cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Scotland will be 100% renewable powered by 2025

Just to show it can be done even in a more northerly environment.

 

Mr Salmond said: "Scotland has unrivalled green energy resources and our new national target to generate 80% of electricity needs from renewables by 2020 will be exceeded by delivering current plans for wind, wave and tidal generation.

"But Scotland's ambitions go much further. Indeed, I'm confident that by 2025 we will produce at least 100% of our electricity needs from renewables alone, and together with other sources it will enable us to become a net exporter of clean, green energy."

 

http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/news/199809-first-minister-confident-scotland-will-be-100-renewable-po...

5 Replies
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Scotland will be 100% renewable powered by 2025

Good for them.

We are building 'wind farms' here in Nebraska, and so far, about the only real results we have seen, are rising electricity rates.  When we were mostly-Nuclear (the area where I live) our rates actually stayed the same for 15 years (according to my Dad, as I haven't been buying electricity that long) and after we hit max capacity, and had to source electricity from other places, it started going up slowly.  Since they started building the wind farms, it is going up rapidly, partly due to the fact that for every wind farm, you also need a 'regular' plant, in case the wind isn't blowing, so you have to build 1.75 times the capacity you need.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Scotland will be 100% renewable powered by 2025

Yes, as in all things, the initial cost is higher but what about future generations when these costs have been recouped??

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Scotland will be 100% renewable powered by 2025

I do believe that many of us had 'subsidized' low rates for a number of years.

Some of the 'subsidy' came from loading up debt to build grid and production facilities that future customers have had to pay and will be paying.

Some of the subsidy has come from infrastructure that was already there and did not bring in enough revenue to be able to replace it when necessary.

 

Yes Bart is correct the new technology costs more at the first it will no doubt get cheaper as more is used and improved on.

 

I do think there is a generating problem with many of the green sources like wind and sun which are not consistant producers.

I have heard of several ideas to store this energy when in surplus then release it to the grid when needed.

Some sound very 'science fiction' like. One was to have a large bladder under Lake Ontario to put pressurized air into when energy was surplus and release the energy to produce hydro when needed later. The water pressure helped to make the inflatable bladder work more efficiently.

The future will be interesting, as always.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Scotland will be 100% renewable powered by 2025

I can't find the article, but our local Electric Co-operative was using data for the average cost of electricity over 20 years, with each of the plants.  It seems that the windmills they are putting up on the wind farms are not nearly as durable as they originally thought.  They are already replacing the vanes on many, which is very expensive to do.

 

An Australian company that wants to buy a Cambria County wind farm might walk away if it's not determined what caused seven turbine blades to crack and large pieces of two blades to fly off.

Above from article: http://www.windaction.org/news/8818

 

 

 

On the other hand, think about how old Hoover Dam is, and the fact that it has produced electricity continuously since it was built.

Why not build more 'renewable' generators, that are also more durable?  Oh, yea, it is because of the 'environmental impact'.
The same reason some windmills are having to be shut down at night, because they might kill a bat.

Years ago, when the white man settled where I am living now, the only thing that made if viable to live here, was the fact there was ground water, and windmills could be put up, and water livestock.  Until then, it had to be free range, so cattle and horses could get to the various watering holes.  There were literally windmills every 80 acres, all across the area, at least to the point that REA came through.

 

It is funny, how I have old USA made Aermotor windmills running after 60+ years, and these new computer designed ones are not perfected yet.

 

Cause of collapse at Fenner wind farm still unknown as investigation continues
March  1, 2010 by Alaina Potrikus in The Post-Standard
Also filed under [ Structural Failure| New York]
UCI wind turbine broken in initial test
February 18, 2010 by Bill Richmond and Cynthia Aukerman in Winchester News-Gazette
Also filed under [ Structural Failure| Indiana]
 

Jerry Lein, a commission utility analyst, said Iberdrola officials told him that bolts that attached the wind turbine's rotor and blades to a power shaft had failed. The shaft transfers the energy generated by the turning blades to an electric generator.

No one was injured when the rotor and blades toppled from the tower March 14 and crashed to the ground.

 

And I never knew until I looked into it, but there have been more people killed on Wind farms, than Nuclear plants, in the US.

 

Wind Farms- 966 accidents, 67 Fatalities, (So Far)

Not denying that nuclear power has the potential for mass loss of life, but on the record so far, it needs to kill a lot more people to catch up to wind power. So far in the US, nobody has died from radiation or nuclear accident in a power station, and that power source provides around 9% of America’s electricity. Wind power provides only 0.7% of the electricity but has been responsible for 35 deaths. A good summary of accidents and deaths that can be attributed to wind power can be found here-

 
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Scotland will be 100% renewable powered by 2025

Where I live, there is no 'subsidy' for electric power, other than that when the built the nuclear plants, they built them with extra capacity, so it took 15+ years before they became overloaded.  Didn't help any, when the Cooper Nuclear Plant had to be shut down a while during the big floods this year.  Lines have been steadily upgraded, and poles routinely replaced, but I would imagine that is far cheaper than building new lines and such, as is needed for wind power.  One of the biggest drawbacks to wind power is that the windmills need to be built in an unpopulated area, and the populated areas are where the power is needed.  They are building a new wind farm in West Central Nebraska, while at the same time, the power is needed halfway across the State.  Far more efficient to build a Nuclear plant 10-20 miles from town, than run wires 250 miles.

 

I think Scotland is in a good place for renewable energy, though.  It appears they are harnessing wave power, which I think has great potential, as water is heavy, and in many places, the wave action is pretty much continuous.  Scotlan is also doesn't have to build hundreds of miles of lines, to get that power from a shoreline, to the people, either.