Clean Power

Published on November 3rd, 2012 | by James Ayre


Scotland Could Get 50% Of Its Power From Renewable Sources By 2015, Says First Minister Alex Salmond

November 3rd, 2012 by  

Scotland’s first minister Alex Salmond recently revealed the government’s new target to get half of Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

Scotland beat its 31% target for 2011 by about 4%.


“When I became first minister in 2007, I inherited a target for 50 percent of Scotland’s electricity to be produced by renewable sources by 2020,” said Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. “We now know that we can achieve much more than that, more quickly, having already exceeded our 2011 target.”

As the first minister said, the renewables industry is really a “massive economic opportunity,” not something that would be a negative for the country.

The new target could add up to the 11,000+ green energy jobs in Scotland, especially after this last year, a ‘bumper year’ for investment, with an estimated £2.3 billion investment in renewables projects.

Scotland plans to meet these ambitious goals by further development of offshore wind farms and wave and tidal power projects. The country is also aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2020.

Source: Business Green

Image Credits: Scotlandvia Wikimedia Commons

Check out our new 93-page EV report, based on over 2,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in 49 of 50 US states, 26 European countries, and 9 Canadian provinces.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

About the Author

's background is predominantly in geopolitics and history, but he has an obsessive interest in pretty much everything. After an early life spent in the Imperial Free City of Dortmund, James followed the river Ruhr to Cofbuokheim, where he attended the University of Astnide. And where he also briefly considered entering the coal mining business. He currently writes for a living, on a broad variety of subjects, ranging from science, to politics, to military history, to renewable energy. You can follow his work on Google+.

  • Pingback: US Tidal Energy Company First Scottish Renewable Energy Inward Investment | CleanTechnica()

  • Bob Hamilton

    Wonder if any of these responces has STUDIED not just read the Scottish Government’s 2020 Routemap for renewable energy.

    Anybody with even a basic undestanding of Eletricity Generating would be horrified- why?
    Read it and if you dinnae ken you won’t be bothered.

  • jburt56

    The naysayers have a problem!!!

  • freedomev

    Scotland has great wind and tidal resources and run of river hydro though some of it should impounded storage dam hydro to balance the wind and demand variability. Tidal is like clockwork and if spread out averages quite nicely to steady power.

  • wattleberry

    The Scottish tail wagging the UK dog? This is the host of one of the original atomic power plants saying ‘Who needs nuclear?’.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Things are not looking good for nuclear in Europe. Looks like one of the proposed builds is falling apart.

      “The project will fail unless a utility company can be found to replace EON, Fennovoima’s only partner with nuclear expertise, said Markku Jaervinen, a financial analyst at Evli Bank Oyj in Helsinki, who estimates the value of EON’s stake in the project at about 700 million euros ($908 million).

      “A financial investor will not be enough,” he said by e- mail. “A cancellation of the project seems very likely.

      Utilities are pulling out of nuclear projects across Europe as financial constraints and uncertainty over energy prices increases risk. EON’s withdrawal from Finlandfollows its decision in September 2011, along with SSE Plc (SSE) and RWE AG (RWE), to give up building nuclear plants in the U.K.”

      • freedomev

        Bob the anti nuke troll who only puts up data that backs his point but leaves much out because it doesn’t fit his rants.

        • Ronald Brak

          Why don’t you tell us what he left out? Don’t leave us all in suspenders here. If there’s a reactor out there that can compete in the Australian electricity market I want to know about it. We could do with a couple in Victoria. Mind you, it will have to be able to compete while paying for its own insurance which might not be cheap. Property values are high in Victoria and the state seems to have aquired a fondness for random earthquakes.

          • freedomev

            We left out anything that was against his points like in Asia Nuke are being built for $2-3k/kw and being built in 2-3 yrs.
            He leaves out the reason US nukes cost so much and take so long is Gov and industry trying to hold onto their power.
            Nex he ignore new generation of smaller and much safer nukes some of which burn up the wastes of present ones.
            He puts out links that says a company is getting out of the nuke business means it; doomed wehen many other are reay to take it’s place.
            The same article disproved his point that only ountries finance nukes yet the example clearly states private utilities are financing it.
            Google small or modular nuclear reactors. Not everywhere is suited for them and I don’t support preset PWR’s
            I support mostly people making their own power by RE but don’t ignore others or spread lies about them.
            I certainly don’t support coal that is so many x’s worse than safer new nuke tech that will be needed to get rid of coal and the eaths, damage it causes..

          • Ronald Brak

            Nuclear for 2 to 3 dollars a watt? That’s not going to pay for itself in Australia. When even low cost countries can’t produce a reactor that can compete in Australia’s electricity market it’s obvious that it’s about as useful to us as large bulls on a nun.

          • freedomev

            That is for building the plant and electricity from it about $.03/kwhr which is cheap. I don’t care for that kind of presurized water reactor but rather see more safe next generation designs to burn up the PWR’s waste so it can’t be used for bombs.

          • Ronald Brak

            So if the nuclear plant is $2-3 a watt and the marginal cost is 3 cents a kilowatt-hour then the cost of electricity before insurance is about equal to the current wholesale price of electricty in Australia. In a country with what is by international standards a high carbon price. Nuclear is obviously a complete no go for us.

          • Bob_Wallace

            The median price of electricity from constructed and paid off reactors in the US is $0.06/kWh. The minimum is $0.04/kWh.


            US nuclear plants are struggling to stay in business due to the competition coming from natural gas and wind. Kewaunee (Wisconsin) will be closed at the end of this year. It just can’t earn a profit.

            Plants that encounter large repair bills such as San Onofre and Chrystal River may not be repaired but closed. Oyster Creek will be closed rather than rebuilding its cooling tower.


            Good luck on building a new rector and selling electricity for $0.03/kWh while avoiding bankruptcy.

          • Bob_Wallace

            $2 to $3 per watt is a lowball overnight cost. It does not include the cost of financing which easily doubles the actual cost.

            And I’ve yet to find anyone who builds reactors in 3 years. China averaged 52 months for their first several reactors but are projected longer times for subsequent builds.

            There are no small or modular reactors. We don’t know how much they would cost, to claim that they would be cheap has no foundation. Some are arguing that we could build small reactors cheaply in factories but it would take hundreds, if not thousands, of builds before economy of scale would kick in. There’s no demand for the first several hundred expensive small reactors. Much of the world it trying to get the reactors it has shut down.

  • Ronald Brak

    Go Scottland! Och aye the renoo!

Back to Top ↑