This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
This is taken from Private Eye, and I thought it might be of interest to some on here.
.................
News that Scotland has missed it's targets in reducing CO2 emissions prompts a look at the SNP's much vaunted energy policy, which doesn't add up.
The SNP plans to produce ''100 percent of Scotland's electricity needs from renewables by 2020''; to continue to export power to England, and at the same time to say ''no'' to new nuclear power stations. But is has just noticed a serious flaw in this vision and is lobbying in vain to rescue it's position.
As elsewhere in the UK, Scotland's gas and coal fired electricity capacity is falling, and it's two nuclear plants will close and not be replaced if the SNP has it's way. It's renewable generation is predominantly wind-power which is expanding strongly thanks to UK government subsidies.
Because wind power is so intermittent, if average Scottish renewables output was to equate to even just a high proportion of Scottish demand, this would mean very large exports of surplus power to England on windy days, and, when the nuclear power stations have closed, imports from England when the wind isn't blowing-as it doesn't in Scotland on several weeks each year.
England already gets more of it's electricity via cross-Channel interconnectors from Continental Europe than it does from Scotland, and a panicky SNP has just noticed that more interconnectors are planned. This would leave an independent Scotland as just one amongst several electricity exporters competing for English business. As the SNP has now realised, this will trash the price Scottish generators receive.
This all goes back to the 'German effect', Germany's very large wind farm sector and phasing out of nuclear power generation have resulted in big periodic power surpluses and a slumping wholesale price of power there. German wholesale prices are even sometimes negative-ie the grid has to play wholesale buyers to take surplus electricity, frequently as exports to neighbouring countries.
When the wind isn't blowing in Germany, however, it must import electricity and German households end up paying some of the highest prices in Europe. The same fate is in store for an independent Scotland if it sticks with it's all wind and no nuclear policy. Not only would it lose UK wind subsidies (running at about 4bn per year) and have to pay full grid charges for exporting to England (also currently subsidised), but it's exports of surplus wind power would frequently be at next to nothing prices, while the imports it needed to keep Scotland's lights on when the wind wasn't blowing would be priced at a premium.
The SNP is lobbying hard against the new interconnectors, and nobody is listening.
................
Post edited at 17:42
In reply to Timmd:
Yes, the SNP some how manage to bring a whole new level of idiocy to energy policy.
Several of the HVDC links planned make landfall in Scotland, for example the Icelandic one.
http://askjaenergydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/iceland-europe-hvdc-ca...
It doesn't really matter though, any small country subject to highly variable weather that only produces wind- and sun- linked energy is going to be incredibly vulnerable to price gouging by its larger neighbour(s) with more varied generating capacity.
This is all irrelevant however as the idea of supplying 100% of Scotland's energy needs from renewables is just that; an idea. It's not achievable.
Yes, the SNP some how manage to bring a whole new level of idiocy to energy policy.
Several of the HVDC links planned make landfall in Scotland, for example the Icelandic one.
http://askjaenergydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/iceland-europe-hvdc-ca...
It doesn't really matter though, any small country subject to highly variable weather that only produces wind- and sun- linked energy is going to be incredibly vulnerable to price gouging by its larger neighbour(s) with more varied generating capacity.
This is all irrelevant however as the idea of supplying 100% of Scotland's energy needs from renewables is just that; an idea. It's not achievable.
Post edited at 17:50
In reply to wintertree:
There seems to be a certain amount of idealism from the pro independence people, so thought it might add something.
The last thing I'd like to see is Scotland doing worse after independence.
That link looks interesting, I'll have a look around doing my course work.
There seems to be a certain amount of idealism from the pro independence people, so thought it might add something.
The last thing I'd like to see is Scotland doing worse after independence.
That link looks interesting, I'll have a look around doing my course work.
Post edited at 17:55
In reply to wintertree:
40% of the energy produced in Scotland is already from renewable, and we are not even tapping more than 1% of the tidal and wind potential. On what grounds do you think it's not achievable ?
Scotland already exceeded its renewable energy target by almost 10%.
Scotland is an ideal country to have 100% renewable energy production. Not only we have considerable wind and tidal resources, but also more than enough hydro to store energy when the wind is not blowing and releasing it when needed.
> This is all irrelevant however as the idea of supplying 100% of Scotland's energy needs from renewables is just that; an idea. It's not achievable.
40% of the energy produced in Scotland is already from renewable, and we are not even tapping more than 1% of the tidal and wind potential. On what grounds do you think it's not achievable ?
Scotland already exceeded its renewable energy target by almost 10%.
Scotland is an ideal country to have 100% renewable energy production. Not only we have considerable wind and tidal resources, but also more than enough hydro to store energy when the wind is not blowing and releasing it when needed.
Post edited at 18:29
In reply to RomTheBear:
I bet if you did the maths on that. there isn't enough space for hydro storage, plus it's finite energy per volume. Unlike nuclear which is constant all the time, plus you can turn nuclear on and off, but not quite as fast as we need.
I bet if you did the maths on that. there isn't enough space for hydro storage, plus it's finite energy per volume. Unlike nuclear which is constant all the time, plus you can turn nuclear on and off, but not quite as fast as we need.
In reply to RomTheBear:
Hydro is the answer (and Scotland already has a fair amount of it?).
Nuclear provides a baseload but isn't terribly useful for adjustment since it is not rapid and it is basically pointless to run a nuclear plant at anything less than full output.
Hydro provides an easy store of energy that you can turn up and down as you need (to some degree); on shorter timescales you could do with a Dinorwic (1.6 GW of adjustable power).
Hydro is the answer (and Scotland already has a fair amount of it?).
Nuclear provides a baseload but isn't terribly useful for adjustment since it is not rapid and it is basically pointless to run a nuclear plant at anything less than full output.
Hydro provides an easy store of energy that you can turn up and down as you need (to some degree); on shorter timescales you could do with a Dinorwic (1.6 GW of adjustable power).
Post edited at 18:40
In reply to Timmd:
Any reason why Scotland shouldn't build a couple of gas power stations to balance out the demand? We also have gas.
God only knows how we will keep the lights on in a lightly populated country with lots of hydro, lots of wind farms, lots of potential for wave and tidal and lots of oil and gas.
Any reason why Scotland shouldn't build a couple of gas power stations to balance out the demand? We also have gas.
God only knows how we will keep the lights on in a lightly populated country with lots of hydro, lots of wind farms, lots of potential for wave and tidal and lots of oil and gas.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Yeah, it does sound a little one sided perhaps upon reflection, but currently it seems like the sums won't add up.
For what it's worth, I'm tempted by the idea of moving to Scotland should it become independent.
Yeah, it does sound a little one sided perhaps upon reflection, but currently it seems like the sums won't add up.
For what it's worth, I'm tempted by the idea of moving to Scotland should it become independent.
Post edited at 19:09
In reply to Tim Chappell:
That was me, I typed it out. It's always been a bug in my English.
A quick google on the usage makes me wonder why. Thanks for pointing it out.
That was me, I typed it out. It's always been a bug in my English.
A quick google on the usage makes me wonder why. Thanks for pointing it out.
Post edited at 19:24
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Any reason why Scotland shouldn't build a couple of gas power stations to balance out the demand? We also have gas.
Because gas isn't renewable?
Any reason why Scotland shouldn't build a couple of gas power stations to balance out the demand? We also have gas.
Because gas isn't renewable?
In reply to Timmd:
So Scotland is getting flamed for making a strong commitment to renewable energy, but not looking like making the ambitious targets. Hmmm yeah seems the best option is to stick to Nuclear, Gas and Oil because that's just what we should do and importing power is obviously so reliable and a sensible approach.
Reality is I'd rather live in a country with a commitment to renewables and with a bit of future vision of the realities of being becoming a net importer of energy. This is again another example of the 'if it ain't broke, why bother trying something new' brigade.
The original post is loaded with the usual scaremongering crap.
So Scotland is getting flamed for making a strong commitment to renewable energy, but not looking like making the ambitious targets. Hmmm yeah seems the best option is to stick to Nuclear, Gas and Oil because that's just what we should do and importing power is obviously so reliable and a sensible approach.
Reality is I'd rather live in a country with a commitment to renewables and with a bit of future vision of the realities of being becoming a net importer of energy. This is again another example of the 'if it ain't broke, why bother trying something new' brigade.
The original post is loaded with the usual scaremongering crap.
In reply to yer maw:
Look at some figures....
http://www.scottishrenewables.com/scottish-renewable-energy-statistics-glan...
Now look at the annual wind generation here (for whole of UK), a cursory glance at the graph, I'd generously say 2GW...
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/index.php
Remember, Installed Capacity is NOT the same as what is actually generated!
18MW for Tidal, long way to go there!
Look at some figures....
http://www.scottishrenewables.com/scottish-renewable-energy-statistics-glan...
Now look at the annual wind generation here (for whole of UK), a cursory glance at the graph, I'd generously say 2GW...
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/index.php
Remember, Installed Capacity is NOT the same as what is actually generated!
18MW for Tidal, long way to go there!
In reply to Timmd:
The article is very inaccurate but I can't be bothered arguing with it.
No, I think it is the UK policy that has, and is failing.
Having sold off the railways, energy and pretty much every±thing else, the UK is now unable to build its own nuclear power plants having once been a leader in the field. The French Government will profit from the failure of UK policy (It was great for this establishment mind who profited massively but rubbish for the punter) as EDF will be building the stations.
22% of power (can't remember where I got this from) generated in Scotland is exported to England. SSE aren't idiots, they don't invest hundreds of millions in a powerline to export power to somewhere for no reason.
So yes, the policy is doomed to fail if you consider it to be a good idea to sell off your energy infrastructure and your technological advantage and then have to subsidise a foreign company to build your nuclear power stations and profit from it to the benefit of France whilst also building up a massive debt and have no oil fund despite £300 billion having come in. If you consider that to be good then you are quite right. Less and less people consider that to be good though.
The article is very inaccurate but I can't be bothered arguing with it.
No, I think it is the UK policy that has, and is failing.
Having sold off the railways, energy and pretty much every±thing else, the UK is now unable to build its own nuclear power plants having once been a leader in the field. The French Government will profit from the failure of UK policy (It was great for this establishment mind who profited massively but rubbish for the punter) as EDF will be building the stations.
22% of power (can't remember where I got this from) generated in Scotland is exported to England. SSE aren't idiots, they don't invest hundreds of millions in a powerline to export power to somewhere for no reason.
So yes, the policy is doomed to fail if you consider it to be a good idea to sell off your energy infrastructure and your technological advantage and then have to subsidise a foreign company to build your nuclear power stations and profit from it to the benefit of France whilst also building up a massive debt and have no oil fund despite £300 billion having come in. If you consider that to be good then you are quite right. Less and less people consider that to be good though.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Just so it's clear (perhaps it wasn't), I posted it mainly in a spirit of putting it out there to see what people make of it, you'll notice there's a question mark at the end of the title.
What are the inaccurate points?
Just so it's clear (perhaps it wasn't), I posted it mainly in a spirit of putting it out there to see what people make of it, you'll notice there's a question mark at the end of the title.
What are the inaccurate points?
Post edited at 20:09
In reply to Timmd:
Its not a balanced article given the emotive language used and hence the content is obviously going to be questionable. Doesn't matter though because whilst Scotland is doing something about being self-sustainable and exploring alternative energy sources, England marches in the opposite direction.
Politics aside, what do you think is the better route to take?
Like I said Westminster has always taken the short term buy now pay later option, and left the UK with nothing except service industries and ahem, banking. Stop, think and see the future, instead of falling for the blurb of MPs protecting themselves and their lot.
Its not a balanced article given the emotive language used and hence the content is obviously going to be questionable. Doesn't matter though because whilst Scotland is doing something about being self-sustainable and exploring alternative energy sources, England marches in the opposite direction.
Politics aside, what do you think is the better route to take?
Like I said Westminster has always taken the short term buy now pay later option, and left the UK with nothing except service industries and ahem, banking. Stop, think and see the future, instead of falling for the blurb of MPs protecting themselves and their lot.
In reply to yer maw:
I'd rather we did everything we could in England to switch over to renewables, or aim to have as large a proportion of our energy as possible coming from our renewables, which I don't really get the sense is happening.
That's disappointing, I thought you were going to point out how the figures weren't correct. Emotive language doesn't always mean the figures are wrong, but obviously it can do.
I'd rather we did everything we could in England to switch over to renewables, or aim to have as large a proportion of our energy as possible coming from our renewables, which I don't really get the sense is happening.
That's disappointing, I thought you were going to point out how the figures weren't correct. Emotive language doesn't always mean the figures are wrong, but obviously it can do.
Post edited at 20:46
In reply to Timmd:
Wave and Tidal energy is a long way off becoming viable - from both technological and economic angles otherwise it would have done by now. Furthermore there are the ecological effects to factor in to the equation.
The nearest we are coming to a solution is the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon, which is yet to be built ( the theory is great but someone has physically got to build it) however there are precious few areas around the Scottish coast where a similar combination of relatively shallow water and high tidal ranges exist.
Wave and Tidal energy is a long way off becoming viable - from both technological and economic angles otherwise it would have done by now. Furthermore there are the ecological effects to factor in to the equation.
The nearest we are coming to a solution is the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon, which is yet to be built ( the theory is great but someone has physically got to build it) however there are precious few areas around the Scottish coast where a similar combination of relatively shallow water and high tidal ranges exist.
In reply to Timmd:
No danger of me getting embroiled in statistics. Ethos and direction more important, as the facts are different to whatever side you are on.
No danger of me getting embroiled in statistics. Ethos and direction more important, as the facts are different to whatever side you are on.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
quite agree, some stories are just scare stories (still voting no though)
> God only knows how we will keep the lights on in a lightly populated country with lots of hydro, lots of wind farms, lots of potential for wave and tidal and lots of oil and gas.
quite agree, some stories are just scare stories (still voting no though)
In reply to Timmd:
I am guessing this means that you don't support the energetic promotion of renewables. And another wild guess is that you don't have a vote in the referendum. Perhaps you prefer Fracking?
I am guessing this means that you don't support the energetic promotion of renewables. And another wild guess is that you don't have a vote in the referendum. Perhaps you prefer Fracking?
In reply to alastairmac:
You guess wrong apart from me not having a vote.
One can ask if something is doomed to fail without wanting it to be so, or believing that it is.
I'd have written failure if I'd thought it would have fitted, it sounds better grammatically.
You guess wrong apart from me not having a vote.
One can ask if something is doomed to fail without wanting it to be so, or believing that it is.
I'd have written failure if I'd thought it would have fitted, it sounds better grammatically.
Post edited at 22:23
In reply to Saor Alba:
The article is very inaccurate but I can't be bothered arguing with it.
This is the crux statement of the article: -
"The SNP plans to produce ''100 percent of Scotland's electricity needs from renewables by 2020''; to continue to export power to England, and at the same time to say ''no'' to new nuclear power stations"
Simple question, will that happen?
The article is very inaccurate but I can't be bothered arguing with it.
This is the crux statement of the article: -
"The SNP plans to produce ''100 percent of Scotland's electricity needs from renewables by 2020''; to continue to export power to England, and at the same time to say ''no'' to new nuclear power stations"
Simple question, will that happen?
In reply to FactorXXX:
Simple answer...NO.
They admitted this a while back.
(You'll have find the source yourself)
Simple answer...NO.
They admitted this a while back.
(You'll have find the source yourself)
In reply to FactorXXX:
Not if the climbing community has its way.
> The article is very inaccurate but I can't be bothered arguing with it.
> This is the crux statement of the article: -
> "The SNP plans to produce ''100 percent of Scotland's electricity needs from renewables by 2020''; to continue to export power to England, and at the same time to say ''no'' to new nuclear power stations"
> Simple question, will that happen?
Not if the climbing community has its way.
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
What do you think about the tidal potential of the Pentland Firth? Apparently, if they can get turbines that can withstand the conditions it could be good for a couple of Gigawatts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-25800448
> Wave and Tidal energy is a long way off becoming viable - from both technological and economic angles otherwise it would have done by now. Furthermore there are the ecological effects to factor in to the equation.
What do you think about the tidal potential of the Pentland Firth? Apparently, if they can get turbines that can withstand the conditions it could be good for a couple of Gigawatts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-25800448
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Nice!
But what about the pylons to transmit it South?
There was a big hoohaa on here a while back about the bigger pylons on the A9.
Nice!
But what about the pylons to transmit it South?
There was a big hoohaa on here a while back about the bigger pylons on the A9.
In reply to Saor Alba:
In reply to Saor Alba:
Great technique, pretend that others are wrong, but refuse to engage. Bang goes Scotland if the "Yes" brigade only have that to offer....
> The article is very inaccurate but I can't be bothered arguing with it.
In reply to Saor Alba:
> No but the statement is also incorrect. Google it if you can be bothered.
Great technique, pretend that others are wrong, but refuse to engage. Bang goes Scotland if the "Yes" brigade only have that to offer....
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
If my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle.
> What do you think about the tidal potential of the Pentland Firth? Apparently, if they can get turbines that can withstand the conditions it could be good for a couple of Gigawatts.
If my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle.
In reply to stroppygob:
If my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle.
> Bang goes Scotland if the "Yes" brigade only have that to offer....
If my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle.
In reply to yer maw:
You mean you want to pretend renewable will work and import fossil and nuclear power from rUK? I suppose it's working for Germany... Other than their new coal plants....
Bingo.
> Reality is I'd rather live in a country with a commitment to renewables and with a bit of future vision of the realities of being becoming a net importer of energy.
You mean you want to pretend renewable will work and import fossil and nuclear power from rUK? I suppose it's working for Germany... Other than their new coal plants....
> ... Hmmm yeah seems the best option is to stick to Nuclear, ...
Bingo.
In reply to Timmd:
Don't know whether it's possible to run Scotland on renewable energy but I'd much prefer to vote for a party that was willing to try.
Don't know whether it's possible to run Scotland on renewable energy but I'd much prefer to vote for a party that was willing to try.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
No doubting the tidal potential in the Pentland Firth, or many of the tide races between the Hebridean Islands, or even in the narrows of some sea lochs (eg Connel) -- however there's the small matter of the civil engineering involved in building the structures to house the turbines - and the miles of transmission lines needed to get the power generated to the Grid.
> What do you think about the tidal potential of the Pentland Firth? Apparently, if they can get turbines that can withstand the conditions it could be good for a couple of Gigawatts.
No doubting the tidal potential in the Pentland Firth, or many of the tide races between the Hebridean Islands, or even in the narrows of some sea lochs (eg Connel) -- however there's the small matter of the civil engineering involved in building the structures to house the turbines - and the miles of transmission lines needed to get the power generated to the Grid.
In reply to wintertree:
No my friend. I think renewables have to be part of the picture and will only get better the more you use and develop them. Part of me still thinks Nuclear is a good option but the aftermath costs are again all part of the buy now and pay later option. Coal is being developed with carbon capture but that seems a bit mickey mouse. The reality is the more oil and gas run out, the more 'green' ethics will go out the window but at least if you are already developing renewables then you're ahead of the game.
No my friend. I think renewables have to be part of the picture and will only get better the more you use and develop them. Part of me still thinks Nuclear is a good option but the aftermath costs are again all part of the buy now and pay later option. Coal is being developed with carbon capture but that seems a bit mickey mouse. The reality is the more oil and gas run out, the more 'green' ethics will go out the window but at least if you are already developing renewables then you're ahead of the game.
In reply to yer maw:
Not if you do so at the expense of nuclear. Scotland is better placed than most, but as coal/oil/gas go away, you need to be looking at generating 4X as much electricity again as current to displace all the primary consumers of fossil fuels other than current electricity. There is only so much of that 4x that can be removed by increased efficiency etc.
The maths has been done in detail for this for the whole UK - http://www.withouthotair.com/c27/page_212.shtml - basically it's coal or nuclear, except for the scenario with 120 times as many wind turbines as we have now.
With all the will in the world, a lifestyle anything like ours can not be sustained on just renewable energy. If you're going to have to build nuclear, you might as well employ some economies of scale; yes it will need load balancing storage, but a hell of a lot less than renewables (less than half a day vs several days).
To date the spending on renewable has barely chipped away at the problem; even the 40% renewable electricity generation in Scotland only represents 8% of the total energy supply for Scotland. That's 92% still on fossil fuels, and if they get to 100% renewable electricity (by hiding their load balancing gas turbines over some wires into rUK...) they're still 80% fossil fuel based, with no credible plan to tackle that.
> but at least if you are already developing renewables then you're ahead of the game.
Not if you do so at the expense of nuclear. Scotland is better placed than most, but as coal/oil/gas go away, you need to be looking at generating 4X as much electricity again as current to displace all the primary consumers of fossil fuels other than current electricity. There is only so much of that 4x that can be removed by increased efficiency etc.
The maths has been done in detail for this for the whole UK - http://www.withouthotair.com/c27/page_212.shtml - basically it's coal or nuclear, except for the scenario with 120 times as many wind turbines as we have now.
With all the will in the world, a lifestyle anything like ours can not be sustained on just renewable energy. If you're going to have to build nuclear, you might as well employ some economies of scale; yes it will need load balancing storage, but a hell of a lot less than renewables (less than half a day vs several days).
To date the spending on renewable has barely chipped away at the problem; even the 40% renewable electricity generation in Scotland only represents 8% of the total energy supply for Scotland. That's 92% still on fossil fuels, and if they get to 100% renewable electricity (by hiding their load balancing gas turbines over some wires into rUK...) they're still 80% fossil fuel based, with no credible plan to tackle that.
Post edited at 11:41
In reply to Timmd:
Independence is a good idea - if and when that state is ever achieved, loony policies and people like Salmond will all be dumped and a more sensible approach will ensue, proper policies, proper politicians, more business savvy, more establishment in effect. Independence for a country of 5 million with Scotland's businesses and assets is a surefire winner!!
There is no possibility they can not be worse off, and every chance inward investment from overseas Scots etc will boost the economy.
DC
Independence is a good idea - if and when that state is ever achieved, loony policies and people like Salmond will all be dumped and a more sensible approach will ensue, proper policies, proper politicians, more business savvy, more establishment in effect. Independence for a country of 5 million with Scotland's businesses and assets is a surefire winner!!
There is no possibility they can not be worse off, and every chance inward investment from overseas Scots etc will boost the economy.
DC
In reply to wintertree:
The book came out in 2008. So it won't be 120x what we have now because we already have a lot more turbines.
My reading of the policy is that in the course of a year Scotland should generate more renewable electricity than the electricity consumed in Scotland. This could be done by exporting a lot of excess wind power when it is windy and burning gas for local needs when it isn't. The goal does not imply there won't be any gas power stations in Scotland.
> The maths has been done in detail for this for the whole UK - http://www.withouthotair.com/c27/page_212.shtml - basically it's coal or nuclear, except for the scenario with 120 times as many wind turbines as we have now.
The book came out in 2008. So it won't be 120x what we have now because we already have a lot more turbines.
> With all the will in the world, a lifestyle anything like ours can not be sustained on just renewable energy. If you're going to have to build nuclear, you might as well employ some economies of scale; yes it will need load balancing storage, but a hell of a lot less than renewables (less than half a day vs several days).
> That's 92% still on fossil fuels, and if they get to 100% renewable electricity (by hiding their load balancing gas turbines over some wires into rUK...)
My reading of the policy is that in the course of a year Scotland should generate more renewable electricity than the electricity consumed in Scotland. This could be done by exporting a lot of excess wind power when it is windy and burning gas for local needs when it isn't. The goal does not imply there won't be any gas power stations in Scotland.
In reply to andreas:
aka "I'd rather waste money failing than face up to reality."
> Don't know whether it's possible to run Scotland on renewable energy but I'd much prefer to vote for a party that was willing to try.
aka "I'd rather waste money failing than face up to reality."
In reply to stroppygob:
that's a terrible outlook to take on the future.
Failure is a big part of success.
that's a terrible outlook to take on the future.
Failure is a big part of success.
In reply to itsThere:
What are your numbers ? As far as I know hydro storage works very well at present to smooth the up and down of the windfarms.
> I bet if you did the maths on that. there isn't enough space for hydro storage, plus it's finite energy per volume. Unlike nuclear which is constant all the time, plus you can turn nuclear on and off, but not quite as fast as we need.
What are your numbers ? As far as I know hydro storage works very well at present to smooth the up and down of the windfarms.
In reply to RomTheBear:
My point is that we don't have the space for it to go all green or close and it has a limit per volume for power. You dont want all your eggs in one basket. There is no one solution for our power needs, nuclear is good but when the kettle boils we need this.
When was it ever a solution for the change in wind?
My point is that we don't have the space for it to go all green or close and it has a limit per volume for power. You dont want all your eggs in one basket. There is no one solution for our power needs, nuclear is good but when the kettle boils we need this.
When was it ever a solution for the change in wind?
In reply to itsThere:
We have inshore wind, tidal, hydro,offshore wind... I don't call this putting all your eggs in the same basket.
The main use for hydro in Scotland is to store energy temporarily. When the wind blows you use energy to pump the water up the loch, and when the wind doesn't blow you release it.
> My point is that we don't have the space for it to go all green or close and it has a limit per volume for power. You dont want all your eggs in one basket. There is no one solution for our power needs, nuclear is good but when the kettle boils we need this.
We have inshore wind, tidal, hydro,offshore wind... I don't call this putting all your eggs in the same basket.
> When was it ever a solution for the change in wind?
The main use for hydro in Scotland is to store energy temporarily. When the wind blows you use energy to pump the water up the loch, and when the wind doesn't blow you release it.
In reply to RomTheBear:
Pump-storage doesn't account for most of the generation although it accounts for a lot of the installed capacity.
Most of the hydro currently in Scotland is conventional.
Pump-storage doesn't account for most of the generation although it accounts for a lot of the installed capacity.
Most of the hydro currently in Scotland is conventional.
In reply to Saor Alba:
Yeah ok but the point was that pump storage makes wind and tidal a viable option
> Pump-storage doesn't account for most of the generation although it accounts for a lot of the installed capacity.
Yeah ok but the point was that pump storage makes wind and tidal a viable option
In reply to RomTheBear:
Go on the gridwatch website, pumped and the others are peanuts and ccgt is used to balance wind output. If you go greener with wind all your eggs will be in one basket as there is no ccgt to balance it out. Pumped water is for when everyone boils the kettle because it can ramp up fast,
Pumped water stations are not the same as constant ish hydro stations.
Go on the gridwatch website, pumped and the others are peanuts and ccgt is used to balance wind output. If you go greener with wind all your eggs will be in one basket as there is no ccgt to balance it out. Pumped water is for when everyone boils the kettle because it can ramp up fast,
Pumped water stations are not the same as constant ish hydro stations.
Post edited at 17:49
In reply to RomTheBear:
I know. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I am not sure what the point of discussing anything to do with independence on UKC is. The site is a irrelevance now as there are hundreds of other sites and pages plus the real campaign is not on the net.
Of course it does provide an outlet for people without a vote
I know. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I am not sure what the point of discussing anything to do with independence on UKC is. The site is a irrelevance now as there are hundreds of other sites and pages plus the real campaign is not on the net.
Of course it does provide an outlet for people without a vote
In reply to itsThere:
I am not sure how having tidal, inshore, offshore wind and hydro is putting all your eggs in the same basket, it seems to me that we have a good array of different renewable sources.
> Go on the gridwatch website, pumped and the others are peanuts and ccgt is used to balance wind output. If you go greener with wind all your eggs will be in one basket as there is no ccgt to balance it out. Pumped water is for when everyone boils the kettle because it can ramp up fast,
I am not sure how having tidal, inshore, offshore wind and hydro is putting all your eggs in the same basket, it seems to me that we have a good array of different renewable sources.
In reply to Timmd:
The 2020 rubbish has had limited credibility from the start amongst people who can add and subtract. The ones who get to go to conferences and spout forth about it, even if they have a stack of engineering degrees, are usually the weak-willed and over-paid ones who have sold their souls for a management career. Disgusting to watch close up.
Wind turbines work. Nuclear fission stations work. Neither operate in a manner that matches demand. If you have a mountainous country then you use the excess power to pump water uphill until you need it. Only burning stuff can be switched on and off at will.
The largest current problem with renewables is that the funding doesn't support things like tidal in a manner that is proportional to the potential benefits. There is serious power to be had from tidal, it doesn't have off days and its periodicity is usefully variable around the coast. Excessive support is provided to wind and others.
To me, it seems very unlikely that on 'an island built on coal' we shall escape the inevitablility of returning to that old friend in the next few decades. We know that our power consumption is not going to drop significantly, the Russians are not our friends and we are not going to put the lights out in our cities. Scotland's problems though are minor compared to its neighbours.
The 2020 rubbish has had limited credibility from the start amongst people who can add and subtract. The ones who get to go to conferences and spout forth about it, even if they have a stack of engineering degrees, are usually the weak-willed and over-paid ones who have sold their souls for a management career. Disgusting to watch close up.
Wind turbines work. Nuclear fission stations work. Neither operate in a manner that matches demand. If you have a mountainous country then you use the excess power to pump water uphill until you need it. Only burning stuff can be switched on and off at will.
The largest current problem with renewables is that the funding doesn't support things like tidal in a manner that is proportional to the potential benefits. There is serious power to be had from tidal, it doesn't have off days and its periodicity is usefully variable around the coast. Excessive support is provided to wind and others.
To me, it seems very unlikely that on 'an island built on coal' we shall escape the inevitablility of returning to that old friend in the next few decades. We know that our power consumption is not going to drop significantly, the Russians are not our friends and we are not going to put the lights out in our cities. Scotland's problems though are minor compared to its neighbours.
Post edited at 19:15
In reply to Jim Fraser:
We get very little of our power from Russia. Most of the UK's imported gas comes from Norway and (in the form of LNG) Qatar.
> We know that our power consumption is not going to drop significantly, the Russians are not our friends and we are not going to put the lights out in our cities.
We get very little of our power from Russia. Most of the UK's imported gas comes from Norway and (in the form of LNG) Qatar.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
The new generation Nuclear stations will have a capability to Load Follow.
"Plants being built today, eg according to European Utilities' Requirements (EUR), have load-following capacity fully built in."
See end of Load Following section.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/
But looking at how long it is taking to build Flammenville , don't hold your breath.
( and hold on to your wallet, as the French are going to make us pay dearly.)
> Wind turbines work. Nuclear fission stations work. Neither operate in a manner that matches demand.
The new generation Nuclear stations will have a capability to Load Follow.
"Plants being built today, eg according to European Utilities' Requirements (EUR), have load-following capacity fully built in."
See end of Load Following section.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/
But looking at how long it is taking to build Flammenville , don't hold your breath.
( and hold on to your wallet, as the French are going to make us pay dearly.)
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Correct, but the European market as a whole is dominated by the Russians and we are not immune to the effects. It's not just the substance that is volatile.
It's not just about gas cooking and heating either. It is quite shocking how gas-dependent the electricity supply in is the south east of England.
> We get very little of our power from Russia. Most of the UK's imported gas comes from Norway and (in the form of LNG) Qatar.
Correct, but the European market as a whole is dominated by the Russians and we are not immune to the effects. It's not just the substance that is volatile.
It's not just about gas cooking and heating either. It is quite shocking how gas-dependent the electricity supply in is the south east of England.
In reply to FactorXXX:
Statements of intention are made to help drive change. I've always thought that needs to be the case to actual transcend the intransience on renewables, to escape the general conservatism of all of us, and looking at Scotland vs England, that would appear to have made a substantive difference in policy not merely being easily spoken words. I do however worry about security of energy supply. I do not know what the current govt predictions are for on-line projects but it has long been obvious that renewable cpacity will come up short, but by how much, and are there back-ups? I know that the Beaully-Denny line, which hasn't even finished being built, is already at theoretical capacity for projects awaiting completion, which begs two questions:
1) how much more renewable/total electricity will this involve?
2) how will integration of further sources be possible after capacity is reached?
I don't for one minute think that these questions, along with the main renewable target/security of supply issue, and grid smoothing are issues that the Scottish government are not thinking about, or haven't thought about.. ..even the SNP aren't that stupid; so it must be a function of politics and factors we aren't being made aware of. There are tidal race and pump storage schemes in the pipe line, along with HVDC connections abroad, but what our deficit will be is not clear.
Personally, I've always been uncomfortable with nuclear on the basis of the current lack of solution to the legacy waste issue. And I certainly wouldn't want to be trusting Chinese companies with our security of supply, as England has committed to still leaving the expense and solution of legacy waste handling unresolved. Trusting foreign companies seems to take a perversely liberal view of our future security, especially when juxtaposed to commitments to our own security in the archaic weapons technology of trident. Especially when security of energy and food supply will surely be one of the most competitive and security compromising factors on the horizon. The UK govt has also commitment to move what has been estimated at £140bi out of British consumers pockets over the lifetime of Hinkley C, which I'd of thought anyone pro-UK would rather have seen going toward a UK company and contributing to the UK economy. Perhaps, unlike the UK Tories, the SNP are just not neo-liberal enough to trust foreign power companies intimately linked with foreign states to be involve in our infrastructure.....?
> "The SNP plans to produce ''100 percent of Scotland's electricity needs from renewables by 2020''; to continue to export power to England, and at the same time to say ''no'' to new nuclear power stations"
> Simple question, will that happen?
> Simple question, will that happen?
Statements of intention are made to help drive change. I've always thought that needs to be the case to actual transcend the intransience on renewables, to escape the general conservatism of all of us, and looking at Scotland vs England, that would appear to have made a substantive difference in policy not merely being easily spoken words. I do however worry about security of energy supply. I do not know what the current govt predictions are for on-line projects but it has long been obvious that renewable cpacity will come up short, but by how much, and are there back-ups? I know that the Beaully-Denny line, which hasn't even finished being built, is already at theoretical capacity for projects awaiting completion, which begs two questions:
1) how much more renewable/total electricity will this involve?
2) how will integration of further sources be possible after capacity is reached?
I don't for one minute think that these questions, along with the main renewable target/security of supply issue, and grid smoothing are issues that the Scottish government are not thinking about, or haven't thought about.. ..even the SNP aren't that stupid; so it must be a function of politics and factors we aren't being made aware of. There are tidal race and pump storage schemes in the pipe line, along with HVDC connections abroad, but what our deficit will be is not clear.
Personally, I've always been uncomfortable with nuclear on the basis of the current lack of solution to the legacy waste issue. And I certainly wouldn't want to be trusting Chinese companies with our security of supply, as England has committed to still leaving the expense and solution of legacy waste handling unresolved. Trusting foreign companies seems to take a perversely liberal view of our future security, especially when juxtaposed to commitments to our own security in the archaic weapons technology of trident. Especially when security of energy and food supply will surely be one of the most competitive and security compromising factors on the horizon. The UK govt has also commitment to move what has been estimated at £140bi out of British consumers pockets over the lifetime of Hinkley C, which I'd of thought anyone pro-UK would rather have seen going toward a UK company and contributing to the UK economy. Perhaps, unlike the UK Tories, the SNP are just not neo-liberal enough to trust foreign power companies intimately linked with foreign states to be involve in our infrastructure.....?
Post edited at 16:51
In reply to contrariousjim:
Transmutation of a small quantity of radioactive waste is however energetically easier than tackling the legacy waste issue of CO2, or the legacy waste issue of air pollution, one of which is forecast to have all sorts of nasty problems far exceeding nuclear waste, and the other is estimated to be killing 1,000,000 people globally, per year, right now. It's funny how people are more uncomfortable with nuclear than they are with the carbon plants, when we operate both and its the carbon plants that are demonstrably killing people.
I'd be a lot happier if there was significant funding going to a UK waste reprocessing and transmutation plant. There's a fortune to be made in solving other nations waste problems, and a steady supply of fuel in the mix.
Indeed. If we hadn't spent the last 15 years procrastinating and atrophying nuclear scientists and engineers we'd be more likely to be keeping more of the the money "in house" and building up an industry capable of stamping out next generation reactors with increasing efficiency.
Instead of a utopian vision of common reactors, in house capacity and enlightened reprocessing skills, we have a hotch potch of reactor designs and reprocessing that were primarily motivated by weapons programs, and a political system lacking the clout to change things.
What an utter shambles
Also, I would be interested to know what fraction of the ~£1Bn/year in subsidies for wind stays within the UK, certainly a lot of the operators and land owners seem to be tied up with foreign investment.
> Personally, I've always been uncomfortable with nuclear on the basis of the current lack of solution to the legacy waste issue
Transmutation of a small quantity of radioactive waste is however energetically easier than tackling the legacy waste issue of CO2, or the legacy waste issue of air pollution, one of which is forecast to have all sorts of nasty problems far exceeding nuclear waste, and the other is estimated to be killing 1,000,000 people globally, per year, right now. It's funny how people are more uncomfortable with nuclear than they are with the carbon plants, when we operate both and its the carbon plants that are demonstrably killing people.
I'd be a lot happier if there was significant funding going to a UK waste reprocessing and transmutation plant. There's a fortune to be made in solving other nations waste problems, and a steady supply of fuel in the mix.
> Its also a commitment to move what has been estimated at £80bi out of British consumers pockets, which I'd of thought anyone pro-UK would rather have seen going toward a UK company and contributing to the UK economy.
Indeed. If we hadn't spent the last 15 years procrastinating and atrophying nuclear scientists and engineers we'd be more likely to be keeping more of the the money "in house" and building up an industry capable of stamping out next generation reactors with increasing efficiency.
Instead of a utopian vision of common reactors, in house capacity and enlightened reprocessing skills, we have a hotch potch of reactor designs and reprocessing that were primarily motivated by weapons programs, and a political system lacking the clout to change things.
What an utter shambles
Also, I would be interested to know what fraction of the ~£1Bn/year in subsidies for wind stays within the UK, certainly a lot of the operators and land owners seem to be tied up with foreign investment.
Post edited at 16:56
In reply to wintertree:
Sure, but we haven't dealt with legacy waste energetically, economically or politically.
Is that in the UK, globally, or specific to countries like China? Which specific health issues are you referring to. For example, as a pathologist the pollution giving rise to diseases like adenocarcinoma of the lung seem to be very much associated with the built up environment and use of fossil fuels to run cars, but not so clearly associated with use of fossil fuels generally.
> Transmutation of a small quantity of radioactive waste is however energetically easier than tackling the legacy waste issue of CO2
Sure, but we haven't dealt with legacy waste energetically, economically or politically.
> or the legacy waste issue of air pollution, one of which is forecast to have all sorts of nasty problems far exceeding nuclear waste, and the other is estimated to be killing 1,000,000 people globally, per year, right now. It's funny how people are more uncomfortable with nuclear than they are with the carbon plants, when we operate both and its the carbon plants that are demonstrably killing people.
Is that in the UK, globally, or specific to countries like China? Which specific health issues are you referring to. For example, as a pathologist the pollution giving rise to diseases like adenocarcinoma of the lung seem to be very much associated with the built up environment and use of fossil fuels to run cars, but not so clearly associated with use of fossil fuels generally.
In reply to contrariousjim:
Personally if asked to choose between coal and nuclear for our base load, I would choose the one that releases less radioactivity into the atmosphere. That would be nuclear. Coal is not terribly radioactive, but you burn such vast quantities that there is more radioactivity released per unit energy than is emitted from nuclear power stations.
This is of course, statistically irrelevant, since nuclear is the safest form of power per unit of energy even including things like Chernobyl, while coal kills millions through poor air quality.
Personally if asked to choose between coal and nuclear for our base load, I would choose the one that releases less radioactivity into the atmosphere. That would be nuclear. Coal is not terribly radioactive, but you burn such vast quantities that there is more radioactivity released per unit energy than is emitted from nuclear power stations.
This is of course, statistically irrelevant, since nuclear is the safest form of power per unit of energy even including things like Chernobyl, while coal kills millions through poor air quality.
In reply to contrariousjim:
Indeed, much of the legacy waste is simply stored within containment facilities for a future society with more political will, or technological mean, or wealth to deal with. That's a lot more than can be said for the legacy waste of the carbon alternatives.
Figures for the UK suggest between 10,000 and 30,000 per year - e.g. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/Pages/air-pollution-exhaust-death-estim... or http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26973783
The UN were saying 1,000,000 per year globally but are now nudging 7,000,000. e.g. http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2014/03/7-million-premature-deaths-ann...
The pollution doesn't out-right kill but it brings conditions on, worsens existing conditions and leads to a lot of early deaths. You are correct that a lot of this is caused by car exhaust in the UK, but if we are to switch to electric cars then your'e going to significantly increase the waste from fossil fuel carbon plants, and that exhaust is also a factor, although one that's currently hard to separate.
Either way, the waste of carbon based generation is killing more people every ~15 minutes than
legacy nuclear waste has killed in the history of the world. Is it sensible to be so scared of the nuclear waste in comparison to the carbon waste? It's killing more people every 6 hours than nuclear power has in the history of the world, and most of nuclear's deaths come down to Chernobyl which is not a good representation of modern nuclear. (!)
> Sure, but we haven't dealt with legacy waste energetically, economically or politically.
Indeed, much of the legacy waste is simply stored within containment facilities for a future society with more political will, or technological mean, or wealth to deal with. That's a lot more than can be said for the legacy waste of the carbon alternatives.
> Is that in the UK, globally, or specific to countries like China? Which specific health issues are you referring to. For example, as a pathologist the pollution giving rise to diseases like adenocarcinoma of the lung seem to be very much associated with the built up environment and use of fossil fuels to run cars, but not so clearly associated with use of fossil fuels generally.
Figures for the UK suggest between 10,000 and 30,000 per year - e.g. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/Pages/air-pollution-exhaust-death-estim... or http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26973783
The UN were saying 1,000,000 per year globally but are now nudging 7,000,000. e.g. http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2014/03/7-million-premature-deaths-ann...
The pollution doesn't out-right kill but it brings conditions on, worsens existing conditions and leads to a lot of early deaths. You are correct that a lot of this is caused by car exhaust in the UK, but if we are to switch to electric cars then your'e going to significantly increase the waste from fossil fuel carbon plants, and that exhaust is also a factor, although one that's currently hard to separate.
Either way, the waste of carbon based generation is killing more people every ~15 minutes than
legacy nuclear waste has killed in the history of the world. Is it sensible to be so scared of the nuclear waste in comparison to the carbon waste? It's killing more people every 6 hours than nuclear power has in the history of the world, and most of nuclear's deaths come down to Chernobyl which is not a good representation of modern nuclear. (!)
Post edited at 19:03
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Exactly, and I'm still voting YES despite feeling irritated by government's constant positioning a goal to farm 100% of Scotland's electricity from wind/water/solar actually as equating to sustainability.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2...
Electricity serves just a fraction of Scotland's (and Britain's) energy requirements and while the abhorrent Trident program has to be dumped, and remaining nuclear weapon payloads can be turned into power station fuel rods, a future without new nuclear power capacity is inconceivable from a practical sustainability perspective.
I think it's a generational thing though and in my experience, teens, 20's and 30-somethings are more likely to support nuclear power than the older generation. The misguidedness of politicians (and voters) is intrinsic to their not understanding the problem though and far too few government ministers have the engineering, physics or maths faculties to suss out that unless civilisation masters fusion, we'll disappear up our own bumholes and that our own fission power plants (not French or Chinese ones) are just stepping stones. If they want to win a vote, and not rock the boat, it's safer for politicians to pander to a population that's mostly ignorant or in denial. In that respect, anti-nuclear is increasingly the new 'conservative'.
> The referendum isn't about electing a party though. <
Exactly, and I'm still voting YES despite feeling irritated by government's constant positioning a goal to farm 100% of Scotland's electricity from wind/water/solar actually as equating to sustainability.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2...
Electricity serves just a fraction of Scotland's (and Britain's) energy requirements and while the abhorrent Trident program has to be dumped, and remaining nuclear weapon payloads can be turned into power station fuel rods, a future without new nuclear power capacity is inconceivable from a practical sustainability perspective.
I think it's a generational thing though and in my experience, teens, 20's and 30-somethings are more likely to support nuclear power than the older generation. The misguidedness of politicians (and voters) is intrinsic to their not understanding the problem though and far too few government ministers have the engineering, physics or maths faculties to suss out that unless civilisation masters fusion, we'll disappear up our own bumholes and that our own fission power plants (not French or Chinese ones) are just stepping stones. If they want to win a vote, and not rock the boat, it's safer for politicians to pander to a population that's mostly ignorant or in denial. In that respect, anti-nuclear is increasingly the new 'conservative'.
In reply to Timmd:
Something I'm confused by. If Scotland's energy needs are going to be supplied by 100% renewables then where's the oil going that's going to make us rich?
Something I'm confused by. If Scotland's energy needs are going to be supplied by 100% renewables then where's the oil going that's going to make us rich?
In reply to aln:
Presumably, since you are no longer using it, you can sell it to less enlightened countries (like England)?
Presumably, since you are no longer using it, you can sell it to less enlightened countries (like England)?
In reply to aln:
Scotland: we're going to supply all our energy needs from Green sources, but don't mind making £Billions profit from selling fossil fuels!
Hmmmmm!!!
Scotland: we're going to supply all our energy needs from Green sources, but don't mind making £Billions profit from selling fossil fuels!
Hmmmmm!!!
In reply to aln & Lusk:
As I said a few posts ago, the headline grabbing targets are misleading, and if they're not overtly deceiving people into believing something they shouldn't, they're not correcting the misconceptions.
The ambition is for Scotland's electricity to be sourced from renewable source power plants, but that's a long way from Scotland's energy needs being supplied by 100% renewables. The electricity that gets cabled into homes, shops and factories is a fraction of the country's energy use (see linked PDF).
> "Scotland's energy needs are going to be supplied by 100% renewables" <
> "Scotland: we're going to supply all our energy needs from Green sources" <
As I said a few posts ago, the headline grabbing targets are misleading, and if they're not overtly deceiving people into believing something they shouldn't, they're not correcting the misconceptions.
The ambition is for Scotland's electricity to be sourced from renewable source power plants, but that's a long way from Scotland's energy needs being supplied by 100% renewables. The electricity that gets cabled into homes, shops and factories is a fraction of the country's energy use (see linked PDF).
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...