Scotland Is on Track To Hit 100% Renewable Energy This Year (gizmodo.com) 151
United Nations scientists have warned that most countries are on track to totally botch the climate goals needed to curb catastrophic global warming. But there's at least one bright spot. From a report: Scotland is on track to move its energy sector to 100 percent renewables by the end of this year. That's just in time to host the United Nations' international climate talks in November. At least someone's doing something right. Environmental organization Scottish Renewables put together a report tracking the country's renewable progress. It shows Scotland renewables provided 76 percent of the electricity consumption based on 2018 data in the report, and the percentage is expected to keep rising and will reach 100 percent soon. That's because unlike many countries, Scotland is actually moving away from fossil fuels rapidly. Scots have completely kicked coal, shutting down the nation's last coal-fired power plant in 2016. And it only has one working fossil fuel-based energy source left, a gas-fired plant in Aberdeenshire (though two more gas plants are slated to be built).
Only for Electricity Generation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Scotland is a cold country, most homes use natural gas for heating and cooking, most cars are still petrol or diesel powered, so still a long way to go.
Re:Only for Electricity Generation. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they maintain renewable electricity production throughout the shift to electric cars in the coming decade, that will be pretty great.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly, except that everyone is geting rid of coal, its run out and gas is cheaper. Put something irrelevant about emissions here, its all about money.
But Scotland may generate as much energy as it uses... but the problem si that it doesn't generate it at the same time people want to use it. 4pm to 7pm is the peak, massively more energy is used as everyone comes home and turns on the cooker and the heating.
And at those times, Scotland takes energy from elsewhere, like the interconnects to England and Norway
Re: Only for Electricity Generation. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This points to reality. Countries which are most reliant on importing fossil fuels and those countries most rapidly moving to a fossil fuel free society, the big driver not climate change, the big driver the negative economic impact if importing fossil fuels. For those countries who export fossil fuels, this is an uh oh moment, it wont be much longer before they have no one to export to because all the importers have shifted to alternates. So interesting times ahead for the fossil fuel exporters. Uranium as
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only for Electricity Generation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Only for Electricity Generation. (Score:5, Informative)
Science disagrees [nasa.gov] with you. In fact, nuclear power is saving close to 80.000 lives a year worldwide, compared to that energy being produced using fossil fuels.
"Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 1). This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000 deaths per year were avoided annually between 2000-2009 (see Fig. 2), with a range of 19,000-300,000 per year."
The folks evacuated from Fukushima might disagree (Score:2)
I don't recall an entire city being evacuated for coal. Even the Centralia fire didn't cause a city wide evacuation, though it did basic
Re: (Score:2)
You proved the grandparent's point by resorting to a comparison with fossil fuels. You can't make the claim that nuclear is cheaper than renewables because it isn't and you can't make the claim that it is needed for base load because we have places where it demonstrably has been replaced by renewables.
In other words it's a tacit admission that they are right, nuclear is unsuitable for Scotland.
Re:Only for Electricity Generation. (Score:5, Informative)
The superfund sites are from nuclear weapons development, not nuclear energy. You might as well blame napalm injuries in war on fossil fuels.
Storage ponds and uranium mine tailings have never killed anyone.
"Number of people put at risk" is a meaningless quantity when the level of risk they are put under is infinitesimal.
If Fukushima's cleanup costs end up as high as your highly-partial link suggests, it will be because of hysteria spread by people like you, rather than any actual threat to human life that needs to be remedied.
Re: (Score:3)
wrong even in terms of numbers of people put at risk [bbc.com]. And that's just one.
The numbers in that article refer to a temporary evacuation of 470k people, and another 10k workers who "may be deceived about the risks." Lets definitely inform them of the risks! But that hardly compares to millions of actual deaths from coal. I'll take inconveniencing 470k to killing 2 - 4 million. (In fairness - A Google search shows that 52k are still displaced.)
health impact from exposure to uranium mine tailings [aljazeera.com],
If you want to include uranium mining in the calculations, then you have to include coal mining too: which is a far worse polluter since i
Some of those people were "temporarily evacuated" (Score:2)
Show me a reactor that's safe to run like a beater car; until the wheels fall off and maybe longer with some duct tape. Because that's how Americans treat infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't temporary though, was it? We are 9 years later now and many of them have not gone back, much of the affected area is still not decontaminated despite repeated attempts and chances are it will never go back to being a viable place for people to live any more.
In 9 years a lot has decayed and fallen into disrepair, and because many people have moved away permanently rather than live in temporary accommodation even if it was declared safe tomorrow and billions pumped into fixing it up it would be hard
ATTENTION MODERATORS (Score:2)
STOPPING MODDING PEOPLE TROLL JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM!!! STOOOOP!!!
I'm happy that the Slashdot majority agrees with my position on nuclear, but punishing someone who provides legitimate debate undermines MY position as well! Jzanu's post provided valid points and linked to source material! I would much rather this post have +5 Insightful than -1 Troll, because as-is nobody gets to see the debate or the points. Someone just suppressed the whole discussion.
Re:Only for Electricity Generation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only for Electricity Generation. (Score:5, Informative)
We haven't yet found a civilization stable enough to manage a problem for 10,000 years.
"10,000 years" is a number pulled from someone's butt. Nothing magical happens at 10,000 years.
Most of the radiation from spent fuel is gone in the first few years, and by 500 years it is no more radioactive than the ore from which it was mined.
The problem with nuclear power is not "radiation" but "economics". It is far more expensive than alternatives such as solar and wind, and while solar and wind are dropping in cost, nuclear is going up. "Cookie-cutter" standardized designs like the AP1000 have failed to solve the problem of escalating costs.
At least in Western democracies, nuclear is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not pulled from someone's butt, it's based on the know scientifically proven half life of the material and how long it will take to reach safe levels.
Anyway, even 500 years is a challenge for storage. And isn't it curious that any time anyone tries to do something to slow climate change it's derided as a worthless political pledge that the next administration will just ignore, but when it comes to storing nuclear waste for centuries of millennia that's apparently no problem and transcends politics.
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't yet found a civilization stable enough to manage a problem for 10,000 years. So that nuclear waste dump, may be a housing community in the next 300 years as government records had been lost.
When that housing community (tents, teepees and yurts) starts having problems, the local tribal shamans (doctors, magicians, other smart peeps) will recognize and place a taboo on the area. Yes, some will be hurt, but the problem will be contained.
Re:Only for Electricity Generation. (Score:5, Informative)
Correct- title should say Electricity, not energy. This is a quote from scot.gov:
"Oil and gas (i.e. hydrocarbons) makes up 78.0% of all energy consumption, and hydrocarbons meet 90.5% of all heat demand and almost all energy consumption in transport. "
and
"51.7% of electricity generated in Scotland was generated by renewable technologies, compared to just 29.3% for the UK as a whole (or 25.6% for the rest of the UK, excluding Scotland)."
The numbers are quite far off from gizmodo...
Less than half of their electricity too. Just be h (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah they are conflating energy and electricity, which almost ALL articles promoting renewables does. It's very much a favorite trick.
It's also less than HALF of their electricity consumption, not 100%.
The difficult thing about wind is that the energy in wind is proportional to the CUBE of the wind speed. A little difference in wind speed makes a big difference in the amount of electricity generated. So what happens is when the wind is right,nit generates a lot of power. When the wind is slow, the power output drops dramatically. Due to mechanical constraints, the power also drops when the wind blows too hard. Which leads to the second lie here:
On windy days, Scotland exports wind electricity to England. On not so windy days, they aren't running their homes and businesses on wind that doesn't exist. Their total *production* of wind power for the year will come close to their total consumption of electricity FOR THE YEAR, but the wind is only on certain days - half of it is exported or wasted because the it's a windy day, there is more power than needed that day. Less than half of Scotland's electricity CONSUMPTION is from wind. Because they consume durijg days and times when the wind isn't blowing just right.
And less than 20% of their energy consumption is from wind.
A few years ago I noticed something. If somebody is telling you about something that is truly great, they can tell you the great truth about it. If someone consistently lies to you about what they are trying to sell you on, apparently they don't think the truth sounds so great. They feel the need to lie in order to sell you on the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Less than half of their electricity too. Just b (Score:4, Informative)
They are also counting wood chip power as "renewable". Most of the wood chips are grown in America, transported across the Atlantic, and burned in the UK. The process is heavily subsidized by UK taxpayers, uses a lot of fossil fuels in the process, and the low combustion temperature means low efficiency.
The UK's wood chip scheme is widely recognized as a stupid policy motivated by populist politics rather than economics or environmentalism.
Most wood energy schemes are a 'disaster' for climate change [bbc.com].
Re: (Score:3)
except the BBC would prefer to be sensationalist, ratrher than admit that all those wood chips and offcuts would decay naturally and give off CO2 emissions anyway, while we burn gas dug out of the ground. so the wood chip idea is that we at least make use of them to reduce our gas requirements.
I mean, they quote "wood is not carbon neutral" with a straight face too (and sure, global forest coverage is reducing slowly, but nearly all of that is due to deforestation in the equatorial regions that nobody is go
Re: (Score:3)
The trees would eventually die and decay, but this is a process that can occur over centuries. So in our lifetime, burning a tree emits far more CO2 than not burning it.
Even if we decide to burn wood chips for energy, it makes no sense to transport them to ports, ship them across the Atlantic, ship them from the port to the power plant in the UK, and then burn them. It would be far more effective to use UK tax dollars to subsidize the burning of the chips IN AMERICA. That would still be stupid, but less
Re: (Score:2)
It's not less than half their energy consumption. They export nearly half of what they generate which is why this year they will have reached 100% of their own consumption but still be releasing CO2 to cover their exports.
Still it's a big step in the right direction and secures Scotland's economic future by developing its massive wind resources. Unlike North Sea oil which is running out this is an infinite renewable resource that they can export to Europe indefinitely.
Re: (Score:3)
> It's not less than half their energy consumption.
You think they drive wind-powered cars in Scotland?
ELECTRICITY is less than half of their energy consumption, so much yes wind power is less than half of their energy consumption. It's also less than half of their electricity consumption. More on that in a moment.
> They export nearly half of what they generate which is why this year they will have reached 100% of their own consumption consumption but still be releasing CO2 to cover their exports.
Oth
Re: (Score:2)
The electricity generation number is a bit harder to reconcile, but still possible. If Scotland only consumes 52% of the electricity that they generate (and Scotland does apparently export a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
>"Peat is like coal except the plants are not fossilized so the carbon cycle is absorb-in-growth-and-then-release-when-burned-for-regrowth-plants-to-absorb. That is, carbon neutral by definition."
No it isn't. Peat takes centuries to thousands of years to form just a few meters thick. So unless they are using NO MORE peat than is being generated, it is NOT carbon neutral any more than coal is.
Yeah, but better than NOT doing it! (Score:2)
You gotta start somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Wood is considered Renewable too...
They are not carbon neutral yet. That said cleaner Electricity is a major win for the environment.
It is normally a scare tactic pointing to our Cars as the biggest polluter. It is popular because we fell its effects most. We pay the price at the Gas Pump, we can smell the smoke in our garage, on cold days during our commute you see stacks of cars with smoke bellowing out of the tail pipes. Then you have the Anti-Environmentalist who play on that too stating this tool th
No petrol cars? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
He's American (Score:2)
The Lord Trump commands: His moral duty is to spam pro-fossil talking points, NO MATTER WHAT.
Irony (Score:3)
Given that the Scottish Nationalist Party (Motto: "we hate the English bastards, but we're not racist") regularly uses the supposed loss of oil-revenue to England as one reason that the Scots have been "oppressed" and should be free to seek handouts elsewhere (i.e., the EU). You know, like all free and independent people do.
Re: (Score:3)
Makes sense, since English isn't a race.
Re: (Score:2)
Motto: "we hate the English bastards, but we're not racist.Makes sense, since English isn't a race.
Most things racists hate or love aren't races. Usually, they're just skin tones. The SNP are fairly unusual in hating people who look exactly like them, speak the same language and have almost exactly the same culture and history.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
> There are no 'races' of humans.
Ugh, there are different haplogroups that can be identified. Different rates of disease are just one expression that can be identified by the colloquial term race.
> it seems clear to me it's just a tool to create divisions where there are none,
That has nothing to do with observing that different groups of people are morphologically different that can be generally categorized. We call it "race" for historical reasons. It gets hard to classify because we breed with each other and the lines that may properly define one race becomes less clear as we interbreed. Not to mention that DNA analysis is favored over morphological taxonomy. Can DNA identify race? Companies like 23andme make a business out of identifying heritage and racial makeup.
Assigning value to one race or another is what is bad. Treating people different because of their race is bad. Recognizing that sickle-cell anemia has a predisposition to a particular categorization colloquially called race is not bad. Recognizing and understanding your heritage as a race of people is not bad.
>'such and such race isn't human and therefore we can justify not treating them like humans, kill them like the rabid animals they are'.
You get that rhetoric in many different ways not just race. Just look at how democrats and republicans talk of each other. Or communists and fascists. Or any other opposing ideology that can be grouped as "us vs them". Race is just one among many different excuses to be a bigot and create division. It's just an obvious distinction that can be easily identified.
Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. Humans like to categorize to simplify communication. Parading about "race is not real" is only a good between biologists and anthropologists. For the rest of us, we all understand what race is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What problem are you trying to solve exactly? You're not reducing racism by abandoning a useful term. All your doing is making communication more difficult. To me, when people push the "race isn't a thing" they are being overly pedantic and using a post-modern ideology to deconstruct simple categorizations for emotional reasons. Difficult to define != impossible to define. Nor does that mean abandoning useful terms so you feel good about yourself showing off how anti-racist you are.
>Race isn't a thing.
Re
Re: Irony (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Race has historical and colloquial meaning. Everyone understands what race means. The only people that pretend race is poorly defined are anthropologists and progressives pushing post modern deconstruction ideology in an attempt to virtue signal.
If humans had not created mass transportation and overcome geographic barriers, speciation of homo sapien sapien would have continued. Those barriers were overcome allowing us to interbreed halting speciation generally speaking. That does not dissuade from the geogr
Re: Irony (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, in the US those terms are different than in UK just as Asian is different. You know what is also different? Chips. Crisps. Biscuit. Bill. To table something. Football. Should we abandon those words to?
Context matters in communication. Understanding who you are communicating with helps to understand the context.
Pointing out that communication is imperfect isn't addressing anything. In fact, all it does is highlight the need for communication tools to ensure understanding is conveyed. One way to do that
Re: Irony (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lol, overly pedantic. Thanks for proving my point.
>The geographic heritage of all of us is in Africa
What is the story of the people that came from Africa that are white today? Where did they go after leaving Africa? Did they go east?
Re: Irony (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, and thank God for a voice of sanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and by the way perhaps you should be careful what you say, things yo
Re: (Score:2)
So, let me make sure I understand you. Saying "race doesn't exist" will make the world cuddle bears and sunshine? The reverse being that as soon as the word race was used the world became a racist hell hole? Very childish.
You should tell those companies doing genetic testing that identify heritage and racial groups that race doesn't exist. I am sure it will go over great .
>be careful what you say
Wow. You almost sound like one of those Sanders staffers that came out as violent extremists in recent leaks.
Re: (Score:2)
"Saying "race doesn't exist" will make the world cuddle bears and sunshine?"
It's not the word. It's the intent behind the word, and how the word has been TWISTED to fit the ill-intent of racists. The idea of 'racism' needs to be erradicated in the human species. Getting the word 'race' a
Re: (Score:2)
Any word with ill-intent can be twisted for bad purposes. Race is a simple categorization of morphological and geographic heritage. Getting rid of words doesn't do anything except materialize an Orwellian fever dream.
In fact, I would argue it's good we have a word that is separate from other taxonomical classifications to describe sub-categorizations of humans. It divorces any notion of 'lesser' that may be perceived by laymen when using prefixes like 'sub' like in 'subspecies'. There is nothing 'lesser' ab
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because changing the word you use for a concept really destroys the concept.
Jakes, crapper, water closet, bathroom, john.
Re: (Score:2)
So much wrong with this - as you say you are an American so know f-all.
The relation Scotland has with England compared to Ireland is very, very different. The Union in 1707 brought Scotland into the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution and expansion of the British Empire, something Scotland did financially very well out of. The shipyards, ironworks and coal fields were a direct result of that. Ireland got zip.
The Scots have not tended towards Catholicism - have you heard of the Protestant Church of Scotl
Re: Irony (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is sarcasm, you're an absolute fucking idiot for crying racism just because you disagree with their politics.
And exactly what are you for calling someone you probably don't even know "an absolute fucking idiot" just because you disagree with something they said?
Re: (Score:2)
There is only 1 race which is the human race. "race" as used in common language is not a scientific term. "race" is used to specify a group of people with common attributes but not in a scientific way. "race" tends to get applied to religious groups. "race" also gets applied to the ethnicity of people.
Re: (Score:2)
"race" also gets applied to the ethnicity of people.
That would be because "ethnicity" means "race". One is of Greek derivation, the other French.
The English are a "race" now? (Score:2)
Why do anglophones have completely and absolutely zero idea what racism is, *at all*?
1. You mean nationalism. (The thing that Americans think is great and totally not Nazi-like.) But you can't say that, because you're spewing it yourself.
2. Racism, as a term, is defined as "believing there is such a thing as races". NOT automatically implying hate. But indirecly, via the assumption that other "races" are inferior.
Something we have hard scientific evidence to be false, since the 19-freakin-20s! And nowadays
Oh? (Score:5, Insightful)
"And it only has one working fossil fuel-based energy source left, a gas-fired plant in Aberdeenshire (though two more gas plants are slated to be built)."
Not only is the headline misleading, but when the two gas plants are built, it contradicts said headline.
Re: (Score:2)
"And it only has one working fossil fuel-based energy source left, a gas-fired plant in Aberdeenshire (though two more gas plants are slated to be built)."
Not only is the headline misleading, but when the two gas plants are built, it contradicts said headline.
Headline? What's a headline?
Oh, you mean the clickbait that's validated with views and likes from gullible people?
Who needs facts when you can make money selling bullshit...
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. You can see how many people were suckered in by this "news" already.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is the headline misleading, but when the two gas plants are built, it contradicts said headline.
It does not contradict the headline. One requires the ability to generate power even when the wind is not blowing and sun is not shining. It does not imply that the new gas plants will run 24/7 - they will probably just idle.
What would be interesting is to know how long ago the gas plants were planned. It might be that a battery based solution, such as what Tesla built in Australia, would now be a better solution (now that it is proven). Or perhaps a battery based solution would allow the plants to re
When the wind is not blowing. (Score:2)
William Wallace: No wind? ... THIS. IS. SCOTLAND!!! *kicks over English horse*
Re: (Score:2)
> What would be interesting is to know how long ago the gas plants were planned. It might be that a battery based solution, such as what > Tesla built in Australia, would now be a better solution (now that it is proven). Or perhaps a battery based solution would allow the plants > to remain off instead of idling.
They are building the UKs largest battery plant already and have more in planning.
Re: (Score:2)
> Not only is the headline misleading, but when the two gas plants are built, it contradicts said headline.
Only if they don't use excess energy to offset. Which they are by feeding hydrogen into the natgas pipes. There was just an article on this here like 4 days ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Scotland probably still exchange electricity with England. So it's possible they generate N kWh of electricity in a year from renewables and consume N kWh of electricity, despite their gas power plants. They probably use their fossil plants when it's not windy or when the power demand is high. When the power demand is low and it's windy they probably export a lot of clean electricity to England.
Re:Oh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Correct. They export over 50% of their wind power to England for example. Their baseline load is provided by nuclear, gas and hydro and some dependable renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind is pretty dependable in Scotland. Not at full load, but there is always wind somewhere.
Have you ever been anywhere near the North Sea?
Re: (Score:2)
Plans for one of those plants have been rejected [bbc.co.uk]. Anyway, those plants are intended to supplement the supply during peaks, so if they will be using 100% renewables much of the time, that's pretty good going, even if the headline is a little misleading. I guess that's what they meant.
Re: (Score:2)
The headline is accurate. Scotland is on track to hit 100% this years.
IT a step towards being permanently 100%, but it doesn't say that.
But you're stupid and just scream 'agenda' at anything you don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Scotland exports most of their wind power. They are not generating 76% of their own power from renewables. Please apologize to the original poster.
Re: (Score:3)
Environmental organization Scottish Renewables put together a report tracking the country’s renewable progress. It shows Scotland renewables provided 76 percent of the electricity consumption based on 2018 data in the report, and the percentage is expected to keep rising and will reach 100 percent soon.
But with those gas plants they are building, they won't be consuming 100% renewable all the time. Probably those are peaker plants used when demand exceeds supply, and are idle a good part of the time. But they're not going to hit 100% renewable for the wh
Re: (Score:3)
Incorrect. You and the headline writer misunderstood the facts. Scotland exports most of their wind power. They do not generate even a majority of their own power needs via renewables. Please apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
More detail: The article clearly states that Scotland is on track to produce 100% of the electricity that it consumes via renewables, some time before the end of 2020. What Scotland exports to other countries is irrelevant to what the article says. Maybe the article is wrong, but there's no evidence of this.
And please stop telling people to "please apologize". It's patronizing.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]".
Is that the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Not quite what the spokeperson said (Score:5, Informative)
And that is a long way short ... a very, very, long way short of suggesting that Scotland will not need to import any electricity. Nor that it is self-sufficient in renewables for all its energy needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, headlines are a very abbreviate indicator of whats in the article.
This is fine, and its normal.
What is not =fine* or normal, is screaming about a headline that been abbreviated but not bothering to understand the article.
Has anyone who scream about headlines even bothered to read headline guidelines?
It's like abbreviating the hobbit to one quick line, then some screaming it didn't mention mirkwood.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Scotland exports most of their wind power. That is why they have nuclear and gas to provide reliable electricity for Scotland, and are planning on still adding two more gas plants. But it gets people excited and that is all that matters in 2020. Scotland will likely never get all of their power from renewables.
Re: Not quite what the spokeperson said (Score:2)
I live in Scotland and I've seen this kind of stat (Score:5, Informative)
Scotland's low population density helps (Score:3, Informative)
Scotland has a population around 5 million people which is less than that of Greater London of about 8 million people. Scotland has a land area approaching the size of England. Scotland has plenty of wind resources to harness.
It should be trivial for Scotland to harness sufficient wind power to support the electricity needs for the whole of the Scottish population. There are also some pumped storage hydroelectric schemes in Scotland for grid storage.
It would be very disappointing if Scotland was not self-sufficient in renewable electricity generation as it is one of the countries that has a really good potential of quickly being self-sufficient in renewable electricity generation.
Re: (Score:3)
It should be trivial for Scotland to harness sufficient wind power to support the electricity needs for the whole of the Scottish population.
But it isn't trivial and Scotland isn't producing renewable power for the needs of their whole population. Most of their renewable power is exported.
It would be very disappointing if Scotland was not self-sufficient in renewable electricity generation as it is one of the countries that has a really good potential of quickly being self-sufficient in renewable electricity generation.
Then prepare to be disappointed. They are not self-sufficient with renewable power. The majority of their renewable power is exported.
Re: (Score:2)
Scotland are part of the National Grid, Britain's only electrical transmission grid. So of course they "export" most of their renewable power to England, which is also part of the National Grid.
When you are one part of Britain and you are sending energy to another part of Britain, you are not really "exporting" it, are you? You are running an efficient National Grid.
And what will they do, when there's no wind? (Score:2)
Oh, wait, this is Scotland!
Correction: And what will they do, when there's too much wind?
More Importantly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, living in Scotland, what I think is the most important factor going forward is that it is one of the very few countries in the world where the population level is pretty much exactly the same as it was 100 years ago. (and only around double that of 200 years ago, long before the Industrial Revolution).
In other words, it is well suited to post-industrial living, having a rich pre-industrial history to fall back on.
Meanwhile Iceland (Score:2)
Meanwhile Iceland is already at 100% renewable, but they are perhaps a bit spoiled by the availability of hydro-power and a bit of geothermal.
Really? No nuclear? (Score:3)
Only 100%? (Score:2)
In Orkney, we passed 100% several years ago. The last official number I heard was that we produce 125% of our electrical needs from wind turbines. There has been a link to the UK national grid for a long time. It was built to send power north. Nowadays, I suspect, the power goes the other way more often.
In the past, there have been many people "informing" us that wind turbines don't work, they would make us sick, kill birds, spoil the view and just make the place seem like an industrial estate. They we
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Scotland is generating renewable power, but most of it is being exported. The 76% number isn't what you think it is. These are facts that you can check yourself quite easily. But please continue with your belief that Slashdot (a website with about 100 active users) is full of Russian trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Grid as storage accounting is bullshit though and needs to be called out.
Renewable electricity either needs ridiculous over-provisioning or long term storage to get near 100% ... either way the cost is massively larger than grid as storage accounting pretends it is.
Re:Are you trolls being paid? (Score:4, Informative)
Correct. But everyone has an agenda to push. Some people sell renewables, so they push their agenda. Some people sell non-renewables, so they push their agenda. The fact is that no one publishes "press releases" and makes fancy websites with "renewable energy news" for free. They are all created for a reason. The organization that put out this represents the corporations that make money off of renewables.
Re: Are you trolls being paid? (Score:2)