UKC

Are the enormous Earba and Fearna hydro projects merely the thin end of an ever bigger wedge? In a planning free-for-all for energy in Scotland, where will we draw the line? It's not yet too late to shed light on the murky world of Highland mega-energy, says Jane Meek, but time is running out for our wild land.

Read more

Is it really wild or the remnants of over grazed baron land..?

I haven't a better solution, but energy is needed, if 'green' energy is required it needs to come from somewhere. 

It would be amazing to see the Highlands fully re wilded and safe from large scale infrastructure, however we all demand modern lives which need power.. we can't want for it and complain about it simultaneously 

In the interests of balance, it would be useful to know who the author is (UKC profile registered yesterday, 7th July) and what their qualifications/ background are. There's often some such information provided at the end of similar opinion articles but in this instance,  there's nothing. 

Yes - at least the first half of the article is quite polemical, perhaps rightly so but for someone like me, who knows nothing about this beyond what I've read here, it does feel like the other side of the story is missing. 

The bit about the new green energy all just getting used up by cryptocurrency mining and AI might be true, but surely the solution there is regulation that stops wasteful or pointless energy usage, rather doing nothing and saying "we're ****ed already. Lets not do anything."

So what would you suggest? This is all a bit "Down with this sort of thing" - what alternatives are you suggesting? This appears to be a no to hydro and a no to onshore wind. Presumably then you're in favour of more north sea gas? More offshore wind? More nuclear? Or just a random "something else that's NIMBY"

Source and agenda needed please.

Pumped storage is pretty good if built like Dinorwic.  You hardly know it's there.

What an awful article. ( The first part at least, I stopped reading it after a while)

It's interesting that this article doesn't mention once that Loch Quoich (the lower body for the Fearna scheme) is an existing hydro scheme (SSE's biggest I believe). To call it 'wild land' you have to conveniently forget that it was flooded in 1962, and is already subject to large changes in water level. 

The idea that the floodgates will open for all of these schemes simultaneously is unrealistic as well, only the most financially viable will get the initial investment, and there isn't enough skilled workforce in the UK (and Ireland, importantly), to build more than a couple of these schemes simultaneously. 

That said, given that all of the schemes are getting proposed by separate private energy companies (SSE, Gilkes, StatKraft, DRAX, Stratera etc.), it does seem like decision making on which schemes are the most suitable (environmentally that is, not just economically) should be made at a higher level. Earba definitely wouldn't make the cut in that list.

I'm biased on this, but putting pressure on councils/ government to give priority to the better schemes, and then ensuring that those building them (probably me) do so in a sustainable way- that will get a lot better results than the the blanket NIMBY mindset. 

Dreadful NIMBYism to be quite honest.

What's worse? Flooding one or two lightly trafficced Corries and valleys, forcing a slightly longer walk around a new loch, or continuing on the path we're on now with extreme weather, degrading peat, wildfires in the highlands and multiplying pests (ticks) ruining all of our outdoor spaces? Not to even mention the global cost to lives that climate change is already causing. Plus the notion that many of these locations are even remotely close to "pristine wilderness" is a complete fiction in the UK.

Some compromises need to be made, and flooding a few valleys so that we can smooth out our renewables output and decarbonise our electricity grid is a fair price to pay.

Flooding a few more glens is infinitely better than anything coal related, or even building massive gas refining plants on uk coastlines to import it from the middle east, then burning bunker oil to get it here.

But they are still landscapes that we love despite all their imperfections. Many highland glens are already badly spoiled by the old hydro schemes. Do a few more matter? I don't know. Probably like wind farms (which I personally am much less bothered by scenically) there are places for them but definitely places I would never want to see them.

Well it's either this sort of project or nuclear, for continuos supply. Otherwise how are suppose to transition to net zero? As said above, Dinorwic works well and it doesn't bother me, but I don't live there so it's hard to say. If they decided to do one in my back yard in the Peak I would support the scheme, we all have to sacrify something to curve emissions, and let's face it, this is nothing compared to what the global south are having to go through. At present, 42 Fijian villages have been earmarked for potential relocation in the next five to 10 years due to sea level rise. 

I think with re-wilding of areas with hydro and pylons, the visual impact would be much reduced and the overall environment would be richer.

I do wish that, rather than spend all our energy on finding new places (always away from the big cities of course) to despoil, that some effort could be taken to actually REDUCE the amount of energy that is wasted due to people being rather free with the energy they have.

That is they leave machines "on standby", lights on, air conditioning in operation even when the doors/windows are open, moving way out into the countryside and then driving an EV 50 miles a day on the daily commute.

We keep producing more electricity each year by "eco" means, but we also increase our requirements each year "just because we can" - which is just plain waste.

It's the same with water - we treat millions of gallons a day (which needs electricity), and then heaven knows how much leaks out before it gets to the taps. If the leaks were fixed then the reservoirs would easily cope.

It's undoubtedly true that we could and should do more to reduce consumption, but it's also worth noting that the UK's electricity usage is actually (slowly) decreasing, partly due to the kind of measures you're advocating for.

I'm assuming it's the author of this letter https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18936328.letters-national-park-authorit... and this post https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&a...

I would rather have the water level go up and down a few meters every day, than have another hillside of wind turbines. As usual the devil is in the details. Lots of access roads and visible pipelines running for miles across the countryside wouldn't be great.

In a parallel universe, all these water companies, that are dumping shite everywhere, could be leaders in energy storage and generation. Water is pumped uphill for consumers, to maintain pressure. In lots of locations there are two or more cascaded reservoirs, so water could be pumped from one to the other. The pipework is already in place.

I think that water companies are too busy trying to please shareholders, to consider other ways of generating money for the shareholders.

Interesting, thanks for the links. 

My next question I suppose is: what is the course of events that leads to UKC publishing the article under its own name / banner? The author doesn't appear to work for UKC / UKH so how does UKC decide to publish what is ultimately,  just 'an opinion'?

I don't know their internal process for deciding what's worthy of publication, but it's certainly pretty common for them to publish articles written by non-employees so that isn't unusual in itself.

Hi Fraser,

Dan Bailey is out the office at the moment, so I thought I'd send a quick response in his absence.

Opinion pieces are exactly that - they're independent points of view from an individual contributor. I'd like to think we publish a pretty a varied selection over the years - sometimes for, sometimes against, and occasionally both (I've linked to a particularly good example below, which does exactly that).

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/opinions/grouse_moors_-_benign_tradi...

I'm not sure if we've got anything else in the pipeline on this particular subject, but given the strength of the feedback within this thread it seems like something logical for us to pursue.

I'll speak to Dan upon his return to the office and see what we can get sorted.

Something to note ecologically is that in steep-sided upland lochans, regular extreme level changes destroys a key zone in what is often an already very fragile nutrient-poor ecosystem. Most of the invertebrate and plant life exist near the edge, but won't survive repeated exposure/immersion. This will then largely sterilise the remaining ecosystem. There are lochans in Scotland where some of these ecosystems that have survived largely untouched since the last ice age. I suspect from the perspective of biodiversity, we'd be better creating new water bodies which although taking an area of ground, are unlikely to eliminate anything quite as rare.

Thanks Rob, I appreciate the huge effort that goes into preparing such articles,  particularly that one of Dan's you linked, so I'm not trying to detract from that. His UKH connection was tagged at the head of the article, so that was clear.

I was really just wondering how this particular article appeared under the UKC 'banner', without stating the author's credentials, particularly when she just registered yesterday. Maybe I've just not noticed similar omissions in previous features!

It would have been good to make clear that the author's comments about pumped hydro being nowhere near enough (from the Royal Society) is in respect to planning for extreme weather events in the future. i.e. This would be energy stored for months and months just in case we have a long term windless period (that may happen). 

This is not the normal role for pumped hydro and is a bit of a red-herring for the current demand. Government reports on the issue say we need 15GWh of pumped storage by 2050. These proposed pumped hydro schemes would add 4.9GW to the UK’s existing capacity of 2.8GW to give 7.7GWh. In other words they will have a dramatic affect on the capacity for alternative energy to be used. 

The hydrogen storage schemes are still only in feasibility study stage and even if it all gets approved, won't be delivering the sorts of scales of energy storage needed in the short term. Pumped storage is easy, known and quick to implement and engage. 

In the long term I agree with Jane that hydrogen storage is the way to move forward (just as tidal is the way for generation) but the fact is we aren't in a position to implement these yet. I also agree that the impact on the landscape is negative and I would much prefer it didn't happen. However, in terms of visual and environmental damage, I'd much prefer one or two of these large scenes than the massive proliferation of run of river hydro and small scale wind turbines that do massive damage for little gain (apart from for the land owners). 

Tim

p.s. As far as I was aware, the pumped storage proposals were the result of government studies into the best locations which were subsequently taken to the land owners. If there are more suitable places for pumped hydro, I'd love to know.

Pumped storage is a complement not an alternative to other forms of low-carbon (ie not fossil fuel) generation. It does not generate 'new' electricity, it merely stores it by pumping water from a low to a high reservoir using electricity that would not otherwise be used so that when there is a need for that electricity, the water can flow down again re-generating the power (at about 60% efficiency). Renewables (and nuclear) are not flexible in the way fossil generation is, so when additional power is needed, they cannot always be turned up or down so a decarbonised electricity system will need a lot more storage and for days, not just hours. Pumped storage is one choice, batteries and a few others are the options and choosing which will be a difficult calculation. Dinorwig is very big by pumped storage standards but it can only operate at full power for a a few hours. My memory of climbing in the quarries was you certainly know when it is started up (0 to full power in seconds). It was late and overbudget when it was built but that may reflect that everything the CEGB built in the 70s and 80s was late and overbudget rather than down to the technology

No not in the short term but good start announced today

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policy-statement-on-onshore-wind...

End of the onshore wind ban in England. I say good start as I always thought in order to get the investment of the feasible but new hydrogen plants we would need to be a country with plenty of surplus at times.

A question for those advocating Hydrogen - How are you going to make it?

We can't generate enough electricity at the moment without considering the projected increase in demand from transport / IT. 

As far as I can see pumped storage is by far the most effective / cleanest way to "store" electricity. Its a shame there aren't more sites that are suitable.

Yeah I'm another vote in favour of 2GW of clean energy. I can live with a slightly different (but not really much less spectacular) view in some of the countless Scottish landscapes. 

All of the alternatives to get that capacity would upset me more than making an existing lake a big bigger. Looks like it'll still be an amazing scene, just with more water in it. 

'Is this what we mean by "saving the planet"?'

Yes. Yes it is.

We regularly get over 50% of electricity from wind and solar and we are nowhere near 50% of the UKs wind potential (or solar). When we are getting ~50% we are wasting quite a bit of wind too due to curtailment (which reduces with more storage).

We are definitely at the point where new renewable generation needs to go at the same pace as large scale storage projects.

"The report advocates hydrogen storage in deep salt caverns as a more cost-effective and reliable solution, quicker to deliver – and at the centre of where the demand is. "

🤣

Can't fault the passion behind the argument, but beyond that there's not much in this piece.  Who is this person?  What makes them an appropriate author on this subject?  Where is their biography?  Where are the necessary references to support what they say?

There *might* be something in this but if so, it's well hidden.  It would be better if it were to be withdrawn and rewritten as a more sober analysis balancing energy needs against potential environmental impact.  As it is, the author comes across as one of those chuggers you see around town centres wanting you to take umbrage about something and sign a petition, and who you cross the street to avoid.  My wife always warns me not to badger the earnest people who do that . . .

T.

Second sentence and the article falls apart:

Total energy consumption in the UK would appear to have peaked around 2005 and have trended downwards since then

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63976805

and 'down south'? Presumably south refers to England, or maybe the author is also including the Central Belt, either way it doesn't half feel like xenophobia shining through as I would be surprised if Highlanders had significantly lower energy demand per capita

Good news for you – roughly 66% of all energy from fossil fuels currently gets wasted as totally useless heat, while (renewable) electricity is nearly 95% efficient. Not every fossil fuel plant has cogeneration or would be suitable for it, and cogeneration ups their costs and would still get fossil fuels to something like 50% efficiency.

https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/sites/flowcharts/files/2023-10/US%20Energy%2020...

(US sankey diagram, as UK gov ones don't publish wasted energy, for some reason)

Hypothetically instantly renewable electrifying everything from transport to industry to heating, you would need only 33% of our energy usage right now.

Just think of it – a heat pump moves 3‑5 kW with just 1 kW of electricity. A natural gas heater uses 3‑5 kW of natural gas to heat the same home (actually quite a bit more, as there are losses in piping and energy losses in extraction and purification of said gas in the first place).

An ICE car wastes 66% of the gasoline it burns as heat (even more in the summer, as it has running AC and cooling fan at full power). A BEV is "almost" more than 100% energy efficient (regenerative braking – it's just a hyperbole sorry, of course it's still below 100% in fact).

A BEV charged on 100% fossil grid (which doesn't happen) would still be much less polluting than the ICE car.

A nuclear power station wastes 60% of the power as heat. 1 GW electric capacity NPP is actually 3 GW thermal.

I'm all in favour of electric cars but this is obviously a ludicrous claim.

Never heard of hyperbole? But sure, it's more like 90-95% of course.

Communal heating systems from heat losses in electricity generation is the solution, they could supply industrial parks, as most people won't want to live adjacent to power plants. 

It's past ludicrous, EV's are struggling to get 50% energy use from the primary source, some don't even manage that. Just the loss from the charger input to the car can be 30%. Then there's the generating loss, grid loss and of course the losses in the EV powertrain itself.

Efficient electricity production exhaust heat that is too cool to be useful for any form of heating. 

If you use hyperbole to support your claims without clearly signposting it, it tends to just undermine your cause because people who disagree with you will just see that you got it wrong and dismiss your whole argument.

For a production car in real world driving? Do you have a source for that? Because that still seems extremely optimistic to me.

Not if you fill your boot with rocks at the top of the hill and get them out at the bottom!

It ends up parked on the same drive it set off from with an empty battery. All that electrochemical potential in the battery spent with no increase in gravitational potential or kinetic. 0% efficient!

For cogeneration (CHP) to provide a net carbon benefit you have to use all of the heat all of the time. Industrial gas turbine CHP providing high grade heat (steam) will typically have a generation efficiency of up to 25% plus a heat efficiency of up to 60% = 85%. Reciprocating engine CHP can have a generation efficiency of up to 40% plus a heat efficiency via hot water of up to 45% = 85%. However some CHP plants have reduced efficiency due to not being able to use all of the heat all of the time. There aren’t that many opportunities for efficient CHP out there

It's an opinion piece, the only thing required is an opinion.

Yes, my apologies. I forgot to adjust my style to a more generic forum. My bad and I surely take the flak for ruining my own argument with a dumb joking wording. Thought it would be obvious, but not. Alas, UKC doesn't have "strikethrough" formatting to edit my post with, so I added a little note there. Thanks for pointing it out, though.

Not going to defend your amended 90-95% efficiency claim with a source, then?

This does come across, to me at least, as if you're blaming the audience for being too dumb to appreciate your argument. You just overstated your case and did it no favours in the process. You would/should have got called on that in a specialist forum too.

It's your BS 50% number that is past ludicrous, indeed. Are you really saying that an ICE car is several times more efficient than a BEV car?!? Maybe you need to review your basic thermodynamics...

Loss from charger to car 30%? Huh?!? No way.

Generating loss? That's much more with fossil energy, up to 70%. Renewable sources don't waste up to 2/3 like a heat engine. And you know what – drilling, refining and transporting all that gasoline loses a lot of energy as well, much more than simple electricity transmission.

Grid loss? Around 5%.

Powertrain loss? Regen braking makes up to that a bit. Even without it, much better than ICE running an alternator off the heat engine all the time, plus heat pump car heater BEV models exist for wintery climes.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml

Yes, sometimes the audience is indeed too dumb. See Jim Titt's comment about BEVs "struggling" to attain 50% efficiency from the primary energy source to battery. Which is by all means a total BS – and even if it were the actual case (which it's not), that'd be still a lot better than ICE cars.

I'd have expected much less BS from an engineer (IIRC), alas.

The fact is, BEVs are much more efficient at energy use, wherever it comes from. So are heat pumps.

My math (and probably everybody elses on UKC) is good enough to know I never claimed "several times more efficient".

The currently (pun intended) worst car on the market for charging loss is the Tesla Model 3 LR at 24.9%  though this has been exceeded by some models charging through a domestic socket, there was a miserable Renault that broke the 35% barrier some years back.

If you take normal electrical power mix for most countries, use the energy efficiency conversion of the generation, include the fuel extraction energy cost, the grid and transformer losses and put them all together you will suddenly find you are living in a dream world (incidentally modern car alternators only activate when you are braking so are regenative or if the battery needs topping up, well mine has done for the past ten years).

Not disputing the general benefits of electric cars, just your overly generous selection of numbers. Heat pumps are a very special case.

There are all kinds of ways to define efficiency for a car, especially depending on where you start your accounting, but I'm still waiting for any kind of defence of your amended 90-95% number for BEVs. What's that based on and can you provide a source? 

For a production car in real-world driving, it seems implausible.

Make it with the unused variable renewable energy we have at the moment and with that storage facility available, the renewables look more attractive so we increase on that. We also increase our connectivity with Europe to smooth out local variations. And I'd like to see more tidal generating capacity. 

And then, hopefully, we'll see some developments in fission and possibly clean fusion (I'm not holding my breath)

Mmm, no.

UKC/H as a site has a good reputation.  Publishing an opinion piece from Disgruntled of Lochaber, who has an opinion but nothing obvious to give credibility to that opinion, doesn't do the site's reputation much good.  If all Disgruntled wanted was to sound off about something, or draw attention to it, or gather support for a cause well, that's one of the things the forums are for. 

An opinion piece should be written by someone with some experience or expertise to support that opinion in order to have some validity.  The author may or may not possess those things but we don't know because it isn't stated and they have no previous history on the site.

So no, just having an opinion isn't enough.

T.

Tim - I fear hydrogen generation is almost as far away as fusion

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/09/third-pilot-of-...

Tim - I fear hydrogen generation is almost as far away as fusion

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/09/third-pilot-of-...

Jim - where did you get your changing efficiency numbers for the Tesla from - Audi ?🤣🤣

I haven't ploughed through every post on here but surely you have to factor in how to transport all this electric power to where it is needed. That mean pylons, thousands of them crossing the Highlands. Unless of course some Einstein knows another way of moving all this leccy...!

So all those sad, ugly hydro scarred shorelines are, as I assumed, also an environmental disaster. Do wind turbines compare for environmental damage?

Quite.  Imagine 30% thermal losses in the vehicle on a 350 kW rapid charger!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_HVDC

If you look at the efficiency from 120 V AC chargers in the USA they’re poor because - I presume - such a step up in voltage is needed.  Even then you don’t get to anything as bad as 30%, and even that is relevant only to a small subset of US owners using plug-in chargers.

So why is there all this controversy when they are for example transporting electricity from East Anglia to London overland via pylons. More pylons traversing along Loch Glencarnoch. and we all know what happens to government promises. It's all down to economics!

The ADAC tested a load of cars a couple of years ago, easy to find.

The German Environment Ministry give a average charging loss of 17.5% for all the cars certified in Germany in their proposals to change the WTLP official mileage certification as this only measures the consumption in the vehicle, not the real consumption experienced by the customer (in financial or environmental terms).

The winter overall efficiency is down to 62% to 80% by the way.

That link is about using hydrogen in home heating which is not what is being discussed here, which is hydrogen for long term energy storage as recommended by the Royal Society.

https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/low-carbon-energy-programm...

A huge task but feasible, for example, on the generator side

https://www.wartsila.com/media/news/18-06-2024-wartsila-launches-world-s-fi...

"Environmental disaster" is probably too strong a phrase, but certainly a significant loss of biodiversity. Nor is it realistically possible to tally up the environmental damage due to hydro-schemes and to wind turbines - they're incommensurate.

It is interesting to note several voices on here supporting these sorts of schemes on the one hand while championing rewilding on the other. It is difficult for me to view these pumped storage schemes, as with the "power from the glens" hydro-schemes that preceded them, as anything other than a brutal dewilding - of habitats that perhaps rank/ed as pristine as any in the UK.

At a time when culturally and economically important migratory fish species (which in Scotland means salmon, sea trout and eel) are in significant perhaps catastrophic decline these sorts of schemes need to be very carefully examined to ensure that they make overall sense. 

I would be interested to hear any informed opinion on the the merits or otherwise of plausible alternative power storage systems. I'm looking at you wintertree

Yet you totally neglect to mention that ICE cars have around 10‑15% overall efficiency from the primary energy inputs, unlike BEVs.

Guess what, drilling for gasoline, refining it and transporting it really skews your numbers, even before getting into the whole efficiency thing (yes, BEVs are way more efficient than ICEs, unlike your lying numbers).

A reliable source or just kindly bugger off. Even if so indeed (not really!), that would still be a lot better than ICE vehicles.

BS again. Simple as that. Batteries have way more efficiency than gasoline. Thermodynamics.

I gave the sources. Here's the German Environment Ministry;

Die Ladeverluste liegen nach der Literaturauswertung im Mittel bei 17,5 % und sind damit sehr 
relevant. Diese sind zwar im WLTP prinzipiell enthalten, jedoch unter idealisierten 
Bedingungen. Abweichungen davon in der Praxis können also zu deutlich höheren 
Realverbräuchen führen. Übereinstimmend zeigen die Studien z.B. einen schlechteren 
Wirkungsgrad im Bereich niedriger Ladeleistungen (kleiner 6 kW) und insgesamt liegen die 
Werte in einer Bandbreite von 10 bis 26 %. Neben der Ladeleistung kann auch die 
Umgebungstemperatur relevant sein. So zeigt der Wirkungsgrad bei -15°C eine Spannbreite 
zwischen 62 % und 89 % und bei +40°C zwischen 77 % und 90 %

Anyone can look at the primary energy mix of their electricity supply, see that the fossil fuel generation element runs at around 43% efficiency (that's the current US value as they use a lot of gas), see that the grid loss is around 5%, the distribution loss another 2-3% and the charging loss is around 17%. Then look at the pure efficiency of the EV (between 62% and 90% mainly depending on the weather conditions. 

Any chance of an 'About the author' section being added?

Opinion pieces are for opinions, sure. But with quite an obvious negative bias it would be interesting to know a bit about the author's background to help us place value on their opinion.

Thanks

Also the author of this article:
https://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2024/03/27/the-planning-application-for-th...

I believe a regular UKC user might have made some comments about the article.

Maybe this is what we'd like opinion pieces to be but they're often pretty far from that and there have been a few on here that appear to be just Joe Public with an opinion about something.

Why are we using a water-based solution, let alone why are we doing this to such a beautiful area? The French are moving away from nuclear power, simply because it requires large amounts of water - and water availability cannot be guaranteed any more. Even in the Highlands.

Gravity, on the other hand, is ever-present. We have thousands of disused mine-shafts which can use the proven technique of storing electrical energy through raising and lowering weights in the shafts. And, of course, we can create these shafts where we need them - and they'll be far less obtrusive than pumped storage hydro.

Can we please keep this on topic?

You are very much misrepresenting the figures, or at least least using them out of context.

Also, grids are constantly moving to a lower CO2 mix, so the argument gets less and less valid with time. We have to start the shift away from fossil powered vehicles at some point, so if it's roughly even now is that such a big issue? 

I may have done....  It seems the author decided to dial the emotive language up to max but there's no additional substance to the last article. I think my points all still stand.

I am open to being convinced there are better options to Loch Na Earba. Not sure what they are.

I was talking about this to my partner last night and we realised so much stands on which "window" you look through. Does Scotland need more renewable energy - possibly not. Does it need more storage yes, how much... Not sure. But is *Scotland* the window we should looking through? If we scale up to the UK - we definitely need more renewables just to displace the fossil generation, and we need storage to back up the grid, without even addidn data centres and AI (she has a good point there, but that's a side discussion).

Then if we scale to Europe? The world?

I'm Scotland we have the natural resources to support stabilising the whole UK grid, which in turn makes the interconnetors to Europe have to work less hard. 

Another good point lost in the emotive fluff is that we perhaps haven't had a good enough national debate about how much renewables, where and how much back up do we need, how much can we achieve, how much do we want, where do we *really not* want them and what are the costs (monetary, environmental, intangable, heritage etc.).

I've been meaning to visit Earba to get a feel for the place. A good mate suggested that I would feel different if it were the Dubh Loch under threat, which would also be a good good contender geographically (ignoring the grid connection and national park status for now). And I would feel different. 

How can one have a reasonable debate about the need for renewable energy and storage expansion when some make ludicrous claims to bolster their view?

It wasn't me that wrote;

"An ICE car wastes 66% of the gasoline it burns as heat (even more in the summer, as it has running AC and cooling fan at full power). A BEV is "almost" more than 100% energy efficient (regenerative braking – it's just a hyperbole sorry, of course it's still below 100% in fact).

A BEV charged on 100% fossil grid (which doesn't happen) would still be much less polluting than the ICE car."

A quick back of an envelope calculation is enough to show this is wildly innacurate and distorting the true picture, the alternative would be look at some research. For instance a paper produced by Harvard University and published in some learned journal which gives us the Well to Wheel efficiencies.

Petrol I.C 11%-27%

Diesel I.C 25%-37%

Hydrocarbon Power E.V 12%-31%

Renewable Power E.V 40%-70%

Sorry, how is this minutiae relevant to a pumped hydro scheme in the Highlands? 

Start your own thread on bev efficiency vs dinausaur cars if you so wish, but it's derailing this thread. 

This.  Pumped storage holds a vast quantity of rain water out of circulation, and as you say even the Scottish Highlands are looking increasingly sketchy going forwards for this.

Nice idea - I’ve seen crane and mountain train / shunting yard based proposals, are their any studies for mine based ones?

Batteries are also a thing. We have more capacity in BEVs than in pumped hydro now.  In the first instance smart charging can act as a balancing system for energy over the timescale of 1-2 days without doing any vehicle-to-grid stuff.  Of course all the OLEV funded chargers rolled out are dumb…

If you watch what’s happening with drones in Russia and Ukraine and look at the scale of Chinese drone manufacture it spells annihilation for our substations from one container ship of small drone dispensing carrier drones.  I’d like to see 100s of MWh stored near every grid substation both for load balancing and to run (without grid power if needed) directed energy / microwave anti drone defences at the substations.  Lots of old shafts in my part of the world….  Many are now flooded since the pumps went off (in the 90s) so there would a lot of toxic water to process mind.

You should have complained to FrankR yesterday, I'm only responding to his posts.

Of course it's dewilding to a point but if you work out the relative areas involved, a few of the roads that estates are putting in illegally would offset the shorline area that we're talking about. 

Or we could have cancelled some of those run of river hydro that did massive damage with the access roads, tips, etc. 

I'd rather see a small area on the banks of a loch be denuded than a nuclear, gas or coal power plant (which spreads it's damage across the whole country/world).

The answer isn't a "Do this or don't do this" it's a "Do this or do something else damaging" and I'd like to know what the feasible, short term alternatives are. 

(p.s. gravity energy storage using mines is being experimented with and a Finnish example has 2MW of storage - In comparison, a couple of the proposed pumped hydro in Scotland have 1.5GW . We'd need 750 of these mine systems to match one pumped hydro) 

Isn't most of the water in rivers out of circulation (into the sea) anyway. A pumped storage would just be like a reservoir which would fill in less than a season and then be neutral as far as the rest of the system works? I might be wrong but I don't see how pumped storage is taking significant water away from natural systems.

Rain water normally flows through the ecosystem before it gets to the sea.  Especially in uplands that means an awful lot of water in the ground even in high summer.  In the river its presence helps set the level for the water table in land around it, and it holds a lot of life in the water itself.

If the water is in a pumped hydro basin it’s not percolating through the land and through the rivers to the sea.

Losses from the basins must be minimised or replaced with more diverted rain water, either of which stops water from flowing through the land and rivers where it’s needed for ecological balance.  If losses from the basins aren’t stemmed in other to maintain the local hydrology for the environment, then the scheme becomes very drought sensitive.

With climate change losses are likely to go up some years as hot spells and low rainfall events become more frequent and more protracted. 

Its nothing like as bad for water availability as hydropower, but it’s worse than not having it.

Intuitively this feels wildly impractical at scale. Marchlyn Mawr at the top of Dinorwig holds about 9 million cubic metres, AIUI a typical mine shaft is a few metres in diameter - assuming five and circular, so about 20 square metres in area, and granite (an obvious heavy but abundant material) is about 2.7 times the density of water. If you manage to make a ten metre long weights then you still need about 17,000 mine shafts to give you the gravitational potential of one pumped storage facility.

Looking at it the other way, proposed systems listed on Wikipedia seem to talk in terms of 10-20MWH, so you'd need many hundreds of them to replace one Dinorwig, which stores 9.1GWH.

You can haggle over the exact numbers here, but I don't think you can get around the fact that a reservoir is basically a very convenient - and actually relatively unobtrusive - way of holding an extremely large amount of mass at a height.

Cheers Jim, I think your posts were perfectly appropriate but more links would be nice.

I think the green movement needs proper scientific validification, speaking as someone who supports green change; given we face climate and biodiversity crises. EVs are the future of cars but part of that future must also be a big reduction in car ownership and big increases in public transport use. Too often EVs are being marketed as a guilt free shift from ICE cars. Part of the reason we will need more generation and storage capacity is a shift away from fuel hydrocarbons.

On the green hydrogen point people should read about what is going on in Orkney (with electicity generation that would otherwise be wasted).... even there, an improved interconnector might be a better long term solution.

https://www.orkney.com/life/energy/hydrogen

I believe you are misinterpreting the "charging loss" in the quoted rext as something distinct and additional to the "pure efficiency" of the EV. I think they are the same thing expressed in different ways (efficiency% = 100% - loss%) and the quoted figures seem to support that.

Loss is simply the difference between what you put in and what you get out. So grid loss is the difference between what you put in at the power station and what you get out at the substation, which disappears as heat in the grid wiring. If you interpret "charging loss" as the difference between what you put in to the charger and what goes out of the charger into the battery then 17% is clearly ridiculous and would quickly result in a molten mess.

So I think charging loss here might mean the difference between what you put into the charger and what you get out of the battery, both measured on a pure current*voltage basis. Certainly that would fit with the comment about temperature.

That does beg one question that the physicists might like to address. When a rechargable battery "dies" quickly because of the cold, where does the energy that you put in go? Is it simply heat loss from the battery to the cold environment?

The charging loss is what comes out of the power connection/wallbox etc compared with what goes into the battery. The onboard charger is generally the biggest part as they run as low as 75% efficiency, the lower the current the worse they are. Then there is the heating or cooling of the battery (the whole system is temperature controlled, usually actively on larger cars running a heat pump liquid heating/cooling unit) then there is the resistance loss in the cable (some Tesla chargers have watercooled cables) and the demand from the electronic system in the car which has to stay awake during the charging process. Going up in the current helps the charger losses but increases the cooling needs.

Tesla for example for one of the Model Y variants give an official 14% difference between ingoing and charge and that is done testing in a temperature controlled laboratory (it's in the official EPA certification documentation). The worst I've seen is a recorded 65% efficiency charging using the miserable US 120V system in the winter in Milwaukee.

So no, the charger doesn't melt, they cool it down.

The extra water needed for the pumped hydro is the amount of water that is in the lake above it's pre-dam level. That amount of water, once stored, isn't added to. Hence, some of the first heavy rainfall which would normally wash to sea will fill this lake. From then on there is a small top up from evaporation. 

That amount of water would be absolutely tiny and I don't think is really an important factor compared with everything else (like the concrete in the dam for instance)

Are high rainfall events also likely to increase? Many flood prevention measures utilise slowing the flow of water essentially by storing the water upstream and releasing it gradually later. Obviously not the primary purpose of a hydro scheme, but shouldn't it be possible to make it a side benefit? 

Really interesting article that's clearly generated lots of discussion, claims and counter claims to knowledge about energy systems and contested values when it comes to landscape and biodiversity.

The key point for me that's made in the article, is the observation that Scotland, as well as the UK's energy/industrial approach to decarbonising the economy is market driven. Until we have a joined up energy strategy that includes how and where we generate electricity as well as conserve energy, that's orientated around public's need rather than private profit (as it is now) I suspect every single energy infrastructure project will be contested. (thus delayed)

The new proposed Peterhead Gas fired power station is another example, in which the developers SSE and Equinor use the argument that it's needed for when the wind isn't blowing. The same reasons argued for the PHS.

So do we have new fossil gas infrastructure or do we flood highland corries ? Or is that a false dichotomy?

Also check out the case of St Fittick's Park in Aberdeen, another example of private interests, under the guise of energy transition wanting to industrialise a vibrant greenspace in an already socially deprived community.

The issues brought about by PSH, Peterhead, St Fittick's Park and the local opposition to new pylons, for me all emanate from a root cause of lack of transparency in planning system and the private interests they so often serve - given our current system.

No doubt some very difficult decisions will have to be made to fully decarbonise society. The only way I see these decisions being navigated is via some sort of national public conversation/forum about energy production and demand reduction (via mass retrofit of buildings).

Given the unprecedented challenge of transitioning from a fossil fuel economy, I cannot see any other way to inform an energy and industrial strategy, that comes with a degree of consent from the public.

At the moment, though it seems Government's north and south of the border are leaving it to the likes of private estates, energy corporations to lead on - a recipe for disaster in my opinion.

More ludicrous than using a paper who has used EV references for its worst case scenarios from references in 2011? I don't have the time, or frankly, the gumption to bother going any deeper and seeing where those references were from, but it's safe to say that we can discount the worst case scenarios of 40% "well to wheel" efficiency. Either way, this still massively, MASSIVELY misses the point that efficiency is not a particularly useful metric when it comes to EVs and renewables. And this leads on to perhaps  an area where this is relevant to PHS. 

BEVs, unlike ICE cars, can be used to both store and dispatch electricity on demand. This is a potentially very useful support to the grid, by both minimising renewable curtailment (hence storing wasted electrons - infinite efficiency there), and peak shaving by allowing people to use a small part of their battery capacity at peak times (oven on, induction stove on, washing machine on).

I'm not sure if the future UK storage estimated requirements account for the support BEVs could provide.

Show me a ICE that can do that....

Interestingly my calculation put it at 37,5% so not far off. You are welcome to dismiss worst case scenarios, I presume you extend that courtesy to climate deniers?

The discussion was started by a claim that EV's were 100% efficient  (regenerative braking and all that) completely ignoring all the well known inefficiencies in the entire generation and distribution systems. You can discuss whatever you wish.

A bit of understanding of the topic might have been nice. Without that it's a nimbyist rant from someone with a nationalist chip on their shoulder.

Because ecosystems are complex, genuine rewilding isn't that easy, it takes time, and may never be complete. On the other hand dewilding is very easy, can be almost instantaneous and potentially irreversible. The first duty of those who are concerned about the environment then is to avoid dewilding. Promoting rewilding, though worthy (albeit with potential for unforeseen and deleterious consequences), is secondary to that .... but using rewilding as some sort of credit scheme to offset dewilding is frankly the stuff of canny developers, not environmentalists.

When you write about accepting "a small area on the banks of the loch be denuded" you are underestimating the impact of impoundment-release cycles. As eastcoastmike pointed out above, the whole loch (and beyond) is affected. Relict populations of arctic charr, trapped in lochs like the ones in question since the ice retreated, have their entire ecosystem disrupted and since they spawn in shallow water shoreline gravels are extremely vulnerable to impound and release cycles. I'd also have quite a lot to say about damage to migratory fish species, but having checked the locations I think all of them are in catchments where migratory fish have already been shafted further downstream in a previous era of dewilding that no-one took very seriously.

So that was my main point. Dewilding shouldn't be entertained lightly, and it certainly shouldn't be regarded as something fixable simply by planting a few trees and controlling grazing. My second point was that while I'm instinctively against dewilding, I'm also very much against anthropogenic climate change (and for the same reason), and so am naturally sympathetic to developments which help support transition to renewables, such as renewable energy storage. Pumped storage schemes are one option, with particular advantages and disadvantages. I'd like to know more about other options.

Hopefully mature, thorough and clearly thought through cost-benefit analyses will be undertaken, and sensible planning decisions will be made - which I freely acknowledge could conclude that pumped storage, in landscapes that are precious to me, is the best option.

I can't say I got the nationalist chip thing, it's pretty critical of the Scottish government. I agree with the rest of what you say though. It's a polemic and full of hyperbole and therefore easily dismissed.

I wonder what the author's hopes were for this piece? If they wanted to win people over to their viewpoint I don't think it has had much success with the UKC audience! 

My professional magazine regularly speculates on when this could happen at large scale and they think it's not anytime soon (they are more concerned with urgent grid investment to reduce delays in green benefits).

Yes my comments were based on the previous extraction of these locations via run of river etc. 

As part of a team that tried to block the Glen Etive RoR schemes which did lots of damage to untouched rivers for minuscule return, I'm familiar with the range of issues. I'm more amenable to a small number of schemes that have a massive positive impact on the renewable energy infrastructure. 

Hardly a 'free-for-all' as the tone of the piece implies, these types of projects need specifics that aren't found everywhere, and some effort at balance might have been nice.

Perhaps the author might volunteer their back garden as the site for small scale nuclear as an alternative thus saving the Highlands for everyone else?

The thing is, time is also running out for our planet. "We're all in favour of windfarms / renewable energy / pumped storage / clean electricity but this particular turbine / storage system / power line is in the wrong place" - by the time you've applied this to every single project, it would be more honest to admit you're against renewable energy. Sadly, the energy conversion is going to have costs. Just, the cost of not doing it is a whole lot worse.

Isn't the point of the article that this isn't happening, and that the planning and political systems in Scotland don't put sufficient weight on the value of landscape but instead allow the green justification to override everything?

I find it surprising that on a mountaineering forum so few people have stood up for the value of the mountain landscape. Yes of course climate change is important, but should that be allowed to override all other considerations? Should we not be defending these landscapes and questioning whether the supposed benefits of these schemes are worth their loss?

Having said that (and not knowing the locations in question) I think she overstates the impact on landscape.  The pumped storage schemes in Snowdonia don't seem too bad to me, and the Llyn Stwlan dam, which I remember being gleaming white in my childhood, has weathered and is now all but invisible. The reservoirs in Wales, the Lakes and Scotland are now accepted features of the landscape.

If these schemes will truly move us towards a greener energy system then perhaps we must accept some loss of precious landscapes. However, like her, I don't have much confidence in governments or the planning system to properly balance the two.

Not surprising at all because climate change is amongst the biggest threats to almost ALL mountain landscapes, particularly their eco systems and also the conditions to optimise us climbers’ self centred play on them

There are various ways of using waste heat from nuclear power plants to support other industrial processes:

https://www.rolls-royce-smr.com/press/joint-study-with-sumitomo-corporation

Fossil fuel vehicles and plants do of course waste a lot of energy, but a big part of that is that their designs didn't consider ways of utilising the low grade waste heat.

Not really so. Most power stations driving steam turbines use vacuum  condensers, expanding the steam into a vacuum where the condensing (boiling point) temperature is as low as 30 degrees C. Rejecting the heat at higher temperatures so it is usable greatly reduces the efficiency of electricity generation, offset partially by sale of heat and avoiding some of the capital cost. Nuclear reactors operate at a lower temperature than gas turbines or coal/oil fired boilers so latent heat of water at 30 C is a greater proportion of total heat of reaction for nuclear than fossil fuels, exporting “useful” heat would reduce efficiency of nuclear generation particularly so, even if you could persuade a potential user of the heat to share a site with a nuclear reactor!

It's also worth noting that reservoirs/hydropower aren't as climate-friendly as often perceived. Reservoir surface waters emit greenhouse gases, and emissions are particularly high for the first ~20yrs after construction. Long term they may be "net good" but it tends to vary on an individual reservoir by reservoir basis.

Yup, a lot of energy but thermodynamically negligable was the way they described it at my local nuclear power station who ran a target condenser temperature of 25°C. The companies who operate these plants aren't going to turn down extra earnings for 50 years if it was easy to exploit the energy.

And the source of your claim quantifying emissions relative to power generation is?

The link you posted is a about using the primary heat output from a SMR for industrial process INSTEAD of electricity generation NOT “waste” heat in addition to electricity

Ah, my apologies, I had misremembered/ misinterpreted what I was told by a colleague.

Sorry, slightly ambiguous/poor wording on my part. I meant that what tends to vary on an individual basis is the waterbody GHG emission - it can be relatively low, or very large. That said, net warming effect will also depend on how you compare carbon dioxide vs methane (warming potency and atmospheric lifetime) which is not straightfoward and open to much debate.

See above. Poor original wording on my part. My point is that hydropower is not as green as often perceived. Globally, reservoirs are responsible for ~5% of all anthropogenic methane emissions.

This totally depends on the area of ground covered. In the extension of existing lochs or lochans, the effect is a lot less. 
 

I may be wrong but wouldn’t the rotting plant matter at the bottom of a reservoir have rotted if the reservoir wasn’t there? 

For point 1, true. Total emission will not increase much but the emission then counts as being human-produced and should be included in national GHG inventories (natural lakes don't count in IPCC inventories).

For point 2, do you mean if a lake is converted to a reservoir, or a new reservoir is built?

New reservoir.. 

Right, in which case you'd have a normal ecosystem pre-reservoir. Plants live, plants die. No real methane emissions unless your ecosystem is a wetland. Dry(ish) soils don't emit methane.

Post-reservoir all the plant life is flooded, and it decays, releasing methane and CO2, for the next 20yrs or so, as the plant and soil organic matter is steadily broken down. Water/flooding is the key, because methane production is a process that mostly occurs in low-oxygen conditions.

The framework the Scottish Government has created means that companies and estates with no financial hope of developing these schemes will take them to planning and then try to sell them to someone who can. It's all speculative. Pumped storage cannot meet the needs of what the wind industry would need. I don't think politicans understand this. But there is money to be made and nobody gives a toss about the Highlands.

Can we sack the politicians and put some engineers in charge?

Plants give off methane even when they are growing, they transpire it by seperating the dissolved methane from the water they take up. If you flood it the methane emissions are finite, don't flood and they carry on for ever.

Some plants in wetland environments transport methane produced in the soil and emit it. Although there is some evidence that plants themselves produce methane internally the magnitude of this was oversold in early research and is probably minor in global budgets. A Scottish hillside, unless a wet bog, is unlikely to be emitting much methane, and is more likely to be a methane sink, at least during summer. If you flood it the methane emissions won't be finite: all freshwaters emit methane (except a handful of weird oddities). But the emissions will decrease over time since inundation (never reaching zero).

Exactly, it's not as simple as a "flood it and it release methane" shock horror story. You need a complete audit of the greenhouse gas emissions from the two scenarios before even entering the discussion otherwise it starts looking like cherry-picking to suit a different agenda. And then there's the N2O balance!

Yes, apart from (as I said above) if artifically flooded it counts as anthropogenic emissions so then needs to be accounted for in inventories and policy. IPCC accounting doesn't care what a Scottish hillside is doing, but if you plonk a reservoir there then it suddenly becomes our problem to account for.

I'm not anti-reservoir (well, I probably am in these Scottish cases) but my main point is that hydro is not as green as most people believe.

A Google search will reveal an answer.

I recall they is a project to set up a gravity storage in Northern Finland. It was just in the news. Themsin problem with these solutions is capasity. Pumped hydro is (when done big) looking at a day or to. Gravity storage is looking at a few hours (so similar to a battery farm).

I guess in the future, hydrogen-fuel cell would the way to go. And preferably a distributed system… so have the hydrogen storages and fuel cells close to source. Be it offshore or onshore wind… or solar. 

I understand that this is an opinion piece... But there is so much factually untrue in this article - which is not a matter of opinion. Surprised this has been allowed to be published.

Yep, look at the margins of reservoirs that have been around for decades, very sterile in relative terms. 

What specifically is factually untrue?

Quite a bit, some initial examples here from a quick skim. I’m not trying to give an opinion on the piece. I just don’t think it is very helpful for the general understanding of 'Net Zero'.

• "not much that lands on the desk of the Energy Consents Unit these days is likely to get knocked back". It's quite easy to search on the ECU website for 'refused' applications to see how correct this statement is.
• There isn't a spatial policy for renewable energy development in Scotland. Please look at 'national planning framework 4'.
• The days of public local inquiry are long gone. They haven't, and still happen.
• Over the last 15 years there has been eroding protection for wild land. Worth noting wild land areas were only designated in 2014.

A book review on UKC/UKH seems to be heavily skewed towards the reviewers own concerns on renewable energy developments in the Highlands, who is also UKH editor. I have asked for clarification but it does not seem appropriate.

Given the complexity and urgency of the situation I would urge UKC to have a broader discussion with the users of the site before using the platform to publish 'opinion' pieces such as these. 

Thanks for those comments Will - and to others who've commented on the thread.

Apologies for the delayed response. I have been on holiday and I'm still catching up with things. 

The writer of the piece, Jane, is now away. I think she wants to respond to yours and others' points on her return, probably next week.

That's good to know.  Given the activity on this thread, it may be worth starting a fresh one for those responses.

T.

Buttermere might be good for a pumped storage scheme. Not really wild. Post-industrial in part. Closer to demand.
Or the Ogwen valley?

Or, given that the Coppermines valley is so obviously post-industrial, Levers Water.

T.

Buttermere is rather low for this, no? 
How about Small Water above Haweswater?

Buttermere and Crummock Water are a good proxy for Lochan na h-Earba.  Upper reservoir would be in the High Seat coombes.

Do you think? Loch a' Bhealaich Leamhai Looks pretty big in comparison to the Coombes above Buttermere, see what you mean about the valley bodies of water though.

Can only work with what you have got - Lakes scale etc....

Not pumped storage but micro generation projects, I worked on a few in Cumbria around 8 or 9 years ago.

A few interesting things I learnt.

One scheme was the third generation on that catchment area, the earliest about a hundred years old. 

Finding sites for new schemes depends on many factors.  

Large catchment area and hydrostatic head.

Penstock length and grade. Too shallow, easy to access but long. Too steep, impractical to build.

National Grid, some schemes had to be downsized because it was uneconomic to upsize the NG cabling for the power surge possible with the generation potential.

Most fascinating was the beauty of the equation to calculate the power generation potential  in Watts.

= flow in litres per second

× 9.81, g, acceleration due to gravity

× head in metres.

Theorethical maximum, usually expect 50% efficiency for small schemes.

Hi Will,

Thanks for taking the time to comment on my recent article.  I realise that this is a contentious subject and one that people will have strong views on.  I am, however, slightly taken aback by your criticisms of factual inaccuracy.  I've tried to set out my responses to your points as follows.  We could, I'm sure, continue the debate indefinitely, but I hope I can at least demonstrate that my views are based on research and that I'm not exactly a lone voice.

The record of the ECU may be judged as follows:

1. A recent Freedom of Information request for a breakdown of Section 36 & Section 37 applications by “outcome” drew the following response from the Scottish Government on 30/5/2024 (https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202400408885/):

“There are 1213 Section 36 and Section 37 applications for Development or Variation on the energyconsents.scot online portal. 795 (63.6%) have been consented, 95 (7.6%) have been withdrawn and 43 (3.4%) have been refused.”

The total of consented plus refused plus withdrawn equals 933 (the other 280 of the total 1213 being still in the works, one presumes).  Of the 933, we have 85.2% consented, 10.18% withdrawn and just 4.6% refused.

2. Also see this Linkedin post from an energy consents lawyer extolling the 100% strike rate for consenting solar and BESS in Scotland through the ECU:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&a...

3.  Here is some interesting analysis provided by Mountaineering Scotland in their 2023 objection to the Quantans wind farm proposal.  (With PSH being very much the new kid on the block, we’re not going to find much data relating to that, unfortunately.)

“Ninety per cent (28/31) of S.36 wind farm applications determined in the three years 2020-2022 were consented (compared with only 64% (18/28) 2017-2019). NPF3/SPP2014 applied in both periods and it is clear that Reporters and decision-makers were recalibrating their judgments over time as the direction of travel became clearer and stronger, even if not expressed in formal policy as it now is in NPF4 and the OWPS. ….. While the intention of NPF4 may be to make it easier to gain consent for S.36 applications, Mountaineering Scotland would suggest that this had already become the de facto position in recent years.”

On the issue of spatial policy for renewable energy in Scotland:

The Scottish Government consulted on its “draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition plan” in 2023.  We didn’t get to see the final version of that document before the recent general election.  The draft document stated under Planning and Consenting: “We will place climate and nature at the centre of our planning system, in line with the Revised National Planning Framework 4, making clear our support for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emission technologies, including transmission and distribution infrastructure.” 

It’s a pretty unambiguous indication of the direction of travel, one that will no doubt resonate with many.  Spend an hour combing through the draft plan, however, and you’ll realise that what is missing is any reference to protecting Scotland’s landscapes.  As the John Muir Trust states in its response to the consultation:

“Recognition of the impacts that renewables and the reinforcement and installation of grid infrastructure have on Scotland’s landscapes is missing from this draft strategy …

Access to beautiful and wild landscapes enhances the quality of life of people in Scotland and brings a multitude of associated health benefits. This strategy should not overlook the importance of protecting existing benefits that are being enjoyed by communities and visitors alike and which are now under threat from the poorly planned expansion of renewable development and associated grid infrastructure.”

My opinion piece called for something very specific, “a coherent spatial policy for renewable energy development in Scotland” that would require Government “to estimate how much storage capacity we need, identify suitable sites for PSH across the land, rank these in a hierarchy with the least damaging (in terms of environmental and landscape impacts) at the top, and see to it that only as many schemes as are genuinely needed get built”.  You won’t find anything like that in NPF4 and it doesn’t look like you’ll find it in the Energy Strategy and Just Transition plan, either. 

NPF4 (page 102) classes Pumped Hydro Storage (they prefer PHS to PSH) as a national development whose location is “All Scotland”.   Yes, but where is the detail?  If site selection is to be left to the free market and nobody is keeping tabs on how much PSH we actually need, we will almost certainly lose some very special places that can never be reclaimed.  When it’s gone, it’s gone.  I fail to see how we can equate this destructive approach with “saving the planet”.

It’s worth remembering that NPF4 was criticised as a developers’ charter by the John Muir Trust and other NGOs when it was published.  NPF4 removed the presumption against industrial-style development in Wild Land Areas by permitting development that “will support meeting renewable energy targets” (Policy 4(g)(i)).  It also scrapped the principle of buffer zones around WLA: “Buffer zones around wild land will not be applied and effects of development outwith wild land areas will not be a significant consideration.” (Policy 4 (g)).  While many will feel this is justified by the current climate crisis, I continue to plead for a crucial measure of discernment when it comes to choosing where such schemes should go.  There is nothing in current policy that seeks to promote development in inappropriate locations. Indeed, NPF4 (page 7) reiterates the same goal as NPF3: “(This means) ensuring the right development happens in the right place.”  If projects like Earba or Fearna are waved through – as I fear they will be – we might as well admit that the goal henceforth is “any development in any place” and be done with it.

On the erosion of wild land protection:

My article refers to “wild land” in a general sense, without capitalisation and without any reference to NatureScot’s “Wild Land Areas”.  Like it or loathe it, the term “wild land” has been around for a long time, certainly well before 2014.  Scottish Wild Land Group was founded in the 1980s and the equally venerable John Muir Trust calls itself a wild land charity.  My comment about protection for wild land being eroded over the past 15 years or so is based on the bomb blast that was Beauly-Denny, approved in 2010 in the face of dogged opposition from LINK and likeminded NGOs.  The decision sparked an outcry in the media, alongside withering criticism of Jim Mather, the Scottish Minister responsible.  The scale of opposition shows how much value was once attached to Scotland’s landscapes and their preservation for future generations.  We’re a far cry from that now.

On Public Local Inquiries:

My reference to the days of the Public Local Inquiry being long gone is, I admit, something of a sweeping statement, but I stand by it in relation to renewable energy.  In the current political climate, I firmly believe the chances of Earba or Fearna going to a PLI are vanishingly small, whereas 20 years ago we would almost certainly have ended up there.  If we had a spatial energy policy worth the name, the kind I called for in my piece, we wouldn’t be in this position.

Thanks again for your comments.

Jane

What then would be your alternative proposals for meeting the UK’s energy needs without use of fossil fuels and their contribution to climate change?

2 dislikes (so far) for asking an inconvenient question, that’s UKC for you 

The author is not saying there should be no pumped storage (although she suggests there are better solutions). She says "The problem lies not with pumped storage hydro per se but with the free-for-all approach that dominates current Scottish Government thinking". She is arguing that sites should be prioritised according to their impact, including the impact on landscape. She is claiming that the planning system doesn't put sufficient value on landscape, and that it doesn't allow sufficient public consultation.

There are some who take the apocalyptic view that we are all doomed unless we take every possible step to reduce climate change, no matter what the cost. There are others who believe that landscapes have a value in themselves, and that we should not sacrifice everything in pursuit of Net Zero (a purely political objective, since nothing we do in the UK will have a material effect globally, which is where it matters)

As with everything, there is a balance to be struck. Planning systems, and politicians, prefer things which can be measured. Whilst we are getting better at valuing green capital it is still difficult to put a figure on the value of landscape. However surely mountaineers, of all people, should see the importance of landscape and seek to protect it where possible.

You are right to point that out, what Jane is asking for is not unreasonable, but she lost me with this paragraph

So, where does this leave us? Yes, the climate is in crisis. Yes, we need ways to store surplus power and balance grid demand. But we delude ourselves if we think that, by sacrificing Earba-Fearna, we will keep the wolves at bay for long. Green energy schemes are invariably touted as generating enough electricity to heat X thousand homes or power a city the size of Y, creating the cosy illusion of finite national demand, an imaginary finishing line beyond which lies Net Zero. Just a few more corries, a few more skylines, and we'll get there, save the planet and put our feet up. In your dreams. Our domestic energy consumption will soon be outstripped by voraciously power-hungry new-tech, including datacentres, cryptocurrency and AI. As fast as we surrender our mountainscapes, feeding the beast cheaply, the more ultra-profitable uses for power will spring up. With wind turbines encroaching on the borders of our National Parks and lapping at the foothills of Wyvis, the Fannaichs, Kintail and Affric, the precedent for pumped storage hydro to sweep unchecked across the Highlands is already well established.

I don't know where to start with that, maybe Jane will reconsider it herself. I'll say it's incoherent and insensitive given many people in GB are suffering fuel poverty.

One place to start is to look at the ways in which we use and waste energy. Our housing stock is among the least energy efficient in Europe. Many of those in fuel poverty will be wasting much of their money in attempting to heat properties which lose heat at an alarming rate. Simply building more generation and storage does nothing to address this. 

In my opinion, much greater emphasis should be put on retrofitting older inefficient buildings and introducing far more demanding building regulations with regard to energy efficiency and self-generation. New commercial buildings should be ripe for solar generation and battery storage. 

Simply throwing one's hands in the air and wailing that we need more generation is not a sustainable solution. 

I'd call it realistic. Her list doesn't include the need to power electric cars if everyone were to start buying them.

PSH doesn't generate any new energy, it's just a way of storing energy generated by other means. WInd turbines often can't run when they're needed most - either the wind is too strong, or there's a winter high with low temperatures and no wind. Typical Scottish weather, in fact. Neither of these solutions are going to help people out of fuel poverty, and as the UK only contributes about 1% of global emissions they're not going to save the planet until China, India and the US get on board.

There's no question we need to improve our use of energy. We need to generate more and use it better.  We need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The question is whether we should allow precious landscapes to be destroyed in the process? Sometimes the answer will have to be yes, but there should be proper evaluation and proper consultation.

Adequate generation and storage from renewables is the only sustainable solution. We are a long way off adequate even if we take all the essential measures you suggest.

Yourself, Jane and Dan, you are trying to persuade people who are concerned about climate change to be more minded of the effects some measure will have on landscapes, fair enough. I'm not going to take 'throwing one's hands in the air and wailing' personally, but a generally scornful attitude is probably not the best way to persuade people.

Similarly, 'net zero' is a laudable aim, if not completely realistic at this stage. The populist right have  turned it into a dirty phrase, akin to 'wokism' and other culture war terms. I'd avoid aping their approach, you may have a few potential allies on that side of the political spectrum, but there'll be far more amongst people who are sick of the culture war crap.

It's incoherent. It could be taken to mean that keeping energy cost high will curb use.... awful plan, would pummel the economy and further inequality.

There's some very bold claims there that don't stack up.

There's  huge potential in the UK from wind, read the document Jane cites, for example

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/large-scale-electricity-st...

Specifically on PSH

'While additional pumped hydro storage capacity will be helpful, it is clear that it would only have a marginal impact on GB’s need for tens of TWh of large-scale storage to complement high levels of wind and solar'

so according to the RS and contrary to your claim, PSH will be 'helpful'. However the effect will be marginal so you have something to work with..... just don't turn people of with clear falsehoods.

I disagree. I would say that adequate generation and storage from renewables are part of a sustainable solution, but it seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse if one does not have sensible assessments of the required levels of generation. To my mind, part of that assessment should be a proper consideration of what is needed if we make best use of our available resources. 

At the moment, we are a very long way from making the best uses of our available resources. We waste huge, stupid amounts of energy. You expressed concerns about fuel poverty. Increasing generation and storage does nothing to help the many thousands trapped in inadequately heated and insulated homes. 

Despite comments in the article like, "creating the cosy illusion of finite national demand" implying, I assume to add more weight to their point of view, that our national electricity usage is constantly increasing, it's worth bearing in mind peak electricity consumption was in 2005. We are currently consuming 25% less than that peak and is still falling year on year despite there being nearly 2 million plug in cars on the roads currently.

I agree that we do need to plan for the amount of electricity we believe we will need in the future, how it will be produced and how we will store than electricity for buffering, all valid points.

Running around shouting "we can't keep the wolves at bay for along, all is lost" whilst ranting about datacentres, cryptocurrency and AI is a less valid argument and is not going to endear others to your point of view

This is a crisis on 2 levels, climate and increasing dependency, there is isn't time for such a sequential approach. We will definitely need more generation, so we should increase generation and storage, as well as improve energy usage.

Not doing so will condemn many more to fuel poverty in years to come. Failure to build for the future now will leave the coming generations in a very vulnerable situation, increasingly dependent on what could be very regressive regimes.

You or the other HJ are right, the effects of the UK heading to net zero will be marginal in a global sense, but the effect could be larger in terms of the example set and the R&D done here, in this renewable rich island.

I do not think we are very far apart in what we think needs to be done. There is certainly a need for more generation.  My main concern is that we are operating at a very low level of energy efficiency, and I believe that improving energy efficiency is both more cost effective and time effective than simply building new generation. 

Bear in mind the fact that it takes on average between 4 and 8 years to build a new onshore wind farm, and 7 and 11 years for an offshore wind farm: 

https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/our-activity/offshore-wind-energy/offsho...

I wonder how many homes and buildings could be retrofitted with high-quality insulation and heating systems in the time it takes to build a new wind farm. 

Agreed! We need to tackle this problem on multiple fronts and there is definitely low hanging fruit when it comes to energy saving measures. Here's hoping for a major announcement from the new government.

I wonder how long it takes to find and train all these people to do this? 

Our demented German minister said fit heat pumps to everything, our building industry said start building the trade schools so we actually have the 160,000 technicians to intall them. It's not that easy or simple, have you actually tried to get a builder or electrician recently?

Did I say it would be easy? Of course it is not easy. But doing nothing is not a sensible option. 

Correct, so what did said minister do? Changed his law so there's no chance he's politically active while he is involved (which won't be long anyway).

Governments and pressure groups all come under the same rules, there's easy, possible, difficult and impossible, we still haven't heard from the author of the article (or yourself) of any solution to global warming (or even just the UK's contribution) that doesn't come under the last category.

And the RS work is in the context of storing energy for MONTHS and longer - not short term balancing of peak demand and peak supply. We could preserve a small amount of fossil fuel power for emergency supply instead of wasting massive amounts of money, energy and materials to build hydrogen storage (and the risk, and the emissions from building them, etc)

China is already on board and creating renewables at an astonishing rate. It's installing the wind and solar equivalent of five large nuclear power stations per week. It's also building coal fired generation at the moment but that is starting to slow. The transition to renewables is way faster than western nations. The US renewable generation surpassed coal power last year. UK renewables beat fossil fuel generation recently too. 

Just trying to paint things a little less bleak than people think the situation is.
 

The climate doesn't care about any of that. The numbers are the only thing that matters, and they aren't good.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&countr...

If that is true it seems mind boggling.

I dpn't think I've seen anyone on this thread, including the author of the article, say that we should do nothing about climate change. The question is what, and where?

It is clear that demand for energy is going to increase, and that will increase demand for onshore wind farms and PSH. Geography suggests that the most suitable locations for these will be on wild land, including landscapes which I suspect the majority of members of a climbing and mountaineering website will consider important and precious. 

This is in a context where government policy is (rightly) to push for renewables, and a planning system which approves the majority of applications but which doesn't seem to take sufficient account of the importance of landscape in making those decisions. If the planning system can't do this, the market certainly won't. 

You may feel that the global climate emergency is so advanced that we should be willing to sacrifice these landscapes for the greater good. Even so, it is still legitimate to question which landscapes, and ask whether a proposed development could be sited in a less damaging location.  The current planning system does not seem to be allowing that.

Not explicitly, but there's a paragraph which clearly implies that 'green energy schemes' will be of no benefit as they will only 'feed' the 'ultra profitable' 'beast'. 

It's a nonsensical argument given that scenario could easily be avoided, but it may unfortunately  appeal to some and could be used to oppose any renewable energy scheme, to the benefit of the fossil fuel industry. We've had years of well organised, and very well funded climate change denial, patience for bullshit is wearing thin. With that in mind I would suggest arguments along those line are avoided, don't you think?

Some energy schemes really do seem to be somewhat counter productive.

Near me are "electricity farms", which on the face of it is a good thing. However these have been placed on extremely good arable land, so crops can no longer be grown there.

Whilst this most probably gives the farmer an increased income, the food that was formerly grown there must come from somewhere - unless we start to cull our population. No doubt the food will be supplied from abroad, but that means increased travel - with increased carbon costs - and also less food for the locals from wherever it is sourced - as we in the affluent west can pay more than the locals.

End result of such questionably located (at least in my opinion) "electricity farms" is profit for the few, and a worse situation for the many - and the planet.

It's easy enough to farm around/between solar panels. Some crops even benefit from this.

https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.uk/blog/farming-and-solar-panels-can-work...

Those emissions graphs just emphasise huge changes in china in the decades to 2000 and don't look so carefully at current trends or oer capita data. We can't change the past and the climate does care that we can change now (and china is currently changing faster than the US). They also don't include how much the west outsources it's manufacturing (especially to China) and the transport of that to us.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-a...

Here is the 2021 position per capita (adjusted for emmisions related to both inport and export trade).

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita

Per capita huh? 14 billion tonnes equivalent of CO2 is 14 billion tonnes equivalent of CO2. And still rising. What difference does dividing that number by the population of China have on the impact to the climate exactly?

On dodgy ground there in more than one sense.

Firstly Truss and Sunak campaigned against their spread and a previous energy minister objected to a local development on the basis that a fire in the batteries endangered a neighbouring golf course so you may be aligning your views unwisely.

Secondly the benefit to the environment of providing islands for insects and wildlife in otherwise arable or worked grasslands is well established.

Thirdly your idea of extremely good farmland may be your view BUT the planners have real values to work with, they use BMV to decide (that's Best Most Versatile farmland) which is land which is ACL category 1 to 3a. Maps of your area are available for download. Since establishing a solar farm is not permanent but can be removed and the ground reverted to agriculture within days they are inclined to ignore this as an argument, it is different if they are asked to give permission for a housing estate or industrial development where the land loss is considered irrecoverable.

China has developed almost to our position in the west but we cant tell them what to do. Yet the speed of increase in commissioning renewables is impressive there. Fortunately you are almost certainly wrong about further increases: it's very likely Chinese emissions will decline in 2024 as per my other link and the decline should get faster thereafter.

It shows up the biggest per capita carbon emitters who need to sort things out better (as the UK had pre Truss, and China are starting to)

They are if you're looking at per capita emissions. In that respect China is better than the US, Canada and Australia (we do pretty well in comparison). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions...

And the they're heading in the right direction. I hope the US can do as well as they are.

If you can't work that out - we really have little hope. Go move to Vatican City and you can claim to be the most environmental country in the world!

That can be True, plus China has a really large labor pool. I remember when Nokia was building a new factory in China in late 90s and during the inspection round the Finnish engineers noted that some areas were lagging behind. They notified head Office via email and the local construction management. When they landed a bit over a day later back home, they had an email stating that it’s not an issue as some 3000 or so more workers were hired to catch up and meet the schedule.

So China certainly has the workforce. The other thing is need, they need energy to keep the new plants running and to be able to build more. So demand is there. Lastly as a lot of tge capasity (or part) is for foreign markets, which nowadays want green energy, the drive us there. So the China figures can be mind boggling, but still True.
 

Another funny thing is that Chinas paper industry grew a lot in the 2000s and 2010s in capasity, year they were closing around 800 to 1000 papermills per day (or was it per week, or month… can’t remember anymore). So they were building a few big modern ones and closing quite a few small mom et pops kind of mills. Which was actually good, as these smaller mills had no waste water treatment etc. the big ones actually had to have. And as a result, I do recall it had an impact on water quality.

Now back to the matter at hand. So while peak consumption in Uk was in the past. Things might change in the future. Currently (as per google), about a third of electricity goes to consumers. Which is actually quite high amount. Some one more local should prolly look into this, but I’ll wager that actual TWh amount of consumers has slightly grew from the peak year, where as industry (2/3 of the consumption) has gone down. Great.. well no, since the “green” requirement is creeping more and more into the industry. UK produces steel, about 5.6 million tons per year. And steel production requires hydrogen, now made from natural gas. It’s likely that it will be green h2 in the future. Also UK refines some 1200 million barrels per day of oil. I’m sure that amount will also drop in the future, but it will not go away… instead bio components will simply start to replace the crude oil… and also need for green h2 will be there… guess how much electricity is needed for green h2? A lot… like really a lot. To get a perspective, a refinery em with 12 million tons per year capacity is looking to build a green h2 electrolyser… that requires 120MW. And nope, that green h2 is not for the whole production capacity. But to give an idea, it’s about 10% of Europe’s newest nuclear reactor Olkiluoto 3… and indeed, thus far there has not been such consumption. So the green h2 will soon start to require considerable amounts of electricity… also coal or nat gas fired kilns are looked in industry to be replaced with electric ones…

so yeah, more electrical capacity will be most likely needed in the future. Even if consumer consumption goes down (more efficient heating etc, and not EVs or PHEVs).

n.b. Green h2 requires renewable electricity, so nuclear can’t be used for that. It needs to be water, solar or wind.

Why is so much climate activism like this? Exhibiting strong anti-Western bias and fawning over a repressive regime like China? It really isn't warranted either.

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/

China didn't become the factory of the world by accident. They aggressively sought this dominance at a time when global warming was already well understood. It came at a great cost to Western manufacturers and workers and they often stole our intellectual property. They've used their nationalised industries and manipulated their currency to undercut and ruin competitors. Western consumers may have benefitted from lots of cheap goodies, but this has hugely enriched a nation that many regard as a major security threat. So forgive me if I have little sympathy for any arguments about per capita and consumption/import based emissions. China can afford to do better.

Apologies for derailing the thread.

What fawning? These arguments are based on data and, in that, not using selective plots (as you did) to make China look worse than it is right now in terms of emissions. China still uses too much coal, and this is set to grow in the near future; it has devastated huge areas for massive hydro schemes; it's built huge volumes of high rise housing (with large carbon budgets) that too often now sit empty. In contrast, the west's performance on emissions and environmental protection is a very mixed bag: from small and good, to big and poor (the US now.... and with the scary potential prospect of a Trump return).

On China being the manufacturing centre of the world, globalised capitalism (led from the US) produced that, and the associated emissions necessary for it to happen. We outsourced inconvenient consequences.

Again to paraphrase you, climate change doesn't care about repressive regimes (but people worldwide should).

Maybe, but it's not happening - this is in the Vale of Evesham, and putting a few sheep in to keep the grass down is nothing compared to the food crops that such land formerly produced.

You'll have to take a specific case up with the land owner.

The general point is 'agrivoltaics' is possible and has some benefits. Even if nothing is done with the land they can be moved around, naturally allowing land to recover from over faming (a return to the old field rotation system).

Nationally, we are nowhere near threatening food security with solar farms even with a five fold increase.

'Solar farms themselves occupy a minuscule area, and even with five times as many solar farms deployed around the UK, they would still occupy less land than the amount currently occupied by golf courses.'

https://solarenergyuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Briefing-Solar-Farms-F...

We were talking about reductions in CO2 and investment in fixing things. The ratings you see in those pages relate more to how bad China has been rather than how good the USA is doing now. China's rate of change in the right direction is massive at the moment, we'll see how that continues but it's notable that they hit the 2030 targets well early but the USA doesn't and yet USA gets a big pat on the back from 'commercial investment in renewables' without the parallel actual reductions. 

China gets berated on it's ambition but the US applauded on what it says it might do. I don't agree with much about China but the bias their is blatant. 

In terms of absolute emissions, China is much worse than the US (as reflected in the graphs), however in terms of rate of change, China outperforms the US. 

In these terms, I hope the US can do as well as China is right now. If we want to talk about stuff we can't change, I wish China had been more like the UK and Europe over the last couple of decades. 

I can hold those two ideas in my head at the same time.

The contribution of pump storage to fighting the environmental disaster of climate change depends on the amount of energy that can be stored, ie capacity of lake that can be pumped and the hight difference. Selecting a less pretty site but with lower storage potential would be a net environmental detriment.

That depends on what you mean by "environmental detriment". Many would argue that should include the importance of landscapes. Where the projects deliver equal value then surely the less pretty site should be preferred. Even if the prettier site delivers greater value then we should at least consider whether this is sufficient to justify the loss of landscape, and that might mean that the less efficient site in energy terms is nevertheless the most beneficial (or least damaging).

Although some might wish otherwise, planning decisions aren't based solely on the energy benefits.  There are other many considerations, and the costs and benefits include the impact on biodiversity, human settlements, employment and many others.  A balance always has to be found. The author is arguing (and I agree) that landscape should be given more importance in finding that balance. She is clear that she is not saying that these places should never be developed, only that in prioritising projects the value of landscape should be taken more into account.

Even a small housing development requires a hefty environmental assessment which quantifies the effects on biodiversity, and based on this the planning authority can specify similarly quantified mitigation measures.  The difficulty with assessing landscapes is that their beauty is subjective and cannot be quantified in a similar way.  Probably the only way it can be assessed is from the public reaction to a proposal, which is why the claimed sidelining of public inquiries is of concern.

The development of our industrialised society brought prosperity but caused huge damage not only to the physical environment but also to our landscapes. In trying to correct the former we should be taking care to minimise further damage to the latter.