I remain firmly against this ludicrous development. Renewable energy is not efficient. It transports poorly and is best used directly. Freedom of information confirms that at present the wind turbines in Sutherland provide enough electricity for Sutherland and already exports 80 percent of renewables to other counties. So no NEED for any additional infrastructure.
We have been told by SSEN that the addition of a third pylon line and significant upgrades to substations will allow more wind turbines and solar arrays and battery storage facilities, to provide more exportation and a more even transmission, depending on whether there is wind or light for only part of the day. I think it is high time the other part of any environmental plan is brought into the rhetoric, that being SUSTAINABILITY. It is absolutely not sustainable or environnentally correct to destroy ancient woodland, peatland, agricultural land and business, peoples homes and livelihoods, archaeologically significant sites, geologically significant areas, such as Carrol Rock, rare habitats that support rare flora and fauna whilst providing protection to said habitats and promoting rewilding, all in the name of net zero.
Net zero is all about money, growth, profit and the UK's position in the electricity trading markets. There are currently 9 subsea cables mostly importing electricity to the UK from Europe. The timing, 2030, appears not to be related to the urgency of the climate change, which for some reason human beings have decided can be controlled, but by the expiration of the trade agreement made by the government when we left the European Union. So, to reiterate, I am very much against the pylon line, the substation expansion, further wind turbines, solar arrays and battery storage. If we are transitioning to renewables let's spend the time getting the solution right. Especially as we, the consumers, are currently paying for this new infrastructure through the standing charge.
