Europe vs USA

Exciting times for oil barons like the Ewings (Sf46)

As America bathes in its vast reserves of unconventional oil and gas, Europe gears up to build a renewable economy. The next couple decades will see two models of energy independence go head-to-head.

Once upon a time, the United States depended on the Middle East for its oil. It filled pages in newspapers, provided ammo for whatever party was in the opposition and, according to some, precipitated the invasion of Iraq.

Europe’s dependence on foreign fossil fuels is more obvious in the gas department. While Eastern and Central Europe remained vulnerable to the antics and blackmail of the Putin regime, the Mediterranean countries’ response to the Arab Spring was partly muted by their dependence on Northern African hydrocarbons.

Now, both countries are implementing large-scale plans to become energy-independent in the coming decades, but the paths they’ve chosen could hardly be more different.

Following the example of its northern neighbours, the United States is tapping vast shale gas and shale oil reserves which have the potential to see it leapfrog Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the greatest oil producer on Earth.

China, India and other developing nations in Asia will surely be rubbing their hands at the prospect, as it means they’ll get Middle Eastern oil on more advantageous terms than now. And, if they’re to continue their galloping growth, they need it.

Europe, on the other hand, sticks to its commitment to renewables as a way of fighting climate change and moving towards energy security. With Germany, which has been praised for becoming “the first renewable economy” in the world. With the United Kingdom, which will see renewables overtake nuclear in their share of electricity production by 2018 despite a haphazard energy policy. With Greece, where Project Helios has captured the imagination of EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger. And with a massive amount of renewable projects in the pipeline.

A green future for Europe, a not-so-rosy one for Vestas (Albert Bridge)

While Europe is building a greener, better future, things don’t look as good for its renewable energy industry. A row with China over alleged solar panel dumping has gone all the way up to the WTO, while Danish wind turbine giant Vestas announced this week that it would have to lay off thousands more workers in an attempt to cut its big losses. If European renewable manufacturers continue to suffer, we could end up in a curious situation in which American and Chinese companies dominate the European market while their own countries churn phenomenal amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere.

This brings me to another point. In a report released on Monday, the International Energy Agency (IEA) pointed out that burning more than one third of the available hydrocarbon reserves would make it impossible for the world to prevent disastrous climate change. If this threshold is exceeded, global warming will exceed 2°C by 2050.

In the coming decades, two models of energy independence will go head-to-head. Some are already asking who’ll be the winner. But the truth is, if the world continues to burn fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow, there won’t be any winners. Only losers.

MP madness

Well, I think wind turbines are a nice addition to the countryside (Giles R. Cook)

Ed Davey slapped down worrying comments by Conservative MP John Hayes, who told the press that the construction of wind farms should be sharply curbed.

There’s something about MPs representing rural constituencies that makes them more socially conservative than usual. Give them an issue which is dear to farmers and they’ll run with it no matter how absurd it seems or how strong the evidence against it is.

Take the example of the badger cull. The vast majority of scientists who commented on the government’s plans pointed out that the cull will only make matters worse by making badgers migrate to other areas. Public opinion polls have consistently shown a majority of Brits oppose the cull. And only last week the government suffered a thumping defeat in a non-binding vote on the issue in the House of Commons. Yet the government, egged on by the MPs for rural constituencies, remains blindly committed to a flawed plan that will result in the loss of innumerable animal lives, the squandering of taxpayers’ money and, perhaps most worryingly, the spread of bovine tuberculosis to new areas.

On Tuesday we got another example of absurd politicking, this time in the field of renewables. Conservative Energy Minister John Hayes told the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph that we can “no longer have wind turbines imposed on communities” and that “enough is enough”. Okay. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. But Mr Hayes showed his bias (or ignorance, which would be even more worrying) when he said he’d order a new review of Britain’s onshore wind power policy that was not based on “a bourgeois Left article of faith based on some academic perspective”.

Yes, you read that right, “a bourgeois Left article of faith based on some academic perspective”. I’ve seen very similar expressions being used by conservative politicians in America to attack women’s right to abort, promote creationism over evolutionism in schools and deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Basically, it’s code-speak for “I’ll denigrate any study which contradicts my point of view, regardless of its scientific validity, and I’ll only accept studies which say what I want to hear”.

The energy minister’s pledge to “protect our green and pleasant land” is blatant populism, and misinformed populism at that. His argument is built on the premise that communities are being dragged kicking and screaming until they finally accept the construction of wind farms on their land. This is untrue in the majority of cases, but even in those cases in which it’s true, the reasons have more to do with wind farm ownership than with wind power per se. Indeed, a recent survey showed that only 22% of people would oppose a business-owned wind turbine near their homes, and only a tiny 7% would oppose a community-owned one. Mr Hayes can hardly claim to represent the majority.

What'll be left of the coalition after all the infighting (Editor B)

Fortunately enough for supporters of renewables (although certainly not for the coalition), Ed Davey showed that the Lib Dems are still willing to defend green energy against the Osborne-led onslaught by slapping down the energy minister’s words in yesterday’s papers and confirming that the government’s renewable energy policy hasn’t changed. Britain’s renewable future seems safe, at least for now.

But every cloud has its silver lining, and Mr Hayes’ words gave us a laugh as they provided a very convenient excuse for James Delingpole to bail out on his floundering campaign in the Corby by-election. Having probably read the recent poll that put him at less than 0.2% of voting intention, Delingpole abandoned the race claiming that Mr Hayes’ words meant his campaign had been “the most successful in history”. Talk about wishful thinking.

Scant popular support for Osborne’s dash for gas

Shale gas wells: not Britain's cup of tea (US Department of Energy)

An ICM poll has revealed that six times as many people would rather have wind turbines than a shale gas well near their homes, despite the Chancellor’s best efforts to popularise this fossil fuel.

He’s tried implementing generous tax breaks for shale gas (subsidies in all but in name). He’s tried to sweeten the deal by promising us fabulous riches if we exploit the gas under our feet (with earthquakes and polluted water as a nice bonus). And he’s tried branding renewable energy supporters “environmental Taliban”, eliciting the predictable cheers from the also predictable James Delingpole (polling at less than 0.2% of the vote in the upcoming Corby by-election with his anti-wind farm platform). But, try as he might, George Osborne just can’t make people see fracking in a good light.

An ICM poll for the Sunday Times showed a strong majority favours increasing renewables’ share in the energy mix as opposed to increasing that of fossil fuels (excluding nuclear). What’s even more remarkable is that, faced with a choice between having a wind turbine or a shale gas well within two miles of their home, 67% of respondents preferred the former, with only 11% choosing the latter.

Osborne’s gas-friendly propaganda has been a miserable failure. Why is he still pushing his dash for gas, then? I see two possibilities.

Tory MP Charles Hendry warned against betting our house on gas (DECC)

One is that he genuinely believes shale gas can give the British economy the same boost it gave the American one. But this will not happen for several reasons, and even the former energy minister, Conservative Charles Hendry, warned against putting all our eggs in the gas basket.

The other is that the Chancellor’s a politician who’s quite reluctant to backtrack on his proposals, as we’ve seen several times this year. But a U-turn in shale gas would be more humiliating for him than the infamous pasty tax volte-face, for the simple reason that he’s invested far more political capital in it. The only policy on which he’s more unlikely to budge is “Plan A” for the economy.

Gossipy tongues suggest a third possibility – that Osborne’s close ties to the hydrocarbon industry are pushing him to support shale gas in the face of all available evidence. I don’t think this is the case. While many politicians and governments have ties to Big Oil and Big Gas, there’s no reason to believe this holds especially true for Osborne, and the Conservatives have ties to renewable energy companies as well (e.g. Tim Yeo).

Listen up, Chancellor. The ecologic, economic and public health aspects of shale gas are bad enough. But it’s now blatantly obvious that the “massive popular support” you would have us believe it has simply doesn’t exist. Despite the ongoing misinformation campaign in certain mass media, Brits are staunchly in favour of renewables. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Out of thin air

Could the new technology end up competing with Scottish oil? (Dave Conner)

A small company based in the north of England has announced an astonishing breakthrough which could herald an energy revolution: engineers have literally produced petrol out of thin air.

This blog’s often commented on both British renewable energy policy and scientific breakthroughs in other countries, often the United States. But this week I get to write about a scientific breakthrough in Britain. Now, 250 years after Northern England propelled the world into an Industrial Revolution fuelled by steam engines and spinning jennies, engineers at Teesside-based Air Fuel Synthesis may be poised to bring about an energy revolution.

The surprise announcement was made this week at an engineering conference in London. Air Fuel Synthesis CEO Peter Harrison outlined a chemical process which turns atmospheric carbon dioxide into petrol, with methanol as an intermediate step. The method uses hydrogen from water electrolysis, which in the future could be powered by renewable energy. The Daily Telegraph has put together a neat interactive diagram showing how it works.

The process has been hailed as a potential game-changer by scientists and engineers worldwide, but others have already come forward to criticise it. Over at Forbes, Tim Worstall points out that, while there’s nothing wrong with the chemical process itself, it’s a terribly inefficient way of doing things that could be done far more efficiently. This is a point of view I happen to share although, unlike Mr Worstall, I’m confident the process will become much more efficient as the technology matures.

Giving you wings: F1 cars could be among the first to use synthetic petrol (Max Bosio)

As for myself, I haven’t had the opportunity to look at the detailed specs (which probably haven’t been released into the public domain, as this design is worth big money), but judging from what I know the technology is quite clean. Broadly speaking, it resembles “clean methane” technology in that they both take carbon dioxide which is already in the atmosphere and use it to produce hydrocarbon fuels. Therefore, net carbon emissions are zero as long as the electricity used to hydrolyse water comes from renewable energy sources. But the advantages of synthetic petrol aren’t limited to its carbon footprint. It doesn’t contain sulphur and other pollutants present in regular oil.

There are three main reasons why this technology arouses hope and excitement. First, it could go a long way towards solving our energy crisis and negating the effects of peak oil. Second, it could help fight climate change by providing a carbon-neutral source of energy-dense fuels. And third, and perhaps most importantly, it could and should provide the catalyst for abandoning the flawed policy of biofuels, one which has failed spectacularly in its mission to reduce the carbon footprint of motor vehicles and pushed tens of millions into food poverty by promoting food and land price speculation.

In the meantime, the management of Air Fuel Synthesis has already stated that it will accept no investment from the oil industry. Fearing that one of the supermajors will attempt to shut down this promising technology, company founder Tony Marmont said he would “shudder at the prospect of an approach from the oil industry”. As history tells us, rightly so...

Renewable energy output soars in Q2 but coal stays strong

Photovoltaics posted massive growth in the last year (Thruxton)

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has released the energy statistics for the second quarter of 2012, revealing that the renewables sector continues to grow at a solid pace.

Output from renewables rose by 6.5% year-on-year to a new record of 8.13 TWh, while total installed capacity increased by 42.4% to 14.2 GW. This boost was mainly due to a series of onshore and offshore wind farms coming online, as well as the conversion of the Tilbury B power station to dedicated biomass.

This increase was not uniform across the board. Production from onshore wind farms and hydroelectricity took a hit from unfavourable weather. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, generated 47% more electricity than last year, while bioenergy produced 6.5% more, and photovoltaics and tidal power plants posted an impressive growth of more than 900%.

Installed capacity grew at a very strong pace, roughly equivalent to Moore’s Law in computing, and energy output increased at a lower but healthy rate. But we have to look at the circumstances under which this growth has been achieved. For example, the rise in output only added 0.6 percentage points to the overall share of renewables in British energy production —9.6% instead of 9%. Clearly, growth of just over half a percentage point in absolute terms every year is not enough if we want to do something about global warming.

Perhaps even more importantly, the increased contribution of renewables was more than offset by the use of coal to supply energy to British households and industry, which rose to a 14-year high of 36.1% of all energy produced. According to the Daily Telegraph’s Christopher Booker, one of the reasons coal power stations are running at high capacity is because a new tax is due to come into force in April, imposing a carbon floor price of £16 for every tonne of CO₂ emitted. Whatever the cause, increased reliance of coal is bad news for our country and our planet.

The big picture is one in which an increase in the relevance of renewable energy (significant in relative terms, modest in absolute terms) is overshadowed by the comeback of the most polluting fossil fuel used for electricity generation —coal. Supporters of renewable energies should not be lulled into a sense of complacency by the latest DECC statistics. On the contrary. Most of the work remains to be done.

Onshore wind energy: what are the pros and cons?

I have been tied up with loads of work over the last couple of weeks, leaving me no time to post. Now, I'd like to share with you an editorial released by the Guardian under the Creative Commons Atribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England and Wales licence.

Wind turbines harness the energy of moving air to generate electricity. Onshore wind refers to turbines located on land, while offshore turbines are located out at sea or in freshwater. In the UK, the pros and cons of onshore wind energy, in comparison with other low-carbon and fossil fuel energy sources, have recently been the subject of debate in the press and among politicians.

Onshore wind already plays a leading role in the generation of renewable electricity in the UK. In 2010, it generated around 7TWh – more than a quarter of the electricity provided by British renewables at that time and enough to save six million tonnes of CO2, according to government estimates. By 2020, onshore wind is expected to generate up to 30TWh. Onshore wind can therefore play a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions created by the UK's power sector – which will be crucial to meeting the UK's legally binding carbon budgets.

Onshore wind has the advantage of being one of the most affordable renewable energy sources. Generating electricity from onshore wind turbines typically costs around 7–9p per kWh, which is around half the cost of offshore wind and a quarter of the costs of solar photovoltaic panels. It is also slightly cheaper, on average, than nuclear power. Onshore wind generation is still slightly more expensive than fossil fuels (generating electricity from gas power plants currently costs between 4.1 and 7.5 p/kWh), but its price is expected to fall in the coming years.

Some emissions are created by the manufacture, transportation and installation of wind turbines, but these are considered fairly low. Additional emissions are attributed to the fact that wind energy (like solar and wave power) is intermittent, generating electricity only when the wind is blowing, and at sufficient strength. When wind strength is insufficient for turbines to operate, fossil-fuel-based power supply is needed as "backup". The current small proportion of renewable electricity in the UK market requires very little backup, but as the share increases additional backup will be needed. However, other technologies, such as inter-linkages with other countries' grids, energy storage and electricity demand management, are expected to help tackle intermittency in the future, so the overall future impact on emissions is considered relatively low.

Onshore wind has been criticised for its visual impact. Although other power infrastructure, like fossil fuel and nuclear power stations, can also modify landscapes and habitats, onshore wind turbines are typically more spread out than other large-scale energy infrastructure projects and so can affect a larger area. Another criticism is that species such as birds and bats may also be affected by wind turbines – though bird fatalities due to turbine collisions are relatively low compared to other fatality causes, such as traffic and domestic cats. Impacts on wildlife can be minimised by careful site selection and by avoiding areas of high conservation or habitat value. A third potential issue is that turbines can contribute to noise pollution, but government studies find noise levels are comparatively low and should not significantly impact on nearby residents. New guidance is being drafted to inform future planning policy on noise issues.

Environmental Impact Assessments review these kinds of potential impacts on a case-by-case basis and seek to protect unsuitable areas, such as those of high conservation or heritage value. In some cases, undesirable local impacts may make more expensive renewable technologies, such as offshore wind or solar, more attractive. The extra cost of offshore wind can be seen as the premium society is willing to pay in order to avoid the local environmental cost of onshore turbines.

The choice between more affordable electricity (which would favour onshore wind) and local environmental protection (which may favour other low-carbon technologies) is ultimately a societal and political one. Given the economic and environmental trade-offs, technological uncertainty and the absence of one clear winner when it comes to energy sources, many economists suggest (pdf) the best approach is a portfolio of different technologies to balance the cost to consumers and environmental concerns. Onshore wind has a role to play in this energy mix and in helping the UK achieve its emission reduction targets.

Keep calm and carry on building ‘em

Wind turbines in California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

Wind power has the potential to meet all of the world’s electricity requirements without causing significant climate change, new research has found.

Erect loads of wind farms, they said. They’ll help fight climate change, they said. So it came as a shocker when a study published earlier this year accused wind turbines of warming up their environment. The piranhas in the AGW denialist press sensed blood and swiftly jumped (or should I say “swam”?) on the idea. And, frankly, even those of us who are aware of the huge importance of renewable energy for the future of the world had reason to worry. If we want to avert climate change, and wind farms cause climate change, then it doesn’t make much sense to continue building them, does it?

Well, actually it does. Or at least this is what an even more recent study has found. According to a team of researchers at the Carnegie Institution, wind power does warm up the atmosphere, but not on a significant scale.

One of the aims of their research was to find the optimal level, the sweet spot at which most energy can be extracted from the wind. It’s not just about erecting more and more turbines, because there comes a time when the wind has been slowed down so much by some of the turbines that it has little energy left to impart to the other turbines. The researchers’ models revealed that surface winds have an energy potential of 400 TW, while medium- and high-altitude winds have a whopping 1,800 TW in store. Combined, this is enough energy to cover the world’s energy needs more than 100 times. But, we can’t do that. Of course we can’t. It would cause catastrophic global warming.

The North Atlantic is very favourable to wind power (Johnjsturman)

But wait, didn’t I just say climate change caused by wind farms is not significant? Well, actually it’s a bit more complicated than that. You certainly will cause substantial warming if you attempt to harvest all of the Earth’s wind power potential. The thing is, we don’t need to do that. If we only use wind power to extract the energy we will need in the foreseeable future, and if enough space is left between wind turbines, there will be no substantial environmental impact. So, in geophysical terms, the sky is the limit for wind farms.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other limits to how far wind power can go. There are technological hurdles. There are economic issues. And, possibly the most formidable of them all, there are political obstacles. It won’t be easy to find the huge quantities of rare earths needed. It will be hard to persuade landowners and communities that wind turbines will be good for them. And transmission lines which were built for fossil fuel-generated electricity will have to be overhauled or replaced. Long story cut short: we’ll never be able to exploit all the wind energy potential the Earth has to offer.

Nonetheless, this study demolishes another of the denialists’ arguments. One fewer argument left, and they didn’t have many to begin with. But the case for wind energy, and renewables in general, has to be a positive one. The battle for the future of our country’s energy supply must be won with positive arguments. And the good news is that we have loads of ammo.

European Union fires opening salvo against Chinese solar panels

No dumping: Europe could mimic America's move to curb dumping by China (Richard Webb)

The European Commission launched a probe into Chinese solar panels this week after European manufacturers complained their Asian competitors are selling their products at below fair-market value.

Echoing the USA’s move earlier this year to slap hefty tariffs on solar panels made in China, the European Commission launched an anti-dumping investigation this week. And not just any anti-dumping investigation. At €21 bn (£17 bn), this one is the biggest ever in terms of import value affected, even adjusting for inflation.

Every year, huge quantities of Chinese solar panels enter the European market as manufacturers seek to capitalise on generous green energy subsidies. EU Pro Sun, led by the same German company which spearheaded the trade complaint in the USA, claims that the Chinese are selling their panels at a loss, triggering a wave of losses, layoffs and bankruptcies in the European solar power sector.

The European Commission’s investigation will take roughly fifteen months, but preliminary tariffs can be slapped on Chinese solar panels in nine months if sufficient evidence of anti-dumping is found.

Angela Merkel, keener on chop suey than on pastitsio (World Economic Forum)

This move may come as a surprise for some, seeing many European leaders’ reluctance to rock the boat with their powerful Chinese trade partners. In a marked departure from her bullying of peripheral eurozone states (funny how she seems to have different faces for Greece and China), Angela Merkel called for conciliation and dialogue last week, encouraging both parties to strive for an amicable resolution.

The Middle Kingdom’s response was fast and furious, as Beijing lambasted the EU’s decision and issued a thinly veiled threat of retaliatory measures. Nevertheless, analysts believe China would be reluctant to impose tariffs on European solar panel parts because its own manufacturers would end up bearing the brunt of the cost. Meanwhile, the Chinese solar industry also protested the decision while claiming to be confident the European Commission will find no evidence of dumping.

While the EC’s investigation is likely to uncover such evidence, it must be said that the crash of prices in Europe cannot be blamed entirely on Chinese solar panel manufacturers. What else could have caused it? I’ll give you a clue. In economics lesson at school, what were you always told was the major driver of prices?

Demand for solar panels is half the global production capacity (Bsterling)

That’s right, supply and demand. For a given demand level, increased supply will result in lower prices. Now, the global demand for solar panels is certainly very high, somewhere around 30 GW a year. The “slight” problem is that the global production capacity is even higher, at 58 GW a year. Supply outstrips demand by almost 100%! No wonder that Chinese (and European and American) manufacturers are churning out solar panels like there is no tomorrow.

A gargantuan glut like the one we are witnessing always slashes the number of suppliers, as competition pushes prices down to a level which simply knocks them out of the market. History has seen energy gluts deal a lethal blow not only to private suppliers, but sometimes also to countries themselves.

The European Commission is right to investigate whether Chinese solar panel manufacturers are selling their products at a loss, and to impose punitive measures if necessary. But there is no escaping the fact that the supply/demand ratio needs to rebalance itself. Supply will have to go down so that prices can rise to reasonable levels again. And, at the end of the day, this will be a good thing.

What is hydroelectricity?

Dinorwig Power Station in Wales (Denis Egan)

It’s the most widespread source of renewable energy in the world. No, it’s not hot air from politicians. In the second of a series of articles on how renewables work, today we look at hydroelectricity.

Like the vast majority of energy sources on Earth, hydraulic power ultimately derives from the mighty Sun. When it hits oceans, rivers and seas, heat from our star evaporates a small percentage of the water molecules and sends them soaring in the shape of vapour. As they rise through the atmosphere, the energy which drives their motion becomes gravitational potential energy. It is this energy that mankind has been exploiting since at least the 3^rd century BC to grind crops and shape materials. But the world had to wait until the late 18^th century to see the hydropower used to generate electricity. The first hydroelectric power station was built on the Fox River, Wisconsin, in 1882.

Plants without a dam are called “run-of-the-river” plants. But rivers are fickle. If you want a reliable source of energy, you cannot trust them to send more water your way precisely when you need it. You have to stock up on water. And this is where dams enter the equation.

So what does a conventional hydroelectric station look like? Well, the first thing you need is a dam. Three main types of dams are used. Arch dams borrow the principle used to build arches in architecture to make hydrostatic pressure work in their favour. As water pushes against the “top” of the arch, it compacts the entire dam and strengthens it. Gravity dams, on the other hand, are designed to be so heavy that the Earth’s gravity compensates for hydrostatic pressure. The third type of dam is a combination of the other two, aptly named a “gravity arch dam”.

How conventional hydroelectric stations work (Tomia)

The dam creates a reservoir which fills up as water flushes in from the river. When needed, water is let into a penstock which takes it down to a turbine coupled to a generator. The equation determining how much electricity can be extracted from water takes into account the flow rate, the difference in height between inlet and outlet, the density of water, the efficiency of the turbine and, of course, gravity. From there, electricity is transmitted to long-distance power lines and water continues its journey downstream.

The main issues with conventional hydro are those typical of any dam project. People living upstream must be relocated, often against their will, and habitats are destroyed. One of the most striking disruptions of habitats caused by dams affects fishes like salmon, which are unable to migrate upstream to reproduce. Fish ladders are now routinely installed at hydroelectric stations, but the problem persists in many countries.

Another problem with conventional hydroelectricity is that methanogenic organisms thrive in reservoirs where dead wood accumulates, especially in warm climates. In places like Brazil, the resulting greenhouse gas emissions can exceed those of a natural gas-fired plant. In cooler climates, nevertheless, these emissions are less than one tenth those of fossil fuel-fired plants.

Feel the power: water gushing out of Ice Harbor Dam, Washington (EIA)

So now, let’s look at the qualities which have made hydro the most widespread renewable energy source on the planet. The big advantage of this technology over other renewables is that it is far more reactive to peaks and troughs in electricity demand than the others. Solar and wind power’s dependence on the weather raises issues with load balancing, but as long as there is water in the reservoir, hydro will always deliver.

Economics is another major strength of this technology. At a time when the price of oil, gas and uranium is rising steadily, requiring no fuel is a huge advantage.  Maintenance and construction represent the lion’s share of the cost and, because individual hydroelectric plants can last for almost a century, you can squeeze a lot of juice out of any given plant before you need to rebuild it. Each kilowatt-hour from this renewable source costs less than £0.05.

Finally, one of this technology’s weaknesses can also be seen as a strength. The area flooded by the reservoir can be used for water sports and other purposes. The mass of water becomes a wholly new habitat (albeit with less biodiversity). And, of course, if you build a dam in the right place, it will even protect regions further downstream from flooding.

With all these qualities going for hydroelectricity, it is no surprise that countries blessed with significant potential are making the most of this clean, cheap source of energy. Albania, Paraguay, and Norway get almost all of their electricity from hydro. And they also export some, netting a nice profit in the process (yes, Norway exports more than just fish and oil).

The United Kingdom, on the other hand, only gets about a fiftieth of its electricity from hydro. It must be said that we were not blessed with a massive hydroelectric potential, which is furthermore concentrated in one part of the country (Scotland, the “Saudi Arabia of renewables”).

Today we looked at conventional hydroelectricity, but there are other aspects to this technology, including micro-hydro and pico-hydro. But this is a story I will save... for a wet day.

Bigger and greener

Sunset from a beach on the Moray Firth (Liz Gray)

A joint venture between EDP Renováveis and Repsol Energías Nuevas has submitted plans for up to 339 offshore wind turbines in the Moray Firth.

A couple of weeks ago I blogged about the largest offshore wind farm in the world, the London Array off the coast of South-East England. Not to be outdone, Scotland could soon build an even larger one off Caithness, with a price tag of £4.5 billion.

Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd, a joint venture between Portugal’s EDP Renováveis and Spain’s Repsol Energías Nuevas, submitted plans this week to build an offshore wind turbine complex sprawling over an area larger than Edinburgh with a total installed capacity of 1.5 GW, enough to power 40% of Scottish households. The application is part of Round 3 of offshore leasing by the Crown Estate, the fifth in the last ten years, and more applications are expected over the next few years.

Following approval, construction of the wind farm will begin in 2015 and the complex is expected to be completed in 2020. It will actually consist of three smaller wind farms of around 500 MW each, named after Scottish engineers Telford, Stevenson and MacColl. Eight electrical platforms will collect the generated power and send it to the shore by means of a cable running under the seabed.

With a total of 189 to 339 offshore wind turbines (depending on the turbine sizes available on the market at the time of construction), the Moray Firth wind farm will generate enough juice to meet the needs of a million households. To put this into perspective, it is roughly the same capacity as the entire Scottish hydroelectric sector. By preventing the emission of several million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, it will boost Scotland’s green credentials and help achieve the Scottish Government’s target for the renewable share of total electricity generation.

Unfortunately for Donald, green energy trumps golf (Gage Skidmore)

One of the first people to whine about the project was birther extraordinaire Donald Trump. The billionaire appeared before a committee of the Scottish Parliament earlier this year to protest the erection of offshore wind turbines in Aberdeen Bay because... wait for it... he said they spoiled the view from his golf course! Trump said through his spokesman that “[t]his project, like all wind turbine proposals, is totally dependent on subsidies that will cost the taxpayer dearly”. Indeed, the press reported further protests against the offshore wind turbines during the week, including groups concerned about the aesthetic aspects and others worried about the impact on wildlife (the latter would do well to read my earlier post on the environmental effects of wind turbines at sea). The papers also reported on the jobs the wind farm will create in the area, which according to the developers will number in the thousands.

Industry representatives welcomed the application but warned that the government must not throw a spanner in the works by failing to provide a predictable investment environment. RenewableUK, the trade association representing the British wind and marine renewables industries, expects a total of 18 GW of offshore wind power capacity to come online in the run-up to 2020, which is more than three times the current capacity of renewables in Scotland from all sources.