Meanwhile, my research partner keyed me into the proposed windfarm in the Cairngorms National Park in Scotland. My initial reaction, fueled by found memories of the Scottish highlands, was to pack my bags and go investigate in person. What more pleasant research project is there than one fed by scenic vistas of unfathomable lochs, warmed by a sampling of local scotch whiskies?
[That's about the best you can do for a photo from behind a dirty train window as you fly by the Cairngorms in the dead of winter!]
But I digress... The Allt Duine windfarm has already been curtailed to fewer than 34 turbines in response to public concerns about spoiling the scenery of the 3800+ square kilometer Cairngorm National Park, against which the windfarm is expected to be sited, highlighting one of the usual objections to wind energy development from a social perspective. The case also illustrates the challenges posed by overlapping jurisdictional scales as the developer, local interest groups, local government, and the national government of Scotland discuss and negotiate the appropriate outcome here.
Tying this back to the UN report I'm digesting right now, in 2007, Scotland set a national renewable energy portfolio target of 31% by 2011. Currently, they are on track to exceed that target, which raises a number of questions. Do smaller, more economically, socially, and geographically uniform nations have an advantage when it comes to adopting renewable energy? Or is the ability to reach the target more due to Scotland's vast renewable energy resources?
Politically and economically, what is driving this scheme, and how strategic were the 2011 targets (was there an expectation of exceeding the target from the outset)? With a goal of 100% by 2020, there seems some evidence of sincere commitment to the cause at least. Current progress exceeds expectations, making achievement an exciting possibility, but once the low hanging fruit has been harvested, perhaps projects like the Allt Duine farm become more challenging from a social and economic standpoint. Scotland boasts the advantage of having funding set aside for such development in the Climate Change Fund, but how far will GBP18.8 million really take them (by comparison, San Fransisco in the United States alone has set aside USD$100 million simply in their solar power initiatives).
One further interesting line of thought raised in both this UN report and on the Scottish government's own website is how to identify properly what are renewables. When it comes to the big traditional power sources, it seems fairly easy to reach consensus about what is not renewable (oil, gas, and coal). It can be more difficult, however, to define what is renewable, especially when economic sustainability and energy independence overlay as separate but related concerns.The Scottish government includes wind (onshore and offshore), hydro, wave, tidal, biomass, solar, and geothermal, but for some of these, there is room to argue. At what scale and over what time frame these renewable resources exist, and how quickly they are able to pay back both the financial investment and the offset the resources consumed to produce these facilities (both in development and long term maintenance), may become major questions in understanding the overall impact of renewable development as well as the obstacles to it.
Really?! The City of San Fran has set aside over three times the resources for solar energy compared to Scotland? According to Google, Scotland is about 30,410 sq. mi. with a population of about 5.2 million. Compare this to the metropolitan area of San Fran at almost 7,000 sq. miles and a population of about 7.2 million. Are their per capita energy needs really so different? Or is it that Scotland is better situated to take advantage of renewable energy whereas the fog-smothered Bay Area isn’t?
ReplyDeleteYour last para sums it up nicely. Including initial costs to design and construct a new facility to generate renewable power and O&M costs over the life of the facility, you can look at it strictly as a question of ROI. However, this of course ignores costs and benefits that are more difficult to quantify. As in the case of Allt Duine, the preservation of which is considered by some to be culturally – or at least aesthetically – significant. How does this weigh against the other environmental impacts – both positive and negative? Consider, for example, potential damage to ecosystem health (birds, others?) versus the offset in carbon emissions and improved air quality. How does one begin to quantify these considerations in answering the questions of socio-political and economic barriers to renewable energy?
ReplyDeleteAs you rightly point out, there is also the question of how to define renewable energy. This might relate back to the economic perspective of ROI. If energy inputs do not significantly offset energy gains, can a source rightly be considered renewable? And how deeply does one investigate the lifecycle costs of these projects – monetary, energetic and environmental (i.e. the manufacturing costs, transportation, upkeep, mitigation to protect wildlife, etc…)? Food for thought (and perhaps further discussion?)