Dunbar Community Energy Company

On the 25th April media attention focused on Donald Trump giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s inquiry into the renewable energy targets. Another man giving evidence at the same inquiry was a more composed and reserved gentleman, Graham Lang representing Communities against Turbines (CATS). When asked the big question about how Scotland should deal with the energy problem Donald Trump roared about hydro, like he was an expert on that as well as tourism.  Graham Lang provided an acutely accurate summary of the solution that seemed to pass folk by.

“I mentioned the sustainable energy hierarchy: demand reduction; energy efficiency; and renewable micro-energy- combined heat and power, heat pumps, solar and wind, and small scale and community renewable, in relation to which there can be reinvestment locally for projects up the hierarchy, for heat and for electricity. The important thing is that most effort and funding should go into the higher levels of the hierarchy, where efforts will be most effective at reducing emissions and fuel poverty.”

So, we’re in agreement on that one…. community energy can provide people with energy advice and  micro-renewables which reduce energy demand and the need for more turbines. By doing this locally we maintain and create local jobs. Nice one Graham.

On the 26^th April 2012 Harper Macleod LLP (legal advisors to Fred. Olsen Renewables) will host the Scottish Highland Renewable Energy Conference in Inverness. It will be attended by Jeremy Sainsbury (director at Natural Power and Chairman of Scottish Renewables); Community Energy Scotland and the key note speaker is Fergus Ewing MSP Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism. More info here

With these key players in the same room we could see a radical change in the way we develop Scottish resources for the benefit of the people of Scotland as well as the big businesses that are currently securing the benefits. Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) has divided up the Scottish Forestry estates and offered them to “Development partners” including Scottish Power, E-ON, PNE Wind and Fred. Olsen Renewables.

Forestry Commission Scotland are also giving communities a chance to get involved..

A coalition of charities in East Lothian, Dunbar Community Energy Company and Voluntary Action East Lothian, is offering to help one of these major developers, Fred. Olsen Renewables (Natural Power), become a leading example of how to work with communities and share the benefits of wind farm developments in Scotland.

Fred. Olsen Renewables (Natural Power) are planning a third extension to their Crystal Rig wind farm in East Lothian. The wind farm has the grid capacity for 18 wind turbines but Natural Power is submitting planning permission for 11. The communities of East Lothian could have ownership of the remaining 7 wind turbines.  If this potential  “pathfinder” project was realised it would bring £1.5 to £3.5 million each year in revenue for community projects throughout East Lothian.

Should Crystal Rig 3 happen without our communities getting a chance to benefit?

During a recent speech in parliament Fergus Ewing, Minister for Energy said “From meetings and discussions that I have had with companies, and not just big companies, I can report that many—probably not all, but many—desire to move away from paying as little as possible and want communities to feel that they are involved and valued, not exploited and abused. That is a very good thing and I strongly welcome it.”

What would happen if :-

• Fred. Olsen Renewables (Natural Power) as a FCS Development partner, agree to work with Dunbar Community Energy Company, and partners, on the Crystal Rig 3 pathfinder project as a model for community energy projects on FCS estates.
• The Scottish Government will maintain its’ support for community energy through schemes such as CARES and REIF.
• The £50m Warm Homes Fund is launched and targeted at helping low-income communities access the benefits of energy generation
• Communities are encouraged to invest some of the revenue to meet the Scottish Government fuel poverty and carbon reduction targets. Thus reducing the amount of energy we need and the cost of the energy we use.

The latest news on community energy within the Scottish Political arena is a very positive one. Recent activity has resulted in a confirmation of cross party support of locally owned energy. More information about the debate is available here but this is our summary. The first bit is very political, scroll down for the views of different parties.

Motion approved by Scottish parliament 29^th March 2012

That the Parliament reaffirms Scotland’s ambitious targets on climate change and renewable energy; considers that the private, public and third sectors, including co-operatives and community bodies, all have a role to play in developing a clean energy future for Scotland; is concerned by the growing perception that the renewables agenda is benefiting only big business, instead of serving the common good; believes that great public benefit could be achieved through the work being done by the Scottish Futures Trust in partnership with COSLA to help local authorities realise this ambition, highlighting opportunities to provide exemplary community benefits from renewables schemes on the public estate, publicly owned renewables and the lease of public assets to appropriate renewable energy developers; believes that public sector involvement in the renewables sector can generate clean energy as well as revenue for valuable new public services such as energy efficiency investment and support for community-owned renewables projects and that the shared and community benefits would help to foster public support for renewable energy, and calls on the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust to continue to work with COSLA, local authorities and other organisations in developing proposals, and asks that the Scottish Government reports back to the Parliament on progress.

Patrick Harvie (green party) “There is the opportunity for a transformational vision, not just of meeting our renewable energy targets in Scotland but of local, public and community ownership

Sarah Boyack (labour) “The motion talks about the perception of renewables as being all about the benefits to big companies. It is vital that local communities and individual members of society are able to get direct benefits from the renewables revolution.”

Mark Griffin (labour)“I am glad that the Green party lodged the motion, because it has given us the chance to debate public ownership and the change in public perception that could be achieved if the renewables revolution was being driven by the public sector to benefit communities and not big business, with profits being reinvested in reducing fuel consumption and fuel poverty rather than electricity bill premiums delivering dividends for shareholders.”

Liam McArthur (Liberal democrats) “I, too, congratulate the less spiky, new-style Patrick Harvie on bringing the debate to the chamber, and confirm that his motion and Sarah Boyack’s amendment will enjoy the support of the Scottish Liberal Democrats at decision time”.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative) “There are undoubtedly benefits and merits in local energy companies”

 Fergus Ewing: SNP Minister for Energy

“We clearly and explicitly want to encourage communities to own renewables schemes. There is no dubiety about that so far as I am aware. That is the best model—in which there is ownership, and not just the receipt of a cheque, albeit a bigger cheque than used to be the case, because the tariff is now moving up to £5,000 per megawatt. The best model—the one to which we aspire—is one in which communities have a stake in the ownership, such as Falck Renewables in Fintry. We want Scotland’s communities to benefit as owners and not just as recipients of cheques, no matter that that in itself creates great benefit. Once again, Mr Harvie and I are in agreement.
The SFT and COSLA have been working to highlight examples of public sector involvement in renewables and the main commercial structures for local authorities to take forward those schemes. We welcome that work and we will support it where possible. 

We are driving up the tariff and companies are following. From meetings and discussions that I have had with companies, and not just big companies, I can report that many—probably not all, but many—desire to move away from paying as little as possible and want communities to feel that they are involved and valued, not exploited and abused. That is a very good thing and I strongly welcome it.”

The final results of the community consultation are available. Not much has changed since we published the early results. We needed to find out how people felt about community wind turbines and what they thought about our idea for a community wind turbine on Cocklaw Hill.

Final Results community consultation

We decided it would be good to show the results by area.

Public opinion by area January 2012

A breakdown of these figures can be found here

Public opinion by area – details

The on-line survey showed similar results and the information can be found here

On-line survey graphic results

Thanks again to all the local people who took the time to answer the survey. Thanks to the local people who went out and about in January to knock on doors and thanks to Alan for making sense of all the numbers.

There are few reasons for an Enercon E48 500kW community wind turbine.

Wind

The “wind resource” is very good and suits a larger class 1 wind turbine.

Bankability

We need to get a commercial loan to buy the wind turbine. The bank wants to know the wind turbine and manufacturer are reliable. This makes the bank happy to loan the money and makes the wind turbine “bankable”. The Enercon E48 is a very “bankable” wind turbine. Enercon made the E48 an 800kW machine that could work as a 500kW machine to fill the gap of “bankable” wind turbines around the 500kW size.

Grid Connection

The original idea for a community wind turbine on Cocklaw Hill was to put a wind turbine at the top of the hill and connect into the electricity line that leads up to the TV mast. Our consultants have worked out that the electricity line that leads to the TV mast is not very strong. It could only take electricity from a very small turbine which would not make very much money for the community.

Different parts of the grid network can take different amounts of electricity depending on how far the electricity line is from a “sub-station”.  Some parts of the grid can take electricity from a 100kW wind turbine. Other parts of the grid can take electricity from a larger wind turbine.  As electricity moves further from a substation it loses its strength. This is called transmission loss.

We have to put our own electricity line in and connect to the grid. The nearby grid is not very strong but should be able to take the electricity from a 500kW wind turbine. The cost of putting an electricity line is very expensive. If we had to connect an 800kW wind turbine to the grid we would have to put more expensive electrical cable into the ground, and make it go further to make up for “transmission losses”.

We still have to check the grid connection and road access as well as other things but, at this stage, the Enercon E48 500kW wind turbine is looking like the best for the community to own.

There have been some big headlines in some newspapers about wind farms being paid to “not make electricity”.  These payments are called “transmission constraint payments” and happen because of the way the electricity market works.

The National Grid has to balance electricity supply and demand across Britain. At some places, particularly the England / Scotland border, the grid is pretty weak and can get jammed.  If one area is making too much electricity then it needs to be switched off.

It is easier to switch a wind farm off than traditional power plants. In 2010/11 the total cost of “Transmission Constraint Payments” paid was £170 million. Most of this was paid to coal, gas and nuclear power plants and actually 0.1% was paid to wind farms. Still, any money paid to private companies to not do something seems wrong.

The cost still goes onto our bills and the Dunbar Community Energy Company welcomes the fact that the Department of Energy and Climate Change announcement that it plans to change the Energy Act 2010 to reduce the amount of “Transmission Constraint Payments” by changing the licence rules for electricity generators.

You can see more on their website

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/trans_const/trans_const.aspx

Many people are blaming wind turbines for their electricity bills going up. In fact wind turbines make up about £16 to £22 each year on an electricity bill (Ofgem). Even though this is not the reason for bills going up it’s still more money leaving our pockets and going to private companies. With a community  energy wind turbine the money comes back into the community.

What happens to you fuel bill is shown in the information sheet below.

bills

This is a big issue that the media seems to pay a lot of attention to. Hopefully this information from CSE (Centre for Sustainable Energy) helps to explain the situation.

inefficient turbines

This is a very interesting question. If something uses more energy to make it than the energy it makes in it’s lifetime, it doesn’t make much sense. It is called the energy payback time. Each wind turbine is different but here is some information from CSE (Centre for Sustainable Energy).

payback times

Some people have asked about what happens to birds and bats. Here’s some information about the effect on birds and bats.

Wildlife birds and bats