The more I read about different groups pro’s and con’s regarding any form of power generation the more I really don’t understand them, I truly wish they would get real!
Energy generation is the mainstay of our current way of life.
We as a country/population want to pay the minimum possible but also ensure we have the power when and as we want it.
Power generation is required in basically two fields, general consumer and industry. The largest user of power is industry, and it is industry that fuels the lifestyle we have all come to enjoy.
Whatever source of energy generation is chosen there is always someone who will object to it, and this I believe to be healthy, but we are at a stage whereby we have to make choices!
Do we want to continue the lifestyles we enjoy or do we cut back drastically. Look around you and see how much man-made equipment and clothing is there. The question then is how can we sustainabley manage to provide the same quantity and quality for all?
We need power, existing generation is coming to the end of its useful life, new technology is far more efficient and greener than the previous but the extra capacity is taken up by our ever-increasing demand. Consider our own homes, and take an average, I think you will agree that our own energy consumption has increased dramatically. Industry too has also increased its demand dramatically, but also has the capacity and output for us the consumer who has demanded it.
Again the choice as always is down to us the consumer, by its use we regulate the demand.
Coal, Gas, Nuclear, Wind, Wave, Hydro and the few others are there for us to make use of. Technology in each of the fields has increased the efficiency, and by more and more investment we can obtain even greater efficiencies, but what do we do in the meantime?
I advocate a balanced view should be taken, and a manageable mix of each being utilised. By doing so further investigations can be carried out whilst still being able to furnish you and I the consumer. We should question the suitability of proposed sites but also should by objective input ensure that constraints are made to be able to return the site after completion of its life. Yes there are other issues regarding nature and wild life, but they have proved any times to be resilient against us, and with us having a little more thought at the correct time many things can be done.
I can fully understand the beauty of a valley or moor without wind turbines. But, I can temper that with the knowledge that the energy obtained is cost effective (otherwise private companies would not invest in them) and that the site can be returned should better and more efficient sources of energy be able to be generated. The similar can be said for other water based generation types of generation.
Fossil fuel generation still has to be a mainstay as we do not have the technology for any other form. Nuclear also has to be represented as again the amount of generation it can provide is vast. Only by more and more research into these types of generation can it be made cleaner, safer and more efficient.
In closing I would ask that you look at yourself prior to going walking, how much man made fibre based around petrochemicals are you wearing, how have you got to your starting point, what equipment are carrying? And then look at how it was made.
The countryside is our most beautiful and wonderful asset but it is the consumer (us) that will have to make the choices, I wish the debate would go forward on what those choices should be.

Me&pebbles

With regards to wind turbines you say that "the energy obtained is cost effective (otherwise private companies would not invest in them". This is not true. The reason why so many companies are investing in wind farms is to make a fast buck!

Subsidies are available for both the construction of wind farms and more significantly for the electricity they generate. Under the Renewable Obligation electricity suppliers are obliged to buy electricity from renewable sources and the electricity generator receives a subsidy from the taxpayer. This subsidy more than doubles the value of the electricity. Without this subsidy no wind farms would be built.

"The reason why so many companies are investing in wind farms is to make a fast buck!"

Well that applies to all business endeavours including coal and gas fired power stations. Would we like windfarms more if they didn't make money?

"Subsidies are available for both the construction of wind farms..."

I didn't know this and would be interested in seeing any articles you can link to showing this. It's an argument that has cropped up before, but I've never come across any evidence of this.

"Without this subsidy [ROC] no wind farms would be built."

But that doesn't make it any less valuable to society does it? The government has bailed out the financial industry to the tune of billions of pounds (I've lost count) but that doesn't make the industry any less valuable to us. In fact without the bailouts the economy could have crashed. Likewise without government support we could face an energy or CO2 problem.

Also, what about the subsidies or externalities of conventional power stations? The whole energy industry is knee deep in hidden subsidies, from wars to secure oil to hospital beds to care for those suffering from the effects of pollution.

John

John

Subsidies are indeed needed for most big projects; however as a taxpayer I want my money used effectively. The government has to be seen to be doing something about global warming, but wary of losing votes, will not do what is really necessary and that is build more nuclear power stations.

Subsidising wind farms is a visible (very visible!) way of appearing to do something about global warming without actually doing much at all.

Standing on the summit on Kaim Hill I can see Hunterston nuclear power station. This station occupies less land than the proposed wind farm on Kaim Hill. Hunterston A is now closed, but Hunterson B provides enough electricity to supply nearly half the households in Scotland. However, a wind farm like Kaim Hill will probably only provide enough power for the handful of free low energy light bulbs handed out by the wind farm companies as bribes to local residents!

The solutions to global warming are nuclear power, improved energy efficiency and conventional power stations combined with carbon capture. It is inevitable that these technologies will come, but it is a pity that so many of our wild places will be needlessly destroyed in the meantime.

Stephen, it IS a pity that we're losing wild places to satisfy our energy greed. On the face of it you would think that a country that sacrifices it's assests to satisfy an addiction is a country in trouble, but that's what we've always done. At the heart of the problem is the fact that as a nation we value the energy needed to run our plasma tvs more than we value wild places. Or maybe we don't, but the accounting system is flawed.

"The government has to be seen to be doing something about global warming, but wary of losing votes, will not do what is really necessary and that is build more nuclear power stations."

I disagree with you. I think the government will build more nuclear power stations; I don't think they've got any choice. But apart from being unpopular with the electorate, there are enormous difficulties (which is why it's unpopular) and it will be a very long time before we see them up and running.

I wonder what William Fife would have made of wind turbines on the hill.

I agree the government is finally beginning to accept the need for new nuclear power stations, but too slowly to save our hills. Indeed there are problems with nuclear power but the options are:
1. A massive reduction in the world's population.
2. A massive reduction in energy consumption (no doubt also leading to a massive reduction in the world's population.)
3. Build more nuclear power stations.
4. Ignore global warming (no doubt also leading to a massive reduction etc, etc)

Of these options I vote for option 3! There is no "option 5. Other"

We could have option 2 without a massive reduction in population. At present energy is so cheap that we just squander it. I predict energy prices will increase.

As for option 3, what to do between now and the time when these nuclear power stations come on line? Plus all the technical and politiucal problems we mentioned.

No option 5!???! Whoa!! I don't like this kind of talk :) Never say there's nothing outside the box. We don't know what's outside the box. Donald Rumsfeld's famous "unknown unknowns" - the only sensible thing he ever said.

John

Feel like I should pile in to discuss some of the points in this thread. Unfortunately many message boards house contributors whose views are compromised depending on what position they come from or what their mate or lecturer says. Of course, not that my views are uncompromised, just that my position as an engineer working with energy I might have a better informed view than most.

Firstly, there is no one technology, or silver bullet, which will deal with our need to replace fossil fuels, mitigate climate change and secure the energy future of our children's children. Saying that nuclear or any other technology is the answer is simplistic and biased.

Secondly, most people stick with the thinking that centralised energy generation is the way to deliver and produce energy. The national grid system was designed about 70 years ago and didn't take into account any localised generation from community schemes.

Thirdly, it is not in the interest of large energy companies to sell consumers less energy. Demand is an overlooked area and the reason we won't get serious about it is due to laissez-faire government and the fact that outgoing energy ministers can get very profitable jobs with large energy companies.

Fourthly, I agree that over-population is an issue which should be given much more thought at national and international level. How many people can this planet support in a comfortable lifestyle without fossil fuels?

So, how does the above all relate to Scotland, Wind Farms and Energy generation? Well I think that Scottish Power, Scottish & Southern et al. want to export renewable electricity to their consumers south of the border. Salmond is most interested in the Scottish economy so thinks this is a good idea, both for jobs, shareholders and the strength of these companies.

Meanwhile the Scottish householder has to pay more for their energy as demand is ignored, after all we meet all our targets with the renewables we have - who cares about fuel poverty?

Iain, I agree broadly with what you say, but I'm not sure about your closing remarks. Is renewable generation cheap? No, it's only viable at present with the government grants (on electricty production).

Are Scottish consumers losing out because Scottish renewable energy is being exported? I don't think so. Energy prices follow oil prices, and although oil has fallen in price at present, it seems to me that long term it can only go up (supply levelling of v's increased demand). For better or worse we live in a (so called) free market and it's unrealistic to think that Scotland will sell energy to it's own population for less than it can get on the open market.

The fact is that energy has been too cheap for decades. Scotland is better off selling the energy to the highest bidder and using tax revenues from this to help those in fuel poverty. What mustn't happen is an energy price rise and no help for those in need. High energy prices create a demand for energy efficiency, governments provide insulation grant schemes lifting people out of fuel poverty. Artificially creating low energy prices for Scotland would leave us in staus quo with uninsulated houses chucking energy away - in effect the grants given to renewable generation would be disappearing through walls and ceilings.

I believe energy will become an increasingly important commodity this century. Scotland is positioning itself to take advantage of this. To bad they haven't got a planning system capable of dealing with this properly.

All IMO of course.

John

John,

What I've not clearly described in my closing statement is that we, as a country, will have to invest money to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. So where should we spend our cash? On schemes and projects that will benefit large industry, or on renewables installed on peoples homes to reduce their bills?

I agree that energy has been too cheap, but unfortunately for many pensioners in the UK it's not cheap enough.

Consider this, 50% of the energy used in the UK is within buildings. How do you think the Scottish, or UK, Building Standards measure up against other countries in Europe? They are terrible - we've not even caught up to where Scandinavia were in the 80s. But would you hear that on Location, Location, Location? Nah, people are too pre-occupied by the 'wow factor' and a magnolia colour scheme.