In Scotland, that is....


Quote:

Voters in Scotland appear to be turning away from wind farms, a new survey has shown, in a blow to the Scottish Government’s renewable ambitions. A poll carried out for Friends of the Earth has revealed that just 18 per cent of people north of the Border put wind power as their first choice for future energy supply. The YouGov survey showed that while 65 per cent believe wind should be part of the mix, this was down from 78 per cent seen in a similar survey by Scottish Renewables in 2010. Instead the preferred choice in Scotland is for tidal and wave energy to become the main supplier with 32 per cent backing the option, even though it is still in its early development stage. The latest survey was published as US billionaire Donald Trump arrived in Scotland to give evidence opposing wind turbines to a Holyrood committee on Wednesday. Mr Trump has waded into the row after proposals were made to erect off shore wind turbines near his Aberdeenshire golf resort development. SNP ministers want the equivalent of 100 per cent of Scotland’s electricity produced by renewable sources with more than half of the projected 60 gigawatts coming from offshore and onshore wind turbines. They have prioritised the development of offshore turbines which they believe can produce 25GW, a move that has angered Mr Trump. The survey was carried out by YouGov for Friends of the Earth between 15 and 17 April with 2,800 people polled across the UK, including 337 in Scotland. The figures showed that in the UK as a whole there is still significant support for nuclear, with 26 per cent making it their first option for future power supply. But the poll also showed that 85 per cent in the UK supported the idea of the government introducing legislation to make energy companies cut their use of foreign fossil fuels and increase wind, wave, solar, hydro and tidal sources of electricity. However, in Scotland, while support for renewables remained strong, wind energy and solar power were not well supported, with 18 per cent and 17 per cent respectively backing them as their first choice of new power generation. Murdo Fraser MSP, the Conservative convener of the economy, energy and tourism committee which will be questioning Mr Trump this week, said the survey was evidence that “the vast majority of people are yet to be convinced about wind energy”. He said: “On that basis, it provides even more reason for the Scottish Government to cool their love affair with wind farms. Communities across Scotland are seeing their local authorities do right by them and refusing these applications, only for the SNP to overturn them to suit their policies.” However, SNP energy minister Fergus Ewing pointed out that 88 per cent of those polled in Scotland supported increasing the amount of electricity produced from domestic renewable sources. He said: “The Scottish Government’s energy policy – to generate the equivalent of 100 per cent of electricity demand from renewables by 2020 – clearly reflects the wishes of the people of Scotland. Scotland has tremendous renewable potential and communities mobilised to develop their own energy schemes – including a quarter of Europe’s tidal and offshore wind potential – and we have a responsibility to ensure Scotland benefits.” Labour agreed wind power needs to be part of the mix, especially as wave and tidal energy have yet to be fully developed. Tom Greatrex MP, Labour’s shadow energy minister in Westminster, said: “Scotland and the UK have significant potential in renewable energy, which could create jobs as well as cleaner electricity for the future. “Scotland will need to use baseload electricity for when the wind is not blowing, and across Britain consumers can benefit from low-carbon renewable power when it is. That is why pooling our resources makes sense, and separation of our energy market would be a retrograde step.” Ahead of an international clean energy conference in London, at which the Prime Minister is expected to make his first major environmental speech since coming to power, Friends of the Earth urged Mr Cameron to back clean British energy. Friends of the Earth Scotland insisted that Mr Trump’s campaign against wind farms had been shown to “completely be out of step” with public opinion in Scotland. Stan Blackley, chief executive of the green group, said: “Scotland is uniquely placed to lead the transition to a renewables-based energy future and it is clear that this move has enormous public support. “This poll shows that the carbon dinosaurs who want to build new thermal power stations, and ill-informed doom-mongers such as Donald Trump, are completely out of step with Scottish public opinion.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/tide-turns-in-favour-of-wave-power-instead-of-wind-farms-1-2250124

Yay, go evolution of scientific method and it's application-feedback-loop !!!!!!!!!!!

:D :D :D  :-?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Frances wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 4:17pm:

SNP ministers want the equivalent of 100 per cent of Scotland’s electricity produced by renewable sources with more than half of the projected 60 gigawatts coming from offshore and onshore wind turbines. They have prioritised the development of offshore turbines which they believe can produce 25GW, a move that has angered Mr Trump.

Very ambitious. I wish Australia could provide leadership like that.  Our biggest resource is solar.  We should make a similar promise.

muso wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:

Frances wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 4:17pm: SNP ministers want the equivalent of 100 per cent of Scotland’s electricity produced by renewable sources with more than half of the projected 60 gigawatts coming from offshore and onshore wind turbines. They have prioritised the development of offshore turbines which they believe can produce 25GW, a move that has angered Mr Trump. Very ambitious. I wish Australia could provide leadership like that.  Our biggest resource is solar.  We should make a similar promise.

Bob Brown was talking about 500MW solar power baseload style last night on Q and A!

That's not much. It's only about 1/3 of a typical coal fired power station. Actually I'm not sure what he was talking about. Installed domestic solar PV power in Australia is currently around 500MW  (2012) and there are several commercial stations. The biggest is around 400MW.

Our total electricity generation is around 50GW, so that 500MW represents about 1% of total generation capacity.   

Are there any examples of this tial/wave power in operation?

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 4:56pm:

Are there any examples of this tial/wave power in operation?

There are a number. The first tidal power station is in France Spain (edit), and it was built in the 60's. South Korea have some fairly big installations too. I recall that there is a 1 GW unit in the planning stage.

Scotland has been using wave power for a few years and I remember reading about a hybrid system that uses both tidal and wave power.
http://www.pelamiswave.com/

muso wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 5:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 4:56pm: Are there any examples of this tial/wave power in operation? There are a number. The first tidal power station is in France Spain (edit), and it was built in the 60's. South Korea have some fairly big installations too. I recall that there is a 1 GW unit in the planning stage. Scotland has been using wave power for a few years and I remember reading about a hybrid system that uses both tidal and wave power. http://www.pelamiswave.com/

Shweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!  ;) ;)

An article on the South Korean tidal power station:

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2011/08/31/korea-biggest-tidal-power-plant/#.T5iKHdn0lqM

muso wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 5:07pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 24th, 2012 at 4:56pm: Are there any examples of this tial/wave power in operation? There are a number. The first tidal power station is in France Spain (edit), and it was built in the 60's. South Korea have some fairly big installations too. I recall that there is a 1 GW unit in the planning stage. Scotland has been using wave power for a few years and I remember reading about a hybrid system that uses both tidal and wave power. http://www.pelamiswave.com/

Not many in your link are operational.

It still has a long way to go to compete with windpower or hydro electric.

Tidal power is not fundamentally different to hydroelectric, except that the water flows in two directions. The link in my previous post shows a massive tidal power plant in Korea.

I have no problems with hydro, solar, geothermal or even nuclear.  In fact I think that natural (including coal seam) gas using Combined cycle technology is a big step forward too.

The more renewable energy we have, the better. Proportionally, Australia is a long way behind. China currently has around 20% renewable energy in the mix. In fact, even discounting traditional hydro, it has double the renewable energy generation capacity of the USA.

It's important not to be left behind.

---

There are many variations on tidal/wave power and since it is still relativly new i dont think it has been determined which method is the best and i would sit back until they figure that part out before investing in it.
It does have potential yet at this stage it is too expensive.

Solar and wind are proven we have good sunlight and our yachties are excellent in strong winds because we have good wind on our coasts compared to other places.

I was a fan of nuclear energy a while back yet that has changed now i think it is dirty dangerous and expensive.
The waste can be made into a crude dirty bomb which means tight security for that as well as the plants.
The way North Korea and Iran could volate the NPT treaty and in the case of NK go rogue shows that diplomacy cannot stop people producing wmd.
The Japanese are pretty good they were hit with a tidal wave and earthquake and they still managed to avoid a bigger disaster, how do you think a backward 3rd world country would cope with a similar problem?
The final straw for me is power companies are only liability limited to around $400 million for a nuclear accident then the taxpayers foot the bill.

Is geothermal a reality are there any plants producing power?

Solar thermal is more expensive than solar pv, no sun last week so at least that has a gas burning backup.
Wind outperforms solar thermal at this time.

About 10 years ago i connected an alternator driven by a go kart chain and sprocket to the propellor shaft on a cruising yacht,the V belt puts a bigger side load on the shaft where it is not wanted.
The propellor is usually locked when engine is off so by putting it in neutral allows it to spin so we had an effective water turbine already installed that just needed to be exploited, at 6 knots he gets 35amps with no loss of boatspeed as locking prop adds drag.

Alternative energy is a fascinating topic.

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 7:05pm:

I was a fan of nuclear energy a while back yet that has changed now i think it is dirty dangerous and expensive. The waste can be made into a crude dirty bomb which means tight security for that as well as the plants. The way North Korea and Iran could volate the NPT treaty and in the case of NK go rogue shows that diplomacy cannot stop people producing wmd. The Japanese are pretty good they were hit with a tidal wave and earthquake and they still managed to avoid a bigger disaster, how do you think a backward 3rd world country would cope with a similar problem? The final straw for me is power companies are only liability limited to around $400 million for a nuclear accident then the taxpayers foot the bill.

Thorium based nuclear power is the go. Australia has something like 30% of the world's reserves of Thorium. It offers more advantages in terms of reduced nuclear waste, and some technologies can be used to consume nuclear waste. It's still a finite resource, but it has its place in the mid term.

In terms of fatalities, nuclear power has about 1/3 of the fatalities associated with roof-top solar PV installations. (They have been known to set houses on fire, and people have a habit  of falling off roofs when they install them)  ;)

The casualties from coal-fired power generation are enormous by comparison.


Quote:

Is geothermal a reality are there any plants producing power?

Yes. Geothermal is a reality. The oldest established power plant is at Wairakei in New Zealand. It accounts for 10% of New Zealand's power needs today, and it was built 54 years ago.

Iceland has 30% of its power produced from geothermal, not to mention direct heating systems.  The Phillippines generates 25% of its power from geothermal sources.

Quote:

Solar thermal is more expensive than solar pv, no sun last week so at least that has a gas burning backup.

Well solar PV is artificially cheap because of government policy. In real terms, it's quite an expensive technology. There are enormous solar thermal stations in California that are overall cheaper per MWhr than gas turbine technology. 


Quote:

Alternative energy is a fascinating topic.

It is.

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 26^th, 2012 at 7:05pm:

About 10 years ago i connected an alternator driven by a go kart chain and sprocket to the propellor shaft on a cruising yacht,the V belt puts a bigger side load on the shaft where it is not wanted. The propellor is usually locked when engine is off so by putting it in neutral allows it to spin so we had an effective water turbine already installed that just needed to be exploited, at 6 knots he gets 35amps with no loss of boatspeed as locking prop adds drag. Alternative energy is a fascinating topic.

Back in the 1950's, even before I was born, my father set up a windmill generation system for the house. We lived in the bush.  The storage system was a massive collection of old truck batteries which were located separate from the house itself. He tested each cell individually and when he found a dead cell, he just shunted it across. He got the batteries for free. (Nowadays they actually pay for their disposal)

The windmill was mounted on a spindle using a bearing race, and used a simple gear system to power a fairly hefty truck dynamo (again a faulty unit which he rewound)  The storage was 24 volt and he used a home made invertor to produce 240V AC.  At the time it was quite innovative, but I have very early childhood memories of watching Tarzan episodes on TV. All the lighting etc was electric.

Wave power is far more productive than anything else. The sheer weight of water is almost unstoppable. This is real baseload.

bludger wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 11:23pm:

Wave power is far more productive than anything else. The sheer weight of water is almost unstoppable. This is real baseload.

oH, YEH: it would be a real coup and will undergo serious research and development once the NBN comes in!!

I have been following carnagie wave power for some time.
Not bought shares iin them yet, but like their idea.

http://www.carnegiewave.com/

http://www.carnegiewave.com

muso wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 6:41am:

Thorium based nuclear power is the go. Australia has something like 30% of the world's reserves of Thorium. It offers more advantages in terms of reduced nuclear waste, and some technologies can be used to consume nuclear waste. It's still a finite resource, but it has its place in the mid term.

I'm not opposed to nuclear per se (I think it has significant obstacles though that I'm not sure can be overcome) the case for thorium reactors has been wildly overstated over the last few years. While they sound good in theory the reality of the matter is that in over forty years no-one has managed to build a commercially viable thorium programme, and not for want of trying - Japan just gave up on theirs recently after 30 years of research. They said that it still has potential and, maybe, in another thirty years might prove viable, but they've already sunk billions into what has proved to be a very costly white elephant.

The UK Nuclear Laboratory commissioned a report into the feasibility of thorium a few years ago and found that it just wasn't commercially viable and that it would take at least fifteen years of effort and investment before the thorium cycle could be incorporated into existing infrastructure, much less somewhere like here in Australia where we don't have any existing infrastructure:

Can't post links but if you Google "uk nuclear laboratory report thorium" it's the first search result.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 28^th, 2012 at 3:39pm:

muso wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 6:41am: Thorium based nuclear power is the go. Australia has something like 30% of the world's reserves of Thorium. It offers more advantages in terms of reduced nuclear waste, and some technologies can be used to consume nuclear waste. It's still a finite resource, but it has its place in the mid term. I'm not opposed to nuclear per se (I think it has significant obstacles though that I'm not sure can be overcome) the case for thorium reactors has been wildly overstated over the last few years. While they sound good in theory the reality of the matter is that in over forty years no-one has managed to build a commercially viable thorium programme, and not for want of trying - Japan just gave up on theirs recently after 30 years of research. They said that it still has potential and, maybe, in another thirty years might prove viable, but they've already sunk billions into what has proved to be a very costly white elephant. The UK Nuclear Laboratory commissioned a report into the feasibility of thorium a few years ago and found that it just wasn't commercially viable and that it would take at least fifteen years of effort and investment before the thorium cycle could be incorporated into existing infrastructure, much less somewhere like here in Australia where we don't have any existing infrastructure: Can't post links but if you Google "uk nuclear laboratory report thorium" it's the first search result.

That's a pity. I admit that my information is probably a bit old.