Talk:Renewable energy in Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Renewable energy in Scotland is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 8, 2007, and in the Did you know? column on February 21, 2007.

Contents

[edit] Notes on creation of page

As Monbiot (2006) points out, a major problem with this subject matter is that apparently prestigious sources regularly provide well-researched information that blatantly contradicts the findings of similar organisations. Some for example, believe that tidal power's contribution to energy production is likely to be trivial.

I have attempted to provide as coherent a picture as possible in the circumstances by, for example, sticking mostly to predictions of maximum output in GW. Using energy productions in TWh might be more useful in some ways but would tend to obscure the underlying assumptions unless every reference included a measure for maximum output, capacity factor and assumed production, which might prove cumbersome.

There seems little doubt that the subject matter will continue to attract public attention for some years to come, and best guesses and assumptions will be replaced with something more akin to hard facts. I can only hope that future editors will attempt to maintain the coherence of the article rather than simply alter numbers using a variety of different measures as new publications come to light. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Interesting article. There were some clear problems and slight naivity with the biogas section which I have expanded. A waste-to-energy plant in this contect is an incinerator. It still produces CO2 through the combustion of the biological material. In addition to this it combusts plastic (originating from fossil fuels). Recent EU reports (Working Group on Waste Prevention and Recycling ENV/EPOC/WGWPR(2005)4/FINAL 02.02.07) have highlighted an incineration facility has a similar carbon footprint to leaving biological waste to degrade in landfill, once the overall carbon costs of construction have been taken into consideration.

The facility on Lerwick is better than most on some counts as it recovers heat for a district heating scheme, off setting other energy costs, however the bigger picture must be considered.Alex 15:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renewables?

Congratulations to Ben and others on the high quality of this article. However, I've never seen Carbon sequestration, "Clean coal" technology, and Nuclear fusion discussed in a renewables article before. They just don't seem to fit in and I believe that this discussion should be removed. Including material which is outside the scope of the title is not a neutral thing to do. -- Johnfos 01:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that its a tricky issue, but on balance I think they should stay. Nuclear has to be mentioned as a case is made for fission's status as renewable, even if it is a weak one. Fusion has, in my view a much better claim to this status, and should surely then be mentioned, but there is nowhere offering a specifically Scottish perspective to point to as an alternative place to find information. Because so much of the debate is now couched in terms of 'renewables + climate change & carbon emissions' and because there are interesting things going on in Scotland in relation to carbon sequestration, and "clean coal," again it seems to me helpfully comprehensive to mention them. There isn't an 'Energy in Scotland' page to move them to. However I take your point and will create a revised set of headings that will hopefully address the issue more clearly. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
PS Incidentally I note that Bord na Mona in Ireland managed to get peat classified as a renewable!
It seems that this is quite common. Lurker (said · done) 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. Johnfos - this is precisely the sort of issue that is clouding the renewables debate in Scotland.Ireland/Europe. I will however restrain myself from adding 'peat' to the list of non-renewables in the article. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Now attempted. Another issue is that carbon sequestration is (or perhaps was now that Alistair Darling has made such a mess of the process involved) a crucial aspect of the hydrogen plant proposed for Peterhead, so it has to be included and explained somewhere. Thanks for raising this so timeously - I was on the brink of offering the article up for FA status - it would be good to get this sorted first. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I find myself agreeing with most of what you've said above, and think the inclusion of the "Non-renewables" heading will help readers quite a bit. Nuclear fusion is one point where we probably have different views, and I will try to collect my thoughts and write something here tomorrow on that. Otherwise, I may just try to improve the wording a little in a few places, for clarification. Would like to offer every support in your bid for FA status. -- Johnfos 10:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's great - thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Peat

I'm interested why 'peat as renewable' is mentioned with surprise above and not at all in the live page ? With a view to not-that-distant history, I would certainly have thought it deserved a mention : The Highlands & Islands were largely peat-powered until a century ago ! I would regard it as notable that an experimental peat-fired power-station used to exist in Caithness circa 1970 ! I remember the old building being pointed out to me, but can't remember exactly where. I understand it was never very successful, due to being a 'dirty' fuel - soot & tar built up in or around the boiler tubes. I don't know where one would find info - does Dounreay still have a visitor centre ? Thurso Library ? Best of luck to the Irish : are they farming peat intensively ? I think Caithness & Sutherland's peat bogs are very much Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Peat#In_Finland has interesting mentions of commercial exploitation. I think other forms of Biomass are regarded as renewable : the distinction between renewables and fossil fuel is just the rate of renewal - maybe one has to draw the line if the Energy crop takes more than a year to re-grow ? 195.137.93.171 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am interested to hear about the peat-fired power-station in Caithness. However, although I believe there is a good case for encouraging the traditional small-scale use of peat, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories do not classify peat as biofuel and treat it as fossil carbon. See International Mire Conservation Group. I therefore can't think of a reason to include it in the article except to say that it isn't renewable (except, apparently, in Ireland). Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A little Googling pin-pointed the peat-fired power-station in Caithness to Braehour Farm, 1 mile south of Scotscalder Station. It was set up in 1954 by the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board and closed in 1960, but immortalised in poetry ! Peats- But No Power! --195.137.93.171 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well found! I have added it to List of power stations in Scotland. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fusion power

This is the one remaining area, of those recently mentioned, where some further discussion here may be helpful.

The comment regarding fusion power, that "commercial applications are still twenty years or more away[82]", surprised me as it is the most optimistic assessment I've ever seen, and the reference cited didn't seem to mention this.

This is what the Fusion power article says:

A fusion reactor will heat plasma to temperatures which are ten times those in the core of the sun. Harnessing such extremes in an engineered "bottle" will take many decades, and ultimately may not be practical. An editorial in New Scientist magazine explained that "if commercial fusion is viable, it may well be a century away."[1]

On this basis to be talking about whether fusion power is renewable, etc., is entirely hypothetical and mere speculation, and so the article would probably benefit if the fusion paragraph was removed. -- Johnfos 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK - I understand what your saying and I'll look into it further asap - hopefully this week! Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference quoted in the footnote states "Thermonuclear fusion also bodes well for the future and could take over the reins from some existing energy sources towards the middle of the century" on this subpage. Realistically this suggests that "commercial applications are still thirty years or more away" although clearly all these dates are just speculation. The other sources I looked at are all in the 40-100 year range. Given that there are proponents of the idea that fission is renewable, I still think its useful to mention the fusion option and it's possibly renewable designation, although I'll amend the text to state "commercial applications are still distant." Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you didn't want to reference the New Scientist article; it's quite a reputable, third-party, source. In terms of what has been said there is just too much speculation:

Unlike existing nuclear fission technology, fusion power offers the potential for signficant power production without the dangers inherent in fission plants.
Conceivably a fusion plant could be considered 'renewable' as the hydrogen fuel source is vast.
... commercial applications are still distant.[2]

The main point which is omitted in the above sentences is that we don't know whether fusion power is going to work or not. It is simply too early to tell. And this is why discussion of fusion as a commercial power source should not be included in this article. So I'm removing it. -- Johnfos 22:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to make an issue out of it. I think there is case for mentioning the subject in the context of renewable energy, if only because it gets such huge sums of money thrown at it. It's certainly unlikely to be directly relevant in the Scottish context for the foreseebale future. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


IMO I believe that Ben was perfectly right to include mention of fusion as a renewable energy particularly as the ITER project will soon enter the construction phase in France. This 500MW fusion facility will bring the commercialisation of the technology that much closer to the 20-30 year mark. As to the argument on its claim to being a renewable energy source may I remind the nay sayers that that most renewable sources owe their driving force to the output of our Sun i.e. they are all powered by nuclear fusion.Peter-Paul O 13:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding off-topic tag

It's clear that a lot of good work has gone into this article, but there are two related problems. Firstly, the article talks too much about non-renewables such as carbon sequestration, clean coal, and nuclear power. These are clearly off the topic of the article. Secondly, the article is not comprehensive in its discussion of renewables. There is just so much more that could be said about the actual deployment of technologies such as hydroelectricity and wind power in particular. I couldn't find the answer to basic questions such as: What are the ten largest hydro installations in Scotland, in terms of installed capacity? What are the ten largest wind farms in Scotland?

In terms of other renewable energy articles which are GAs, Renewable energy in Iceland, Renewable energy commercialization and Renewable energy commercialization in Australia, there are none which discuss carbon sequestration, clean coal, and nuclear power. And the world's single most authoritative source on the matter, the International Energy Agency, does not classify these as renewable.[3][4] There is a skewed emphasis in this article, and so much that could be said about what is happening with renewables in Scotland just isn't being said.

I can't believe that there is only one paragraph on hydro. The carbon sequestration section is longer than the hydro section. How can this possibly make sense? -- Johnfos 08:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Well first of all, you are absolutely right about the short section on Hydro. It remains the second largest producer. Its contemporary visibility is very low as the growth potential is extremely limited but that is no excuse. More now added. It seems surprising there is not an article on the topic, but so it goes.
Arguably the sequestration sub-section does go on a bit and I have removed part of it that simply provides more data. I don’t know the Icelandic scene at all well, although they and Governor Schwarzenegger seem to be leading the field in hydrogen promotion. I imagine their article does not mention sequestration because the have no oil fields and therefore no-one is seriously talking about the road to renewables being paved via this method. (Likewise Australia?) Let me be quite clear, I am not either attempting to argue that it is renewable, or that it is desirable. I am however making the point (apparently not very well) that the issue already is, and is likely to continue to be a major factor in the ongoing and very high profile debate that is happening in Scotland. I am more than happy to continue to dialogue about its tenor, size, focus etc. but in an environment where there is intense competition for political and commercial support for technologies which address climate change, and which in the public’s mind tend to be lumped together, I can’t imagine an article that failed to mention the subject at all making any sense.
With nuclear, all I have done is make the point that it is not a renewable fuel, although some try to argue that it is. I don’t think that is ‘off-topic’.
With clean coal, again this is a huge issue that surely needs mentioning. Possibly because to the best of my knowledge there is no article about the Scottish response to climate change generally it goes on a bit, (a la sequestration) and again I have cut it back.
Perhaps this dialogue is question of our starting points - you may be looking at it from the point of view of someone who is deeply concerned about renewable energy and don't want the issue muddied by extraneous information. That's fair enough, but I am also trying to look at it from the point of view of someone interested in Scotland, who wants to know what the renewable scene is all about, not just in its purest sense, but in its specific political and commercial context.
Finally, in a more general response to the above I have renamed the section headers to make the ‘challenges and opportunities’ issue that these and other technologies offer to renewables more explicit. 'May all beings be happy'. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC) PS have you wiki-visited Samye Ling? Must get round to improving it (the article I mean) one day.

Many thanks, MacDui, for those changes. The issue is resolved now as far as I am concerned and I hope you get FA... In terms of where I am coming from, I simply wanted to make sure that basic information should be included and more speculative info not given undue weight. And thanks for mentioning Samye Ling. regards, Johnfos 04:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete citations

The citations are incomplete on this article; pls see WP:WIAFA regarding consistent formatting of footnotes, and examples here. All sources need a publisher, websources need a last accessdate, and sources need a date and author where given.

In process.

Also, there should not be an imbedded link in References (Scottish Renewables Forum. Market and Planning Report (various).[12] Pls repair;

Done.

I'll check back in at a later date, but would not want to have to make these repairs myself before any possible main page appearance. Also, per WP:LAYOUT, portals belong in See also; I moved them.

Done.

Pls see WP:MOS#Quotations; "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more is named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote."

Done. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry no one seems to have reviewed for MOS issues at FAC, but these things should be attended to quickly so a cleanup tag isn't needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, Ben; it's too bad no one pointed these out during FAC. Good luck on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraphs

My preference would be to remove at least most of the citations and use the lead as a summary of what is in the article, and as such have the citations appear later in the article where each topic is addressed. 199.125.109.77 07:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The first line "The production of renewable energy in Scotland is an issue that has come to the fore [my italics] in technical, economic and political terms during the opening years of the 21st century" seems problematic as an introduction to the whole topic. It implies that renewable energy in Scotland did not receive high levels of attention (in technical, economic and political terms) in the 20th century - that is to say that it was in the background. The history of HEP alone would make me doubt this. Greenshed 09:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue was not 'to the fore' for most of the twentieth century. A conference on the subject in the early eighties lamented the fact that the government spent more on military brass bands than on research into renewables - and this in the aftermath of the oil crisis of the seventies. Ten years later wind turbine proposals were regarded as eccentric. The mid to late nineties was the beginning of serious investment (outside of hydro, which was a fairly brief and localised phenomenon from a construction perspective). Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fit

This is a fascinating and impressive article, but how does it fit into the Wikipedia project? Does Ben MacDui envisage a series of articles on Renewable energy in England, Renewable energy in Russia, Renewable energy in Thailand &c? If not, are the title and focus right? Deipnosophista 11:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • First a point of information: Renewable energy in Iceland is a Good Article, as is Renewable energy commercialization in Australia. Second, I am not sure I understand your complaint. Just because an editor or group of editors gets an article to featured status does not obligate them to write every other possible article on a topic. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Why not? "topic in place" style articles can be encyclopedic and cover information of historic importance. Slavery in the United States, Education in France, Transportation in India etc. (I just guessed all those titles, and indeed the articles existed) If you look at a lot of specialized print encyclopedias, such as an encyclopedia about a specific country, it will have entries called just "Education", "Transportation", etc. Wikipedia has unlimited space for encyclopedic material, so we can have entries like that for every country. The main barrier is whether someone feels like writing them. --W.marsh 14:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • No one is saying that there cannot be articles on Renewable energy in England, Renewable energy in Russia, Renewable energy in Thailand etc, just that by writing this one, the contributing editors are under no obligation to write others. If W.marsh wants to see such articles, he is more than welcome to start them. Greenshed 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I think that Deipnosophista was asking for such articles, if anyone was. I read W.marsh's reply as a defense of this article's place in Wikipedia (which I also tried to do, just not as well). In any case, this is a great article and improves the enyclopedia and I am glad for it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Quite concur with Ruhrfisch. As the article itself perhaps hints, we may need more than more encyclopedia coverage of Renewable energy in England etc. Serious debate that might make such topics highly relevant everywhere would be welcome. Indeed if there are not such articles over the next few years, I would urge the Wikipedia project to ensure its facilities are moved out of Florida and into a state that is less likely to suffer from rising sea levels. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
            • This very fine article is a credit to Wikipedia in a difficult and contentious subject area. And check here [1] for suitable locations in Scotland for the Wikimedia servers! (Thincat 09:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Thank-you indeed. I myself am of course untroubled by a few extra metres of sea water, although I fear the weather experienced at Corrour Bothy might prove challenging for those used to more balmy climes. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to "Fit"

I think you may want to think of this article on Scotland as a test bed for discussions on the future viability of renewables in ALL countries. If, for example, Scotland cannot make unsubsidised wind power work with its abundance of wind energy, who can? It also serves as an important springboard to information on, in my view, the visionary work in the 1950s to bring hydro power to Scotland. Finally, there are 2mm English-language articles in Wikipedia. No doubt there will be other articles on renewable energy in other countries. I would certainly be interested in reading about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.152.47 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Hmmmmmmm

"Whisky distilleries have a role to play in keeping Scots warm." Am I really the only one that noticed the humor in that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.144.239 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope not! Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential energy - per time?

In the "Summary of Scotland's resource potential" section, there is a table of technology / capacity / potential capacity / potential energy. Potential energy has units of TWh, and the note says "is a measure of output over a period of time". But over what period of time? I'm assuming its TWh per year, but could someone clarify this, and correct the article. Its a bit meaningless without this. --Vclaw (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right, the 'per annum' is AWOL from the table header. I've corrected this, but don't have the source to hand. I'll check that it doesn't say anything more complicated at the weekend. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manorlane

I've removed references to this company. The mention at SFHCA makes the combination of biogas and hydrogen look interesting but I can't see any obvious non-commercial corroboration. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If it seems to be spam, you could leave a {{uw-spam}} at the IP address that added it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I dropped him/her a note asking them to stop and pointing out the existence of WP:SPAM. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good - WP:COI/N may help if this is a persistent problem (or I could too). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - there were various other articles affected but it seems to have stopped for now at any rate. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Micro Generation

The Micro Systems section says "The Energy Savings Trust estimate that micro-generation could provide 30–40% of the UK's electricity demand by 2050". This is perhaps a bit misleading. Much of the micro generation proposed at this level of penetration would not be renewable. Much of it would be micro CHP burning fossil fuel, or fuel cells which may use non-renewable fuel. See slide 9: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/aboutest/Microgeneration%20in%20the%20UK%20-%20final%20report%20REVISED_executive%20summary1.pdf

Micro-generation does not equate to micro-renewables. It would be better to explain this or leave it out.

194.81.29.206 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Colin

Thanks for pointing this out - I've amended the text and used the above reference. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)