Renewable Energy – Issue Summary

Technical

* Renewable energy, by definition, is energy which can be extracted directly from the ecosystem and which renews itself on a short/medium term basis. This most obviously involves energy from wind, from rainfall via hydro generation, from solar radiation by conversion to heat (passive solar) or electricity (solar photovoltaics) and the action of the wave and tides. It also can include energy from burning of timber wood or woody crop resources where these can be re-grown relatively quickly (biomass) or from the natural heat contained in the ground or water bodies (geothermal energy).

* The theoretical resource available from renewable sources is very large, and if it could be harvested could easily supply global energy needs. Studies suggest (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution) that UK could use this route to a 60% carbon dioxide reduction.  Recent work by the Forum for Renewable Energy Development suggests Scotland could easily meet 40% of its electricity needs from renewables by 2020 – using technologies currently developed and at market.

* Unlike coal, gas and nuclear the resource is very much dispersed and does not occur in a highly concentrated form (e.g. coal is highly compacted woody material formed over millions of years). More advanced technologies for the extraction of this dispersed renewable energy are not in general highly developed – with the notable exceptions of hydro and wind power at large scale. Extraction of energy from wave and tide are in very early stages of development. Solar photovoltaics is moving from early to more advanced use of material technologies. Biomass is the most widely used form of renewable energy in the developing world (wood and animal dung combustion) but more advanced technologies are beginning to be developed in the industrialised world. Much technical work remains to be done to bring renewable technologies to the level of advancement enjoyed by coal, gas and nuclear.

* Renewable energy can be turned into a variety of other forms – most usually electricity, but also hydrogen (through electrolysis) which can later be burned or used in fuel cells for homes or vehicles. Biomass can also be used to manufacture transport fuels (biodiesel or ethanol).

* The output of renewable energy sources can be intermittent (or more correctly ‘variable’). The wind does not always blow, tides turn around every twelve hours etc. Since electricity cannot be easily stored (battery technologies are not highly developed in spite of over 150 years of use) managing the variability is a major issue. This could be technically addressed by use of a range of sources and by more sophisticated demand management and by greater use of the storage technologies we have in homes and on the network.

* The electricity network was not developed with small scale, highly dispersed, variable output renewable energy sources in mind. If the full renewable potential of Scotland were to be developed considerable extension of the network to accommodate wind, wave and tidal energy would be required (these resources are most abundant in the north and west whereas the population is in the central belt and east) – development of this resource will inevitably require major new network development. The network is currently controlled through matching supply and demand by the central co-ordination of a small number of very large generating stations. Extensive use of large amounts of small variable output energy sources (whose output depends on wind, tide etc.) will require new control technologies to be developed and implemented – involving much network development at local and national level.  

Economic

* Renewable energy is a ‘free resource’. However as it occurs in a less concentrated form, the capital cost of the plant for its extraction is in general more extensive and hence more expensive per unit of installed capacity (to get the same energy output over a year, one nuclear reactor equates to 1,200 100meter high wind turbines).  The total cost of renewable energy per unit is therefore generally more expensive (with the clear exception of large scale hydro power and possibly on-shore wind on a large scale).

* Since technologies for extracting most forms of renewable energy are not well developed, considerable up- front investment will be needed to make them truly competitive with coal and gas.

* There is a strong body of argument that as coal and gas do not have to cover the cost to society of the environmental damage they cause (climate change, acid rain damage, reduced life expectancy due to air pollutions etc.) and that if these costs – known as externality costs – are included then renewables become competitive.

* Economic instruments such as carbon taxes and carbon trading are being used to attempt to correct the failure of the market to take into account of the cost of environmental damage – however these will drive up the cost of energy and potentially give Government large additional revenues (the proceeds of the tax). They could also act in a regressive fashion – having a disproportionately large impact on those less well off, who spend a larger percentage of disposable income on energy needs.

* Governments currently use a range of other mechanisms to directly support and promote renewable energy – obligations on suppliers to source (using competition amongst renewable generators large and small) a certain percentage of energy from renewable sources (the Renewables Obligation in Scotland requires an additional 10% by 2010 and 15% by 2020) with the additional costs being passed by the supplier to customers in general. Other countries pay a fixed premium price to all renewable generators and offer free network connection (again with extra cost being passed to customers). Grant schemes to cover part of the capital cost of equipment can be used (Scottish Household and Community Renewable Initiative) as can technology grants to developers (some £15m are being made available to develop marine renewable technologies in the UK). These are funded from general taxation. 

Ethical questions

* Electricity generation from renewables is more expensive than from coal or gas – so long as the cost of environmental damage is not included. But if the cost of environmental damage is included energy prices will rise and will impact more heavily on the less well off. Similarly UK industry will be made less competitive than countries, which have not taken action to address climate change (with potential job losses etc.). Should we seek to protect the environment at these costs? If so should fuel poverty and loss of competitiveness be addressed via energy policy or social and taxation policy?

* Extensive use of renewable energy could meet a substantial percentage of Scotland’s energy needs – but it would have a profound impact on landscape. Tens of thousands of wind turbines up to 150m in height, considerable amounts of agricultural land (15-20%?) turned over to growing new crops for biomass (in monoculture, regular harvesting, large scale machinery etc.), small wind turbines and solar panels on many roofs  and gardens in our suburbs altering the skyline etc. Unlike coal, gas and nuclear where a handful of power stations in a limited number of locations can supply Scotland’s needs without the vast majority of the populace being conscious of their existence, a renewable future will be clear and obvious to all. Should we preserve the landscape as it is by adopting a coal, gas or nuclear route, or should we welcome the landscape change as it signals our personal involvement with the energy we use?

* Renewable energy sources are often most plentiful in remote and wilderness areas – with low population density areas. These areas will be most affected by the change. Similarly new electricity transmission lines will be required to carry such energy to the centres of population and to manage the variability of output. Those most affected by these changes might question why their locality is being ‘disproportionately affected’ to provide for the needs of others – but of course cities have little chance of being energy self sufficient because of population density. How comfortable should we be that some groups will suffer more to allow renewable development for society as a whole?

* Wave, tide and wind turbines placed far offshore (>20 miles) should reduce considerably in cost and will have a lesser impact than onshore wind. But these technologies are currently considerably more expensive and will not converge in terms of price until developed at large scale via subsidies and grants (some would say similar to those nuclear and coal used to attract!).  However some note also Scotland’s potential to be a leader in these new technologies (and grow the kind of export industry Denmark did with onshore wind). Should we be willing to push up energy costs or general taxation now with a view to developing these technologies rapidly and hence benefiting in the longer term?
* Whilst it might seem unjustified to use any resource which will run out when we have a resource which is unlimited, to what extent should we see it as justifiable to use a limited resource as a ‘stepping stone’ to developing long term solutions? Should we be content to use coal, oil and gas rather than current onshore renewable technologies (with high environmental impact) as we develop new renewable technologies with less impact? …And in extremis could some regard nuclear, with its small amount of controlled waste as being a price worth paying to preserve the landscape?

Church of Scotland, Church and Society Council - May 2006