I intend to start a number of new threads for some slightly more rational discussion and coverage of renewables in Scotland - these will include this thread for general topics, one for wind power, one for wave and tidal power, and another for hydro power.
I think that covers the main players, but can be added to if anything new comes along.
The reason for starting these threads here is to separate them from the various controversies and rhetoric that have accompanied similar subjects in the existing threads we have elsewhere, where this material is being posted at the moment. Instead of being discussed with regard to its local impact, it is being lost in the general melee of climate change debate and belief, and the same as regards AGW - anthropogenic (man-made) global warming - and I am finding it impossible to find past mentions of interesting local articles, or work out where new ones should go, as the existing threads do not have distinctive subject titles.
Please try and honour the subject titles of these threads, and keep the climate change and AGW stuff for the more generalised and non-local threads in the Off topic chit-chat and drivel board.
Renewable came back into the headlines in Scotland a little while ago, with an announcement that the country is to go after an even higher target than its overnment set out for it when the chase for the renewable genie began:
The Scottish government has raised its target for sourcing electricity from renewable energy by 30 percentage points.
Three years ago, it set out to achieve 50% from green power within 10 years.
But new industry research suggested that the country's renewable energy potential was bigger than thought.
First Minister Alex Salmond has now announced that the government is setting a new target of 80% of electricity from renewables by 2020.
He said: "We are already on the path to a low carbon economy - Scotland gets nearly a quarter of its electricity from green sources.
"Scotland is ideally placed to help lead the renewables revolution and taking account of the levels of planned investment over the next decade. I believe it is now time to aim higher and to go further."
An independent analysis was commissioned by Scottish Renewables into the country's renewable energy potential, which includes power drawn from wind, tidal, wave and hydro turbines, and energy from waste and biomass.
It said the 2007 target of sourcing 50% of power needs from green sources within 10 years could easily be reached.
It said it should reach 31% by next year, and there are several large projects which have already won approval and will come on stream after that. Wind levels
At a conservative estimate of increased generation and reduced demand, the country could have 81% renewable electricity within a decade, consultants Garrad Hassan claimed.
With more ambitious assumptions about investment and consumption, renewables could provide 123% of Scotland's power needs. The surplus could be used for exports, requiring improved connectors out of Scotland.
Those same cables could also be used for import of electricity from English and Welsh power stations when renewable production drops - for instance, when wind levels are low.
The report said onshore windfarms will continue to be required, with a doubling of the current number of turbines. While that faces opposition, much of that expansion can be through expansion of existing windfarms.
The report does not calculate how this could impact on Scotland's target for reducing all harmful energy emissions including transport and heating. It assumes some extra demand for electricity from changes to the way homes are heated and from more electric cars on the road by 2020.
The industry body said even reaching the 81% conservative estimate set out in the report would require effective and efficient consent procedures, or planning systems.
It has called for improved grid connections and upgrades, reliable pricing systems to provide stability for investment, and infrastructure improvements to build the large scale offshore wind, wave and tidal farms that will be necessary.
It said charges for access to the power grid should provide incentives for renewables. This is being addressed in a review by regulator Ofgem into the charges for grid access that are much higher in northern Scotland than southern England.
Niall Stuart, chief executive of Renewables Scotland, said the 50% target set in 2007 was "dismissed as unachievable and unworkable at the time".
He added: "But Scotland's renewable energy industry has grown massively over the last few years, putting us well on track to met his objective ahead of schedule."
He said meeting the new target would mean "massive environmental, economic and social gains for our country - but it will require investment on a massive scale and concerted support from all levels of government".
I don't particularly want to end the first post on a cynical note, but it is notable that the 'industry body' has slipped in a statement to the effect that to achieve the target will need all the things that are currently being strenuously objected to, by those they impact upon, to be in place.
Is this preparing the ground, and getting the 'failure ducks' in a row, to be shot down in a few years when the 80% target is not reached?
"Well, we'd have been there, but for all the problems the locals caused!"
For what it might be worth (and that's not a lot since I don't come from, or see much of the route in question very often), I don't have much of a problem with the view of a few pylons. In fact, unlike irritating wind turbines and the movement, which becomes repetitive and boring after a few minutes, I think static pylons neither look as intrusive or as eye-catching, and (because of what they do) are not likely to pop up on every bit of spare ground where some developer sees an opportunity to grab some ROC subsidy money.
(As a bit of an aside, I was shocked to listen to one young advocate of a giant wind farm at the centre of yet more controversy on Orkney, as they said the farm would - which would contain 127 (I think) giant turbines - would bring an annual income to the community of £37 million from the developer as part of the deal for siting the turbines there. That some size of a bribe, and one has to wonder where the money will come from every year, as this was stated as an annual figure. Surely somebody is getting money for nothing if they have that much to distribute as a handout (bribe) to get the locals to agree to have the turbines?)
The one thing I see sadly missing from the debate and discussion that has been publicised over the Beauly/Denny inter-connector is the technical suitability of the installation for purpose. While there seems to have been an endless exchange of gripes from various parties who seem to be less than technically qualified to debate the subject of the line being over or under ground (and the number who are still calling for a line carrying almost 500 kV to be buried underground for all of its route suggests they do not have a technical cell in their brains), I can recall only one instance when an article appeared somewhere questioning the suitability of this installation for its stated purpose, namely (I believe) to allow all the new renewable sources that we are going to be building somewhere off the west, north, and east of Scotland to be connected efficiently to the National Grid, thereby allowing us to sell all this wonderful renewable stuff, and make a fortune.
The most recent articles show that councillors in Stirling don't think enough has been done to hide the pylons/line:
And that a former Scotland rugby international star agrees and is leading the protest - like having your brains scrambled on the rugby field must be some sort of qualification for this job:
Is it any wonder a look overseas usually shows that the 'backward foreigners' are usually doing better than we are?
We really are largely guilty of 'playing' at this, rather than getting on with things in a sensible manner.
We will end up here with the same shameful situation that we have landed ourselves in with wind farms, namely that the Scottish Government will be able to override the need for planning permission and local objections in more areas of renewable power. This power was brought in as the number of objections and delays to wind farms grew in number as locals got fed up with them - so they just got shoved out of the way in an effort to speed up the process if a wind farm was judged to be important enough.
Scotland is among countries signed up to a project aimed at developing a grid system that could link up electricity networks across Europe.
Energy Minister Jim Mather said the offshore electricity grid could help export surplus electricity to Europe.
He said Scotland would play a "key role" in the North Sea project.
The UK, Ireland, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have signed a memorandum of understanding.
Mr Mather said: "Scotland is playing a key role in the development and deployment of an interconnected offshore grid in the North Sea, recently highlighted as a European Union priority project.
"A North Sea grid will plug Scotland in to export even greater amounts of the clean, green energy which Scotland's natural resources can produce in abundance."
I don't suppose the fact that Energy Minister Jim Mather is expecting Scotland to be generating so much electricity that there will be a surplus to be sold off will mean that we can expect to see falling prices as well
I think you might need a thread on Solar Power too judging by my post this week which included 2 invitations to have solar panels on the roof. Apparently you do not need planning permission any longer. One claim, which I am sure someone can verify or denounce is that photovoltaic cells use ultra violet energy and do not need bright sunlight to work.
There was also a report from the Beeb this week on turning the Sahara into a major power source for the middle east and Europe. The apparently clever bit was to build a farm and use the initial output to create silica from the desert sand on a rolling basis.
Thanks for the hint - there are no realistic plans for PV installations on the scale of wind oe water based systems, so having it under Renewables will probably do for the moment.
It can be added in a moment if something does materialise.
The statement "[b]photovoltaic cells use ultra violet energy and do not need bright sunlight to work[/i]" sounds typical of the sort of drivel that a salesperson would use.
It wraps up two unrelated items into one statement that means nothing.
PV cells use a range of wavelengths, and have peak responses at different wavelehgths depending on the type of cell, through their construction and material they are manufactured from.
UV and visible light at that blue end of the visible spectrum carry more energy than infra-red (IR) and light at the red end of the visible spectrum.
However, it's not as simple as simply going for UV, since PV cells operate more efficiently at at other wavelengths, again dependent on material and construction.
I would not like to speculate too closely on the pros and cons of any given type, as the ultimate performance depends on what light is available, and what type of cell is being used.
However, it is true to say that efficiency has improved over the years, and it is true that useful output is obtained without sunlight, but sunlight is obviously better as it carries a lot more direct energy that watered down light coming through cloud cover.
You're back in wind power territory wind turbines only generate about a third of their installed capacity over the period of a year.
PV cells will do the same due to cloud cover - I cannot give a figure though, as I have never bothered to look.
It's worth bearing in mind that solar power is not restricted to PV cells, and there are a number of other systems which rely on collectors which circulate water, or another fluid, in order to transfer heat extracted by roof mounted collectors.
These tend to produce hot water or heating, while PV cells produce electricity.
Fluid based system have a potentially inherent advantage in some ways, as they produce storable heat energy directly. PV cells either need their output to be used at the time, or converted into some other form of energy that can be stored for later use.
Dunbar will be the site of a 300,000 tonne "resource efficiency hub" which will divert non-recyclable waste from landfill.
The plant will generate 23 MW of electricity, estimated to be enough to power 39,000 homes.
It follows the application, originally lodged in May 2008, being refused by East Lothian Council in November 2009.
Viridor, Scotland's largest recycling, renewable energy and resource efficiency firm, is to build the £200 million plant in Oxwellmains, Dunbar, following the go-ahead from Scottish Ministers.
Colin Paterson, Scottish regional director for Viridor, said:
"The approval of plans for Scotland's most advanced energy from waste facility is good news for sustainability in Scotland and marks a key milestone on the road to delivering the Scottish government's zero waste strategy. Zero waste won't happen without a network of new 'next generation' green infrastructure on the ground and in addition to investing in the latest advanced recycling technologies. Located on a long-established, rail-linked waste management site, Viridor's resource efficiency hub will work in tandem with enhanced recycling and make a significant contribution towards a smarter strategy for waste reduction, re-use, recycling and recovering energy from what remains."
For the UK, I think the only viable renewables going forward are offshore wind and tidal, the rest will just become noise, these will need to be supported by a new fleet of coal and nuclear stations and our existing hydro, pump storage and onshore wind. This combination could give us a good balance of base loading, security of fuel supply, home grown technology and greenness without the consumer being shafted more than necessary.
"But Mr Huhne told the BBC that the average electricity bill of £500 a year would rise by £160 a year over the next 20 years, and if the new measures were not put in place, bills would rise by £190 a year."
That is some rise! 32% in the first year and rising in similar amounts for the next 20 years, and I have no idea how you work out the £190 a year rise with nothing changing! With all these subsidies flying about, I'm off to buy some electricity producer shares because they're not going to be going down and I need to offset my soaring electricity bill!
At the moment all my heating/hot water is on electricity with the exception of a coal/wood stove, I've been looking into linking this up to the hotwater tank and a couple of radiators to supplement the storage heaters. Not very green but worthwhile because household coal is remarkable cheap, a classic illustration of how "green" subsidies can have the opposite effect.
Remember what I said a few posts above, about PV cells as such not being the real answer to solar power, and how the problem generally lies in the fact that solar system like to produce energy to be used as it is generated - leading to the suggestion that work to make this into a large-scale source like wind or water based system?
Well, somebody must have been looking in, because here is an article just published about using molten salts to store solar energy for later use, so the lights don't go out when the sun goes out
It's actually not anything new, similar system have been used on a smaller, domestic scale with some success, but this seems to be the first time it has been used on the scale suggested in the article, and been able to cope directly with the high temperature this type of solar farm operates at.
If there's much more excitement in the solar power field, we may actually have to start that dedicated thread that was mentioned earlier
(This has no Scottish link, which it really should for this board, but there isn't really a better to put it and stay relevant and current.)
Anyway, don't get too excited or amazed at the following headline story - unfortunately, although it may yield some value in future, it is very much a theoretical concept at the moment, but very interesting nonetheless if the problems could be overcome to make it practical.
Just because it might not be the most workable solution in the real world today doesn't mean it won't lead to something even more surprising, and better:
Quoted Text
A new breed of electronic solar cells that harvests power from heat could double the output of conventional panels
SOLAR cells that work at night. It sounds like an oxymoron, but a new breed of nanoscale light-sensitive antennas could soon make this possible, heralding a novel form of renewable energy that avoids many of the problems that beset solar cells.
The key to these new devices is their ability to harvest infrared (IR) radiation, says Steven Novack, one of the pioneers of the technology at the US Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls. Nearly half of the available energy in the solar spectrum resides in the infrared band, and IR is re-emitted by the Earth's surface after the sun has gone down, meaning that the antennas can even capture some energy during the night.
Lab tests have already shown that, under ideal conditions, the antennas can collect 84 per cent of incoming photons. Novack's team calculates that a complete system would have an overall efficiency of 46 per cent; the most efficient silicon solar cells are stalled at about 25 per cent. What's more, while those ideal conditions are relatively narrowly constrained for silicon solar cells - if the sun is in the wrong position, light reflects off a silicon solar cell instead of being absorbed - the antennas absorb radiation at a variety of angles. If the antennas can be produced cheaply, the technology could prove to be truly disruptive, says Novack.
There are a few links worth following in the source article, as they lead to other stories significant in the context of PV cells and their problems, and possible solutions which could improve them:
I hope it's all true, and not creative repackaging of the facts by a skilled spin-doctor:
Quoted Text
Roseanna Cunningham, the environment and climate change minister, commented: "As Scotland faces a white Christmas, we are greening up our energy supply.
"Scotland is blessed with abundant natural energy sources, particularly in our seas, and today's figures follow a steady trend towards Scotland's energy becoming greener and cleaner".
She said 2010 had also been a "tremendous year" for the renewable power sector, with more wind power developments in the planning and construction pipeline.
She said Scotland was on course to meet its 2011 target of sourcing 31% of its electricity from renewable sources. The Scottish government recently uprated its targets to hit 80% by 2020.
Jenny Hogan, director of policy for industry body Scottish Renewables, said: "Scotland's renewables industry has grown faster and further than anyone dared to hope even a few years ago.
"These figures from last year show that the production of renewable energy in Scotland continues to increase and supersede our expectations".
Apart from the headline of "Renewable power rises by a fifth" the article actually considers a number of other energy consumption marker that are probably more worthy of reading, and simply presented without the help of Ms Cunningham.
Although I mentioned that the amount of large scale solar power in Scotland - which would justify a thread on its own - was never likely to be all that great, I feel as if someone was looking over my shoulder and has started spawning articles just to spite me
So, while it's unlikely to see a Scottish plant any time soon, here's news of yet another solar power development announcement in only a few day.
This time, it's a reactor where concentrated solar energy enters a chamber through a window and is reflected several times to capture as much of the solar energy as possible. It is then used to heat a 35 millimetre diameter cylinder of cerium oxide to around 1500°C, causing the cerium to release an oxygen atom.
The chamber temperature is then reduced to around 900°C and carbon dioxide is pumped in. The cerium grabs an oxygen atom from the carbon dioxide to replace the one that it just lost, resulting in the production of carbon monoxide and cerium oxide. The carbon monoxide is then removed from the chamber, which is heated back up to 1500 degrees Celsius and the whole cycle is repeated. The same process is also used to generate hydrogen from steam.
The team behind this idea has successfully run the process to produce the two gases in over 500 cycles.
Admittedly, it's efficiency is poor, around 0.4%, but this is mostly due to heat loss, so should be easy to fix, and the team suggests efficiencies of up to 19% should then be possible.
Finally, carbon monoxide and hydrogen can be converted into a synthetic liquid using catalysts to produce hydrocarbon fuels.
I think someone should be inventing new categories of solar power (as we have within water based power systems), or perhaps solar derived power, just to make them easier to talk about.
With the recent news that Skykon at Machrihanish has gone into administration pending a decision about the endlessly troubled factory's future, an industry forum has said that other Scottish firms had been doing well in this sector.
They include engineering companies based in the Highlands, Fife and Renfrew.
Strangely, the successful ones all appear to be involved in things like wave power and offshore wind, the ones I was banging on about while the rest of the world threw all its eggs in the basket of ordinary wind power.
I was watching a short international debate on future energy last night, and it was amazing to see how entrenched the three parties involved were. I mentioned dinosaurs recently, and the same analogy held true with this trio, and it was like watching a debate from twenty years (or more) ago, as one had no interest in promoting any energy source other than oil/gas (and more exploration and drilling; another couldn't see any future for any means of power generation other windmills; and the third saw only nuclear power as the lasting means of power generation.
What was most amusing about this particular debate was the way that they all fought/argued with one another regarding their own particular power source, but would each pair up to argue against the third, and would roll out the standard outdated clichés that have been parroted by opponents for more than two decades, as if they were still all true today.
The only good thing about this was those taking part were industry commentators, not policy makers - but I still dread to think of the influence these same old dinosaurs might command, and the damage their archaic and polarised views might yet do.
I think if I had been asked, I would have failed to predict the inclusion of any Scottish-Chinese articles in this thread, but...
Quoted Text
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said the licensing deal was reached between Sino-Scots firm Shanghai Huanuan Boiler and Vessel Co/Cochran and Scotland-based engineers W2E Engineering, which specialises in generating electricity from domestic refuse.
Mr Salmond, who has led several trade missions to China over the past two years, said the visit was vital for building economic growth, especially in renewable energy.
"China already has the largest deployment of on-shore renewable technology, and Scotland is a world-leader in pioneering the technology and application of clean, green energy," he said.
"This announcement is another positive step forward in strengthening Sino-Scottish links and confirming Scotland's reputation as a global leader in the development of renewable energy."
Shanghai Huanuan chairman Dong Ping added: "This agreement will see the creation of new green power stations built in Scotland and in China and this will generate sustainable renewable energy at a reduced cost for our global customers."
On the first day of the trip, Mr Li held talks with Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and also visited the renewable energy firm Pelamis Wave Power
Although the intent is to try and stick to Scottish news in this thread, that doesn't mean ignoring renewable developments, since they might introduce technology that ends up in Scotland one day, should it prove viable.
Here's a list of 10 small-scale renewable energy innovators, which may or may not prove effective in time, and at the end of the original article, the commenters have added some more possibilities.
They may, or may not, all be practical, or even fit for our climate, but the important thing is that they, and the other schemes mentioned in the article, illustrate that we shouldn't listen to the naysayers and deniers who would like us to believe that no-one is pursuing renewables in a serious way.
The subject of sustainability is perhaps a bit less well defined and more subjective than that of the various generation modes, so for the moment, like solar power, I'd like to lump it in here, under renewables.
This provides the opportunity to include subjects raised by the not unsurprising finding that many houses on the Uists are not suitable for treatment under an insulation scheme.
This doesn't come as the greatest of surprises, as many are older stone-built properties, lacking cavity wall or roof spaces that the Energy Trust is able to insulate.
Sustainable Uist is to hold a conference on treating such older homes later this month.
The latter is interesting, as it may raise the question of listing in some cases, which is presently often a problem, as this requires like-for-like restoration of such building, a process that can be prohibitively expensive, and can even outlaw some work if it alters the character of the building.
That's not mentioned as any sort of criticism, merely to acknowledge the pre-existence of such rules, and although I can't point at the specific report, do recall that Historic Scotland has reduced some criteria to make modern work easier to incorporate.
While it may not be seen as directly being related to renewable energy, I think that more attention should be paid to developments such as the example provided by this fridge.
By using a combination of better insulation (and let's face it, the insulation on most domestic refrigerators is less than impressive), and a carefully selected phase-change material, it can maintain its cool for up to ten days without power.
The sad thing about this is that neither method is new, or particularly innovative.
Fridge insulation is still a joke, despite the rating stickers that are now applied to all new fridges, it just cheap, nasty, and shoddy, and far too thin to more than a token gesture.
And phase change material have been around for years - they are the cold packs seen in picnic hampers and cool-bags for use in summer.
However, it has to be said that work has and is taking place to improve these materials, increase the amount of energy they absorb, and the temperature they operate at.
If they were adopted for general use though, they would significantly reduce energy demands - after all, how many fridges are there? Imagine for a moment (and I admit I am being slightly ridiculous here, just to illustrate the point) if they only had to run for one day in ten, and the drop in demand for electricity.
I wasn't really sure of what to post this story under, but since it could ultimately impact the overall effectiveness of renewable energy systems, this seems like the right place to keep it in context.
From earlier posts I've made, it's clear that I came in for some ridicule when I suggest we would be better off looking at improving the efficiency of what we do in terms of using the energy we already have. I suggested that over the relevant time period, this could allow us to gain time to plan as we could use the power generation system we will have left after we close down various power stations that have fallen out of favour, or come to the end of their design life. Cue the sound of laughter behind me.
Since I didn't have any number to really back this up with, and anything I did would be as much a guesstimate as anyone that wanted to throw stones at me, there seemed little point in making the effort.
Now, someone with possibly a little more credibility than yours truly has come up with some numbers, so they are probably less likely to be shot down without so much a glance as mine might have been.
However, even though I'm already a 'convert' to the idea, I think the numbers need to be read with care, as they are very optimistic, and are based on a number of changes to present day criteria. this means that the headline number of a 70% cut in world energy use is not something we could see tomorrow, but some time in the distant future.
Still, it's nice to see someone in the business trying to put serious numbers and reasons behind efficiency as a means to and end, and not just a minor contributor to the overall solution.
While it is not entirely related to renewable energy, it is still a large proportion of the article, and it does contain a lot of references that bear on the matter.
There's a lot of speculation in it. For example, one aspect notes that the proposals contained are welcome, but that consumers should not bear the costs. Another brands the moves as subsidies for the nuclear industry - although it specifically rules such a thing out.
Then it gets complicated too: uSwitch estimated that bills will rise by £500 a year in response to the measures, but the minister said the average electricity bill of £500 a year would rise by £160 a year over the next 20 years, and £190 a year without the measures. Then the Treasury has calculated the average annual bill would be between £4 and £28 higher in 2016, but then be between £20 and £48 lower by 2030. The industry regulator Ofgem has estimated that bills could rise by as much as 25% over the coming decade.
If you can follow that lot, go to the top of the class!
Perhaps more sensible and meaningful were some statements at the end of the piece:
In the next 10 years a quarter of our generation capacity is due to come off line. - about half due to tightening environmental regulation, but many of Britain's ageing nuclear plants are also due to close.
For low carbon generation - including nuclear - it proposed a feed-in tariff with long contracts. This will give investors a guaranteed price for their electricity - ut the government maintains that there will be no specific subsidy for nuclear.
There would be extra support for what are described as younger technologies like offshore wind and wave power.
There will also be capacity payments to ensure there is back-up plant available on those days when the wind doesn't blow.
There will be disincentives too. These will include support for the carbon price - which would make it expensive to generate power using dirty coal.
And an emissions performance target will also ensure there is no new unabated coal-fired electricity generation.
I've been looking at the following article for a while, and wondering if there is much point to it, from a Scottish viewpoint (bear in mind Scotland is a net exporter of electricity, and has a lot of the renewable stuff now) since it identifies only the United Kingdom in its data, and is already looking at fairly old data in what is now a fairly fast moving industry.
Alarmingly, given that we are supposed to be reaching 30% renewable power in Scotland during 2011, the UK figure of about 3% looks particularly alarming, as it means England and Wales are not doing anything, and our gains are being wiped out on a national basis by their failure.
The diagrams in the article take a moment to make sense of, as they come without keys or explanations, but they do provide some interesting comparisons with other countries once their meaning becomes a little clearer:
While I'm not proposing or supporting devolution, it does look as if Scotland might wanting to have its MSPs having a word with the folk who compile the Eurostat energy data and ask them if we can have our own room.
Again, if you have followed any of the earlier posts in this thread, which concentrates on Scottish achievements in renewables (and have looked at the more detailed developments in the wind and hydro threads), you will see a worrying trend.
While I poke a bit of fun at the way a certain Scottish minister pops up like a Jack-in-the-Box at every Scottish renewable energy project, he nonetheless does keep a track of the numbers, and shows that Scotland is a net exported of power - in the form of electricity - and that the country's renewable energy production as a percentage of the total production is in the 20%+ bracket, and that the country is on its way to the proclaimed target of 80% from renewables by 2020.
With this in mind, have a close look at the renewables for the UK as shown in the data visualisation referenced above.
The UK, which presumably means the member countries conglomerated. languishes almost at the bottom if the renewable plots.
Granted that the newest figures used in the survey are 2008, it still seems that we are no being counted, or England and Wales, for all their bluster (and cancelled projects such as the Severn Barrage), aren't up to much, and we're carrying the UK's renewable flag.
Perhaps our devolved leaders (and forgive me for having to mention something that is connected to political representation, but it can't be avoided in this case) should be rowing across to Europe and arguing that Scotland should be provided with a line entry separate from the rest of the UK for these figure?
Won't happen though, as Scotland is not an individual 'member state' - so I'm just rambling (and that doesn't make me a nationalist).
Some visible credit would be nice though, if our figures are genuine and would stand scrutiny by external audit.
As per my warning, you ALWAYS have to identify the data source AND the time of origin of any data being presented.
There shouldn't be any problem with the data itself, providing it is either national or European - the sources should be subject to audit before they reach any of the official sources.
The date can sometimes be difficult to get right, and ensure the correct time is being referred to, as there can be one date prominent on a final report, but it might contain older data when examined, and that date is often not as prominent as it might just be noted as part of the supporting text.
Because there are so many competing for prominence now, although they can still be creative with the wording, if they are serious, long term players, then they need to maintain credibility or they will not get any work if proven to be TOO creative
I thought that this article should be lodged in here as an example of negative reporting, and possibly a 'compare & contrast' exercise between the stories of growth that generally appear for Scotland and renewables now, in comparison with the UK performance, which appears to be almost nothing by comparison so far.
I can't really think of anything to call it other than 'negative reporting', since it is reporting the results of something that is down to nature, and is not controllable, but if taken over an annual period would tend towards an expected figure - and will grow as more renewable sources are added.
I wonder how the same writer might describe the apparent growth in renewables that will happen (even if no more renewable sources are added) as conventional sources such as coal and nuclear are turned off in the coming years?
Quoted Text
Britain's renewable energy revolution suffered an abrupt setback this winter when the power supplied from wind, hydro and other "clean" sources fell, despite years of promises and policies to end the nation's dependence on fossil fuels and slash global warming pollution, the Guardian can reveal.
The news comes as the government will tomorrow unveil a major report (pdf) into how it will pay for the hundreds of billions of new spending needed to meet the UK's targets for renewable energy and cutting climate change emissions by setting up a new Green Investment Bank (GIB).
Figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (pdf) show that the proportion of electricity supplied from renewable sources such as wind and hydro power fell 7.5% in the first three months of this year compared to 2009.
The drop was officially blamed mostly on a dry winter, which reduced power from water turbines, and low wind speeds, leading to the lowest absolute supply from those two sectors for four winters – as far back as the DECC figures recorded.
Experts also expressed concern that renewable energy could also have suffered from a hiatus in investment and from competition from cheap gas from overseas, as the government figures showed the UK became a net importer of gas for the first time in more than 40 years in January to March.
Did you all catch the new series which began on Quest tonight:
21:00 Building the Future (Documentary) The Energy Solution. The UN has stated the world's innovators have only 10 years to solve the planet's energy crisis. Is this realistic, and do the answers lie in wind or water? (New Episode)
It was fascinating, and the first included a novel solar power station proposed for Australia - a 7 kilometre greenhouse heating air, which then discharges through a huge chimney (same effect as the Dresden firestom! ), driving turbines on its way. I forgot the name - if it was mentioned - but when I tried to find it on the web, found a number of articles suggesting that there was a sudden increase in solar power plans in Australia, with more interest in getting finding (and disappearing) than building their projects, which were impractical and unproven. Looks like it may be a can of worms, and we'll have to wait and see what the truth is.
Then there was a river scheme aimed at powering New York. The first turbine in the water broke its blades in the current, but a stronger one survived. Interestingly, despite this, the chap behind it included the UK in his list of possible customers. Wonder if he knows about Scotland's developments off the northwest?
Then there was gas locked up in the seabed - but this one has a problem as it is merely more fossil fuel and pollution. But then again, would run existing kit, so good for the lazy option.
The Norwegians seemed to be the ones that knew what they were doing, with lots of offshore wind - and they were well underway.
It's the first of a series of programmes, so we'll see what more they come up with.
What it did make an interesting connection with though, was a story from last week which seems to promise lots of good things from an interconnector between Scotland and Norway
Plans for a subsea electricity cable linking Scotland and Norway will be examined as part of a study into a proposed new North Sea interconnector.
First Minister Alex Salmond said the technical preference for the shortest route could mean a north east of Scotland landing site being involved.
Mr Salmond made the announcement at an offshore wind conference in Aberdeen.
He said an integrated grid was essential to contribute to Europe's sustainable energy policy.
SSE Interconnector, a subsidiary of Scottish and Southern Energy, is signing a partnership agreement with two Norwegian and one Swedish utility to examine the feasibility of building the interconnector between the UK and Norway.
Mr Salmond said: "Scotland is ideally placed to become the green powerhouse of Europe. We must achieve a connection across to Scandinavia and mainland Europe. So I am delighted to announce the signing of an agreement to work towards the building of an electricity interconnector carrying power to and from Scandinavia, with north east Scotland being well placed to be the obvious choice."
I've had the following story stuck on my 'shelf; for some time, and it provides some interesting examples of problems with renewables - which have nothing to do with renewables.
It's also a bit of an odd one, since a heat pump is not strictly a renewable energy device.
It gains its advantage by literally pumping heat from one place to another, and the result should be to gain an advantage.
In simplistic terms, if it is consuming 1 kWh, then it should be delivering 3 kWh (or whatever it is rated at).
The first problem with the article is that it is very poorly titled, as the failure is not actually in the heat pumps as green devices.
The problem is that the heat pumps have not been properly installed, and that they are not being operated properly, or are in such a state of incorrect installation that they cannot be operated properly.
If they were correctly sized and installed, they would operate efficiently, and deliver their expected advantage eg 1 unit of heat in, and 3 units of heat out, as this has been proven to be the case on the Continent.
It's a bit of a shame that Britain, supposedly the engineering base of the rest of the world, can't even install a heat pump.
The comments after the article are probably mostly worth looking at in this case, and save me from having to waffle on.
I've always wanted a heat-pump based system, after coming across the idea many years ago, but they can be awkward to fit in some locations, as they need a source of heat. The system I studied used deep buried pipes to circulate a heat transfer fluid underground, and extract heat during the winter. The chap that installed it was the developer too - it was quite some time ago - and he used to dig up the ground after winter, and reckoned it was an effective system as it was still working efficiently even though the pipes were buried in ice by then.
The reason the heat pump is not considered fully green or renewable is simply because you have to put that 1 unit of power in to get the 3 units back out, so some consider that to be a loss, although it is really an investment.
I thought it worth including a couple of articles to raise awareness of the problem of shuffling all the renewable electricity - and other types of course, since it's still there - around the country.
The various schemes bringing assorted wind and water produced power are tending to land in increasingly odd and isolated places, and increasing amounts of power are probably going to have to be shunted between places they did not have to be transported to or from in the past.
Last year, there was a handy list of inteconnector projects published, usually with an indication of the cost:
Almost exactly a year later, another article was published, with the Highlands and Islands Transmission Working Group (HITWG) calling for the charges energy developers must pay to connect to the National Grid to be reformed.
HITWG's members include Argyll and Bute, Highland, Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles councils along with Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
The group said transmission charges were too high and would only increase if developers also had to contribute significantly towards the costs of planned sub sea connections, which are known as bootstraps.
Renewable projects on Skye pay £23 per kilowatt (kw) - the highest transmission charges in the Highland region, HITWG said.
But the group warned: "It is estimated that the costs of the "bootstraps" could double this, and thus act as a disincentive to the development of the area's renewable energy resources."
It added uncertainty over levels of transmission charges could prevent community-based projects from marketing their surplus electricity.
While I don't want to comment on this particular call in isolation, I can't be the only person (but maybe I am, because I am noting and reposting a number of items here) to either notice, or at least gain the impression, that almost everyone involved in this business seems to have a group or representation that it is a 'special case' of some sort, is financially penalised or disincentivised in some way, and is either holding its hand out for a cut of somebody else's cash, or want prices somewhere else to be cut.
Just a thought, where did the name 'Renewable energy' originate, the only renewable part are the artefacts that produce the energy, energy is constant within the cosmos, can not be created or destroyed. E=MC power of 2.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Renewable energy
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
E-mail
wind turbines only generate about a third of their installed capacity over the period of a year.
Skype
