Scotland Watch

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 15 Sep 2014, 20:29

Mid-Bedfordshire MP Nadine Dorries asks; 'Why are we paying them to eat deep-fried mars bars when we can't even get decent health care in this country?' in debate over Scottish referendum

http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/Mid- ... story.html

another_exlurker · Post by **another_exlurker** » 15 Sep 2014, 20:49

While everyone's been focusing on the North Sea, this slipped by last year:

Scotland is on the verge of an onshore oil and gas exploration boom, as shale oil and gas majors, Shell, Chevron, Statoil, Halliburton and Cuadrilla will bid for DECC licences later this year to tap the potential vast reserves onshore, a new investigation has found.

Original article.

So, Scotland will be fracked one way or another. I have a feeling this goes some way to explaining why Salmond is being rather smug (more than usual, anyway).

It would appear that the YES campaign are banking on a shale boom.

Edit to add:

And then there's this. Which goes someway to explaining why Salmond (being an ex-oil man) really wants rid of the Trident subs.

I wonder how much the Scottish taxpayer (assuming a YES vote) will be expected to stump up in subsidies?

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 15 Sep 2014, 21:00

It hasn't slipped by. This as well as immigration and growth bau mantra is not something i like. but i suppose real change might be more possible the closer to power we are. that's the hope. but we're certainly fracked letting things stay the same. it's all part of a risky path.

another_exlurker · Post by **another_exlurker** » 15 Sep 2014, 21:20

Okay, it slipped by some of us.

One thing I've not heard discussed is the decommissioning of Dounreay and the eventual decommissioning of the other nuclear power sites in Scotland.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 15 Sep 2014, 21:21

Global warming knows no borders so if we burn the oil and gas, whether North Sea, off the west coast where submarines are want to roam, or onshore from fracked shale, we're all toast.

It should all be just irrelevant to the YES/NO vote.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 15 Sep 2014, 21:29

unfortunately it's not tho'. my crappy phone keeps crashing, so i can't load up complicated pages. does anybody more knowledgeable than me, know how these oil/energy possibilitied compare to north sea. are they sizeable enough to pin a country's 'hopes' on. I've noticed that renewables have taken a backburner recently.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 15 Sep 2014, 21:38

Look here, there is clearly far more fossil carbon in Scotland and what will become its territorial waters than will ever be burnt if we have the slightest chance of avoiding climate catastrophe.

What we need to focus on is that Scotland, with just 8.9% of the UK population, has vastly the greater proportion of potential hydro, wind, wave and tidal power and a fair bit of solar. In terms of renewable energy per capita Scotland must be almost the richest nation on the planet.

Mr. Fox · Post by **Mr. Fox** » 15 Sep 2014, 22:07

That figure quoted (370bcm) would last the UK about 4.5 years at present rate. North sea total gas 2013 was 38.5bcm, onshore gas 11mcm (0.011bcm).

Yes, Scotland can be more like Norway - sell the gas to the English and spend the money on hydro.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 15 Sep 2014, 22:09

another_exlurker wrote: So, Scotland will be fracked one way or another. I have a feeling this goes some way to explaining why Salmond is being rather smug (more than usual, anyway).

Do you think that Salmond wants to win independence for Scotland and then have it turn out to be a disaster. I rather think he has plans and hopes for it to be a rousing success that will be his legacy.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 15 Sep 2014, 22:11

Every single bit of economically recoverable oil and gas will be recovered and used, eventually. Or at least, close enough as makes no difference.

Any deposits earmarked for "this lot we'll leave in the ground" will eventually become the easiest bits to get hold of, and therefore ludicrously valuable. And you know perfectly well what happens next.

There is only one way we're going to stop catastrophic climate change, and that is to take the huge risk of geo-engineering an attempt to reverse it. I realise how undesirable that is, but the desirable solution of leaving the stuff in the ground is simply not going to happen.

And you know what I am saying is true.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 15 Sep 2014, 22:29

biffvernon wrote:Look here, there is clearly far more fossil carbon in Scotland and what will become its territorial waters than will ever be burnt if we have the slightest chance of avoiding climate catastrophe.

What we need to focus on is that Scotland, with just 8.9% of the UK population, has vastly the greater proportion of potential hydro, wind, wave and tidal power and a fair bit of solar. In terms of renewable energy per capita Scotland must be almost the richest nation on the planet.

" a fair bit of solar." ?? At just 2.26 hours of sun per day average at Edinburgh it is more like a Wee bit and a poor investment considering other renewable alternatives.

another_exlurker · Post by **another_exlurker** » 15 Sep 2014, 22:30

vtsnowedin wrote:
another_exlurker wrote: So, Scotland will be fracked one way or another. I have a feeling this goes some way to explaining why Salmond is being rather smug (more than usual, anyway).

Do you think that Salmond wants to win independence for Scotland and then have it turn out to be a disaster. I rather think he has plans and hopes for it to be a rousing success that will be his legacy.

I don't think his messiah-complex has allowed him to think that far ahead.

To be honest, I don't think he really believed that a YES vote was actually likely. He's built his entire political career on England/Westminster bashing and, if Scotland become fully independent (no formal fiscal union, so no currency union), he won't have anyone to blame for his cock-ups. That's probably why he's been insistent on wanting a fiscal union (maintaining the status quo) as that would mean the the BoE would be setting interest rates/monetary policy and he could continue to blame the English for any future Scottish economic woes.

The only way Scotland (assuming a YES vote) can be become like Norway would be to severely reduce the subsidies and/or nationalise the oil and gas industry. Neither of which I can realistically see happening.

In other words, Salmond's promises of Norwegian-like riches for the Scottish are going to be broken, at least partially.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 15 Sep 2014, 22:51

vtsnowedin wrote: " a fair bit of solar." ?? At just 2.26 hours of sun per day average at Edinburgh it is more like a Wee bit and a poor investment considering other renewable alternatives.

Hmmm... Look at the data: http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/U ... nshine.php

Edinburgh is given as 1421 hours per year or 3.9 hours per day.
Compare to the nearest figure for my neck of the woods, Grimsby at 1540 hours or 4.2 hours per day. Now convert that into real power, I get an average of almost 10 kWhrs per day from my almost 4kW rated pv system.

Conclusion, Scotland has a fair bit of solar potential.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 15 Sep 2014, 22:53

another_exlurker wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
another_exlurker wrote: So, Scotland will be fracked one way or another. I have a feeling this goes some way to explaining why Salmond is being rather smug (more than usual, anyway).

Do you think that Salmond wants to win independence for Scotland and then have it turn out to be a disaster. I rather think he has plans and hopes for it to be a rousing success that will be his legacy.
I don't think his messiah-complex has allowed him to think that far ahead.

To be honest, I don't think he really believed that a YES vote was actually likely. He's built his entire political career on England/Westminster bashing and, if Scotland become fully independent (no formal fiscal union, so no currency union), he won't have anyone to blame for his cock-ups. That's probably why he's been insistent on wanting a fiscal union (maintaining the status quo) as that would mean the the BoE would be setting interest rates/monetary policy and he could continue to blame the English for any future Scottish economic woes.

Precisely.

While the nationalists all over Scotland would wake up on the day after a yes vote full of joy, and maybe a bit hungover, I suspect Salmond himself, behind the inevitable smug-o-rama, will be cacking his pants.

Oh shit. Now we can't bluff our way through every difficult issue.

The only way Scotland (assuming a YES vote) can be become like Norway would be to severely reduce the subsidies and/or nationalise the oil and gas industry. Neither of which I can realistically see happening.

Even that wouldn't work. They'd also have to rewind history to 1981.

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 15 Sep 2014, 23:42

biffvernon wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote: " a fair bit of solar." ?? At just 2.26 hours of sun per day average at Edinburgh it is more like a Wee bit and a poor investment considering other renewable alternatives.
Hmmm... Look at the data: http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/U ... nshine.php

Edinburgh is given as 1421 hours per year or 3.9 hours per day.
Compare to the nearest figure for my neck of the woods, Grimsby at 1540 hours or 4.2 hours per day. Now convert that into real power, I get an average of almost 10 kWhrs per day from my almost 4kW rated pv system.

Conclusion, Scotland has a fair bit of solar potential.

Also, due to the high latitude, that average is made up of high and low extremes in summer and winter respectively. The higher output in summer is a natural complement to the lighter winds at that time of year.

In the height of summer we have 20 hours of daylight. Also, in our area in the Highlands, the air is exceptionally clear.

Eta: Plus, if I understand it correctly, the lower sun angle means the optimum angle for the panels is closer to the vertical, meaning less land area required for a solar farm of given capacity.