http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/plan-for-floating-solar-panels-at-leith-is-sunk-1-3682080
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
"Plan for floating solar panels at Leith is sunk"
(24 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
Forth "Gerroffmoilarnd" Ports strikes again.
You have to wonder why the accountants didn't like the idea of receiving rent from some otherwise economically useless and unused water.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Just think of the reputation damage it would do for this company for it to be associated with a sustainable profit making energy project. FP being one of the largest housing developers in the city it just wouldn't fit with their portfolio...
Posted 9 years ago # -
"You have to wonder why the accountants didn't like the idea of receiving rent from some otherwise economically useless and unused water."
Or if any of the civil servants of the 'green energy' government who look out on this 'pond' might take an interest.
Incidentally the reason this water 'feature' isn't full of boats (no route for passage) is because of (fear of) the IRA.
Posted 9 years ago # -
FP being one of the largest housing developers in the city it just wouldn't fit with their portfolio...
By which you mean largest land bankers.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Seriously though, I wonder if the payback for this is dependent on cheap cells, expensive oil and continued government subsidy. Only the second looks likely in next few years.
Posted 9 years ago # -
By which you mean largest land bankers.
Playing the long game?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"FP being one of the largest housing developers in the city"
Is it?
Never clear how much they have actually been 'involved' at Newhaven and Granton - other than as landowners. Have (currently at least) abandoned plans for house building in Leith Docks.
Of course not that long ago 'we' owned it all (and most other ports) due to nationalisation.
Privatisation made quite a few staff millionaires (almost) overnight.
Now it's (last time I looked) owned by some Euro-conglomerate with the sort of made-up-name that seems to be favoured by those sort of companies that own a lot of the UK energy industry.
Ps - and train companies.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@ steveo
So you think solar cells can't get cheaper?
Is that because of 'technological limits" or cost of materials/manuf?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Forth Ports currently appears to be largely against doing anything at all, including investing in the port as a working port or releasing some of the large tracts of land they
owninherited for useful purposes. They seem quite content just to sit on it and let "their" assets appreciate.The Forth Ports Trust was privatised in 1991 then grew fat on aquisition of former public assetts by debt before being gobbled up by hedge funds a few years back when the housing and debt markets turned sour.
I think it's still in a massive huff that its bonkers biomass plans for Leith, Grangemouth and Dundee were sunk. "If we can't generate faux-green electricity, we're damned if anyone is going to generate real green electricity on "our" land".
Posted 9 years ago # -
Euro-conglomerate with the sort of made-up-name that seems to be favoured by those sort of companies that own a lot of the UK energy industry.
Arcus Infrastructure Partners, I think?
Named by the same chumps that came up with Veolia, Viridor, Abelio, Govia, Keolis amongst other nonsensical company names probably.
Posted 9 years ago # -
So you think solar cells can't get cheaper?
I'm not convinced really. I can see two things conspiring to keep the cost relative high, supply price stabilising and demand rising.
Raw materials get dearer even if its just the oil sunk in manufacture and distribution and eventually the Chineese staff building stuff will want paid a decent wage.
Countries with better solar potential will be willing to pay more for cells since their payback is quicker (possible). Scotland has a very low generating potential, much worse than is indicated by the folk trying to sell PV panels, out side of peak summer there is only a few 100 watts per sqm before you look at panel efficiency and the fact that most panels only face direct light a few hours a day.
Frankly I'd say PV (photo voltaic) is a dead end, useful for toys and satellites, for real grid generation then CSP (Concentrating Solar Power) is the only really viable method and only in really hot countries.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Solar cells becoming cheaper depends in part on technology improvements. There are various ways being looked at to reduce material costs e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27987827
Posted 9 years ago # -
Given that Leith Docks is constantly replenished by a river and sits behind a breakwater and set of lock gates, that keep the dock water high even when tide is low, a few bi-directional turbines somewhere in the vicinity of the lock system would be a far better bet for green generation methinks.
Posted 9 years ago # -
There's an interesting wee community hydro scheme being installed in the out flow of Harlaw. Not flashy or high profile but generates enough to power a few dozen houses.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Details are available here: http://www.harlawhydro.org.uk/
Posted 9 years ago # -
With reference to my last post, this interesting proposal is on the BBC today;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31682529
"World's first lagoon power plants unveiled in UK"
Note the proper, segragated cycle path along the sea wall.
Of course, it will never happen here, as Forth Ports idea of renewable energy is to burn wood chips brought over from the US in ships burning high carbon, high sulphur bunker oil.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I wonder what the downside is? It looks like a really good idea.
Posted 9 years ago # -
each one costs about the same as building a new nuclear plant (which is not small), but obviously the issues of waste production are much smaller.
Posted 9 years ago # -
True, and it doesn't actually say what the expected output will be. Though with a 125 year life span vs 25 plus another 10 clean up the cost is better spread.
Posted 9 years ago # -
each one costs about the same as building a new nuclear plant
Not entirely true.
each one costs about the same as building a new nuclear plant per Megawatt-hour
Since the Swansea scheme is ~10 times smaller than a typical nuclear plant (155MW vs 1500MW), the total cost to build will be ~10 times less than building a new nuclear plant.
Also, let us not forget the £100billion they are spending to clean up the existing nuclear mess over the next 100 years.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Also, let us not forget the £100billion they are spending to clean up the existing nuclear mess over the next 100 years
Actually, latest NDA estimates say;
"The current estimate is that clean-up costs across the UK will be in excess of £115 billion spread over the next 120 years or so. In reality, taking account of numerous uncertainties, the range is likely to be somewhere between £90 billion and £220 billion"
Also out today;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31725365
"Sellafield clean-up costs rise to £53bn, says NAO"
(Sellafield accounts for 74% of the projected UK nuclear clean-up costs).
Dounreay is currently £4.3bn to cleanup.
The MAGNOX plants (2 in Scotland at Chappelcross and Hunterston A) are costing £7bn, £1.47bn of which is for the former sites.
There are 2 AGR sites (Torness, Hunterston B) to clean up at the end of their lives. There is currently £8.3bn in the fund to decommission the 8 sites covered by this fund, so roughly £1bn per site. Most of this was raised through the selling-off of former state-owned British Energy nuclear operator. The fund is currently (January) up for its first audit to see if it is adequate to cover liabilities.So a rough guesstimate is £7.7bn for nuclear cleanup in Scotland. You could build a lot of bypasses with that. Or 6 vanity bridges for the rivers of Scotland.
The new generation of "private" (ahem!) nuclear power stations are meant to have the private sector offset the liabilities for cleanup from day 1. Or perhaps they'll just walk away from them and leave someone else to clean up the mess and pick up the bill.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Ultimately the cost of power generation is paid for by the taxpayer (with a modest adjustment for the amount you individually use).
So for me, I guess the question would be how the total cost of ownership from grassy field to grassy field compares with the alternatives.
I've never really bothered to read up on this before, but wikipedia appears to put the cost of nuclear and coal very close on a fully comparable basis.
Of course this doesn't include various externalities (in the article above, it suggests if air pollution was priced into coal and oil plants it would double the overall cost per kWh). Obviously same applies to nuclear (if you're bored, here).
Posted 9 years ago # -
Different project, same port -
"
HUNDREDS of new green energy jobs earmarked for Leith Docks have been quietly dropped – sparking claims of “broken promises”.
Proposals to create a wind turbine factory and servicing yard for the offshore energy sector were trumpeted as a major economic boost for the site when they were announced in 2012.
The deal would have seen Spanish wind power firm Gamesa join forces with the docks’ owners, Forth Ports, to create 800 high-skilled engineering and manufacturing jobs in Leith.
But a new economic framework for the area drawn up by the council has dismissed the plan, instead saying its future lies in creative and cultural industries, and in better links with the city centre through the extension of the tram line.
"
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/800-job-renewables-plan-at-leith-docks-dropped-1-3753314
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
