I do not expect you to take my word for this analysis. On the launch of the Independence White Paper, it was the national press analysis and conclusion. Please go to Scottish Government’s [SG] Independence White Paper for confirmation.
Do not expect SG to make gin-clear concessions, particularly on a premise applying to renewables. SG and the SNP have stated, ad nauseam, renewables will deliver a Scottish industrial renaissance, with Alex S evocatively suggesting renewables would bring the ‘ DING’ back into the Song of the Clyde .
The Independence White Paper’s obfuscates on most issues, particularly currency, EU membership, and oil revenue. Alex S has been rigorously challenged on these main issues, only to raise his rhetoric by:
- on currency – threatening, in the event of no sterling currency union, that an Independent Scotland will walk away from its share of national debt;
- on the EU – effectively telling the EU it does not know its own protocol for applying for EU membership.
- on oil revenue – being ostrich–like in not acknowledging radical changes in the global energy market, which suggest SG’s estimates are over optimistic. As a consequence SG’s proposed fiscal policy for an Independent Scotland may prove unfit for purpose;
SG has never challenged the premise that an Independent Scotland will be dependent on rUk subsidy support for new development.
To avoid obfuscation, on the 11th December 2013, only 2 days prior to Scottish Power Renewables [SPR] dropping the Tiree [Argyll] Array, in my capacity as chairman of NoTiree Array, I wrote to Fergus Ewing and Ed Davey [UK Energy Secretary] asking for their interpretation of SG ‘s White Paper in terms of subsidy support . Ed Davey replied 4 weeks later. Fergus Ewing reluctantly replied 6 months later.
Notwithstanding predictable rationalisation from Ewing, both essentially agreed with the premise that, in the event of a YES, then any new Scottish Renewables development would be dependent on agreeing rUk subsidy support.
This would have a major influence on the trajectory of the development of Scotland’s most subsidy dependent renewables – offshore wind, tide and wave.
Let’s take a reality check, as contraction on that trajectory is already taking place.
The wind energy picture
In December 2013, the Tiree [Argyll] Array, at 1800MW the worlds largest proposed offshore wind farm when announced in 2009 and SG’s flagship offshore renewables project, was abandoned by its developer, Scottish Power [Iberdrola], because, among other reasons, it was ‘financially unviable’.
A few months later, SSE also dropped the Islay offshore wind farm [690MW].
Dropping these 2 projects removed 50% of SG’s 2020 target for offshore renewables.
SSE, has withdrawn from the Scotland-Norway interconnector project, NorthConnect. Th e Norwegian investors have not progressed it any further.
The European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre [EOWDC] Aberdeen project is in limbo. Although consented, its main investor, Vattenfal [a Swedish Government utility] put its majority share up for sale in May 2013. It still does not have a buyer. No development has taken place.
The Scottish Government has invested heavily in 2 sites [Methil in Fife & Hunterston in Ayrshire] offering test sites for offshore turbines. Bizarrely the Methil site is only 50m offshore, connected to Methil harbour by a walkway; and Hunterston is on terra firma. What such land-based locations add to the sum of knowledge re offshore wind is a mystery .These Scottish test sites appear irrelevant and redundant.
The Methil tester is in jeopardy as Samsung [S.Korea] reviews its offshore ambitions. The offshore industry openly speculates on Samsung’s withdrawal.
The Hunsterston Tester may prove a folly. Only one berth [Siemens] out of a possible three has been taken up. But the Siemens unit does not need testing. It is already generating offshore from an English North Sea offshore wind farm. The promised Mitsubishi unit may prove a mirage. It may front up next year, 18 months later than expected. It is ‘completing tests in Japan’. But why is further Scottish testing required for a unit that is already generating offshore, as Japan’s floating prototype?
Scotland cannot, as Scottish Government imagines and wishes to believe – and as Alex S has stated – become ‘the Green energy capital of Europe’; nor the ‘home to the new offshore energy technologies of the future’; nor ‘the intellectual power house of green energy’; nor can Scotland’s ‘energy innovation …power the world’.
And the reasons?
- Scotland has no offshore wind supply out of UK’s 3,650MW current offshore wind supply.
- Scotland has 1,660MW of UK’s 3,126MW consented capacity, of which only 690MW has applied to the subsidy regime. Consent does not beget investment and/or development. The Developers of these projects have put major caveats to their ultimate commitment to invest and develop. This contrasts with UK consented projects, most of which are ‘developer positive’ – and include 2 projects which are extensions to existing operational offshore wind farms.
- Scotland has a mere 2,250MW out of rUK’s 12,120 MW proposed capacity ‘ in planning’. This is a misnomer as it would be more accurate to describe this capacity as ’conceptual’;
- Scotland has 2,600MW out of UK’s 20,500MW capacity in ‘development’. Again a misnomer. This capacity is no more then ‘splodges’ on a map. See Offshore Wind Project Timelines here.
The development of other Scottish Offshore renewables is showing a similar contracting trajectory.
The tidal energy picture
As with wave, tidal energy requires the highest rate of subsidy support.
It is immature, expensive technology compared to wind – but tidal, unlike wind and wave, is predictable and quantifiable.
The only project currently making any progress is the MAYGEN [Pentland Firth Project] but contrary to current hype the recently announced £50 Million finance package is for a mere 4 X 1.5 MW units. The finance package has yet to be formally completed but is mainly from UK and Scottish Government agencies.
Tidal is dominated by non UK-Scottish developers applying French and Norwegian technology/hardware. In March SSE announced a major withdrawal.
The wave energy picture
As with tidal, wave energy requires the highest rate of subsidy support. It requires a fundamental technological break through, in wave kinetic energy transfer, if it is to realise any meaningful commercial development.
But here is the rub for an Independent Scotland. These resources are geographically furthest away from their only potential consumer – rUK.
The overall situation in miniature
Shetland offers a microcosm of this issue and the additional investment required for back up load. SG has just announced a new £166.3 million oil fuelled power station for Shetland. It will double the capacity of the existing power station which it will replace, yet consent has also been given for a 457MW onshore wind farm power station. And Shetland is not connected to the National Grid?
There is no point in having, as SG repeats ad nauseam, 25% of Europe’s offshore wind and tidal potential, or 10% of Europe’s wave energy potential’ if you cannot deliver it at what the consumer is willing to pay.
If you can’t do that, then all that exists is ‘potential’.
A YES vote will dictate that any new Scottish Renewables will only be developed, on a project by project basis, subject to rUk subsidy.
This will reduce the Alex S promised ‘DING’ of a Scottish Industrial Renaissance to a dull THUD.
And the source of this conclusion? Scottish Government’s own Independence White Paper.
Robert Trythall
4th September 2014
