Home | About | Donate

75% of Scotland's Electricity Now Green; All Cars Electric by 2032

75% of Scotland's Electricity Now Green; All Cars Electric by 2032

Juan Cole

Scotland added another 6% of green energy in 2018, so that nearly 75% of its annual gross electricity consumption came from renewables, chiefly wind, solar and hydro. Scotland’s population is 5.4 million.

The increase in green energy came mainly from new offshore wind.

2 Likes

“Although the UK is far behind Scotland in the green energy transition”
" Scotland and the UK have further big plans"

This being read mostly in the US where geographical and political knowledge is limited at best, Scotland is part of the UK.

Saying “UK is far behind Scotland in the green energy transition” is not really accurate. The total installed capacity of renewables in the UK is about 45GW with Scotland amounting to 24GW. UK less scotland would be 21GW, not what someone wold call far behind.

Per capita, yes, but we’re getting into really advanced concepts here that some people might be unable to grasp.

All dreams are common . . . some are more common than others.

1 Like

I believe the reason we can not accept the concept of a Green New Deal is we have a suicide death wish and we want to take everyone with us. Some people call this an Armageddon where only “good” Christians or Dominionist’s government policies will keep us from being “Left Behind.” No Green New Deal is childhood trauma unresolved. Listen to children rendered powerless and we will get the Green New Deal power we need.

North Sea oil and Shetland fields are still a major component of the Scottish economy.

What is paying for Scotland’s renewables?.. could it be its oil exports?

2 Likes

“Scotland is ahead of the UK in renewables” is no different than saying “California is ahead of the USA in renewables”. Yes, maybe “the rest of” should be inserted, but the meaning is clear.

Also, aren’t you forgetting to normalize those gross renewable generation figures for population and electricity consumption? Scotland’s has a far smaller population and electric consumption and so a far greater percentage of its generation is renewables.

1 Like

Perhaps the author expects Scotland to bail from the UK if the Brexit outcome is not favorable to Scotland ?

1 Like

Hi there, SS. Stick around awhile and CD will let your links through. They’ve had a heckload of garbage dumped into threads in the past (really, idiotic spam links nobody clicks on, but still it clutters up the thread), probably to some degree on the part of people with dreams common to sociopaths, intentionally targeting CD. So they wait a bit before new users can post links.

1 Like

I’m reading up on this, as offshore wind sounds nifty. As usual with anything “renewable” (though turbines & cables certainly aren’t) the rule seems to be we only talk about facts which support our side of the argument – whatever the argument was. At any rate, you usually have to search long and hard to find any drawbacks of offshore wind energy, as a renewable alternative, so I was happy to find something, at least, from the Operating Costs section of the wiki on offshore wind:

Maintenance of offshore wind farms is much more expensive than for onshore installations. For example, a single technician in a pickup truck can quickly, easily and safely access turbines on land in almost any weather conditions, exit his or her vehicle and simply walk over to and into the turbine tower to gain access to the entire unit within minutes of arriving onsite. Similar access to offshore turbines involves driving to a dock or pier, loading necessary tools and supplies into boat, a voyage to the wind turbine(s), securing the boat to the turbine structure, transferring tools and supplies to and from boat to turbine and turbine to boat and performing the rest of the steps in reverse order. In addition to standard safety gear such as a hardhat, gloves and safety glasses, an offshore turbine technician may be required to wear a life vest, waterproof or water-resistant clothing and perhaps even a survival suit if working, sea and atmospheric conditions make rapid rescue in case of a fall into the water unlikely or impossible. Typically at least two technicians skilled and trained in operating and handling large power boats at sea are required for tasks that one technician with a driver’s license can perform on land in a fraction of the time at a fraction of the cost.

The inevitable result of posting anything realistic about renewables – anything “negative”: the poster (me) is absurdly attacked as a pawn of the fossil fuel industry for doubting any aspect of the green technology wonderland spread before us. I have personally helped kicked Chevron the hell out of politics in my fair town of Richmond, so that dog won’t hunt with me.

Sincere advocates of wind power might want to weigh the pros and cons of different applications, to determine where scarce resources are best used. But that kind of ordinary engineering rigor isn’t the fashion anymore.

1 Like

Anyone can grasp the fact that if a Country has 1/10th the population of another and has renewable energy sources 1/2 of the other , that smaller population Country is far ahead in renewables.

1 Like

Oops, that would require infrastructure building. The bloated military budget won’t allow that.

1 Like

Faced with a choice of land wind or offshore wind you go with land as much as you can. A comparison might be, if you have enough oil why are we fracking?
These floating and island stationary wind farms are likely for local use only. We need as many of those as is practicable.

2 Likes

The fundamental problem I have with most analysis of renewables is the lack of a full life-cycle view of how much carbon is actually saved – given the energy invested in manufacturing and maintenance from beginning to end.

With such information, we could more reliably evaluate what is actually “practicable.” Often what we get instead of somewhat objective or thorough measurements is sales jive, because the people making these things want to sell them. (And, incidentally, they happen to be fossil fuel extractors, in this case: Shell or Statoil. Hmmm.)

Don’t look now, deniers, but it is happening regardless, even in the face of opposition and continued subsidies for fossil fuels. I know that because I do a lot of travel between Hay, KS and Kansas City (KS and MO). I pass the wind farms about 50-60 miles east of Hays which seem to keep growing a little each time. Also, every last time I take I-70 east to Kansas City I see convoys of wind turbine blades and towers heading west, past Hays to destinations I don’t know.
Last Wednesday, heading for KC for a gig the next morning (and still here for more work until I have to head back in a couple days) I finally had a chance to spot a pair of the blade transports stopped at a rest stop. So I hit the next turn around and got to the rest stop in time to take some pictures. These blades are made by Siemens, a German firm, probably, I am guessing, from the Siemens turbine blade manufacturing plant in Fort Madison, Iowa (far east edge of Iowa). Google view it to see the large number of blades just sitting outside the plant waiting for transport.
The blades I saw up close looked to be at least 100-feet long and probably a good deal longer. All the blades on the Google satellite view seemed to fit that length to 150 feet or more.
Here is a link to my blog. I meant to post a picture but couldn’t figure how to do that. So, I added a page to my blog with pictures of green energy growing along I-70 (so to speak). I see this kind of thing every trip.
http://mikestrongphoto.com/blogWP/?p=254
Enjoy.

Way to miss the forest through the trees.

Why don’t you find out and post links to what you discover.

Or not.

How were we able to build an electric grid nationwide like Scotland. I mean. We’re just so big we’re inert.

Or maybe it’s people like you who would have kept us in the horse and buggy and nowhere near the fvcking moon.

This very much like getting “old clunkers” off the road and replacing them with newer electric vehicles . Some studies have shown that overall the manufacture of those new vehicles along with their batteries is a cost to the environment greater than what would be saved by replacing that old clunker.

The Consumer state has to be broken down. The best way to Green energy and sustainable energy is using less of it in the first place. Just as example in the USA the total amount of energy used to manufacture a motor vehilce is about 3 times what it takes for the Japanese to manufacture one. Prolifigate waste is the first problem that has to be addressed.

3 Likes

If there is a big enough need for things, people will build them.
Think of all the co2 we could eliminate if there was an electric version of all lawnmowers, chainsaws, snowblowers.
Now see how difficult it will be to turn over a new leaf overnight.

Yes but what is gained if all of those electirc lawnmowers and chainsaws were thrown away after 2 years because they broke down or a “newer version” came out?

The manufactring process itself adds to CO2 when these things are built. Factories making electric lawnmowers spew out just as much CO2 as those making gas powered lawnmowers. Now if the electric lawnmower is replaced 3 times as often where are the savings?

A question to ask might be this. Assuming we have a row of houses with lawns to be mowed and there 40 houses in the row.

Would ONE electric lawnmower be able to do the job rather than having 40 households each having a mower in the garage? Is having a lawn to be mowed necessary in the first place?

2 Likes