Idle cash
The article by Brian Wilson commenting that Scotland’s energy depends on gas (”Transition to net-zero carbon emissions must take account of reality”, Perspective, 14 December) omitted one vital fact from his claim that “there is an urgent need for energy storage to counter intermittency”. There was no mention that battery systems will only run for around four hours and pump storage facilities for about 30 hours.
That means if there are prolonged periods of days of “dunkelflaute” weather conditions – when little or no energy can be generated – then, as spotted by Michael Matheson, the then Energy Secretary who issued the SNP Energy Papers, there is a need for a third power system to keep the lights on over the winter. The choice made by Nicola Sturgeon and her Cabinet was to include 25GW of hydrogen-fuelled gas turbines. No cost estimate was provided but there would be little change out of £500 billion for the electrolyser plant, the expensive leak-proof storage vessels plus the requisite gas turbine plant.
Note also that if the plant sits idle for around 7,200 hours per year then, at a constraints payment figure of £100 per Mwhour, there will be an annual bill underwritten by the consumer of £18 billion, which is just short of the NHS budget.
That raises the question, never addressed by the First Minister, as to whether Scotland can afford a net zero policy !
Ian Moir Castle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway
Net useless
Last Friday saw the launch of the UK Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, which sets out its approach to speed up the transition to net zero. It was well endorsed by the energy industry – and it’s not difficult to see why when you’re the beneficiary of a favourable regulatory regime; price incentives that provide positive investment returns for energy companies (domestic and foreign) and their shareholders; and new rules that fast-track planning permission for market-ready capital projects.
Understandably, hardpressed consumers are perhaps less enthused. Introduced under a previous Labour government, “green levies” (including renewable subsidies, energy efficiency measures etc.) are increasingly perceived as merely adding to an already high cost of living. (Today these levies make up over 10 per cent of the typical dual fuel bill.)
The main counterpoint to this has been the Government’s election pledge of savings on an average household energy bill of £300 per year by 2030, not far off in the total scheme of things. However, at Friday’s launch, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband was unable to provide any clarity or certainty on exactly how or when this saving will be realised!
This seems to reinforce the imperative of “social acceptance” for net zero on the basis of greater realism and practicality, as highlighted by Brian Wilson in his latest column.
However this may be achieved, people (customers and voters) need to feel they are more than economic pawns in a long game of chess largely played out between the big energy companies and government.
Meanwhile, lower energy bills (whatever “lower” may eventually turn out to mean) remain as elusive as finding Big Foot in net zero’s dark forest.
Ewen Peters Newton Mearns, Glasgow
WISE WORDS
Well, Hallelujah! A former Labour Party minister urging ministers in the present Labour Party to close the gap “between policy ambitions and dull old reality”,
He’s right, of course, every word he wrote, as so many Scotsman correspondents have been pointing out in these Letters pages for some time. I particularly like Brian Wilson’s addition to his “usual three imperatives of energy policy” – social acceptance.
I wonder if he’ll add that advice to the Christmas cards he might send to Sir Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and Ed Miliband? Or would they just regard him as the Ghost of Christmas Past?
Lovina Roe Perth
0 Comments