David Toke and others demand that Scotland should have more control of its
energy policy to escape “English” policies (Control of energy policy is
needed, Letters, June 29).
But Holyrood’s existing control of infrastructure planning has enabled the
construction or consent of renewable capacity equivalent to 99% of
Scotland’s electricity consumption but contributes little to security of
supply.
The economic consequences of the consumer-paid renewable subsidies have
never been assessed by Holyrood. If all currently consented renewable
capacity were to be built, the annual additional cost could be around £3.7
billion per year. Currently these costs are spread over all UK consumers.
An independent Scotland with only one-tenth of the UK population would have
to shoulder this bill alone.
Nuclear power is not economically bankrupt. The strike price of electricity
from Hinkley C is half that of onshore wind when estimates of this include
the often-omitted system integration costs. Nuclear plants which can access
the present grid and are a stable source of supply do not incur comparable
additional costs.
Neither the UK nor Scotland currently has a rational energy policy. The key
issues of security of supply, cost and emissions reduction must be
addressed, but these should be based on sound science and economics and not
on an ideological commitment to any particular method of power generation.
Prof Tony Trewavas
Keith Burns
Colin Gibson
Dr Bruce Hobbs
Sir Donald Miller
Prof Jack Ponton
Dr Martin Stanton
Stuart Young
The Scientific Alliance
0 Comments