The Scottish Government

#44

Given the state of drilling technology and the ability to drill BELOW the oil reserves and then UPWARDS into the lowest point so that the inbuilt pressure of the field forces the oil more downwards then upwards to the pipelines, thereby making the process more efficient the actual percentage of oil recovered greater. I would assume that the oil extracted would leave cavities in the surrounding strata which would be used to house surplus materials. It should be noted that the surrounding strata MUST, by observation be waterproof, otherwise we would have a serious pollution problem, and that radioactive waste, properly chemically secured, would have no contact with underground water tables. (See foregoing). It should also be note that carbon is a material that can be used in many processes and should be exploited as a resource, not buried under the ground at considerable expenditure.

43. Dodgy Logic - befuddled 2 - Fife

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, the spirit was willing but the technology was weak. My boss also insists I work for a living.

I'm surprised that you are surprised that I or anyone else should look on returning carbon dioxide underground as a fundamentally different technical issue to the storage of nuclear fission waste products from atomic power stations. These are as different as chalk and strontium-90.

Subject to contact with underground water CO2 is rapidly transformed into inert rock. I should hope that everyone is aware of the potential dire consequences of radioactive material entering the water table.

"As for escalating oil prices improving our income and making the extraction of oil from difficult fields practical it still costs us the same increase in price to BUY oil for our own use."

I believe that it is important for everyone to understand that most of the price of the oil (and whisky!)that you and I pay for our own use goes straight to The Treasury in Whitehall in the form of duty and government taxes of one description or another.

Hadn't you noticed that subjects of Europe's leading oil producer(us)pay about the highest fuel costs in the developed world?

"If we now have a 'best' option why are we not implementing it now, instead of starting another 'conversation?'."

Here's where we were last year:

AWS Ocean Energy - $4.15 million
Commissioned to design, construct, install, and test a demonstration of the 500kW Archimedes Wave Swing ("AWS") wave energy converter at the EMEC.

ScotRenewables - $3.5 million
To position and operate the SRTT, a floating tidal stream energy converter. Involves dual horizontal-axis rotors driving generators within sub-surface nacelles.

Open Hydro - $2.36 million
A 250kW Open Center Turbine will be installed on the sea bed at EMEC's tidal site. OpenHydro was the first company to install a tidal turbine at the EMEC.

Ocean Power Technology - $1.16 million
Will install the PowerBuoy, a buoy acting as a point absorber which moves up and down a central spar as waves pass by.

Aquamarine Power Ltd - $536,000
Will set up what it calls Oyster devices, designed to exploit wave resources in near-shore locations.
Wavegen - $290,000
To develop and test a Wells turbine system, expected to be used on a wave energy project on the Western Isles, at Siadar. To use Wavegen's existing Oscillating Water Column (OWC) at the Limpet site, near Portnahaven on the island of Islay.

Tidal Generation Ltd - $150,000
Will occupy an extracted area from a core sample of seabed located in the EMEC testing berth area.

CRE Energy - $8.07 million
Plans to arrange four of Ocean Power Delivery's Pelamis devices as a single wave energy array. Each device will be rated at 750kW, for a total array of output of 3MW.

CleanTechCom - $532,000
Is to install two 1 meter siphon pipes which pass through the Number 1 Churchill Barrier on land at the Northern tip of Lamb Holm island on Orkney.


Pie in the sky and gimmicks? Aye right!

#42

For fuded read funded.

I am surprised that someone who can conceive of CO2 being deposited deep under the ground in cavities from whence it came, can't use the same logic for storing nuclear waste in the same places!

As for escalating oil prices improving our income and making the extraction of oil from difficult fields practical it still costs us the same increase in price to BUY oil for our own use. The question is, 'are we a nett importer or exporter of oil?' If we are a nett exporter by how much? Will this be enough to pay our outgoings, such as health services, pensions, benefits, schooling and nursery costs, policing ....? Still too many unanswered questions, still too many cutbacks in local services despite the famous 'concordat'.

Richard Branson is investing in a prize winning proven technology, which presumably implies that the prize winner kept the prize!! Radical idea! The First Minister's idea is that the prize winner invests the prize in developing the idea. I don't expect many takers in this proposal.

I don't have any problems with the Parliamentry answer to the question as there were a number of companies working on the same idea. Why should we expect the exchequer to forecast which would be the right or best option? If we now have a 'best' option why are we not implementing it now, instead of starting another 'conversation?'.

Pie in the sky and gimmicks.

#40. Carbon Capture fuded by whom? - Fife
>>Perhaps like the carbon capture and this forum we can have a conversation about it.<<
Converse away, that's what this forum is for is it not?
Let me put it this way for you:

Alistair Darling MP as UK Energy Minister(reserved issue remember?) explained last year that there were supposed to be 'several' companies offering Carbon Capture in competition with BP for the Peterhead contract to be contested in late 2007(!)
Just as well we're not holding our collective breath?

Quote from Hansard 7th June 2007 (in answer to Robert Smith Lib Dem MP for Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine):

'As I said when we discussed this matter yesterday, I am sorry that BP was not able to continue operation of the Miller field, but I should point out two things.
First, BP always knew that there was going to be a competition. Seven other companies are interested in working with the Government towards building a carbon capture and storage scheme and, as I said yesterday, it is not open to the Government to hand over a contract such as this to one company, when we know that others are in the field.

Secondly, even if BP had remained in the competition, there was of course no guarantee that it would have been successful'

I reckon that twenty years of profits from enhanced oil production from the Miller Field now capped and lost, more so now considering what has happened to oil prices, and reciepts from selling carbon credits would have more than paid for the investment at Peterhead. Oh yes, and selling the clean electricity produced there.

You will no doubt have seen the latest estimates for cleaning up the first generations of nuclear plants, now past £70bn and onto who knows how much?

That's not including the storage and security costs involved in keeping the most extremely toxic and politically dangerous spent fuel for hundreds, if not thousands, of years into the future.

All this for a 25 to 30 year usefull working life, with dubious reliability of power supply to the national grid? Nuclear radiation is particularly tough on plant and equipment.
Who is picking up this tab?

Curious that HMGovt will invest in lumbering us with that millstone around our necks without complaint, from either themselves or from you, but does not see the case for investing in a connector to bring ashore renewable energy from the largest resource in Europe going to waste around the coasts of Scotland.

Hydrogen is a hydrocarbon based fuel which will produce electricity and water when burnt, where unwanted CO2 can be sequestered and stored indefinitely and safely in deep geological features where it originally came from.

There are currently over 200years of this hydrocarbon based fuel under the Scottish mainland and many times more than that in the form of coal under the North Sea, winnable safely using oil drilling technology and useable with the hydrogen/carbon capture technology being demonstrated now in USA, Australia and Abu Dhabi that was originally destined for Peterhead.

As for investing in these new technologies Babcocks at Renfrew for one is a world leader in this field.

India and China cannot get enough of their super efficient high pressure boilers for their clean coal energy power plants.
Just as well because HM govt here has shown no interest at all in them, prefering to dash for Russian gas or use nuclear instead.

Richard Branson invested in a field of technology after it had been successfuly demonstrated by Bert Rutan in winning the X-Prize.
No X-Prize no technology to develop.

Richard Branston not grandstanding and posturing, aye good one, you do understand I meant the entreprenuer and multiple world record attempting boss of the Virgin empire off the telly and the silver screen?

40. Carbon Capture fuded by whom? - Fife

The Energy Policy is reserved for Westminsiter. The Scottish Gov is not funded to serve matters concerning Energy at all.

"...by using 7 renewable technologies?"

No. There are seven different projects.

"What are they and how much will each contribute by which date?"

I do not know. However, the SNP have not been specific so they could be waiting till 2020 to switch them on.

"What happened to the 80% reduction in carbon based fuels by 2050?"

The SNP still have that as a target in the long term future. However it may not be adopted by future Governments.

Again, I will stress that the Scottish Gov does not have the ability to raise her own revenue that could be spent on developing new technology.

And also at the end of the day the Scottish Gov is not in charge of her own Energy Policy.

However, the only way these proposals have been accepted is by the Private Industry asking for permission to build on the land in Scotland which is a devolved matter.

The Scottish Gov has made it a priority that re-newables would be allowed to be constructed on Scottish Territory for the Scottish Public.

#35 #36

I remember the First Minister's attempt to blame Whitehall for not funding the carbon capture project that, quote 'would have made Scotland a world leader' unquote, in the technology. So why not fund the project ourselves? Why can't he put his money where his mouth is?

So we are going to achieve a 50% reduction in carbon and other electrical delivery systems by 2020, by using 7 renewable technologies? What are they and how much will each contribute by which date? Or will they suddenly be switched on in 2020? What happened to the 80% reduction in carbon based fuels by 2050?

Perhaps like the carbon capture and this forum we can have a conversation about it.

If we are really serious about developing new technologies we should be investing in them ourselves not offering a prize, (gimmick) that will never be picked up because the money will all have to be spent developing the product. Richard Branson has the right idea spending the money in development, to give impetus to his project not grand standing and posturing, like your beloved leadrer.

37. Peanuts 2 - Madeira

I will again state that since this 10 million pounds being offered is the largest sum of money being offered in the world for this type of project is not a gimmick but a show of commitment.

I also state that the SNP have accepted proposals that ensures Scotland is generating 50% of electricity by 2020.

Far better then Britain as a whole. Britain is spending under 100 billion clearing up nuclear plants.

Is this worth it?

Britain is already in debt and we are paying billions more to clear up the nuclear plants.

i googled fuel prices world wide after gordon brown and alister darlings window dressing visit to the north of scotland and the oil companies.dubai is an oil producing country and petrol is 20p a litre.scotland is an oil producing country and we pay 147pa litre at the moment.surpise surprise gordon brown the prime minister and alister darling take 72p in tax out of every £1 the motorist spends.and its no surprise that the folks that get hit the hardest are the isles and the north of scotland.the conservatives and liberal democrats are all happy to see the status quo remain as to told to by thier bosses in england

#36

Gimmick I said and a gimmick it is. People who are actually selling wave power technology round the world are saying that it is a drop in the ocean compared to the actual spend you will need to develop a new clean power source.

Since the recipient will need to spend the money in Scotland, and be left with zero in their hip pocket, with little to show commercially it can only be a gimmick along the lines of max class sizes of 18 for P1, 2 and 3`s. free prescriptions NEXT parliament ...... What happened to the nuclear option? Aren`t we responsible for electricity generation above 250 Gw?

How`s about doing something beneficial instead of broadcasting the FM`s latest pipe dream?

34. 10 Milion Pounds - Peanuts - Fife

10 million pounds would not even provide 6 months development of a new carbon free power source never mind se it through to completion.

The money is actually for the person/persons to come to Scotland to test their re-newable technology.

And since it is the biggest offer of cash you can not call it a gimmick.

And the FM and SNP have already accepted 7 proposals that will ensure 50% of electricty that Scotland needs is to collected through re-newables by 2020.

UK overall is not even collecting 2% of her electricity through re-newables.