Scotland is generating so much wind energy, it could power all of its homes -- twice over

[jpak]

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/scotland-wind-energy

Scotland's wind turbines have generated enough electricity this year to power all of its homes twice over, according to Weather Energy.

In the first half of 2019, Scotland's wind turbines produced more than 9.8 million megawatt-hours of electricity, which is about enough to power 4.47 million homes. There are 2.46 million homes in Scotland.

"These are amazing figures, Scotland's wind energy revolution is clearly continuing to power ahead," said Robin Parker, World Wildlife Fund Scotland's Climate and Energy Policy Manager. "Up and down the country, we are all benefitting from cleaner energy and so is the climate."

Scotland is a global leader in renewable energies. The nation already generates more than half of its electricity consumption from renewables – mostly wind, wave, and tide – and it aims to become almost "completely decarbonized" by 2050. (A nation's renewable energy consumption, by the way, can differ from its renewable energy generation because countries generally import and export energy.)

<more>

[brush]

1. Wow. We should have study groups over there to learn from them.

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2019, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Our oil company toadies in Congress and the administration will do everything to keep us pumping and burning oil and fucking up the atmosphere and planet—just keep those campaign dollars flowing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. The right is pushing hard against wind..passing

fake info to low-infos. My wingnut MIL said the other day if people add windmills their prop value goes down 50%. Not accident Dipshit said they cause cancer.

[rurallib]

9. never thought of that

seems like every idiotic thing he says has some deep purpose.

[brush]

15. God! Isn't it amazing how some dummies will buy everything wing nuts put out.

We need to take advantage of wind, solar and other alternate energy sources that are out there. I live in Las Vegas now and everyone of course knows that solar is the obvious green energy source here but unless you live here or have spent extended times here you don't know that Vegas has a lot of wind.

In fact I've thought about putting in a backyard windmill to save on energy. My point being that we should take advantage of all the nature energy sources available instead of letting them go to waste. I should also mention there is geothermal energy here that can be harnessed.

Glaciers are melting, the poles are warming like crazy so we can't listen to repug windbags (pun intended) gaslighting us about windmills lowering property values.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. Health concerns? None proven..but Interesting "nocebo effect"

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/can-wind-turbines-make-you-sick/

With no proven biological basis for the reported symptoms, some have pointed to the “nocebo effect” as the cause of the complaints. The nocebo effect is akin to the placebo effect, where an individual’s positive perception towards a drug or treatment produces positive results, except in the nocebo effect, it’s negative attitudes and negative results.

The idea that a nocebo effect may be driving people’s reported problems is backed up by a 2014 study that pointed out that health complaints are more common in areas with the most negative publicity about the alleged harmful effects of turbines. A large-scale population survey in the Netherlands found that reports of stress and sleep disturbance were more common in areas where the turbines were visible.

For those living in the shadows of the wind turbines, there is little debate that the turbines have damaged their previously bucolic way of life. Annette Smith, the head of the group Vermonters for a Clean Environment and a long-time critic of industrial wind projects, said the projects have “destroyed the community.”

[brush]

19. "Nocebo effect", love it. Thanks for that. One learns something new everyday on DU.

[Finishline42]

20. "destroyed the community."

“destroyed the community.” They also provided construction jobs and pay property tax every year they operate.

Their community, if destroyed, is still in better shape that the area around the coal fired power plant that most of Annette's power probably came from.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. Can't be too hard on them until you are in their shoes imho

I totally can see how people yearn for landscape untouched.

[Finishline42]

23. absolutely

But to say that a windfarm destroyed the community is a bit much.

A new 4 lane highway would be much more destructive to the landscape.

[msongs]

3. an independent scotland, free of the brexit crowd, can make a fortune selling its power nt

[FBaggins]

13. Not at all. In fact, likely just the opposite

Electricity is most valuable when someone else needs it and you can provide it... and least valuable when you have an excess and they don't happen to need it at that moment. Scotland is one of (if not THE) best places in the world for wind energy... yet there are still plenty of times when the wind isn't blowing. If you can't guarantee to deliver electricity when and where it is demanded... you can't charge as much. One reason that it works now is that the UK is obligated to buy all of what they produce... but that would change with an independent Scotland.

Take Germany as an example. They frequently have an excess of wind power. Sometimes they're lucky and a neighbor can use it... but just as often they have to give it away or (get this) actually pay other countries to take it off their hands. Just as damaging, when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining they often have to pay overly-high prices to them import power from those neighbors. There are companies that are "making a fortune" by "buying" German electricity (at negative prices) and storing it... and then selling it back to them at dear prices when Germany needs it. They make money in both directions.

It works for Scotland now because they're part of the UK and the UK built most of their wind power in Scotland (again - some of the best locations in the world) and the whole country shares the costs of the incentives. It isn't a big deal.

But as an independent country? That goes away. They would get comparatively little pay for most of the times when they had a surplus... and pay comparatively dear prices when they had a shortfall and needed to import.

[brush]

16. Even more incentive to develop efficient storage batteries.

Systems are getting better and better. Tesla is even working on household storage systems and I'm sure others in the world are as well. It's a solvable problem.

[FBaggins]

17. Yes... but chemical batteries are unlikely to be the solution

My guess is that pumped hydro storage fits the geography better.

That's still challenging for an independent Scotland that can't spread the capital costs across the entire UK.

[Finishline42]

24. but chemical batteries are unlikely to be the solution

but chemical batteries are unlikely to be the solution

Based on what info? Cost is coming down and they are being deployed in ever increasing numbers. I expect we will see the normal 'economies of scale' come into play. The more we use them, the cheaper they become, the more innovation we will see.

It's easy to think of using batteries for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine but their value goes beyond that. Batteries respond to surge demand quicker and cheaper than a stand by coal or gas power plant.

IMO, we will see a lot of innovation in batteries and as a result many different solutions - just like flat screen TV's. How many of the early flat screens are still in use?

And you are correct, pumped hydro fits very well in Scotland. They claim to have the first such power station. Found this on Wiki >>>

Hydroelectricity relies on gravity to propel water through power-generating turbines. The difference in height between the turbine and the water source is known as the "head". Scotland has two pumped-storage hydro-electric power stations, which pump water back up to a storage reservoir during periods of off-peak demand. Drax Group PLC's Cruachan Power Station was the first such station in the world when it opened in 1965.[5] It can hold 7 gigawatt-hours (25 TJ) of energy,[6] equivalent to 22 hours of full production. 12 hours is reserved for black start.[7]

SSE have proposed building two new pumped storage schemes in the Great Glen; 600 MW at Balmacaan above Loch Ness,[12] and 600 MW at Coire Glas above Loch Lochy, at £800m.[13][14][15] Scotland has a potential for around 500 GWh of pumped storage.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Scotland

[FBaggins]

25. Chemical batteries don't offer the scale to back up national grids for extended periods

Cost is coming down and they are being deployed in ever increasing numbers.I expect we will see the normal 'economies of scale' come into play.

There's a limit to cost savings once the largest portion of cost is for the chemicals themselves.

It's easy to think of using batteries for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine but their value goes beyond that. Batteries respond to surge demand quicker and cheaper than a stand by coal or gas power plant.

Actually... you have it exactly backwards. Their primary value comes in very short term (often mere seconds) balancing for grid stability. They're far too expensive to serve as actual backup generation replacement at a grid level.

Don't get me wrong. For something like backing up a home solar array, they can be incredibly useful. But not for backing up electricity supply for 5.5 million Scots. For years, the world's largest battery array backed up Fairbanks Alaska. IIRC, it took ~15,000 150-lb Ni-Cd batteries and it could serve their 30k residents for about 10-15 minutes (about 7 MWH). That's great for "keep the heaters going while the backup generators get started"... but it certainly can't replace the backup generators themselves. It just keeps them from having to stay spinning 24/7.

The new largest (that I've seen) battery array is indeed a Tesla project in Australia that is associated with the Hornsdale Wind Farm (315 MW capacity). This football-field-sized array stores an incredible ~100MWH in Li-ion cells. Part of it's value is in grid services... and part is in load-shifting... but it doesn't really provide any grid-level backup storage "in case the wind isn't blowing tomorrow". It wouldn't even effectively back up the generation of the wind plant that it's associated with. 20 minutes of peak generation?

There's simply no comparison with pumped storage options. If you want to double the amount of storage, you just have a larger lake... the generator piece is the same. You don't need to double the amount of chemical batteries. And that's before you have to talk about the lifespan of chemical batteries (and their disposal) compared to a lake.

Then note the scale. 500 GWh of potential storage would be the equivalent of 5,000 of those football-field-sized battery arrays.

On edit - Not only is the topography of Scotland ideal for pumped-storage options... the weather is too. Parts of the highlands average ten feet of rain per year. That effectively "charges" the "battery" that is the upper reservoir.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. Very interesting! Thanks for that input.

[lapfog_1]

26. pump water uphill

simple energy storage... not that efficient perhaps... but better than giving away the excess energy.

[Finishline42]

27. You bring up some good points

Currently there are only transmission lines from Scotland to England and N Ireland which supports your point about the problem of an independent Scotland. They would have to build a connection to the EU, which the EU would probably support given the politics of a Brexit.

There is talk of a wind power hub in the North Sea that would be used a distribution point. That might be the easiest way to connect to the EU.

[FBaggins]

28. Transmission to additional potential customers could certainly help

... though it would be incredibly expensive.

But it doesn't change the fundamental weakness of overproducing wind energy. You aren't a producer that customers can contract with because you can't deliver on demand. You have excess power (on no particular schedule) that you have to "dump" or shut down. The price for such a product is rarely very attractive for the producer.

Then you have the flip side of the coin. If too much of your mix is coming from the wind (and you don't have significant storage), now you're a consumer when the wind stops blowing and you need supply to keep the lights on. Again... when you can't say when and where you'll need the supply... the price you pay can get very painful.

The Hornsdal Power Reserve in Australia that I mentioned in #25 above once received $14,000 AUD per MWh (hundreds of times what a grid operator normally pays) because they had supply when it was needed. They reportedly made a million dollars (Australian) is about two days.

[Finishline42]

29. Certainly not cheap to connect to the EU grid from Scotland

But the cost is amortized over decades so I would expect it would be built.

While true England might not purchase Scottish wind power, but why wouldn't they other than pride? Wind power is among the cheapest power available when the wind blows.

If Hornsdal Power Reserve received a market price for power then they just took it from what a coal fired plant had been getting for years. That's the part where batteries come into play and why so many utilities are buying them. They deal with the surges in demand much quicker that a coal fired plant that is on standby - with their boilers fired up and just waiting to generate the steam needed to spin the turbines to produce electricity which takes minutes. Batteries do it in milliseconds.

And as you said they are good for load shifting - for instance working with solar. Solar is a natural fit for power generation because it's the sun that drives the demand - mainly AC. But as the sun sets, production declines but demand remains for hours. Batteries help to reduce the need to purchase power from peaker plants.

[cp]

4. Good for Scotland!

Go Alba!

[NurseJackie]

5. Supposedly wind turbines slow the earth's rotation...

... and kills birds.

[Grokenstein]

7. Don't forget!

"Windmills" cause teh cancer! They're worse than those damn trees!

[NurseJackie]

10. Oh my god!

Trees cause pollution.

[FBaggins]

14. They probably do both

But neither to an extent that they aren't worth it.

[salin]

6. Reminded me of Trump's waging legal war to prevent these from

being built.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-47400641

From the article:

Mr Trump battled unsuccessfully in the courts to halt the project before he became US president.

A total of 11 turbines make up the development off Aberdeen.

Judges have now ruled Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd should pay the legal bills incurred.

Great business man - Not.

[bullwinkle428]

8. And the cancer rates are exploding...right, Chumpy?

[Sienna86]

11. This is wonderful

Inspiring to hear how well renewable energy is doing.

[richdj25]

12. Sounds suspicious.

Must be socialism. /s