wilsywilsy

Thought there was plenty grit and effort on display on Saturday but the quality with the ball was again really poor. On another day the Arabs run out comfortable winners - they wasted a lot of good chances and Ridgers made a few decent saves. Disappointing to waste another gift goal and not sneak a win. A points a point though and every one of them is important regardless of how they are secured. Still 18 to play for and with Morton and Ayr both struggling to get any rhythm going too, theres still lots of room to escape the play offs yet.

This is virtue signalling and greenwashing to try and wish away some understandable concerns. Maybe the clubs expert buddies could have helped them front run the concerns and mitigate them as part of their shoestring budget planning application.

Sorry to hear that - I did not know.

This is sample bias.

Of course it is. But it doesn't mean its wrong, or surprising, when a bunch of folk stand up and say "here, I don't really like this new risk..... so what are you going to do about mitigating it?" "chemical factories, oil refineries, nuclear power plants" don't get planning permission on protected green space in the middle of houses (well the ones that haven't burnt down due to all the statistical fire risks).

This is false equivelance. Is that statistically plausible when there's probably more houses in Dingwall (apparently they have some) than there are BESS installations around the world?

Absolutely. IMHO they were recklessly casual about it going into the council meeting last year (was it November?) with 4 open statutory objections unaddressed. This was at the some time as they were mewling in the media about how a planning rejection would be an existential threat to the club. If it was a sh1t or bust situation, there is no way you would do that (unless you were an entitled arrogant idiot).

To be fair to the NIMBYs, building houses is a weak comparison to use - houses aren't packed to the rafters with explosive chemical compounds (well, mine isn't..... although I dunno what my youngest keeps under that bed of his).

Assuming it's actually fully used (the national grid skip rates for batteries have been grim) and remains optimal (batteries generally don't), the ICT bahh’rhee farm will allegedly save 20,000 tonnes of CO2 a year. At its very best it will save 0.006% of the UKs emission. That is about 0.00005% of global emissions. We just need to build 2 million of these to save the world. The green wet dream. Interesting link in the doc above to that EPRI wiki of BESS failures. Looks like there has been more than a few issues. First page shows a fire at a BESS in Australia a few months ago which was using Tesla batteries that Morrison said was planned for this site. The UK HSE considers the monster batteries in BESS as the same as a lithium battery you might put in your TV remote, which is hilarious. How bad must the regulations be in the countries you say are "less regulated than the UK"?

Absolutely true. Scrutiny comes with the territory of public office. I think the club and media being so direct and barbed about it opened the door to those intimidation claims. And I agree today’s statement was less bad. Certainly a big step forward from yesterday’s cry-bully junk from Gardiner.

Ach it’s subjective, isn’t it. Unfortunately the club personalised it with regular barbed digs at Oldham and MacLennan in the media. I don’t think it’s a leap to think they in particular found it all a bit intimidating.

I just knew this thread wouldn’t disappoint tonight. Lots of hand wringing about the council and the ICT characters behind this planning application - some very justified and some utterly wild takes too. Great read nonetheless. Hat tip to @DoofersDad for consistently being a voice of reason.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone has suggested the components and installation would not meet BS guidelines. The concerns we have heard over the last few days were about operational failures and if the site layout and design was prepared to mitigate those possibilities...... it seems not.

Fair point. I could be wrong but I understood that it was just an idea/concept at this stage. From what I recall the prospective location was the old Torvean Quarry, which is in the development plan as open for industrial use. By the time the council ever get round to moving something forward, ScotGov might have some BESS legislation/guidelines in place. Dunno.

I'm not sure I would go that far and say it's scaremongering. There were some reasonable concerns highlighted today about fire safety and the environment that was all under lined by the lack of legislation that could offer any comfort. At least petrol stations have tight regulations and controls from HSE and other regulatory bodies that planners and councils can lean in to.