Well I think you'll find in the Norwegian case that (a) they do indeed have lots of hydro, inc. storage, but they have the greedy habit of using most of it themselves, and (b) what surplus they have they export via their interconnectors to Sweden and Denmark (and thus the rest of Europe) so they're already in the fold.Pepperman wrote:Hence bringing Iceland and Norway into the fold. Iceland has far more geothermal potential than it can ever deal with and Norway has enormous hydro capacity.
Whenever discussions turn to high penetration renewables, the naysayers always seem to assume that wind will be the only renewable source in the mix. It won't.
Iceland's geothermal capacity is piddling at the moment - about 150 MW and very variable depending on how many plants have been written off in the latest eruption. In fact, I think they only have one plant at Myvatn, which is part CHP for a diatomite [sic?] factory. They do have lots of hydro, but they've just decided to build their very own Al smelter. And building an interconnector to Iceland is no walk in the park - there's a deep ocean valley in the way.
hydro potential in the UK? Scottish Hydro, in the 50s, had another 1 GW of potential hydro sites earmarked for development. Not all the of the Scottish hydro development in existence (about 1.3 GW) involved the building of dams - often it's descrete tunnels through mountains interconnecting systems via generators. I'll bet a lot of the public doesn't even notice the Scottish hydro plants.
I just do not understand kenneal's attitude that, on the one hand hydro is bad, and on the other it's apparently OK to plaster the wilds of Scotland with wind turbines, many of them built on delicate peat moors such as the Isle of Lewis. (I appreciate that's putting words in K's mouth, but hey, why I should I be the only one not allowed to do that!)