In reply to MJH:
> Which is why the Beauly-Denny upgrade is needed - that isn't really disagreeing with my point that transmission losses are relatively small.
Well your point would be valid if these projects were proposed as a coherent whole - working together. But they are not. LWP is proposed independently and without any mention of the clear necessity for the Beauly-Denny powerlines, despite every man and his dog knowing thats the case. Yet, not only has an official relationship between these projects been established, but there isn't even a formal proposal for a high voltage powerline between Ullapool and Beauly (which will also, clearly be necessary).
Most of the scientific (rather than lobby group's) analysis of these projects e.g. that carried out by the Royal Society, find that the lack of honesty in dealing with many issues, of which transmission is only one, is an integral part of these type of proposals, synchronous with intransigence to consider alternatives, such as underwater high voltage DC down to solway from the hebrides. The latter would also not require the upgrade of the central belt - tyneside transmission, which are already saturated, and for which concrete upgrade proposals don't exist.
> You may think that wind is not fir for purpose but that is a separate argument. I probably agree with you, but given that we have to increase our share of renewables (and I think the SNP wants to increase Scotland's share to 40%) then we have to accept some sort of compromise.
> It is pie in the sky thinking to think that if you reject large wind projects, have no new nuclear (I suspect Scotland's plants will be shut by 2023) and possibly end up closing existing coal plants by 2015/16 (I don't know if any of Scotland's plants have FGD fitted or not) that you still will be supplying energy for England.
The compromise is probably to stop relying on any sort of grid system at all, accept that there has to be intermittancy in supply, relying rather on local production for local people. Nuclear won't work as a backup, only as a steady state base-line supplier, and I agree ruling nuclear out is probably folly (but as I understand it from the documents i've read, while the SNP have ruled out new nuclear, they are prepared to upgrade and to continue to invest in current projects and existing technologies at existing sites extending well beyond 2023. Also, clean coal power technology has definitely been given the thumbs up by the SNP and is an intrinsic part of their energy policy for the future. Wind is useless at back-up or as baseline supply, as are other renewables, especially to keep an inherently instable system like the national grid operational, because the governor response ability in such renewables is very poor and frequency fluctuations are not readily controllable. The compromises you suggest are likely to be huge, and people don't realise how huge, but not having a national grid is, at least for Scotland, one possibility. But the disingenuousness intrinsic to LWP, Beauly to Denny, and the lack of scientific credibility make this latest decision a very good one, not least because a very poorly thought out slippery slope has probably been avoided....