HVDC interconnector cable complaint

Here are some possible responses to the consultation being held by Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) or Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Ltd (a subsidiary of SSE). They are based on the documents which were made available to the public for consultation, and on an appraisal of one of the presentations given (at NAFC, Scalloway), although evidence which has since come to light of events at the Whiteness Hall presentation, has also been included. Every effort to be accurate in the assessment has been made

Please select which responses you feel to be appropriate and use in your comments.

Comments should be sent to:

Dr Keith MacLean
Head of Sustainable Development
Scottish and Southern Energy
Inveralmond House
200 Dunkeld Road
Perth
PH1 3AQ

Alternatively, queries and comments can be sent to shetlandproject@scottish-southern.co.uk before 9th May 2008

Full text:

[your name]

[your address]

Dear Dr Keith MacLean

I wish to make my objection known to your project proposal for an interconnector cable and converter station in Shetland:

General

• The degree of consultation for such a major project is insufficient.
• There is not sufficient information upon which to make an “informed response”.
• It is impossible to consider the impacts of the project separately from those of the Viking Windfarm. There is a definite “cumulative effect”.
• Viking Energy has said that if the wind doesn't blow, the “sub-sea cable [sic] would import rather than export electricity.” (Windylights 1). If this is so, there must be a connection to the Shetland grid. Neither this nor the connection to the windfarm is dealt with in this consultation. This omission invalidates a proper assessment of the project.
• There was talk from SSE representatives, at the Whiteness Hall presentation, of “compulsory purchase” of land. This is entirely unacceptable at a consultation event.

The Converter Station.

• This 5 hectare site will have a huge environmental impact. Where is the soil that will have to be removed to go? How is drainage to be managed? Where is the concrete and hard core to come from?
• The station will not be adequately screened by the existing shelterbelt which is presently collapsing, nor will any tree planted post-construction grow fast enough to conceal it within 20 years.
• Roads will not be “improved” to cope with the enormous transporter needed to get the transformer into place (and other vehicles and equipment) – they will be altered - and completely new access roads will have to be built.
• Its visual and aural impacts, which will be very large, cannot be considered separately from the impacts of turbines and other infrastructure in the area.

The DC cables on land.

• If up to three DC circuits are required, that means up to over 25 metres width of (6) cable tracks (cables must be “around 5 metres” apart). How is this to be achieved and mitigated?
• Jointing bays and cable laying in general will have sediment impacts on the Burn of Kergord and Weisdale Voe. How big would the jointing bays be if more than one circuit is used?
• The corridor marked on the consultation map is not precise enough, particularly with regard to housing.
• It is nonsense that the cable route is “almost entirely within semi-improved agricultural land with little peat encountered”. Up to 2 kilometres from the B9075 to Upper Kergord is unimproved peat moorland.
• If peat is to be replaced with Cement Based Sand for heat conduction, where is the peat to go?

The DC cables under sea.

• There will be large impacts on all aspects of the marine environment, especially within the narrow confines of Weisdale Voe. These will be magnified if two or three circuits are laid.

The AC cables

• Details of these are omitted from this consultation, either for further separate consultation or for further planning application. It is, however impossible properly to assess the impacts of the interconnector and converter station without considering the impacts these other essential connections to the windfarm and to the local grid would have on the area.

The carbon footprint.

• SSE or SHETL should reveal what the carbon footprint of the project is to be, including the whole of the cables (all options) and the two converter stations and links to the grid(s). This should include manufacture of all equipment, materials, transport, and construction.

Power loss.

• SSE/SHETL should reveal what losses of power there are likely to be between the Shetland converter station and the connection to the UK grid.

Conclusion

• Weisdale is a unique valley, rich in natural and cultural heritage. The impacts of this project on habitat and landscape, and on visitors, residents, and local businesses are likely to be enormous – larger than is revealed in this consultation - and unacceptably out of scale for all these receptors.