Herald letters

Energy Strategy is not achievable

THE letters from Graham Lang and Sarah Burchell (January 22) were timely. As I write (January 22), the 30GW of installed wind power is providing a paltry half of one per cent (0.5) of the UK’S demand. The Grid is depending on the interconnected imports (currently 10%) from our European neighbours, 11% from our dwindling nuclear fleet and 60% from gas. Graham Lang describing our excessive investment in wind as “folly of the highest order” is absolutely appropriate. The UK’S current Energy Strategy, if pursued, namely the installation of a further 45GW of wind power, will bankrupt the country, inflict huge ecological damage and result in serious problems for its citizens. It is not possible to provide a comprehensive explanation of why this is so in a short letter, but I offer a few points for your readers consideration: Over the 60 years that Hinkley Point C will run, taking into account capital and interest charges, the price per kwh comes to about 7 pence.

Over the 25-year expected life of an offshore wind farm, the average price per kwh comes to 11 pence per kwh. But, and it is a big but, since the capacity factor, averaged across onshore and offshore, is about 0.36 –that is, over a year the average available power from the 45GW investment is only just over 15GW – it is necessary to have available either gas, battery or pump storage to replace the wind power’s deficiencies. Worse, because of circumstances such as today, Wednesday, the stored energy has to equal the total 45GW. Periods of low wind can extend for many days all over Europe (dunkelflaute). Energy risk planning needs to consider low wind periods lasting for several weeks. Building pump storage and installing batteries to meet this requirement exceeds the imagination. It would require several hundred Cruachan schemes and several thousand battery installations the size of the recently announced Ayrshire scheme.

Even then, we have not completed the cost assessment. Wind power is non-synchronous and remote from demand. Huge investment in the power transmission network (national grid) is required to deliver this energy to where it is needed.

The cost to deliver all this is difficult to describe. The lifetime capital and borrowing cost for the proposed 45GW of additional wind power has been calculated to be about £600 billion. The cost of energy storage to deliver 45GW power for say two weeks, or 15,120 GWH, would probably exceed one trillion pounds sterling.

As both your correspondents stated, it is the whole system costs that count and I would add that these costs have to be considered over the lifetime of the plant. What cost to dismantle, remove and repair the landscape when the wind farms reach end of life or become obsolete? Grandchildren beware.

It will not happen. The financial markets will take fright first. Meanwhile unimaginable environmental and economic damage is being done in the name of climate change. Yes, dealing with climate change is important. Donald Trump just makes everything more challenging.

Norman Mcnab,

Killearn.

I NOTE two letters in The Herald in response to my letter of January 20 regarding the possibility of Scotland benefiting from low-cost renewable electricity. Reasons were put forward as to why electricity generated by gas was more costeffective. I am no expert but I feel I have to accept that Greg Jackson, the CEO of major energy supplier Octopus Energy, knows what he is talking about. In interviews he has repeatedly said that Scotland can have the lowest-cost electricity in Europe (we currently have the highest).

It’s simple with zonal pricing. The nearer you are to the energy source the lower the cost of your

electricity. We all want low energy bills and most of us want the source to be renewable, not fossil fuel-based. Let’s celebrate and benefit as we live in this small country of Scotland blessed with enormous natural renewable resources. The only barrier is the UK Government which controls energy policy across the UK. The solution therefore is political, with either devolved energy policy or independence. Stuart Campbell, Moffat