Rejuvenating the South of Scotland

The South of Scotland is big, beautiful and it’s dying, or at least it’s age profile suggests that it’s heading that way.

Borderlands – Our Future a report on issues facing the South of Scotland (defined as the UK parliamentary constituencies of Dumfries and Galloway; Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) published this week by the Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee highlights some of the issues: an ageing population, poorly paid jobs and poor infrastructure. It examines the problems facing the region, and comes up with some solutions which go in the right direction, but don’t seem to provide the step changes to which are really needed to revitalise the region.

Compared to the Scotland overall the population in the South of Scotland is older, and in particular there is a dearth of people aged 16 – 44 while over a quarter of the population are over 60.  This is the opposite of cities like Edinburgh and Glasgow where proportions of the population are in their twenties and thirties. Sustainable communities need to have reasonably balanced populations, and the demographics of the South of Scotland, and rural Scotland in general are becoming unsustainable. In Galloway and West Dumfries just over half of the population is of working age compared to 60 % in Scotland as a whole and 65 % in Glasgow. The problem isn’t that there are too many older people in rural areas, its that there are too few young ones.

Policies to address this tend to focus on creating more jobs and training in rural areas, without looking at why young people are leaving. Jobs are only part of the problem – for people in their teens and twenties social life is also important. Perhaps the nick-name for the region “Boredomlands” gives a clue – many young people there’s not much going on for them – sports and social facilities are limited; public transport is poor and more of less non-existent in the evenings –  a night out means having a car and not driving. As friends move into cities to work or study those remaining become increasingly isolated.

In many cases young people leave the area to study before they start to look for jobs permanent jobs Once they’ve gone they don’t come back quickly. One of the things which could be game-changing in keeping young people in the South would be to create a University of the South of Scotland. This is idea was supported by the Scottish Borders Chamber of Commerce in their evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee. We do have some higher education in the South of Scotland with an outpost of Heriot Watt University at Galashiels, a mixed bag of courses from the University of the West of Scotland, the Open University and an outpost of Glasgow University at the Crichton Campus in Dumfries, plus bits of Scotland’s Rural College around Dumfries, but in all cases these are minor outposts not full blown universities based in the region and focussed on it. They’re all pretty small, teaching a limited range of subjects and not attracting the critical mass of students needed to be able to offering the wider social and cultural life associated with city universities. What the South of Scotland needs is a proper university offering a full range of subjects, beyond the current offering of “things to do with sheep and farming”. Young people in the South have as much right to learn about culture, languages, science and engineering as anyone else! A good university in the South of Scotland could not only enable young people to stay in the region, but could attract students from elsewhere in Scotland, the UK and Europe.

Not only would a university for the South of Scotland help young people to stay in the area, it would bring high skilled, well paid work in teaching and research as well as a range of supporting jobs and potentially also spin off companies. Students who have studied in the area would be more likely to settle there and start businesses of their own.

Of course if young people are to attend a local university they need to be able to get to it! It is almost impossible to reach Dumfries or Gala by public transport in time for a normal working day from areas which might be expected to be in their catchment, although it is possible to get to Edinburgh and Glasgow. The Scottish Affairs Committee report recognises that public transport needs to be improved, but focusses it attention on extending the new Borders railway from Tweedbank on to Hawick and Carlisle. This is the sort of big, expensive infrastructure project which governments like, but while the proposal is welcome, it neglects the more fundamental need for local public transport. Without connecting bus services most residents can’t reach Gala, Tweedbank or Hawick without driving! The need for public transport brings us back to the ageing population. Pensioners are disproportionate users of public transport, perhaps because they have free access to it, perhaps because they can no longer drive for themselves of perhaps simply because they have more time. However for them to use public transport there must be frequent and accessible services for them to use.

Some of the other recommendations in the report are pretty obvious: employers everywhere should be paying a living wage and high speed broadband and mobile phone coverage are becoming increasing essential for individuals and business and should be rolled out in the South of Scotland as soon as possible. The need for better cross-border working with the north of England is highlighted, but there is no discussion of potential opportunities from improved links with Northern Ireland and the Republic which could benefit the southwest Scotland. Although the report is welcome as far as it goes, it is disappointing that rural housing, access to land and diversifying the economy are not touched on.

Housing is a particular problem, as high house prices couples with low wages price many people out of the communities which they grew up in. Planning rules to do not favour house building in rural areas, while the housing stock is increasingly bought up for use as second homes, holiday houses and by people retiring to the area. There is an urgent need for affordable and social housing to be built in rural areas and planning rules need to be rethought to allow this. Improving the right of communities to buy or control the land around them could help with this.

Agricultural, forestry and fishing activities inextricably linked with rural areas, but actually only employ about 4% of the workforce. The largest employers in the South of Scotland are the retail sector and healthcare and social services. Manufacturing supports a surprisingly high proportion of the population – at nearly 9 % this is more than in Glasgow. It is not clear from Scottish Government data what this includes, but traditional industries such as textiles and food process will fall into this as well as some agricultural engineering. A better understanding of what this manufacturing involves could enable it to be supported better.

The South of Scotland and its people have enormous potential, but our young people are our future – we cannot afford to lose them!

References

Data on age distribution and industry profiles taken from the 2011 census http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ods-web/area.html

What Scotland could do to stop fracking.

The UK Government have recently opened up new areas of Scotland where companies can bid for licences for fracking and other unconventional gas extraction. Some of these licences have already been sold e.g to Ineos, owners of the Grangemouth plant. Because Energy Policy is not devolved at present the UK Government was able to do this without getting permission from the Scottish Government.

However, just because the licences have been issued doesn’t mean that there aren’t steps which Scottish Government could take to make unconventional gas extraction in Scotland very unattractive using the powers which it currently has on planning and environmental regulation. These could be used to put in place a really strong regulatory framework which could effectively stop this unconventional gas extraction. Scottish Government have used a similar approach to prevent the development of any new nuclear power stations in Scotland, and there is no reason why they could not do the same for unconventional gas. Their stance so far has been rather hesitant and if they are serious about meeting their much vaunted climate change targets they need to do much more about reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Opening the floodgates to unconventional gas extraction won’t do this.

There are several steps which they could take including:

1) Setting similar buffer zones between developments and settlements to that in Australia (2 km), where a settlement is any inhibited dwelling (not just large towns). There very few places in the central belt coal/shale are or the Canonbie area which are more than 2 km from a house. So far Scottish Government have only specified a discretionary buffer zone which is to be proposed by the extraction companies and reviewed by local planning authorities. This is not good enough – we know that local authorities have taken a very variable approach to defining settlements and setting buffer distances around other developments such as opencast sites.

2) Setting requirements for very hefty restoration/accident clean up bonds to ensure that any sites approved are properly restored and that any incidents of contamination are dealt with at the expense of the extraction companies, not the public purse. The restoration bonds which councils were fobbed off with for opencast coals sites were woefully inadequate and have left councils will huge bills for restoration in the wake of Scottish Coal’s bankruptcy.

3) Ensuring that sufficient funding is extracted from operators to allow SEPA to do effective monitoring of methane emissions, groundwater contamination and other pollution risks are any extraction sites. SEPA have had a series of large staff cuts in recent years and don’t have the capability to do this at present. I don’t think it is acceptable for operators to “self monitor” or appoint an “independent” monitor of their own choosing. It must be SEPA and it must be paid for by operators licence fees, not through SEPA’s grant from taxpayers.

4) Ensuring that detailed monitoring of background levels of contaminants in groundwater is carried out before any drilling starts. At present there is only very limited monitoring of groundwater in Scotland mainly because it is difficult to get at because there are not many boreholes. It is essential that the condition of groundwater is understood before drilling starts as otherwise operators will be able to claim that pollution pre-dated gas extraction activities.

5) Setting up a proper a regulatory framework for this activity – none exists at present. This must include binding guidance to local authorities on how to deal with unconventional gas applications.

6) Banning drilling under anyone’s property without their permission (this will stop sideways drilling from remote locations). UK Gov ran a consultation on this and reported back at the end of Sept recommending changes to the trespass laws to allow drilling under property without consent. These changes have not been implemented yet as they need changes to the law, so will have to go through Parliament which could mean that they do not get enacted before the 2015 general election. UK Gov say that their consultation applies to England, Scotland and Wales, but this seems to be based on energy policy not being devolved and ignores the fact that the trepass laws in Scotland devolved and are different to those in England and Wales. I am not sure which get the final say (although I can guess which UK Gov think do!). So we can still lobby MPs about this (suspect it could become an issue in the 2015 election) and try to get an opinion on whether UK Gov can, in fact, change the trepass laws in Scotland.

7) Requiring that all applications for unconventional gas extraction and related activity to be heard by the planning committee to avoid the Canonbie situation where DART Energy/Buccleuch Estates made separate applications for about 30 well heads and a compressor station each of which were dealt with as “minor developments” and so were approved by council officers without the planning committee being aware of them or realising their significance when put together.

8) Supplying sufficient funding to allow local authorities to recruit staff with sufficient specialist expertise to be able to properly assess applications.

9) Giving clear guidance on how the duties on public bodies relating to climate change set out in section 44.1.a of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act should be applied by planners. This section states that “A public body must, in exercising its functions, act in the way best calculated to contribute to the delivery of the [emissions reduction] targets”. To date this has not been used to challenge developments which could increase greenhouse gas emissions, but there is no reason why it could not be, and clearly unconventional gas extraction will increase greenhouse gas emissions both by leaks of methane from wells and by carbon dioxide emissions from burning the gas.

10) Requiring Health Impact Assessments as well as Environmental Impact Assessments for these developments.

However so far the SNP has sat on the fence about this rather more than I would like. I hope that this was just because they didn’t want to rock the boat with their friends in the fossil fuel industry in the run up to Indy Ref and that now they will have the courage to take some sensible action on this. Greens will certainly be pushing for it.

Cows Save the Planet – Judith Schwarz

This book suggests that increasing livestock numbers might help soils to store carbon and so help to tackle climate change. This is a controversial hypothesis. My review of the book is below this pictures of some wee sleekit, cowrin’ timorous beasties!

Cows Save the Planet – Judith Schwartz

Judith Schwartz is an American journalist whose main interest is in alternative economics rather than soil science, and this shows in the book, both in the focus on American prairie agriculture and in some of the flaws in the science.

The book is aimed at a general audience, and aims to use a light touch with the science while keeping the reader engaged with a human interest angle on the people who the author meets. This works reasonably well, although the lack of numbers and references is frustrating, and at times made me suspicious about some of the assertions. For example I tried to trace a study on the nutrient content of food from the UK Ministry of Health (sic) and could not locate it. Similarly the book refers to the numerous papers published by Australian soil campaigner Christine Jones, but none of these were from peer reviewed journals. That said it does make some interesting points about how we manage agricultural soils.

The main thesis of the book is that by storing more carbon in soils we can improve soil fertility, reduce the need for agrochemicals and retain water in soils setting up a virtuous circle which captures carbon and combats climate change. Certainly soil carbon is an important element of the carbon cycle, and soil carbon stocks should be maintained and where possible enhanced.

The cows referred to in the book’s title are supposed to save the planet by adding manure and breaking up impervious, dry clay surfaces increasing rainwater infiltration which in turn promotes plant growth which returns more carbon to the soil. However the numbers to back this up aren’t presented, so while there is anecdotal evidence that changes to grazing management and increased stocking levels might be beneficial for some degraded soils in hot dry regions with mineral soils the applicability of this to organic or organo-mineral UK soils which are cool and wet is less clear. On UK soils there is a risk of compaction, erosion and loss of soil structure where high stocking levels lead to over-grazing. The author almost completely ignores the effect which increased nitrogen inputs from manure and urine could have on nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate run-off as well as dismissing the increase in methane emissions which would occur from increased ruminant numbers.

At times Schwartz seems convinced that climate change can be tackled by increasing soil carbon stocks alone. However limits on the capacity of soils to increase carbon stocks are not considered. While soils can undoubtedly make a contribution to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, at times the book strays close to climate denial suggesting that no other action is necessary and that we can continue with business as usual use of fossil fuels and expect soils to mop up all of the carbon dioxide released with no need for lifestyle and technological change.

Schwartz blames the agrochemical industry for soil degradation. It is certainly true that agricultural intensification has caused problems for soils. While  efforts to remedy this have focussed on supplementing major plant nutrients by adding synthetic fertilisers less attention has been given to trace nutrients and soil carbon. Another cause of soil degradation which gets less attention in the book is the transposition of European agricultural practices to parts of the world for which they were not developed for. Ploughing the prairies caused enormous damage to soils long before the advent of modern agrochemicals. We should recognise the diversity of global soils and be wary of treating imported soil management practices such as tillage reduction, use of cover crops, mob grazing or biochar addition as “magic bullets”.

The final chapter takes a look at economic context of soil management. Here Schwartz’s economics background comes to the fore, pointing out that economic growth has to be constrained by the ability of environmental resources to support it. She also discusses the economic benefits of managing soil well so that inputs of fertilisers and pesticides can be reduced, and how we could better value the contributions which soils make to the economy.

I came away from this book with mixed feelings about it. There are some flaws in it’s analysis, however it does make the case for better management of soils and for more value to be given to the services they provide, and that has to be a good thing.

Climate change, the universe and everything

This post has its origins in a Facebook exchange, which had got rather long even before I editted it to add more, so I decided that it had better become a blogpost. It might not be the most lyrical post I’ve ever done, it lacks wimsey  or political edge, but it’s given me an entertaining evening pondering the place of scepticism in science and in society more widely.

The post was provoked by a comment on a link I posted on how much credence should be given to climate denial. The comment was

“scepticism is the order of the day. Ambiguity, doubt and ‘knowledgeable ignorance’ or ‘unbelief’ is the foundation of autonomous, free enquiry (σκέψις, skepsis) into the nature of the universe and the human relation to it. We’re in Hume and Feyerabend territory here. Science – today’s certainties – is no more exempt from freethinking than religion – yesterday’s certainties – was. According to Chomsky, this is why schools don’t teach or nurture critical thinking: their social function is to produce compliance and orthodoxy.”

Now, before this descends into the name calling which all too often goes with the climate change/climate denial debate, I’ll point out that I don’t think that the poster was particularly disputing the idea that climate is changing –  it was more of a call for people to wake up and start questioning everything. Which is a good thing.  Picking apart who is elling us what; what we really know and what we’ve just accepted is very empowering. We need critical thinking, but is that what climate “sceptics” are doing?

But in the context of climate change can questioning everything be dangerous? Does it give licence to those who for various reasons want to carry on with business as usual while the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that we are facing a serious problem? The answer lies in how well we ask the questions; our assessment of the answers and how we act on them. Questioning and sceptical assessment is not something  which is generally encouraged.  Look at the “big picture” on any issue you like but don’t let it get so big that you question the status quo!

So returning to science should we question everything? Well, yes, but some things are more open to doubt than others. So at the scale of the universe that we operate at gravity makes things fall to the floor; plants need light and water to grow; ice melts when it’s heated etc. These are well known phenomena and the theories behind why they are as they are have stood up to challenge. We tell stories to explain what we see (but we may not see everything e.g we miss effects at the very large, very small or very distant levels). Sometimes they’re wrong (the earth is not sitting on a turtle), sometimes they’re reasonable given the state of knowledge at the time but later proved wrong, which shows the value of sceptism e.g the phlogiston theory or the idea of four humours governing mood and personality etc. When theories relate to observations which we can make ourselves we should test them ourselves.

When the observations are made by someone else then we have to view everything through a “reliability filter”. This is where the scientific peer review process is useful and also where conspiracy theories abound. This is where science can start to get subjective (and it inevitably does because it’s carried out by people). Do we believe the observer? Are they seeing what they think they see? Are they lying? Has the instrument screwed up? Are the investigators shoe-horning their observations into an established theory when they fit something else better? Are we giving credence too easily to a “big name”? Being aware of the subjectivity and asking the questions is something which  science educators tend not to encourage. In science and even more in wider society we don’t like mould-breakers and iconoclasts.

So yes, there is scope for questioning even the most established theories, but those questions must lead to testable hypotheses otherwise they’re just speculation. Speculation can be fun (there are some good sci fi plots in it as well as the basis of various myths, and some plain weirdness) or it can be harmless and possibly constructive e.g mulling over whether there might be parallel universes (which can produce some elegant theories from philosophers and mathematicians, but nothing which can be proved in the physical world very easily at the moment), and lots of conspiracy theories, but a limited amount of activity which is likely to shed any new light on anything.  But ill informed or badly executed scepticism can be at best a distraction and at worst dangerous. In other cases scepticism can make room for alternative view points given our current state of knowledge.

I don’t know how dowsing works, but have been somewhat gobsmacked to find that I can detect buried pipes and cables with a couple of metal rods – this shouldn’t happen, but it does. I don’t know how, but it does. I can see no basis by which homeopathy can work but some people are convinced: is this just a result of subjectivity or misplaced cause and effect? Or is there something happening which we don’t understand? (At the moment I think subjectivity, placebo effects and the persuasion of snake oil salesmen probably explain homeopathy, but I could be proved wrong in time). In both of these examples the consequences of the alternative theories are not terribly serious.

Whether speculation is a problem or not depends on the consequences and on the motivations of those who indulge in it. With climate change the consequences are extremely serious, and the motivation of the “sceptics” sometimes extremely murky. The basis of climate change theory is well established and fairly easily testable. The idea that some gases such as carbon dioxide absorb heat has been established for over a century and Arrhenius published a theory on how this might affect global temperatures in 1896.

As far as I’m aware none of the climate “sceptics” have questioned this theory or produced any observations to disprove it. Therefore the point stands that increasing levels of CO2 and other gases are almost certain to lead to heat trapped in the earth’s atmosphere and so in increase in average global temperatures.

What the climate “sceptics” tend to question is the measurements and the effects of increasing greenhouse gases. Humans can’t directly detect increasing greenhouse gases or small temperature increases over long periods, so we do have to be aware of possible bias in the measurement and reporting. In the case of greenhouse gas concentrations I am not aware of any evidence that they are falling on decadal timescales (they do fluctuated seasonally which is expected as leaves fall from trees and regrow). So while I can question the answer to the question, the evidence that we have is that there is nothing wrong with the measurements which have been made in different places and in different ways over a reasonable period.

We can question why this increase is happening, but we know that humans are acting in ways which are likely to emit greenhouse gases, and do little that removes them. Other factors are involved, but so far nothing has been suggested which could plausibly cause the change in atmospheric and oceananic CO2 concentrations we have seen. We need to wake up and do something about this. Urgently!

Finally climate “sceptics” and many scientists can question what the effect of these changes in greenhouse gas concentration will be on the world’s weather. This is where is gets really complicated and there is lots of scope of debate and many genuine unknowns because the interaction between land, atmosphere, oceans, biosphere, the sun, and clouds etc is complicated. It takes a lot of measurement and computing power to get at this. Perhaps even Deep Thought. The answer may be 42 – but probably not as climate change is only part of the question! And as Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy points out the answer is only the lead-in to the next question!

Why Oil Should not Fuel Scotland

Oil, along with removal of nuclear weapons has been one of the pillars of the Independence movement and the return of Scotland’s oil wealth has always been key part of the SNP’s vision for Scotland. However, as a Green I think that there are serious problems with fuelling an Independent Scotland on oil revenues. So what’s wrong with oil then?

1) Relying on oil to finance Scotland locks us in to having to work with large multinational corporations in our main wealth creating industry. Unlike Norway we do not have a state oil company, and it’s probably too late to create one now. There is little point in returning power to Holyrood only to have decision making completely removed from the democratic process and placed with the boards of Exxon, BP, Shell etc. These companies have shown a total disregard for democracy and human rights in many of the countries they operate in, particularly where they know that the government can’t afford to tell them to leave. Scotland can do better than aspiring to be Nigeria! The recent revelations of oil executive Ian Taylor’s donations to Better Together and the Tories gives a taste of what might come! Although at present a lot of Scotland’s renewables capacity is operated by multinationals it is not too late to bring large scale electricity generation back under state ownership and to encourage/require communities to be more involved in owning or managing smaller projects such as community turbines and solar panels on public buildings.

2) The value of oil reserves in the future is uncertain and will depend both on demand and the technical feasibility of extracting it. At the moment oil companies play a finely balanced game in which they want to increase their stated extractable reserves to increase their share prices but not want to make it look as if there are limitless reserves which would push down the price which they can sell oil at. At present the stated extractable reserves and their value have been hyped up in a “carbon bubble”⁽¹⁾ which will burst sooner or later and cause prices to crash as much of the reserves are either not extractable or would cause enormous environmental damage and/or runaway climate change if exploited. Which brings me on to:

3) Climate change. Burning fossil fuels such as oil produces carbon dioxide (CO₂) which is the main gas causing climate change. We are currently extremely close to the threshold CO₂ concentration which would take climate change into a “positive feedback” loop (atmospheric concentrations of 400 ppm were reported today⁽²⁾ for the first time compared to pre-industrial levels around 250 ppm). Positive feedback is where temperatures have increased so much that more CO₂ will be released from natural sources such as peat bogs and oceans whatever we do. We may just be able to avoid this runaway greenhouse effect, but not if we keep using fossil fuels.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology fitted to large point sources of CO₂ such as power stations could capture CO₂ and pump into underground for storage but CCS is still at the development stage. Although there is a reasonable chance that it could work we are probably at least 10 years away from commercial scale use on a power station. The big question is how much CO₂ stays in the geological strata it is pumped into. To stop it causing climate change it will need to stay there for ever. The most likely rock type for storing CO₂ is empty or partly empty oil and gas reserves. CO₂ is already pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as a way of getting more oil out, but in this application there hasn’t been much need for it to stay there. (The cynical might think that the fossil fuel industry’s enthusiasm for CCS might be because as well as storing CO₂ it enables them to get more oil and gas out!) However there is only capacity to store 20 – 30 years’ worth of emissions in these reservoirs. After that other underground stores would be needed. It might be possible to store CO₂ in other rock formations such as saline aquifers which have much larger capacity, but whether it would stay there is much more uncertain. While Scotland does have depleted oil and gas reservoirs it does not have any saline aquifers. Another limitation is that CCS can’t be fitted to sources of CO₂ which move about, like vehicles.

One of the aims of independence is to promote fairness and protect the vulnerable. However runaway climate change is incompatible with this as vulnerable people will be hardest hit by the changes. They are less likely to be able to adapt their homes; more likely to live on flood plains; less likely to be able to afford increased food and water prices; and if in poor health, potentially more vulnerable to respiratory problems from poorer air quality, and heat related illness. Those with existing mental health problems may be more likely to suffer stress and anxiety when faced with having to deal with the results of climate change.⁽³⁾ Dealing with increased flood risk is likely to be particularly traumatic.

4) As well as climate change, oil and gas exploitation have other environmental impacts, particularly if “land based” reserves are exploited which will require unconventional extraction techniques such as fracking, coalbed methane extraction, coal gasification and shale gas extraction. While some of the more lurid stories circulating about the possible impacts of these are extreme cases, they do pose significant risks to groundwater, and there is a risk of leaks of methane gas (which has more effect on climate per molecule than CO2). It is also likely that the gas fields will be dotted with flares to get rid of excess gas, as well as access roads, drilling rigs etc. Renewables also have some environmental impacts, but in general these are not as severe. Unconventional fossil fuel extraction is not adequately regulated or monitored at present. (Ian Taylor’s company is one of these seeking to exploit these technologies!).

5) Fossil fuels are not very efficient energy sources. Burning them to generate electricity is only about 30 % efficient (only about 30 % of the energy in the fuel is converted to electricity).⁽⁴⁾

6) Continuing to base our economy on fossil fuels stifles innovation. We no longer produce cars in Scotland (Linwood no more!), but continuing to use petrol and oil in cars will stop us switching to public transport and electric vehicles which might benefit Scottish manufacturers. Hunslet Barclay in Kilmarnock produce a few diesel locomotives and Alexander Dennis in Falkirk still produce buses. Encouraging renewables would help companies like these to innovate and potentially lead in new markets. Hunslets have produced some electric locos in the past but lack engineers with skills in this, and Alexander Denis are looking at developing electric buses. Scotland could be onto winners here, but not if we don’t invest in them.

7) Fossil fuels can be shipped around the world fairly easily and taken to wherever there is the cheapest workforce. Renewable electricity is less portable, so jobs are more likely to come here as industry moves in to benefit from cheap energy just as the now closed Kinlochleven aluminium smelter brought jobs to the Highlands in the 1950s. There are already plans to locate banks of computer servers close to tidal power generation in the Pentland Firth ⁽⁵⁾.

We will need to pump oil for a few years yet to fund the transition to more sustainable fuels, but there should be a defined timetable for this. In the longer term there may be some limited demand for fossil fuels for a few specialised applications such as farm vehicles and short distance road haulage where electric vehicles may not be able to supply enough power. However in this fairly small market it might be possible to use non-fossil fuel sources such sustainably sourced biodiesel or gas from biogas digestors (particularly applicable for farm vehicles) instead.

Fossil fuels are undoubtedly part of Scotland’s industrial past, and an important source of income at present, but I contend that to be truly independent and sustainable, and to deliver an economically resilient and socially inclusive Scotland we need to look to other energy sources in the future.

1) Report on Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted Capital and Stranded Assets by Carbon Tracker, LSE’s Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Prof Nicholas Stern http://carbontracker.live.kiln.it/Unburnable-Carbon-2-Web-Version.pdf and reported in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/19/carbon-bubble-financial-crash-crisis

2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22486153

3) Differential Social Impacts of Climate Change in the UK, SNIFFER http://www.sniffer.org.uk/files/7513/4183/8010/UKCC22_LiteratureReview_web.pdf

4) Scottish Energy Study http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/19092748/8

5) http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/01/28/scottish-server-farms-team-on-tidal-power/

Visiting a Sleeping Dragon

It wasn’t the most conventional birthday lunch: tomato soup out of a machine with added coal dust! I was on a tour of the soon-to-be-scrapped coal fired power station at Cockenzie in East Lothian organised by a friend who has worked there for around 30 years and will retire when the plant closes for good at the end of next week. I’m not a big fan of coal fired power stations because of their role in climate change and acid rain, but I was interested to have a look around this piece of Scotland‘s industrial heritage before demolition starts next week.

The power station opened in 1967 and ran for the last time a few days ago on 13th Mar. The plant had to close as after 45 years it was not cost effective to modify it to reduce emissions to the levels required by EU directives. Since generation stopped, a skeleton staff has been overseeing final decommissioning. A bitingly cold wind blowing through the huge shed housing the silenced boilers, coal pulverisers, hoppers and water tanks added to the Marie Celeste feel of deserted work shops, Hi Vis jackets left drapped over railings and tools abandoned on benches.

In its heyday Cockenzie could generate up to 1200 megawatts electricity from four generation units, although latterly this was reduced to 800 megawatts to reduce emissions. The principle of generation is simple: coal is burnt to heat water into high pressure steam which is used to turn turbine blades which turn an alternator generating electricity at 17,000 volts and 50 Hz. Some of the figures behind this are impressive 2000 tonnes of coal crushed and burnt a day; stream at more than 500C and 162 times atmospheric pressure; the tips of the turbine blades glowing red hot as they turn at close to the speed of sound and half a million litres per minute of water from the Forth used for cooling. Dealing with all this created engineering challenges keeping the steam and pulverised coal dust contained in feed pipes. Leaks were inevitable and coal dust and ash lie in sheltered corners of the plant, brushing onto clothes and giving teeth a gritty coating. When the plant was operating dust masks and ear defenders were compulsory, but even then working conditions could be unpleasant. Coal had to be transported into the pulverising units on conveyor belts and unwanted contamination by items such as rock, and reportedly occasionally body parts of unknown origin separated out. Ash from the boilers had to be removed for use in the construction industry or pumped out to settle in lagoons at Musselburgh.

When it closed Cockenzie employed 90 full time staff. Many had worked their way up from apprentices and known the station as man and boy (all of the staff on the operational side of the plant were male – its one of those old fashioned industrial plants with no ladies loos!). The station was a part of their social lives and a second home as well as a workplace. Even with good redundancy or relocation deals closure has been an emotional time for them.

Staff numbers were higher when Scottish Power was a nationalised industry. One of the younger members of our group had never heard of the concept of state ownership of key infrastructure, and was puzzled as to why we should now be giving profits to private investors when previously they had gone back to the government. Undoubtedly some nationalised industries had become very inefficient by the late 1970s as staffing levels and working practices which helped reduce post-war unemployment made operations uncompetitive (the plant roof with its panoramic views across the Forth was a popular sunbathing location on warmer days than this and the warm water from the cooling water outflow ensured a good catch for anglers!) , but this could have been addressed by reform rather than sell off.

At busy times such as maintenance shutdowns numbers at the plant could swell to nearly a thousand. Recently maintenance operations have become less frequent, and notices in Polish around the plant witness that the trademen brought in for this were often from overseas because of the lack of skilled welders and fitters in Scotland. A sad state of affairs in a country once famed for its engineering and manufacturing prowess and something which we surely need to change if we are realize the potential of renewable energy and revitalise our manufacturing sector.

Finally we reach the control room. The warmth compared to the frozen, freezing plant area is a relief. The decor comes straight from a 1960s Bond movie, all bakelite dials, switches and lights with bi-colour formica labels and greyish green enameled metalwork. Only a few computer screens and the remaining supervisor checking his email while controlling the flow of air through the now cold boilers to purge toxic fumes show that this is the 21st century. The rest of the tour group (all men) wander around displaying that peculiar male fascination with knobs and switches. Fortunately they manage to resist the temptation to flick a switch and bring the sleeping dragon back to life.

The closure of the Cockenzie power station will undoubtedly leave a hole in the East Lothian community around it as well as in the lives of the people who worked there and proudly regard it as “their” power station. From an environmental point of view the closure is completely sensible, but with Cockenzie’s passing we loose more of the people with the practical knowledge and expertise of engineering which was once such a key part of Scotland’s economy and culture. Looking to the future, Scotland needs to generate electricity to keep the lights on. However this is done we will need to train a whole new generation of engineers if we are to make best use of our resources.

The Cockenzie site is zoned for redevelopment with a gas fired power station at some point in the future. This will continue our reliance on fossil fuels which cannot be desirable given Scotland’s potential to use more sustainable renewable technologies from our abundant wind, hydro, wave and tidal sources instead. However to ensure that Scotland choses an appropriate energy policy for the future we need to be able to tailor planning to our own needs and resources rather than follow policies made in a country with different energy  agenda.