Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Scotland to build world's first 'wind farms under the sea'

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: 29 September 2008
SCOTLAND has taken a major step towards leading the way in marine renewable energy with the announcement that the world's first tidal farms could be built within three years.
Two tidal projects, each with up to 20 turbines, could be installed on the seabed in the Pentland Firth and the Sound of Islay. A third is planned off the North Antrim coast in Northern Ireland. The aim is that all the underwater turbines would be co
nstructed in Scotland, kickstarting the renewables industry in this country.

ScottishPower Renewables will apply for planning permission for the three tidal projects next summer. If permission is granted, they would be the first commercial underwater tidal turbine farms built anywhere in the world.

The structures stand 30 metres tall and can work as deep as 100 metres. The 20-metre blades would turn at least 10 metres below the surface to avoid shipping, developers said, and the zones would be off-limits to trawlers for safety reasons.

ScottishPower said tests in Norway proved the blades moved slowly enough for marine life to avoid them.

Scotland, which aims to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, has the best tidal resources in Europe and it has been calculated that at least a third of Scotland's energy demand could be met by tidal renewables.

The tidal farm sites would have a combined output of 60 megawatts, enough to power 40,000 homes in Scotland and Northern Ireland. If planning approval is granted, ScottishPower Renewables says the projects could be operational by 2011.

The company is also hoping to build a factory in the north-east of Scotland where all the turbines will be constructed, and the projects would be expected to bring hundreds of jobs.

Keith Anderson, the director of ScottishPower Renewables, said this was Scotland's chance to become the global leader in a new renewable energy industry.

He said Scotland has the best tidal resources in Europe, with the Pentland Firth alone containing enough energy to meet a third of Scotland's power requirements. "The rapid technological advance of tidal power has been startling and is now allowing us to progress plans for substantial projects delivering major environmental and economic benefits," he said.

"Tidal power is completely renewable, being driven by the gravity of the sun and moon, with no carbon dioxide emissions, plus the added benefit of being entirely predictable."

First Minister Alex Salmond, who will visit Caithness, near the potential site of the tidal farms, described the announcement as "significant". He said: "We have an estimated 25 per cent of Europe's tidal resource and 10 per cent of its wave potential. That is why this announcement is so significant."

Before it can be deployed, a £6 million prototype will have to be tested for about a year in Scottish waters, probably off Orkney.


Engineers rising to the challenge of harnessing tidal power

THE tidal farms will use a machine known as the Lànstrøm device, which was invented in Norway and has already gone through four years of successful testing.

Even though the devices seem likely to be the first to be used in a large-scale commercial tidal farm, many other machines are in development in what is set to become a very competitive market.

Marine Current Turbines, based in Bristol, installed a 300kw tidal turbine called Seaflow off Lynmouth, Devon, in 2003.

It's a two-bladed rotor connected to an electrical generator mounted on a single steel tower drilled into the seabed.

Irish firm OpenHydro Group has developed the Open-Centre Turbine, which has a single rotor. A single prototype turbine was installed at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney in 2006. In May 2008 it became the first tidal device to export power on to the UK grid.

The Engineering Business, based in Newcastle, is developing the Stingray tidal generator, which uses the flow of the tide over a hydroplane, similar to an aeroplane wing, to generate electricity. In 2002 the 180-tonne, 150kw machine was tested in the Yell Sound, Shetland.

SMD Hydrovision, based in Tyne and Wear, has developed the TidEL concept, which consists of a pair of contra-rotating 500kw turbines, mounted together on a single crossbeam.

The unit is buoyant and tethered to the seabed, allowing it freedom of movement. The turbines can automatically align themselves downstream of the tidal flow as it changes during the day.

IN NUMBERS

40 - Turbines that could be built in Scottish waters by 2011.

40,000 - Homes that could be powered by the three turbine farms.

80 - The percentage of the UK's potential tidal power in Scottish waters.









The full article contains 782 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Brian Hill,

29/09/2008 00:20:16
What was that again about Scotland being too small, too pathetic, to weak, too scared, too stupid to run our own country?

Yet ANOTHER first for Scots. Let's get with and finish this devolution job. Vote YES in the Referendum 2010.
2

Andra, Dundee,

29/09/2008 00:36:46
So who is going to pay for the extortionate electricity that this white elephant will produce?
Salmond is banking on English consumers paying for it through their electricity bills. That will be fine until independence then our entire Oil Revenue will be need to subsidise our expensive renewable electricity once the English no longer cough up.
Salmond seems to want his cake and eat it.
Our chicken will come home to roost!
3

The Strategist,

29/09/2008 00:44:10
Scottish Power are using a device developed in Norway funded by the Norwegian Govt and Norwegian financial services companies. MCT is an English company which was funded in part by a Danish banks. OpenHydro is an Irish company that has received funding from Canadian investors.

There is no Scottish company around which we could develop an export industry and there won't be now the Scottish financial services companies have been rumbled.
4

,

29/09/2008 00:44:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Andra, Dundee,

29/09/2008 00:54:52
#4 famous 15,
Do you disagree with any of my points or are you just in denial?
6

cramond1,

Firths Galore! 29/09/2008 03:44:06
Brilliant news! Scotland has a powerful clean energy source just when North Sea oil appears to be running out. It is crucial that sound investment and planning goes into this: 40 turbines - 2 projects - by 2011, with the most efficient energy delivery. Great! Don't stop there. Build Rance-Barrage-type projects where practical too with roads on to open up the Highlands. Salmond "We have an estimated 25 per cent of Europe's tidal resource" is right but this is about more than politicians; this is no white elephant. Clean energy is the future.
7

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 29/09/2008 04:00:25
#5 I disagree with all of your (ahem) 'point's'

Producing energy from different sources has different costs. 'Green' energy is already sold in the marketplace at a premium. Do you not maybe think that the people at Scottish Power have maybe got a calculator out or scribbled on the back of a beer coaster some figures?

You say is 'Salmond is banking on English consumers to pay for it'. Sorry to burst you blinkered little bubble but the people at Scottish Power will be selling this energy domestically in Scotland and also in NI, not England.

Lastly you are suggesting that when Scotland becomes Independent that this will change the energy consumption patterns and needs of English electricity consumers? - how so?. Perhaps you are suggesting, somewhat naively, that the avergae English energy consumer will go in the huff and boycott Scottish energy?!. This ignores the basic tenet of consumption - a consumer will access the most cost effective product that fulfill's their needs or wants. Again unless you are suggesting that they will impose personal economic sanctions against Scotland - a slap on the wrist for Scots daring to choose their own government?!

Each day the arguments proferred by unionist become more incredilous - spinning and lying as a matter of course, ignoring the tenets of economic consumption and sowing fear by suggesting illegal anti-competitive behaviour by the Rump UK government against Scotland or individual English people making bizzare purchasing decisions.

FEAR AND MORE FEAR.

Any more pearls of wisdom to share have you love?
8

Stephen fae Scotland,

San Francisco (& Edinburgh) 29/09/2008 04:33:34
Dougie, (#7)

The length of your contribution doesn't hide the fact that you know very little. Of course Scottish Power sounds upbeat about this, otherwise they will not get the regulatory approvals, seed-money funding the projects need, the rate approval for interconnection to the grid, the regulatory must-take for power that is more expensive to produce than coal, , etc. etc.

The goal set by the Gnat 'Government' (80% GHG reduction by 2050 is hopelessly out of whack with reality - unless Scotland is prepared to pay handsomely for the privilege. Something that obviously won't affect you.

I can see just how committed you are to Scotland, all the way from Oz! (Just like your non-resident, non-Scottish tax payer compatriot Gnat Sean Connery) So go on - push high cost solutions on Scotland, what do you care so long as you continue to foment absurd independence talk.

Gnats - Honestly!
9

Angoos,

Baku, Azerbaijan 29/09/2008 04:41:50
#2 & #4 Andra, Dundee,

Scotland has been producing electricity and "exporting" it to England (and the rest of the UK) for years. The fact is that England don't have enough power stations to generate the amount of electricity they require. To suggest that they will no longer require this if/when Scotland becomes independant is ridiculous. Also, if you think that the English will "just build their own" then think again. The only power stations that could be built in England are nuclear powered (as fossil fuelled power stations will become a thing of the past) and we all know how much the English want those in their own back yard..... the reason most nuclear power stations were built in Scotland in the past !
10

David MacVicar,

web 29/09/2008 04:53:29
IN NUMBERS
40 - Turbines that could be built in Scottish waters by 2011.......80 - The percentage of the UK's potential tidal power in Scottish waters.

They Forgot:

100% of Crown estate Tax revenue and earnings from charging to use the sea floor will be going straight into London coffers.
11

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 29/09/2008 05:02:42
Great Post Stephen 'fae' Scotland via San Fran

2/3 of your post is a dig at me and the other 1/3 does not address the issue.

High Caliber Onionist posting.
12

Stephen fae Scotland,

San Francisco (& Edinburgh) 29/09/2008 05:14:05
#9

More utter ignorant indepeeendennnce rubbish! "we all know how much the English want [nuclear power stations]in their own back yard..... the reason most nuclear power stations were built in Scotland in the past"

The BNFL operated 18 sites in the UK:
Berkeley (shut down 1989)
Bradwell (shut down 2002)
Calder Hall (shut down 2003)
Capenhurst
Chapelcross (shut down 2004)
Daresbury
Drigg
Dungeness A (shut down 2006)
Hinkley Point A (shut down 2000)
Hunterston A (shut down 1990)
Littlebrook
Maentwrog
Oldbury
Risley
Sellafield
Sizewell A (shut down 2006)
Springfield
Trawsfynydd (shut down 1993)
Wylfa

Do ya know how many were in Scotland? Do YA? Eh? go on - have a try, even in Baku a Gnat must be able to read an encyclopedia! No, then let me tell you before you explode in ignorance - TWO. Two built in Scotland. (Chapelcross & Hunterston - in case you know your Scottish geography as well as you know your Scottish power sector, Scottish politics, etc. etc.) (Dounreay wasn't even a power station!)

Stick tae Baku.
13

Stephen fae Scotland,

San Francisco (& Edinburgh) 29/09/2008 05:15:06
#9

More utter ignorant indepeeendennnce rubbish! "we all know how much the English want [nuclear power stations]in their own back yard..... the reason most nuclear power stations were built in Scotland in the past"

The BNFL operated 18 sites in the UK:
Berkeley (shut down 1989)
Bradwell (shut down 2002)
Calder Hall (shut down 2003)
Capenhurst
Chapelcross (shut down 2004)
Daresbury
Drigg
Dungeness A (shut down 2006)
Hinkley Point A (shut down 2000)
Hunterston A (shut down 1990)
Littlebrook
Maentwrog
Oldbury
Risley
Sellafield
Sizewell A (shut down 2006)
Springfield
Trawsfynydd (shut down 1993)
Wylfa

Do ya know how many were in Scotland? Do YA? Eh? go on - have a try, even in Baku a Gnat must be able to read an encyclopedia! No, then let me tell you before you explode in ignorance - TWO. Two built in Scotland. (Chapelcross & Hunterston - in case you know your Scottish geography as well as you know your Scottish power sector, Scottish politics, etc. etc.) (Dounreay wasn't even a power station!)

Stick tae Baku.
14

Stephen fae Scotland,

San Francisco (& Edinburgh) 29/09/2008 05:17:06
#11

Hey Maths whizz -at 2/3 that's still a better percentage on the point that your answer.

Away back to Oz!
15

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 29/09/2008 05:22:31
Another great post Steve - nice touch posting twice - got it right up Angus. The capilatisation is a very effective touch also (it's like shouting isn't it?.

Calling us 'gnats' - I didn't get it at first but Ive got in now - it's like annoying insect like 'nats', superb. GNATS!!!!!

The list of nuclear power stations - that's great - off the top of your head I'd imagine. What a fantastic repositary of $hite your head must be (much like Dounreay?)
16

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 29/09/2008 05:23:23
#14

LOL, I bow to your the weight of arguments Stephen.
17

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 29/09/2008 05:24:09
PS, how do you get away back to Oz when you are already there?
18

Stephen fae Scotland,

San Francisco (& Edinburgh) 29/09/2008 05:24:29
#15
Ouch that stung! - GNOT!
19

Finnzz,

Offshore 29/09/2008 06:29:58
Another excellent idea.

And again several posters miss the point completely.

This is actually good for Scotland, and will ensure Scotlands power requirments are met in the future.

But then there are some who would view that as a bad thing. Ignoring the fact that soon all our energy will have to come from renewables.
20

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 29/09/2008 07:42:28
2

Salmond is banking on English consumers paying for it through their electricity bills. That will be fine until independence then our entire Oil Revenue will be need to subsidise our expensive renewable electricity once the English no longer cough up.

Folk who dinae pay their electric bills get cut off.
I am sure England is full of folk who would rather dae withoot electricity than pay money to a Scottish company.
21

McNasty,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 07:48:02
This will create many good jobs in Scotland. Alex Salmond will stand proud for this, unlike his creepy opposite number Ian Gray who would produce many jobs in France.
22

Boy Wonder,

29/09/2008 07:55:16
Now this is more like it! Some of us have argued for over a year that marine genrators are the way to go rather than those ugly monstrosities they want to ruin our tourist-friendly landscape with!!!
23

John S,

29/09/2008 08:10:58
System Transfers
N.Ireland to Great Britain: 50MW
France to Great Britain : 1798MW
North-South: 5622MW
Scot - Eng: 1858MW
29/09/2008 08:08:00
24

Angoos,

Baku, Azerbaijan 29/09/2008 08:11:28
#12 & 13 Stephen fae Scotland

You sound like a rather opinionated (and dare I say bitter) individual.

To answer your question regarding Dounreay. It is primarily known as a testing and re-processing facility but it did produce electrical power that was exported to the National Grid and is therefor, in my humble opinion, a power station.

As for the "Gnat" statement. I'm assuming that you are trying to be witty and sarcastically referring to me as a Nationalist. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not, that has nothing to do with my comments.
I was merely stating the fact that Scotland produces more electricity than it requires and exports it's surplus to the rest of the UK via the National Grid. England does not produce enough power to meet it's needs and relies on additional power from Scotland (and even some from France via an undersea DC link) to meet it's requirements during peak periods.
For you to suggest that this practice will cease should Scotland gain independance just shows how narrow minded you are.

As a P.S. I'd like to point out that using parenthesis (brackets to you) on two alternate sentences is really bad grammar ;o)

Good day to you !
25

Andra, Dundee,

29/09/2008 08:24:02
#7 Dougie Douglas,
You do not understand the system so your post is mostly rubbish. This green power is expensive to produce but every electricity seller is compelled to buy a proportion of their power from green sources even if it is twice the price. Even if the Green Electricity is used in Scotland close to production the subsidy is still divided equally over all consumers the length and breadth of the UK. After independence, the English will want to stop subsidising Green power from Scotland.
26

Nebulous,

Aberdeen 29/09/2008 08:34:51
#26 Do you understand it Andra?

How much is added to the cost of electricity for green sources?

What do you know of people and companies who are prepared to pay more to be on a green tarriff?
27

Upbeat,

29/09/2008 09:04:38
"Rotary devices on towers drilled into the seabed........ marinised versions of the landbased wind turbine tower....." This may convince politicians but must be seen as the least sensible of the many engineering solutions that might produce power from tidal flows.

Anything resembling a propellor that rotates underwater will get tangled up. ( there is a huge quantity of rope and old fishing equipment and netting that can be found drifting around the coastal areas of Britain.) Anything that is fastened in a rigid manner to the seabed will be more likely to become dislodged and damaged. Such towers will be more difficult to install service and remove in the future. Any installation under major shipping channels around the coast must have no effect on normal marine operations.
The prospect of small vessels becoming entangled accidentally , and dragged under, must be guarded against. Simply sticking marker buoys around the generating towers will not be sufficient....in storm conditions any group of subsea turbines must pose no risk to vessels .

For this reason the real future lies in the use of vanes ( the aircraft wing type device)to collect hydraulic power . These won't tangle and are less complicated to maintain and service.
28

The Strategist,

29/09/2008 09:16:13
#28

Sad to say this is a Spanish company (Scottish Power) doing a deal with a Norwegian company (Hammerfest Strom)to take advantage of a major Scottish natural resource around which they hope to develop a huge global business.

Hammerfest Strom has had a lot of Norwegian support to develop its technology notably from Statoil the Norwegian state controlled oil company which works with the Norwegian Govt, industry and financial services sector to grow Norway's industrial sector.

29

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 09:32:43
This is good news. Anything to reduce our dependence on coal.

However, it seems to be difficult to build devices that work reliably and efficiently in such a hostile environment. The forces involved are much higher than in wind power, water being much denser than air and sea water corrosive. Not to mention barnacles etc.
30

Alan B,

29/09/2008 10:11:38
#Stephen fae Scotland

The point you miss about uk nuclear production. For a long while 50% of electricity in scotland was generated from nuclear (has reduced now) while the percentage for England was 20%. This was despite the fact that at the time scotland were voting for an anti nuclear labour party and england were voting for a pro nuclear tory party.
31

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 29/09/2008 10:26:07
I agree, yet again, with Boy Wonder and his incisive intelligence.

The tides in Scotlans and the waves are almost as awesome and fearsome as those off the West Coast of Ireland - remember the terrifying rescue scenes from David Lean's "Ryan's Daughter" - and to harness them will be environmentally-friendly and using a resource that is already present and under-utilised.

Boy Wonder

Still gallavanting about in your kilt?
32

Arfur,

29/09/2008 10:41:36
Andra, Dundee - i havn't heard so much soite in my life.
33

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 10:56:16
If wind farms using wind only start producing electricity when the wind is over 15mph how will "wind farms under the sea" produce very much from a tide that at peak during the day runs at 18mph and most of the time well below that?

Only asking.
34

Saoghal Beag,

29/09/2008 11:25:55
margaret, turbines produce popwer below 15mph, average wind speeds above 6mph are considered commercially viable. that aside it is a different environment under teh sea and the turbines are designed for those conditions. apart from two half hour periods tides run all the time, constant and predicatble.

certainly cost will be high but then again a new nuclear plant does not come cheap and come decommissioning the cost is ridiculous.

at 50% nuclear scotland has gross overcapacity of nuclear as it should only be used for base load (about 20%) when our power demand drops below 50% we have to export the excess to england as france does.

nuclear is a cumbersome and expensive generation technology. at least the scottish government is showing more vision and looking towards long term properety.
35

David Ban,

04620 Vera 29/09/2008 11:39:52
We have brilliant people in Scotland which is one of the wealthiest Nothern European countries per capita of population. Given the chance we can do so much; thank goodness that there are people in Scotland holding onto enough levers of power to make this decision.
36

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 11:57:04
This is a good idea, but why the hell do they have to dumb everything down to infantile level by calling them "wind farms under the sea"?

I'm sick to death of all this purile nonsense.
37

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 12:08:11
35# OK but everything I have ever read says wind farms only produce electricity above 15mph eg http://www.rdenergysolutions.com/technologies/wind-largescale.html. Sure we would all like this to work but seems more like alchemy to me.

Nuclear works. Base load 20%? France has 70%.
(Denmark exports 50% of its wind power because it comes at the wrong time (as will tidal) and has to import at other times because it isn't producing enough.) Nuclear has never produced 50% of our electricity - absolute maximum was 50%.

I don't know what "long term properety" means but I think they are just playing to the gallery like evreything else they do (see all the gullible commentators above for proof).
38

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 12:09:18
2nd 50% should dread 45%!
39

David MacVicar,

web 29/09/2008 12:14:37
Upbeat, some good points, however:

The underwater installations would be well below the depth that hulls require at low tide.
I agree about fowling and maintenance. Even if nothing gets tangled then there is always build up of barnacles and other material that would impair performance. I am not sure how much time this would take but ships need to get their hulls cleared every several years.
40

David MacVicar,

web 29/09/2008 12:27:08
Nuclear vs Green debate. Scotland does not need to be overproducing all of the time in order to have a viable energy supply. On worse case days energy can still be imported, its how it already works.
You can rightly say that some power is coming from Nuclear but that doesn't mean we need to have to install a new Nuclear plant to compensate.

Currently the interconnections between Scotland and England are being upgraded in order to Export FAR MORE power than ever. They are also being upgraded to allow the reverse ie IMPORTING more efficiently, if needed. This is just common sense and Scotland will remain a huge Net exporter.

The question is if not building new Nuclear in Scotland is a viable or better policy for Scotland than the alternative? Lets not forget that the Labour and Lib Dem run Executive already voted to refuse New Nuclear build until, identified sites and methods for long term storage were made. This has not happened.

England does have a strong case for Nuclear, so since they need it anyway and France is 70% Nuclear already there is no problem importing some power here when needed. That does not justify building additional Nuclear here for exceptional days.

There is a difference between needing nuclear power plant and using imported power on occasion even if that power is generated using Nuclear.

The source policy problem is that Scotlands energy mix and requirements are vastly different from those in England yet UK Energy policy is set centrally. No prizes for guessing which community it is geared towards....and it ain't Scotland

This just one reason why Energy control needs to be fully devolved.
41

Saoghal Beag,

29/09/2008 12:30:09
margaret france has a capacity to generate 70% of its power from nuclear. yet nuclear can not be turned up and down to match demands therefore at base load demand france has to over produce power otherwise as demand rises it has no way to meet it. to me that makes as much sense as having a pan of water permanently on the boil in case you want a cup of tea, but that's the way nuclear works, when it actually works.

sorry it is 6m/s, 7m/s is roughly equivalent to 15 mph.

the thing about tidal is it is part of a portfolio, not one single generation technology. therefore teh arguments about it generating when there is no demand are deiminished by teh fact that the energy generated adds to the balance. what we need are the technologies to plug the gaps and that just isn't nuclear.


should have been long term prosperety.

as for playing to the gallery, not sure what that has to do with my comments. as for gullible, well too many scottish voters have been gullible enough to vote for leibour for too long. can we believe a PM who's brother works for EDF as having an unbiased view? that aside he has hardly shown himself to be a visionary.
42

brusque,

29/09/2008 12:39:51
This is incredibly good news for Scotland.

I wish the Unionists could find the will to break away from Westminster lies and open their eyes to what is plain to see!

Scotland will NOT shrivel and die without the union. And there is no way Westminster would be so keen to hang on to Scotland if there wasn't something in it for them..........there has never been a time, throughout history, that England didn't think "what can we get out of it"!

This is no different.
43

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 12:55:07
35. Water turbines start producing power at much lower flow rates than wind because water is a lot heavier than air.

Furthermore they can be much smaller for the same reason.
44

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 29/09/2008 13:16:38
40 turbines, probably Norwegian at around 1Mw each.
This does not even compensate for the hydro turbines that have been taken off line in order to qualify for ROCS.
Until such time as the subsidies are taken away from useless wind turbines and given to developing marine generation, we will never see any significant quantities of electricity generated from marine resources.
We are going to get new nukes to replace Torness and Hunterston no matter what the anti's say - either that or the lights will go out.
45

The Strategist,

29/09/2008 13:23:29
#46

Not probably Norwegian, definitely Norwegian!!
46

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 13:25:27
46. Tidal will receive more ROCs than wind:

http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5656
47

dude,

wishaw 29/09/2008 13:45:29
2 Andra, Dundee,29/09/2008 00:36:46
So who is going to pay for the extortionate electricity that this white elephant will produce?
Salmond is banking on English consumers paying for it through their electricity bills. That will be fine until independence then our entire Oil Revenue will be need to subsidise our expensive renewable electricity once the English no longer cough up.
Salmond seems to want his cake and eat it.
Our chicken will come home to roost!

I think you will find that Scotland in fact subsidises English consumers, the reason for this fact is that producers are being paid to produce electricity in the south and Scottih suppliers have to pay = scottish users subsidising England.

So have a think about this and i await your reply with glee
48

Saoghal Beag,

29/09/2008 14:19:03
dude because the costing system on the grid focuses on london, not even england.

nabodican, over the past couple of years both hunterston and torness have been off line at the same time and i've not seen the lights go out yet.
49

John S,

29/09/2008 14:30:54
With renewables(wind)as well as nuclear Scotland will still need fossil fuel power generation because fossil fuel power stations and to a lesser degree hydro can follow the grid demand and used as a back up for when the renewables and nuclear are not producing.
Renewables and our present nuclear power generation is base load and are not flexible enough to follow the grid demand.I don't expect there will be a day when there is no wind so there will always be some power produced by wind generation.
In Scotland the power required on that one day (usually the coldest day of the year) of max demand is between approx 2,000MW to 5,500MW and on the min demand day (usually the warmest day of the year) approx 1,800MW to 3,000MW.
Load demand varies on a hourly/daily/seasonal basis.
Scotland has about 10,500MW plus of electricity generation capacity with approx 5200MW from fossil fuel and 1200MW from nuclear from Torness and that doesn't include Hunteston.
Using these figures we have 6400MW plus hydro plus renewables to cover the load demands between summer and winter.
P.S. At this moment in time Scotland is exporting to England - 1951MW
50

,

29/09/2008 14:46:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
51

,

29/09/2008 14:50:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
52

Greenheatman,

www.greenheating.com 29/09/2008 16:19:20
''There is no Scottish company around which we could develop an export industry and there won't be now the Scottish financial services companies have been rumbled.''

The sad thing is that Gentec venturi has been around for years and has been studiously ignored. One day all base load electricity will be generated this way.

Daft 'windmills-under-the sea' will not help our carbon footprint one iota
53

Greenheatman,

TAIN 29/09/2008 16:28:06
28#
''Sub marine turbines made in Scotland and sold to the world will power the planet and do way with the need for 90% of fossil fuels.''

What utter rubbish - clearly you do not know the difference between usable base load electricity and practicallly worthless intermittent unusable real time random electricity from renewablesi

These turbines will 'do away' with 0% of fossil fuels
54

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 16:32:02
people seem to be moaning about the cost of the electricity produced by this method, but without reference to current energy prices and those expected from the development.

ALternative fuel head #38- I agree entirely.


GReenheatman #56- possibly because you proposal appears to be mince...

55

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 29/09/2008 16:53:50
51. Wind and wave can be used for satisfying peak demand during the time they are generating which will be most of the time provided we have enough of them distributed over a wide area.
56

Dill Weed,

Scotland 29/09/2008 18:47:58
I don't know about you, but all this debate has really got me hankering for a steaming plate of haggis!! Yum!!

Dill Weed

Since we can't export haggis, we mayse well export electricity.
57

Hamish Scott,

29/09/2008 22:29:15
#12
Actually four built in Scotland, not two. Torness and Dounreay.
And three of the others, at least, are in Wales.
And Calder Hall and Sellafield are the same place.
So, proportionately that means:
Scotland - 1 nuclear power station per 1.25 million people.
England - 1 nuclear power station per 4.2 million people.
58

John S,

29/09/2008 23:28:16
System Transfers
N.Ireland to Great Britain: 74MW
France to Great Britain : 808MW
North-South: 4288MW
Scot - Eng: 1494MW
29/09/2008 23:26:00
59

Matt there,

somewhere 29/09/2008 23:48:56
Andra, you are an exceptionally silly person.
60

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 30/09/2008 02:10:11
All Wind and Water! You couldn't make it up.The many pro and anti lobbies can't seem to make their minds up, whilst blindly forging ahead with it! Straws and clutching at them springs to mind. Whatever happened to the equally vaunted Solar panels?They are no longer the be all and end all, why? Wind turbines may very well be just as much a bust.Only time will tell.
61

Pensioner,

Liverpool 01/10/2008 07:41:46
Wind farms under the sea !
Isn't this a bit like submariners wearing parachutes....
62

jett,

aden 02/10/2008 00:59:54
machinery on the sea bed will have high maintenance costs for access alone and if they are not met mechanical failures will be frequent. divers are expensive and time under water is limited by air supply and temperatures. it is all pie in the sky. land based wind turbines are far more sustainable. alex is just winning over the fantasist population who think forever towards their utopia and never realistically. it is more for the glamour of keeping up with the jones next door. green power on an industrial scale for a growing nation is bull. go have a look at findhorn they employ volunteer labor who are gobbed or mugged by their image rather than their practicality and ability to afford to pay them a wage. and think of the impact upon the sea life moving mechanical parts have to be lubricated and protected from corrosion and there will be the constant disturbances by the maintenance crews and the initial construction.
63

jett,

aden 02/10/2008 01:05:57
electricity is for industry and green power is for geeks who know more about the need to power their electronic gizmo's than the real world. most people who realistically turn to saving the planet look towards living without electricity and often do.
64

jett,

aden 02/10/2008 01:10:40
and any way hydrogen power is been developed in cars firstly it seems and has been achieved in a very small number. safety was the main hurdle but apparently it has bee mostly if not totally overcome. so if safety of this volatile fuel for a moving vehicle then why not for a stationary hydrogen powered electricity generating plant.

 

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.