Subsidies move from wind to water as tide turns on renewable energy
Energy companies are concerned that future government funding will go to tidal energy, rather than offshore wind energy. Photo: Christopher Furlong
ENERGY companies have given warning that the Scottish Government could endanger the future of offshore wind projects by reducing subsidies.
SNP energy minister Fergus Ewing unveiled the Scottish Government’s blueprint for future subsidies yesterday, which includes ending support for biomass plants, and increasing support for tidal renewables. Electricity suppliers have to provide an increasing share of power from renewable sources, and different numbers of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) are awarded for different types of renewable energy generation.
The proposals, which will go out to consultation, include plans to reduce wind subsidies, taking onshore support down from one ROC per megawatt hour to 0.9, and reducing offshore wind from two ROCs to 1.8 by 2017-18. This means energy companies would have to produce more energy from these sources to meet the obligations.
Sources in the energy industry told The Scotsman that while onshore wind projects do not need subsidies as much because it is “a more mature technology”, offshore wind technology is still developing, which makes it harder to attract investment.
Labour set a high rate of subsidy for offshore to try to attract more investment from international markets, but Lib Dem Westminster Energy Secretary Chris Huhne this week announced a reversal of the policy and yesterday’s document by the Scottish Government indicated that it would follow suit.
The UK has the world’s biggest potential offshore wind market, with up to 36,000 sites identified, but energy companies queried whether this would be enough to attract investment.
Mr Ewing said he would be willing to listen to alternative views on subsidies. However, he focused on the move to cap subsidies on biomass projects, concentrating on small-scale, “more efficient” projects and removing them from large-scale ones such as the Scottish and Southern Electricity (SSE) plant near Lockerbie.
More money would then be put into supporting tidal energy, with the Scottish Government hoping to make Scotland the “Saudi Arabia” of wave technology. The increase in tidal takes it from three ROCs to five.
Mr Ewing said: “Scotland’s renewable resources are unparalleled. The changes proposed in this consultation will help make sure we continue to make the most of this valuable potential.
“While the Scottish Government supports the deployment of woody biomass in heat-only or combined heat-and-power plants, UK ambitions for large-scale, electricity-only woody biomass plants are an inefficient use of a finite resource. We have serious concerns around the sustainability of supply.”
The move on biomass was welcomed by campaigners opposing a proposed plant in Leith.
Energy companies welcomed the long-term certainty provided by the subsidy framework. An SSE spokesman said: “By continuing to support renewables now, government will allow industry to focus on further driving the costs of these technologies down.” ScottishPower said that the extra subsidy for tidal energy was helpful.
Renewable Obligations were introduced in 2002 to encourage generation of renewable energy. They oblige suppliers to source an increasing proportion of electricity from renewable sources. In 2010-11 it is 11.1 per cent.
Suppliers meet their obligations by presenting Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs), earned through sourcing from renewables such as wind, wave, solar or biomass. Where suppliers do not have sufficient ROCs to cover their obligation, a fine is imposed. The payment is set at a fixed price per MWh shortfall and adjusted in line with inflation.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 25 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
Slioch.
Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 11:31 AM#24 tested So, then what is the figure? So far we have had greenheatman claiming it is 5% and Ron Greer claiming that it is "almost farcical amounts of electricity" - presumably meaning very, very little. But none of you have given an authoritative figure: if some of the 27.4% of gross consumption generated by renewables was unusable, what proportion of that 27.4% was used? Nice try?? I'm not trying anything, I'm just asking questions. So far I haven't received any informative answers.
tested
Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 11:19 AM#23 The elephant in the room: "was equivalent to 27.4% of the gross electricity consumption in Scotland" Not was 27.4% of consumption. In other words was not always available at the right time. Was available at the wrong time therefore totally useless method of electricity production. Nice try but fail.
Slioch.
Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 09:39 AMHmmm, well I couldn't even work out how to open the url of the graph I gave yesterday myself, so I assume you haven't seen it either. Here it is in another form, embedded in an Scottish Government article: http:www.scotland.gov.ukAboutscotPerformsindicatorselectricity#a2 The url requires 4 forward slashes added to it, before Ab .. Sc.., in.. and el.. The article states, "In recent years there has been an overall increase in the amount of electricity generated in Scotland by renewable sources. In 2009, the amount of electricity generated in Scotland by renewable sources was equivalent to 27.4% of the gross electricity consumption in Scotland, compared with 22.0% in 2008. Gross electricity consumption is electricity generation less net transfers (or electricity demand plus losses and own use)." So, my question to you is: do you accept these figures? If not, why not? If so, do you agree that Greenheatman's assertion that "this mix is made up of 95% fossil fuels 5% renewables - and that is being generous. " is wrong and grossly misleading?
Ron Greer
Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 08:39 AMSlioch We can check the Neta site every day and see the almost farcical amounts of electricity produced by ready-to-use-now renewables.
Pa broon
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 01:22 PMNever mind theres still time to become the Saudi Arabia of Wind power. The people will be broke but it will look good on the SNP resume.
tested
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 11:37 AM#17 Rofl as Sam sees his employment prospects slipping away. Wasn't it the head of one of the renewables companies that said "no subsidies no windfarms"? Sure there will still be investment in renewables just not your renewables Sam. It always was a complete fail and the government is using the reduction in subsidies as a get out. Pity they didn't read the posts here which have been telling them exactly that for years.
Tintock Pete
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 11:34 AMWhy do some folk say this is "good news" as it will create jobs? It costs money to employ people and this is passed on to the consumer so "cutting" jobs would in reality be "good news".
SimonHurrll
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 11:08 AMWe think that at last someone here is seeing sense. Well done Scotland, what a pity the rest of the UK doesn't take heed of this common-sense. Well done Scotland, for too long the Mega-Electrical Companies have used the subsidies issues to roundly develop lucrative projects and capitakise on the uinecessary subsidies that are given out to them hand and fist at the expense of the cobsumer. The idea of the Sea Turbines (whether they be of the style from Northern Ireland or Scotland) is that they will create good areas for manufacture and thus employment in Scotland and act as a feeder for exports. We like the removal of the subsidies from Burning Biomass. This is long overdue. It is presumably also applicable to the burning of waste - aka Incineration - which we have continually been pressing for a curtailment in Scotland. This removal of subsidies for incineration is therefore also very much welcomed. The other idea which needs further accelerating is the concept of making Renewable Transport Fuels (Bio-Ethanol and Bio-Butanol) both of which the Biofuels Research Centre at Napier UNiversity are continuing with. This move by the Scottish Government will extend the remit to include more activity in this area and we hope that the company Genesystuk will be pressing ahead now to works in Scotland that were delayed pending this review. We certainly need the 2,000 jobs that they would create with their proposed developments.
samcoldstream
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 10:53 AMIt is a bit naive to claim that the development of onshore wind farms will suddenly come to a halt just because subsidies are reduced or withdrawn? Irrespective of subsidies, there are still massive profits to be made by developers from onshore wind farms. Electricitie de France(EDF),the owners of British Energy's nuclear power stations, has recently announced that it's sister company EDF Energy Renewables is taking on 1200 more employees to cope with the huge numbers of renewables contracts throughout UK, and rest of Europe. (Source: EDF Energy Renewables website)
harlequin
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 10:30 AMThank goodness some politician have common sense,wave and hydro should always have been the prefered options,it was just corrupt labcon members who favoured wind .
Harry Abbott
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 10:25 AMI've been puzzled for a long time that Alex was so in thrall to wind power .....The wind don't always blow and there has to be back-up generating capacity for the calm times. But tidal movement is incessant and seems to me the way for a fiord country to go. I'm sorry to say that as things stand at this time we'll have to go nuclear to keep the home fires burning until tidal generation takes the strain. The subsidy shift is the first step in the right direction.
tested
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 09:49 AMLooks like the wheels finally coming off the onshore wind scam, only political inertia preventing it being totally sidelined. Amazing how the prospect of 50 years more oil has put "green energy" on the back burner and I thought it was all about the environment.
wee-scamp
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 09:47 AMThis will please the Norwegians and Australian companies that are building the tidal turbines for installation off our coasts.
talbot
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 09:40 AMNo wind no power as per last winter when on the coldist night of the year Scotland imported it electric from France which is mainly nuclear. Using the sea however seems to be a good idea when they have go the technology sorted
Slioch.
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 09:38 AM#6 Greenheatman You state that the mix of electricity generation "is made up of 95% fossil fuels 5% renewables". Would you care to justify that statement in the view of the following graph, (source Department of Energy and Climate Change)? http:www.scotland.gov.ukResourceImg9330098414.gif (insert forward slashes in url removed by this site's destructive formatting)
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.