Posted on 01/03/2022 4:31:52 AM PST by Cronos
In 2011, Scotland set a target of reaching 100% clean electricity consumption in 2020. And last year, the country almost reached its target – 98.6% of gross electricity consumption came from renewable sources, according to the Scottish government’s December energy statement.
Scotland, which is working to achieve net zero by 2045 – a legally binding target – has one of the most ambitious climate targets in the world.
The BBC notes:
In 2019, Scotland met 90.1% of its equivalent electricity consumption from renewables, according to Scottish government figures.
The 100% target was set in 2011, when renewable technologies generated just 37% of national demand.
Cabinet secretary for net zero, energy and transport Michael Matheson said:
Scotland is leading the way internationally with our commitment to be net zero by 2045. This statement shows we are continuing to make good progress with the equivalent of 98.6% of gross electricity consumption being from renewable sources in 2020, which is up from 89.8% in 2019.
Whilst we do have many challenges ahead of us if we are going to meet our ambitious targets, we have laid the groundwork in 2021 for Scotland to take important leaps forward towards net zero.
“[wood pellets] count as renewables.”
Hmm. Hardly green.
My first thought, too.
One thing for certain - at 55 degrees north latitude, Glasgow and Edinburgh get almost ZERO energy from solar.
RE: my previous comment: Actually the amount of energy *generated* by wind is almost certainly less than the factor of five I cited from Wikipedia - the Wikipedia number is for *capacity*; hydroelectric sources can usually run pretty close to capacity, but the wind has to be in a “sweet spot” - not too weak, not too strong - to crank a turbine. It’s a reasonably broad sweet spot, but it’s still not optimal reliability.
Yes, that dodge is right there twice…“gross electricity consumption.” Then “equivalent electricity consumption.”
Something is afoot, huh?
It reached the level of absurdity in recent years in Massachusetts. They rejected a pipeline project that would have brought natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale deposits in Pennsylvania to their gas-powered generating stations, but they didn’t have alternative capacity for generating electricity. So they’ve been importing liquefied natural gas from Europe while they work to set up deals with Hydro Quebec to supply electricity from north of the border.
That all sounded great until Election Day 2021 … when the voters in Maine voted to prohibit construction of a $1 billion transmission line project that would have been needed to get the power from Canada to Massachusetts.
This is how these silly, utopian ideas often die … with two different factions of environmentalists — the “Zero Carbon” dopes in Massachusetts and the “Save the Trees” advocates in Maine — fighting each other.
40 USA states are bigger than Scotland, which has 30,000 square miles.
South Carolina is bigger than Scotland.
bflr
Ha ha.
Baloney.
Renewables? Natural gas is renewable.
So they they are exporting their carbon deficits to England.
Real Scots get their power from Dilithium Crystals.
This is similar to the origin rejection of the Northern Pass by the people of NH. The Northern Pass was the original project proposed by Eversource to bring electricity from Quebec down to MA, RI & CT.
The issue with both of these transmission lines is that effect people/property in the rural parts of northern New England. You know, where the deplorables live. They need the power down in southern NE. There is no need for the power in northern NE anywhere near the route of the transmission lines.
This was the same story with the Kinder Morgan natural gas line that was proposed. The gas is needed in MA & RI. The line was supposed to go through NH because the people in central/eastern MA did not want it going through their backyard.
It depends on one’s definition of ‘clean energy’. For example, do they consider burning wood as ‘clean’ or ‘renewable’ energy, as is done in the US? How about Hydro?
In other words, the number is meaningless without a definition. Most people consider ‘clean energy’ to be solar or wind. Hydro is fine, IF you can put up dams wherever you want...so that’s not happening, rather it’s the luck of the draw.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.