WC1 wrote:The document I refer to is the current 'state of play'. You were happy enough, Kevin, to quote big chunks of it yourself.
I did not use any of that document where you obtain your quotation
"If the anticipated closure plans were adhered to, and no new capacity built, Scottish generating capacity would reduce to 32% of 2002 levels in 2023."http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/19092748/6It was published in 2006 by a previous administration using data from ~2002 and is out of date.
WC1 wrote:By 2023 we will only have Peterhead and Torness still generating. If I remember correctly, the 'clean coal' proposal for Hunterston has been knocked back at the planning stage and any revised proposal is gong to meet massive public opposition.
By 2023 we will have Torness nuclear plant and a new combined cycle gas turbine plant at Cockenzie. As Longannet is expected to end its life by 2025 I fully expect a replacement CCS system to be installed there prior to 2025 (although there are no plans in the public domain).
The Hunterston CCS plant is still planned by the company concerned and a revised proposal will be brought forward but an acknowlegment that there is plans for a Hunterston CCS station is different to the statement
"Almost all of the large conventional and nuclear power stations that presently supply our base load are either past or are about to pass the end of their designed 'life'. We have no plans on the table for replacement". In actual fact there are planned projects at Hunterston CCS, Peterhead CCS and Cockenzie CCGT.
Are you advocating building new Nuclear plants?
WC1 wrote:The point of this thread, Kevin, is that the Scottish government's policy (for the moment) is to cover vast areas of the country and its coastline with wind turbines. If you're right about the surplus, there's no need to do so. If I'm right about the coming deficit, wind turbines ain't the answer.
I am fully aware about the point of the thread and concentrating on one area of a wide ranging sustainable energy plan is like debating whether or not our children get a 'rounded' education by focusing on a single subject in a multiple option curriculum.
I agree wind turbines are not 'the' answer but are as part of a wider plan involving land based wind turbines along with off shore wind turbines, tidal and wave generation using Hydro Electric pumped storage (to balance peak time load). This renewable capacity along with conventional coal/gas plants (including new builds and replacement of exisiting plants) utilising clean coal and/or carbon capture + plus extending the life of Torness to ~2040 is a sustainable plan.
I believe the emphasis is being placed onshore wind turbines due to this technology being 'mature' and currently deliverable and thus is being rolled out to meet interim targets.
The research, development and testing being performed in Scotland just now (eg Orkney testbed) is the next generation of renewable capacity. In the next few years as the technology moves from its infancy we will see large scale tidal and wave projects which will dwarf the current onshore wind capacity.
These have the added bonus of being 80/90% efficient and easily 'plannable' within a balanced grid. In order to bring these online the necessary transmission capacity must be in place (eg work currently ongoing on Galloway to Cumbria undersea connector + Norwegian connector).
Add in the OFGEM study which shows that any renewable project is Scotland is currently highly penalised via connection charges to the grid which is passed on to us via our electricity bills and then directly subsidies the South East of England. The plan being considered by the industry regulator would undermine the prospect of new UK nuclear power plants and the cost of feeding Scotland's renewable energy into the national power grid could fall by 80%.
When people talk of subsidies for Wind Farms or renewable energy in Scotland what they fail to realise is a large part is due to subsidising the connection cost to the national grid due to policy from Westminster. Sharing the connection costs equally across the UK would remove the financial incentives to build any new nuclear power stations and shift a projected £17bn of nuclear investment to other technologies including renewables. These subsidies currently create incentives for generating companies to build further south towards South East England.
As previously stated Scotland has 25% of EU potential renewable generation capacity in tidal and wind along with 10% of EU potential in wave power. We are as a nation best placed to utilise this capacity and have our companies investing in manufacturing, engineering, support and technology for growth and careers for our population while exporting the excess capacity and technology/products.