Bishop Hill Longannet to close
Mar 23, 2015 Energy: coal Energy: grid Greens The BBC reports that the Longannet power station is to close in 2016.
Scottish Power has announced plans to close its huge coal-fired power station at Longannet in Fife early next year.
The move comes after the energy firm failed to win a crucial contract from National Grid.
Scottish Power said it was "extremely disappointed" at National Grid's decision.
The Greens are celebrating.
Gina Hanrahan, from WWF Scotland, said National Grid's announcement was "another important step in Scotland's energy transition".
The correspondent who pointed the story out to me (to whom many thanks are due) adds this:
National Grid have given a £15million contract to maintain grid voltage to [the gas-fired station in] Peterhead, but that is for only 385MW of the station's potential 1.2GW.
Longannet is 1.8GW (2.4 in theory but they don't like to crank it up nowadays). So a net loss of 1.4GW capacity and a significant loss of grid inertia. It's maybe not the best analogy, but National Grid are now sailing very close to the wind.
Reader Comments (108)
Yet again a number of people commenting need to be reminded that energy policy is not devolved to the Scottish parliament. There is little point in blaming SNP over the closure of Longannet. Try to control the racism, please.
@Sam: the SNP is a cover for ~200 businessmen, including senior politicians, intending to extract English money from farming renewables subsidies whilst expecting English fossil and nuclear power to be bought when the Scots' wind doesn't blow, thereby doing a financial finesse. Salmond was bought by these people.
The English have seen this coming and will allow the Scots Grid to stop working. It's up to the Scots to see that they are also being conned.
NCC 1701E
???
Why gas plants are unprofitable : they are not paid for electricity when wind is strong ..so can't run consistantly ...is that the explanation ?
NTZ explains that has caused Germany's most efficient plant to close down
also interresting article on windfarms being allowed to dump heavy metals into the sea as part of their corrosion resistance system
For those blaming the SNP, here is there official position from them;
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/feb/pm-refuses-action-which-could-help-save-longannet
"Prime Minister David Cameron has refused to take the action requested by the First Minister, in the wake of last week’s news that Longannet power station could soon face premature closure due to the effect of UK Energy Policy – especially transmission charging.
The Scottish Government understands that unless National Grid agree a deal, Scottish Power will be forced to take a decision on the plant’s future next month and thus the need for UK Government action is now urgent.
After receiving a response to her initial letter, the First Minister has today again written to the Prime Minister pointing out that his Scottish Conservative colleagues have admitted that the transmission charging regime “discriminates against Longannet”, and that they are calling for new thermal power stations to be built in Scotland. They have also confirmed their support for a strategy that ensures sufficient generating capacity is located in Scotland in the future “without having to rely on importing energy from the rest of the UK.”
..................
plus lot's more that directly contradicts your bigoted dogma. On this issue the SNP are in lock-step with Scottish conservatives.
JamesG
There are three comments above from three different bloggers that I would describe as racist. Mr Montford has made no attempt to curb or dissuade commenters from being racist. He has lived in Scotland for 20 years and one might hope and expect him to be sensitive to this matter. His blog posts fail to set the political context in which the SNP operates.
The SNP's means of influencing energy policy lies only in its planning powers. Lapogus, in an earlier blog post about Sturgeon seeking help, made the interesting observation that the SNP had not recalled a local Council's refusal of planning permission. In this context, one might find the SNP blameworthy if there have been applications to build energy power stations for which the SNP has refused planning permission. I know of no such refusal. Do you? In addition, the SNP has to pay attention to the overarching energy policy framework
ttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/37046/1938-overarching-nps-for-energy-en1.pdf
which states that this National Policy Statement may well be relevant in planning decisions in Scotland.
The NPS makes it clear that UK government would like industry to bring forward many new low carbon developments - renewables, nuclear and fossil fuel generation with CCS - within the 10-15 years (from July 2011). It is also clear from the NPS that the UK government is committed to "increase dramatically" the amount of renewable generation. The UK government accepts that more electricity generation than now (July 2011) will be needed with a larger proportion being built mainly or only to provide backup.
The SNP has "bought" the green mantra about renewables. So has the UK government. The SNP has approved planning permission for wind energy because that is UK energy policy. The SNP government has been criticised by DECC for failing to meet its renewables obligations in 2012. The antipathy towards the SNP is not, in my opinion, mainly to do with SNP energy policy.
I hope the racist comments will be withdrawn and apologies offered.
KnR
"the Greens do not seen an energy supply crisis has a problem but an opportunity, so they actually want this to occur"
They should be careful what they wish for...
New here and interested in this issue.....being scottish and all.
Sam,
Who is this Montford person that you speak of - couldn't see any a commenter named as such ??
I didn't notice any racial remarks and would have to disagree with you - the dislike towards the SNP is exactly because they have taken aboard the UK and, thus, by inference, EU energy policy. How daft is that ?!
JL
Can someone explain to me, Are the scottish and english transmission systems distinct ? If so, then how/why ?
Also, I read in scottish press that another company with a generator further north in Scotland won said voltage contract - what is the level of their connection charges: higher / lower than central scotland based Longannet ?
JL
@ brownedoff - thanks for the link SP's plans to convert Longannet to gas, interesting, and somewhat re-assuring. Let's hope it comes to pass.
Jimmy lightbulb - the Scottish grid is not distinct, but there are only a couple of connections, which for the last 30 years have been to export an average of about 1GW to Albion's Plain, mostly baseload from Torness, which Scotland didn't really have a strategic need for when it was built - we do now!
There is a new sub-sea link planned between the west coast of Scotland and Liverpool but that won't be online for another few years. I think it was planned to compliment the massive off-shore windfarms planned off Arran and Tiree, (which thankfully have been scrapped because the expense and engineering difficulties of keeping a 400 foot high tower upright and bolted to the sea floor in Atlantic storms, finally dawned on the decision makers in SP and SSE).
So we have a weak link for at least the next few years, and without Longannet, when the wind drops at times of high demand Scotland will be heavily dependent on stations on the south to keep grid voltage up, and maintain grid stability, and that's assuming that English stations have the excess capacity - which is also unlikely at times of peak demand (>55GW). UK Peak demand v generation capacity graph.
@ Jimmy lightbulb / Sam - Andrew Montford is the host of this blog, also colloquially known as Bishop Hill, BH, Bish, and His Grace. He lives in Kinross-shire and having had dinner with him at an event last year, can personally vouch for him being a good bloke. But I agree with Sam that some of the comments were certainly anti-Scottish, ill-infomed and bordering on racist. But nothing as bad as I have seen on the Daily Telegraph where anti-Scottish articles and comments seem to be the norm. BH is very busy, has a family, and runs this blog in his spare time so we can't expect him to police/mod every comment.
p.s. @ Jimmy - welcome to Bishop Hill, always good to see new folk here.
Lapogus,
So the two systems are not distinct.......therefore if they belong to the same system then why do people say import/export from Scotland ? Is there some inherent racism here - the system is, thus, Britain-wide and some wish that fact not to be quite so ?
The Interconnectors are AC type or this new fandangled HVDC as in the link to France that I was reading about ?
I assume with the graph that you linked to there must be an awful lot more generators (smaller size) not represented on the generation part.....because there seems to be less generation to meet demand after 2015 ?
An aside: the probable gas-powered station referred to was Cockenzie and not Longannet ?
Also, noted regards the Montford fella', and thanks for the welcome.
Before I go, you mention a peak demand of 55GW for UK (inclusive of Northern Ireland......again, a distinct network via Interconnectors across the sea ?) but how much is peak demand from industry and domestic in Scotland.......1/14, roughly ?
JL
JImmy
Let me welcome you as well. Ex-pat who lived in the Central Belt for over 40 years and up to my stupid neck in local politics and news for most of that time so with a wee bit of an idea about what is going on.
Energy is not a devolved matter but you will find on here as on most other blogs and under articles in the DT and the Mail people who are not as clued in to these matters as some of us. They make assumptions which are not always quite in line with the way things are actually done. (Been there, done that, in case anyone thinks I'm being conceited.)
We also have, especially on the climate change threads, a host of well-qualified (unless they're lying and they don't sound as if they are) people who probably know more than the so-called experts.
If you hang around you'll find which ones are which. And if you're genuine you'll find us courteous and helpful. And if you're not you'll soon get sussed.
Lapogus/Jimmy
I know Andrew runs the blog and doing so part-time. Even so, I think there is more he could do to monitor the blog. Anent the Daily Telegraph. There are, as you may well know, Codes of Conduct that apply in journalism and have relevance to the comments made in reference to blog posts. The Code of Conduct of the National Union of Journalists says: "A journalist shall neither originate nor process material which encourages discrimination, ridicule, prejudice or hatred." I think Andrew might usefully pay attention to that. Moderation after an unacceptable blog post could be used, given the part time nature of the blogging.
The three comments to which I object are directed at the Scottish people, not the SNP government. I do not think them illegal and others may not find them offensive but I do think they offend the journalists Code of Conduct.
I think EN1 to which I gave a link above acts as a constraint and an encouragement to the SNP (and any other Scottish government). Any Scottish government is reminded that, when it considers planning applications for energy generation installations, EN1 may be relevant. En1 also says renewable energy installations should be increased quickly. Scotland is where the wind is windiest so companies are more likely to raise planning applications for onshore wind in Scotland.
I do not like the great increase in onshore wind power in Scotland but I do not see how the SNP can reasonably be criticised for approving the installations of wind energy given the overarching policy framework provided by EN1.
Jimmy - I don't think there is any racism inherent in the
systemNational Grid; just that the grid contol engineers who managed the grid in NOSHEB/SSE and SSEB/SP were distinct from their cousins in the CEGB - so energy transmitted south was monitored and more so after privatisation. Yes, the interconnectors are just 400kV AC lines (or maybe 275kV, I am not familiar with the grid system south of Denny).I am not sure if the Peak Demand/Capacity graph (which is labelled UK, and maybe should be labelled GB, as it may not include Northern Ireland) includes all the small STOR generators, but if it doesn't I doubt they will add up to more than 1 or 2GW at most.
FYI GB peak demand winter 2014-15 was just over 52GW. Record GB peak demand is 60.1GW (winter 2009-10, or maybe it was 2010-11?). So, if they keep switching off our old power stations like Didcot and Longannet, (as Cameron, Clegg and Millband have all annouced they want to do), it is difficult to see how rolling blackouts in cold winter spells can be avoided, north and south of the border.
Is this racism card a feature of comments on the ŵebsite ?
I hope not.......as I noted previously, I'm scottish and didn't see anything wrong with any comments against Scots.
If it was so, it's far better to debate on the commenters' understanding rather than possible rhetoric.
I had a quick glance through that EN1 document........section 3.3.4 is telling in that fossil fuel generators will be an essential part of the mix.
Why then should the SNP diligently attach themselves to this green policy........I mean, it's not as though there is CCS in operation - is there ?
JL
The National Grid schematic of the existing system shows 400kV circuits across the border
http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=37788
Jimmy
Are you a Scot or a Troll?
The post that Andrew produced about the closure of Longannet was brief and to the point. It was hard to avoid the reason for the closure.That reason was that a private company, Scottish Power, failed to win a contract from another private company, National Grid. In that context derogatory comments about the Scottish people are irrelevant and can only reasonably be seen as arising from a racial prejudice.
The "racism card" whatever that means does not seem to be a regular feature of this site. I have a suspicion you won't be either.
How can it be "racist" to make a reference to a nationalist political party? Even if you disagree with what was said, such comments are part of current attempts to undermine free speech.
Sam,
I am Scottish and I'm not a troll.
When taking a walk along the union canal I can look over the River Forth and see Longannet standing proud.
The current issue regards its future is the reason I came onto the website and asked questions.
It was your comments that brought up the racism issue.......and, to be honest, I think you need to do a lot of growing up if you're going to be offended by every little criticism of things scottish and, maybe, SNP by the looks of it.
I won't troll - as you call it - anymore on this issue and will stick to the political / engineering debate.
Now, CCS ?
JL
Jimmy,
On reflection I was perhaps rude and iF an apology is needed I will make it.
I do not understand how you failed to see "anything wrong" with the comments to which I referred even if you were unoffended by them.I think you still fail to take the point - I am not concerned about "things Scottish" but the prejudice that affects a reader to the point where he fails to grasp that the issue concerns private companies and not the Scottish people. And not, I believe, the SNP or any other Scottish government if a different one were in power.
I picked up on the comments for two reasons. the first is that there is,in my opinion far too much abuse, racial abuse, between Scots and English and we can do without it.
The second reason is that nothing much is done about it on too many blogs, including this one.
As to my sensitivity to the remarks, if such things were said to Scots in the workplace they would constitute direct racial discrimination. But the comments cannot be regarded as illegal in any way though they do breach the Journalists Code of Conduct and Andrew ought, in my opinion, to be doing something about them.
That you take a different view is apparent by your use of language - the "race card". You clearly attach little weight to my concerns but I'll thank you not to offer me advice that I consider unnecessary and did not seek. That's rude, too.
Sam,
The issue, as you say, is regarding private companies. However, if I'm correct then the owners of Longannet lost out to the Peterhead generating station.
The SNP in their supreme wisdom wished to make political point scoring regards the connection charges - against Scottish placed generating stations of private companies- but conveniently forgot to mention the Peterhead victor and the similar (or more ?) charges that they must pay.
If there are technical consultants within the SNP then surely they must be embarrassed at the affront that the SNP hierarchy put on.
And not just SNP MSPs, a Conservative spokesman (forget his name....Murdo Fraser ?) came on and talked as if the system stops at the border. Well, it doesn't Murdo.......the system helps each of the countries in time of need.
This is what is unavoidable to Scottish people.....a government and MSPs who play a territorial game.......basically they are shouting loud to show their (political) existence whether they are knowing of the technical intricacies or not.
JL
Jimmy
What you say about the SNP and Murdo Fraser may be true. I paid little attention to it.
What is the case though is that any Scottish government of whatever hue has little (or no power) over energy policy. If the UK government decides what is done in Scotland is against the letter or spirit of EN1 then it will undo it. Meanwhile the consensus view on this blog, I believe, one which I share - is that the UK government is making an arse of energy policy.
I hold no brief for the SNP but criticism of their greenery and (so-called) energy policy is of little value when the Scottish government, any Scottish government, has no power except to approve or otherwise planning applications of energy power installations and, in that respect, to act within the overarching framework of EN1.
Sam,
I agree that the UK government is making an arse of energy policy but, at the same time, it cannot be ignored that our true government in Brussels & Strasbourg deem - via their directives - which way energy policy goes. And, yes, they are the ones making a right royal arse of it. They deem, countries must then follow is the script.
The EN1 document still shows that fossil fuel generation will be part of the mix until CCS is in operation. Planning issues regards such - for example the Cockenzie modification noted by a previous commentator for Gas - should be at the forefront if scottish politicians minds if they are talking in terms of flows across the Anglo-scottish Interconnectors.
JL
Jimmy
Yes ...but
We (Scotland) must follow Brussels - we must follow UK policy. I don't think (please tell me if I'm wrong) that any Scottish politician of whatever hue, in or out of Holyrood government, can influence the decision making of Scottish Power over Cockenzie. Leaving energy policy to the market which is not quite but nearly what the UK government has done leaves Scotland and the rest of the UK to live with the consequences of that particular folly. Hinkley Point is an example.
My opinion is that any Scottish politician in or out of government in Holyrood has little power over energy matters. I think the SNP likes to pretend that it has greater influence than reality. In turn, opposition politicians like to criticise the SNP for actions or inactions when, in reality, the SNP has little power. Any Scottish government can only approve or fail to approve planning applications for energy installations. That is it. SNP is criticised for the number of wind farms approved. In approving them it is following UK policy. Has the SNP received a planning application for any other form of energy generation? You may know better than me, but I don't think so. We would certainly know if it had withheld planning approval for such an application.
The same political games could be played if Labour was in power.
Criticisms of SNP energy policy abound on this blog. It is no more than folk letting off steam and airing political prejudices. The criticisms should be directed at UK governments which is where the power lies. Imbalance in the UK energy generation mix - if there is one - is because of UK energy policy.
Jimmy,
Going back to your point raised in an earlier post about connection charges. From what I can gather there may be grounds for complaint. Comments by the gaffer of Unison, Dave Watson, about the reasons for the closure of Longannet are my source. He gives three reasons for closure. I think the first is probably most important. It is connection charges. The cost of generating electricity is biased to generating where it is consumed because of the transmission costs. This is important for Scotland because we have always exported electricity helping Scottish jobs and economy. Apparently, power generated near London will attract a subsidy from the grid but up North attracts a charge. transmission costs will fall next year for Longannet from £40 million to £34 million. Not enough it seems.
The second reason seems related to the first. Company indifference. Iberdrola seems not to have invested in the plant - according to Watson not investing to reduce emissions or introduce CCS. CCS? Just burn our money.
However, if you go to the company (Scottish Power) website you will see that the company has been investing in reducing emissions though not in CCS.
For the third reason I think Watson sticks on his Labour cap to have a go at the SNP, complaining about the "SNP's hopelessly unbalanced energy policy". Like much in today's politics this complaint hides the truth which is that the cause of the "unbalanced energy policy" lies in Westminster Pushed along by the EU. (But the EU did not say energy policy has to rely on the marketplace). I am cynical enough to think that if Labour was in power in Holyrood the SNP might also be obscuring the truth as Labour, Conservative and Liberal are now doing on this issue in Holyrood. It is a shame because politics (North and South of the border) really need honesty to flourish.
Jimmy,
If you are still reading this thread I invite you to have a look at this post from the "NoTricksZone" website:
http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.mStgVQXe.dpbs
Do you think Germany is better placed or worse off compared with UK currently regarding energy provision?
Sam,
Thanks for the web-link, interesting !
From the installed capacity it shows that a more diverse mix of generation has been attained.
A ratio of the installed to average energy is about 2.2........it'd be interesting to get that ratio with installed over peak demand ??
In UK, we seem to be very low........~5%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29794632
So, a greater installed fossil fuel capacity for Germany but I suppose what is needed is whether the fossil fuel carbon emissions are greater or less from the GW-h figures from all the generation.
So, is Germany better off.........depends on the criteria but as the EU sets green objectives then probably not (GW-h figures would decide).
Serendipity........http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/01-02/RE_info/interesting.htm
JL
Jimmy,
Thanks for the link. I could not follow it - ended up with wave energy??
Think I asked a silly question - comparisons Germany and UK energy. The scale and speed of Germany's change from nuclear is remarkable. A lot of coal being used - controversial there and here, though it looks as if Germany will ensure coal will continue. Soon we will lose one generator.
I noted in EN1 the belief that the fossil fuel generators which DECC thinks/hopes will be built are to be entirely or mainly as back up for renewables. Perhaps that is also the case for some in Germany.
The UK has ageing nuclear generators and loud opposition to them from FoE. The Hinkley Point generator may be in doubt over the subsidies. What an awful mess this laissez faire approach makes.
I don't think there is a chance Cockenzie will have a gas generating plant built by Scottish Power. Some of the locals seem to want no more energy "stuff".
Sam,
Regards the scottish governments policies in energy:
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Infrastructure/Energy-Consents/Thermal-Guidance/Thermal-2010
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/917/0095764.doc
[Refer to sections 1.2, 2.6 and 2.13 amongst others]
Section 36 consent is the main instrument which the scottish government uses for power stations.
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Infrastructure/Energy-Consents/Guidance
Also,
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0042/00427293.pdf
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/917/0118802.pdf
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0042/00427429.pdf
JL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29794632
Sam,
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/917/0095764.doc
[refer to sections 1.2, 2.6 and 2.13]
New applications
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Infrastructure/Energy-Consents/Whatsnew
JL
Scottish Government plans for electrical generation.......some bed-time reading
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0042/00427293.pdf
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0044/00441628.pdf
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0042/00427429.pdf
Jimmy,
I have looked up the links you provided. Yes, the SNP is bound by what The EU and the UK governments say regarding energy policy. I may be being obtuse and missing your point. Feel free to tell me if that is the case. By the way, I apolagise for earlier rudeness. It was my misunderstanding of your position that led to it.
Many on this blog have been pointing out for some time that security of supply may be more iffy than is allowed by interested parties. I Incline to that view. But I don't see what a Scottish government can do. The UK policy is surely to let the market, the big power companies, tender applications for plant generation. UK policy is also for lots of renewables. They get approval. (It seems to me from afar that there is some schizophrenia about renewables in The UK and Scottish government. David Cameron is reported as saying we must "get rid of the green crap" but does nothing about it. The Scottish government imposes a moratorium on fracking - needlessly, in my opinion. Political games to appease "greens". Scotland will not prevent fracking - that will not be clear until after the 2016 elections.)
Good for Shetland. What am I missing?
Sam,
An efficient electrical power system - that is with little electrical power losses - the generation should be as near to the demand centres as possible and, thus, National Grid's connection charges system is wholly based on this. Therefore generation sources other than being located in central London will induce connection charges rather than being paid to connect.
The aim of reducing electrical losses is inherent in all 'green' energy policies which all start from EU policies (our true government). Therefore with an (almost) isolated system such as in Britain the fact that Scottish based generators pay more for connection charges is something that can't be changed easily.
The SNP in particular play on this aspect.
This situation could only change if the UK government were to change the current rules. This change would be tortuous and have resistance from the players within the system itself. Otherwise, when there are more inter-connections to other european countries and the energy markets coming together on a pan-european aspect the change would be 'forced'. I believe the European connection charges are more based on a uniform level of payment.
Do you have a web-link for the decrease of Longannet connection charges ?
Indifference of owner - I thought Longannet had modifications to reduce NOx emissions (as directed by EU). However the cost-benefit of putting in CCS plant would not be realistic seeing as the plant is nearing the end of its lifetime.
Politics being politics the 'game of blame' would of course be played from whoever is in power or opposition. The 100% renewables generation target that the SNP set up is, of course, skewed. It will be interesting to see what happens at Cockenzie. With a gas based station this would help better, in conjunction with variable wind power output, than base load coal which wouldn't be able to change as quickly to 'chase' the variance. Whether the Scottish government - through section 36 consenting and 'import/export' based strategy - would let more fossil fuel generation be sited would show their bias, or not, of the interpretation of generation mix allowed for in infrastructure planning.
Longannet just about loses out in most of the planning and strategy aspects but some, of course, play the 'game' on flogging a near dead horse........but is that game for the benefit of the nation or mere 'noise' in the long run ?
JL
Jimmy,
Thanks for the reading material. See you next year!
I've lost the link you are looking for. It was an assertion by Dave Watson - no more than that but he should be in a position to know. If you google "Dave Watson Longannet" you can read the article. Earlier, I tried to copy and paste without success.
SNP and any government can appear in different lights to different people and to the same people over time. That is trite. Do you think it matters whether the SNP has "bought the greenery"? On balance, I don't think it does. The SNP has an anti- nuclear policy - not shared by the UK government. Were the SNP to refuse a viable planning application for a nuclear plant any UK government would exact a price. Something the SNP knows. Would SNP seek confrontation for political reasons. On balance, I think not. Instead it relies on shouting it's policies. Not something that would deter a power company that was politically savvy and wanted to build.
I don't think Cockenzie will have a gas power generator. What's the cost of CCS, do you know?
Sam,
My take on energy policies is that the Kyoto Protocol was originated from the Global Waming thesis and movement. Incorporating this into everyday life and, thus, electrical power aspects the EU has set limits for reductions on CO2 emissions. Thus the EU is the originator of green-based energy policy.
The UK and scottish governments being supporters of said GW policies - irrespective of what they say in public - are only too willing to cooperate.
The UK and Scottish governments can put in any zealous renewables, nuclear and fossil-fuel (with CCs) generation sources as allowed for in the infrastructure planning policies. However, what is interesting is to what extent - ass allowed for in EN1 - the fossil-fuel (without CCS, initially) based sources. Their technical advisers should be advising on the proportion of light inertia generators that can be connected or 'their may be trouble ahead'.
security of supply - generation mix / transmission infrastructure / interconnections / dynamic stability.......all are issues contributing to a safe system. Governments have a great responsibility to not let a skewed vision upset this requirement for the nation's good.
Thick skin - I hope I have such.
JL
Sam,
I had a good article on CCs cost from an initiative in the US but must have forgotten to save the webpage.
However the following shows that it's not cheap.......cost is one thing but really needs analysis on per MW production against CO2 emission drop.
https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/kemper.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/4/costs-rise-by-another-30-million-at-kemper-plant/
I really can't see what the Scottish governemnt would lose regards a gas plant conversion at Cockenzie......but politics destroys itself at times.
Take your point regards Nuclear stations.
JL
Jimmy
Different wavelengths perhaps. The SNP has already approved CCGT planning application from Scottish Power, subject to CCS. Scottish Power has started down the road of approval consent by the work it has done on site. My concern is that the cost may deter Scottish Power though I have not yet looked at the links you provided. Thanks.
CCS projects [UK]
https://www.gov.uk/uk-carbon-capture-and-storage-government-funding-and-support
http://www.sepa.org.uk/climate_change/solutions/carbon_capture_and_storage/sepa_ccs_position_statement.aspx
https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/white_rose.html
https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/peterhead.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/42m-for-ccs-research-at-grangemouth
JL
Jimmy
Thanks for more links. No time at the minute to take forward.
You seem very well informed. Your background helps? Mine does not - industrial relations, last seen in AUT.
Sam,
Am in the power business but not directly with power stations and have had to get my head around all the legislation available (for background more than anything). Haven't had to do it for a couple of years so this has got me reading and trying to remember which government departments have all the directives, etc.
The following link was put up on this websites front-page:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/carbon-capture-and-storage-is-not-coming-to-the-rescue.aspx
JL
Jimmy,
I read Ridley's piece with interest.
Do you think Cockenzie will get CCGT. I must say there is no talk of it. The word, as you probably know, is to convert the site into an energy park. This is against local opposition (in the tea-room of Cockenzie House and elsewhere). The SNP has stated the energy park is not part of any strategic plan - if it is, that would not sit easily with approval of planning permission already granted for CCGT. Perhaps the noises about an energy park are coming from the Lab/Con Council.
Did you read the Wood Report, by the way? I wonder if removing DECC as regulator was already decided on before inviting Wood to do his report. I strongly doubt it.
Sam,
Seems that the Cockenzie marine energy park has been blown out of the water
http://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news/prestonpans/articles/2015/03/30/528865-campaigners-delight-at-cockenzie-energy-park-decision/
As for the CCGT plant, coal power production ceased in 2013 and planning permissions for the CCGT had beengiven in 2011
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/917/0121536.doc
However, Nat-Grid's latest ten-year statement doesn't have Cockenzie listed
http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=37782
(Refer to App F1)
It must be noted that the data in App. F1 shows Longannet as producing 2000-odd MW from 2014 through 2035 so God only knows what's happened for that specific data entry.
Wood [Group ?] report for CCS ?
Not read through yet.
JL
Jimmy,
Thanks again for the information.
Ridley's piece mentioned that Scottish Power had "dropped out" of CCS.
Just to return to earlier remarks you made. I am not sure that any Scottish government can bear much responsibility for security of supply. (your reply 29/03 @9.08pm.) By leaving it to the market to have most influence on what gets built and when, is it not UK government policy that effectively determines security of supply? Certainly, the SNP can huff and puff and seek to inflate perception of its power. (It pays the price. Others criticise it for not doing stuff it has no power to do). In reality, it seems to me, any Scottish government cannot do anything of substance to adversely affect security of supply without incurring the wrath of UK government and Scottish population. Can you think of an example, real or hypothetical, that might show what I am saying here to be rubbish? Planning approval is what Scottish governments get to do.
German energy policies are interesting because Germany has gone for coal - (presumably without CCS?) Cockenzie/ Scottish Power has planning approval from the SNP government for CCGT, subject to CCS. EN1 speaks about bringing forward fossil fuel generation with CCS in the "next 10-15 years". Would it be reasonable in those circumstances to expect a Scottish government to approve planning permission without making it subject to CCS?
Cockenzie closed because of its emissions failed to meet EU standards. The company would not commit to new investment in gas until it fully understood how the market would work in the future. So, again,delay in decision-making. Is this something "blameworthy" attributable to UK government policy or just how things work given the particular circumstances? Looking at the speed and scale of Germany's achievements in changing energy policy and ensuring security of supply, I don't think this would have happened in Germany. But what do I know? I may be talking rubbish.
The Wood Report is to do with oil and gas exploration and production. This may also have some bearing on security of supply of energy since EN1 recognises the decreasing production from the North sea and the possibility of increasing volumes of gas imports.
The Wood Report is damning about the competency of successive UK governments in the regulation of the oil and gas industry. Its main recommendation is that regulation of the industry be removed from DECC and given to an independent body - i.e. from within the industry. Worth a read. Horror story.
Sam,
As far as I read it......
Consents under The Electricity Act [1989] regards power station (section 36) and transmission circuits (section 37) in Scotland have been devolved to Scottish Ministers. As noted in one of the following weblinks this consent usually is associated with planning consent.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/section/36
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Infrastructure/Energy-Consents/Legislation
Section 36, paragraph 4 allows for the minister to stop certain types of generation.
Also, the Scottish Government has issued reports regards the generation mix that they support - I'd say that It must be within what the UK government requests if skewed towards renewables (100%).
Thus, the Scottish government have the ability to affect security of supply.
In Scotland, fossil fuel consent MUST now have CCS-ready provisions.
JL
Jimmy
I had picked up the requirement for CCS from a link you kindly provided earlier. I was trying to suggest that a Scottish government is always likely to act within the limitations of EN1 and, for that reason it is unlikely that a Scottish government would adversely affect security of supply, except by acting within the scope of EN1 which originates from Westminster.
The Wood Report is interesting to me for a number of reasons. It exposes more incompetence within DECC. Wood makes clear that the personnel in place with the regulatory at DECC are working hard and doing their best. They lack the knowledge and resources to do the job of regulating a mature field. One might infer that this might be a deep-seated problem since the North Sea has been a mature field for some time.
Wood criticises the lack of fiscal stability within the regulatory system making it difficult for major companies to plan the development of fields requiring major infrastructure investment.
After the Wood report the Chancellor might have acted quickly to change the tax regime. You may well know that the tax hike on the O&G industry in 2011 was the stimulus for a number of major companies to postpone or abandon major projects in the North Sea. The industry's representative body O&G UK commissioned PriceWaterhouse Cooper to report on the total tax take of the industry, including the supply chain for that year using the tax rates applicable before the 2011 increase. The resulting figure was around £30 billion, a figure similar to that of the Scottish government's budget for that year.
Osborne waited until his final budget in 2015 before announcing tax changes. The taxes charged are now at a level prior to the 2011 increase. With luck, the industry now will have the necessary fiscal stability. However, if the Chancellor keeps control of setting the tax rates there must be strong doubts about fiscal stability lasting.
The Wood Review drew unflattering comparisons with the personnel resources the UK government attaches to the regulation of its Continental Shelf oil and gas resources and the resources applied to their portions of the CS by the Dutch and Norwegian governments. I am writing this from my memory of the review and I cannot remember the figures.
Wood did not deal in detail with the exploits of the Norwegian state oil exploration company, Statoil. Having read the review, I learned for myself a little about Statoil. This - from memory. It explores in around 30 countries across the world, employs around 23,000 people. In 2013 it discovered more oil than any other explorer. It is one of the richest companies in the world. Its resources have been used to establish an Oil Fund which will be used to pay pensions.
Wood stated that PILOT, the body that interfaces between industry and government to improve exploration and extraction had ideas - unfortunately these were rarely put into practice. The contrast with Statoil could not be sharper. It has recently opened a new research station, built for a purpose. That purpose is to raise the average rate of extraction across Statoil fields to 60% from the level at which it now stands - 50%. For explorers in other countries, including the UK, the typical extraction rate is 35%.
The competence of DECC across all its work directly affects security of supply of energy. There are other aspects of government which indirectly impinge on security of supply, I think. Planning?
Sam,
If one has a government that skews a country's generation portfolio towards renewables then one can say that it affects security of (fuel) supply. However, on the other hand, when electrical links (Interconnectors) to other countries - as per the EU 'ideal' - are consented then security of (transmission AND fuel) supply can be affected in a good sense. It then becomes a timing issue for a 'marriage' of the two.......not an insubstantial issue in the next five to ten years.
Either way both are contained within the EN1 documentation.
I take your points regards the DECC and STATOIL visions and implementations - it wouldn't be the first time that it has been said of DECC.
However, the ability of getting more oil & Gas out of fields is still constraining security of (fuel) supply to fossil fuels.....if no other fuel supplies are likewise within plans or portfolios.
JL
Jimmy,
I have copied and pasted a link to the Holyrood debate on the closure of Longannet which I hope may be of interest to you:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=9876&i=90451&c=1813325
Fergus Ewing's statements and questions to him are a little way down.
There seems to be a few knowledgeable folk on electrical power transmission here who might answer a puzzle about this proposed link.
The link is a new transmission route from Hunterson to the National Grid.
The puzzle is that it is proposed to do this by direct current (DC).
All links in Google and so on confirm that AC transmission over long distance is much more energy efficient!
Any answers?
http://www.westernhvdclink.co.uk/qanda.aspx