Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Go-ahead for offshore wind farms

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.

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: 05 June 2008
A MAJOR expansion in offshore wind power has been announced, with 11 new sites identified around the UK, including two off the Scottish coast.
A MAJOR expansion in offshore wind power has been announced, with 11 new sites identified around the UK, including two off the Scottish coast.

Up to 7,000 more turbines could be built in the seas around the UK within ten years, providing a quart
er of the nation's electricity. The two Scottish zones identified lie off the east coast – one in the Firth of Forth, the other in the Moray Firth.

Yesterday's decision came as the country steps up its efforts to meet European Union targets to provide 20 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

It will boost the energy to be generated from offshore wind power to 33 gigawatts – triple current levels.

The 11 areas earmarked have been chosen because of their levels of wind, water depth and potential for connecting to the grid. Shipping and environmental concerns have also been taken into consideration. Two offshore turbines have already been built in the Moray Firth, in a trial called the Beatrice Demonstrator Project.

The sea off the east coast of Scotland is shallower than in the west, making turbine construction easier.

Yesterday's announcement by the Crown Estate, which owns the UK seabed, was welcomed by environmental groups, the wind energy industry and the Scottish Government.

Malcolm Wicks, the UK energy minister, said developing offshore wind on a large scale would be key to delivering the UK's share of the EU target. He said wind power would help tackle two of the big challenges faced by the country: climate change and energy security.

"The expansion of wind energy is already a real success story for the UK. We will shortly become the leading country in the world in terms of the number of wind farms operating offshore," he said.

Jim Mather, the Scottish energy minister, said he wanted to see more offshore turbines in appropriate locations around the Scottish coast. "Offshore wind can play a vital role in Scotland's renewable future," he said.

Maria McCaffery, chief executive of the British Wind Energy Association, said Britain's seas were now "open for business".

She said: "This is fantastic news for the UK wind industry. This has brought delivery of the 2020 renewable energy targets a great deal closer."

Under the new plan, zones for wind farms generating a total of 25GW will be put out to tender. This compares to the 8GW already allocated for offshore wind. But Robin Oakley, Greenpeace's climate campaign chief, said even more had to be done, and he urged the government to abandon plans for nuclear power in favour of green energy.

"Offshore wind is a 21st-century, frontier technology that can deliver clean electricity to every home in Britain and secure our energy supplies for years to come," he said. "Our country could be the Saudi Arabia of offshore wind – and John Hutton (the Business and Enterprise Secretary] knows it.

"Instead, he's lost in a nuclear fantasy and flatly refuses to introduce the policies that have delivered huge economic benefits for Germany and Spain, which now lead the world in renewable energy.

"Britain is sitting on a treasure chest of green-collar jobs and clean, renewable energy – now we need to unlock it."

Jason Ormiston, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, said the announcement was hugely important, considering how it compared with current allocations for wind power. He said: "We are talking three times what has already been planned. It's an enormous step-change and it's been largely brought about by the EU targets."

He said he was "pleasantly surprised" the Crown Estate had identified two sites off Scotland. But he added that any optimism had to be balanced by an understanding of the potential constraints – such as shipping and environmental damage.

Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said if the sites proved appropriate, they could become an important contribution to Scotland's renewable energy needs.

"They are talking about something equivalent to multiple nuclear power stations, so it's not small beer," he said.

Dr Dan Barlow, head of policy at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said offshore wind would become more and more attractive and could play a "critical role", especially with the urgent need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

He said: "Given the rising cost of fossil fuels, it's not surprising that renewables are going to become an even more attractive economic option. It's perhaps not surprising that we are now seeing more movement."

Opposition to the wind farms could come from the Ministry of Defence, which in the past has expressed concern that wind turbines could interfere with radar and get in the way of flight routes. A spokeswoman said: "They are not trivial issues. There are serious safety concerns."

Yesterday's announcement was made at the British Wind Energy Association's Offshore 08 conference in London.

• The ScotsmanDebates series discusses wind power and renewable energy at the Town Hall in Jedburgh on 14 October at 7pm. To reserve tickets, go to www.scotsman.com/debates or write to David Lee, Scotsman Debates, The Scotsman, 108 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AS.

Territorial boundaries mean turbine sites may not be the last

THE wind farms set to be built off the coast of Scotland may not stop with those sites identified yesterday.

The two zones put forward by the Crown Estate both lie outside Scottish territorial waters, which extend up to 12 miles out to sea.

This area lies under control of the UK government, rather than the Scottish Government.

Last month, the Crown Estate made a separate announcement about the procedure for offshore wind farm development within Scottish territorial waters.

It asked for expressions of interest from firms wishing to be considered to build offshore wind farms in Scottish territorial waters.

This means, in addition to wind farms in the two zones identified yesterday, further turbines could spring up in Scottish territorial waters in the future.

Just how much interest there is from the wind industry in building wind farms in Scottish waters is likely to become apparent in the next few months.

The Crown Estate announced it would decide which locations in Scottish territorial waters are suitable by the end of the year.

One drawback of the sea around Scotland is it is far deeper than most of that around England as the continental shelf drops off suddenly off the coast.

The technology to construct turbines – which can be up to 300ft tall – in deep water will need to be more advanced than for shallow water.

How the breeze is harnessed worldwide

THERE are 16 offshore wind-power projects currently operational worldwide.

Denmark is leading the way with seven of the schemes – including the Horns Rev project with 80 turbines, at present the largest project in the world.

Sweden has three offshore wind farms, while the Netherlands has two.

In Scotland, two offshore wind turbines have been built in the Moray Firth as a trial project by Talisman Energy and Scottish and Southern Energy.

Scotland's first full wind farm is a 180-megawatt project under construction at Robin Rigg, in the Solway Firth. It will be made up of 60 turbines and, when complete, is expected to provide enough electricity for about 150,000 households annually.

WHAT NEXT?

THE next step will be for the UK government to carry out an environmental assessment to decide whether the identified 11 sites are suitable.

It will examine issues such as impact on wildlife, shipping lanes and fishing. It is expected to be complete by early next year, when those zones considered suitable will be put out to tender.

The zones will be allocated to developers by the end of 2009.

The Crown Estate will then work with the developers to identify specific sites within the zones and it is expected there will be more than one wind farm within each zone. Companies will have to apply for planning permission for the wind farms from the UK government.

The Crown Estate, which owns the UK seabed, has agreed to invest up to 50 per cent of the cost of obtaining planning consent for the sites.

The wind farms should start being built from 2014 and will be operational from 2018, in time to meet 2020 targets.











The full article contains 1396 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Resolutions,

05/06/2008 00:09:10
Whatever else you may think about this, at least all Scotland's eggs are not in one (oil) basket(barrel)!
2

,

05/06/2008 00:10:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Angus Ogg,

05/06/2008 00:24:44

#2 Sorry to be blunt, but your comment is stupid.

Anyone with an iota of reason and initiative can study hydro generation systems and see how they store power for peak and low useage.

In fact peak and off peak energy supply/demand management is a cornerstone of the power industry technology.

Kinetic and potential energy.

There is a whole technology devoted to the storage of energy so when the peaks and troughs occur, these are smoothed out for the demand-side of the energy system.

I am not sure what your problem with wind power is, but it is feckless to use the hoary chestnut of there being a blackout when the wind is not at optimum generation strength.
4

Navvy,

05/06/2008 02:45:37
#3, #2

At least you recognise the issue of peaks and troughs in supply which is a particular problem with wind.

Please, with a few numbers, explain how you will deal with a week on no wind in the Moray Firth - it does happen, I leved for several years on the coast of the firth.

Currently hydro pump storage is used on something like a daily basis using surplus base load = thermal power to pump up water to be used to top off the peak demand
5

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 05/06/2008 03:34:03
And keep the ugly SOBs out there where they belong.
That kind of obscene industrial pollution in the Scottish Highlands and Islands just to feed Brown's Kyoto Kult habit is why a free Scotland only makes sense.
6

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 05/06/2008 04:35:35
Will the UK government try to count the revenues from electricity generated in Scotland's waters as coming from Extra Regio? The fictional country of Extra Regio was created by the UK governmentto claim all the revenues from the oil produced in Scotland's waters.
7

Vaughan,

Vancouver, B.C.Canada 05/06/2008 07:06:16
The comments by some here are staggering in their pro oil anti everything else bent. OK: Dig This!... I had a recycling opertation here way back when'GreenPeace'
was a bunch of guys in pubs. (I STILL think GR.PCE. have WAY too much Power). We don't. Wind keeps coming, thermal does too... and that Sun shines hotter all the time. Poster #2, get your head out of oil's er... pockets.
Wind Power Works. I feel like I have signed on to a Scots version of Fox or CNN. If Bush loves it we do, if not, kill the oposition. That is more than mildly insane and by the way, who wants oil forever, we have more than the Middle east in our Tar Sands and the technology to finaly use it, but why? Use some, then change WHEN and only WHEN possible. As in, now, bit by bit. Mercy!
This place also reminds be ALOT of the game "Broken Telephone". One person says something and by the time it gets back, What? Hey,stay on course. When talking about wind energy, don't switch to Iraq or Barbie Dolls.
I know A man with a Windmill and he sells back to the "Grid" and another up country who has a grain and a wood mill and two water wheels. He sell back to the town.
OK, Back away from the keyboard and nobody gets zapped!
P.S. Is there a Sinclair Lady around 40 who has bright red hair and wants to visit for the Olimpics, and... :)

8

Richard Taylor,

Aberdeen 05/06/2008 07:16:57
I agree, the lack of reporting on the oil story is shocking...but, given it's the Hootsmon we're talking about, hardly surprising.

It was all over the BBC...do they think we don't know already??
9

Unimpressed one,

05/06/2008 07:58:16
"He said wind power would help tackle two of the big challenges faced by the country: climate change and energy security."

The biggest challenges faced by the country? 'Climate change'??? And by relying on itermittent sources of energy this is somehow secure?? Which frame of reality does this muppet live in?

The biggest challenge faced in the not too distant future is how to keep the lights on after most of our present power stations have been decommissioned. But due to pressure from the green luddites, soft politicians and EU dictats, they won't replace any of them using either coal and/or nuclear. Future business and industry will be subject to power blackouts because the grid will be unstable and the 'green' power more expensive than either coal or nuclear. The obvious solution then will be to import from the English side where they will have a secure and reliable of source derived from a new generation of nuclear stations. So much for an 'independent' Scotland - the laughing stock of Europe.
10

Ron the Dem,

Cumbernauld 05/06/2008 08:07:14
To secure our long term energy requirements we need to build at least 2 new Nuclear Power Stations immediately.
Wind Turbines are not an efficient way to capture enough of our nations power capacity and they are over subsidised.
Hydro Power is a wonderfully easy and cheap method of gaining Power and we need more investment into this sector.
The really exciting future could be on wave energy, this is always available because the tide ebbs and flows twice a day.
We could build Turbines into pontoons, bridges, jetties and tidal flows where the impact to the environment would be minimal.
At present we are running down the wind turbine route and spending too much money backing the wrong horse.
That is not to say that in the future we wont require a substantial wind turbine capacity but, you must understand that in 20 to 30 years all turbines operating at present will be scrapped and the area unsuitable for futher development.

What we need NOW and for the FUTURE is:-

2 x Nuclear Power Stations NOW.(At least, 4 would be better)
Increased Insulation to homes and businesses NOW.
Increased investment into Tidal and Hydro Power NOW.
Wind Turbines and Solar Energy Capyure to be developed for the FUTURE.
We need to keep our Oil and Fossil fuels for the long term prosperity of the Country and Secure the Energy Output from Nuclear Capacity. As we progress, in as little as 20 years we will start experiencing energy cuts and rationing and where then the Anti Nuclear brigade.
As we shiver and freeze the last man can switch off the lights as we all move to France and enjoy that Countries Nuclear Power umbrella.
11

Saoghal Beag,

05/06/2008 08:20:37
Ron why don't we just keep buying discounted french surplus power because they have made the mistake or relying too much on nuclear. Nuclear is inflexible and does not meet peak demand unless it is over producing during base load. The french are paying so much for thier peak demand needs that they ahve dusted down an old oil power station.
12

Anglofile,

05/06/2008 08:25:30
Apparently they are saving on having to erect so many turbines. They are merely going to fix Salmond in to some concrete to his knees. Plenty of wind there then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13

Harbinger,

In an octopus's garden 05/06/2008 08:29:11
They won't be built without massive subsidies and just think of the infra structure to get it to where it's needed.

Independent, June 2nd:
Thousands of wind turbines in the US are sitting idle or failing to meet their full generating capacity because of a shortage of power lines able to transmit their electricity to the rest of the grid. A proposal for $6.4bn of new power lines linking new wind farms with the state's public electricity grid, whose cost will be borne mainly by consumers, is proving politically controversial.

Also Germany has found the more wind power you have the less it can substitute for traditional power. In 2004 for example, over half of the year, the wind power feed-in was less than 14% of the average installed wind power capacity over the year.

In 2004 two major German studies investigated the size of contribution that wind farms make towards guaranteed capacity. Both studies separately came to virtually identical conclusions, that wind energy currently contributes to the secure production capacity of the system, by providing 8% of its installed capacity.

As wind power capacity rises, the lower availability of the wind farms determines the reliability of the system as a whole to an ever increasing extent. Consequently the greater reliability of traditional power stations becomes increasingly eclipsed.
As a result, the relative contribution of wind power to the guaranteed capacity of our, (German), supply system up to the year 2020 will fall continuously to around 4%.

In concrete terms, this means that in 2020, with a forecast wind power capacity of over 48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of traditional power production can be replaced by these wind farms.

http://www.eon-netz.com/Ressources/downloads/EON_Netz_Windreport2005_eng.pdf

Also these wonderful environmentalists saving the planet for us, (or is it for them?), don't seem to give a hoot about damage to the sea bed and to wild life.
14

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 05/06/2008 08:33:20
This decision is utter folly and will exacerbate the fuel poverty that many people already suffer.
Without huge subsidies this would never happen.
There will be no resultant drop in coal burn and there will be no drop in co2 emissions as a result of this folly - not that co2 emissions are a problem.
The only beneficiaries of this folly are the wind industry who have already raped our landscapes and now wish to do the same to our seascapes.
At the same time a new generation of nuclear power stations have to be built to supply power 24/7
When is this wind madness going to stop ?
15

thinking,

Scotland 05/06/2008 08:37:36
#4
You forgot to mention, from the same report, that it is getting much harder and much more costly to extract the oil. High prices at the moment make it a viable proposition but when prices go down costs may outweigh income.
16

Ma Rainey,

Peterborough 05/06/2008 08:40:53
I think windmills look great and look forwared to seeing them. THey enhance the landscape in Holland and Spain where I have seen the increase in their use in recent years. These countries are also increasing the prosperity and quality of life for the many not the few of their peoples and seem to offer a better greener environment for orinary people in contrast to that in all parts of Great Britain. Lets have more solar panels too we have lots of hours of sunshine even when it is cool and crisp!
17

The Strategist,

05/06/2008 08:57:59
It's of little real interest. We don't manufacture the turbines or blades so there will be no value adding work... We may make the tubes but that's the cheap bit... We also don't own a suitable installation vessel and we don't manufacture the cable.

So it will just pass us and whatever your opinion of wind I'd like to all join me in thanking the banks and other financial institutions plus of course our glorious Govt for having ensured that we will play no real part in this industry.
18

KC Jones,

05/06/2008 09:26:16
What a lovely view there will be from Portobello beach - indeed all East Lothian beaches - when the Forth is full of turbines. The declining puffin population of May Island will face even greater hazzards! Just a thought...
19

Navvy,

05/06/2008 09:36:37
#23 there is no view in Holland and in Spain, well they are different down there because they have a national sport called tilting at windmills
20

Navvy,

05/06/2008 09:40:49
#17 there may be a germ of sense in what you write but when you say "wave energy, this is always available because the tide ebbs and flows twice a day" you discount everything by that nonsense

Waves are generated by the wind and tides by the moon - astronomical bodies. Tides do have great potential
21

New Town Resident,

05/06/2008 09:56:45
~26. Could you kindly supply a cost in terms of £/MWh generated between offshore wind and nuclear (incl. waste reproceesing and/or disposal costs) to back up your statement, ideally with a source? I would find this most helpful in order to judge the validity of your point.
22

,

05/06/2008 09:58:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

Alan B,

05/06/2008 10:05:45
It does seem a good idea to maximise renewables. Offshore wind is good as it an alternative teh complaint about blighting the landscape with onshore wind farms. although i have to say the wind farms i have seen cause little visual blight. It is the horrible pylons that i would complain about.

It would be interesting if we could see a break down of cost comparisons between the options. Unfortunately even the supposed broadsheets like the scotland do not seem to be able to offer such info.

I would like to see coal with carbon capture, compared to nuclear with clean up costs against the renewable options.

I think the dash for gas was stupid and having used up so much of it the uk is not an importer of gas. This resource like oil should simply not be used for electricity production.

One aspect about the intermitency of wind. I could forsee that house maybe could have a battery installed. That battery could be charged during high electricity production times and/or during the night when low consumption. These batteries could then be used to supply household electricity needs. the development of such batteries with hybrid cars will reach a critical mass that the technology will improve greatly over the next decade.
24

Mcsnagpile,

05/06/2008 10:13:04
F#rt p#ss and politics.

What do you mean no feasibility study, comparison costs per Kilowatt, availability, cost of ownership. That is all too complicated for you mere mortals, yours is not to reason why, but to do and pay. We are trained in this sort of thing, we will look after your interests, and do you think we would do something naughty.

Signed,
Zero Pension and CDO’s Fund Manager
25

Davius,

cooling tower 05/06/2008 10:59:51
#29

Subsidies to the wind industry currently ~£1bn per annum
- but this will rise substantially for the proposed expansion of offshore wind. For 33GW offshore wind you are probably looking at subsidising ~£5bn per annum (though I did the calculation on the back of an envelope). This is not including associated transimssion upgrades.

vs

Clean up costs of nuclear ~£73bn (for all current nuclear plants). This is an estimate and will also probably increase.

i.e. no more cheap electricity

26

voltaire's janny,

05/06/2008 11:03:44
#3 Angus

#2 already censored by the time I got in, but your comment is mince.

Peaks and troughs are handled by base-load slow start/stop (always on) stations such as coal or nuclear, supplemented by medium rate cpacity (oil/gas) and when required, fast-on systems such as hydro and potentially these new wind farms.

Storage is NOT efficient or even possible beyond the capacity of the UK's two pumped storage facilities at Cruachan and the other one in Wales I forget.

These use the overnight surplus to fill up a loch or lake and then use hydro to generate during peaks. Only economics make this work for it is <50% efficient and far from green.

Economics and politics demand mixed solutions. Wind has a role but it is not a panacea or an option that allows woolly-headed tree huggers to dismiss nuclear for the usual collective of agenda-prejudices.
27

I should be studying,

Edinburgh 05/06/2008 11:06:26
Hang on! Scotland is only getting 2 offshore windfarm projects? That's typical of the colonial attitude of the English to throw us some minor crumbs to the table. IT'S OUR WIND.
..No wait! The prevailing wind is from the south-west. That means it's Ireland's wind!! Or Cornwall's Wind! Damn.
28

Nikostratos,

05/06/2008 11:12:24
So the U.K owns everthing all around the coast of Scotland from 12 miles out..... They seem to be staking a bit of a claim to me. Whats Alex doing about it




"the Crown Estate, which owns the UK seabed"

"The two zones put forward by the Crown Estate both lie outside Scottish territorial waters, which extend up to 12 miles out to sea"
29

Nikostratos,

05/06/2008 11:14:30
#38

Why ain't you studying instead wasting time reading the Scotsman your grades will lower than you need.
30

Nikostratos,

05/06/2008 11:15:01
#40
'be'
31

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 05/06/2008 11:30:24
Just a suggestion to take this idea two steps forward and one back. As the Scottish ones are to be built into 'deeper water' areas. Why not incorporate tidal current driven turbines into the bases of the turbines? The power lines will already be connected for the rest of the utility. Then don't bother with the construction of the unreliable bit above the water surface, thereby saving millions of pounds in consumers electricity bills.
32

Colin, Glasgow,

05/06/2008 11:41:08
#36 Davius, you are more or less correct about the ROC subsidy for wind being £1 billion. I would be interested to see more of your calculation for offshore wind.

The £73 billion decommissioning costs for old (not current) nuclear facilities don’t relate to future prices of electricity at all.

Firstly the headline figure is only for the decommissioning of the old nuclear facilities. Most of this is related to research and military related sites. Sellafield itself is more than half of the bill. Dounreay (which was a research site, not a commercial powerstation) is £4 billion. These do not remotely resemble commercial powerstations.

Only about £16 billion actually relates to the Magnox stations which the only facilities resembling commercial powerstations, and even these were designed for producing weapons material rather than purely electricity.

Furthermore, because the work is due to be completed away in the future, the actual discounted cost in today’s money is more like half of the value listed. And about a sixth of the money is actually running costs rather than decommissioning costs.

SO the total amount being spent on decommissioning old nuclear powerstations (which ran for 40 or 50 years) is about £7 billion.

Compared to the decommissioning of modern powerstations this is still a lot. But any new powerstations would be paying for their own waste and decommissioning costs anyway.

The main subsidies for new nuclear are:
1) R&D, kindly paid for by the French taxpayer
2) Underwriting accident insurance for accidents costing more than about £200 million. This costs nothing unless there is an accident, and the chances are 1 in 2.4 billion per year. Essentially it costs nothing.
3) Allowing domestic operators to pay less than foreign operators for disposing of waste in the UK. They still pay more than the marginal cost, so the taxpayer loses nothing except the lost opportunity of disposing of lots of foreign waste
4) Possibly providing governm
33

Colin, Glasgow,

05/06/2008 11:43:26
cont...

4) Possibly providing government loan guarantees, which costs nothing unless the loan defaults

In short, although there are subsidies for new nuclear, they cost almost nothing. All sources of energy need subsidy of some sort. Nuclear is about the cheapest. I would support wind development too, but I wouldn’t suggest it is cheap at the moment.
34

Colin, Glasgow,

05/06/2008 12:00:41
#45

Firstly if growth of the fund exceeds inflation (which would tend to be the case) the discounted cost is cheaper over time, not more expensive.

Secondly, nobody is proposing to “supervise” waste for 150,000 years. Waste in a deep geological repository is passively safe. It requires no management or supervision. There is no cost once the repository is sealed.

Either way, whether you use a fund to pay for management, or use permanent disposal in a repository, both are affordable. It amounts to about 5%-10% of the cost of producing the electricity.
35

Angus Ogg,

05/06/2008 12:02:13
# 15 Rules,

Nice post. I particularly liked the replies to be written on one side of the computer screen. LoL.

Seems #37 Voltaire may be trying to write on the back side.

"Mince" Voltaire ? You have lost my point. It was just that - a point. I don't see where you can say I am writing mince? There is a whole dissertation, in fact a whole library to be written on the subject, and I make one point.

Though I really don't understand where the anti-wind turbine guys get off with the infrequent load garbage. Energy supply is a complex mix of supplies. Wind load variability is an issue and one which the guys with IQ's way beyond the NIMBY brigade cab sort out.

As for #2 I am unsure why it got deleted. It didn't seem offensive. Just said that everyone who thought wind turbines were any good was stupid because of supply side variability. A bit like Voltaire being abusive when he or she simply doesn't get it.
36

I should be studying,

Edinburgh 05/06/2008 12:20:45
#41... Nikostratos... I've actually just finished my course. Hooray. :) I need to update my moniker! Still, no excuse for wasting my time on the forums!
37

Colin, Glasgow,

05/06/2008 12:32:40
#48 Rules, ok, yes if there is no fund now, somebody has to pay for it later. But you accept that if there is a fund then it can pay the cost into the future?

There would be a fund. No government allows private operators to build nuclear plants without them making funding arrangements for the waste.

You are wrong about the deep repository. The design is intended to be passive. It does not require monitoring once it is sealed. That is the point. It is a more ethical solution than managing the waste actively (which, bizarrely, the anti-nuclear lobby seems to prefer) because it removes the responsibility for dealing with the waste from future generations. Once the repository is sealed it doesn’t matter if civilisation collapses, or somebody decides they don’t want to pay any more. By the time the waste migrates back into the biosphere (after hundreds of thousands of years) it will have decayed to safe levels. In this way it is designed to be safe for all time.
38

Arfur,

05/06/2008 12:33:06
why dont we just sit mount kimba and highland mighty in front of one of these things. there is enough hot air between those two to power half the planet.
39

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 05/06/2008 12:40:21
What bothers me is The Crown Estate. This bunch of unelected aristocratic parasites should not own anything in this country. Our sea beds should be the property of the Scottish people.
40

Brian S,

London/Edinburgh 05/06/2008 12:49:40
I have to say, I totally agree with the conspiracy of silence concerning Scotland's oil. It's shameful that no Scottish broadsheet is leading with this story.

I don't mind the wealth being shared with the whole UK but I do mind it being squandered. A Futures Trust for Scotland must be set up to try to address this travesty of bad governance.
41

Agricolus the Dwarf Engineer,

Pennsylvania 05/06/2008 13:00:07
#42 - don't think the tidal generators are technologically advanced enough to be used, I may be wrong. But great idea - there's, what, 8000 miles of shoreline?

But I congratulate you guys, at least thinking about such a thing (wind power) - while we in the states keep on burning coal and oil like its going out of style - wait a second - it IS out of style!
42

Davius,

cooling tower 05/06/2008 13:26:52
Colin, the calculation is based on 33GW offshore wind with a 30% load factor. I have guestimated £60/MWh for offshore ROCs (1.5 x current levels, there is a BERR consultation about this happening just now).

"No government allows private operators to build nuclear plants without them making funding arrangements for the waste" The main reason behind the collapse of BE ofter privitisation was the fact that they were liable for the clean-up costs. The only way for the business to be viable was to have the taxpayer be responsible for it. This is the only real way it can be handled beacuse the uncertainty is so high - its not realistic to expect a company to take on that kind of long-term risk. Things of that nature will always be the responsibility of the state.

Back to the offshore wind subsidy, £5bn a year is rather alot of money and i doubt it is sustainable, especially if the economy takes a nosedive. It's the sort of thing you could tolerate if we were supporting a big manufacturing base as in Spain, Denmark, Germany but not here. If we start doing wind turbine manufacturing then maybe but otherwise I think its just too costly.

43

Saoghal Beag,

05/06/2008 13:32:57
31 Tim, hunterston only delivered 13% of its capacity last year, that makes it by, far the most unreliable source of power in Scotland.
44

Mikko,

05/06/2008 13:37:18
#55 we could have a lot less subsidy if we make the Crown Estate defunct and, instead of paying its royal freeloaders a subsidy for their champagne and canapes, simply make the Scottish people owners of their own offshore areas.
45

Saoghal Beag,

05/06/2008 13:47:55
The 73B decommissioning does not include the cost of creating the repositry. Who will pay for that, how much will it cost and how much energy will be spent in its excavation?
46

FedUpTaxPayer,

Edinburgh 05/06/2008 13:50:00
Surely this can only be a good thing.

It increase our diversity of power sources, reduces our reliance on dwindling oil supplies, thereby increasing the length these (specifically ours) supplies will last, and is both green as sustaiable - this must be a good thing.

I don't think anyone suggests this is the only thing we need to be doing, but as part of our power diversity, this seems to me to be a good thing.
47

Davius,

cooling tower 05/06/2008 14:21:20
I agree that we should think very carefully about how we use our remaining oil & gas reserves. This is what the Norweigians are doing - best use of their oil/gas/coal. Loads of pharmecuticals which we take for granted use materials derived from fossil fuels which is why burning it all is probably a bad idea. I think energy security will move further and further up the political/social agenda in the few decades.

Hopefully we can weather it because I can see big conflicts of interest regarding energy supplies in the future.
48

kimba,

05/06/2008 14:27:02
51. Arfur,the only "hot air" around here is generated by you and your snp chums,how about we stick a tube up your a--es and you can power salmonds house for a year!
49

Ron the Dem,

Cumbernauld 05/06/2008 14:29:50
54# Great Name
Please try this web site for a look at some of the work being done on Wave Power. www.wavegen.co.uk
Everyone.
Some great posts and ideas.
If we can come up with this in a couple of hours what would really intelligent people think of if they were not all coming from self interest groups.

50

Saoghal Beag,

05/06/2008 14:52:00
62 Ron, that's where we have gone wrong, we let broon and blair make the decision, dooh.
51

Luke Skywalker,

United Kingdom 05/06/2008 15:09:07
59 Fed, I agree it is a good thing to diversify. Eggs spread over ten baskets sort of thinking. But one of these baskets must be nuclear. I understand the various fears but we need the power. If the railway from Perth to Inverness was electrified and double tracked, we would not need to dual the A9 which would cause a disasterous increase in pollution and road deaths. Please consider nuclear.
52

kimba,

05/06/2008 15:23:21
66. We know, your outrage will only lead to a heart attack,chill.
53

kimba,

05/06/2008 15:29:30
68. The only " shame" is your stupidity, we get it, you don't have to post the same thing repeatedly!
54

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 05/06/2008 15:41:51
This whole off shore energy argument is a complete red herring while the profits are all tapped by the parisitic royal family: aka The Crown Estate.
55

Am-Bodach,

05/06/2008 16:12:53
HM's government continues with its campaign to create the most costly and least efficient electricity generation system possible, over-reliant on wind energy. How ironic that this announcement should come only 24hrs after a representative of EON confirmed that wind energy will require 90 per cent back up from conventional sources, begging the question - in whose backyard will 29.7GW of coal/gas generation be constructed to back up the 33GW of offshore wind turbines?

The costs of our wind-powered folly are eye watering - the official least-cost-scenario for deploying 33GW offshore wind is more than 205 billion pounds - given the propensity for major civil engineering projects to over run cost estimates by five-fold or more, the ultimate cost of our wind energy infrastructure may exceed one trillion pounds - a raw deal for the people of Scotland since this ill conceived venture will not permit the closure of a single coal/gas/nuclear power station, nor offer meaningful a reduction in UK's carbon emissions.
56

,

05/06/2008 16:18:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
57

Am-Bodach,

05/06/2008 16:33:39
#74

The round trip efficiency of hydro storage is roughly 70 per cent. This figure is not adjusted for transmission losses to/from reserviors etc - estimated at 3 per cent per 100km. Feasibility studies of large scale hydro storage conclude that this method of energy storage is "out of the question" for reasons that include geography (lack of sufficient sites) and cost.
58

Traquir*,

Alba 05/06/2008 17:04:34
I look forward to the unbiased coverage from
the Scottish Press on the the story that
""North Sea oil 'will last for another half century'"
59

voltaire's janny,

05/06/2008 17:16:43
Pumped storage capacity in UK

Ben Cruachan, Scotland (1965), 440 MW (2 × 120 MW + 2 × 100 MW units)
Dinorwig, Wales (1984), 1728 MW (6 × 288 MW units)
Foyers, Scotland (1975), 305 MW
Ffestiniog, Wales (1963), 360 MW (4 × 90 MW units)
60

voltaire's janny,

05/06/2008 17:20:23

Looks like my earlier quote of 50% was wrong :-( but this is for electricity already generated by another means on a cheap tariff for flogging at peak. Green it aint.

From WIKI

Taking into account evaporation losses from the exposed water surface and conversion losses, approximately 70% to 85% of the electrical energy used to pump the water into the elevated reservoir can be regained. The technique is currently the most cost-effective means of storing large amounts of electrical energy on an operating basis, but capital costs and the presence of appropriate geography are critical decision factors.

61

voltaire's janny,

05/06/2008 17:23:15
Conclusion: you cannae use pumped storage to gain from wind farms because the capacity is already taken up by overnight surplus of slow on-off generating plant.
62

voltaire's janny,

05/06/2008 17:25:27
...and that plant cannot be decommissioned 'cause the wind don't blow sometimes
63

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 05/06/2008 17:28:55
Bless. You are all so diligent with your facts and figures but it's all in vain. All you can achieve is more champagne and canapés for the parasitic Crown Estate. Not worth bothering.
64

Colin, Glasgow,

05/06/2008 20:05:44
I hate to just cut & paste, but this is pretty relevant:

"One of Britain's leading energy providers warned yesterday that Britain will need substantial fossil fuel generation to back up the renewable energy it needs to meet European Union targets. The UK has to meet a target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020.

"E.ON said that it could take 50 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation to meet the EU target. But it would require up to 90% of this amount as backup from coal and gas plants to ensure supply when intermittent renewable supplies were not available. That would push Britain's installed power base from the existing 76 gigawatts to 120 gigawatts.

"Paul Golby, E.ON UK's chief executive, declined to be drawn on how much the expansion would cost, beyond saying it would be "significant". Industry sources estimate the bill for additional generation could be well in excess of £50bn."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/04/energy.renewableenergy
65

Saoghal Beag,

05/06/2008 20:28:17
Colin glasgow, if we need all that extra generation how come the lights have not gone out these past twelve months while torness and hunterston have been down, given that they supply so much of our existing power, don't they?
66

Colin, Glasgow,

05/06/2008 21:14:39
#86 In case you missed it, there was a blackout when Longannet and Sizewell went down simultaneously last month. There is usually 15% spare capacity in the UK grid, but that has pretty much gone. You can push things so far by burning more fossil fuel in the backup powerstations (which is what is covering Hunterston at the moment, and why our CO2 emissions are up) but eventually the lights will go out. A blackout in May is not a sign of a healthy grid.

The point about putting in 50GW of wind is that sometimes (perhaps rarely, but sometimes) it will hardly be generating any power so you need 90% backup. Or so E.On says, anyway. It’s better than burning fossil fuel all the time, but it makes wind expensive in real terms.
67

Alan Reid,

NZ 05/06/2008 21:50:29
This is good, also why don't we aim for a smaller population. That is I mean slash immigration, and tax people more when they have more than two children. At 60 million people, the UK is FAR to crowded.
68

Saoghal Beag,

05/06/2008 21:58:17
87, Blackouts in London? So the purpose for more nuclear in Scotland is to provide base load for England since it is not required in Scotland. Much as France operates just now but it has more neighbours. It seems that SColtand has a gross over capacity if it can loose hunterston and torness, both of which account for much more than the 15% capacity you mention.

If additional generation is to feed peak demand in england then nuclear is really not an option as it is base load only. It makes sense for us to use more adaptible and responsive generation technologies which we can then sell the power to enlgnad at a premium, then again we are competing with the french who are almost always in perpetual over capacity relying on nuclear so much and sell at a massive loss.
69

yoric,

05/06/2008 22:16:50
Unreliable, expensive, subject to damage from severe storms at sea.
Britain will sit in the dark, rotared power cuts await.
Southern and middle England will be able to rely on imported French Nuclear Electricity.
Northern England, Scotland, because Electricity dosen't travel very well, candles await.
70

rai,

glasgow 06/06/2008 08:40:34
Great debate, I have had fun reading it, i have only one objection when it comes energy and that's nuclear, purly because of the clean up cost, no-one know the true price of it, so surly we should have a varied energy regime and not rely on just 1 or 2 types of power, interesting to see that scientists have said that there is about the same amount of oil in the north sea that have already come out.
71

voltaire's janny,

06/06/2008 17:16:02
Mikko - get off yer republican soap-box. All the revenue from the crown estate goes to the public purse in return for the civil list. Last time I checked (some time ago) that was 3 mill for her maj the Q and 8 mill for us. I too would offer the ceaucescu solution, but it aint for economic reasons...

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.