Comment posted Scottish Power Renewables announces another delay for proposed Tiree Array by Tim McIntyre.
The main innovation seems to be ever-larger turbines, so there may be limited scope for direct re-use of towers until that levels off.
Steel is very recyclable, though.
Tim McIntyre also commented
- Lowry – the subsidy you are referring to is very small in the scheme of things. If you live in Argyll, your electricity is already heavily subsidised because the cost of building and maintaining the vast and fragile network of distribution lines is far greater than the income from local consumers can justify.
If communities can take the initiative to tap into their local resources of water and wind on a small scale in order to generate an income for local projects, what’s not to like?
- Karl – if Tilley is generating, then effectively its output IS being used locally, as it will reduce the import of electricity through the grid connection. Any plant that is designed to work in conjunction with the grid cannot generate if the connection is lost due to cable failure etc. – a basic technical limitation due to the need for power supply & demand to be at all times matched, and the requirement for voltage and frequency to be kept within the tight limits needed to run modern electrical equipment and appliances.
I take it what you mean is that you would prefer the contractual arrangement between the owners of Tilley and local consumers to be direct, rather than going through an electricity supply company. There’s no reason in principle why this could not be done – it would require a supply company set up to take Tilley’s output, combine it with backup power bought in from the grid, and then sell it on to any local consumers willing to sign up to it. Not impossible, but it would have to compete with the other suppliers in the market presumably.
The system on Eigg is completely independent, but that does not come without restrictions – all consumers have a maximum demand trip which costs them a ‘fine’ if they accidentally put too much load on the system. There is also a sizeable diesel generator needed to back up the renewable sources. All this added up to a high capital cost, but not as high as the cost of a grid connection to the mainland. That decision was made on economic grounds, not because of any romantic notion of energy independence.
In the mean time, Tilley is presumably generating income for community projects?
- As I understand it windfarm developers are required to put in place a bond to cover the cost of decommissioning in the event of the owner going bust – similar arrangements exist as part of the planning conditions for other large developments such as quarries, etc.
- Agreed – a large proportion of energy use and CO2 emissions are related to space & water heating and this is the ideal function for biomass. The potential for dispersed local fuel supply operations also offers rural employment prospects and minimisation of fuel transport.
By contrast, large scale conversion of biomass to electricity involves expensive and unsustainable transport of the fuel, which has a low energy density, as well as losing around 60% of the energy as waste heat. Small scale CHP systems for district heating and wintertime electricity generation are more efficient & will have a part to play where the economics work.
Unfortunately the RHI does nothing for ‘conventional’ woodstove installations for space &/or water heating – only automated pellet, chip & log boilers.
- Offshore wind power has the potential to provide significant economic opportunities in Argyll, so whatever is decided about specific locations, I hope we can take a positive attitude to the principle.
Recent comments by Tim McIntyre
- On nationalism
Malcolm – maybe you mis-read my comment. I said ‘developed’, not ‘developing’, though I’m not sure why you have lumped Los Angeles together with ‘murderous African dictatorships’?
I don’t object to private enterprise – I run one. Again you have mis-read my point. I (personally) think that there is a place for public ownership in the provision of some public services, and that it is one of the principles which underpins civil society.
“Your last paragraph condemns you” – do you mean if there is a ‘Yes’ vote, then I won’t be able to feel part of Britain any more, even though I’ll still be resident in the British Isles?
- On nationalism
Newsie, I happen to disagree with much of the content of your article, and so I posted my own views – isn’t that how it’s supposed to work? – without resorting to dismissing either you or your contributor as ‘arrogant’ or not ‘worthy of respect’ or lacking ‘independence of mind’. So by all means defend your arguments, but it’s a little rich of you to dismiss mine with such phrases, especially when you are so hair-trigger sensitive to the slightest hint of ‘bullying tactics’ from Yes supporters.
I daresay you may be right about the egg-thrower(s), but please don’t confuse a huge and entirely peaceful ‘Yes’ movement with a single incident involving a tiny handful of over-excited protestors confronting a shouty politician on a soap box.
I did not engage with the ‘Achilles heels of nationalism’ you describe because I have quite honestly not seen any significant elements of ‘chauvinism, utopianism and incipient racism’ in this campaign – the notion that these are defining aspects of ‘Yes’ is, to use your words, the ‘laugh of the campaign’. I’ve seen plenty of optimism, some of it no doubt misplaced, but not even the most ardent Indy supporters seriously imagine that an independent Scotland would be a land of milk & honey.
I’ve commented on here before, more than once, that a federal UK would have been a proposition I could have supported, so I agree with you there. Remind me again which political party is promoting that idea, and how much influence you expect them to have at Westminster in the forseeable future?
- On nationalism
I’m sure this rather rose-tinted expression of quintessential Britishness lies buried deep within the psyche of many people, including many ‘Yes’ supporters. Unfortunately the principles of political, economic and geographical solidarity which underpinned the feeling of a common British identity have been almost completely unwound by successive UK governments of both colours over the past 35 years or so.
The opening notion that “It enjoys a certain standard of living” is surely a joke? Isn’t the UK one of the most unequal of all developed nations in both wealth and income (and therefore ‘standard of living’) these days?
Then there’s the list of treasured public services, all of which have been, or are in the process of being, handed over from common ownership to the tender mercies of private enterprise.
The irony of this referendum is that for many Scots, a Yes vote is about trying to protect what is left of the values and institutions that many of us used to think of as being British, before they are finally and permanently dismantled and discarded by the UK state, for ideological reasons and the benefit of private equity.
Oh, and after a ‘Yes’ vote – we will all still be living in the British Isles. We will still share a cultural history, language, common travel area (No Borders!), monarchy and, if a small number of blinkered politicians come to their senses: currency. We don’t need to belong to a unitary state to share all these things and still regard ourselves as British.
- Thuggish Yes campaign benefits from media’s artificial ‘balance’ as Murphy forced to suspend campaign tour
Of course they won’t condemn it, JnrTick – it was just an ‘isolated incident’
Whereas the cowardly, heinous outrage perpetrated on the gentle, sensitive Jim Murphy can only possibly have been orchestrated through the evil cybernat web controlled by Aleggs Salmonella… etc. etc. etc.
- Cameron to address Scottish CBI as Tory MP quits for UKIP
Malcolm – ‘totally open in what he believes’… hmm, you mean like “A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde” ?
powered by SEO Super Comments