IN your report on its Employment Trends and Business Confidence Study, Scottish Renewables was joined by WWF and yet again expounded their demonstrably erroneous assertion that “onshore wind and solar are the two cheapest forms of electricity” (“Warning over jobs in renewables”, The Herald, March 4).
May I direct these groups to the recent House of Lords Price of Power… report issued following probably the widest related consultation to date in the UK which concluded that “electricity generated from fossil fuels has always been, and remains, cheaper than electricity generated by renewable sources. Renewables generation requires some sort of subsidy in order to be competitive”.
May I further direct them to the Aris/Gibson modelling of comparative energy costs which originated in 2011 and was updated in 2016. This estimates that the overall range of costs for renewables is £165-£463/MWh whereas that for nuclear and Closed Cycle Gas Turbines is £41-£106/MWh. This from two of the most experienced power systems engineers in the country reflecting long practice in such financial modelling.
These estimates address all of the related costs including wind and solar back-up generation, system transmission and grid integration costs, nuclear on-site waste storage, decommissioning, waste removal and long term storage. They also recognised the low output of wind farms, their 25-year operating life and the therefore high annual capital costs repayments, compared with the 85% output and 50 year plus lifetime of nuclear.
The relevant papers and spreadsheets can be accessed from the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders website.
Scottish Renewables and WWF must be aware of these reports but presumably have chosen to ignore them. Surprising- as Scottish Renewables contributed to the Lords review.
DBWatson,
Saviskaill, Langdales Avenue, Cumbernauld.
THE claim by Iain Macwhirter that sovereignty will be the key question of the second independence referedum (“Sovereignty likely to be the currency of the next debate”, The Herald, March 9) overlooks the impact of energy costs in an independent Scotland. Whilst a large number of Scots are familiar with the fact that reducing the deficit by £10 billion a year to meet the three per cent of GDP criteria is equivalent to a basic rate of tax of 40p in the pound, very few address the problem should 92 per cent of Scottish renewable levies not be subsidised by English and Welsh consumers.
Once there is no longer a UK grid, Scots will face paying 100 per cent of the Feed-in Tariffs levy, the Renewable Heat Incentive levy, the Renewables Obligation Cerificate levy, the Constraint Payment levy and the costs of importing electricity if high pressure results in minimum output from renewables. This results in a worst case scenario cost of around £15 billion a year or an annual £6,000 increase in energy bills for Scottish consumers.
However, these are not the only costs in the event of the demise of the UK grid system. ScottishPower customers pay just over £40 per MW-hour for the generation cost of their electricity. The Holyrood energy policy means that 12,000 MW of wind turbines will supply 100 per cent of Scottish demand by 2020. resulting in consumers facing wind turbine output cost of around £130 pounds per MW hour. This would double electricity bills in Scotland and put high use energy consumers at an economic disadvantage compared to their rUK competitors.
Perhaps a detailed assessment of energy costs arising from demise of the UK grid should be carried out by Parliament instead of appointing a team to redefine fuel poverty, thus papering over the failure of MSPs to eliminate such poverty.
Ian Moir,
79 Queen Street, Castle Douglas.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel