Your commentsWe welcome your comments about the powerline project, the pylons, the website or anything else you feel is relevant.
Comments will be moderated and we reserve the right not to publish.
If possible we will publish the comments with a reply to answer any queries.
Post a comment / questionEnergy From Permanent Magnet motors IGNORED
Why have the governments of the world IGNORED "Zero-Point" energy from magnets? Ridiculously simple to make a generator from a wheel with magnets on that spins continuously-see Japan Magnetic Fan company. There is an AGENDA going on. Is that why wave-power is being ignored too? Was prof Salter's Duck sabotaged? | | From | Reply | Sent 15/02/2007 |
overhead wires anathema
When did overhead wires and towers become anathema in the UK? I lived 50 years in a country where overhead wires and cellphone (mobile) towers are ubiquitous and did not find them a visual problem at all.
"Quite often, from my personal experience, we don't notice what the incomer or passer-by balks at. We had pylons across the farm, but only noticed them as a nuisance when ploughing, sowing and combining, not as a blot on the landscape," said Fordyce Maxwell.
I DO NOT object to the Beauly-Denny electricity transmission line because it will be evidence that Scotland is truly a 21st Century country with the necessary infrastructure for a high standard of living while striving to minimising the carbon footprint of the UK.
| | From | Reply | Sent 15/02/2007 |
Re:- overhead wires anathema
Dear Russell
50 year old technology no longer cuts the mustard with climate change. Road closures due to unstable pylons, road closures due to broken cables news reports this year already! Higher winds in winter and higher precipitation in winter (ie snow on the hills) is our likely lot with climate change according to the government predictions. A 21st century outlook would be undergrounding cables. It is not a 21st century solution putting bare wires higher in the air and more at risk of outages (power cuts) due to weather. I personally would not want to stand in the way of progress.
Cameron | | From | Reply | Sent 19/02/2007 |
go by train
Electrify the main railway line from inverness to the central belt via Stirling, exactly the route of the 400kv megapylons.
Some modern electric railways use 50kv split in half to 25 kv for the trains. Put in larger catenary structures than usual on the railway ( wider not higher) and you would get at least 10 50 kv cables along the entire railway route.
As well as an electrified 25 kv railwayline from southern europe to inverness, you save the ugliness of the megapylons or the massive cost of undergrounding the 400kv.
Down side is the power loss, at 50kv it is very great compared to 400 kv. But the envirmental gain would be worth the power loss which is about a million pounds of electricity a year approx. | | From | Reply | Sent 08/02/2007 |
levante sin cables aereos
We are a pressure gtoup in Spain aattempting to moobilise support just like you. You have a great logo. WOuld you mind if I lifted the picture of the pylon diggiing for my membership logo_
Many thanks
Jeanne Henny | | From | Reply | Sent 07/02/2007 |
MEPs
Can we extend the campaign to the Scottish MEPs? And bring the issue to the European Parliament? I am willing to assit.Sincerely John Huff | | From | Reply | Sent 06/02/2007 |
HVDC or HVAC?
I read, in the Scotsman, that the Lewis to Beauly section is now going to be High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) because of the unacceptably high losses if HVAC was used.
It is rather strange that the Beauly to Denny section is a similar distance, or longer, but HVAC losses ARE acceptable over this section.
The lame excuse, put forward from the SHETL spokesman was that this point to point line had to 'pick up'extra power at three points along the route. One of these points is, of course SSE's Glendoe Hydro Scheme, currently under construction. The turbine's output could easily be rectified (converted from HVAC to HVDC) and put straight into the line at this point - so why does SHETL not do just that?
The main reason is that the Glendoe scheme is being constucted as a 'renewable energy system' for which huge tax breaks are available but it is actually a pumped storage scheme in waiting. Once all the subsidies and grants have been safely banked a future and desperate energy deprived Scotland will be more than willing to allow SSE to 'convert' the station to pumped storage. (By 'convert'I mean 'by the flick of a switch')
The 'cheap' incoming HVDC power from nuclear stations and, intermittently, from the Western Isles would need to be converted back to HVAC to run the pumps - and it is this expense, to SSE, that is preventing them from putting in the HVDC line all the way from Lewis to Denny.
In short, the mega-pylons are being proposed to run down the spine of Scotland so that SSE can save a few quid on the construction of a conversion station at Glendoe.
Further, the claimed output of the downsized wind farms on Lewis, as with all wind farms, is exagerated by a factor of two. It is not generally known that a 2MW wind turbine operates at a capacity of 400kW for almost 45%of the year and for just 2MW for less than 6%. The sealed meters will read what they are supposed to read because one in every two units is electricity taken straight off the grid to compensate.
This makes the construction of the line in the first place unjustified and may well make Little Loch Broom an ideal site for a nuclear power station once this HVDC interconnector and conversion station is installed along its shores.
The 'renewable energy story' is just one red herring out of a full barrel of them!
| | From | Reply | Sent 26/12/2006 |
Thank you!!!
This post is just a simply thank you on behalf of those of us that were unable (for whatever reason) to attend the council meeting on 12th April to further our objections to the various unacceptable aspects of this project.
We are indebted to those of you that were able to attend, either just to wear your t-shirt, wave your banner or to make a personal plea to those in the chamber.
Your work has not gone un-noticed and for those of us that would like to have been there, but couldn't - we thank you most sincerely for representing our views...clearly so well! | | From | Reply | Sent 13/04/2006 |
Planning Committee 12 April
I wished to let fellow protestors know that I have a 4 minute slot at the hearing tomorrow and to wish everyone the best of luck. | | From | Reply | Sent 11/04/2006 |
A more sinister motive?
Was I right, or was I right?
On 23 November I wrote on this comments page that I could not understand that the mega power lines were simply for windfarms and added: "I suspect this proposed powerline has a more sinister motivation. Is the current political talk not of the need for new nuclear power stations? Jack McConnell has not specifically ruled one out in Scotland."
And now the cat is finally out of the bag. On Sunday 26 February, the Labour Party's Scottish conference in Aviemore endorsed a resolution backing the replacement or renewal of nuclear power stations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4753534.stm
My fear is Dounreay 2
Robert Stewart, Glen Urquhart
| | From | Reply | Sent 27/02/2006 |
Planning Committee Presentations
Today I received a letter from Andrew Brown, Development Control, Highland Council in connection with my acceptance of their offer to appear at the Planning Committee Hearing to present my objection. Those of you who also took up this offer will have received the same such letter. Attached to the letter is a list of the 131 names who did so asking us to nominate 6 or 7 people from amongst the list to speak on behalf of the group to the whole committeee as the council wish to avoid repetition and could we do so by the 6th March. You can imagine my disgust at such a cynical approach.
Firstly I believe they may have breached data protection by enclosing all objectors names and addresses. But most impoortantly we are not a group or organisation who can organise ourselves and nominate spokespersons in that way. We are 131 individuals. Their assumption that it would avoid repetition is just that, as for all they know we may be 131 people with 131 different reasons for wishing to make presentations. This reasoning reflects the poor understanding of the issue by Highland Council and their approach to dealing with communities of people and communtiies of interest. I will be writing to the Highland Council to let them know that I still wish to take up my offer to make a presentation to the committee and I will be arriving on the day. They made the offer clearly underestimating the response but their solution is unacceptable. They should with such an important issue be prepared to take the time to hear all arguments in order to make informed decisions. I urge everyone on the list to do the same. I have spoken to Charles Kennedy and will be copying my letter to him, along with my local councilor and MSP. This is a cynical attempt to gag constituent views as they know what they are asking cannot be achieved and nor should it!
Alison Cairns
Wester Balblair
Beauly | | From | Reply | Sent 16/02/2006 |
Re:- Planning Committee Presentations
Re: Plannimg Meeting with Highland Council.
How can we choose a limited amount of people to represent us when amongst the names provided there are groups such as the Ramblers Ass., The John Muir Trust and other large associations. We all have individual comments which may be repetitious but how the hell do we know without listen to each of those persons on the list. Any bright ideas anyone. I have spoken to the Highland Council and am under the impression this is a cynical trick to reduce our authority. I very much hope I am wrong here but it was admitted that there was a political agenda at work. | | From | Reply | Sent 22/02/2006 |
Lochluichart and Corriemoillie windfarms
I would like to bring to your attention the proposed windfarms at Lochluichart and Corriemoillie which, if they go ahead, will strengthen the case for pylons to be constructed from Ullapool and also open the flood gates for more windfarms along the pylon route. Please take time to look at our website and lodge an objection:
www.a-windfarm-too-far.com
Harry
| | From | Reply | Sent 03/02/2006 |
Wayleaves
A representative of S&SE visited me today, his purpose being to persuade me to sign a document to agee to cables passing over my land ( albeit a 10 foot strip).He said they have to have all wayleaves signed before achieving permission satage. If we agreed they would fund all costs involved. He also offered the carrot that we would also receive compensation for disruption to fishing. if we objected they would not.Is that pressure or what?I felt that if they had not been given the go ahead by the Scottish Executive why should I be forced to sign anything?
Anyone got any suggestions on the best way to deal with this? | | From | Reply | Sent 31/01/2006 |
Re:- Wayleaves
Re Howard Johnson and wayleave 'offer'. I'd have thought the best thing is not to sign anything given that they don't have permission yet for the line and agreements at this stage would seem to indicate agreement with the project. Seems illogiocal that they should have to have wayleaves agreed in advance of permission.
| | From | Reply | Sent 07/02/2006 |
Letter from Deputy Minister
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please find attached copy of a letter from the Deputy Minster for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning regarding the proposed transmission line upgrade, for your information.
Mary Scanlon MSP would be very happy to receive your comments and response to this letter, and to continue her correspondence with you throughout the consultation process, working to oppose the construction of mega-pylons on the beautiful Highland landscape.
With best wishes
Stephen McCabe
Parliamentary Aide to Mary Scanlon MSP
|The Scottish Parliament |Edinburgh | EH99 1SP |
t. 0131 34 85612 f. 0131 34 86482 | | From | Reply | Sent 19/01/2006 |
Query to SSE
Dear Mr Young
I contacted you in November 2005 in connection with the new Beauly to Denny high voltage overhead cable. In that email I put forward my idea that you consider placing the cable under ground along side the rail track South, inside the existing fenceline. Thus saving money and time. This proposal would provide great environmental benefits not only for SSE but the pressure groups opposing the overhead lines.
I would like to hear you thoughts on my proposal and if it would be for interest to you | | From | Reply | Sent 18/01/2006 |
Re:- Query to SSE
Dear Mr Mclean,
Thank you for your email. The many difficulties associated with placing extra high voltage electricity transmission lines are set out in the independent report commissioned by The Highland Council, Cairngorms National Park Authority and Scottish Natural Heritage, which is available at the council's website. SSE believes the proposals submitted in the planning applications to Scottish Ministers are optimal, taking into account all of the relevant factors, including the environmental issues.
Yours sincerely,
Alan Young | | From | Reply | Sent 18/01/2006 |
Joined up thinking?
Why don't you ask if they have talked to Network rail about using the rail route for under-grounding the whole route from Beauly to Denny and work together to upgrade both the Power Grid and the Rail Network to the south with additional rail lines and electrification of the system. Providing greater benefits to the highlands and better value for money spent. Or is this too much like joined up thinking.
All the way underground from North to South alongside an upgraded rail network as the Pentland Firth wave generation potential can power all of Scotland's Electrical power requirements and some. | | From | Reply | Sent 09/01/2006 |
Learn from the French
I compile a database for the Ski Club of Great Britain from my base in Kiltarlity. The database looks at what the world's leading ski resorts are doing to minimise their environmental impact. In The French Three Valleys, the world's biggest ski area and a major area of natural beauty and tourism destination (Sound familiars) ALL PLAYERS have a policy to: "put over ground power cables under ground." That's existing power cables, let alone new ones. It seems to make sense to everypone else in the world, only in the Highlands would such an insane idea as sticking up huge pylons across the landscape be suggested outside April Fools Day.
| | From | Reply | Sent 13/12/2005 |
A Message of Support from Charles Kennedy MP, Danny Alexander MP and John Farquhar Munro MSP.
Statement to ‘Pylon Pressure’ march from Balblair to Beauly
December 10th 2005
We are sorry not to be there with you today, but we wanted to send a message of support to your campaign.
You have made a very strong case for your objectives, and I hope that SSE will be receptive to the strength of community feeling on this issue.
We believe electricity transmission offers real promise for the future of the Highlands and Islands. It can allow us to export renewable power to the benefit of our local economy and the global environment as a whole. There are exciting possibilities, especially for as yet under-developed technologies which will harness the waves and the tides.
But Beauly, Kiltarlity, Kilmorack and Kirkhill need a fair hearing. These proposals need serious scrutiny and we have some big questions waiting for answers.
For example, in the case of the Ullapool to Beauly pylons, the sub-sea cable proposed by AMEC seems a much more attractive option. Has this option been discounted from the outset and, if so, why?
We also need to be convinced about the true costs for under-grounding; we need firm figures based on the most up-to-date technologies, not incomplete and changing estimates.
The people of this area have lived with the existing pylon network for many years. The least you are owed is a proper hearing. We need to know that each part of the line will be looked at on its merits. The clear case which you have made for under-grounding near Balblair deserves serious consideration and a clear answer.
We wish you luck with your campaign, and good wishes for Christmas and the New Year. | | From | Reply | Sent 09/12/2005 |
small is beautiful
I feel sorry for the people who live around Barvas Moor as much as anyone, with a huge, industrial urban-sized development on their small number of doorsteps.
Is it not possible to provide energy on a small, bespoke scale, with each community (urban and rural) having a way of creating its own clean energy, and selling any excess to the grid with profits fed back to the community (leaving corporate capitalism out of the picture entirely).
Garve is right - we all want to save the planet, we hugely welcome renewable energy, but many of us think that by doing it on such a large scale we are sacrificing too much.
The Excecutive must call a halt, and set up a think tank which will create a clear thinking, joined up, sustainable power policy for the whole of Scotland, sustainable transport policy for the whole of Scotland, sustainable land policy for the whole of Scotland and so forth.
And they should be brave enough, open enough, and humble enough to resist corporate pressure and take the time to do it properly.
This kind of vision is what we all dreamt of when we voted for a Scottish Parliament on that hopeful September day in 1997. | | From | Reply | Sent 08/12/2005 |
Money Makes the World go Around
In his article (Scotsman 7 December) Maf Smith the Chief Executive of
Scottish Reneawables has raised the bar in the debate over our energy
needs in Scotland, but only the bar represented by an attitude that
is patronising and self serving. To call those who have an opposing
view to his over the question of our energy needs as having a
Brigadoon view is ridiculous. He attempts to characterise those who
object as a minority who are trying to hold back development.
I have been proud to be amongst the minority who have continually
argued for a reasoned debate on our energy needs, and in particular
the proliferation of wind farms. I would also have been one of the
96% who supported the development of renewable energy in the Scottish
Renewables survey.. My argument continues to be that we have gone
hell for leather into the construction of wind farms to the detriment
of other opportunities. For me the argument is simple, it's about
money. Money the developers receive in subsidies, the huge amounts of
money that the landowners receive for turbines on their land, and
money that is waved in front of communities to hush them up.
There are a number of other points to take issue with in Mr Smith's
homily to Scotland but let me just make two points. Not once does he
mention anywhere in his article that we should be looking to save
energy, but why would he? The people who support Scottish Renewables
are only interested in producing more electricity, so that they make
more money. Finally could he stop trying to pretend that he is simply
concerned about what is good for Scotland. The upgrade of the Beauly
to Denny power line is not an improvement on the existing scheme; it
will be devastating to the Highlands. If he truly embraced change he
would be arguing for the lines to be buried.
Oh, and one last point. Think about why he wants the line upgraded.
Only then can they build more, and more, wind farms to connect into
the grid, so that the vast excess of energy produced in Scotland can
be exported. More money for Mr Smith and his cronies.
Yours
Richard Havers
| | From | Reply | Sent 07/12/2005 |
Re:- Money Makes the World go Around
Before reading Richard's comment I had sent this to the CE of Scottish Renewables
================================
Dear Mr Smith
I'm writing re your press release today where you quote:-
76% agreed that "it is important that the national grid accommodates new renewable schemes to generate electricity so that old conventional plants like coal fired power stations can be replaced"
and also say
"The 76% figure clearly challenges claims put out by the anti-pylons lobby of major popular opposition to the Beauly-Denny plan."
I feel you have distorted the findings of this poll in a way which will alienate many people who should be your supporters.
Over 1400 objections to the current plans for Beauly/Denny have been posted through the Pylon Pressure website (www.pylonpressure.com) and this is likely to be only a small percentage of the total objections received by the Highland Council and the Scottish Executive.
I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of these objectors would agree with the statement from your poll - ie that "it is important that the national grid accommodates new renewable schemes to generate electricity so that old conventional plants like coal fired power stations can be replaced". Supporting renewable energy and objecting to the current plans are not mutually exclusive.
It is very important for the future of this country that we encourage renewable energy. It is equally important for the future that we protect our landscape, wildlife and health. Your article presents yourself and your organisation as being unable to consider that a solution can be found which will suit both purposes.
I am left feeling that your organisation, which I would by nature have sympathy for, is interested only in quick profits and not in the good of the country as a whole.
I will be posting this letter on the Pylon Pressure website and will also copy it to each of your members.
Yours faithfully
Garve Scott-Lodge
==============================
The full press release can be found on
www.scottishrenewables.com
| | From | Reply | Sent 07/12/2005 |
Map of Saturday's 10.1.2.05 March
I have spoken several people who are interested to join your march this coming Saturday but like me don't know where exactly this Balblair Sub-station is located. May I suggest that you add a map of the march (area) on your web-page as soon as possible. Thank you and good luck. | | From | Reply | Sent 07/12/2005 |
Re:- Map of Saturday's 10.1.2.05 March
We will be adding further details of the march shortly. This will, hopefully, include information about parking and how to get there. There will be a link from the 'Welcome' page, 'Protest March' banner. | | From | Reply | Sent 07/12/2005 |
Re:- Map of Saturday's 10.1.2.05 March
We are pleased you are keen to join Saturday's march. Parking will be available close to Phipps Hall in Beauly... a bus shuttle service will be operating to take people to the Balblair sub-station a short distance away. There will be no parking facilities available at the sub-station. We will march from Balblair back to Phipps Hall which should take no more than 30 minutes. | | From Pylon Pressure | Reply | Sent 07/12/2005 |
Highland Council & the Precautionary Principle
During the public inquiry into the visitor centre at Urquhart Castle, Highland Council made strong use of the Precautionary Principle in their opposition to the plans. We have submitted a lengthy objection but I just wanted to bring to your action group’s attention the second point of our letter to John Rennilson as I hope it provides you with strong ammunition. Here it is:
The powerlines will run close to homes and schools placing adults’ and children’s health in danger. During the Public Inquiry that took place to decide if Historic Scotland should be permitted to build the monstrous visitor centre at Urquhart Castle, Highland Council stated that the Precautionary Principle should apply and therefore something that might harm the environment should not be built. Whatever could have been said about Historic Scotland’s plans, they could not have been said to have presented a potentially grave risk to children’s health and yet, quite correctly, Highland Council felt that the possible damage to the environment alone warranted the implementation of the Precautionary Principle. Indeed, in his Final Submission on behalf of the council to that Public Inquiry on 15th June 1998, Mr. A F Simpson said,
“There can be no doubt that there will be a significant change in the environment and setting of the Castle. If there is any risk that the impact will be detrimental then in my submission, that is sufficient for applying the precautionary principle and refusing permission for this development.”
In the case of these proposed powerlines there is not only the risk of damage to the environment but also the grave potential risk to children’s health. It must therefore be right for Highland Council once again to uphold the Precautionary Principle – this time to protect human health as well as the environment - and to force a Public Inquiry where these issues can be properly aired.
Please note: The final submission of Highland Council to the Urquhart Castle Public Inquiry is available online in full at: http://www.lochness.co.uk/castle/PI/council%20submission.html
| | From | Reply | Sent 07/12/2005 |
Rural Gateway Poll
Visitors to this site might be interested to know that the Rural Community Gateway poll is currently asking:
Which do you think is the best option for cables carrying high voltage energy from large windfarms?
The voting options are: subsea cable, selective undergrounding, complete undergrounding, above the ground, none of these
See www.ruralgateway.org.uk/poll/
There is also a forum for comments.
| | From | Reply | Sent 07/12/2005 |
Further info
In case anyone's interested in finding out more about the pylons effect in the Highlands, try searching for www.hbp.org.uk or Highlands before Pylons. The West Coast has been my home and i would hate to see the wild and beautiful landscape scared by huge pylons. Thank you | | From Fiona | Reply | Sent 05/12/2005 |
Xmas lights turn-on turn-out
Unfortuntately underwhelmed by turnout for Pylon Pressure at switch on of lights. I believe there may have been an anouncement to be made but at that moment the council turned the power off to the microphone!!! Am busy lobbying our MP's, both Scottish and Westminster, by mail. Rumours abound that a sea route is now being considered! If true great but I suspect more a divide and conquer shot from the legal beagles at SSE. Look back at Public Enquiry regarding Hydro at Strathfarrer. Biggest fiasco out. Whitewash only! Be warned. If we get an enquiry, it must be on open terms. Not a rigged game like certain recent enquiries in the south! John Graham | | From | Reply | Sent 02/12/2005 |
Waste Line
Thanks to the Scottish Executive we have a statutory entitlement to enjoy free access to the hills, embodying in legislation the traditional access rights enjoyed by all. Concurrently the Scottish Executive have empowered sportscotland to deliver objectives which will improve Scotland's sporting performance on the world stage. There is also the challenge of improving health through exercise in the outdoors. These efforts are offset against the insignificant benefits that land-based windfarm energy offers in terms of renewables. Land-based windfarms offer no real benefits. No real jobs. No real reduction in carbon emissions. No cost savings. No economic benefits. They do offer a benefit to SSE in terms of tradable certificates. Who WILL benefit from the pylons? YOU decide.
| | From | Reply | Sent 01/12/2005 |
Not in my garden!
11:06:34:20
I think, it is wrong to put these pylons up. I object strongly and I am going to stop them.
In my younger days I would of stood by and watched this happen, not now.
They are NOT going to put these pylons up near beauly and that is that. End of story.
I am going to do everything I can within my power to stop them.
The power companies should take note, this one's a live one and I will no longer watch companies rip our countryside to bits for profit.
PS, until you have worked on them you do not realise the true hight of these structures.
We all know they are wrong, obviously they do not care. I do.
| | From | Reply | Sent 01/12/2005 |
I live in Carluke, within two miles of a massive wind farm development in South Lanarkshire. These turbines do not operate much of the time as there are often days with no wind. They are however massive, dwarfing the regular sized pylons around here. It is quite unclear as to where power generated is going. Habitat has been destroyed despite what Scottish Power claims. The land around the vast area has been denuded. They are visible from many miles around, from all points of the compass.
We are seeing a proliferation of such projects in Scotland and now face these huge pylons being erected in the Highlands. Is Scotland once again to be used thoughtlessly?
A gas pipeline has also been recently laid in our general area, covering many miles, I believe originating near the Forth. My point here is that these pipes are underground and the land restored. I would like the developers to give a credible reason, other than their wallets, why this cannot be done in the Highland case. I doubt if they can.
The Scottish Parliament has to speak out on these issues. I am not aware if this issue is part of devolved powers or not, however the time for toadying to Westminster is over. We did not vote for a Parliament to do that. In light of Mr. Blair's speech about nuclear power yesterday, we in Scotland as a whole have to engage in this debate about energy. It is not, I respectfully submit, only a Highland issue, or a Central belt issue. MSP's, remember what S stands for!
Derek Scott
| | From | Reply | Sent 30/11/2005 |
Visit offered - view a 212' mast.
The following offer has been received from Kevin Chisholm. If anyone would like to take up the offer you can contact him on bethsofbeauly@aol.com.
I dont know if it is of any use but I work at Mt.Eagle transmitting station on the Black Isle (on top of the hill between Culbokie and Munlochy) where we have a 760 ft mast. If you think it would be of any help to anyone to get a better prospective of what 220ft mast looks like I will be there next Saturday between 0900 & 1000 to give people access to the car park at the bottom, weather permitting (THIS CANNOT HAPPEN IF IT IS VERY FROSTY AND HAD BEEN RAINING AS THERE IS A VERY BIG RISK OF ICE FALLING FROM THE MAST IF THE SUN HITS IT) and it would not do to kill off potential objectors. Yours, Kevin Chisholm. | | From | Reply | Sent 27/11/2005 |
Letter from Charles Kennedy MP
The following letter from Charles Kennedy has been received by Anne-Mary Wharton :
Dear Mrs Wharton,
Thank you for your recent email regarding SSE plans to upgrade the Beauly to Denny transmission line.
I have previously made representations on behalf of the local community in Strathglass and also the residents of Kiltarlity and the surrounding area, making it clear that local opinion favoured an alternative route and the undergrounding of the line at sensitive points. To date, Scottish and Southern Energy have not taken on board the concerns of local residents.
I have now contacted the Scottish Executive to make the Minister aware of the community's wish to secure a Public Inquiry.
A Public Inquiry can only be triggered if one of the statutory consultees considers that issues remain unaddressed following the outcome of the various consultations. I am not a statutory consultee; these are groups such as the Highland Council and SNH.
I will write again just as soon as I have further information.
Meantime, with best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Charles Kennedy MP | | From | Reply | Sent 24/11/2005 |
Letter from Jamie McGrigor MSP
The following letter from Jamie McGrigor has been received by Anne-Mary Wharton:
Dear Anne-Mary,
I congratulate you all on a very powerful meeting last night which will undoubtedly serve as a warning to S & SE that they will have to take heed of local opinion, especially around Beauly.
Somebody mentioned having a march,when is it and would you like me to try and attend?
Kind regards
Jamie | | From | Reply | Sent 24/11/2005 |
Loch Ness LiveCam site offers support
We attended the Action Meeting on Monday and were delighted to see so many people filling Beauly village hall to offer their support. Our website is very popular and gets a huge number of visitors from Scotland and around the world. We were part of a huge campaign against the awful new visitor centre that has blighted Urquhart Castle. During that campaign our website received many thousands of signatures to its "e-petition". We have added a link to your Pylon Pressure campaign and I will be writing several pieces throughout our website urging people to visit your site and sign your e-petition. Good luck folks and see you at the demonstration! | | From | Reply | Sent 23/11/2005 |
Re:- Loch Ness LiveCam site offers support
Thank you for your idea and support. Can we have Nessie sign a post card? !
regards
brendan | | From | Reply | Sent 25/11/2005 |
A more sinister motive?
I simply do not understand that all this environmental damage is to do with the Lewis windfarm. The good people of Barvas must be in turmoil knowing their community is being held up as somehow responsible.
Was it not just as recently as the 1980s that a West Highland Free Press campaign objecting to pylons across Skye was successful on environmental grounds and resulted in the compromise of two parallel low-level wooden-poles conveying electricity down the Great Glen, across Skye and under the sea to the Western Isles?
So is the Western Isles to be importing and exporting electricity simultaneously? Preposterous.
I suspect this proposed powerline has a more sinister motivation. Is the current political talk not of the need for new nuclear power stations? Jack McConnell has not specifically ruled one out in Scotland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4458970.stm
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/51207.html
Robert Stewart, Glen Urquhart
| | From | Reply | Sent 23/11/2005 |
Think about it
Dear (Sir)
I would like to make a comment. I am a child from the United States of America. I believe that you should bury the powerlines because if you dont you are possibly taking someones life from them. How would u feel if u were in that situation. I think you would probably want it buried also. So please treat others how you would want to be treated. And also please think about if Jesus Christ would want u to do that(to harm peoples lives) i dont think so
Thank You for reading my comment
May God bless your decision | | From | Reply | Sent 22/11/2005 |
NO pylons needed
Dear Sir/Madam.
Renewable energy is supposed to be protecting the environment Not destroying it.Why don't they run the power line underground right next to the railway track ,the area is fenced off and the cable would fit easily next to the track .The insulation would be simple as the cable would be carried by train and the digging at crossing would be miminual . Cheers | | From | Reply | Sent 22/11/2005 |
WHY???
Dear sir, madam,
Because my family in law is Scottish, I am a few times in a year in your beautiful country. As general manager of a big regional Tourist Board in the Netherlands. everytime I envie my scottish collegues because I realize hów much you country has to offer and HOW much Scotland still has of that what most countries don't have anylonger: unspoilt scenery. The plan with the pylons will spoilt that scenery forever, because once they're built, there's no way back. Please don't let this happen, it would really be a bloody shame for a country where tourism is so important for local, regional and national economy!
I wish Pylon Pressure all the succes they need to prevent this plans!!!
Regards,
Jos M.A. Caubo
| | From | Reply | Sent 21/11/2005 |
What is the point of creating further eyesores
Don,t you think the A9 looks bad enough with existing pylons? Also our countryside and views are world known. Why destroy the Tourist Industry, because that is what you will be doing. | | From | Reply | Sent 19/11/2005 |
Cannich Nature Reserve...what's the point?
Richard Wood of Cannich Bridge contacted the helpline to comment that more new homes are being built in Cannich as people obviously want to live in the area. The area is a Nature Reserve which is part of the attraction. Do they realise the effect giant pylons will have. | | From | Reply | Sent 15/11/2005 |
Why?
Why is any consideration being given to the planning consent when there is as yet no consent given to the Isle of Lewis Wind Farms for which these Pylons are being built. The RSPB have said that if the Scottish Executive give planning permission then they will take them to the European Court.
As yet there has not been any response to where the Pylons from Ulapool to Beauley are going.Does any one know?
I live at Scatwell and think that the Highlands have more than done there share of supplying power to the South. | | From | Reply | Sent 12/11/2005 |
Re:- Why?
Planning consent for the Beauly-Denny line is being sought by SHETL now as they maintain that with an existing 1.5 GMW of renewable generation already built and connected, little more generation can be connected without an upgrade to the existing grid. SHETL maintain that with the new line, by 2008 3.6GW can be connected (excluding any generation from the Western Isles) rising to 5.5GW by 2011 (including 1.1GW from the Western Isles). There is however some contradiction in the figures quoted by SHETL, Scottish Power and Ofgem in terms of how much generation is forseen in Scotland. At present, Ofgem have given their approval to the investment required in Beauly-Denny line but have held back approving the proposed upgrade to the interconnector to England and the proposed 400kV line from Beauly to Keith. Scottish Power, having become concerned that planning consent for Beauly-Denny could take several years, have decided to seek approval from Ofgem for the upgrade to the interconnector to England to be given the go ahead in 2006 based upon planned renewable connections in their area. They claim that there are applications for 6 GW of wind farms in the south of Scotland and the advantage is that they are closer to demand centres so transmission costs are lower. If Ofgem accepts that 6GW could connect in the south of Scotland, then it would put into question how much needs to be connected within SSE's area. The Western Isles are forecast to have a capacity of 1.1GW and if this gets planning approval the power could be transmitted by a DC undersea cable to the south of Scotland (which would avoid the need for an Ullapool-Beauly line). This then raises the question of the need for a 400kV double circuit line between Beauly to Denny capable of transmitting the initial 2.3GW and the additional 3.2 GW envisaged by SSE to be transmitted via Beauly-Denny or Beauly-Keith. | | From | Reply | Sent 14/11/2005 |
Re:- Why?
Surely all these Power companies should be made to wait to see the outcome of all there planning applications before any consideration is given to this new power line, as once it is up it will not come down and it gives them more leeway over further applications.
They do not get all there planing applications passed and there is no guarantee of them getting all this power.
It is becoming obvious that wind power is not as good as expected and is very costly to produce. It seems mainly that government (UK) pressure on the power companies to produce "Green Power" is hitting Scotland with the easy option.
We here at Scatwell are fighting against a Industrial Wind-farm by us on Fairburn, and with a lot of people objecting we are hoping to win.
It is about time that Governments and big business listened to people as we are the ones who are effected, it will never be in there back yard. | | From | Reply | Sent 14/11/2005 |
Re:- Why?
The proposals for the upgraded powerlines and the proliferation of wind farms are very much interconnected. Without the wind farms the powerlines are unnecessary; without the powerline upgrade the power from the wind farms cannot be transmitted.
This is why it is important to object to both. The more opposition the better. Even if it only results in a delay to the approval process, this allows time in which circumstances may change making the proposals less attractive.
Since 5 November, when this site went live, we have counted 400 objections on-line, many with multiple names. In addition, there have been a large number of postal objections. This indicates the level of public concern on this matter. | | From | Reply | Sent 15/11/2005 |
Health effects of buried power lines
Quoting from your FAQ:
""
22. Isn’t it even more dangerous to people and the environment to put powerlines underground?
Absolutely not. There is a proven link between childhood leukaemia and proximity to overhead high voltage powerlines.
It is reported that the exposure to the powerline when underground will be the same at only three feet as the exposure from it overhead at 300 feet
""
Reported by who? How much research has been done into the effects of buried lines? Given that the ground is almost transparent to 50Hz EM radiation (and the first few harmonics which are likely to be present to some extent) I am sceptical as to the health benefits of burying the cables, but would be interested to see a list of your sources. | | From | Reply | Sent 11/11/2005 |
Re:- Health effects of buried power lines
The internet is awash with studies into EMFs. Useful UK sources are
http://www.emfs.info/default.asp and also
http://www.electric-fields.bris.ac.uk/
The key points are that underground cables produce no electric field,
whereas an OHL does. The electric field emitted by an OHL can though be
reduced be screening from trees, hedges, buildings etc.
Both OHL and underground cables produce a magnetic field and it cannot be
"screened" so easily. Underground cables can produce higher magnetic fields
directly above them than an OHL (although this does depend on the depth of
the trench and whether the cables are directly buried or encased in
concrete) but these fall rapidly either side so 10 metres either side of the
cable the magnetic field is neglible. For OHLs the magnetic field is not
neglible until some 150-200 metres away from the line.
An underground cable along the proposed Beauly-Denny route is very unlikely
to be within 10 metres of an existing property, whereas the propsed OHL is
due to be routed within 200 metres of around 80 properties.
| | From | Reply | Sent 14/11/2005 |
Alternatives
Fighting the Pylons
The Jacobs Babtie report commissioned by the Highland Council on undergrounding the power transmission cables is clear and concise but its content remains within its remit to study existing technology in order to determine if there is a reasonable alternative to overhead power transmission.
It has often been said that necessity is the mother of invention and if an effective new technology could be found to solve this problem of ours then it certainly would be worth considering. I see no need to rush into a decision to use existing technology at this stage. We should set aside a reasonable time period and provide sufficient funding to research new alternatives. If a suitable new alternative could be found then that technology could be sold on to other parties possibly covering the cost of research and reducing the cost of implementation.
Are there alternatives though? I believe so. The requirement is to transport renewable energy from the Highlands of Scotland to a point in the Central Belt where it can be fed into the national electricity grid during peak periods. While electricity is a convenient form of energy for transportation there are other forms of energy including heat.
Scotland has also a surfeit of water while England remains under the threat of extended droughts during summer. There has been talk of providing England with Scottish water to fight this threat. Heat plus water gives us steam and perhaps there is the potential to look at this form of energy transport system as an alternative.which would meet not only the energy transportation requirements but also some of the water requirements of England as well.
It sounds a ridiculous proposition I know but I have worked in a conventional coal fired station that generates 3.6 gigawatts from 6 units so I know the size of the steam pipe required to transport 600 MW of power and its not that big. As an engineer I know about the problems associated with steam lines over any extended length, water hammer, expansion, warming through etc but as I said at the start necessity is the mother of invention and maybe these can be solved or have already been solved elsewhere.
Talking about ridiculous propositions, what about the person who first suggested building an oil pipeline 800 miles across Alaska?
Of course this is only one alternative from my fertile imagination but it is an example of alternative methods that could be found and researched. I strongly suggest that more time be given to research new ideas and perhaps show the world that Scotland is still an innovative nation capable of producing ground breaking new technology.
| | From Jusmasel | Reply | Sent 05/11/2005 |
|
|
