Green revolution is heralded for Scotland

[Shirley]

Some interesting comments have been added if you look at the following link :

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1008642006



HAMISH MACDONELL
SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR
Scotland to lead UK in self-generated electricity New properties legally will have to have ability to generate power With rising fuel costs, plan is timely Key quote "The cost of renewables is going down and the price of fossil fuel-based electricity is going up. In the long-term, these will be seen as an asset for a property in the same way as insulation is seen as an asset." - A spokesman for the Executive

Story in full
ALL new property developments in Scotland will need to produce some of their own electricity through a micro-renewable generating plant, under one of Britain's most radical energy initiatives unveiled by Scottish ministers yesterday.

The plan is aimed at big developments such as schools, hospitals, council buildings and factories, but it will also affect large housing developments, particularly council and housing association projects. Malcolm Chisholm, the Communities Minister, said small developments - those with just a few new homes - would be exempt, but all others would have to conform to the new rules.

Ministers want to make sure that every new development produces at least 10 per cent of its electricity but the exact level will be decided at the end of a three-month consultation period.

Whatever target is agreed, the Executive's plan represents a step-change in the approach of government towards micro- renewables and a major new requirement for the building industry.

Solar panels, wind turbines, biofuels, photovoltaic cells, hydro-electricity or ground-source heat pumps can all be used to generate electricity and any one, or a combination of them, will have to be fitted to any new development.

Ministers intend to make the system compulsory and it will almost certainly mean that builders will not get planning permission for new developments unless they can show how micro-renewables fit into their plans.

The single biggest uncertainty for developers, however, is the cost of introducing micro-renewables into every new project of any size.

Housing associations which have already installed wind turbines have received government grants to offset some of the cost and it is not yet clear what government funding will be available and how much of the extra cost will be left to developers to pick up.

A spokeswoman for Homes for Scotland, which represents developers, said the issue would be discussed before a formal response was put to the Executive. However, she added that there was a chance that at least some of the cost might be passed on to buyers of new homes.

She said: "The success of such a policy will depend on the availability of the technology at costs that home-buyers are willing to absorb, and this also points to the importance of having a campaign to raise public awareness on renewable resources to accompany any statutory measures."

With wind turbines costing between £1,500 and £5,000 and some government money likely to be available, the add-on cost to home-buyers is likely to be slight - possibly as little as £100 or so on to the cost of a new flat. But the Executive may find it has to win over worried developers before it can get business endorsement for the scheme.

The advantage for home-owners is that they will get an energy-saving device on their homes, reducing their electricity bills and making the house more attractive to buyers when they come to sell.

A spokesman for the Executive conceded there might be a small cost passed on to new home-buyers, but stressed that ministers would wait until the end of the consultation to decide on the level of government grants and exactly how to implement the policy. He argued that the addition of micro-renewables in a housing development would actually make the homes more desirable to potential buyers.

The spokesman said: "The cost of renewables is going down and the price of fossil fuel-based electricity is going up. In the long-term, these will be seen as an asset for a property in the same way as insulation is seen as an asset."

Mr Chisholm launched the consultation paper at a sheltered housing development in Edinburgh which has already installed a silent rooftop wind turbine to power all the communal heating and lighting in the building.

Ewan Fraser, the chief executive of Dunedin Canmore Housing Association, which owns the building, said the turbine saved about £300 a year in electricity costs and with a lifetime of about 50 or 60 years for the building, would prove to be an extremely economical investment.

Mr Fraser said it was particularly important for the elderly residents because they were on fixed incomes and found rising fuel bills hard to cope with.

"These people live in affordable housing and anything we can do to make it more affordable is a good thing," he said. Launching the initiative, Mr Chisholm said: "For new developments, we propose that a minimum of 10 per cent of their energy needs are met by on-site renewables.

"Scotland is the first country in the UK to propose such a requirement so we are keen to hear everybody's views on how and where it should apply."

The Executive has set a target of generating 40 per cent of Scotland's energy through renewables by 2020, but privately they expect to hit that target a few years early.

The options on offer for a micro-renewable future ...
Small-scale hydro
These turn the power of streams or other small water courses into electricity with small-scale turbines.

The source has to be close to the home, so it can only be used in rural areas.

The turbine can, though, be connected to the grid which means that any energy not used can be sold to electricity companies.

The costs are high, anything from £20-£25,000 up to £200,000 or even more for big schemes, but they could save more than £1,000 by meeting all a household's energy needs.

The scheme's actual output will depend on the flow rate of the water and the height of the drop but they can be very efficient and provide all a household's energy needs, saving the householder £1,000 a year or more.

Wind energy
WIND turbines use lift forces to turn aerodynamic blades that turn a rotor, which creates electricity.

Wind speed increases with height so it is best to have the turbine high on a mast or tower. They can be attached to buildings and are a convenient way of offsetting rising electricity bills.

Turbines cost from £3,000 to £18,000 depending on size and whether they are connected to the grid or not, but some are expected on the market soon for as little as £1,500.

A medium-sized turbine can be expected to save about £300 a year in electricity costs. One advantage of turbines is that relatively minor increases in speed result in large changes in potential output.

Small-scale wind power is particularly suitable for remote, off-grid locations where conventional methods are expensive or impractical.

Solar photovoltaic
These are cells which convert solar radiation into electricity. They use energy from the sun to run appliances and lighting but they require only daylight, not direct sunlight, to generate electricity.

The photovoltaic cell consists of one or two layers of a semi-conducting material, usually silicon. When light shines on the cell, it creates an electric field across the layers, causing electricity to flow. The greater the intensity of the light, the greater the flow of electricity.

Householders have to have south-facing roofs and the average system costs between £6,000 and £18,000 to install. Savings could be a couple of hundred pounds a year as well as 325kg of carbon a year.

Ground-source heat
THESE pumps transfer heat from the ground into a building to warm rooms and, in some cases, to heat water.

The system is based on lengths of pipe buried in the ground, filled with a mixture of water and anti-freeze, which is pumped round the pipe, absorbing heat from the ground, to be transferred to the home.

A typical system costs £6,400-£9,600 to install, plus the price of connection to the heat-distribution system. This can vary with property and location.

Generally, ground source heat pumps are cheaper to run than oil systems, LPG or electricity storage heaters, and are

a good option where gas is unavailable. For every unit of electricity used to pump the heat, three to four units of heat are produced.

Biomass
Biomass is fuel, usually compressed into pellets or chips, which is burned in domestic stoves.

It is organic matter, and the carbon dioxide released when it is burned is balanced by that absorbed during its production.

The stoves cost between £1,500 and £5,000 to buy and install but the fuel costs extra and depends on the proximity of a biomass supplier.

The amount of money saved depends on the type of fuel being replaced, but is likely to save a household from £100 to several hundred pounds a year.

Biomass not only helps save money in fuel costs, but it also helps the environment by using up material which would otherwise go to landfill sites.

Solar water heaters
These use heat from the sun alongside a conventional water heater. Panels collect the heat then a cylinder stores the hot water that is heated during the day. They can provide almost all of a household's hot water during the summer months and about 50 per cent all year round.

Homeowners need a south-facing roof and a compatible water-heating system to make use of this technology.

The standard system can be installed for £2,000 - £3,000 with advanced models costing up to £4,500. Savings can amount to anywhere between £300 and £1,000 depending on the size of the house. The average domestic system reduces carbon dioxide emissions by around 400kg per year.

Coal would plug 20-year 'energy gap' under SNP
AN SNP administration would extend the life of Scotland's existing coal-fired power station at Longannet and import both coal and gas to see the country through the next 20 years until renewable energy really took off, the party said yesterday.

Publishing their own energy review, the nationalists insisted that Scotland could thrive without any new nuclear power stations, relying primarily on renewables for long-term energy needs.

But they conceded that there was a problem with the next 20 years, with Scotland's existing nuclear and conventional power stations due to be decommissioned and before renewable energy is big enough to tackle Scotland's energy needs.

During this "energy gap", the SNP would extend the life of the Longannet coal-fired station, but convert it to become a much greener station, using Scottish open-cast coal and imported coal.

At the moment, Longannet produces carbon dioxide from the coal it burns but the Nationalists believe this could be captured and fed back into the coal seams under the Firth of Forth, reducing emissions considerably.

This approach, combined with importing gas and coal to feed newer, cleaner gas and coal-fired stations, and driving hard on renewables, could see Scotland through without any new nuclear stations, the SNP claimed.

[hedgewitch]

It's certainly a step in the right direction.
Lets hope the government will dig into their pockets and help fund the project. It's about time they realsied that renewable energy is the ONLY way forward, grants would help people to actually make this possible.

Great post Shirlz.

[Martin]

I really hope it happens! 8)
BUT, if you look at the shameful shambles of the UK grant schemes, and the pitiful amount of money allocated (about 10p per head of population per annum), I sincerely doubt it!
The more I talk to people concerned with these schemes, the more I'm convinced that this government is only paying lip service to renewables - they've made up their minds already, we've been sold wholesale to Atom Corp. Inc
There are many simple cheap ways to give renewables the shove that they need -zero vat for a kick-off - but that doesn't give them the "spin" of all these self congratulatory"boards and initiatives" -imho, they're all a total sham (and shambles) - acronyms everywhere - EST,CEN, Carbon Trust BWEA etc etc.............

[ina]

I think ground source heat pumps should be compulsory for each and every single new building - they are quite cheap to install under a new house, but a lot more expensive if you have to start digging again afterwards! Also- why exempt small settlements, or single buildings? It makes just as much sense for them to be energy -selfsufficient(ish).

A step in the right direction, but I think they are still too tame with their proposals.

[Martin]

what annoys me is that so much money is wasted, and usually only on "tokenism":?
The technologies (strange word for strawbales) exist that allow very eco- friendly homes to be built at ludicrously low cost, using locally sourced materials - being very "efficient" the building in of alternative energy sources becomes even more affordable.......Whole communities can be designed so simply to be self-sufficient in power, water, and drainage - all that is lacking is the political will to do so- will it ever happen? - with the strength of lobbying from the "conventional building industry", I doubt it!

[Lord Azrael]

What really frustrates me is the fact that living in Scotland we are provided by Hydro Electric, but we still pay through the nose for it! Surely it should be cheaper??!!

[Millymollymandy]

I think ground source heat pumps should be compulsory for each and every single new building - they are quite cheap to install under a new house, but a lot more expensive if you have to start digging again afterwards!

This sort of thing costs about €20,000 in France. You have to be very young and know you are going to stay in the same property for the rest of your life to make it worthwhile installing!

[ina]

Sorry, I missed your reply until now. Is that the price for installing it under a new building, or adding to an already existing building? I must admit that I don't have figures for here, but I have been told it is a lot cheaper when you are building new - and you can have it under your building, i.e. the hole has been dug already, rather than needing extra land/garden space that you can dig up for it.

The town I last lived in in Germany had a heat exchanger for the public swimmingpool - I'm sure they' wouldn't have had that if it had been not viable. (Councils are notoriously short of money, in any country...)

[nathanbriggs]

last quote I had for ground source heat pump was £5000 + digger time ( aslightly unknown quantity becasue house is on bed rock, so it must be cheaper for new build??

[Martin]

I've recently called a consultant in to look at the viability of a heatpump scheme for a client - about the only way it makes sense is in a new build, where it can be used to supply underfloor heating. The thing that became very apparent is that there are a lot of companies "hyping them up", and recommending them for totally unsuitable sites. In the case that we looked at (a largeish existing dwelling of some 5,500 sq ft, with about an acre paddock behind it) - a local company was trying to flog them a 28kw unit - when the consultant "did the sums", it turned out that it would at best only give around a third of their requirements, and they would be far better off looking at other technologies, and that it would pay them to continue running their aged oil-fired boiler, as it was actually quite efficient, and working well!
Where they fall down is that although they'll loudly trumpet the "3(or 4 or 5) free units" of power for every one put in, but neglect to mention that it's electricity you're putting in - which is ludicrously expensive!
For example - if you use gas, that's what, under 2p per kw? -so if you used 10 in a day, that'll cost you 20p - you replace that with a heat pump, and still need the 10kw output - so you put in 2kw/h of electricity - at 10p- 20p - 8 "free" ones on top - 10kw/h of heat, for 20p - and to achieve that, you may have spent circa £60,000 on the system, have had to also invest in oversized radiators to use the "low grade" energy they output, and had many months of disruption while their delightful paddock is ripped up to lay the pipes!
Spending £60k to stand stil!

[the.fee.fairy]

I don't get why the government and local councils don't kill two birds with one stone:

Use the tyres they can no longer dump in landfill to biuld earthships.

Then, the occupants will be self sufficient(ish) energy wise and the green credentials of the area will skyrocket.

I'll buy one!