The crux
of the issue – renewable energy!
The proposals outlined by Scottish and Southern Energy to put some water in the
Garry have been suggested because they are
achievable
without any loss in electricity generation. As this is “renewable” energy it has been argued this energy is particularly valuable in view of climate change considerations. This has been the main argument deployed so far against cutting SSE's hydro generation.
This is a hugely overstated argument.
The amount of energy under consideration is irrelevant in the context of national
energy production. If the flows proposed by SSE were to
be added to the Garry and Spey, without reducing
the Tromie flow at all, then the loss in generation
from SSE's present mode of operation would be approximately 7 GWh per annum. This is little more than the production
of one modern land based wind turbine (assuming
an installed capacity of 2.5 MW and 30% load factor).
For a little more “lost” energy even
greater gains could be made.
Less than another 7 GWh would provide additional compensation flow from the Geallaidh and the Anndeir. During October and November a higher base flow (2 - 3 cumecs) and about 15 days of 7 cumec freshets, similar in size to that currently
released from Dunalastair Reservoir on the Tummel, could be released at intervals from
the lower Garry intake and down the Anndeir and Geallaidh for another 8.76 GWh. These might be sufficient
to allow salmon to ascend the Garry, Anndeir and Geallaidh and spawn naturally.
A serious, but by no means maximum, improvement to the
Garry could be made for about 23.5 GWh. This equates to about 3% of the output of the Tummel-Garry scheme (750 GWh) or the equivalent of approximately 3.5 modern wind turbines and further improvements could be gained for a little more loss.
|
|
For as little as the equivalent of 3.5 modern windturbines a self sustaining salmon population could be restored in much of the Garry and two of its tributaries.
Annual production of hydro electricity in Britain, 1990 - 2005 (source DTI), of which about 80% is produced by Scottish and Southern. Because hydro production is dependent on rainfall, output varies considerably between years. A small loss of a few percent for WFD issues would not in practice be noticed. It probably would not be possible to statistically detect such a change, at least in the short term, on account of the variation.
|
The Scottish Executive's renewable energy targets
It has also been argued that loss of hydro generation will undermine the attainment of the last Scottish Excecutive’s renewable energy targets.
This is nonsense!
In fact, with the amount of wind farms which have already been built or have already received consent, Scotland is now well in excess of the Scottish Executive’s 2010 target of 18% renewable generation. In addition, those still in various stages of the planning process would even exceed the 2020 target of 40% if consented!
According to Scottish Natural Heritage in 2006 there was an enormous 11,799 MW of onshore wind power at some stage of being considered in Scotland. And what of future developments in offshore wind, wave and tidal power? By comparison, the installed capacity of all the old Hydro Board conventional hydro stations amounts to little over 1,000 MW, of which less than 1% would be required to restore the Garry!
So, considering that Scotland could be on the brink of being awash with renewable energy if the Scottish Government wished it to, the tiny amount required to bring the Garry back to life seems a inconsequential.
If a practical example were needed to reinforce this, then it is that Scottish and Southern have actually downsized seven of their hydro power stations in order to qualify for substantial subsidies meant to increase renewable energy output. It has been alleged that the effect of this has actually been to reduce renewable output! Access the extremely illuminating report, Subsidies and Subterfuge here.
|
|
The projected growth of wind power and other renewable technologies in Scotland dwarfs the tiny losses in renewable energy which would be required to restore the River Garry.
|
Investment programmes
It has also been argued that certain works should be deferred from the first to subsequent River Basin Management Plans on account of the relatively short timescale (up to six years!) available for companies or other bodies to prepare for remedial works.
To this end those works which Scottish Water intends to make under the first Scottish RBMP have apparently already been agreed with SEPA in order to fit in with their long term, Quality and Standards, investment plan.
It has been suggested that similar considerations might apply to works which SSE could be made to do.
However, we think that in reality this would not apply to our extra suggestions for the Garry. We could see how this might be true regarding major works at a dam, but all we are asking for are relatively small scale works on small river offtakes. After all, if work was done at Garry intake to provide a compensation flow the provision of a sluice or valve large enough to provide freshets should incur no greater expense. |
|
Relatively little investment would be required at many stream intakes to provide compensation flows. Here on the upper River Vagastie in Sutherland the flow is only held back at this diversion of SSE's by means of wooden boards!
SSE would not require major long term capital investment works to deliver the improvements to the River Garry we think are appropriate.
|
