Renewable energy
There are few politicians who do not pay lip service to just how much they support renewable energy, and just how important it is in ensuring that we have a balanced energy supply in the future.
I say "lip service", because almost without exception there is an important caveat to their statements. A prime example came about this week.
An SNP MSP has expressed concern about the visual impact of wind farm developments in his constituency. "Wind farms must be sited in appropriate locations that do not diminish an area's scenic character." Mr Crawford added that he was a supporter of wind farms and their ability to generate "clean, renewable" sources of energy and said they were vital to meet the targets set by the Scottish Government to reduce the country's carbon footprint.
And I could quote numerous examples from our own MP and MSP.
With the UK now having to deliver 15% of its energy needs from renewables by 2020, the options are starting to get limited.
As a report in the Sunday Herald today points out,
This is going to be exacerbated next week, as I am very reliably told that the decision on the Lewis Wind Power scheme will be for refusal.
Obviously, I'll be very disappointed if that is the case - but I'm delighted that there will be no Public Inquiry as demanded by our parliamentarians - but I understand that a new application for the Stornoway Trust lands only will then be submitted, and is likely to be approved. In other words, the turbines are only unacceptable in some places.
But the development of renewable energy in the islands will be pushed back a few years, and we will face further uncertainty and depopulation in the meantime.
Whatever the decision turns out to be, it is not about winners and losers, but about doing the best for the islands, and I trust that both sides in this debate will work together in the future with that aim in mind.
I say "lip service", because almost without exception there is an important caveat to their statements. A prime example came about this week.
An SNP MSP has expressed concern about the visual impact of wind farm developments in his constituency. "Wind farms must be sited in appropriate locations that do not diminish an area's scenic character." Mr Crawford added that he was a supporter of wind farms and their ability to generate "clean, renewable" sources of energy and said they were vital to meet the targets set by the Scottish Government to reduce the country's carbon footprint.
And I could quote numerous examples from our own MP and MSP.
With the UK now having to deliver 15% of its energy needs from renewables by 2020, the options are starting to get limited.
As a report in the Sunday Herald today points out,
The amount of electricity that would be generated by the 153 wind farms currently held up in the planning queue is enough to provide 60% of all Scotland's power, and could easily replace the nation's nuclear power stations at Hunterston in North Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian.
Bizarrely, all of which means that nuclear seems more - not less - likely as a result of the attitude of the nimby SNP MSPs.This is going to be exacerbated next week, as I am very reliably told that the decision on the Lewis Wind Power scheme will be for refusal.
Obviously, I'll be very disappointed if that is the case - but I'm delighted that there will be no Public Inquiry as demanded by our parliamentarians - but I understand that a new application for the Stornoway Trust lands only will then be submitted, and is likely to be approved. In other words, the turbines are only unacceptable in some places.
But the development of renewable energy in the islands will be pushed back a few years, and we will face further uncertainty and depopulation in the meantime.
Whatever the decision turns out to be, it is not about winners and losers, but about doing the best for the islands, and I trust that both sides in this debate will work together in the future with that aim in mind.
15 comments:
An SNP MSP has expressed concern about the visual impact of wind farm developments in his constituency.
Which still misses the point: wind farms are useless (except in delivering taxpayer pounds to developers and local councils, of course--they're very good at that). They do not, and never have--anywhere, at any time--'reduced CO2 emissions'. To do so, they would have to replace some portion of conventional fuel used for baseload generation. Due to wind intermittency, no windfarm has ever done so, at any time, in any nation. The normal conventional generators continue to spin whether one windmill is connected to the grid, or ten thousand.
Until windfarm advocates can prove--by showing a reduction in conventional fuel consumption directly correlated to the times and amounts of windfarm electrical inputs--that wind farms somehow 'reduce CO2 emissions', the claim by developers and politicians that they do so remains--how shall I phrase this?--'untrue'.
That being so--and it is so, as has been proven in the real world over and over--there is absolutely no use in windfarms whatsoever. We could cover the entire UK in windfarms, and still have to build nuclear, coal and/or gas-fired plants in exactly as great a quantity as if no windfarms existed at all.
What's beginning to concern the more thoughtful, technologically literate portion of the population is the utter recklessness of the politically-driven 'renewables' agenda, which appears to be in thrall to 'windmill fantasies'. I leave aside windfarm fanatics, who appear to be driven either by 'quick profit', or to have little to no grasp of technological realities.
To be utterly blunt, politicians are playing fast and loose with the safety not just of the economy, but with that of the citizenry and their families. On this present course, we will see a steady erosion of baseload capacity as nuclear and (later) coal plants are decommissioned, and the Government's current strategy offers absolutely nothing to replace them. I expect that as more and more people begin to realize that the health and safety of their parents, siblings and children is being put at risk by the fantasies of both central and local governments, the reaction will be quite noticable--tossing the incumbents out in local and national elections, at the least.
In other words, Government proposes to simply let our baseload capacity erode, while offering fatuous statements about 'renewables' somehow magically taking up the load, though real-world experience has abundantly proven that 'wind' is useless', tidal is in its infancy and nowhere near ready for deployment, and solar is constrained by both technological and resource restrictions.
So, we need to stop screwing about with Green fantasies and understand that this Government's current policy is derelict in its duty of care to the citizens of this country. The Government is acting in a deeply irresponsible manner on this matter, so much so that I would advocate the formation of independent commissions to investigate current policy, and to publish their objective findings for the whole nation to consider. Using such information, an informed citizenry can--if our current crop of politicians refuse to inhabit reality--elect a more sane government at the next general election.
With the UK now having to deliver 15% of its energy needs from renewables by 2020...
Which will never happen--not even Denmark has ever achieved such a figure, with a population roughly ten percent that of the UK. Their total installed wind capacity is somewhere around 22% of total requirement, but effective output is roughly one third that, or somewhere in the region of 7-8%. And even that hasn't reduced their conventional C02 output. Indeed, wind inputs appear to have INCREASED C02 outputs as conventional generation has had to cycle up and down in ways for which it was not designed, in an effort to compensate for highly erratic wind inputs to the grid.
The amount of electricity that would be generated by the 153 wind farms currently held up in the planning queue is enough to provide 60% of all Scotland's power, and could easily replace the nation's nuclear power stations at Hunterston in North Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian.
Which is an outright 'untruth'. No windfarm, nor any combination of windfarms, has EVER--not ever--replaced conventional generation—not even one megawatt’s worth.
The longer this goes on, the more angry will be the public reaction as they realize the utter incompetence of their political leaders.
We can choose what we want for baseload, but it has to be reliable and consistent: which means coal, nuclear or gas. Given that the latter is (as we've just seen) essentially controlled by Gazprom (I predict an interesting future for the EU as it finds that Russia controls the bulk of its natural gas supply and can set prices at will) and that 'coal' is being shouted down by the likes of Greenpeace--that leaves 'nuclear'.
The politicians' preferred answer in Scotland appears to be to discount this option as well, which leaves precisely NO baseload replacement planning.
I suspect that the populace is going to be less than happy in a few years' time; either that, or Scotland is going to be buying English electricity while Edinburgh claims that it's actually 'wind farms' providing the baseload. Given my experience of politicians, I will cynically predict this to be the most likely (and deeply dishonest) outcome. I'd also advocate that England sell its electricity to Scotland at a healthy markup. May as well make a nice profit on it.
This is going to be exacerbated next week, as I am very reliably told that the decision on the Lewis Wind Power scheme will be for refusal.
Good. Don't want a bunch of crofters suing all and sundry without need, and from what the press has to say it sounds as though they are prepared to do so. Heavens--the EU itself might take notice! Interesting to see how 'human rights' legislation at the national (ie, EU) level (rather than at provincial, ie 'UK' level) would apply. I suspect Brussels would find this whole development proposal very disturbing, for a number of reasons.
But the development of renewable energy in the islands will be pushed back a few years, and we will face further uncertainty and depopulation in the meantime.
May I suggest that the Islands seek viable developments, then? Ones which don't utilize public subsidy to stay alive, and which actually contribute something useful? That, after all, is the essence of proper development: creating something which can stand on its own, and which offers a net gain to the economy. Tidal generation, eg, might be viable at some point, since it is reliable.
For the record, I have great respect for those who oppose wind power for financial, technical and practical reasons, as I can understand your view and your argument -- even if I largely disagree with it.
It's the hypocrites that get me angry.
When one quotes figures one should be accurate. Denmark GENERATED almost 20% of its electricity requirement from wind power in 2006. There is no need to divide that figure to take account of installed capacity and actual capacity to produce etc. because the 20% figure is actual electricity produced. In the UK the figure generated from wind power is 1.5% which is why the government have offered an incentive to companies to develop wind (and other renewables) power. That incentive does not mean that wind power connot be profitable on its own. It does mean that companies and communities are encouraged to find ways of producing renewable energy as quickly as they can in order that we can play catch up to other countries. Of course if we really wanted to be 'green' in the Hebrides we could go back to using peat for heating and bird oil for lighting and do away with the need for ANY electricity.
153 wind farms produce the same energy as 2 nuclear power stations. Is this true?
Anonymous 7:27 PM. What size of windfarm and what size nuclear power stations?
Hunterston and Torness at their best can produce 2400Mw. The total planned capacity for windfarms is 10000Mw which should produce 3300Mw.
Anon 7.52
Which would you prefer in the next field? A nuclear power station or lots of wind turbines? This is an either/or question there are no other choices.
Just imagine what could have happened if all the research and development that has went into nuclear power had been spent on renewables instead.
It is unlikely that any single renewable source will provide the required base load but it is very probable that given sufficient research a mix of renewables will.
We will not replace fossil fuels or nuclear with one single renewable energy source, as long as energy remains a commodity to be traded very little progress will be made.
Anon 7:52pm,
The 153 wind farms probably include a range of different sizes - the details come from the Sunday Herald article - but have a total of 3,290 turbines generating 8,115 MW. (PS, the source was Scottish Renewables. Is there any dispute as to the figure of 8,115 MW being accurate?)
The nuclear power stations are Hunterston and Torness.
Anon 7:52, plus what size of turbines, what load factor, what wind speed across all these 'wind farms' at the same time, what transmission losses, etc. etc. It goes on and on.
The original statement is essentially meaningless, but some will soak it up like a sponge. Junk science.
anonymous 1:52 PM said
"not even Denmark has ever achieved such a figure, with a population roughly ten percent that of the UK. Their total installed wind capacity is somewhere around 22% of total requirement, but effective output is roughly one third that, or somewhere in the region of 7-8%."
According to Danish Energy Statistics 2006, Denmark produced 16.8% of its domestic electricity supply from wind in 2006 with a much poorer wind resource than we have in Scotland. With this in mind, saying that "wind farms are useless" seems a bit over the top, no?
anonymous 1:52 PM said
"not even Denmark has ever achieved such a figure, with a population roughly ten percent that of the UK. Their total installed wind capacity is somewhere around 22% of total requirement, but effective output is roughly one third that, or somewhere in the region of 7-8%."
According to Danish Energy Statistics 2006, Denmark produced 16.8% of its domestic electricity supply from wind in 2006 with a much poorer wind resource than we have in Scotland. With this in mind, saying that "wind farms are useless" seems a bit over the top, no?
Angus, yet again you are scaremongering with population decline. Whilst I agree the number of school age children continues to decline and quite rightly our youth will leave for education and the bright life of urban living - hopefully returning in later life to re settle or retire the population is actually increasing and CnES figures support that. Why? Because the youth is replaced by albeit older settlers who continue to take up the challenge of Hebredian life. Indeed if more land was given back by absentee tenents etc there would be even more incomers.
But in some schools of thought this is resented and resisted. Some cling to the belive that university trained twenty year olds will return to work on the moor building wind farms - hardly likely. Some of my community actually want the wind farms so as to deter settlers from arriving - which the turbines will certainly do and counter to your argument the industrilisation of Lewis will depopulate the Island. We are lucky that apart from the mainlanders its mainly the English that want to live here - go down south and see how many varied nationalities and cultures are arriving there.
Sorry but you are wrong. The population in the current climate has steadied and looks to increase. The turbines might look attractive to generate money but remember the last big invasion to great wealth and population - sheep.
emb wind, no point asking him silly questions - he doesn't live here all year round
I think people have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was trying to point out to anonymous 7:27 PM that their question without further details was as meaningless as asking who would win a tug-of-war competition, the competitors from "World's Strongest Man 2007" or 100 "other people".
emb wind and Anonymous 2:36 PM ; I'd rather live next to 100 "other people" than a bunch of pumped up bags of steroid popping testosterone whose main skills include carrying a VW Beetle around or heaving massive ollags onto the top of empty beer barrels. I'm sure you can figure out which one represents nuclear and which represents wind power.
:-)
point taken, sorry NP? NC! (anon2:36)
Post a Comment