On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:28:04 +0100 someone who may be "Arfa Daily"
wrote this:-
But the returns from all of these 'interesting' technologies - in this
country at least - are so small as to be difficult to justify against the
manufacturing and maintenance budgets. To say nothing of the aesthetic
impact.
The tides and waves off Scotland, chiefly off the north and north
west, could generate 1/5 of UK annual electricity use.
http://www.scottishrenewables.com//default.aspx?documentid=ba51c1cf-626d-4ee7-9782-228192eb3623
There are certainly difficulties to be overcome with regard to the
weather, but these are challenges rather than insoluble problems. As
we see with wind, challenging environments bring great rewards too
"The excellent wind regime found in Shetland makes the Burradale
windfarm the most productive, in terms of capacity factor, in the
UK. The average capacity factor of the turbines since the windfarm
was opened in the year 2000 is over 52%. This average was surpassed
in 2005 with a recorded capacity factor of 57.9%."
http://www.hi-energy.org.uk/Region/shetlandislands.html
The aesthetic impact of tidal generation is almost zero. Most of the
equipment is under water and that which is not will generally not be
easy to see from land. Wave machines will largely be too far away
from land to be seen.
Hydro has been working quietly away for over a century. The 1896
installation at Foyers was revamped in the early 1970s to produce a
conventional hydro scheme and a pumped storage scheme
http://www.scottish-southern.co.uk/sseinternet/assets/569CABFE-1165-4ED8-9419-CF3B5A64BC98.pdf.
That version of "Power from the Glens" doesn't mention what the
earlier version of the booklet did, that only half the schemes
identified by the NoSHEB were built. In the past few years
construction of hydro schemes has started again, though that got off
to a faltering start with the closure of Glendoe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8205094.stm.
That problem should be sorted in 2011 though. Other hydro schemes
are being planned, including more pumped storage (converting Sloy to
pumped storage).
The aesthetic impact of hydro can be severe if badly designed. I
wouldn't have approved the various early schemes for Glen Affric,
which were awful. However, few people object to the power station in
Pitlochry and the artificial loch which feeds it. Rather it is an
attraction. The scheme which was eventually built in Glen Affric is
a superb example of how to blend the man made with beautiful second-
to-none scenery.
There has been no law to stop nuclear plants being built, but the
privatised operators have not built any. Since Sizewell B opened in
1995 no new nuclear generation has been built in the UK.
Due in no small part to the continued lobbying of the environmental
anti-nuclear brigade,
Thank goodness for them. However, their power is relatively weak
compared to the taxpayer funded lobbying of the nuclear bunch. See
the previous government's gyrations for a good example.
We seriously need to get much more independent of other countries again for
our own energy needs, and the only sensible and quick way to do this, is to
start a nuclear building program again.
There are no uranium mines in the UK. Were we foolish enough to
embark on a nuclear programme then that would increase our
dependency on other countries. Some of these other countries are
(usually) friendly to the UK, such as Australia and Canada, others
are not [1].
On the other hand renewables reduce our dependence on other
countries. The fuel is either grown here like biomass [2], or is
international like the tides. You could argue that wind turbines are
largely built elsewhere. That is our own fault, our early lead in
wind turbines was not developed, due to nuclear lobby influence in
government. The same cause stopped Salter's duck, the first useful
wave machine, being developed. The story with wave isn't as sad as
with wind though, we may have clawed our lead back. Let's not make
the same mistake with tidal.
[1] in a report for the SD Commission the Atomic Energy Authority
indicated that in their view uranium supplies would be a problem in
the short/medium term but less of a problem in the longer term. I'm
not convinced by their longer term assumptions, but their report
does draw attention to the fact that nuclear is not the quick fix
proponents claim.
[2] biomass on a large scale is not sustainable, but on a small
scale it is. There are also plans to import "biomass" from around
the world, which is not sustainable either.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54