The biggest source of electricity in Scotland is onshore wind, which last year generated 78% of renewable electricity generation. Offshore wind so far provides only about a fourth of the electricity that onshore wind farms do.

Nevertheless, Scotland is making a big push to expand offshore wind, and has 40 gigawatts of offshore wind in the pipeline.

President Joe Biden set a goal last year of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2030, so the US ambitions in this industry actually fall short of those of Scotland. The US is sixty times more populous than Scotland

Some of those gigawatts are sited at the $3.75 billion Seagreen wind farm, which began producing electricity in summer 2022 and is set to be completely functional in a matter of weeks. Scotland currently has 1.8 gigawatts of offshore wind generating capacity in place.

Jillian Ambrose at the Guardian reports that the consortium of the Scottish SSE and the French TotalEnergies that has built the Seagreen Wind Farm only have two turbines remaining to install of the 114 turbines in the wind farm.

The 112th turbine was put up this week, with its foundation having been laid almost 200 feet underwater. This depth makes it the deepest wind turbine in the world. Wind turbines can be installed in the relatively shallow waters immediately offshore most coasts. Where the seas are deep, floating wind turbines can be installed.

Linxon Seagreen project

The cost of offshore wind has plummeted 70% since 2015. The Scottish government has decided against pursuing further nuclear plants because just as much power can be generated by wind farms, with much less expense.

Scotland is also seeking vastly to expand its offshore floating wind farms. It plans the Ossian wind farm off the coast of Aberdeenshire, which will have an incredible 3.6 gigawatts of generating capacity. Scotland has raced ahead of the U.S. in floating turbine technology because Trump was hostile to wind power.

Seagreen will generate enough electricity to power 1.6 million Scottish households. There are about 2.5 million households in Scotland, so this one project could generate 64% of the electricity needed to power all the households in the country.

The next British Prime Minister will be the third prime minister in three months, his or her Home Secretary and Chancellor of Exchequer will also be the fourth ministers in as many months, something that is totally unprecedented in British history. James Graham, a British playwright and screenwriter, tweeted this morning: “A Prime Minister may fall today. Soak up the history, guys. Days like today only come around every couple of months.”

In yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Question Time in Parliament, the leader of the Labour Party Sir Keir Starmer opened his question with a retort about an upcoming book about Liz Truss’s time in office. “Apparently it’s going to be out by Christmas. Is that the release date or the title?” he joked. Truss came out fighting, insisting that she would continue to remain prime minister because “I am a fighter, not a quitter”.

Her “Prime Minister’s Question Hour” in Parliament went fairly well, and many of her supporters thought that she would be safe for the time being, but early in the afternoon, her right-wing Home Secretary Suella Braverman resigned and, in a blistering attack on her, accused her of having ditched her election promises. This bombshell was followed by chaotic scenes in Parliament over a vote on fracking. The government imposed a “three-line whip” making it mandatory for Tory MPs to vote for it or lose the whip (being expelled from the Party).

Fracking is very unpopular with the majority of the British people, including many members of the Conservative Party. There were unprecedented scenes of some MPs being press-ganged and forced to vote for the bill, which showed the disarray in the party. However, according to the internal rules of the Conservative Party, the MPs could not force a vote of no-confidence on the prime minister for at least a year after her election.

Yet, early on Thursday morning, Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the powerful “1922 Committee” that represents the views of backbench MPs, went to see Truss at 10 Downing Street and informed her that she had lost the trust of the majority of Tory MPs and that it would be more dignified for her to resign, rather than to be forced out. Therefore, she found that she had no option but to resign.

In her short resignation statement, she said: “I came into office at a time of great economic and international instability… And we set out a vision for a low-tax, high-growth economy that would take advantage of the freedoms of Brexit. I recognise, though, given the situation, I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected by the Conservative party. I have therefore spoken to His Majesty the King to notify him that I am resigning as leader of the Conservative party.”

Thus ended Truss’s tumultuous premiership. Her departure after only six weeks in office was a rapid and humiliating fall from power that throws her Conservative Party into further disarray. She said she would remain party leader and prime minister until a successor is chosen within a week. This would make the choice of her replacement even less democratic than the way she was elected (selected) following the messy departure of Boris Johnson over the summer. This time, instead of going to the party members in the country, only Tory MPs will choose her successor.

If all goes well (and judging by the events of the past few weeks that is going to be a tall order), one of the prominent Conservative MPs, presumably one of those who took part in the last election campaign, will be chosen to succeed her. The problem is that there are few MPs who are prepared to welcome this poisoned chalice, knowing that their tenure will also be a short one. Among the leading candidates, the former Chancellor of Exchequer who received the highest number of votes by Tory MPs has remained silent and some of his friends have said that he is no longer interested in the job. The current Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is popular with most MPs, but he too has ruled himself out.

British Parliament Building via Pixabay.

The situation has become so bizarre that some MPs have suggested that they should ask the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson who was forced out of office following a number of scandals to return to his former job. In his resignation speech, Johnson who is a lover of the classics intriguingly made a reference to the Roman statesman Cincinnatus, who left power only to be called back to office when his people were in trouble. He had also compared himself to Winston Churchill who was invited to serve as prime minister when the country was facing a major crisis. However, many opposition figures have said that he should be barred from returning to office given his past record.

Whatever happens, it is clear that British politics is passing through a period of the worst crisis since the Second World War. The current problems started with a foolish referendum called for by the former Prime Minister David Cameron on whether to stay or leave the European Union. As a parliamentary democracy, British policies are not decided by referenda, especially on such a complex issue as the EU membership. The vote in favour of Brexit was won by a small majority of voters. It was pushed by a small number of fanatical MPs and political activists who allegedly wanted to make Britain independent and to usher in a brilliant era of economic progress. Brexit was opposed by the majority of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters. It was also opposed by a decisive majority of voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and even by a number of senior Tory MPs.

Brexit has strengthened independence campaigns in Scotland and Northern Ireland and its disastrous consequences have also turned many of its initial supporters against it. Not only has Brexit not led to economic progress, it has acted as a deadly poison in the British body politics, cutting Britain off from the largest single market in the world. Polls show that if a referendum was held today, a big majority of people would vote against it.

The situation has been aggravated by the aftermath of Covid that has brought the National Health Service to its knees, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the highest rate of inflation for 40 years, unprecedented high energy costs, a looming recession, increased interest rates, making life very difficult for old-age pensioners, those with mortgages, and those on low income.

In the midst of all this, Truss and her short-lived Chancellor of Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng introduced a new budget dropping the top rate of tax which would only benefit the super-rich, lifted the limit on bankers’ bonuses and raised the tax for most of the people. These Neo-Conservative policies that were based on extreme economic ideologies and free market fundamentalism that were hostile to workers’ rights and the environment, crashed the pound, raised mortgage repayments and dramatically hyped the cost of borrowing. Kwarteng was forced to resign only three weeks after being appointed to his job.

This shambolic change of government has not only undermined Britain’s standing in the world, it has also weakened the Western alliance at a critical time in the history of the world. The rise of right-wing politicians in Italy, Hungary, Turkey and now Britain has delivered a major blow to Western democracy. If the Republicans manage to gain control of the House and Senate in next month’s mid-term election, the West will be in a much weaker ideological position in its confrontation with China, Russia and other autocracies. These events must be a wakeup call for the West to rethink its policies and put its house in order.

England itself has many gigawatts of offshore wind capacity in the pipeline, and just one of the planned projects will generate five percent of the country’s electricity needs.

Britain has a goal of 40 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2030. The Scottish facilities would generate almost as much as the entire current Biden plan for U.S. offshore wind by 2030, which is 30 gigawatts. The difference is that Scottish, and UK companies more generally, are old hands at this technology, whereas the US is backward and starting almost from scratch.

Although a lot of the talk about getting into renewables by the big oil companies is just greenwashing, I am glad to see that BP is finally doing something practical by investing in one of the ScotWind projects. It doesn’t make up for all the damage they did with anti-climate science propaganda and dirty tricks, but it does demonstrate that even the worst of the worst are now being forced by the market and public opinion to begin going green. In other words, Big Carbon knows it is doomed if it doesn’t get into renewables. It is an epochal implicit admission.

bp: “bp and EnBW successful in ScotWind offshore wind bid”

Offshore wind and especially floating turbines offer some special and very attractive characteristics:

1. Offshore winds are steadier, thus reducing intermittency and increasing reliability.

2. Offshore winds are faster, which matters a lot for power generation. Turbines spun by 15 mile an hour winds generate twice as much power as those spun by 12 mile an hour winds.

3. Floating wind turbines can be placed even over deep waters where fixed towers are not practical, and can be placed far enough off the coast so that they are not visible, thus avoiding popular opposition or any impact on tourism.

4. Acteon’s site observes, “Contrary to fixed turbines which require heavy lift vessels to install the foundations, transport and assemble the parts on-site, and erect the turbine, floating turbine platforms are assembled in port and towed to site with the help of tugs and anchor handling vessels, which can bring about significant cost savings.”

5. A lot of the demand for power is from cities along the coasts, which can thus be served conveniently by offshore wind.

Scotland already gets virtually all of its electricity from renewable sources and is perhaps the first industrialized country to reach that milestone. Electricity is only part of energy use, however, and Scotland has a long way to go to reach net carbon zero. It must electrify both transportation and heating/ air-conditioning, as well as making its agriculture and construction industry green.

In the meantime, much of the 25 gigs would be exported to populous England, which has been suffering from high natural gas prices. It is expected that by 2025 the levelized cost per kilowatt hour of wind will be half that of a natural gas plant, according to Simon Evans at Carbonbrief. Thus, even pricier offshore wind is becoming competitive. It is now 22 cents a kilowatt hour but is expected to fall in price significantly over the next decade. Onshore wind is more like 8.5 cents a kilowatt hour.

Crown Estate Scotland, formed in 2016, oversees properties belonging to the monarchy that are neither purely private nor purely public, and apparently the offshore sites of these wind farms are considered to fall under its purview. Its commissioners chose the 17 projects, which will realize £700 million (near $1 billion) in immediate payments, which will be turned over to the Scottish government. In addition, the companies whose bids were accepted will invest billions in the Scottish economy.

The projects are a mix of fixed wind towers anchored in the sea bed and floating wind turbines.

Murray quotes Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as saying,

“ScotWind puts Scotland at the forefront of the global development of offshore wind, represents a massive step forward in our transition to net zero, and will help deliver the supply chain investments and high quality jobs that will make the climate transition a fair one. It allows us to make huge progress in decarbonising our energy supply – vital if we are to reduce Scotland’s emissions – while securing investment in the Scottish supply chain of at least £1bn for every gigawatt of power. This will be transformational. And because Scotland’s workers are superbly placed with transferable skills to capitalise on the transition to new energy sources, we have every reason to be optimistic about the number of jobs that can be created.”

Scotland is demonstrating that an industrial country can go green on a timeline that could keep the earth below 3.6 degrees F. extra heating, and can do so economically. It is a great day for Scotland, but it kind of makes you feel bad for the lumbering, primitive, oil-stained United States, which is eating other countries’ dust in this crucial industry.

In 2020, however, Greg Russell of The National reports, 97% of Scotland’s electricity came from renewables, accounting for just over a third of the country’s energy use. Russell also notes that the Scottish government plan has been to get 60% of electricity from onshore wind, about 11% from offshore wind, and 18% from hydro, with 8% coming from other sources, including solar.

Ominously, however, Russell quotes SNP’s Natalie Don as saying,

“investment in Scotland’s world-leading renewables sector is being held back from its full potential as the Tories at Westminster continue to charge extortionate transmission rates in Scotland, making it more expensive for firms to have access to the grid to export electricity. “We cannot trust the Tories with Scotland’s renewables sector and to get the best out of it for the people of Scotland.The only way we can harness the full potential of the sector in Scotland is by becoming an independent country.”

Personal checks should be made out to Juan Cole and sent to me at:

Juan Cole
P. O. Box 4218,
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2548
USA
(Remember, make the checks out to “Juan Cole” or they can’t be cashed)

Both the ruling Scottish National Party and its ally, the Green Party, are agreed on the importance of moving to net carbon zero quickly, and on the desirability of doing so without the albatross of the UK Conservative Party of Boris Johnson around their necks.

Scotland has with great efficiency and deliberation accomplished its goal of getting its electricity from renewables. In the US, only 20% of electricity is generated by renewables. This is important, because if this small country of 5.4 million can accomplish this feat, so can other countries.

Still, electricity is only one kind of energy. Transportation and home heating have to be decarbonized as well, along with agriculture.

Scottish Renewables writes,

“Despite the heating of buildings making up 42% of Scotland’s energy use, only 11% of our heat comes from renewable sources or electricity. With the technologies needed to decarbonise heat readily available, government must raise ambitions on fulfilling our national transition to low-carbon heat.”

Sturgeon’s government intends to get 50% of Scotland’s over-all energy from renewables by 2030, though Scottish environmentalists complain that this goal is not bold enough.

“Scottish Renewables” reports that there are plans to get an additional 11 gigwatts from onshore wind and a 12 gigawatts from offshore wind by 2030, Scotland isn’t great for solar much of the year, but there are plans for an additional gigawatt of solar, which will mainly be used in the long summer days. The country is seeking another gigawatt from wave and tidal energy.

Regarding offshore wind, a new 10 megawatt fixed bottom wind tower has just been installed off the coast of Scotland at the 1 gigawatt Seagrass facility.

Source: SSE Renewables.

Scotland is interested in green manufacturing, too. The BBC reports that a new factory is being built to produce enormous wind turbines and that “£110m facility has been proposed for Port of Nigg on the Cromarty Firth.”

But if UK electricity transmission tariffs are a centrifugal force, helping drive Scottish separatism, things like UK investment in wind turbine factories are centripetal, tying Scotland to the UK.

Likewise, Scotland exports a good deal of its extra wind-generated electricity to England, and is responsible for 25% of UK wind energy. If I were them, I’d be nervous about losing access to that enormous market for green energy. So in some ways the UK constraints on electricity transmission do impel nationalist politicians to dream of being shut of London. But in other ways the renewables energy industry is binding Scotland more closely to the UK.

The report card is in for 2020 and Scotland generated 97.4% of its electricity demand from renewables last year, just a whisker less than the 100% goal.

Scotland will host the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in a few months, and is well placed to assert climate leadership.

Scotland no longer has a coal plant, and its one natural gas plant is under-utilized and seems likely to close in a few years.

Some 70% of Scottish electricity now comes from onshore wind farms. The rest is from hydroelectricity (15.8%), offshore wind and solar. Scotland still has vast hydroelectric potential and some of it may be used for pumped hydro storage (you use wind to drive water uphill and hold it there until you need it, then release it to make electricity when the wind dies down).

I’m glad to be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that Scotland is the first industrialized country to reach this near-100% renewables landmark for electricity production mainly from wind and solar.

Norway gets 98% of its electricity from renewables, but heavily depends on hydroelectricity. Ironically, both Scotland and Norway are oil states, but they nevertheless have made a push to drop hydrocarbons.

Offshore wind is also beginning to generate substantial electricity, and Scotland is constructing two gigawatts more of it right now. Some 14 gigawatts in permits for further renewables have been granted by the government.

The Seagreen wind farm off Scotland will be finished in 2022 and will generate enough electricity for 1.5 million households (see video below). Actually, since the households are more or less covered, maybe it can heat the homes as people switch to electric furnaces.

Electricity is only one kind of energy that a country consumes. Transportation by internal combustion vehicles is typically responsible for about 28% of carbon dioxide emissions, and the heating commercial and residential buildings accounts for 29%. Scotland now wants to press ahead on these other fronts.

Scotland now gets about a quarter of its over-all energy demand from renewables, Its leaders want to double that to 50% in 2030.

At the moment, only about ten percent of Scotland’s heating demand is met by renewables. So electrifying heating and transportation and increasing renewables capacity are the next big steps.

I should declare my interest that one of my grandfathers was a McIlwee, and so I am especially proud of the responsible Scottish politicians who have shown the world how greening a G20 economy can be done, in short order. There is a lot more to be done, and social equity to be achieved by transitioning oil workers to other good-paying jobs.

—-

Bonus Video:

1
SEAGREEN – Scotland’s massive offshore windfarm project