Renewable energy in Scotland

:Micro generation (including solar) is estimated as having the potential of producing up to 40% of current electrical demand by 2050, i.e. circa 14 TWh.<ref name=SDC06/> As of March 2024, more than one in four households in Orkney and the Western Isles have a renewable energy installation certified by the MCS.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robinson |first=Saskia |date=2024-04-24 |title=Orkney and Western Isles lead in renewables uptake in Scotland |url=https://mcscertified.com/orkney-and-western-isles-lead-in-renewable-energy-uptake-as-scotland-removes-key-emissions-target/ |access-date=2025-01-02 |website=MCS |language=en-GB}}</ref>}}

:Micro generation (including solar) is estimated as having the potential of producing up to 40% of current electrical demand by 2050, i.e. circa 14 TWh.<ref name=SDC06/> As of March 2024, more than one in four households in Orkney and the Western Isles have a renewable energy installation certified by the MCS.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robinson |first=Saskia |date=2024-04-24 |title=Orkney and Western Isles lead in renewables uptake in Scotland |url=https://mcscertified.com/orkney-and-western-isles-lead-in-renewable-energy-uptake-as-scotland-removes-key-emissions-target/ |access-date=2025-01-02 |website=MCS |language=en-GB}}</ref>}}

!Potential capacity ([[Watt|GW]]){{efn|Note on "installed capacity" and "potential energy". The former is an estimate of the maximum productive output of a given technology or individual generation station at a single point in time. The latter takes into account the likely intermittency of energy supply and is a measure of output over a period of time. Thus, for example, individual wind turbines may have a capacity factor of between 15% and 45% depending on their location, with a higher capacity factor giving a greater potential energy output for a given installed capacity. The potential energy column is thus an estimate based on a variety of assumptions including the installed capacity. Although potential energy is in some ways a more useful method of comparing the current output and future potential of different technologies, using it would require cumbersome explanations of all the assumptions involved in each example, so installed capacity figures are generally used.}}

!Potential capacity ([[Watt|GW]]){{efn|Note on "installed capacity" and "potential energy". The former is an estimate of the maximum productive output of a given technology or individual generation station at a single point in time. The latter takes into account the likely intermittency of energy supply and is a measure of output over a period of time. Thus, for example, individual wind turbines may have a capacity factor of between 15% and 45% depending on their location, with a higher capacity factor giving a greater potential energy output for a given installed capacity. The potential energy column is thus an estimate based on a variety of assumptions including the installed capacity. Although potential energy is in some ways a more useful method of comparing the current output and future potential of different technologies, using it would require cumbersome explanations of all the assumptions involved in each example, so installed capacity figures are generally used.}}

!Potential energy ([[TWh]]){{efn|A gigawatt (GW) is a measure of productive capacity. Terawatt-hours (TWh) measure actual output. Thus, an 8{{spaces}}GW power station operating ten hours per day will produce 8x10 equals 80{{spaces}}TWh of electricity. Whenever possible this article refers to predictions of maximum output in GW. Using energy productions in TWh might be more useful in some ways but would tend to obscure the underlying assumptions unless every reference included a measure for maximum output, capacity factor and assumed production, which might prove cumbersome.{{citation needed|date=April 2023}}}}

!Potential energy ([[TWh]]){{efn|A gigawatt (GW) is a measure of productive capacity. Terawatt-hours (TWh) measure actual output. Thus, an 8{{spaces}}GW power station operating ten hours per day will produce 8x10 equals 80{{spaces}}TWh of electricity. Whenever possible this article refers to predictions of maximum output in GW.}}

|-

|-

| align="left" | Onshore wind

| align="left" | Onshore wind

There is considerable support for community-scale energy projects.<ref>See for example, Energy4All Ltd. (2006) ''Empowering Communities: A Step By Step Guide to Financing A Community Renewable Energy Project''. Inverness. HICEC</ref> For example, [[Alex Salmond]], the then [[First Minister of Scotland]], has stated that "we can think big by delivering small" and aspired to have a "million Scottish households with access to their own or community renewable generation within ten years".<ref name=SRF32/> The [[John Muir Trust]] has also stated that "the best renewable energy options around wild land are small-scale, sensitively sited and adjacent to the communities directly benefiting from them",<ref>''[http://www.jmt.org/news.asp?s=2&cat=Latest%20News&nid=JMT-N10035 What's Your View on Wild Land?]'' (2006) John Muir Trust. Pitlochry. See also {{cite web |url=http://www.jmt.org/responses-to-issues.asp |title=Renewable Energy Policy |publisher=John Muir Trust |access-date=31 August 2007}}</ref> although even community-owned schemes can prove controversial.<ref>For example, a small-scale scheme proposed by North Harris [[development trust]] has been supported by the [[John Muir Trust]], but opposed by Scottish Natural Heritage. The objection "caused outrage" and was withdrawn in September 2007. See Ross, David, (4 September 2007) "Heritage body in U-turn over island wind farm". Glasgow. ''The Herald''. The project finally received planning consent for three 86{{spaces}}metre (282{{spaces}}ft) wind turbines in early 2008. See "North Harris community wind farm approved" (February 2008) ''John Muir Trust Journal'' No. 44. Page 5.</ref>

There is considerable support for community-scale energy projects.<ref>See for example, Energy4All Ltd. (2006) ''Empowering Communities: A Step By Step Guide to Financing A Community Renewable Energy Project''. Inverness. HICEC</ref> For example, [[Alex Salmond]], the then [[First Minister of Scotland]], has stated that "we can think big by delivering small" and aspired to have a "million Scottish households with access to their own or community renewable generation within ten years".<ref name=SRF32/> The [[John Muir Trust]] has also stated that "the best renewable energy options around wild land are small-scale, sensitively sited and adjacent to the communities directly benefiting from them",<ref>''[http://www.jmt.org/news.asp?s=2&cat=Latest%20News&nid=JMT-N10035 What's Your View on Wild Land?]'' (2006) John Muir Trust. Pitlochry. See also {{cite web |url=http://www.jmt.org/responses-to-issues.asp |title=Renewable Energy Policy |publisher=John Muir Trust |access-date=31 August 2007}}</ref> although even community-owned schemes can prove controversial.<ref>For example, a small-scale scheme proposed by North Harris [[development trust]] has been supported by the [[John Muir Trust]], but opposed by Scottish Natural Heritage. The objection "caused outrage" and was withdrawn in September 2007. See Ross, David, (4 September 2007) "Heritage body in U-turn over island wind farm". Glasgow. ''The Herald''. The project finally received planning consent for three 86{{spaces}}metre (282{{spaces}}ft) wind turbines in early 2008. See "North Harris community wind farm approved" (February 2008) ''John Muir Trust Journal'' No. 44. Page 5.</ref>

A related issue is the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom. It has been alleged{{who|date=April 2023}} that UK transmission pricing structures are weighted against the development of renewables,<ref>Perry, David (22 November 2006) "Backing for North Sea Super-Grid plans". Aberdeen. ''Press and Journal''.</ref><ref>Dinning, R. J. (2006) [http://www.energyinst.org.uk/content/files/scottishreview.doc "A response to the Scottish National Party Energy Review".] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929103943/http://www.energyinst.org.uk/content/files/scottishreview.doc |date=29 September 2007 }} (Microsoft Word document) London. Energy Institute. Retrieved 31 August 2007. This report notes "we are aware this topic has been contentious amongst Scottish generators and apparently perverse in that it acts against renewable energy in the remote areas where it is most abundant (the same is true for shore access to areas in which CO₂ might be stored). However we have to observe the engineering logic surrounding the current regime{{snd}}that generation be encouraged to deploy in areas, which avoid the wasted energy incurred in transmission losses". Nonetheless, Scottish Power has expressed concern that the current regime penalises the adoption of renewables.</ref><ref>Akildade, Anthony (11 February 2007) "Osborne steps into row over green targets". Glasgow. ''Sunday Herald''. This article outlines fears that subsidies for renewables will be targeted at offshore wind "which is more viable in England" than in Scotland where the technology "has yet to prove itself" because of the deeper waters off the coasts.</ref> a debate which highlights the contrast between the sparsely populated north of Scotland and the highly urbanised south and east of England. Although the [[ecological footprint]]s of Scotland and England are similar the relationship between this footprint and the [[Biocapacity|biocapacities]] of the respective countries are not. Scotland's biocapacity (a measure of the biologically productive area) is 4.52{{spaces}}[[global hectare]]s (gha) per head, some 15% less than the current ecological effect.<ref>Chambers, N. et al. (2004) ''Scotland's Footprint''. Oxford. Best Foot Forward.</ref> In other words, with a 15% reduction in consumption, the Scottish population could live within the productive capacity of the land to support them. However, the UK ecological footprint is more than three times the biocapacity, which is only 1.6{{spaces}}gha, amongst the lowest in Europe.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/Ann1132753060 |title=The Ecological Footprint: A resource accounting framework for measuring human demand on the biosphere |publisher=European Environment Agency |access-date=4 February 2007}}</ref><ref>Global biocapacity averages 1.8 global hectares per person (excluding biodiversity considerations). Chambers (2004). Thus the UK is more typical than Scotland, which although having a high level of consumption, is relatively thinly populated.</ref> Thus, to achieve the same end in the UK context, consumption would have to be reduced by about 66%.

A related issue is the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom,<ref>Perry, David (22 November 2006) "Backing for North Sea Super-Grid plans". Aberdeen. ''Press and Journal''.</ref><ref>Dinning, R. J. (2006) [http://www.energyinst.org.uk/content/files/scottishreview.doc "A response to the Scottish National Party Energy Review".] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929103943/http://www.energyinst.org.uk/content/files/scottishreview.doc |date=29 September 2007 }} (Microsoft Word document) London. Energy Institute. Retrieved 31 August 2007. This report notes "we are aware this topic has been contentious amongst Scottish generators and apparently perverse in that it acts against renewable energy in the remote areas where it is most abundant (the same is true for shore access to areas in which CO₂ might be stored). However we have to observe the engineering logic surrounding the current regime{{snd}}that generation be encouraged to deploy in areas, which avoid the wasted energy incurred in transmission losses". Nonetheless, Scottish Power has expressed concern that the current regime penalises the adoption of renewables.</ref><ref>Akildade, Anthony (11 February 2007) "Osborne steps into row over green targets". Glasgow. ''Sunday Herald''. This article outlines fears that subsidies for renewables will be targeted at offshore wind "which is more viable in England" than in Scotland where the technology "has yet to prove itself" because of the deeper waters off the coasts.</ref> a debate which highlights the contrast between the sparsely populated north of Scotland and the highly urbanised south and east of England. Although the [[ecological footprint]]s of Scotland and England are similar the relationship between this footprint and the [[Biocapacity|biocapacities]] of the respective countries are not. Scotland's biocapacity (a measure of the biologically productive area) is 4.52{{spaces}}[[global hectare]]s (gha) per head, some 15% less than the current ecological effect.<ref>Chambers, N. et al. (2004) ''Scotland's Footprint''. Oxford. Best Foot Forward.</ref> In other words, with a 15% reduction in consumption, the Scottish population could live within the productive capacity of the land to support them. However, the UK ecological footprint is more than three times the biocapacity, which is only 1.6{{spaces}}gha, amongst the lowest in Europe.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/Ann1132753060 |title=The Ecological Footprint: A resource accounting framework for measuring human demand on the biosphere |publisher=European Environment Agency |access-date=4 February 2007}}</ref><ref>Global biocapacity averages 1.8 global hectares per person (excluding biodiversity considerations). Chambers (2004). Thus the UK is more typical than Scotland, which although having a high level of consumption, is relatively thinly populated.</ref> Thus, to achieve the same end in the UK context, consumption would have to be reduced by about 66%.

The [[developed country|developed world's]] economy is very dependent on 'point-source' fossil fuels. Scotland, as a relatively sparsely populated country with significant renewable resources, is in a unique position to demonstrate how the transition to a low-carbon, widely distributed energy economy may be undertaken. A balance will need to be struck between supporting this transition and providing exports to the economies of densely populated regions in the [[Central Belt]] and elsewhere, as they seek their own solutions. The tension between local and national needs in the Scottish context may therefore also play out on the wider UK and European stage.<ref>See, for example, Lowson, Mike (4 June 2007). "Halting the rush to blight Scotland's scenic landscape". Aberdeen. ''Press and Journal''.</ref>

The [[developed country|developed world's]] economy is very dependent on 'point-source' fossil fuels. Scotland, as a relatively sparsely populated country with significant renewable resources, is in a unique position to demonstrate how the transition to a low-carbon, widely distributed energy economy may be undertaken. A balance will need to be struck between supporting this transition and providing exports to the economies of densely populated regions in the [[Central Belt]] and elsewhere, as they seek their own solutions. The tension between local and national needs in the Scottish context may therefore also play out on the wider UK and European stage.<ref>See, for example, Lowson, Mike (4 June 2007). "Halting the rush to blight Scotland's scenic landscape". Aberdeen. ''Press and Journal''.</ref>