The Giant Pylons are closing in on Caithness.

[ywindythesecond]

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/3429/achscrabsterpyloncomparcy9.jpg

Comparison of existing 175 kV overhead line near Achscrabster with 400kV lines as proposed by the Scottish Government.

Two weeks ago, the Scottish Government launched the “National Planning Framework 2” consultation document on planning issues for the next 30 years, across all planning fields. The Energy section sets out proposals to upgrade the power transmission system from Lewis to Ullapool, Shetland to Orkney to Dounreay to Beauly, around the East Coast and on to England. All to harness “renewable energy”, and designated as “national developments”.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Consultations (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Consultations)

Pages 66-70.

[Boozeburglar]

Darn, they will be spoiling the view of the wind turbines for many people!

[dozy]

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/3429/achscrabsterpyloncomparcy9.jpg

Comparison of existing 175 kV overhead line near Achscrabster with 400kV lines as proposed by the Scottish Government.

Two weeks ago, the Scottish Government launched the “National Planning Framework 2” consultation document on planning issues for the next 30 years, across all planning fields. The Energy section sets out proposals to upgrade the power transmission system from Lewis to Ullapool, Shetland to Orkney to Dounreay to Beauly, around the East Coast and on to England. All to harness “renewable energy”, and designated as “national developments”.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Consultations (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Consultations)

Pages 66-70.


Seems strange that they would erect pylons when the TransEast Coast subsea cable is to do the same job.Unless they are planning a new Reactor or two...

[johndeere]

ywindythesecond you've complained about windfarms now it the electric pylons well i hate to say it but there have been pylons in this county longer than i have been alive, what do you want us to do go back to paraffin lamps and doing the washing in a wooden tub. :roll: Is there anything your happy with?

[ywindythesecond]

ywindythesecond you've complained about windfarms now it the electric pylons well i hate to say it but there have been pylons in this county longer than i have been alive, what do you want us to do go back to paraffin lamps and doing the washing in a wooden tub. :roll: Is there anything your happy with?

I don't invent these things. Have you read the consultation document yet?

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Consultations (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Consultations)

Pages 66-70.

[JAWS]

i hate to say it but there have been pylons in this county longer than i have been alive,
Concrete has been around for over 2000 years but that doesn't mean Scotland should be covered from end to end with it!

[Rheghead]

ywindy, I thought the upgrade was to facilitate the increase in windfarm proliferation? Where would you stand with the upgrade given that your 51MW windfarm at the Longman site would need that infrastructure to go ahead? I suppose you would have wanted it underground, yes?

[ywindythesecond]

ywindy, I thought the upgrade was to facilitate the increase in windfarm proliferation? Where would you stand with the upgrade given that your 51MW windfarm at the Longman site would need that infrastructure to go ahead? I suppose you would have wanted it underground, yes?

Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the one who argues with the fool?

Taking your advice Reggy, over and out.

[Cinderella's Shoe]

If these pylons are needed to get out energy from windfarms I can only assume that the existing pylon line is not up to it.

I also thought that the existing pylon line from Dounreay to Beauly was only strung on one side.

So why can't the existing line simply be strung on the other side?

[Big hughie]

A little simplistic notion here ..but it might just be that giving the age of the existing pylons and the length of time the conductors have been strung on them ie over 30 years the route may need renewing from a maintenance point of view ?????
Beeeeeeeeeeeeg Hugheeeeeeeeeee

[Big hughie]

"Concrete has been around for over 2000 years but that doesn't mean Scotland should be covered from end to end with it!"
So lets stop building houses schools hospitals etc??? The area taken up be these pylons is tiny wrt the land area
Anyway some of the Highlands best views ie Loch Fleet Strath Halladale have already been spoilt by pylons ..........They are also the same pylons that carry the power that drives this PC and every thing else up here So lets get real Do you want to have power?? then we need the pylons in one form or another as no private company is going to be able to afford to bury the conductors
So its either that or break out the parafin lamps the whale oil (or seal) and lets go back to cutting peats
Beeeeeg Hugheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[ywindythesecond]

A little simplistic notion here ..but it might just be that giving the age of the existing pylons and the length of time the conductors have been strung on them ie over 30 years the route may need renewing from a maintenance point of view ?????
Beeeeeeeeeeeeg Hugheeeeeeeeeee

Its not that Big Hughie, there is no need for speculation, read all about it here

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Consultations (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Consultations)

Pages 66-70.

[Big hughie]

Point taken ...but I wonder what the reaction would be if the these pylons were for Dounreay???????
So whats the alternative ?? these existing ones will need to be replaced at some point and as I say some of them are 30-40 years old at least
Beeeg Hugheeeeeeeee

[Rheghead]

Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the one who argues with the fool?

Taking your advice Reggy, over and out.

You never answerred my question. Or you don't like your double standards being exposed.

[ywindythesecond]

Point taken ...but I wonder what the reaction would be if the these pylons were for Dounreay???????
So whats the alternative ?? these existing ones will need to be replaced at some point and as I say some of them are 30-40 years old at least
Beeeg Hugheeeeeeeee

The first alternative is for this Scottish Government to have an energy policy , and there is a place for windfarms within this in a balanced mix of sources.

Wherever possible power should be generated close to the point of consumption. Generating windpower in Shetland and transmitting it through Dounreay to Beauly, round the East coast of Scotland and across the border to England and down to the south of the country goes a little against this principle.

It has been said that a nuclear plant in Caithness would be too far from the point of consumption, but there are two circumstances which in my mind overcome this. Firstly there is the social need to replace employment from Dounreay and secondly, there is an existing transmission infrastructure. So why not build a nuclear power plant here in Caithness with just enough capacity to use the potential in the transmission system, including stringing the second side of the Dounreay line.

And big Hughie I take your point on the age of the existing lines, but refurbishment of the existing ones will be far cheaper than the greatly larger 400kV lines proposed.

[Rheghead]

Wherever possible power should be generated close to the point of consumption. Generating windpower in Shetland and transmitting it through Dounreay to Beauly, round the East coast of Scotland and across the border to England and down to the south of the country goes a little against this principle.

It has been said that a nuclear plant in Caithness would be too far from the point of consumption, but there are two circumstances which in my mind overcome this. Firstly there is the social need to replace employment from Dounreay and secondly, there is an existing transmission infrastructure. So why not build a nuclear power plant here in Caithness with just enough capacity to use the potential in the transmission system, including stringing the second side of the Dounreay line..

A new nuke plant would be subject to the same transmission losses as a load of windfarms. The essential difference is that nuclear fuel is finite and needs to be conserved as much as possible. So having a civil commercial nuclear plant up here is illogical.

[Green_not_greed]

A new nuke plant would be subject to the same transmission losses as a load of windfarms. The essential difference is that nuclear fuel is finite and needs to be conserved as much as possible. So having a civil commercial nuclear plant up here is illogical.

Unless, of course, you can install one in your house!

http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=40030 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=40030)

[ywindythesecond]

A new nuke plant would be subject to the same transmission losses as a load of windfarms. The essential difference is that nuclear fuel is finite and needs to be conserved as much as possible. So having a civil commercial nuclear plant up here is illogical.

Is it illogical for being "up here" or illogical for being a "civil commercial nuclear plant" or illogical for being a "nuclear plant"?
ywy2

[Rheghead]

Is it illogical for being "up here" or illogical for being a "civil commercial nuclear plant" or illogical for being a "nuclear plant"?
ywy2

the combination of the first two.

[gollach]

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/3429/achscrabsterpyloncomparcy9.jpg

Comparison of existing 175 kV overhead line near Achscrabster with 400kV lines as proposed by the Scottish Government.

Two weeks ago, the Scottish Government launched the “National Planning Framework 2” consultation document on planning issues for the next 30 years, across all planning fields. The Energy section sets out proposals to upgrade the power transmission system from Lewis to Ullapool, Shetland to Orkney to Dounreay to Beauly, around the East Coast and on to England. All to harness “renewable energy”, and designated as “national developments”.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Consultations (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Consultations)

Pages 66-70.

Are the new pylons replacing the old ones on a one-for-one basis?
With the Beauly to Denny line, one of the claims by the applicant was that there would be fewer pylons as the proposed pylons are larger.

I notice this photo uses a straight replacement with larger pylons, not a reduced number of larger pylons. Is this correct?

[Tilter]

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/3429/achscrabsterpyloncomparcy9.jpg
Pages 66-70.

Hope you got your measurements right Windy or we'll be hearing about it for next 10 years.

We should be like the French because man, they're proud of their pylons. They're painted bright red or blue. Probably tricolor too.

Now, can we get rid of the windfarms, attach a turbine to every pylon (since they're there) and off we go. Sorted.

[ywindythesecond]

Are the new pylons replacing the old ones on a one-for-one basis?
With the Beauly to Denny line, one of the claims by the applicant was that there would be fewer pylons as the proposed pylons are larger.

I notice this photo uses a straight replacement with larger pylons, not a reduced number of larger pylons. Is this correct?

What a joy to have to answer a sensible question!

That is correct Gollach. The BD ES claims that there will be fewer pylons but their illustrations which I have studied show towers generally at 350m centres which is about the same as the pylons we have got now. I have mostly looked at examples in hilly locations but I would expect in flat land that spacings could be maximised.

In my Achscrabster comparison, the distances between turning points (angle pylons, distinguishable because the insulators are in-line as opposed to suspended) means that pylon spacing is dictated by the shorter distances, so straight replacements would be the case for those pylons to the right of the third pylon from the left.

Theoretically, the pylons to the left of the third from the left could be at wider spacing, but in an exercise to show the difference in size, only a like for like comparison is valid.

On the question of bigger pylons therefore fewer, the 400kV pylons are sized principally for electrical separation between conductors and between conductors and obstacles. They are only just big enough to satisfy that. Wider spacing means heavier loads means stronger structures means higher costs so they don’t do wider spacings unless it is necessary.

The BD ES montages and wireframes are based on towers between 55 and 65 metres (those in my montage are 50m) . Larger towers would be used if for example, there was a rise in ground between two towers, and it was more economical, and environmentally friendly, to use two big ones rather than three small ones.

Ask me another sensible question please!