Scotland’s unevidenced energy claims
The Institution of Mechanical Engineers has called the Scottish Government’s bluff over its renewable energy claims.
In a new report the IMechE criticises the lack of transparency, the overblown claims, and the engineering feasibility of Scottish targets. Some of these issues were ventilated here in June
Unfortunately, the Scottish Government doesn’t show any sign of listening. An unnamed spokesman has responded to the report by re-iterating the same claims, saying that progress towards the target meeting the equivalent of 100 per cent of electricity from renewables is assessed using statistics from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and that Scottish Renewables estimates that “in excess of 7 gigawatts of capacity from renewable are already operational, under construction or consented – a level of capacity approaching 60 per cent of Scotland’s gross consumption.”
This statement, whoever drafted it, is innumerate nonsense. It compares installed capacity (or capacity yet to be installed) with consumption. Let’s assume that the 7 GW gets built (a big assumption) and that it runs at full capacity 24 hours a day (a totally impossible assumption). It would then generate, over the course of a year, 61 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity.
Almost all the electricity would come from wind turbines, which generally operate at no better than 25 per cent of capacity (21.7 per cent in 2010 for wind farms in Scotland). So the best we could hope for if all the promised capacity comes on stream and capacity factors remain unchanged would be 13.3 TWh/y of electricity, less than a third of Scotland’s current electricity consumption.
Bear in mind, too, that wind turbines generate intermittently. That means that back-up capacity fired by coal, gas or nuclear would have to be built or retained for times when the weather was cold but the wind wasn’t blowing. The price for ambitious renewable programmes is that consumers have to pay twice – once for the turbines, and once for the back-up capacity. Since the Scottish Government wants to move away from nuclear generation, this back-up will eventually require new-build plants burning gas or coal. More realistically, Scotland would import such electricity from England and Northern Ireland.
The Scottish Government has imposed two targets upon itself: that it will generate the equivalent of 100 per cent of its electricity from renewables by 2020; and that by then 30 per cent of total energy consumption will come from renewables.
But, as the IMechE report points out, even if it were possible to achieve the 100 per cent of electricity target, it would barely represent 20 per cent of total energy, not 30 per cent. And to achieve it would involve installing renewable capacity at five times the rate achieved over the past five years, costing billions of pounds and pushing up fuel bills. So more effort needs to be spent on renewable technologies that provide heat, rather than electricity, IMechE concludes.
Scottish energy policy, as it stands, is a mixture of wishful thinking, boastful talk and engineering ignorance. Nor is it true, as the Scottish Government spokesman said, that “investment in offshore renewable and other clean, green energy sources will also help us to keep energy bills low in the future and therefore combat fuel poverty”. The opposite is more likely to be the case.
Max Cruickshank (not verified) wrote,
Wed, 09/11/2011 - 12:00
Your report highlights a serious fault in governments that have no real opposition, the power goes to the politicians heads. Much of what the Scottish Government is doing is laudable, but when they cannot get their way they just resort to the smoke and mirrors approach to politics. Telling us the public as little as they think we need to know and with holding vital information to prevent full and frank debate.
Your earlier articles on the unit pricing of alcohol is one such example. They have not revealed how many pence per unit they intend to apply nor have they answered the question on is it legs to pass this legislation. They are depending on pressurising more and more distinguished bodies to sign up to this plan before they eventually have to come clean and admit that it will not make the slightest difference to the dangerous misuse of alcohol by some of the population. The dishonest of governments almost always comes out in the each eventually. It is interesting that the drafting of the English papers on tackling alcohol abuse has been handed over to the drinks industry to come up with the solutions. How they imagine that trusting an organisation with such a high vested interest in alcohol to provide solutions that would inevitably undermine their profits is beyond a joke.
Anonymous (not verified) wrote,
Wed, 09/11/2011 - 18:31
Max Cruickshank,
The opposition in the Scottish Parliament does exist. It is not really the fault of the SNP that Labour, the tories and Libdems are just not very good at it. I do however, find it ironic that Labour are complaining that the SNP have a majority, as funnily enough I cannot remember them complaining when Labour had an outright absolute majority in the London Parliament.
As regards the article on the Scottish Government's energy policy the one thing that really stands out is the fact that neither the author of this article, nor the author of the original report have actually fully read the Scottish Government energy policy. The article does make for a jolly good anti SNP yarn however, which was perhaps the intention.
The SNP have been in Government for almost five years now, in Scotland, and given their thumping electoral win in Scotland in May this year, it would seem the people of Scotland like what they do.
Me (not verified) wrote,
Wed, 09/11/2011 - 19:48
The representative from this organization was on the telly saying there wasn't enough information to make a proper judgement. So it looks like the report was written from an entirely political point of view.
We are getting hundreds of reports like this coming out by the day and inflated by a biased media, all designed to derail the independence referendum, but we are not taking them seriously anymore. They have cried wolf too often.
Quote from the last comment:
"...they just resort to the smoke and mirrors approach to politics..."
Rubbish.
X_Sticks (not verified) wrote,
Wed, 09/11/2011 - 23:07
According to the Douglas Fraser blog on the BBC:
"The Citigroup analysts who warned clients they should exercise "extreme caution" before investing in Scottish renewable energy may well be regretting it now."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-15667934
I simply don't trust any "reports" or "analysis" that comes from London. London, and especially Wesminster have an agenda that almost guarantees that any material from this area is suspect.
William Hogg (not verified) wrote,
Thu, 10/11/2011 - 09:37
Your article is based on a few of your own assumptions, e.g. "Let’s assume that the 7 GW gets built", "Almost all the electricity would come from wind turbines".
Are no tidal or wave powered generation to be built in Scotland? Is there no existing hydro-electric and nuclear power stations? Is carbon capture not possible in the North Sea? Does replacing conventionally powered buses, lorries and sea going ferries with electric and battery powered vehicles not reduce carbon emission?
Your attack on the SNP administration in Scotland seems more politically motivated than a serious attempt to shed light on the way forward in low carbon energy use.
However, I totally agree that, "more effort needs to be spent on renewable technologies that provide heat, rather than electricity". Using intermittent renewable generation capacity to generate hydrogen by hydrolysis seams to me the way to provide this "heat" in the most efficient way. Please note that this provides opportunities for the Mechanical and Chemical Engineering, rather than Electrical Engineering professions.
Caadfael (not verified) wrote,
Thu, 10/11/2011 - 09:53
The author has obviously never heard of
YEROSTIGAZ
It is estimated that we have enough coal to last for .........
300 YEARS!!