Scotland produced enough renewable energy last year to power all Scottish homes for more than three years

From Time Thrust yesterday:

‘Renewable energy accounted for 90% of all electricity used in Scotland last year, new figures have revealed. The Scottish Government said more electricity was generated from renewable sources in 2019 than ever before – 30 terrawatt hours (TWh), up from 26.5 TWh in 2018. With one year to go until a target of 100% gross electricity consumption from renewables, 2019 estimates found 90% came from renewable sources as opposed to 76.2% during the previous year. The amount of renewable energy produced is equivalent to the electricity needed to power all Scottish homes for more than three years, or the energy used to charge 6.7 billion phones for a year. The majority of Scotland’s renewable electricity continues to be converted from wind on land, despite offshore wind increasing production from 1.3 TWh to 3.3 TWh in the last year. This is attributed in part to the Beatrice wind farm off the Caithness coast becoming operational in May.’

Earlier reports here on renewables:

Scotland is paying extra for the ‘pleasure’ of subsidising the UK’s energy production

In Energy Voice yesterday: ‘Mammoth Highland offshore wind farms are footing a bill of around £20 million more per year than English projects to connect to the grid, according to the builder of what will be Scotland’s biggest wind venture. The levied regime in the UK, called transmission charging and set up by the energy

Scotland’s wind farms begin to leave subsidies and competitors behind

In the Herald only six months ago, we were still being warned of the costs of wind farm subsidies which, as an independent nation, we supposedly could not afford. Critics, of course fail to mention two things. First other forms of power generation as also subsidised. Nuclear and fossil fuel generation are currently subsidised at

9 thoughts on “Scotland produced enough renewable energy last year to power all Scottish homes for more than three years”

  2. And we haven’t even started to tap the enormous west coast wave enrgy potential yet. Three times the size of our existing hydro and wind capecity.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Well said Gordon. Always thought that tidal was never developed in the UK as it was a threat to the Nuclear Industry. The Severin Barrage in the Bristol Channel would replace s few Nuclear Power Stations.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Clydebuilt, The SEVERIN Barrage (you made a typo – it should be GARBAGE) is what we get from the Guardian’s ‘Scotland’ correspondent.

        The SEVERN Barrage is a renewable energy production system in Wales.

        Like

        Reply

    2. Alan,

      At secondary school c1965, when I was studying Higher Grade Physics, we were given a lecture about energy production. At that time Dr Stephen Salter and his team at Edinburgh University had recently developed their system of ‘ducks’. These were hinged floating platforms on the surface of the sea, which flexed as waves passed under them and this motion was converted by the long-established principle of induction into electricity.

      The lecturer was proposing that miles of these ‘ducks’ be linked and strung out in the Atlantic from Barra Head towards Malin Head in the north of Ireland, continuously generating alternating current.

      Rather than using cables to transfer the electricity ashore, the lecturer proposed that the electricity be used to electrolyse seawater – and, being in the Atlantic, there was a fair amount of this, to produce hydrogen. Off shore, deep water pipeline technology was not greatly advanced at that time. So he proposed that the Hydrogen produced be pumped into large tanker ships and transported to the Scottish (and Irish) coast. Hydrogen is an inflammable gas, which can be burned to produce heat, to produce steam to turn turbines, to generate electricity. This process was identical to that used in coal fired power stations – with a change in the furnace part – and so was immediately implementable.

      It was never implemented for a range of reasons – the Coal Board and the Miners’ Union were against it (and, hence, very many Labour MPs, the military were against it because this was the deep sea channel for warships and submarines into the North Atlantic to counter Soviet vessels, during the ‘cold war’ which was at its height. Fishing interests were opposed, since the Atlantic is a major deep sea and inshore fishery. Thus Tory MPs were opposed, too. There were other opponents.

      There were strong arguments in favour. It provided security of energy supply for the UK. Shipbuilding on the Clyde, although declining, still employed huge numbers of skilled workers and these could be used to build and repair the fleet of gas tankers. Repair was an important aspect because of the ‘salty’ environment and rapid corrosion. So, the shipbuilding industry could be saved, reorganised, modernised and, probably expanded. Burning hydrogen is non-polluting since the by product is water – no carbon dioxide (atmospheric pollution was not a huge issue in these days although the Clean Air Acts had been passed during the 1950s.) There would be an accessible energy source for the Highlands and Islands which would improve the economy of these areas and probably restore population.

      Although the election of Winifred Ewing was still three years away and the SNP was very much a minor party, independence and home rule were reasonably live issues – barely a decade earlier, the Stone of Destiny had been recovered from Westminster Abbey. So, the UK would have been wary of allowing the Scots to keep too much of their own wealth!

      Arrangements could certainly have been made for fishing lanes and military sea lanes.

      Nuclear energy was seen as the way forward, but was essentially based on a lie. It was always known as an expensive and dangerous way of producing energy, but, controlled electrical energy was only a secondary (but important reason). The primary reason for nuclear was to produce nuclear weapons.

      So, renewable Atlantic energy – wave, tidal, wind – is eminently possible and has been for 70 years, even usuing the post WW2 technology.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Alasdair, the Salter ducks were assessed for viability, by—-the nuclear industry. They were found to be too expensive. It was only a decade or two later, it was found a decimal place was in the wrong place, rendering a ten-fold increase in cost.

        Professor Salter was extremely inventive. One of his suggestions was to have platforms at sea archered off the Australian coast, pumping (powered by green energy) sea water aerosols high into the atmosphere. The salts and impurities would drop out, clouds would form and fall as rain into the Australian interior—making the desert bloom.
        The Australians did not see the potential and blanked the proposition. Short-sighted? Stupid? You bet !

        Like

        Reply

      2. Aye Alasdair, hydrogen could be the way to go.
        In order to reap the harvest of wave enrgy, as electricity, grid interconnectors need to be laid, this ramps up the capital costs. The energy equivalent of 24Gw installed generating capacity is huge, considering 7,5Gw of exsisting renewable insalled generation produces 80% of Scotland’s electricity. Another benefit of Dr Salters electrolysis route is that the oxygen produced can also be compressed for transport, to the oil rigs.

        The recent development by Canadian engineers, now comercial, takes oxygen and pumps it into the oil reservoir. Hydrogen comes out ready for use at the well head, leaving the carbon in the ground. This hydrogen release system creating it’s own oxygen from electrolysis is around 6 to 9% more efficient than the convential Steam Methane Reforming system (SMR). Supplyed with oxygen, whilst still having an imbedded cost, would increase the efficiency further.

        I appreciate the advantages of electric vehicles, fewer moving parts, the two car family would have a considerable power reservoir sitting on their doorstep. This is where I see a real use for smart meters. But not untill the electrical supply and grid is sorted. At the moment the electrical supply is inadequate and if it was the exsisting grid couldn’t cope.

        The push for electric vehicles is political, showing a commitment to electric vehicles may keep Nissan and Toyota in England and it would help justify, and give reason to Westminster’s spending on the development of SMR. Westminsters SMR stands for Small Mobile Reactor. They (Westminster) desire to be world leaders in SMR technology.

        Remember all those years ago when the plug was pulled on the hydro roll out, because it weakened the case to go nuclear, unfortunately Westminster is still wedded to fissile material.

        Like

        Reply

  3. Soon, maybe in five years, or a decade or three, England will have nuclear power. Too cheap to meter, allegedly. Though the hands on your ‘leckie meter will burl round too quickly to see !
    The waste will be buried, somewhere far, far away from London, and will give a welcoming glow on the skyline at night.

    How jealous am I.

    Wee Brian Wilson the Hootsmon Seer, wanted this wondrous future for Scotland many years ago, and probably still does.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Pingback: Scotland produced enough renewable energy last year to power all Scottish homes for more than three years – Aurora Project

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.