Britain’s one of the darkest countries in the world–Sir David Mackay
By Paul Homewood
Euan again!
Sir, Lorna Slater (Scottish Green Party) has announced that the Scottish Government is to proceed with up to 6GW of solar PV by 2030 (P&J Oct 30th). What will this mean for Scottish power supply? In July 2030, for a few hours either side of midday, solar PV would provide all of our power. What is going to happen to all that wind power that on occasions may be produced at the same time? Of course, for a few hours either side of midnight, solar PV will produce nothing at all. This means that all other sources of power have to be varied continuously to compensate for Earth’s celestial journey. But wind cannot be controlled and on a calm night we may produce nothing at all. What then?
In January 2030, 6GW of solar PV will produce barely any electricity during the day and nothing at all for several hours either side of midnight. When the wind doesn’t blow either we would have to depend on backup or imports – so much for being independent. Some readers may be thinking about storage. I will soon get around to explaining the physical and economic impossibility of grid scale energy storage.
At the time of his untimely death in April 2016, Sir David MacKay was probably the most widely known and respected energy analyst in the world. Author of the book “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air”, he spent 5 years as Chief Scientific Advisor on energy to HM Government. Dying from cancer, he gave a final interview 11 days before his death where he tried to set the record straight. It is easy to find the video and a transcript on line. Below I report some key passages from this interview.
“there’s so much delusion and I think it’s so dangerous for humanity that people allow themselves to have these delusions that they’re willing to not think carefully about the numbers and the realities, and the laws of physics and the realities of engineering.”
“To the credit of the civil servants who I worked with when I went to government – I may have indicated that they had some bad policies – but when it came to whether solar should be in the mix, they had done the numbers for that already and solar just wasn’t on the table at all.”
“..and there was very successful lobbying by the solar lobbyists as well – so now there’s this widespread belief that solar is a wonderful thing, even though it’s highly intermittent and mainly produces energy in July and in December produces 9 times less than it does in July. You know, Britain’s one of the darkest countries in the world.”
It would be foolhardy for our politicians to ignore this sound advice from one of the World’s most highly respected energy analysts.
Dr Euan Mearns
Aberdeen
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Initially I thought the headline was a metaphor. On reading Euan’s piece I realise that I could be right. As for the Scots thinking that their dark country is a logical place for maximising solar, the mind boggles.
Dark both figuratively and literally
Aye aye, who ARE the scots thinking (sic)? Oh, I’m a Highlander, don’t associate very well with those City folk.
I can see from my weatherstation how the sunlight affects the temperature unit, so therefore up to a point must also affect the PV panel. ON / off according to the clouds or tree shade as the Sun ventures lower in the sky at this time of year. No wind, so how much power to start up a diesel generator as standby/backup I meant to say. Better to keep it running than Max Revs from cold and use “green tech” ONLY to charge batteries for some gullible consumer who will have to pay costs of Battery maintenance etc. WHo sai.d that would be cheap?
I think they would be very lucky to see much more than 4GW of peak supply. The UK record generation is 11GW from about 14.5GW of nominal capacity. In Scotland it is quite common to find that solar panels are not installed with a eye to the optimal angle for maximum output at midday in midsummer. Indeed I recall Euan found some West facing panels on the side of an Aberdeen University building, and others that were heavily shaded. Subsidies were lavish.
Until they come up with a device that allows the panel to directly track the sun each hour and each day through the seasons, solar power will always underperform. Not helped of course by those inconvenient aspects of cloud and night time and months when we have poor light levels.
As a bit of extra power solar panels might have some use -if it weren’t for the way the ingredients of each panel are dug and assembled-however as as base power solar is laughably bad.
I’ve just watched his final interview with Mark Linas and found his ideas very interesting about the problem with renewables inability to provide reliable and economic electricity. His final comments on the future in the UK seemed to be based on nuclear generation and carbon capture and storage, also that EVs were the way forward.
It would be interesting to consider what his views would be today.
Get rid of Sushi’s bimbo Coutinho and give Dr Euan her job.
Who? or should that be What ? as in what’s that? Dr Euan I recognise, but …. ( element of sarc. ) 🙂
Did anyone attempt to listen to BBC Scotlands Debate night “emergency debate” from Aberdeen last night? Oh maan! I couldn’t pay attention. the waffle from the Learned and most of the questions. and at the end HOw about Nuclear? … end of prog. We’re sitting on Coal & Oil/Gas + Hydro. but we should have electric & Hydrogen. & as per Grand Designs, earlier – Eco house “Plastic Foam” uhuh. STOP OIL, eh?
‘What will this mean for Scottish power supply?’
Price will go up.
Solar is a parlour game for the elite.
Och Maan, Gamecock, didn’t you know that Scotland is Fu’ of the Elites. Aye we’re fu’ fed up of them.
I’m a fan of solar — for what solar makes sense for. Which is small localised use that does not rely completely on actual sunshine.
Domestic solar panels have a place; local road authorities in some areas are using solar energy to power road signs. A local firm has demonstrated the efficiency of solar-operated window shutters. Solar power can recharge batteries for limited outdoor lighting — public Christmas lights displays for one small example.
But as for mainstream electricity supply, forget it. The theory may be fine but in the real world it is totally impractical.
Wind is as bad because a) it is even more unpredictable; b) it is of such low energy density that, even assuming reliability, the volume of electricity generated could never come close to meeting the basic needs of modern civilisation.
And that’s before we start on the pollution and emissions which result from the whole construction/installation/lifetime maintenance of the generating equipment.
Yes indeed, no problem with that there at all: We have considered using such for remote Electric stock fencing. Remote Sheds for lighting etc too. great! but that’s all. ( Topping up vehicle batteries seems to cause more trouble than it has been worth though.)
“The impact of oversupply is being felt throughout the PV value chain, raising big questions for industry and policymakers alike. Lagging demand isn’t exactly helping. But the solar marketplace has experienced similar cycles before and only come out stronger on the other side.” may be of interest to some. More at ( if you wish to support the industry) https://mailchi.mp/pv-magazine/pvi11?e=feba5cb3b4
Cold, hard logic dictates that any intermittent electricity supply will be inherently more expensive that a constant supply, as the former will always require the provision, at substantial cost, of alternative power to cover the downtime, whereas a constant supply will not.
Therefore, all of the insanities of how much cheaper wind and solar will be are blatant lies, and the proponents of such should be charged with fraud.
Meanwhile congratulations to those who helped ensure that various energy suppliers would be fined.
At least the fines are going to a good cause – the fund helping those who find their bills are unaffordable. Chicken feed compared with the extent if the problem inflicted by bad energy policy, but at least something.
Except that it is the customers of those companies who will pay,…
Yes, like us with Eon, after the collapse of BULB: We didn’t want to be supporting a FOREIGN company… but that’s OUR politicians for you. Where to go to now? Safe to Jump?
Anyway, it IS ridiculous to fine them for not being able to sell a product – or WAS it a service? Either way that just goes to show me how much of a scam it is.
An inspiration to us all to not shut up. At Battle of Ideas I said that I first got engaged in this nonsense when ‘they’ were trying to frighten my children, now that ‘they’ are trying to frighten my grandchildren I refuse to shut up (got an encouraging round of applause, the expressions on the faces of the panel were priceless, their abusive ‘incoming’ less so but we have to be prepared for that).
We’re well-past time politicians were held liable for implementing high-risk schemes that fail.
Whether it’s county councils that ‘invest’ in speculative schemes that end up costing ratepayers £millions or national level MP’s who fail in their duties to provide secure energy or borders. These people need skin in the game; fail due to avoidable negligence and you’re going to prison. That might focus minds.
Politicians taking responsibility for their decisions is an interesting concept; so interesting that it will never catch on.
I checked out the advice here
https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/advice/solar-panels/
Which shows that in the optimistic case of being home all day it would take 16 years to achieve payback on a well sited, no complications PV system in Stirling. If you had to borrow you would lose money at any interest rate the payback lengthens. At 6.25% it becomes infinite, and higher – never. In fact, probably anything more than 2% would lengthen payback beyond the life of the system.
Quite what the UK net zero plan to install 70GW of solar will achieve is evidently something that present day DESNZ civil servants have forgotten how to consider. They were better in Mackay’s day.
Our so-called overlords really are clueless aren’t they!
The reality is that we voted for these overlords, although not expecting their ‘lording it over us’ behaviour. Rather as the SAGE group assumed their wisdom fitted the dictionary definition so were beyond reproach or challenge.
Democracy has a lot to answer for.
I recall the book of 20+ years ago:
“How the Scots Invented the Modern World: …”
Critics found the thesis to be over-reaching but descriptive of the Scots’ disproportionate impact on modernity. {from Wiki entry}
What happened?
Productivity matters
An ideal time to point to Euan’s blog on the lunacy of solar power in Scotland…
https://euanmearns.com/solar-scotland/
“Conclusions
It seems likely that solar photovoltaics deployed in Scotland will never repay the energy used to manufacture the panels. They will therefore produce more CO2 than if solar was not deployed at all and the emissions are emitted decades in advance of the solar electricity being produced.”
It’s worth a read
Until the people who make the decisons understand that just because something makes electrcity does’t mean that it is suitable for the job it is given to do, I can see little chance of any change.
Politicians cannot be expected to understand the technology or the varies merits or otherwise of different types of generators but they should make absolutely certain that they get the correct advice. It is patently obvious that they do not.
The renewable’s industry are very disingenuous in their statements so it is quite easy for politicians to be taken in.
I think it goes deeper than that Iain. I genuinely doubt the “advisors” are competent either that or they are being unduly influenced (bribed effectively) by certain market players.
For example do the advisors stop to think a solar panel generates DC not AC and all the implications thereof? I doubt it.
Ray,
yes I agree, and perhaps did not put it strongly enough, however the politicians are ulimately responsible, but of course come and go, just like the wind.
I have asked, via my M.P., how government advisors are chosen and probably a year later and a few promptings no answer has been given.
I think “disingenuous” is being very kind to this rapacious industry. Lying seems to me to be more appropriate. Given that all politicians lie, maybe this is why they accept the lies of the unreliables industry?