100% buy 2020

[John D]

Very interesting!
BBC News - Gigawatt milestone for Scottish Power wind farms

John D

[Lancashire Lad]

This is little more than political propaganda by Scotland's First Minister - Alex Salmond, along with a little wordsmanship from Iberdrola's chairman - Ignacio Galan.

The comment - "The Scottish government has set as a target that the equivalent of 100% of the country's electricity should come from renewable sources by 2020" - might fool some readers, - but the pertinent word within that comment is "equivalent".

In effect saying that the same amount of electricity that Scotland uses in a year should be generated by renewables.

The statement seems to be something of a contradiction, as Scotland's official energy policy is summarised in a document which I previously referred to here:- A Problem With Wind

The document, (The Power of Scotland Renewed – Clean, green energy for the nation’s future” - a précis of the “Power of Scotland Renewed) http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/p...nd_renewed.pdf states in it's introduction, that "By 2030 renewable energy can meet between 60% and 143% of Scotland’s projected annual electricity demand".

However, even if we accept this latest statement, what does it actually mean?

Well, Scotland's population makes up approximately 8.6% of the United Kingdom's total. - So it might be reasonable to assume that it would use approximately 8.6% of the UK total electrical demand. - But, Scotland has far fewer manufacturing and large power consuming industries than central England, and taking that into account, Scotland's overall annual electrical demand will be much less than a straight 8.6% UK equivalent. (Something of a guesstimate here, but I'd suggest a figure more likely in the region of 5% of UK's total electrical demand).

So, what they are really saying is that by 2020, Scotland will be generating (circa) 5% of the UK's total electrical demand via renewables. - Hardly an earth shattering revelation since the bulk of the offshore windfarm construction within the interim period will be located around Scotland's coast.
Taking this one statment in isolation i.e. provided that the effects of other UK wind farms are not taken into account, in theory, this would be an achievable target. (Given that the installed capacity of the proposed offshore wind turbine installations sanctioned in Round 3, will bring the UK's total up to more than 30GW, and that 5% of total UK demand can be accommodated within the available daily reserve margin).

Does this mean that Scotland will effectively be electrically self sufficient on the back of renewables? - No it most definitely does not. - Scotland's security of electrical supply will still be very much dependent upon importing electricity from other countries via interconnector, as discussed in the aforementioned A Problem With Wind post.

Regards,
Mike.

[John D]

Mike,

I agree with you 100%. Alec S may want 'independence' but there is no doubt that an 'independent Scottish power source' aint going to work, especially one so heavily dependent on 'wind'. So we up here in Scotland may have to depend on some external sources for our 'shortfall in power needs more often than not.



On another point did you see the article (Energy Storage ----) in the July copy of the E & T ??
There is also a very interesting article on the recent German policy with regards to abandoning 'nuclear power' and the repercussions that could develop across the EU.

John D

[Lancashire Lad]

Hi John,

Originally Posted by John D

....On another point did you see the article (Energy Storage ----) in the July copy of the E & T ?? ....

Yes, I’ve read that article. – I think that the technology involved, (basically mass electrical storage by means of rechargeable batteries), will obviously work, but at what cost? – both in real terms, and to the environment.

In my personal view, this sort of thing might be well suited for localised back up, such as on one of the small islands that might eventually have a larger than average percentage of its power derived from wind. – But even then, if a long term local low/no wind event occurred, lasting several days or weeks – how long would such battery power be able to sustain the electrical demand?

If battery technology were proposed as intermittency back up for whole of the 30+ GW of wind power currently sanctioned, the costs would be truly off the scale of what would be economically viable. - And what of the environmental cost, taking full lifecycle analysis into consideration, that would be involved with procuring raw materials/ores etc., manufacturing, and environmentally safe disposal, of that sort of quantity of batteries? (I’m quite satisfied that nuclear power generation would, economically, efficiency, and environmentally wise, beat this sort of thing hands down).

Originally Posted by John D

....There is also a very interesting article on the recent German policy with regards to abandoning 'nuclear power' and the repercussions that could develop across the EU....

As for Germany’s intention of abandoning nuclear, I was tempted to say this was a knee jerk reaction on the basis of Fukashima, but it a clear case of political expediency by Angela Merkel’s less than robust coalition government. – Without the added weight of Germany’s Green Party voters, they would more than likely lose any bid for re-election.

The article suggests that the cost of this no nuclear policy to the German household and industry, will be an increase in electricity bills of around 30% – to say nothing of the initial, and potentially multi-billion€ “financial damages” pay-outs that would be up for grabs in court by the major nuclear power providers who will now have contracts reneged.

I can find nothing in the way of hard evidence, that such a change in policy will be of any benefit to either Germany or the environment. (There is plenty to suggest otherwise though, such as the expected 10% increase in carbon emissions output). – But hey, so what – Angela and her political allies will probably still be ruling the roost.

Regards,
Mike.

[Lancashire Lad]

As a very relevant addition to the above, I would draw attention to this article in the June 2011 edition of the Institute of Engineering and Technology's "Member-News" magazine: -
Opinion - The climate change price tag - The IET
The article questions the viability, efficacy, and cost to the economy, of several major implications of our present "wind oriented" energy policy.

Much reference is made to "The Renewable Energy Review" (May 2011), by the Committee on Climate Change.

For those with any interest, the full Renewable Energy Review document may be viewed here: -
http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/Renewa...w_Printout.pdf (NB: 4Mb pdf download).

Regards,
Mike.

[John D]

Hi Mike,
I saw this article in the June edition which like several other reports casts great doubt on the current 'alternative energy policies'. But like other similar reports it appears that it is very unlikely that 'politicians' will take any notice.

It appears that the policy to cover the landscape and coastal regions with windgeneration will continue and reports such as these mentioned will continue to be ignored.

I read today that yet another wind farm is planned for Central Scotland. It is being planned for a site very close to The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park, a major beauty spot which attracts thousands of tourists/visitors. But does that matter ????

John D

[bigdave60dog]

Argue all you like The money`s good if you have one of your own.
I have been travelling to England a bit more lately. We do get a lot more wind than most of England don`t we.
If you have the site for a small one -around £30,000- providing that you have the wind, it is a paying proposition to borrow to buy it and sign up to The Feed In Tariff.
Scotland has more natural resources than much of the rest of the UK. Wind is just an example of this.
Many rural communities are being rejuvenated by buying and operating Wind Turbines, some even have their own Hydro electric schemes.
I don`t care if Alex Salmond is right or not as long as the money is good.
Dave

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by bigdave60dog

Argue all you like The money`s good if you have one of your own.................I don`t care if Alex Salmond is right or not as long as the money is good.
Dave

Which succinctly demonstrates the effect of the Feed-in-tariff, and what I've said ever since it was introduced.

That those who are now jumping on the Feed-in tariff band waggon have no concern for the fact that without these subsidies, such installations wouldn't be cost effective, (amply proved by the fact that there was practically no take up prior to the introduction of the Feed-in tariff), nor the fact that everyone else will have to pay higher electricity bills to pay for the massive Feed-in-tariff subsidies involved.

No, they are only interested in one thing - "What's in it for me?"

Regards,
Mike.

[tom00_uk]

is "equivalent" not used to cover legal small print?

(just using wind as an example, since other methods of electrical power generation will be in the real portfolio)

If the turbines ran at full operating capacity for say 4 months and collected more power than was needed in Scotland annually and then there happened to be the longest high pressure front ever and the remaining 8 months had next to no electrical power generation, but relied on power from other nations then they would have used the only renewable power if they had the generation certificates for at least the amount used.

once you feed power into the grid its hard to say what your using in your home unless you have the generation certificate. green power might be purchased by you and a home close to a wind array black power, but its likely you will have black power in your home and vis versa, the only reason you pay extra in some cases would be that your issued with the generation certificate that acts to prove what you have paid for/used

[Hobjob]

Thanks for the debate - again a lot to digest for me, but Lancashire Lad et al seem to talk sense.