Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Green model worth emulating

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 February 2008
ONCE it was 1,800 acres of sheep grazing and a grouse moor. Now Cringate Law and Hart Hill, six miles north-east of the village of Fintry, is Scotland's latest wind farm pumping electricity into the national grid. But there is a difference with this development – one of the wind turbines is owned by the people of Fintry collectively, and the cash earned from selling the electricity thus generated will go directly to funding energy-saving projects in the village.
This bold initiative is proof that greening Scotland, fighting climate change and protecting community interests are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they can be mutually reinforcing. The developers and people of Fintry are to be congratulated for their novel approach – it is a model that should be emulated elsewhere.

The Fintry project is not the only example of harnessing renewable energy to local interests. Another exciting recent development is the Wick District Heating Scheme which uses waste heat from Old Pulteney's new biomass-fuelled distillery to warm local homes. The lesson here is that renewable projects should not be designed merely to service big export markets: micro and local generation projects are equally important.

We are learning – finally – to be innovative in the field of renewable energy. It could give Scotland the competitive economic advantage it needs to prosper.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Colin, Glasgow,

09/02/2008 09:57:23
Micro and local generation projects are an expensive way to produce energy. But they are currently a convenient way for funding bodies to launder money into supporting communities.

Now, supporting renewables and communities may be laudable aims. But let's be clear about the reasoning behind it, the costs, and where the money is coming from. This is not sustainable development. It is an exercise in providing external support for systems and communities that are not self-sustaining.
2

Neil,

Glasgow 09/02/2008 16:46:17
If it were sustainable it would not need government subsidy. The contradiction between saying what a glorious opportunity to make money this is & saying that we need oodles of taxpayer's money because no bank will lend must be obvious even to politicians.
3

Unimpressed one,

09/02/2008 18:52:20
Why not cut out the middleman - the turbine - and pay the villagers tax money directly? Would save despoiling the countryside as well.
4

Silent Hunter,

09/02/2008 22:19:51
Neil:

Please do tell us, given your obvious understanding of the energy industry, exactly which power suppliers do not in fact have some form of Government subsidy?

Coal?....Gas?....Nuclear?


Colin:

So to follow your logic.........we should ALL live in centralised 'Cities' and abandon the countryside to urban sprawl, rather than promote smaller sustainable communities who then lower their carbon footprint to zero thus becoming part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

I suppose that £55 Billion and counting subsidy for 'City' establishments like Northern Wreck is taxpayers money well spent then?

Since 1974 the UK government has spent £6.8 billion in research and development funding for nuclear fission (compared to £540 million for renewables) according to information from the International Energy Agency.

Hardly a level playing field, wouldn't you agree?

But it is interesting to note that the clean up cost for £6.8 Billion investment will be well in excess of £56 Billion............now that's what I call a good investment of taxpayers hard earned money.

Unimpressed (3)

And the energy production?

Oh yes! - the lovely countryside!

Of course, Global Warming isn't going to 'despoil' anything now is it?

(Sigh!)
You just don't 'Get it' do you?

It's about preserving the planet for future generations to be able to simply live on it, not so that you can have a 'nice view' for the last remaining years of your life.

How selfish is that?
5

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2008 20:11:47
Silent Hunter #4, no I am not suggesting we abandon rural living. I am simply pointing out that it is not sustainable for the masses if it includes all modern conveniences. Urban living is more sustainable for a modern technological society. (And if we all did it, the countryside would not be "abandoned to urban sprawl"; it would be left pristine. Urban living takes less space.)

In Scotland, Orkney has the highest carbon footprint per person, and it is double the level of the lowest carbon footprint, which is in Glasgow.

Rural communities cannot sustain all mod-cons while maintaining a low carbon footprint and operating without subsidy from the masses of city dwellers. It is a lifestyle for the few; subsidised by the many.

I have nothing against this. But I would contest the implied suggestion that it can offer a solution on a large scale for the majority of the population.


Regarding subsidy, the amount of subsidy provided for renewables is disproportionately high compared to the amount of energy it delivers (or will deliver in the medium term). Since the 1980s the UK nuclear programme has been delivering 20% of our electricity. In the past 15 years the R&D support for new renewables has vastly exceeded support for nuclear fission, and yet the proportion of our electricity delivered from new renewables is only 5%.

It is true that all forms of energy are subsidised (especially fossil fuel) but the subsidy for nuclear is small compared to the amount of energy produced.

This is not just a local phenomenon of the UK energy industry - you can observe the same situation across the world. Apart from a very few locations that happen to have ideal geography for hydro or geothermal, renewables do not deliver energy on a par with nuclear power, hence there is understandably less investment. There is a lot of potential for large-scale renewables, but this is unlikely to come to anything in the next couple of decades. The story for small-scale renewables is
6

Colin, Glasgow,

10/02/2008 20:15:41
[continued]
The story for small-scale renewables is worse than large-scale rnewables. Small renewables will never make a significant impact on world energy supply.
7

Homer,

13/02/2008 10:29:15
Colin, when you're talking about subsidies, why just consider the last 15 years?

There might not have been much UK support for nuclear fission over this period (conveniently ignoring the government bail-out of British Energy in 2003 - I assume that's why you specify R&D support), but how much subsidy has it received over its lifetime?

The current generation of nuclear reactors are built on back of the civil nuclear programme - itself a spin-off of the military programme, starting with the tritium-producing PIPPA reactors of the 1950s - which has benefited from huge public subsidy stretching back to WW2.

I don't know how much subsidy nuclear power has enjoyed over its lifetime - I don't know if anyone does. I also don't believe the "who gets/has got the most subsidy" line of argument is particularly fruitful.

However, since you raised it, compared to the historic subsidy received by nuclear fission, I think renewables have a bit of catching up to do.
8

Colin, Glasgow,

13/02/2008 11:39:51
Homer, I chose the last 15 years because Silent Hunter had already given figures for R&D from 1974 to date. I was simply pointing out that, while fission was once highly subsidized for R&D compared to renewables, it hasn't been for a good while.

I agree that it isn’t exactly constructive to compare subsidies like this. But given that the huge historical R&D investment has already been made – and it cannot be “unspent” – it would be foolish to write it off by abandoning nuclear power prematurely.
9

Homer,

13/02/2008 15:58:43
Colin, "given that the huge historical R&D investment has already been made – and it cannot be “unspent” – it would be foolish to write it off by abandoning nuclear power prematurely."

Sunk costs should be ignored by both sides.

Money already committed might tell us something about the level of investment required to develop a new technology, but otherwise sunk costs are irrelevant when considering future commitments. A rational decision is based on a consideration of the future costs and benefits (financial and otherwise).

To argue otherwise is to exhibit "commitment bias". Players exhibiting this trait are a popular addition to any poker table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Example
10

Colin, Glasgow,

13/02/2008 16:34:07
Quite, but the nuclear R&D commitment of the past is, in part, the reason why the future cost of nuclear is less than renewables in most circumstances.

Perhaps the investment should not have been made. Perhaps the money would have been better spent elsewhere. But it has been invested, and as a result nuclear fission is (or can be) cheap.
11

Colin, Glasgow,

14/02/2008 22:15:31
Not to labour the point, but the nuclear power industry in the US is a good example of how historic investment has led to low generating costs.
"The NEI said that 2007 marked the seventh straight year that nuclear plants have had the lowest production costs of any major source of electricity, including coal- and natural gas-fired power plants."
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP/Record_performance_by_US_nuclear_power_industry_in_2007_070208.html

And this is in an environment where nuclear power is under-subsidised (for its level of output) compared to other power sources, especially renewables.
http://www.issues.org/22.3/realnumbers.html
12

Homer,

15/02/2008 10:28:03
Colin, I'm not going to argue with those figures but, if true, then why didn't the US order any new nuclear power stations from 1985 to 2005?

That's a rhetorical question; Chernobyl stalled nuclear new build for 20 years. Nuclear is reviving, but a similar incident could knock it back again.

Nuclear power relies on public support, but public support is fickle. No matter how safe we promise our new reactors would be, an accident overseas any time in the next decade could see public confidence disappear.

That's one of my main concerns with the new nuclear programme: it's only as safe as the dodgiest foreign reactor.

Colin - reassure me.
13

Colin, Glasgow,

15/02/2008 14:23:59
I suppose if I said “fingers crossed” it would not be sufficiently reassuring…

Firstly, we have to trust that the IAEA does its job well.
Secondly, the nuclear industry itself is acutely aware of the financial impact across the whole sector if there was an accident. If nothing else, there is a business imperative for safety.
Thirdly, maybe – just maybe – the public is more sophisticated about energy matters now. There is greater awareness of the damage that fossil fuel causes. Notice, only Europe and the US got cold-feet over nuclear power. i.e. Countries with a sufficient proportion of rich, middle-class worriers. And climate change trumps all other worries.
14

Homer,

15/02/2008 16:54:41
>> Firstly, we have to trust that the IAEA does its job well.

Now you're scaring me.

>> the nuclear industry itself is acutely aware of the financial impact [of] an accident.

I suppose that's true - such concerns should be incorporated in the cost of capital for new reactors. Now all we have to do is trust international financial markets to assess, monitor and efficiently allocate risk ... oh, b*gger.

>> maybe - just maybe - the public is more sophisticated about energy matters now

To borrow a quote, nobody ever went broke underestimating the sophistication of the British public.

>> And climate change trumps all other worries

In terms of political rhetoric, perhaps, but not in any practical sense. We're still cheerfully using and expanding roads & airports - and take a look below at what's happening in Dubai.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/02/where-is-all-oil-money-going.html

If climate change does ever come to trump all other worries, I suspect we'll be too busy adapting to it to bother with mitigation.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.