We, as directors of the environmental organisations opposing the Beauly to Denny powerline proposal, agree with the comments and conclusions of the senior industry figures in their letter of May 25.
We find it disappointing that important evidence relevant to a proper understanding of any need for the Beauly to Denny powerline was not allowed to be heard. It is of national importance and in the public interest for all proper arguments to be debated.
In addition, we regret the fact that as yet there has been no response to the legal submissions that were lodged against the way that the proposal was developed; or the lack of strategic environmental assessment for the project and that Ofgem had failed to take proper account of the environmental and sustainable development consequences of the proposal before allowing the developer to proceed.
We call for the Scottish Executive to stop proceedings now as the format of the inquiry is unable to deal effectively with these issues. Continuing with the local issues sessions before the strategic issues have been fully addressed would be a massive waste of time and public money.
- Bill Wright, Director, Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, 483 Lawnmarket, Edinburgh; Nigel Hawkins, Director, John Muir Trust, Station Road, Pitlochry; Mark Adderley, Chief Executive, National Trust for Scotland, 28 Charlotte Square, Edinburgh; Dave Morris, Director, Ramblers' Association Scotland, Auld Mart Business Park, Milnathort; Alistair Cant, Co-ordinator, Scottish Wild Land Group, 8 Hartington Place, Edinburgh.
Dr Michael Kelleher (Letters, May 25) suggests hydro power is not a reliable source of energy. Has he ever been to Norway? Currently one of the most successful countries in the world, it gets all its electricity from hydro power. He also suggests that hydro does not produce large amounts of electricity. Does he know that more electricity is generated worldwide by hydro than by nuclear?
As for despoliation of the landscape, Norway's hydro does not scare away any visitors to that most beautiful country.
The hydro power built in Scotland in the middle of the past century was the best energy investment we have ever made. It gives us the cheapest electricity on our grid and provides valuable flexibility and storage capacity to work alongside inflexible nuclear or the intermittent renewables such as wind. There is evidence that we could double our present hydro capacity.
- Kerr MacGregor, 31 Temple Village, Midlothian.
Dorothy Sinclair asks why we do not use more hydro power. The answer is that all viable economic sites have been developed. The last hydro development in Scotland was a small scheme at Loch Doon by ScottishPower. Hydro power is not cheap; it is highly capital intensive to develop. Scottish Hydro gets the major part of its output from hydro power and the price it sells its units at is cheaper than anybody else.
On costs, I can do no better than quote a previous letter by Sir Donald Miller, past chairman of SSEB: "No other significant power source can match nuclear costs. For wind, adding to the energy purchase price, the Renewable and Climate Change Levy subsidies, the costs of providing stand-by generation as well as the extra transmission (£6bn in Scotland alone), the Scottish consumer is paying four times the cost of power from British Energy's Scottish reactors, and that includes provision for eventual decommission and waste disposal."
Rather than worry about hydro power, Ms Sinclair might do better to worry about when Hunterston and Torness close, removing 5000Mw from supply. From where will this loss be replaced? Alex Salmond thinks we can do it by a million turbines on our homes. When he puts the first one on his home he will find on average it will produce half the power needed to boil a kettle and, of course, in his world you will be making your tea in the dark.
- Gerry Carlton, 6 Allan Glen Gardens, Bishopbriggs.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article