Rhoda Grant MSP

Speech in the Scottish Parliament debate

Green Energy

2 June 2011

I welcome you to your new post, Presiding Officer. I also welcome the minister to his post, and I congratulate all the new members who have made their first speeches today, with such thoughtful contributions.

There are many issues to debate regarding green energy, as our amendment shows.

I will concentrate on wave and tidal energy.

As the minister said, we are currently world leaders in research and development for wave and tidal energy, but we have some way to go before we can harness that power to make it contribute to our energy needs in the future.

Although some people overestimate the potential production, it is clear that it can make a significant contribution to energy production.

Tidal power is not weather dependent, which is one of the main concerns that has been expressed regarding wind power.

We must renew our commitment to those technologies and their development.

Much of the investment can come from the private sector, but we need to create the conditions and the infrastructure that keep the companies involved working in Scotland.

I recently visited the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney and was fascinated by what is being done there. EMEC, which is the first centre of its kind in the world, offers developers the opportunity to test prototypes in a range of wave and tidal conditions, from sheltered nursery sites through to fully worked-up, grid-connected open-water sites.

I was struck by the facilities that are already in place, but it became clear that in order for the centre to be a focal point for research and development, further investment in infrastructure is needed.

Companies tend to do their research and development elsewhere and to take their prototypes to Orkney for testing.

It appears that we are missing an opportunity.

If there were facilities in Orkney in which companies could work locally, companies could continue to develop their technologies on site.

The approach would have the added benefit of creating an atmosphere of collaboration, which would speed up development.

Companies might not want to move north in their entirety, but if facilities were available in the area there would be an opportunity for companies to base some of their work there.

Companies also need to ensure that they have access to policy and planning expertise.
The Government could lead the way in that regard.

The minister talked about a one-stop shop for developers of renewable energy; it would be good if such an organisation could be based in Orkney, so that companies that are developing in the field could access it immediately.

In the past, our investment in research and development, for example in oil and gas, has paid dividends.

We need to ensure that we remain world leaders in tidal power.

It would be unforgivable to lose that expertise and the inward investment that it will bring.

We are importing technologies in which we failed to invest in the past—wind power is a recent example.

We need to consider community benefit in the context of offshore generation.

In the past, communities that have rights over land have been able to benefit financially from wind power, by becoming joint developers or by taking a percentage dividend because of the loss of amenity in their area.

The issue is much more complex in relation to offshore energy.

There are obvious benefits to the public purse, which will be gained through taxation, but those benefits will bypass local communities.

We have seen that happen in communities that gained nothing from onshore wind farms in their locality, which created very little by way of local jobs and community benefit.

When people were investing in oil and gas, Shetland set up an oil fund, which continues to benefit the communities.

Shetland also gained the jobs and inward investment that developments in oil and gas brought.

The wider community will continue to benefit from the oil fund.

Mary Scanlon was critical of Viking Energy, which is partly owned by the fund, but the company will consider investing in renewables, which will secure the community benefit for future generations, so we need to consider the situation.


Mary Scanlon: I appreciate Rhoda Grant giving way to me. I was critical not of Viking Energy but of its lack of engagement and openness in responding to the local community’s concerns.


Rhoda Grant: I concur with Mary Scanlon that anyone who is developing onshore or offshore energy needs to work with the local community.

My point is that communities need to benefit from developments in their locality.

We cannot generate electricity without having a grid that is capable of transporting the energy to population centres.

There is an argument for basing onshore wind power generation near population centres, but that does not apply to wave and tidal power, which is always generated in our most remote areas.

I have been told that the west coast of Lewis is probably one of the most productive sites for wave and tidal power, but the interconnector there is already at full capacity.

The matter needs to be dealt with now, and I ask the minister to update us on progress on the interconnector when he sums up.

Renewables technology will continue to be expensive for some time, as is always the case when research and development are required.

However, it will help to reduce our carbon footprint, so as a society we must be prepared to invest.

As Mark Griffin said, we must take seriously the challenges of fuel poverty.

Microrenewables are affordable for people who have money to invest; people who suffer from fuel poverty and would benefit from microrenewables do not have money to invest.

We need to ensure that the Government deals with the issue and sets up the structures that will allow people who suffer from fuel poverty to invest in renewable technologies.


Download this speech >>>

  Share This Page