Energy debate should not be renewables vs conventionals

LONDON, England, April 6, 2005 (Refocus Weekly)

A “most crucial issue” is for the United Kingdom to undertake an audit of energy resources that are available now, and to use that audit as a basis to develop renewables and conventional energy sources in the future.

It is “clear that no-one any longer advocates a sole form of energy to provide Scotland's electricity,” concludes the Scottish Affairs Committee in its report, ‘Meeting Scotland’s Future Energy Needs.’ The committee, which is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee Scotland’s role in the UK, launched an inquiry to examine the shortfall in energy output once the nuclear reactor at Dounreay is decommissioned.

The politicians examined nuclear, fossil and renewables (biomass, wind, wave, hydropower, geothermal and solar) but concludes that, “unfortunately, no one form of energy production is perfect as all have their drawbacks.” Renewables “would seem to be the perfect solution, but there are issues even with renewables, and some people do object to, for example, wind turbines as being unsightly and noisy.”

There is significant potential for biomass, but the experimental wave and tidal facilities in Scotland are not large enough to demonstrate if they can produce sufficient energy. “Similarly, there is insufficient information on the part that solar or photovoltaic systems could provide.”

“In looking at the use of renewables, particularly wind and biomass, we should not assume that we have to produce large-scale projects,” it concludes. Objections to windfarms are not simply NIMBY-ism, and the committee says the siting of wind facilities should provide “proper attention” to protecting “areas of significant natural beauty from excessive numbers of turbines.”

The Scottish Executive has set a target of 18% of electricity generated in Scotland to come from renewables by 2010 and 40% by 2020, with a current level from renewables at 12%, but some inquiry witnesses suggested that an appropriate mix might be up to 40% from nuclear and the same from clean coal, with renewables meeting the balance.

“Given the timescale and uncertainty of these ‘emerging technologies,’ the Committee consider that it is unwise to assume that they can meet a quarter of the renewable proportion of Scotland's energy needs,” and further research is “urgently required to ascertain their viability,” it notes. “It is true to say that any form of energy production appears to have its detractors.”

“There is also the matter that renewable forms of energy would need to be subsidised by the taxpayer if the individual consumer were not to find the cost intolerable,” and the committee was told by the Royal Academy of Engineering that the cost for coal energy is 2.2 pence per kWh, 2.3 for nuclear, 6.3 for wave and 6.7 pence for wind.

“As a matter of urgency before any final, irreversible, decisions on what sorts of power generation are the most appropriate for Scotland are taken, we recommend that the government undertake an audit of the energy resources that are currently available, and then to use that as a basis to work out the energy requirements that will be needed in the future,” it concludes. It wants the Scottish Executive to clarify whether its goal for 40% renewables refers to generation or consumption, and recommends a “fundamental and immediate review” of transmission charging regime as well as action in the area of conserving energy.

Click here for more info...

Visit http://www.sparksdata.co.uk/refocus/ for your international energy focus!!