iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Scotland: Nuclear Power Dropping In Favor Of Renewable Energy

First Posted: 03/15/2012 10:55 am Updated: 03/18/2012 6:22 pm

From Earth Techling's Shifra Mincer:

Around the globe, many countries have set 2020 renewable energy goals with the hope of reducing emissions and dependence on expensive foreign oil and gas imports.

Scotland is right on track for its goal of 100 percent energy from renewables by 2020, according to a new government report. The Electricity Generation Policy Statement (EGPS) released by the Scottish government emphasized emissions reduction by means of carbon capture and storage for fossil fuel power plants as well as addition of renewable energy generation instead of new nuclear plants.


Department of Energy and Climate Change, The National Archives, United Kingdom

Nuclear energy currently comprises nearly a third of the country’s electricity generation. [More information here] But the government predicts that if major changes can be put into effect in the coming decades, nuclear will become a smaller percentage of the mix and overall emissions will drop drastically, with carbon being eliminated completely from emissions by 2030. If succesful, the government predicts that household electricity prices will also fall from the projected 2020 cost of £1,379 to £1,285.

Scotland’s goal might not be so far-fetched. The country already boasts a relatively high percentage of renewables: nearly a fifth of the country’s power is from hydro and other renewable generation sources, more than any other country in the United Kingdom.

Wave and tidal power may become more significant sources of electricity generation for Scotland as well, as the country is surrounded by water and has easy access to waves. Scotland houses the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) that is busy researching and developing wave and tidal power. Devices there range from small underwater wind turbines to large 500 kilowatt (kW) and even 800 kW wave and tidal devices.

Last November, the Scottish government committed £18 million (about $29 million) to develop the country’s first commercial wave and tidal power plants. The money is part of a larger £35 million fund created to support the marine and tidal industry over the course of three years.

But even with significant increases in hydro, wave, marine and wind energy, Scotland’s challenge will be to revamp basic infrastructure to accomodate a dramatically different electricity generation system if it is to succeed in reaching its goal. Unlike massive thermal power plants, renewable energy generation is generally smaller and distributed and variable. New transmission lines need to be built, new energy management and load reduction systems need to be in place, and energy storage needs to be secured for times when renewable generation slows.

If Scotland succeeds, the country will be a dramatic example of success for the the rest of the world. A relatively small country with less than optimal domestic resources, Scotland will need maximize its use of ingenuity, government support and scientific discovery to switch to renewables. But one thing is certain, if Scotland can do it, then large industrial countries can do it too. It’s all a matter of time and commitment.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Filed by Jessica Leader  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 122
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:10 PM on 03/23/2012
We can now produce energy from waste or trash. The world produces a lot of trash every day.

Every landfill can now be converted to produce biofuels from waste, energy (methanol) and raw materials for new products. That is a potential for a lot of biofuels and energy production from a low cost source that we are already collecting and trying to dispose of properly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nick Hatch
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
01:24 PM on 03/28/2012
Sure it can. But how much and at what cost (both input energy and $$)?
10:47 AM on 04/02/2012
Try ££'s.
This is Scotland, you parochial Yank.
04:11 PM on 04/02/2012
Half the lifecycle carbon emissions of nuclear, and lower in cost (according to EIA Energy Outlook 2011):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:53 PM on 03/30/2012
Absolutely.

Everything we harvest eventually gets dumped. Instead of paying to dump it we can pyro the wastes, remove the valuable metals, and get energy, pyro fuels and char usable for fert and coking.

Solar cheaper than nukes and energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/ Note the fossil and nuke numbers are totals, the solar wind and waste are PER YEAR!

Solar is half the cost of nukes, wind and waste half that again, and efficiency half that again.

all much faster to install than nukes and already far outstripping nukes in new installations.

http://www.plancanada.com/biochar_basics.pdf
2$ per watt bio char energy plant. 150 Gt/y waste bio mass, 100 GW electricity

http://buildaroo.com/news/article/biofuel-from-human-waste-project-england/ 15% energy needs!
http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/10/04/idINIndia-51941620101004
13 billions tons animal manure per year
Humans 30kg dried sludge per year?
6B people. 180 B kg, 180 M tons from humans.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-07/world/eco.about.manure_1_manure-methane-carbon-dioxide?_s=PM:WORLD
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:20 PM on 03/18/2012
Just TAX carbon, radiation and heavy metals that fossils and nukes dig up and create. DO NOT TRADE carbon credits, that's a bankster gambling paradise that will swing energy prices from zero to the moon and take the world economy with it.

Remove all the breaks that fossils and nukes get and plow that an more into green energy.

Rooftop solar is cheaper than nukes (not in Scotland yet, they get about half the light Arizona deserts get. ), offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels are half nukes, and efficiency is half that again.

Waste bio char provides the backup for solar and wind using existing fossil generators but clean.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
04:13 PM on 03/29/2012
I believe we need a diverse mix of energy suppliers to ensure national security. A fair tax on carbon emissions may result in a massive increase in nuclear power plants, which I think is a good thing, but without massive subsides solar and wind power would probably not be able to compete.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:45 PM on 03/29/2012
Tax radiation creation and heavy metals. That's fair right?

Nukes get 500M$ per reactor per year in breaks.

Nukes are the energy most dependent on gov help.

Green energy: rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio fuels are all cheaper than nukes, before breaks.

It's nukes that can't compete with massive gov help.
10:52 AM on 04/02/2012
Unlike the ''massive subsidies'' the British Nuclear Industry gets, then.
photo
EcnelisDoogod
B the change you want 2C
04:52 PM on 03/30/2012
Hi Genders. I'm disappointed with HPs ability to forward me your posts. When I went to look over your recent comments, since the last one was about "how much do gas stations cost?", all the replies to you seem to be relentless badgering. God bless you for your tireless efforts to inform and educate. This place has become quite toxic. Good luck!
10:53 AM on 04/02/2012
Yeah.
The US contribution can be like that sometimes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Quasi Libertarian
Only Team America: World Police Can Save Us!
10:08 AM on 03/17/2012
Scotland is a nice, Small Country to used this as a laboratory for this experiment.   With a nation of only 5.2 Million and a total land area of 30K square miles, this is a nice, tiny place to try this........Good luck...........

If that works in 15-20 years then we can see how that would work on a nation like the US, with 313 Million people and 3.8 Million square miles of land to cover.............
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
05:00 PM on 03/30/2012
more than enough roof and parking lot for more solar than our peak needs.

More than enough offshore wind for our coast and as far as the grid will carny it.

More than enough waste dumped that can be converted to energy and pyro fuels to backup solar and wind.

Bigger is better for the USA has far more resources to make the move to green.
WonderingNThinking
Think Before We Sink
06:04 AM on 03/31/2012
Good points.
12:53 AM on 03/17/2012
Japan has shut down 52 of 54 nuclear power plant and they are getting along.

They have implemented energy conservation measures, energy efficiency measures and alternative energy sources.

They will be paying for the trillion dollar TEPCO disaster FOREVER. They do not want another one.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
John Brian Shannon
08:51 PM on 04/03/2012
Japan is also purchasing 3 times it's 2010 oil import totals from Saudi Arabia to help make up the difference, as a result of shutting down (now 53) of it's nuclear reactors. That's a lot of fossil fuel.

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article560501.ece

Longer term, Japan is installing solar panels on many of it's buildings, especially apartment buildings as they have a larger surface area.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/solar-apartments-are-the-hot-new-trend-in-japan/13709

The problem is, using oil to replace lost nuclear electrical generation capacity is near instantaneous, where as installing that same capacity in solar panels on rooftops will take 20 years.

I'm not saying the Japanese shouldn't be doing that, most certainly they should be replacing their lost nuclear electricity generation with green energy, just that it will take a long time unless they spend billions upon billions of dollars to do so.

With Japan's debt to GDP ratio at over 204%, they just don't have the budget for it.

http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock
04:44 PM on 04/04/2012
You have to take the first step to start on any journey. Wind and Solar have been growing every year. The price of wind and solar have dropped by 50% in the last 5 years while the cost of oil, coal and nuclear keep going up.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bbrecht
"pray for the dead, fight like hell for the liv
08:32 AM on 03/16/2012
Scotland is investing in the future. We are investing in the past.
03:20 AM on 03/16/2012
What's wrong with US? All the "experts" tell us it can't be done -- let me count the ways.... It's a matter of will, and we Americans simply don't have it.
12:52 PM on 03/16/2012
Americans have the will but unfortunately we also have a government that is currently being choked to death by lobbyist and corrupted by their ever increasing piles of money.
02:06 PM on 03/16/2012
That's true, as far as it goes. But, how is it any old-fashioned internal combustion engine car can find a buyer? As soon as the last gas price "crisis" was over, consumers couldn't wait to go back to buying their SUVs and other "luxury" cars. Consumers/people could drive business to do the right thing, but we don't.
07:01 PM on 03/18/2012
The Republicans are captives of the oil and coal industries.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ray Wigton
10:44 PM on 03/15/2012
Indeed, Scotland is on the right track but we too must invest in the new transmission lines and that costs money so instead we will stay dependant on coal. Wind power is a problem because some bird flys into the blades and wave generators and tidal generators will have some environmental impact too. Nothing is without some impact, but none of thses problems outweigh the effects of burning carbon fuels. If all of us would just invest in solar panels on our roof tops in states that get enough solar, but that costs money too. We have to have the will power to invest in the future and that means leaders that can see beyond the end of their noses.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JScott
John Galt's last name is McGuffin-Smithee
01:04 AM on 03/17/2012
Newer wind turbines are larger and turn slower, less effect of birds, after all windmills in Holland have killed off birds massively they are still around in Holland.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:23 PM on 03/18/2012
rooftop solar decreases grid load. Offshore wind kills no birds or bats and is great for large cities most of witch are on the coasts, and the only grid upgrade is the connect from the wind to the city.

Solar is cheaper than nukes, wind and waste half that and efficiency half that again.

Only political corruption prevent green energy replacing nukes and fossils in 7 years or so.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nick Hatch
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
02:13 PM on 03/28/2012
Just political corruption, eh? Oh you crack me up.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
09:53 PM on 03/15/2012
Aye.
FaceReality2
Democracy in the U.S. is an illusion
09:48 PM on 03/15/2012
The Republicans say it can't be done.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JScott
John Galt's last name is McGuffin-Smithee
01:04 AM on 03/17/2012
Courtesy of Koch's et al.
09:05 PM on 03/15/2012
Nuclear energy is too dangerous and too costly.

No nuclear power plant would ever be built without limited liability from the government.

Do you think TEPCO could afford to pay for the trillion dollar clean up at Fukishima without the help of the Japanese government? The taxpayers of Japan will be paying for that disaster FOREVER just like the taxpayers of Chernobyl.

Why take the risk and pay the huge costs of nuclear when wind and solar are cheaper and safer?
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
07:37 PM on 03/15/2012
" Unlike massive thermal power plants, renewable energy generation is generally smaller and distributed and variable. New transmission lines need to be built, new energy management and load reduction systems need to be in place, and energy storage needs to be secured for times when renewable generation slows."

This is the grab bag of false assumptions that are still hurled at green energy.

Distributed energy REDUCES grid load. Yes, offshore wind will require a grid connect, but again, less grid upgrades than big central nuke plants.

Waste bio char bio fuels are the natural backup for wind and solar.
That is the obvious solution so many ignore.

Waste bio char is carbon land and water negative. You use the char as fertilizer or bury it, it does not need the water fracking does, and we stop dumping, so that save more land, and prevent more GHGs.

http://www.splainex.com/waste_recycling.htm

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Revolutionary-New-Process-Turns-Biomass-Waste-into-Fuel-Oil.html

http://www.plancanada.com/biochar_basics.pdf
2$ per watt bio char energy plant. 150 Gt/y waste bio mass, 100 GW electricity

http://buildaroo.com/news/article/biofuel-from-human-waste-project-england/ 15% energy needs!
http://www.biochar-international.org/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
01:46 PM on 03/15/2012
"Scotland is right on track for its goal of 100 percent energy from renewables by 2020, "
First, It should read 100% of its 'electricity' not 'energy', most vehicles will still be powered by internal combustion engines in 2020.
Second, Scotland is NOT on track for 100% renewable electricity by 2020, they are still talking about carbon capture and storage - something which applies to fossil fuel electric c02.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:55 PM on 03/15/2012
Yes, of course they are "still talking about CCS" ... just as they should so long as there are still any coal-fired power plants left (and they're a dying breed -- with Cockenzie nr Edinburgh due to close in 2013).
These plants are not included in the "100% electricity from renewables" target:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Business/TrenRenEnergy
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
09:26 PM on 03/15/2012
My point was that if they are still talking about css, than they are not going be going 100% renewable in the near future, since css would be irrelevant with 100% renewable.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
07:44 PM on 03/15/2012
Their cars will be powered by batteries charged with wind and solar, and backed up by waste bio fuels.

Scotland is taking the first step. They are are wrong to try and "decarbonize" There is nothing wrong with carbon fuels, the problem is Fossil fuels.

Carbon capture is also a red herring. Far more expensive than waste bio fuels, and subject to disastrous releases with earth quakes.

They are also much too conservative in their plans to use Wastes for fuels and energy.

Nukes are not renewable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
09:11 PM on 03/15/2012
“Their cars will be powered by batteries charged with wind and solar, and backed up by waste bio fuels. "
In 8 years? I would be amazed if Scotland had 5% of its vehicles electric by then.

As usual, you have no grasp of the limitations of solar, wind, batteries an biofuels.

Nuclear can give us an inexhaustible energy source.
01:37 PM on 03/15/2012
THis is good news to read. I hope it works well for them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Fanney
Scribbler
12:51 PM on 03/15/2012
Iceland, Scotland... If these small countries can do it, then why can't we? We have massive wind and solar resources in this country. We have massive infrastructure for producing new autos. We could go wind+solar+all EV with a crash program within twenty years. Now there's a plan for lowering the price of energy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
02:01 PM on 03/15/2012
"If these small countries can do it, then why can't we?"
Scotland hasn't done it, and it is very unlikely they will despite what the article says. Iceland is a volcanic island with huge, easily exploitable geothermal resources - most home heating is geothermal. They get most of their electricity from hydro-electric. It is impossible for the US to get anywhere near the percentage of electricity from hydro-electric as does Iceland - we simply don't have the resources.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:36 PM on 03/15/2012
In such a huge and geologically/climatically diverse country, surely there are areas of the US that are ideally suited for the construction of solar farms, wind farms and geothermal plants, respectively.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:38 PM on 03/15/2012
Only one thing in your way, I fear -- major oil corporations.
photo
Arthur Walsh
The Shadow Knows!
08:34 PM on 03/15/2012
Also the republicans, some democrats and 51% of an ignorant nation.
satyrday
If my micro-bio is way too long, will it be trunca
12:15 PM on 03/15/2012
I'd like to see Scotland generate several Kw of electricity by burning their stockpiles of bagpipes.