The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Why not go and google the 'research' this talks about, and then think about what a blocked-to-shipping Pentland Firth will mean to a country that found that short route more than it wanted to handle.

Scotland ?

As previously discussed. Scotland is blessed with natural resources. I`m all for encouraging tapping in to them as much as possible as you know. It`s the future.

[Comfy Bean]

While were on the subject. More good news.....

 

Dr Sam Gardner, acting director of WWF Scotland, said: “The first six months of 2017 have certainly been incredible for renewables, with wind turbines alone helping to ensure millions of tonnes of climate-damaging carbon emissions were avoided.

“Scotland is continuing to break records on renewable electricity, attracting investment, creating jobs and tackling climate change.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scotland-renewable-wind-energy-power-electricity-three-million-homes-118-per-cent-of-households-a7855846.html

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Comfy Bean said:

Scotland ?

As previously discussed. Scotland is blessed with natural resources. I`m all for encouraging tapping in to them as much as possible as you know. It`s the future.

But there's tapping them and tapping them.

Scotland has a need of convenient shipping no less than it has a need of convenient energy, and in the Pentalnd Firth you can't have both (or at least, not to the extent suggested in that research).

I've seen the research maps, which build a wall of gennies across it.

I've not seen the Crown Estate's maps, but i reckon I'm on solid ground in thinking they'll be based on thinking about more than just energy needs.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

“Scotland is continuing to break records on renewable electricity, attracting investment, creating jobs and tackling climate change....

... on subsidies mostly coming from outside of Scotland.

[LJS]

10 hours ago, lost said:

I'm sure they only teach history according to Mel Gibson up there, I'd be embarrassed too if my nation asked to join the union after bankrupting itself trying to set up an empire. Failed colonial power doesn't really match the nationalist image very well.

I'd be embarrassed if i'd misrepresented history as you have.

[LJS]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But likewise, there was no question of Scotland being a military conquest.

 

 

 

Which is why no one has ever said it was.

Do i detect a tiny wee squirrel?

[LJS]

So, Neil has performed his usual trick of claiming to have trawled the internet & found evidence to support his views. Lots of us do that & its pretty much standard practice to share links to the stuff we've found. 

Not Neil. He makes his case, claims the internet is rife with stuff that supports his views but funnily enough doesn't choose to share his sources : instead he challenges the rest of us to search for it if we don't believe him.

here's how he puts it..."Feel free to google to your heart's content to dispute what I've said here. You won't be able to dispute it, cos i've already done the googling."

Well i don't believe him so I spent some time on the net

I looked at the original study where the "nearly half of Scotland's power" claim came from (not a press release) I looked at a Crown Estates report on the feasibility of tidal power in the Pentland Firth and I looked at lots of random articles on the subject.

& I can find not a shred of evidence for the following claims from Neil:

 

1: there would need to be  "one thousand two hundred tidal generators placed in those waters." 

no evidence. Neil made the number up

2:  "Turbines would need to be located across the entire width of the channel to fully exploit it" ... and there's not room for one thousand two hundred tidal generators in that space (at least, not to work efficiently [cos each gennie impacts onto the generation capacity of the others]).

Again, this claim is entirely unsupported by anything i could find. The report from the engineering departments of 2 of the UK's top universities talks at some length about the importance of putting turbines in the right place because, astonishingly,  they seem to have been aware that "each gennie impacts onto the generation capacity of the others" 

3: If the full potential of the Pentland Firth was exploited it would  "(essentially) close that very busy shipping channel off to ship traffic so that the turbines aren't wiped out." 

I could find no mention of any threat to shipping from the planned tidal power stuff in the Pentland Firth. And you'd imagine there would be some pretty serious opposition to it if there was a problem . i did discover that ..."The Pentland Firth is significantly deeper, with depths in the main channel typically lying in the range 60-80m. Depths of over 90m are found in the western part of the Firth, between Hoy and Dunnet Head. The Inner Sound, south of the Island of Stroma, is somewhat shallower, reaching a maximum depth of around 35m."

I also discovered that the largest container ships (which almost certainly are not going to be sailing through the Pentland Firth) have a draft of less than 15 metres. 

So at its shallowest point there would 20m clearance between the keel of the largest ships in the world & the sea bed.

4: apparently this project would have a serious environmental impact. 

"There was a proposal for a French-style 'beach' tidal plant (goog;le it if you don't know what that is). It was rejected on environmental grounds.That had a hell of a lot less environmental impact than what this article is suggesting."

Now, I'm not denying there is no environmental impact - that would be silly - but if there are major environmental issues you' imagine it would be easy to find Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF etc complaining  about it I couldn't find any of that. And of course Comfy has already kindle shared WWF's support for the scheme.

 

So, Neil, I'm calling your bluff, if you can find a shred of evidence to support your claims share it. Or admit you made  it all up.

 

 

[bamber]

All Nationalism is poison.

[eFestivals]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

1: there would need to be  "one thousand two hundred tidal generators placed in those waters." 

no evidence. Neil made the number up

read the article you quoted and what it claims of one tidal plant and what it claims can be generated across the whole firth.

And then do the maths. 

Fucks sake. :lol:

[eFestivals]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

2:  "Turbines would need to be located across the entire width of the channel to fully exploit it" ... and there's not room for one thousand two hundred tidal generators in that space (at least, not to work efficiently [cos each gennie impacts onto the generation capacity of the others]).

Again, this claim is entirely unsupported by anything i could find.

then your googling and follow-the-information skills are inferior to mine.

I'll give you a tip, tho .... you won't find the source documents in Scotland.

Edited September 9, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

3: If the full potential of the Pentland Firth was exploited it would  "(essentially) close that very busy shipping channel off to ship traffic so that the turbines aren't wiped out." 

I could find no mention of any threat to shipping from the planned tidal power stuff in the Pentland Firth.

if you find what you mention in 2 above, you'll see the map that has a 'wall' of turbines.

Do you think ships do the slalom thru the many off-shore wind installations? Any reason why you think they'd be doing that around very expensive tidal installations in one of the roughest sea areas in the world?

Edited September 9, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

4: apparently this project would have a serious environmental impact. 

"There was a proposal for a French-style 'beach' tidal plant (goog;le it if you don't know what that is). It was rejected on environmental grounds.That had a hell of a lot less environmental impact than what this article is suggesting."

Now, I'm not denying there is no environmental impact - that would be silly - but if there are major environmental issues you' imagine it would be easy to find Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF etc complaining  about it I couldn't find any of that. And of course Comfy has already kindle shared WWF's support for the scheme.

the Crown Estate has already limited the available sites for installations, precisely because of the environmental impacts.

(the research in the article doesn't work from those 'approved' sites, it works from what might be generated from the firth).

No one is actually proposing carrying out an installation as is talked about in the research, and at-least some of the protections the likes of Greenpeace would want are in place via what the Crown Estate would allow. They have nothing to object about.

 

[LJS]

Thanks, Neil, as I suspected you are unable to supply any evidence to support your claims.

[LJS]

4 hours ago, bamber said:

All Nationalism is poison.

All opinions are welcome.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Thanks, Neil, as I suspected you are unable to supply any evidence to support your claims.

or you're too daft to do the maths, one or the other.

Meanwhile, from the very article you linked to...
Turbines would need to be located across the entire width of the channel to fully exploit it, the researchers said.

 

[LJS]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

or you're too daft to do the maths, one or the other.

Meanwhile, from the very article you linked to...
Turbines would need to be located across the entire width of the channel to fully exploit it, the researchers said.

 

So what? 

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

So what? 

do you think massive ships play slalom with sub-sea installations?

 

[LJS]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

do you think massive ships play slalom with sub-sea installations?

 

Why would they play slalom with things that are at least 20 metres beneath their keels?

[Comfy Bean]

I am certain that impact on things like shipping will be very much in the mix here.

The direction of travel here though seems to be with the development of renewable energy.

Abandoning it incase massive ships have to play slalom is fortunately unlikely to stand in the way of progress in this very important area....in my opinion.

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, LJS said:

Why would they play slalom with things that are at least 20 metres beneath their keels?

but they're not. 

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but they're not. 

"The Pentland Firth is significantly deeper, with depths in the main channel typically lying in the range 60-80m. Depths of over 90m are found in the western part of the Firth, between Hoy and Dunnet Head. The Inner Sound, south of the Island of Stroma, is somewhat shallower, reaching a maximum depth of around 35m."

the largest draught I can find is just under 25metres which was fitba humongous tanker, much larger than anything that would be sailing through the pentland firth. 

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

I am certain that impact on things like shipping will be very much in the mix here.

The direction of travel here though seems to be with the development of renewable energy.

Abandoning it incase massive ships have to play slalom is fortunately unlikely to stand in the way of progress in this very important area....in my opinion.

that's a view. You're at least recognising there's competing pressures.

And I don't think it's impossible that some time in the future that view will win out, but I strongly suspect in the shorter term there'll be a more balanced approach.

Particularly as land-based wind turbines are much cheaper, and Scotland still has plenty of space where those might be sited, and over a big enough land mass where weather conditions will vary (to cover a better amount of any slack periods than can be achieved in a small space).

They'll be a place for tidal because the generation is certain, but various factors will mean the roll out in the short term isn't going to be massively ambitious.

(something we're going to quickly hit is a much bigger need for 'leccy, as cars switch from petrol/diesel - and there's not much attention being paid to that at the moment because no one really knows what the demands will be and at what times).

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

"The Pentland Firth is significantly deeper, with depths in the main channel typically lying in the range 60-80m. Depths of over 90m are found in the western part of the Firth, between Hoy and Dunnet Head. The Inner Sound, south of the Island of Stroma, is somewhat shallower, reaching a maximum depth of around 35m."

the largest draught I can find is just under 25metres which was fitba humongous tanker, much larger than anything that would be sailing through the pentland firth. 

the tidal structures are not (only) submerged. The power plant is only-just below the surface, with the mountings breaking the surface. They have features to them so the power plant can be jacked upwards to above the surface, for maintenance.

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the tidal structures are not (only) submerged. The power plant is only-just below the surface, with the mountings breaking the surface. They have features to them so the power plant can be jacked upwards to above the surface, for maintenance.

you have a source for this? My understanding is that this is not the case with the Meygen project. 

There would clearly be potential disruption to shipping during installation but not that I'm aware of during normal operation.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

you have a source for this? My understanding is that this is not the case with the Meygen project. 

my understanding of every project I've looked into in any depth has been as I said. I've not looked at Meygen that way to know.

Do you have a source for what you're saying?