Pump storage hydro scheme planning consent granted by Scottish Government which will dramatically disrupt and change one of the best gravel bike packing routes.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest ... 6-04-2025/

Loch level to be raised by 20m.
The current two lochs will become one.
Large scale works to be ongoing for at least five years

https://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/2023/0 ... ge-scheme/

https://earbastorage.co.uk/the-project/

Well we can save the planet or moderately affect a bike route and impact a view

No scheme leaves everyone happy.

A couple of years ago I was chatting to a couple of surveyors from (I think) either Scottish Water or the Scottish Environment Agency who were assessing the hydrology of the area but I’d assumed that it was for the burn coming from the Corrour direction.

There’s likely to be a works access track above the new level plus there’s an existing track along the loch side to Ardverikie House- while not as open as the track by the upper lochs it’s a case of along and up rather than up and along.

It's a nice track but the world moves on

Us bikers are smart fellows, we'll find a way. #bikerafting

Pity it will be privately owned and most of the electricity will head for the south of England. I'd be a lot more supportive of such things if the power was used locally (i.e within 200 miles) so at least we get the benefit as well as the environmental impact.

Wonder what they will do with the singletrack over the pass?

fatbikephil wrote: ↑Sun Apr 20, 2025 10:33 pm Pity it will be privately owned and most of the electricity will head for the south of England. I'd be a lot more supportive of such things if the power was used locally (i.e within 200 miles) so at least we get the benefit as well as the environmental impact.

It'll be load balancing the National Grid. Power goes where its needed, that'll be Scotland if necessary.

I get that Johnnny but you end up with most of the power going to the areas of highest population density i.e. the southern half of the country. With the closure of all the coal schemes the majority of power generation is now in the northern part of the country and that's starting to stick in peoples craw - up here is getting all the impact but little benefit. There is probably some tax solution so you get spin off benefit but the government seems somewhat reluctant to implement such a thing and Holyrood only wants to moan about it....

The barnett formula where by scotland gets higher per capita spending than the rest of the uk and more tax money spent than it generates , that sort of thing?

Its also kinda of obvious that densely populated places need the power and low demsity areas have the space. I dont really see a green alternative to this , do you ?

I guess tidal could be a solution ( and presumably predictable amounts at almost all times ) ??

fatbikephil wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 11:58 am I get that Johnnny but you end up with most of the power going to the areas of highest population density i.e. the southern half of the country. With the closure of all the coal schemes the majority of power generation is now in the northern part of the country and that's starting to stick in peoples craw - up here is getting all the impact but little benefit. There is probably some tax solution so you get spin off benefit but the government seems somewhat reluctant to implement such a thing and Holyrood only wants to moan about it....

There'll be some benefit from jobs and at least it's a power source that doesnt "stick out" so much. South of the border we've got two new nuclear power stations that can't be ignored so easily.

The Barnett formula needs reviewing but UK govt seems unable to get its finger out to do so - sound familiar?...

This thing might not be too bad visual impact wise but don't get me started on windfarms (again) my blood just boils over.... I guess that's my beef as this scheme is supposed to be taking up the off peak load of wind farms and I'd happily see the back of every wind turbine bigger than 20m.

There are plenty of solutions to power generation which could be spread across the country, increasing generating resilience and massively reducing transmission distance, losses, costs and environmental impact. The bunch of muppets in Westminster are too stupid to push something like that through though.

The Barnett formula needs reviewing but UK govt seems unable to get its finger out to do so - sound familiar?...

Yes its never scotlands (our) fault its always someone else,(them) usually the english ? Its often true mind, its not like we vote tory.

My point still stands scotland does benefit from " preferential taxation" as you requested so does gain.

What are the plenty of solutions to power generation?
Genuine question as i am ignorant here.

There are plenty of solutions to power generation which could be spread across the country, increasing generating resilience and massively reducing transmission distance, losses, costs and environmental impact. The bunch of muppets in Westminster are too stupid to push something like that through though.

Errr they are, my community is about to be in the noise and flicker impact area for 180m high turbines less than 1 km from the village centre, there's a battery scheme, all horizons have existing wind turbines. Scheme is less than 20miles from the centre of Manchester.



The people in Westminster are very clever. It's not a coincidence that the UKGov reports recommending tightening of standards for flicker and noise have been quietly ignored in the dash for Ed's targets. They don't care because it's an area where they take people for granted and they will never live.

Or just like when folk complain about traffic , when they are also traffic , some of us expect solutions that dont involve us doing anyhing.. others shall give up cars , others should have turbines
Nimbyism will always be an issue even though we all know we cannot rely on imported gas as its really unsustainable and a very volatile market.( as the ukraine solition shkws

No solution suits everyone ì

This is always a difficult one isn't it ... but here's a few thoughts.

None of this has anything to do with saving the planet. There's a big difference between 'saving the planet' and 'saving ourselves' ... one would require the wholesale removal of us as a species and the other is quite laughable given how we've treated it, yet still seem to harbour a belief that we're entitled to continue living on it. Sadly, the two are often confused but it doesn't matter because neither are goin' happen.

Cries of nimbyism never help, they simply set opposing sides. The accusers often appear to live somewhere you probably wouldn't want to go to for a day out, while the accused are often simply trying to protect something that once gone, is sadly gone for ever - hey but as long as people can charge their phones, then f*ck it.

It shouldn't be forgotten that 'green energy' (sorry, no such thing) is often simply a exercise in box ticking with very large sums of grant and subsidy money dished out in various directions. Once the cash dries up, weirdly so does the desire to produce it.

Educating the populace to reduce usage (not solely but inc electricity) would seem like a real positive step - yet, it doesn't happen, in fact the opposite seems to happen, maybe it's because there's no money to be made by getting people to use less?

Anyway, as you were.

It shouldn't be forgotten that 'green energy' (sorry, no such thing) is often simply a exercise in box ticking with very large sums of grant and subsidy money dished out in various directions

I could not disagree more, its a genuine attempt to have renewable energy that addds less ( billions of tons ) CO2 than gas or coal generation. Its not just a tick box Changing to electric cars and reducing electricity is not an achievable goal.

Yes nimbyism claim does not help but any.action will disproportionatley affect some community.

I could not disagree more, its a genuine attempt to have renewable energy that addds less ( billions of tons ) CO2 than gas or coal generation. Its not just a tick box Changing to electric cars and reducing electricity is not an achievable goal.

My point John, is that all energy production produces pollution, emissions, waste etc, hence no such thing as green energy. To call it that makes its production sound benign.

Nothing can meet your high bar of green as that would mean no resources used to produce itor the end product of electricty . In this case coal can emit around 740-1689 g CO2e/kWh, while hydropower emits only about 4 g CO2e/kWh.I would suggest its not hard to see why renewable energy is called green and fossil fueled energy is not considered green.

Still something of a misnomer though - as an example, they cut thousands of tonnes of wood from the forest here and transported it to Drax where it was burnt to produce electricity. On paper, that is seen as 'Green' because in theory it's sustainable. I'm pretty sure most of us would question just how green that kind of practice is?

Ultimately it's money, i.e. investment capital, that rules the roost: "It is more economically efficient and less carbon intensive to build gas units or renewable energy such as wind and solar than it is to build a coal plant.”

More coal mines shut and miners lost their jobs during Trump's first term than under Obama's second term and the number of coal mining jobs actually increased under Biden.

I'm not sure if it's still available on iPlayer but there was a short series presented by Brian Cox about the search for nuclear fusion where the requirements to replace fossil fuels were put into stark focus. Crude oil is so energy dense that to completely replace it within 25 years we'd need a new nuclear power plant AND several square kilometres of wind farms AND several square kilometres of solar panels every month (or similar short timespan).

What you really are after is the lowest resource cost of your energy source (concrete, steel, etc.) for the most energy output. A nuclear power plant needs a lot of resources but also produces a lot of power, etc.

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 9:25 pm Still something of a misnomer though - as an example, they cut thousands of tonnes of wood from the forest here and transported it to Drax where it was burnt to produce electricity. On paper, that is seen as 'Green' because in theory it's sustainable. I'm pretty sure most of us would question just how green that kind of practice is?

Doesn't Drax get most of its wood pellets shipped over from Canada on horribly polluting bulk carriers because we can't produce anything like enough wood cheaply enough?

Doesn't Drax get most of its wood pellets shipped over from Canada on horribly polluting bulk carriers because we can't produce anything like enough wood cheaply enough?

Possibly Paul sounds stupid enough to be true

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68381160
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxnpzzjed1o

The thing is, if they move to using pellets made from UK grown sitka, they will be using up sitka resources pretty quickly, being a softwood. Whilst it sounds good to wipe out all that mono-culture, it won't be getting replaced with native trees, just more fast grow sitka. Worse, to meet demand of the various woodchip power stations, sitka plantations are being thrown up everywhere and anywhere. Even more worser, many are funded through carbon credit schemes, i.e. companies are making cash payments to forestry schemes to 'offset' their CO2 emissions instead of reducing their CO2 emissions. Worse to the power of three, a lot of these new plantations are going up in places that were previously very bio diverse, eg. my local hills. And finally, we the tax payer are subsidising these schemes

Years ago, I was at some conference or other where someone stated that renewable energy schemes would only work if we reduced power consumption significantly. This was well before someone had the bright idea of running cars off electricity.

Oh well, think of all the gravel biking opportunities round all the windfarm, hydro electric, forestry and power line access tracks....

Won't somebody think of the c̶h̶i̶l̶d̶r̶e̶n̶ shareholders!

In a world without shareholders or children, this wouldn't be a problem!

fatbikephil wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 11:58 am
Years ago, I was at some conference or other where someone stated that renewable energy schemes would only work if we reduced power consumption significantly. This was well before someone had the bright idea of running cars off electricity.

The mitigating factor there is that the 5kwh you used to refine a gallon of crude oil into petrol for cars can just go straight into the car.