbines/Pylons in their own backyard instead of ours??
So who are the Nimby's??:roll:

[Rheghead]

Were there protesters against the original construction of the Beauly-Denny line? If not then what has changed?

[98elite]

http://iainmacwhirter2.blogspot.com/2006/02/pylons-are-beautiful.html

[KittyMay]

Whether you support the Beauly to Denny replacement line really depends on how you view the energy mix for Scotland in the next few decades and beyond.

Do you want Scotland to continue being a self-sufficient exporter of electricity?
If so, then work on replacing, upgrading and cleaning our existing conventional technologies needs to start right now.
If you believe it’s important for Scotland to retain the ability to generate the Scottish demand (and export the extra) then you have to question whether large-scale commercial wind development is going to provide the very substantial benefits required -
in significant reduction of carbon emissions, security of supply and in the longer term the need to replace our reliance on dwindling fossil fuels supplies.
Will the benefits outweigh the losses – mass industrialisation of the countryside?
We are going to be relying very heavily on conventional generation for decades to come – wind or no wind.
You simply decide whether you'd rather thousands and thousands of wind turbines reducing carbon emissions or would you rather clean up and make more efficient the existing mix (including existing wind energy) which would result in carbon emission reductions significantly higher than those likely to be achieved through meeting the renewable energy target (by wind energy).

In this scenario the Beauly to Denny replacement transmission line is not required.

OR

Alternatively, if you don’t think it’s necessary for Scotland to remain self-sufficient in electricity then we should continue with large scale commercial wind development right across Scotland and meet most of the UK’s renewable target by the siting of windfarms in Scotland (mainly the Highlands and Islands).

Scotland would become reliant on IMPORTING most of our secure electricity supply from conventional generators in England, the rest of the UK and from nuclear in France but would provide wind generated electricity across the country.

This scenario demands replacement of the Beauly to Denny line and upgrades to much of the existing transmission network in Scotland.

OR

Both of the above.

The ultimate goal being that over the next 30, 40 and 50 years new technologies would emerge - renewable and low carbon – that would replace either/both of the above options.

[Rheghead]

You simply decide whether you'd rather thousands and thousands of wind turbines reducing carbon emissions or would you rather clean up and make more efficient the existing mix (including existing wind energy) which would result in carbon emission reductions significantly higher than those likely to be achieved through meeting the renewable energy target (by wind energy).

This is what really bugs me about your view on things. You make it an absolute that one issue is at the expense of the other. It isn't, they will complement eachother. That is why your posts amount to misinformation by stating that you have A or you have B.

Totally false claims.

[KittyMay]

This is what really bugs me about your view on things. You make it an absolute that one issue is at the expense of the other. It isn't, they will complement eachother. That is why your posts amount to misinformation by stating that you have A or you have B.

Totally false claims.

OK then, 3rd option - both. You're absolutely right this should have been included - have amended previous post.

Sorry, I understood 'both' wasn't feasible/viable due to cost implications. Why would we choose to do both?

[Kenn]

Maybe I have missed some thing here but surely in this day we are capable of putting power lines underground and if not , why not?
Every time the winter gales strike the damage caused to overhead power lines can be enormous and in more remote areas take days and even weeks to effect repairs.
Whilst I appreciate the initial cost of putting these power cables into conduits would be expensive surely in the long term it would prove very cost effective in relation to lack of damage to not only the transmission lines but to the economy in general.
Am I also correct in thinking that in many of the more remote areas of The Highlands this policy is already being implemented?

[KittyMay]

Honestly, it's not only me who's not entirely convinced about wind - there are others.

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=212932007

Here's even more misinformation.

[Rheghead]

Sorry, I understood 'both' wasn't feasible/viable due to cost implications. Why would we choose to do both?

Again i would like to expose the fallacious nature of your point of view. Two different business sectors, one isn't exclusive to the other. The fossil fuel generators will be trying to cut emissions and the wind generators will be trying to get sites that result in the least amont of losses of energy. Why should we asked to choose when a choice isn't there? The question is a non-starter. It means nothing.

[KittyMay]

Again i would like to expose the fallacious nature of your point of view. Two different business sectors, one isn't exclusive to the other. The fossil fuel generators will be trying to cut emissions and the wind generators will be trying to get sites that result in the least amont of losses of energy. Why should we asked to choose when a choice isn't there? The question is a non-starter. It means nothing.

Oh heck - here we go again. Are you suggesting that both business sectors should be subsidised? Do you think conventional generators should receive the equivalent to ROC's in carbon abatement support?

If there's a level playing field for both sectors and the consumer is content to stump up the necessary cash then you are correct there is no necessity (at least on this particular point) to choose one over the other.

Could you define what you mean by 'sites that result in the least amount of losses of energy'. I take it you don't mean close to the consumers to avoid losses in transmission.

I've asked you before to provide detail of your mix of conventional and wind. I've often heard about the mix but have failed to find any detail. Can you provide a link? Do you agree that if there were some facts available we wouldn't be having this debate?

BTW - you've overlooked the fact that I've never said no wind at all - just controlled and within a sensible, feasible strategy of all generation types.

PS Must go get the dictionary and look up 'fallacious'.

[Keith Shelley]

I live in Kiess and can see the wind turbines in Caithness from my home already. I dont feel I should be surrounded by them just to supply southerners with a good consciounce. i love Caithness and think wind turbines are an absolute eyesore. If people elswhere are in favour of wind power then build on their doorsteps not ours. Besides that Doonray employs masses of people how many will it take to look after the poxy wind turbines?

[ywindythesecond]

I live in Kiess and can see the wind turbines in Caithness from my home already. I dont feel I should be surrounded by them just to supply southerners with a good consciounce. i love Caithness and think wind turbines are an absolute eyesore. If people elswhere are in favour of wind power then build on their doorsteps not ours. Besides that Doonray employs masses of people how many will it take to look after the poxy wind turbines?

Three on the Causeymire

[Rheghead]

BTW - you've overlooked the fact that I've never said no wind at all - just controlled and within a sensible, feasible strategy of all generation types.

Interesting, how do you define a sensible, feasible strategy of all generation types?

[ywindythesecond]

I live in Kiess and can see the wind turbines in Caithness from my home already. I dont feel I should be surrounded by them just to supply southerners with a good consciounce. i love Caithness and think wind turbines are an absolute eyesore. If people elswhere are in favour of wind power then build on their doorsteps not ours. Besides that Doonray employs masses of people how many will it take to look after the poxy wind turbines?

Three people are employed on Causeymire plus an unknown proportion of a Danish technician monitoring output