4 ms·

It's the difference between using and selling to another country. For example, let's say my energy demand for 1 year is 1 GW. I generate that 1 GW using solar.

by tito 7y ago

It's the difference between using and selling to another country. For example, let's say my energy demand for 1 year is 1 GW. I generate that 1 GW using solar. But I sell 50% of it to a neighbor. Inside my house, I use gas for that missing 50%. Overall, I've "generated 100%" of my needs from renewables. I (Scotland) sell clean energy to my neighbor (Europe). I skimmed this article for inspiration: http://euanmearns.com/scotlands-wind-exports-to-england-and-the-myth-of-a-100-renewable-scotland/ http://euanmearns.com/scotlands-wind-exports-to-england-and-...

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Pretty sure the UK National Grid does not have interconnects and pricing between Scotland and England in the same way as between UK and interconnect partners in the EU. It's part of the same grid. Scotland has no choice but that some of it be fossil unless and until England and Wales are fully renewable also. Northern Ireland and Orkney do have interconnects. So they can monitor total renewable generation, and total consumption, but can't have influence on what the shortfall is made up by. I've no doubt the grid will move toward more locality as it redesigns for a smart grid suitable for 100% renewables, and Scottish independence might provoke formal interconnecting. For now they are both in the same 'house'. Edit: I find myself newly suspicious of that site's agenda as he links to Watts Up With That, a notorious and extreme denialist site in his blog role. His phrasing may have been carefully chosen to downplay and minimise the achievement. He seems to have a fair time in the oil industry from his about page.
- makomk 7y ago
  I don't think it's just a question of Scotland not having a choice about where the shortfall is made up by, but of the shortfall having to be made up using fossil fuels. For context, because Scotland is so big and empty, a disproportionate chunk of UK wind power is based there compared to their population - so much so that if I remember correctly their wind power has to curtail sometimes due to interconnect limits with the rest of the UK. It's kind of hard to get day-by-day or hour-by-hour figures for Scotland alone, but Scottish nuclear + renewables in the entire UK dropped well below Scotland's peak demand a good few times just in the last two months. That shortfall has to be made up using fossil fuels, there's no alternative - and a good chunk of that is going to be Scottish fossil fuel plants due to interconnect limits. The Scottish government is simply using the fact that a disprortionate amount of UK wind power ended up there to spin themselves as less dependent on fossil electricity than they are. You can't measure progress towards an 100% grid using net figures like this because the last bit of demand is so much harder to satisfy renewably than the first, and countries with the ability to play silly tricks like this with net power can skip the hard part and pretend they've solved the problem. If/when renewable generation in England and Wales increases it might well even roll this figure back as less electricity is imported during peak wind generation, despite the fact that both Scotland and the rest of the UK would be getting more of their actual electricity from renewable sources.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    It's the Orkney interconnect that's at capacity. They really need an extra one. Sure it's a lot of PR, but it's not just empty PR with a grid that's controlled mainland wide, and chooses sources minute to minute depending on availability, demand and price it's the best they can do. Scotland can, and does, encourage a much healthier approach to the adoption of renewables than Westminster. With more powers to the regions outside London, including Holyrood, so much more could, and would be done. You can make the same criticism for every use of home solar panels, of green suppliers, of the whole transition to sustainable, and even of the entire markets for gas and electric considering we can't segregate individual electrons and atoms. It's kind of hard to get Scotland figures alone because there is no separate Scottish grid, nor interconnects as such, just the mainland National Grid encompassing the three mainland countries. It's accounting, but it's not silly, it's the market we're all forced to participate in. We could have more precise regional figures with regional grids with interconnects between. We're not really large enough to need or justify that. Scottish independence, if it ever comes, might well see a Scottish grid as separate entity.
    - makomk 7y ago
      You're right that the same criticism could and perhaps sometimes should be aimed at "net zero" homes with solar. Arguably solar is even worse than wind in the UK, because we're so far north that it has an awful capacity factor and it reliably drops off when power is needed the most. Ecohomes and net-zero homes have extra insulation that does provide a benefit in winter, but home solar alone is dubious. (The UK government also basically killed off subsidies for it.) It's a little more useful in countries closer to the equator with better capacity factors and summer aircon rather than winter heating, since output is reasonably closely correlated to demand then, but still won't get us to actual zero even there.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        No it's not dubious at all. It's hilariously beneficial considering how far north we are, where I honestly thought it would be very borderline, and probably not worth it at all. We just about eliminated the electricity component of the typical UK supply of electricity and gas for heating. That's not net zero, or creative accounting, that's actually eliminate use of grid electric for nine or ten months, with a little use in winter. That only because of switching water heating to the panels, that was previously on gas. We're in N Cumbria.
fyfy18 7y ago
This is about electricity, not energy, demand though, so it's more like your neighbour runs a coal fired power plant that you import 50% of your electricity from. If you look at energy consumption as a whole it's not that great though, in 2017 Scotland consumed 149 GWH, of which 24 GWH was electricity. I don't think any other European countries are really doing any better though, Germany which is often touted as the leader in renewables, generates most of its electricity from fossil fuels (and most of that from coal and peat). This is why we need countries (and people) to take these climate goals seriously - even if you don't accept climate change, it's easy to see that generating 100% of your own energy from renewables will be more economically stable and sustainable in the long term.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >it's easy to see that generating 100% of your own energy from renewables will be more economically stable and sustainable in the long term. Is it though? Europe doesn't seem like a particularly good spot spot for renewable energy. We've already put hydro pretty much everywhere we can, but the rest needs to be covered by pretty subpar options. Europe is further north than the US, which makes solar much less appropriate of a choice. Europe is also a lot smaller with more population density and that makes wind more difficult to do.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    This is based on what? Europe has some of the best spots on the planet for wind generation. Winds are in many places, a near constant companion, and usually within the range that turbines prefer. Any one of Britain, Ireland and the Nordics could supply a huge proportion of Europe's power needs with fully developed offshore wind. With a slim chance of ever being becalmed. Together I wouldn't be at all surprised to find generation capacity above European needs. There's plenty of suitable onshore sites too, and plenty of other European countries not yet mentioned. Solar is never going to generate as much per panel in Scotland and UK as in California or Saudi, but it's good enough to pay well economically and in terms of emissions and overall impact too. Why wouldn't we use it in the mix? There's plenty of roof space doing nothing else. New hydro has less scope, but there are suitable sites, and a large selection of locations suitable for pumped storage -- some of them part prepared by already having a lake in a disused quarry!

by tito 7y ago

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Pretty sure the UK National Grid does not have interconnects and pricing between Scotland and England in the same way as between UK and interconnect partners in the EU. It's part of the same grid. Scotland has no choice but that some of it be fossil unless and until England and Wales are fully renewable also. Northern Ireland and Orkney do have interconnects. So they can monitor total renewable generation, and total consumption, but can't have influence on what the shortfall is made up by. I've no doubt the grid will move toward more locality as it redesigns for a smart grid suitable for 100% renewables, and Scottish independence might provoke formal interconnecting. For now they are both in the same 'house'. Edit: I find myself newly suspicious of that site's agenda as he links to Watts Up With That, a notorious and extreme denialist site in his blog role. His phrasing may have been carefully chosen to downplay and minimise the achievement. He seems to have a fair time in the oil industry from his about page.

makomk 7y ago
I don't think it's just a question of Scotland not having a choice about where the shortfall is made up by, but of the shortfall having to be made up using fossil fuels. For context, because Scotland is so big and empty, a disproportionate chunk of UK wind power is based there compared to their population - so much so that if I remember correctly their wind power has to curtail sometimes due to interconnect limits with the rest of the UK. It's kind of hard to get day-by-day or hour-by-hour figures for Scotland alone, but Scottish nuclear + renewables in the entire UK dropped well below Scotland's peak demand a good few times just in the last two months. That shortfall has to be made up using fossil fuels, there's no alternative - and a good chunk of that is going to be Scottish fossil fuel plants due to interconnect limits. The Scottish government is simply using the fact that a disprortionate amount of UK wind power ended up there to spin themselves as less dependent on fossil electricity than they are. You can't measure progress towards an 100% grid using net figures like this because the last bit of demand is so much harder to satisfy renewably than the first, and countries with the ability to play silly tricks like this with net power can skip the hard part and pretend they've solved the problem. If/when renewable generation in England and Wales increases it might well even roll this figure back as less electricity is imported during peak wind generation, despite the fact that both Scotland and the rest of the UK would be getting more of their actual electricity from renewable sources.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  It's the Orkney interconnect that's at capacity. They really need an extra one. Sure it's a lot of PR, but it's not just empty PR with a grid that's controlled mainland wide, and chooses sources minute to minute depending on availability, demand and price it's the best they can do. Scotland can, and does, encourage a much healthier approach to the adoption of renewables than Westminster. With more powers to the regions outside London, including Holyrood, so much more could, and would be done. You can make the same criticism for every use of home solar panels, of green suppliers, of the whole transition to sustainable, and even of the entire markets for gas and electric considering we can't segregate individual electrons and atoms. It's kind of hard to get Scotland figures alone because there is no separate Scottish grid, nor interconnects as such, just the mainland National Grid encompassing the three mainland countries. It's accounting, but it's not silly, it's the market we're all forced to participate in. We could have more precise regional figures with regional grids with interconnects between. We're not really large enough to need or justify that. Scottish independence, if it ever comes, might well see a Scottish grid as separate entity.
  - makomk 7y ago
    You're right that the same criticism could and perhaps sometimes should be aimed at "net zero" homes with solar. Arguably solar is even worse than wind in the UK, because we're so far north that it has an awful capacity factor and it reliably drops off when power is needed the most. Ecohomes and net-zero homes have extra insulation that does provide a benefit in winter, but home solar alone is dubious. (The UK government also basically killed off subsidies for it.) It's a little more useful in countries closer to the equator with better capacity factors and summer aircon rather than winter heating, since output is reasonably closely correlated to demand then, but still won't get us to actual zero even there.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      No it's not dubious at all. It's hilariously beneficial considering how far north we are, where I honestly thought it would be very borderline, and probably not worth it at all. We just about eliminated the electricity component of the typical UK supply of electricity and gas for heating. That's not net zero, or creative accounting, that's actually eliminate use of grid electric for nine or ten months, with a little use in winter. That only because of switching water heating to the panels, that was previously on gas. We're in N Cumbria.

fyfy18 7y ago

This is about electricity, not energy, demand though, so it's more like your neighbour runs a coal fired power plant that you import 50% of your electricity from. If you look at energy consumption as a whole it's not that great though, in 2017 Scotland consumed 149 GWH, of which 24 GWH was electricity. I don't think any other European countries are really doing any better though, Germany which is often touted as the leader in renewables, generates most of its electricity from fossil fuels (and most of that from coal and peat). This is why we need countries (and people) to take these climate goals seriously - even if you don't accept climate change, it's easy to see that generating 100% of your own energy from renewables will be more economically stable and sustainable in the long term.

Mirioron 7y ago
>it's easy to see that generating 100% of your own energy from renewables will be more economically stable and sustainable in the long term. Is it though? Europe doesn't seem like a particularly good spot spot for renewable energy. We've already put hydro pretty much everywhere we can, but the rest needs to be covered by pretty subpar options. Europe is further north than the US, which makes solar much less appropriate of a choice. Europe is also a lot smaller with more population density and that makes wind more difficult to do.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  This is based on what? Europe has some of the best spots on the planet for wind generation. Winds are in many places, a near constant companion, and usually within the range that turbines prefer. Any one of Britain, Ireland and the Nordics could supply a huge proportion of Europe's power needs with fully developed offshore wind. With a slim chance of ever being becalmed. Together I wouldn't be at all surprised to find generation capacity above European needs. There's plenty of suitable onshore sites too, and plenty of other European countries not yet mentioned. Solar is never going to generate as much per panel in Scotland and UK as in California or Saudi, but it's good enough to pay well economically and in terms of emissions and overall impact too. Why wouldn't we use it in the mix? There's plenty of roof space doing nothing else. New hydro has less scope, but there are suitable sites, and a large selection of locations suitable for pumped storage -- some of them part prepared by already having a lake in a disused quarry!