Following the UK Governments decision last year to abandon further work on even small inshore/onshore wave energy, (as outlined in Energy Paper 62), it had looked as if this project was doomed. It had got the promise of cash from the European Commission, but this was conditional on obtaining matching funding from other sources. Whittaker had been hoping for support from the UK Dept. of Trade and Industry, but then came Energy Paper 62 with wave power finally being written off.
Now however, as we noted in Renew 93, Whittaker has won support from elsewhere.
The new money comes from Applied Research and Technology (ART), the Inverness company which is building another wave system, the OSPREY, an in-shore unit due to be installed in the summer off Dounreay. (See Renew 89). The Osprey also had a promise of EC money, but had managed to match it with industrial support. And there seems to be enough to stretch further. David Ross reports: 'ART's managing director, Allan Thomson, said that in association with Whittaker they would now also be developing a 500kW modular steel shoreline plant. It would use steel fabrication techniques of mass manufacture and significantly improve the economics of this form of wave power.
It will also give ART the ability to offer off-the-peg wave power devices around the world, based either on shoreline or offshore devices, according to local conditions.
It is not yet certain where the new shoreline plant will be built: it may be on Islay but this will depend on obtaining planning permission.'
From RENEW 95 (May/June 1995) which also reports on a US breakthrough in wave energy involving a newpiezoelectric material.
But, as we have reported in Renew in recent issues, there are some problems. The logistics are complex, coppice plantations would have to be harvested in rotation so as to maintain a continuous flow of wood chip to a power station, probably some miles away, on a 'just in time' basis, with little room for delays. The economics are similarly complex: contracts between farmers and power stations would have to be established well in advance of station construction, since it would be two years or more before the first harvest cycle: equally that means power stations would have to be built speculatively before any fuel was actually ready. A chicken and egg problem. These are not irresolvable problems: after all sugar beet production is carried out successfully in much the same way. But the cost of transport would be significant given the larger values of wood chip involved and the need for tight scheduling to keep the power station supplied.
Could ordinary domestic or industrial waste be used to make up any shortfall? That would require different multi fuel combustion units designed to deal with toxics as well. That would be a little sub optimal - wood chip is much more consistent in quality and emissions controls would be less complex. Some people argue that we should opt for an intermediate stage and convert the wood chip to paper, use it, and then collect it for combustion - thus getting extra use value out of the cycle. The economics of that are unclear - and SRC willow and poplar are not ideal for paper making. And, then again, many environmentalists would prefer to recycle paper rather than burn it, so we are back to the traditional battle between recycling and combustion. The 'ban the burn' view also can be seen underlying some parts of the debate over SRC generally: should we really be relying on combustion so much for the future? Aren't there better ways to extract the energy content of biomass? Combustion of SRC may be 'greenhouse gas neutral', if the burn rate is matched by the growing rate, but combustion can also generate other gases. On the other hand combustion is quick - so you get your economic returns quickly. And given the uncertain overall economics of SRC that would be the winning argument.
So the debate continues. The third NFFO round has supported three integrated SRC-combustion projects, so some of the uncertainties could be resolved. But even so, for good or ill, SRC looks like it will take time to develop on any significant scale - especially since, following an EC rule change, farmers can now grow full scale trees on set aside land, an option which many in the green movement would see as being perhaps more desirable, as a better contribution to nature conservancy.
At present it is far from clear which of all these various options will dominate: perhaps we should just look for a sensible balance between SRC/trees, combustion and recycling energy recovery and conservation, on a site by site, area by area basis. In the end though it will be the economics that decide - either the raw economics of competition or the bureaucratic economics of subsidies. Either way the issue of land use is clearly going to be central in the years ahead.
From Renew 95 (May/June 1995). SRC is discussed in detail regularly in Renew and NATTA has publications on this topic available, including our complilation of articles from past issues of Renew.
EERU Home page