Potential Pentland Firth Electricity by Bill Mowat

[the second coming]

Why do you take it with a pinch of salt? Presumably you have some credentials to say why?

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.

[Rheghead]

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.

[KittyMay]

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

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?

[MadPict]

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...)

[Rheghead]

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.

[dozy]

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 ..

[Rheghead]

(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.

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!!

[the second coming]

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]

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]

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".

[Rheghead]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Rheghead]

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.