Skip navigation
Contact No's - ROI 048 3755 1260  NI   028 3755 1260

Scientific Alliance Scotland Rejects Scottish Renewables CO2 Claims

The Scientific Alliance Scotland disputes claims by renewable energy lobby group Scottish Renewables that 15% of Scotland’s total carbon emissions have been displaced by renewable energy projects.

Scottish Renewables has claimed that each megawatthour (MWh) of wind generation entirely replaces the same amount of conventional generation and so reduces carbon dioxide emissions accordingly. The claims ignore the fact that with a larger proportion of wind capacity, gas fired power stations run less efficiently, using relatively more fuel and thus increasing both cost and emissions.

Furthermore, when wind power output increases, it is likely to be the more flexible low emission gas generation which is turned down rather than coal fired stations which emit more than twice as much CO2 per MWh. The Scientific Alliance Scotland is now calling for an independent study to be carried out  to determine what  proportion of wind power corresponding to the Scottish Government’s `100% of Scottish electricity' would be reflected in real CO2 savings by the UK grid.  From work elsewhere it is clear that simple one-for-one replacement of fossil generation will not occur.  In any case, around half of Scottish Renewables’ claim of 15% displacement derives from facilities (hydro) which were constructed between 1922 and 1965 and are not attributable to recent developments.

Scientific Alliance Scotland Chairman Professor Tony Trewavas said: “Scottish Renewables is not an independent commentator; it is a lobbying body and trade association for the wind power industry.  Assessment of CO2 savings should be carried out by an independent body, not one which is financially and politically involved.”

Current Issues


Future costs of UK energy supply

The Scientific Alliance recently published part 1 of an examination of National Grid's Future Energy Scenarios, dealing with security of supply. We are now pleased to publish part 2 - cost of supply. The authors - Dr Capell Aris and Colin Gibson - conclude that building more gas and nuclear stations would be considerably less expensive than any of the NG scenarios, as well as offering better energy security.

What's New

14 October 2016: Read the new report by Dr Capell Aris, published jointly with the Adam Smith Institute - Solar power in Britain: the Impossible Dream