Bishop Hill Greenery still killing the environment
Nov 22, 2013 Energy: wind Greens 
It's behind a paywall, but we gather from the Herald that the Beauly-Denny power line, designed to bring all that wind power from the highlands down to the central belt of Scotland where it is needed, is scarring the landscape to an extent not envisaged and on a permanent basis.
Conservationists have raised concerns that tracks cut into hills to build a controversial power line, which were supposed to be temporary, are becoming permanent scars on the landscape. They say that, although the Scottish Government's planning permission for the 137-mile Beauly/Denny line was on the basis these "temporary tracks be removed", all landowners need to do to make them permanent is to apply to the local council.
Yet again, we see that environmentalism ends up damaging the environment. I hope Friends of the Earth are very proud of themselves.
Reader Comments (80)
As predicted, Mike Jackson makes straight for the "not killing the children" defence of fossil fuels and denies there are any hidden costs. Everyone knows about the environmental costs of oil and coal, he says. Except they don't because they are mostly far away in some other land. Ask the average person how many other peoples' livelyhoods were destroyed, how much land was damaged and wildlife killed, how much the air was polluted etc in extracting and burning their oil, coal or gas and they will have no idea. They accept it because it is hidden.
And save the crocodile tears for Chinese serfs unless you can be sure your computer or car, the shirt on your back, or any of a millions household items were not also made by such "slave labour".
As I said, nobody here is likely to consider honestly the real environmental costs of fossil fuels. It is an odd thing that denial of climate science so often goes hand in hand with denial of the effing obvious.
AM, are you really saying that there is an acceess road capable of carrying water tankers and other heavy equipment necessary for drilling and fracking within a few kilometers of every place suitable for shale in England?
My experience has been more in the 'developing world' - Papua New Guinea in particular.
I was just asking for a bit of balance but it seems that was asking too much. I'm not claiming anything for renewables, I'm just saying we need to be honest and balanced in the approach to the debate.
Re: Chandra
Since they can drill horizontally and since the area they can drill in to reach the shale is large, then I don’t see any need for them to drill in remote locations. It isn't as if the geologists give them 100m2 area and say you must drill here. The shale covers vast areas of land.
Nick I think the restrictions placed on oil companies and miners, at least in US and Europe, are such that 10 years after the close of operations, you would not see many signs of the industry. The huge spoil tips in South Wales have disappeared, for example. To reopen the old RTZ mine in Andalusia has required 5 years' worth of environmental papers....etc etc. the impacts of the rare earth mines in China and the lithium mines in Chile required for windthingies do not seem to be mentioned, on the other hand.
As [might have been] predicted, Chandra chooses to misinterpret what I said and prefers to attack the "not killing the children" defence of fossil fuels which is not what I argued. Naturally he also prefers to ignore my request to identify the hidden costs and resorts to his usual arm-waving tactics.
Come on, Chandra, put a figure on how many other peoples' livelihoods were destroyed, how much land was damaged and wildlife killed, how much the air was polluted etc in extracting and burning their oil, coal or gas and balance that with the jobs and wealth that were created directly or indirectly in the countries concerned.
As for crocodile tears .... do you practise jumping to (wrong) conclusions about other people or does it come naturally. No I can't be sure about the provenance of every item I buy but I can at least make the effort — along with millions of other people. And don't make yourself look ridiculous by comparing essentials to the pointless and expensive wind technology that our greenie pals are so in love with.
So tell me what are "the real environmental costs of fossil fuels". If it's so effing obvious it should only take a couple of minutes to write them all down. Just don't forget to include the equally effing obvious benefits while you're at it.
Environmentalism is just a means to an end for those running the show, their objective is money and power, like many people but far less honest about it.
Nick, I don't think you appreciate the company you keep here. There can be no balance when discussing energy sources. If you want to belong here then line to take is like Animal Farm's four legs good, two legs bad: fossil fuels are good, renewables are bad. There can be no discussion of the negative aspects of fossil fuels because the benefits are so overwhelming. Any costs associated with extracting, transporting, spilling, corrupting, killing, etc are borne by nature or by others elsewhere and are overwhelmed by the gains made by us having fossil fuels, so we just don't need to care. Renewables threaten the trillions in sunk costs and market values of fossil fuel companies. Powerful people would lose a fortune if renewables replaced fossils, so renewables must be resisted. Hence there can be no positive aspects of renewables because renewables are intrinsically bad, wasteful, impractical, unworkable and expensive. This website and its denizens unwittingly represent and further the aims of the powerful fossil fuel interests.
Of course there are environmental costs associated with fossil fuel extraction and use. But compared to "renewables" (which they aren't, since they degrade just like any other structure), the amount of damage caused vs the energy density produced puts fossil fuels miles in front. A single coal or gas power station provides power to tens, and usually hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses 24/7/365, with a "footprint" of a few acres. Compare that with the land, roads and infrastructure required for windmills and solar arrays, which still require conventional power backup at all times.
I can't believe that we are still having to point this out to people like "Chandra", who reminds me a bit of the late and unlamented BB is his disingenuous and distracting forays into these threads.
Chandra continues to plough his own lonely furrow apparently still waiting for the memo to tell him how to answer the question about hidden costs. Meanwhile as he treads water (pardon the mixed metaphor) he sinks further and further into the mire and has now reached the point where he tries to convince us that the fossil fuel companies are not up to their oxters (and beyond) in renewables as well.
The difference between Chandra and BB, johanna, is that BB at least waited until SkS - or occasionally Science of Doom - told him what to think.
That's three comments he's had from me this evening. That's his ration.
" Unchecked it [climate change] would also transform Scotland's landscape"
Well, FoE got that right!
There is nothing to be trusted about FOE, such a perfect name, since they subordinate everything to their project, which is the imposing upon the people their plans for the protection of the earth, from hazards only FOE can visualise and understand, such as the phantom man-made global warming (now cooling!).
As proof consider this extract from the FOE website, easily accessed from the pink lettered link in above BH piece.
Here it is:-
-We are convinced that outside of designated areas, the damage to landscape interests from renewables such as wind farms, or pylon lines, is much less than would result from climate change.
This means that any despoliation of anything at all is acceptable to FOE if they decide it prevents climate change.
Latimer Alder
You're not a resident or regular visitor to Braco are you? Don't answer if you'd rather not.
I know the the area where the Beauly-Denny crosses the countryside close to Braco and can remember the substation just off the A822 being built, and the laying of the water pipeline from Loch Turret to Grangemouth, until the pipes were laid they were a wonderful playground for children. After constructing that pipeline the impact on the local environment was minimal.
David Chappell
Climate change has already had an impact on Scotland's landscape at the bottom of every peat bog I've walked on in Perthshire there are tree stumps. It's my understanding that these forests went into decline about 5000 tears ago, as a result of climate change - increasing rainfall; and some claim human activity.
Well that was what I was getting at - environmental damage has more to do with the country and culture than the industry.
This is about the first time I've seen any attempt in the media (and not just on blogs like this) to be honest about environmental damage caused by "green" projects so I think it's à bit strange to suddenly call for balance.
The media, from news and documentaries to popular fiction, relentlessly push the line that coal and oil are dirty and destructive - and of course they can be, like any enterprise - but there's no need for so-called "green" activities to continue escaping scrutiny.
The free ride is over.
@sandy s
'Regular visitor' to Braco sums it up.
I buy very fresh, very free range, very yummy eggs from a local smallholder. And take his dog for a walk - on a lead which she hates, being used to free ranging herself before the juggernauts came.
It never was about the environment. Communism masquerading ... to borrow a phrase.
Was the Beauly Denny line every really about wind though ? Or was that just a masterstroke of presentation to placate the Enviros?
Altimeter
It's a small world I went to primary school in Braco more than 50 years ago,
Latimer
My age is why this iPad keeps slipping in "corrections" without me spotting them, sorry about the last one!!
Johanna, I think BB did actually show some honour, by agreeing to go away after a certain number of polite reasoned requests, and by then doing so.
-----------------------------------------------
tonyb, I hear you on the subject of remediation. Most projects WILL have some short or medium term consequences, but they need not necessarily be large in terms of area or severity if sensible policies are in place.
And it is often quite possible to actually improve biodiversity as a result. I wish British motorways had done a better job on motorway verges from the beginning, but the mindset in those days was different and attitudes are better today. The same goes for forestry-commission policies. And remember, there are almost zero places in the British Isles that are not already significantly the product of human activities and agriculture.
This is what Greenpeace et al should be concentrating on. But they just can't help their knee-jerk reaction of "We must stop it. No thought required." Time to mention the Brent Spar again.
Sunken ship wrecks and other human constructions provide superb 'reefs' for aquatic life forms. Yet by GP telling lies about radioactivity, plus a fire bombing of a filling station in Germany (as a result of the adverse publicity they created), the mighty Shell Corporation performed a U-turn and paid a lot of extra money to have the Brent Spar towed away to a Norwegian Fjord. A lose-lose situation for everybody. Just like anti-carbon dioxide policies.
MH - nah. It was just time for his next rotation.
Kellydown, I agree. In fragile states, where regulatory frameworks are weak and citizen knowledge is restricted. Extractive industries take full advantage.
Johanna said,"... the amount of damage caused vs the energy density produced puts fossil fuels miles in front. A single coal or gas power station provides power to tens, and usually hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses 24/7/365, with a "footprint" of a few acres."
You have conveniently ignored the "footprint" of the mines and dumps and access roads and railways and ports and ships and tankers and pipelines and spills etc. And your "miles in front" is just personal prejudice. You have not measured or given a value to any of the negative aspects of fossil fuels.
And your 224/7/365 is silly - the average capacity factor of coal plants in the UK is just 42% and for the US 63%. They might be able to generate for more time than that, but they don't (even coal generators must be maintained and, like anything, sometimes they just fail).
Oh, for goodness sake, coal mining is a huge industry in Australia, with massive exports all over the world, and I assure you that the days of slag heaps and "dumps" are well and truly over. You are living in the 1920s.
As for ports and pipelines for gas, the energy that they deliver compared to the amount of land they use is trivial compared to windfarms and solar arrays. And you seem to have ignored the manufacturing, transport, construction and maintenance of these intermittent and low-producing sources. Not to mention the amount of land they consume to produce much less per acre, now and then.
Your absurd statement about the "capacity factor" ignores the fact that in a developed country, a well maintained power station can function 24/7/365 for decades. In all my lifetime, living in various parts of Australia, I have never experienced a power cut because the local power station broke down. Which is just as well in this bizarre age where intermittent and expensive "renewables" (which do break down - try a decent hailstorm on a solar array) are preferred by weird sects who are lucky enough to live in countries where their fantasies can, at considerable cost, be accommodated.
As I said, your "miles in front" is just personal prejudice unless you can measure and value the negative aspects of fossil fuels. But no climate science denier or fossil fuel booster will ever do that honestly in case they find something they don't like. Also I don't see what is absurd about quoting a 42% capacity factor. It is the average over 5 years for the UK and is not that much more than the figure for offshore wind. That you haven't experienced a power cut because of a breakdown is probably irrelevant, assuming Australia has managed to cobble together a grid of some sort. Most grid operators spend their time making sure that failures in the grid don't affect users. Maybe Abbott and co will outlaw fossil fuel power station failures or ban discussion of them -that will help.
johanna
Do you think if we both concentrate very, very hard and think positive thoughts we might just possibly get Chandra to stop his incessant logorrhea and actually produce some facts and figures on these "hidden" costs he wurbles on about?
It might be worth a try, do you think?
"But no climate science denier or fossil fuel booster will ever do that honestly in case they find something they don't like."
-------------------------------------------
Go away, like BB. Just go away.
Your self imposed labels on me are rubbish. Your comments about the way electricity grids work are only slightly more absurd than they are inaccurate.
Like the unlamented BB, your main purpose seems to be to divert people from more worthwhile purposes (like cleaning out behind the fridge) to waste time and engage with you. I, for one, am just about to clean behind the fridge.
Mike Jackson
No chance, why would he/she change the habits of a lifetime, it's in the genes of every troll.
In that case I don't completely agree. Sophisticated international companies often apply better standards than local companies are required to. I assume you have been to Ridge Camp in PNG, since we're discussing oil and gas drilling?
Kellydown, if you can, go and spend some time with many local communities and see what conclusions you draw. No doubt, international companies often have tighter rules and regulation that are self enforced. No sure that says a huge amount about good or fair practice though. Purely anecdotally, speaking with many expat (mainly Australian) oil and gas executives, one thing that stood out was their total and complete disregard of local populations, not wanting to compare all employees with those experiences but when you don't hear any positive attitudes, you do begin to wonder. Surely, that attitude and ethos causes problems and judgement when it comes to social impacts. I'll leave it here, as we clearly have different experiences.