Economic model shows route to lower carbon emissions, less gas, lower costs and no new nuclear for Scotland.
Putting new nuclear power stations at the heart of Scotland's energy strategy will lead to higher carbon emissions, more reliance on gas and be more expensive when compared to producing Scottish energy locally, according to a report released today.
The report, called Decentralising Scottish Energy, concludes that 'decentralising' power - generating heat and electricity close to where it is needed - will negate any need for nuclear power, as well as being cheaper, less polluting and decreasing Scotland's reliance on gas. It also finds that the approach works well alongside a policy of harnessing Scotland's large scale renewable energy potential.
Decentralised energy is able to reap such benefits simply because it produces power close to where it is needed. The current Scottish, and UK, system is 'centralised', and relies on a few large power stations creating electricity miles away from the point of consumption. This method, developed in the 1930s, is so inefficient that two-thirds of the energy in the fuel is wasted before it gets to homes and workplaces.
This huge loss of energy, enough to provide central heating and hot water to all the buildings in Scotland, happens because large power stations far from towns and cities discard heat through cooling towers and cooling water, and lose even more power transporting the energy long distances through power lines.
However, a decentralised system does not transport electricity long distances and, because power is produced locally, the heat, which would otherwise be wasted, can be captured and used.
Based on an economic model which has been recently used by the UK Foreign Office and the European Commission, the report compares two main future scenarios: one in which Scotland utilises decentralised energy and one in which nuclear power is pushed forward.
The findings show that:
- Carbon emissions are 8% lower in the decentralised scenario;
- Overall capital costs are £1.8 billion less in the decentralised scenario than the nuclear scenario, and retail costs of electricity for consumers are lower too. These figures don't include the costs of dealing with nuclear waste, so in reality opting for decentralised energy will be even more;
- Scottish gas consumption is 8% lower in the decentralised scenario.
Robin Oakley, Greenpeace's energy expert, said: "This is the closest thing to an energy silver bullet for Scotland. Decentralising energy will give us cleaner, cheaper and more secure power in the future.
"Just ahead of the elections, Scotland is at an energy crossroads. Choosing to take the decentralised road will mean less reliance on gas, lower carbon emissions and lower costs. It will also help maximise the benefits of Scotland's ambitions for large scale renewable energy development. By contrast, if the government in Westminster succeeds in bullying the Scottish Executive to accept new nuclear power stations in Scotland, it will be more expensive, pump out more global warming gases and leave behind a dangerous legacy of hazardous radioactive waste."
Sytze Dijkstra of the World Alliance for Decentralised Energy (WADE), who developed the economic model, said: "Decentralised energy can meet Scotland's future electricity demand at lower cost and offers a cheaper, more effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, gas consumption and dependency on imported gas than traditional centralised generation such as nuclear power."
ENDS
You can download the report from www.greenpeace.org.uk/wadescotland.
For a copy of Decentralising Scottish Energy and for more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.
