Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Thursday, 4th December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Court's £½m solar power system sees light of day



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 June 2008
SCOTLAND'S biggest solar panel system has been completed, promising to slash hundreds of thousand of pounds from the cost of running Europe's busiest court.
The roof of Glasgow Sheriff Court has been transformed by the installation of hundreds of 3ft by 2ft solar panels, which will provide up to a fifth of the massive building's energy demands.

At a cost of £500,000, the electricity-generating syst
em will save about £20,000, at current prices, from the court's annual fuel bill.

With an estimated lifespan of 40 years, the solar panels will save the taxpayer an estimated £300,000. But with fuel prices likely to rise in future, the savings may be much bigger.

Experts say the development is likely to signal an upsurge in solar heating of homes and businesses, as increased access to government grants and rising fuel bills, combined with tough new emissions targets, encourages investment in what remains an expensive technology.

The solar panels covering 7,500sq ft of the court's roof will also offset nearly 40 tonnes of carbon dioxide created by the power consumed to heat and light the building. Most of the funding for the project has come from the UK government's Low Carbon Buildings Programme.

The Scottish Government has announced an ambitious target to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in Scotland by 80 per cent in an effort to tackle global warming.

The Scottish Court Service faces a massive challenge to meet that target, as many of its courtrooms based in old buildings that are highly energy-inefficient.

More than £2 million was spent heating and lighting Scotland's courts last year.

Eleanor Emberson, chief executive of the Scottish Court Service, said: "We are planning further investment on building and energy management systems to significantly cut the court's energy consumption, which will mean the solar panels can contribute even more of our power requirements.

"We are committed to improving the energy efficiency of our court buildings and our initiatives range from this large solar project at one of Europe's busiest courts to our plan to install a ground source heat pump to support the energy requirements of Lochmaddy Sheriff Court."

Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, claimed the SNP government was tripling funding to encourage householders, businesses and community groups to generate their own renewable energy.

"This project is a good example of the kind of low carbon technology that will make a significant contribution to Scotland's future prosperity and help build increased, sustainable economic growth."

While the panels remain too expensive to offer a practical option for domestic customers, Friends of the Earth Scotland said costs were likely to become much more financially viable for ordinary households.

Spokesman Owen Davis said: "Photovoltaic systems, which generate electricity, are much more expensive than panels that produce hot water alone.

"But the economics are shifting very fast. The grants available and the uncertainty over future energy prices make it a much more cost-effective."





The full article contains 497 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

24/06/2008 06:00:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

,

24/06/2008 06:05:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

,

24/06/2008 06:08:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 24/06/2008 07:25:03
The £500k cost, invested at the currently available 6%, would have earned a fair bit more than the £20k being 'saved' by these solar pvs. The economies are wrong. If fuel prices continue to rise then the project might pay its way, but far better and cheaper would have been to triple the insulation and use a heat recovery system.
5

paulr,

edinburgh 24/06/2008 08:20:57
Hang on
COST 500,000
Estimated savings over 40 years 300,000
TOTAL estimate savings minus 200,000
Does not compute
6

Guga II,

Rockall 24/06/2008 09:06:03
Oh goody, we can all go green, as soon as the government gives us all a grant of £500,000.
7

11+failed,

the pans 24/06/2008 09:19:15
£500,000 to return £20,000/A. That is 4% return, stick it in a bank and the return is nearly double, after 40 years the £500,000 will still be there instead of having to pay for dismantling.
Green economics of the madhouse.
8

sceptic,

24/06/2008 09:24:53
12
You can add on another £200,000 for maintenance over 40 years
9

yockel,

24/06/2008 09:42:58
40 years, aye right, got a guarantee with it?
10

RCro,

Edinburgh 24/06/2008 10:34:49
11+failed says: "£500,000 to return £20,000/A. That is 4% return, stick it in a bank and the return is nearly double, after 40 years the £500,000 will still be there instead of having to pay for dismantling.
Green economics of the madhouse."

After 40 years, the £500000 will be worth considerably less after 40 years inflation, even at 6%, a typical low risk return. In contrast, the £20000 saving will still be worth the equivalent of £20000 per anum in the money of 40 years time, as it will be saved by not having to pay for the electricity.

P.S. haven't you heard, energy prices are going up by 40% this winter, presumeably that approximately doubles the saving. The solar panels will partly insulate the council from future fuel price rises.
11

yockel,

24/06/2008 11:05:37
#15 If we are being pedantic, £500,000 at 4% per annum compounded over 40 years = £2,400,510:30p. Admitttedly only enough to buy a washing machine in 2048 but those of you who bought endowment martgages don't need to be told that.
12

11+failed,

the pans 24/06/2008 11:43:34
15 RCro
If you believe all that,instead of gambling on a poor investment in solar panels gamble in oil shares.
13

Neil,

Glasgow 24/06/2008 12:54:02
"At a cost of £500,000, the electricity-generating system will save about £20,000, at current prices, from the court's annual fuel bill.

With an estimated lifespan of 40 years, the solar panels will save the taxpayer an estimated £300,000."

Annual interest on £500,000 would be about £30,000. I think posters about them not lasting 40 years, needing to be cleaned, & Glasgow sometimes being cloudy are likely to be right.

Just another piece of Dangeld we all pay to the eco-fascists, but I resent any newspaper saying this will "slash hundreds of thousands of pounds" from costs. Media should at least aim for the truth.

14

Montford's Jaicket,

Hanging around 24/06/2008 13:30:07
#9 This is an example of new-maths, as used by public officials to keep the masses happy. This example works as below:

Annual Saving £20,000, at current prices.
Estimated lifespan of 40 years
so total Saving = £20,000 * 40 = £800,000

Cost £500,000

ergo, the solar panels will save the taxpayer an estimated £300,000, which is £800,000 - £500,000

Of course, in the real world, we would consider interest rates, maintenance costs, inflation and such like but in public-official-land none of these exist.

No doubt if you were to ask the right person, they would be able to present you with a proper Cost-Benefit Analysis...
Pity nobody thought to mention the "up to a fifth" bit of the article - that still leaves the public with a bill of £80,000 per annum at current prices for ONE court facility...!
15

Van (not white) Diesel,

24/06/2008 13:52:14
'SCOTLAND'S biggest solar panel system has been completed, promising to slash hundreds of thousand of pounds from the cost of running Europe's busiest court.'

Cause for great celebration, I fancy. There are two things fundamentally wrong with that opening sentence.

1. The biggest solar panel system has been deemed necessary to partially power what? A law court!

2. The observation is frequently made of Glasgow Sheriff Court being the busiest in Europe. What a disgrace!

I note many of the calculations made above. All very interesting, but missing the point entirely. May I suggest that all the numpties called before the court are made to sit on static bikes connected to alternators, and pedal like crazy in order to heat and light the place. They will be conducting their own defence, quite literally, and in a very environmentally friendly way. There is the added bonus that the court may fast become redundant.
16

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 24/06/2008 14:13:45
#20 This is a great idea which could be used to power all public buildings. Crims could be sentenced to 6 years hard cycling.
17

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 24/06/2008 14:44:31
Sorry for the split infinitive in my #20.

..... and another thing. I resent having to cough up 10p for the capital cost of this scheme.
18

Colin, Glasgow,

24/06/2008 20:19:43
“Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, claimed the SNP government was tripling funding to encourage householders, businesses and community groups to generate their own renewable energy.”

Is this wise? The recent BERR report on microgeneration says that micro wind turbines and micro photovoltaics require a subsidy of 40p per kWh.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46003.pdf

That’s about ten times the wholesale value of the electricity!

If you want to spend money on wind power, at least spend it on a big windfarm. That only needs 4p per kWh subsidy. Better yet, just get on with replacing the nuclear powerstations.

And if you want to spend money on solar photovoltaics, please, deploy them in California or the Med, where the sunshine is.
19

Saoghal Beag,

24/06/2008 21:08:42
5 Rules, yours is about the most sensible posting. PV is expensive and does not pay. ANother factor missed out is the annual decrease in its achievable output and then at the end of it's life you will be landed with a similar, though not so bad, problem of waste disposal. PV are doped with various elements, many are highly toxic heavy metals. In 40 years time how and where you going to put them?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.