View Full Version : Potential Pentland Firth Electricity by Bill Mowat
Bill Fernie
08-Jun-08, 10:25
This article 'Potential Pentland Firth Electricity' generation was commissioned by the Energy Institute; it appears in this month's edition of its magazine aimed mainly at the renewables sector called 'Energy World' ; its monthly 'Petroleum Review' covers international oil and gas matters.
Bill Mowat has forwarded his recently published article to stimulate a debate on the issue here on the web site. He will be taking note of what is said.
Read the article http://www.caithness-business.co.uk/article.php?id=910 and then return to make comments or add your ideas on how the Pentland Firth might be used to transform Caithness and bring a huge new source of energy into Caithness and Scotland.
I'm all for green energy, especially anything that does away with our dependency on fossil fuels, however I really don't see it happening. In the report it says, "Nor will it be cheap; capital costs in the early demonstration phases will be relatively high, although partially balanced by free, everlasting, fuel".
It was before my time but wasn't cheap/free electricity one of the benefits of having Scottish Hydro and Dounreay on our doorstep? Apart from the green aspect, why should the public believe this time it will be different?
One of the biggest technical hurdles to overcome with tidal energy is its intermittent supply as the tide changes direction twice each day. This is a huge surge and shortfall in terms of supplying a baseload source of electricity on our weak grid system up here. The only way to control it would be to turn off some of the turbines.
So we need a source of energy up here that will match the peak and troughs of supply of the tidal enrgy, windfarms can't do that all the time as they are irregularly intermittent and they won't always be operating at their peak at low flow of the Firth. A new nuclear build up here where we still retain nuclear related skills could be operated in such a way, or even a gas powered power station.
An alternative idea would be to bring large electricity users to Caithness which could use the energy when the tide and wind is at their peak. This would bring much needed jobs to the area and provide a good political framework for the installation of renewable energies where currently little exists.
One thing that I found puzzling was the terms 'Saudi Arabia of renewables' or 'Holy Grail of renewables'. The plan is to build 1500MW of capacity by 2020 and possibility of 10,000MW, since tidal turbines only produce around a third of their capacity during service then I find the expectation a little higher than the reality of it, ie, it can only replace a third of a modern power station by 2020 and equilavent to 3 power stations at saturation. A modest contribution to the UK's targets but large enough to warrant a full upgrade to the grid from JoG to the south.
peter macdonald
08-Jun-08, 11:11
"It was before my time but wasn't cheap/free electricity one of the benefits of having Scottish Hydro and Dounreay on our doorstep?"
Hmm im old enough to have been promised cheap electricity from the experimental peat burning station at Braehour and that didnt happen either
Good post Rheghead
PM
Bill Fernie
08-Jun-08, 11:20
I'm all for green energy, especially anything that does away with our dependency on fossil fuels, however I really don't see it happening. In the report it says, "Nor will it be cheap; capital costs in the early demonstration phases will be relatively high, although partially balanced by free, everlasting, fuel".
It was before my time but wasn't cheap/free electricity one of the benefits of having Scottish Hydro and Dounreay on our doorstep? Apart from the green aspect, why should the public believe this time it will be different?
I think you are confusing free electricity that was talked about when I was at school with Bill Mowat's reference to free fuel. The fact that the power source is free is not the same as saying it will make free electricity. Undoubtedly due to the extremely high capital investment required this will be passed on to end users unless the government intervenes with a subsidy.
As we are now witnessing as all energy prices soar the high cost of marine energy is beginning to look much more attractive albeit that until serious investment and research begins we do not know the true cost. Can we sit back and not seriously look at the potential advantages either in the near future (say 10 - 15 years depending on the investment) and the distant future when the oil begins to run out (say 40 - 50 years) or it becomes prohibitively expensive (say twice the price it already is now).
We hear a lot of talk about marine energy but how far off is the prospect of real electricity in quantity coming ashore and can we speed it up if it really has potential. Should we do it no matter what the cost as a hedge against all other fuels sources outwith our control continuing to spiral upwards?
Once again we are looking to a source of energy which is intermittent. Just as wind factories are unreliable due to their reliance on wind so this form is governed by the tides. So a back up is needed. Why not just save all the millions or even billions that will be poured into developing this type of energy and use it on something which is reliable and established - nuclear power. They are probably going to have build new nuclear power stations anyway to supplement/replace the existing ones.
Let's stop messing around pretending we are green and put the money where it is going to be useful.
Is the population figure of 26,000 for Caithness correct? If so surely the existing wind factories can supply that and more? So why is the power being sent south with all its problems of transmission loss. Why is it not being used locally?
The only way you will get "large electricity users" is to improve the road and/or rail network north of Edinburgh. Traffic using the A9 at the moment has to endure the single/dual/single/dual/single carriageway games up to Inverness and then the much improved but still room for improvement roads north of that.
And does Caithness want to be turned into a huge industrial estate in order to justify the drive to cover it with wind factories or anothe form of "green" energy? Then you have the costs of transporting whatever your product is back south. Or are you going to ask for a container port ala Felixstowe to get the goods distributed? Then maybe an airport expansion to rival Heathrow for cargo flights. Opps then you have the global warming issues of increased air travel.
Vicious circle anyone?...
How far are you willing to go? When will you decide that enough is enough? When Caithness just looks like some dark satanic mill? You (Rheghead) asked in the Orkney flag thread how to attract visitors back into Caithness rather than just having the county as some transit point onto the glories of Orkney? I can assure you that building up Caithness as the place to bring big industry will not bring tourists - they will just close their eyes as they drive through.
I can assure you that building up Caithness as the place to bring big industry will not bring tourists - they will just close their eyes as they drive through.
As far as I know, Anglesey has the largest Aluminium smelters in the UK which if they relocated north would be ideally suited to the energy supplied by a Pentland Firth tidal scheme. They already regularly help with the balancing of the national grid by reducing their drain from the grid as and when the supply is low.
I can bet your bottom dollar that visitors are not put off by Anglesey's industrial landscape...
As for transport's contribution to global warming, that is a fair point that needs explanation of the way we intelligently use our energy resources. Aluminium smelting requires 250 gigajoules per tonne to produce, compare this to wood at less than 1 giga joules per tonne. No one would bat an eyelid at the environmental cost of transporting wood out of the county. But since aluminium is so energy hungry, it makes good environmental sense to produce it from a renewable energy source and use a modest amount of fossil fuels to transport it.
Can you prove that Anglesey has a higher level of tourism after the smelters were established? And, if this is what you are suggesting, why move an industry from one remote area to an even remoter area just to justify the building of yet more wind factories?
Caithness needs to build on the fact that it is one of the UK's last remaining wildernesses and attract the tourists that way. With the drive to build on anything green there will soon be hardly a single place in this country where you can get away from urbanisation. Caithness is too far north to be considered for a new town (with a population of 26,000 you could all live in one town!) so improved rail links might just attract the poor old townies up for a breath for fresh air and maybe encourage them to spend a few quid locally.
Can you prove that Anglesey has a higher level of tourism after the smelters were established? And, if this is what you are suggesting, why move an industry from one remote area to an even remoter area just to justify the building of yet more wind factories?
Unnecessary diversion from the debate about the renewable energy schemes.
Caithness needs to build on the fact that it is one of the UK's last remaining wildernesses and attract the tourists that way. With the drive to build on anything green there will soon be hardly a single place in this country where you can get away from urbanisation.
Wilderness? Which parts are wilderness? Not where windfarms are going anyway. But surely you are not proposing to send endless flocks of tourists into the wilderness. A good way to get rid of it imho.
I think you are confusing free electricity that was talked about when I was at school with Bill Mowat's reference to free fuel. The fact that the power source is free is not the same as saying it will make free electricity. Undoubtedly due to the extremely high capital investment required this will be passed on to end users unless the government intervenes with a subsidy.
As we are now witnessing as all energy prices soar the high cost of marine energy is beginning to look much more attractive albeit that until serious investment and research begins we do not know the true cost. Can we sit back and not seriously look at the potential advantages either in the near future (say 10 - 15 years depending on the investment) and the distant future when the oil begins to run out (say 40 - 50 years) or it becomes prohibitively expensive (say twice the price it already is now).
We hear a lot of talk about marine energy but how far off is the prospect of real electricity in quantity coming ashore and can we speed it up if it really has potential. Should we do it no matter what the cost as a hedge against all other fuels sources outwith our control continuing to spiral upwards?
Thanks for that Bill, I should have read it properly. :)
Oh well, the thought of free electricity was nice, yet another bubble burst.:~(
captain chaos
08-Jun-08, 12:14
One answer given in response to the question of a new nuclear build at Dounreay was that the National grid or "Super grid" does not come any further north that Torness on the east and Hunterston on the west both in the south of Scotland.
The 275Kv line we have from the south to Dounreay were "not suitable" for large i.e. more than 1000MW generators as the losses would be large over the distance involved.
If it’s not suitable, then how are we to get the power from the firth to the south...? Caithness already generates more electrical power (via wind) than it uses.
Sounds like its going to be used to heat the power lines between the north and south
I watched a programme recently about the UK atomic power industry and the switching on of one (Calder Hall by the Queen IIRC) in the 50's - a big point was made about how cheap the electricty was to produce, that they could give it away.
Maybe this is why there is an 'urban myth' about nuclear electric being cheap?
the second coming
08-Jun-08, 13:33
The ramblings go on..
Tidal, and wave to complete marine renewables is a long way off. Offshore wind is being developed at an extraordinary rate however the demand is not met with supply, with turbine lead time around 24 months for very large orders at best.
Marine has a large array of potential devices, very few are scaled to working size and even fewer have any amount of operating hours and experience behind them. At best the 15 year old technology of Wavegen and MCT are only know seeing grid connections with commercial implications. Of course with knowledge and experience, build time, manufacturing costs and O&M costs will reduce but this is all a long way off for the scale of development speculated to match the output required.
Then the grid infrastructure needs upgrading and that opens a whole new can of worms, DC sub sea or buried on land or AC HV overhead. Well seeing The Logan's in Perthshire dont worry about jobs income, or where their electricity comes from.
Anyway back to the plot, it was a good article, one thing will happen if we the consumer, developer, industry and public continue to debate and talk the talk rather than getting on with it is the same as what happened to the wind industry back in the 80's. UK was the leading developer. At that time government incentive wasnt there so it dwindled and was picked up by the Danes and the Dutch. Now they are world leaders (along with Germany, India, US) in that industry. Lost opportunity
The UK has Oil & Gas industry knowledge, offshore ability, electricity generation experience and an immense ability to create. It's just a bit stunted by lack of investment, incentive and too much talk.
I reckon Nuclear is going to be developed in the southern UK, by overseas companies, technology and finance, but its a long way off with its own string of issues. One thing is for sure, Scotland has traditionally been an exporter of electricity, Nuclear generated electricity will only be sent up the lines to the demand centres.
This county could really pick up a lot of opportunity here.
the second coming
08-Jun-08, 13:39
I watched a programme recently about the UK atomic power industry and the switching on of one (Calder Hall by the Queen IIRC) in the 50's - a big point was made about how cheap the electricty was to produce, that they could give it away.
Maybe this is why there is an 'urban myth' about nuclear electric being cheap?
I was of the understanding that the true cost of Nuclear hadn't, or couldn't be calculated due to the unkown costs of commissioning, please correct me or let me know what the development through to decommissioning costs are?
Also the standard £/MWh figure was always unrealistically low due to must take contracts and the B.E share issues seen in the 90's.
It's difficult to compare apples and pairs of generation, but it would be nice to see list of costs that have had market or government incentives removed.
A handy link for anyone who wants to know more.
http://www.tocardo.com/?Projects:Master_Plan_P.Firth:Pre-Feasibility
The "free electricity" aspect was in the old news reels - obviously wasn't ever going to be free.
peter macdonald
08-Jun-08, 14:35
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/29/nuclearpower.finland
The secord coming .this gives some figures
Was there not a programme on Eorpa about this??
One of things mentioned here is the generation time lost when the tide is about to turn (slack water) well it doesnt happen at the same time in the Pentland Firth so depending on type/how many devices are used then this could be kept to a minimum I would think
Only an idea and no further comment as I dont know enough about it
PM
the second coming
08-Jun-08, 15:06
A handy link for anyone who wants to know more.
http://www.tocardo.com/?Projects:Master_Plan_P.Firth:Pre-Feasibility
Sorry Rheghead, have read it, to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Sorry Rheghead, have read it, to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Why do you take it with a pinch of salt? Presumably you have some credentials to say why?:confused
How will all this electricity be transmitted to those industrial centres where it can be used? Will there be a cable on seabed or pylons across the land?
I really hope this plan will work. But I can also see the rewards flowing out of the area along with the electricity. Where is the vision to develop the infrastructure and supply base in Caithness? Aberdeen is already positioning itself to service this proposal.
the second coming
08-Jun-08, 19:51
Why do you take it with a pinch of salt? Presumably you have some credentials to say why?:confused
Why should credentials matter, you either take what I say or don't. Qualification, experience and contacts count for nothing when you're a faceless, nameless entity on this site.
My belief is that although the Tocardo report is well written and covers the good technical aspect of most of the issues facing marine development, however, the developers lean to heavily on algorithm and software derived resource (desktop) studies, taking little account for proximity to coastline, local anomalies, grid connection practicalities and little local knowledge which I believe is one of Mr Mowat's points. Furthermore, emphasis is put on obtaining or locating at the strongest tidal streams which in a number of cases, particularly in this one, also mean high turbulent flows, rather than using lesser flow rate, more laminar, higher efficient areas, suiting the hydrodynamic requirements of the majority of tidal devices, and also allowing a roll out to sites not dependent on the highest of tidal flows, a facet fairly unique to the Pentland Firth and Orkney archipelago.
I have or do liaise with most of the parties involved in the above report in one context or the other and it is off a professional interest that I do so.
As I stated, I do hope that some or more devices make it into the mainstream electricity generation industry. There is some work to be done but lessons are being learnt and a lot of talk is being talked. We need measured, proactive development and a mixture of generating technologies, large scale base load plant, renewable technologies, flexible peak reactive/responsive plant and less of the eggs in one basket, one fix for all mentality that exists. I know I’m preaching to the converted here but some of the statements made on this site beggar belief.
I'll read Bill Mowat's article again but I got the impression that he was emphasising that local knowledge would provide sources of eddies and other tidal anomalies which would mitigate the slack tide effect. I think he may have a point but I still think that the more efficient tidal areas are of greater importance. Interestingly, Mowat's article claims 10GW capacity whereas the Tocado prefeasibility report mentions a probability of capacity being available depending on local factors of 2GW-8GW, a 20% reduction at best, 80% at worst. This does seem more realistic to me. Considering the load factors of tidal turbines, we shouldn't get all our hopes raised too much. I take your point about 'desktop' studies but I can't get around the notion that locals with more experience in sheep rearing would necessarily deem that the Pentland Firth proposals are a non-starter.
I much prefer lurking nowadays but felt I had to come out of hiding on this one.
For what it's worth (from not a sheep shearer but a wool roller) I think tidal energy has to be investigated. Whether it can deliver what's needed - time and bucket loads of money will tell. If successful, sub sea cables can cart the electricity south to where it's required.
I read all about aluminium smelters in the far north while browsing through the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy - thought it was bonkers then and still do. If huge filthy carbon emitting industries are required to support renewable energy generation (main aim being to reduce carbon emissions) may I suggest it might be an idea to swiftly return to the drawing board.
Only last week E.ON issued another warning about the increase in backup required from fossil fuel plants if the UK were to achieve their renewable energy target of 15% by 2020.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/04/energy.renewableenergy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/04/energy.renewableenergy)
I also read recently that the 2 GW of installed wind energy has reduced our carbon emissions from electricity generation - not a jot.
And sadly, as yet there are no figures/statistics stating the actual displacement of fossil fuel generation by wind power. This is still a closely guarded secret.
Maybe the 'drawing board' needs rediscovering?
I have to say I agree with you (Rheghead) - I got a bit lost when he referred to 'local knowledge' - seemed to dilute the point he was making. Or maybe that was just me.
Maybe it is based on "if you throw a sheep into the Firth it will...blah blah blah"?
Would this knowledge be preferable to scientific knowledge based on measurements or observations?
Tide power is obviously worthy of investigation as it is more reliable to wind power (as long as we have the Moon...)
That link was quite interesting. Golby states he wants to take on the 'single' issue objectors by asking what they will say yes to, namely anti-coal and anti-nuke objectors. I noticed he didn't widen the subject matter to anti wind etc considering that he should appreciate that we need to reduce our carbon emissions.
Strangely enough, we have reduced our energy consumption last year, presumably carbon emissions as well. But the reason is due to climate change rather than any intrusion of the renewable energy sector. Rather a daft self limiting paradox, if you ask me.
There is a project that has been put forward ,which will produce 200-600mw constant its called "Tidal differential".
The funding is hard to come by and the groups set up to encourage such ideas dont have the expertise or background in engineering to understand what is needed .Yet again its the wrong people in the wrong jobs.
This technolgy will no doubt go overseas as it can be used in 40 sites across Europe..Scotland has 6 sites alone..These funders are to slow to come forward with research funding ,they would rather sit on their hands until someone else gets the ball rolling .Well this time their "i'm alright jack attitude" will see the country lose out in a big way yet again ..
(as long as we have the Moon...)
As an aside, the energy taken from tidal etc isn't actually renewable, it actually comes from the Earth-moon orbital system. I read somewhere that if we extract all our global energy from the tidal system then the effect would be that the moon would crash into the Earth in 65 million years.:eek:
Considering that the Earth is 4500 million years old, 65 million yrs is just a fraction of the Earth's life, therefore tidal energy is the ultimate Global disaster!!:D
the second coming
08-Jun-08, 22:40
Granted, studies have to start somewhere. My point, perhaps not clearly made, is that the majority of studies have not been derived from actual surveyed data. It has generally been taken from admiralty, satellite and other fairly large vector sources.
I think the assumption that locals do not have a valid input is somewhat patronising and when using the Firth I've learnt more from local mariners than from any chart or document.
Tocardo have an excellent attitude in that they are now using local knowledge to reinforce or remove specific areas within the proposed sites.
This was not reinforced by the report, either by timing or by deliberate content. You guys carry on talking, it's what you do best.
George Brims
09-Jun-08, 05:37
As far as I know, Anglesey has the largest Aluminium smelters in the UK which if they relocated north would be ideally suited to the energy supplied by a Pentland Firth tidal scheme.
Many fishermen are of the opinion that the aluminium smelter at Invergordon (remember it?) was responsible for destroying a lot of the fishing grounds in the Moray Firth, via dumping of residues at sea. A proposal for a new one might meet with some stern resistance.
George Brims
09-Jun-08, 05:41
I watched a programme recently about the UK atomic power industry and the switching on of one (Calder Hall by the Queen IIRC) in the 50's - a big point was made about how cheap the electricty was to produce, that they could give it away.
Maybe this is why there is an 'urban myth' about nuclear electric being cheap?
Day to day running costs for nuclear energy are relatively cheap. It' s the capital costs at startup, and the cleanup costs at the end that mess up the whole thing.
BTW Calder Hall wasn't really built for electricity generation at all. It was supposed to produce plutonium for weapons. Thus the statement (sorry I don't have an attribution) that "Electricity is a by-product of the bomb industry".
Many fishermen are of the opinion that the aluminium smelter at Invergordon (remember it?) was responsible for destroying a lot of the fishing grounds in the Moray Firth, via dumping of residues at sea. A proposal for a new one might meet with some stern resistance.
They'll blame anyone but themselves.:)
Day to day running costs for nuclear energy are relatively cheap. It' s the capital costs at startup, and the cleanup costs at the end that mess up the whole thing.
From my memory the cost to clean up the existing nuclear waste that we have stored will be ~£70 billion for a return of ~18% intrusion into the UK energy sector. For a similiar return for renewable energy, the Renewable Obligation is expected to cost £30 billion. I know what sounds like the better deal to me. In anycase, the nuclear waste has to be dealt with eventually and the power companies will pass on that cost to the consumer in the form higher fuel bills. We just haven't got any strategy to deal with it all and yet Gordon Brown is wanting more ambitious plans for nuclear. Sheer madness.
tinairving
09-Jun-08, 11:10
EMEC have proved that marine energy can be commercial - let Caithness take advantage of this opportunity and stimulate the economy - sustainable tourism via renewable energy is the only way forward for Caithness, and probably Orkney as well. The Orcadians have it sussed....
George Brims
09-Jun-08, 17:49
They'll blame anyone but themselves.:)
Well they wouldn't be the first people to breach the invocation that only those truly free of sin should cast stones.
From my memory the cost to clean up the existing nuclear waste that we have stored will be ~£70 billion for a return of ~18% intrusion into the UK energy sector. For a similiar return for renewable energy, the Renewable Obligation is expected to cost £30 billion. I know what sounds like the better deal to me. In anycase, the nuclear waste has to be dealt with eventually and the power companies will pass on that cost to the consumer in the form higher fuel bills. We just haven't got any strategy to deal with it all and yet Gordon Brown is wanting more ambitious plans for nuclear. Sheer madness.
You make a good point. But I Wonder if we would have by now developed some better technologies and some better strategies for dealing with waste if the whole business wasn't being run on such a stop-start basis? From the 50s up to the 70s it was full steam ahead on nuclear, 70s through 80s sort of waffly and uncommitted, lately a dead halt, now they want to start up again.
Meanwhile even the oil-addicted US is looking at new nuclear plants. Of course the US has the advantage of having Nevada under which to bury the waste. Heaven knows it's of little use for anything else.
ywindythesecond
10-Jun-08, 00:22
EMEC have proved that marine energy can be commercial - let Caithness take advantage of this opportunity and stimulate the economy - sustainable tourism via renewable energy is the only way forward for Caithness, and probably Orkney as well. The Orcadians have it sussed....
Can you please explain what you mean by:
EMEC have proved that marine energy can be commercial - let Caithness take advantage of this opportunity and stimulate the economy
sustainable tourism via renewable energy is the only way forward for Caithness,
and probably Orkney as well. The Orcadians have it sussed.
You make a good point. But I Wonder if we would have by now developed some better technologies and some better strategies for dealing with waste if the whole business wasn't being run on such a stop-start basis?
You also touched on a good point, the stop-start basis seems to me to be a fault of the political system that we are faced with. No administration seems willing to make a strong decision to marry up with a council region with dealing with the waste for fear of a democratic backlash. In the end, no decision gets made which is actually the worst outcome. It is the same with windfarm applications, the councillors know full well about the national need for renewable energy sources and the need for jobs etc and yet they are forced to play the public ratings game to keep their place on the council. I'm sure Councillor Flear touched on that subject in that councillors are now incapable of making strong decisions anymore for this sort of reason, whether or not he was referring to windfarm planning applications specifically is irrelevent.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.