In reply to GForce1: et al
> The whole industry is hijacked by get rich quick schemes that prey on the fact that they are not subject to proper scrutiny. Back in the days of the CEGB schemes were built for the national interest. We now have an industry that is completely geared to making money, verging on the outright corrupt. As an example thoughout the UK many hydro schemes were in recent years reduced in capacity so as to qualify for extra subsidy.
Knowing a few people who work in hydro (but not in this company, Dickins), they are not profiteers, indeed those I know include climbers, walkers and environmentally minded people who care very much about mitigation and work hard with SNH and owners on environmental value. Yes these projects need to be incentivised if they are to be attractive to landowners and when the state refuses to be a developer for the greater good. Yet large scale schemes of the past gave landowners a great deal of money, cost workers lives and people were promised free electricity they never got. As a friend who works in large renewable projects said when looking at this Etive scheme, we could put something much bigger in there. Perhaps that would have been better? Though the overall environmental damage would likely be far greater. Besides, with the FiT now ended, preaccreditation complete and potential hydro across Scotland well scoured (unless storage becomes far more affordable and grid issues are resolved) there will be few if any new run of river schemes after whichever of the current planning permitted schemes get developed. Until, that is, we wake up to climate breakdown and pure rational need drives large scale hydro development, and indeed, as others have said, also the need for much greater water storage even here in Scotland.
As Summo and others have said, one issue here is that these areas are ecological deserts, which does not mean they should be an environmental free for all, does mean what few species are there need protected, but does also mean that some perspective is required when tick riddled grouse are by far the most abundant bird species you are likely to find around many Scottish hydro sites. In contrast to the need to protect specific species under threat, in pure carbon terms, the biomass and trophic chains supported in these areas are small and with mitigation really shouldn't be undermined. So what is the evidence that Scottish run of river hydro delivered under the water framework directive and under the purview of SNH and SEPA have been such an environmental failure?
I do strongly agree the opportunity for environmental improvements are huge, and there has been an opportunity missed in forcing landowners to not just mitigate, but improve areas of development with a much wider surrounding curtilage. However, this is a failure of what is demanded by legislation, regulation, and a lack of sufficient incentives, where only a little EU funding is available for woodland regeneration and peat bog restoration. I know hydro developers have restored peat bogs when proximate to hydro developments, which is a huge carbon plus, and also advise landowners of the importance and incentives available. Yet these actions are crucial at scale, not just for biodiversity but for carbon fixation and reestablishment of meaningful trophic chains. Therefore, far more incentives or state intervention are needed. We also need to cull deer or introduce top predators and stop grouse farming too. I hope these thing happen through state action or incentives, but then I also hope people who care about the environment, as all people commenting here seem to, stop getting on flights to climb and walk abroad and realise that that sort of carbon theft from our kids should have stopped long ago.
Post edited at 10:04