View Full Version : Beauly-Denny line
Bought a Big Issue yesterday and found an interesting report on the Beauly-Denny enquiry, which seems not to be reflecting the interests of those involved along the route. They are running a poll on planning generally in Scotland http://www.bigissuescotland.com/get-involved/big-ask.html . After the report in Wednesday's Courier, maybe the whole structure of planning needs an overhaul.
Bought a Big Issue yesterday and found an interesting report on the Beauly-Denny enquiry, which seems not to be reflecting the interests of those involved along the route. They are running a poll on planning generally in Scotland http://www.bigissuescotland.com/get-involved/big-ask.html . After the report in Wednesday's Courier, maybe the whole structure of planning needs an overhaul.
Just as well you put in the link. I was trying to work out why we needed a railway line from Beauly to Denny!!
That's an interesting thought. Why is it so easy to big a great big line of pylons across the countryside, but when we want a simple railway to get to Inverness, suddenly there are all sorts of problems? Maybe we should have little trucks going from pylon to pylon like cable cars :eek:
orkneylass
11-May-07, 17:31
Woooah - have you seen what can happen to the lines in gales and snow???
The ironic thing about this thread is that it is the same people who moan about windfarms which are supposedly destroying virgin peat/boglands and on the same breath are advocating digging up the same type of peat/boglands to put the Beauly/Denny line underground.:roll:
The ironic thing about this thread is that it is the same people who moan about windfarms which are supposedly destroying virgin peat/boglands and on the same breath are advocating digging up the same type of peat/boglands to put the Beauly/Denny line underground.:roll:
Not me! If we didn't have all these windfarms planned we wouldn't need to run massive pylons through the Highlands. I dont believe we need to have massive pylons or dig up the whole Highlands to put it underground - its sheer nonsense. Lets go for energy efficiency in our homes, schools, offices first.
Not me! If we didn't have all these windfarms planned we wouldn't need to run massive pylons through the Highlands. I dont believe we need to have massive pylons or dig up the whole Highlands to put it underground - its sheer nonsense. Lets go for energy efficiency in our homes, schools, offices first.
Absolutely right, rupert.
Rheghead, why do you describe people like me who object to windfarms, or even just some particular windfarms, as "moaning"?
I could equally well say that you are moaning about us. ;)
Not me! If we didn't have all these windfarms planned we wouldn't need to run massive pylons through the Highlands. I dont believe we need to have massive pylons or dig up the whole Highlands to put it underground - its sheer nonsense. Lets go for energy efficiency in our homes, schools, offices first.
Even with the best energy efficiency systems installed in every home on the planet, fossil fuel useage will still be unsustainable (CO2 will still go up). Therefore the Beauly Denny line will still be needed to bring renewable energy to the central areas of population.
Don't think that follows. If energy was generated near the areas where it is to be used we would not need these massive power lines, especially as power is lost in transmission. I'm certainly not advocating putting it underground - that would be equally crazy. We could save huge amounts of energy if we really put our minds to it, all it requires is diverting the money spent on R&D from generation to conservation.
Bobinovich
12-May-07, 18:41
Something I always found strange is that we've had it drummed into us over the past few years that there is no point in siting a commercial nuclear power station up here because it's away from the main power users and the losses would be too much.
...but the powers that be are quite happy to keep approving windfarms to spoil our beautiful area instead.
...does the power from windfarms not follow the same principle of losses? :roll:
Subsequently, in order to carry all the power generated by these windfarms, they plan the upgrade of the Beauly to Denny line.
So it begs the question that if the latter gets the go-ahead would there be any justifiable cause for not getting a nuclear power station built locally, instead of more windfarms?
Anyone else question the logic?
Something I always found strange is that we've had it drummed into us over the past few years that there is no point in siting a commercial nuclear power station up here because it's away from the main power users and the losses would be too much.
...but the powers that be are quite happy to keep approving windfarms to spoil our beautiful area instead.
Anyone else question the logic?
Bobino,
At the pre-election hustings our very own Mr Stone commented that no new nuclear could be built up here because of transmission problems. He went on to say that he supported windfarms for Caithness. I was unable to question the logic because hustings aren't a debate.
Only reason I can think of is that because wind power produces precious little energy, less effort is required transmitting it south.
All you need to do if you want to see how concerned our "powers that be" about energy saving is to find a place with a reasonably clear view within 30 or 40 miles of any large town or city any time between dusk and dawn and and you will see the glow from all the street lights even from that distance.
Then the authorities which insist on having all those street lights burning all night, along with all the other superfluous lights blazing away on empry streets, have the nerve to wag their fingers at us and try to bully us into running round our houses switching off the odd light we may have forgotten about.
Next time you go past any sort of power station, be it gas, coal or nuclear take a look at the huge cooling towers. All that stuff pouring out of the top is wasted energy. In some countries the hot water which we put through those cooling towers is used for providing cheap hot water and central heating for the local communities. And they have been doing that since long before there was any mention of Global Warming or Energy Saving they just realised it was stupid to waste it.
Good point Bobinovich I too have questioned these things, windfarms tend to be very inefficient and have a short life span. I can however see the logic of putting cables under the ground as with wind damage etc, in the long term it could be very cost effective. Any engineers out there that can tell us how much energy is lost by the various forms of transmission?
I still have hackles on the back of my neck that says Westminster will be going nuclear and from what I understand The Scottish Excutive do not have the power of veto on this issue however I might be wrong in this assumption.
I have been more impressed by localised efforts at generating power, not sure if you have the same incentives up north but here in England there are various grants available for the refurbishment of water mills and it is quite surprising how much energy can be generated in that manner. I was slso very interested in the project in The Bristol Channel that uses a sort of upturned turbine that are turned by the tidal surges to power it , this is also being tested in my home county with great effect.
Tongue in cheek , has any one thought of harnasing the hot air that is generated by politicians and some of the posters on here!
Bobino,
At the pre-election hustings our very own Mr Stone commented that no new nuclear could be built up here because of transmission problems. He went on to say that he supported windfarms for Caithness. I was unable to question the logic because hustings aren't a debate.
Only reason I can think of is that because wind power produces precious little energy, less effort is required transmitting it south.
I think it is because that renewable energy is fuelless but uranium resources are finite so it is only right that transmission losses are kept to a minimum. If losses are kept to a minimum then less windfarms need to be built to make up the loss.
ywindythesecond
15-May-07, 23:54
I think it is because that renewable energy is fuelless but uranium resources are finite so it is only right that transmission losses are kept to a minimum. If losses are kept to a minimum then less windfarms need to be built to make up the loss.
Brilliant! ---Finally a good reason for windfarms in Caithness!--- Minimum transmission losses!!!
Minimum generation= Minimum transmission= Minimum transmission loss!!!!
I am a convert!
Damn, just had a thought, also minimum electricity. Pity that, I thought we were onto something there.
ywyts
Brilliant! ---Finally a good reason for windfarms in Caithness!--- Minimum transmission losses!!!
Minimum generation= Minimum transmission= Minimum transmission loss!!!!
I am a convert!
Damn, just had a thought, also minimum electricity. Pity that, I thought we were onto something there.
ywyts
The war on terra is on all fronts, not just the ones we conveniently find expendable...
Brilliant! ---Finally a good reason for windfarms in Caithness!--- Minimum transmission losses!!!
Minimum generation= Minimum transmission= Minimum transmission loss!!!!
I am a convert!
Damn, just had a thought, also minimum electricity. Pity that, I thought we were onto something there.
ywyts
I'd given up trying to understand Rheghead's last post so a wee giggle was very welcome.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.