´óÏó´«Ã½

Reading the word of the noble Lord Hunt one does not evn have to know what his job is and who's side he most definietly is on and how he, predumably, would like to generate electricity - i.e. Nuclear.
As to cost, yet another example of how the Scottish People are screwed by the English dominated Westminster. All I can say, and I am NOT a Scottish Nationalist is "Rule on independance".
Having been involved in Renewable Energy, I am only too aware of the economics of such power generation and supply. Renewables are only econimical due to the current premium paid to the generators and again IF the cost of transportation to the acceptance point of connection to the grid can be reduced - i.e. provided by the country and not the generator otherwise most schemes will be uneconomical.

Where does the nonsense about the power companies paying part of the cost, and the consumer paying part of the cost ? The consumer pays all of the cost even when the government supposedly subsidises the cost from taxes paid by the consumer. To truly make the system fair, either the government sets a fixed price for the end product, thus controlling who pays , or Scotland levies a charge on every unit of power that crosses the border and uses it to pay the charges.

So it makes better sense for the south of England to restrict the supply of zero carbon renewable electricity from Scotland, and instead maximise their dependence on either:

(a) expensive and unreliable Russian gas (which is the only fuel new build combustion power plants in the South of England are likely to burn.) That doesn't make sense to anybody, except possibly Vladimir Putin.

or (b) new build nuclear power stations, such as the four proposed by EdF. That makes sense to Gordon Brown's brother (UK PR chief of EdF), former MP Brian Wilson (director of nuclear engineering contractor), and others from the Labour party establishment who are greasing their golden escape slides into the nuclear industry. But I don't think it makes much sense to anybody else.

What this tells us is that the grid should be renationalised.

#4 Wee-Scamp
"What this tells us is that the grid should be renationalised."

Quite so, or better still tri-nationalised, giving Holyrood and Cardiff control of the sections and pricing in their own areas.

It's easy to "big this up" as yet another conspiracy but there are pure and simple questions of technology and economics at play here.

There are 10 times as many people living in England as there are in Scotland. They consume much, much more gas and power on a gross basis. There is a good deal of renewable power generation potential in Scotland but much of it is located in comparatively inaccessible areas, not to mention areas of outstanding natural beauty. To connect this generation load to the main markets further South is, in comparative terms, highly expensive compared to projects nearer the market given the cost of cables and/or pipeline (note...the cost of these things is measured in millions of dollars per km. It is not cheap!) and, don't forget that there are plenty of good potential renewables sites for wind and tidal power in England & Wales. It's not as if they don't exist.

The regulator OFGEM, like all regulators has a basic equation in its head in the form of "national economic efficiency", namely, every pound spent on cables has to come from somewhere and ultimately, it comes from electricity consumers. If sources of power can developed nearer the market than that "pound" is available to spent on something else which is errr...good! This is by necessity a crude explanation but it can be seen in action in the perversity of an effective net subsidy to build wind turbines in Hyde Park. This particular example is plainly ridiculous and is just a bit of political kite-flying by the SNP...but the principal remains in that the regulator and, by extension government would prefer developments to take place nearer to the market if, and this is the big if, economics are the only consideration. Hence in purely economic terms it it preferable to develop wind power in Cornwall or off the coast of Norfolk than it is to develop it on the Isle of Lewis, regardless of how promising the site on Lewis may be.

Line loss, over transmission cables is a lesser but still important factor. The figure of 2.5% losses understates the problem of transmitting alternating current. 4% is nearer the mark, even on the National Grid which, by global standards is an excellent, well designed, integrated system...and the line loss increases with distance. National Grid are legally obliged to connect approved schemes regardless of the cost, although they may recoup this over the long term via transmission tariffs. This makes power sold from "distant" projects more expensive in a competitive power supply market. At a technical level, transmitting large amounts of power from North to South without comparable generation sources in the South will also create problems for those responsible for managing grid stability and stopping the system from "browning-out" or worse, tripping completely.

Another related factor is that, despite the clear need to shift a goodly proportion of power generation into carbon-free (or neutral) sources. The variability of wind and wave, plus the peaking characteristics of tidal power means that they can never be used to provide reliable baseload generation. Every KwH generated by the wind on Lewis would need a similar KwH on standby from nuclear or conventional fossil fuel capacity and this again would be extremely expensive. The enthusiasts who promote wind generation constantly gloss over this point but the last few weeks alone should demonstrate to all but the most radical green that a stubborn anti-cyclone in January creates temperatures well below freezing, 50% hike in energy demand and...very little wind!

What to do? The present regulatory model is robust and easy to defend but is now based too heavily on economic rationale. As an island we need renewable generation and the level of conventional reserve capacity to make good the limitations of renewable generation. This is going to be eye-wateringly expensive but, in the long term it just has to be done. In the short term however it makes little sense to locate the bulk of renewables capacity in Scotland when there are potential sites nearer the market that achieve the necessary aim of reducing carbon emissions. The current regulatory model however that excludes good potential projects further from the main market is also plainly flawed and suggests that policy might be better managed by strategists exercising judgement than economists tinkering with spreadsheets.

There may also be technological possibilities in harnessing distant renewable generation in the form of DC (Direct Current) transmission. This is more efficient, requires less cabling and, joy of joys, can be far more easily buried underground that conventional AC cables. This would avoid the heartache of covering some of the most beautiful parts of the country in pylons. The snag would be that a DC connection would have to be dedicated i.e. it would have to go directly from Lewis to Glasgow, or Manchester etc without entering the National Grid, which would be politically difficult, with good reason, in the regions where the power is generated.

Sadly, the type of integrated national planning that might make a balanced development achievable has been lost during privatisation. Private companies only respond to economic incentives and if progress is to be made there either has to be a tacit admission amongst politicians that power prices are going to have to rise or, you take the industry back into public ownership!

Similarly, given that Alec Salmond is actively pursuing his independence agenda, what possible incentive is there for English & Welsh consumers to pay much higher bills to develop the economy of a different country whilst ignoring the generation potential of their own. Don't even start on the prospects of a Kenny Macaskill type becoming Minister for Energy in the future. I'd be off to buy a diesel generator before he even sat down at his desk!

5 Brownedov

Seeing as you want to put a tiresome nationalistic spin on the debate. Why not separate the three grids entirely so that they can become self reliant. England can then develop its own renewables potential without the background chorus of griping. Any shortfall in meeting carbon-free targets can be made up with new nuclear plant and/or an upgraded inter-connector to import surplus French nuclear generation. The result, a good balanced generation portfolio.

Scotland could then have its own national grid and decide how it wished to pay for the development of those billion dollar projects and export its boundless renewable generation. Possibly an inter-connector to Norway? Och no! They have all the hydro power they need. Possibly to Denmark? Could be a big bill for them to swallow when they already lead the world in wind-powered generation. You could of course export power across the English grid to the Continent. The cost of any upgrades to the English grid to accomodate that export capacity could then be properly met by the Scottish grid in the form of a cost recovery tariff mechanism. etc etc

We will never solve the pressing carbon reduction targets that affect us and our children by playing nationalistic politics with energy!

Anglophone
Brownedov is not the only one putting a spin on the facts. There is really no apolitical approach to this, because strategic proritisation of one gebnreating technology over another is inescapably a political decision. What cost and price guarantees are being offered to nuclear generators to avoid another British Energy bailout situation? Political choice. Accepting strategic dependence on Russian gas imports to England, versus the pollution liabilities of domestic nuclear or coal generation? Political choice.

Scotland has been entirely self-reliant in electricity for decades. This is a result of the overbuilding of thermal and nuclear power stations in the 70s. There isn't a true UK national grid as far as Scotland is concerned, just two interconnectors - one selling electricity to England (mostly from Longannet, historically) and one selling electricity to Northern Ireland. The South of England is short of power and struggling to find sources to cope with its economic and population growth and the life expiration of its existing plants. That is why they currently import electricity from France, as well as from Scotland and the rest of England. Replacing the existing nuclear plants is going to be a big struggle, in terms of local objections, investment costs, cost over-runs, and the timescale to construct new plants (even if they started today). I certainly don't recognise the picture you paint of a region with a bountiful supply of electricity in hand for the future - they konw they are going to have to take major decisions involving big money, hence the enormous efforts put in by EdF (and the individuals I named above) to get a share of the action. I'm afraid the consumers of England are going to be paying higher bills to someone, the question is really whether it is to Gazprom, to EdF, or to Scottish renewables...

It is of course true that wind and wave power need to have backup available for adverse generating conditions. This cannot realistically be nuclear, because the economics of nuclear are all about baseload (fixed cost versus variable cost). Gas turbines are the best choice for backup load carrying - lower capital cost, higher variable fuel cost. Of course, that assumes you are using the Belgian reference price for gas...since Scotland has never imported a single cubic meter of gas from the continent, the fact that that is the reference price is also a political decision. Oh yes it is.

Mince & Mealie

Ah...you half-know your stuff. Since when was England just the SE? There are plenty of good renewable sites around the wider country though it is well known that there could never be more than about 40% of current demand from renewables in the strictest sense. There is a significant offshore wind potential and good wave power potential in the Western Approaches, not mention tidal stream power options around the coast including the errrr...biggest tidal power opportunity in the world.

You're almost right on peak generation. Nuclear is best suited to baseload because of the economics of current plant but there is nothing to stop additional turbines being installed in new-builds to act as mid-merit and spinning reserve capacity. Peak shaving generation is always best suited to single-cycle gas plants which can use a variety of pipeline gas, LNG or even condensate at a pinch. The prudent operator buys forward in the summer and generates in the winter. We will also see the belated development of good gas storage fields, both cavern storage in the NE and Cheshire plus the re-designation of suitable Southern North Sea fields allowing the bulk storage of cheap summer gas for use in winter. Not forgetting of course that some of these fields are also suitable for carbon sequestration should the need arise

You're almost there on gas pricing. Except in the UK doesn't use any Belgian reference price. UK pricing is determined by the National Balancing Point price (NBP) which is market driven and determined by the price of gas in the market on the day. This in turn is determined by the basket of contract prices from legacy North Sea fields plus the price of LNG under spot or long term contracts. Gas, you will recall doesn't just come over the Bacton-Zeebrugge interconnector. There is also Norwegian gas coming ashore plus Dutch gas flowing over the BBL pipeline. Contracts on these lines give buyers and sellers flexibility to buy/sell gas depending on the external NBP price.

The UK or just England if the former expression fills you with nationalistic angst, will not become dependent upon Russian gas to any significant extent, if at all! I'm confident...having actually worked for many years in this business that there are numerous and diverse options out there for us to meet our energy needs securely whilst still meeting carbon emission targets. What it depends upon is the country getting politicians with a) enough nous to understand the basics of the problem and b) enough sense not to bend to every lobby group out there pushing for a future based on cave dweling with 12V batteries recharged by little windmills. Sadly, full time career politics has all but extinguished the politician who actually knew a damn about what they're blethering on about!

The fact that English consumers, like consumers everywhere will end up paying more for their energy is beyond doubt. I'm puzzled however, given the way you clearly understand a bit about this, how Scottish consumers are going to escape the new crunch...unless of course you base your predictions on the brave new republic sweating its existing thermal, nuclear and hydro assets into the ground.

I'm not keen on importing much energy from Scotland. After all you are an unknown quantity when it comes to signing and sticking to long term contracts. Most of all, I would want to avoid another generation of political rabble-rousers stirring up the Buckfast and Braveheart types with stories about the nation's resources are being stolen again. It just isn't worth the hassle!

Freeeeduuurm...och has anyone got 50p for the meter?

There are a lot of ice cubes at the north pole (or used to be), but I'll stick with my fridge in the kitchen because it's somewhat closer and a lot cheaper. Just because there is a lot of something doesn't mean Industry should be subsidised to exploit it.

Anglophone
I am all in favour of England developing its own renewables potential; however they have been talking about some of those (like a Severn barrage) since I was a boy, which is a distressingly long time ago.

What makes nuclear power always run as baseload isn't the engineering, it's the money. With that huge fixed cost why would you ever turn a turbine down?

On gas imports, enhancing storage so that you can buy in summer and selling in winter makes sense, but the gas has to come from somewhere, and owing to depletion that somewhere is further and further afield, as you no doubt know. The great leap in retail gas prices a year or two back was 'justified' on the basis of the marginal wholesale price per unit, and it was stated that the spot import price was the key factor. As I understand it, the price at Zeebrugge is the principal relevant spot import price, driven by continental European supply and demand, with the major influence on supply prices being Gazprom.

Scotland is hilly, windy, rainy and surrounded by stormy seas and tides, and there seems no likelihood of these assets depleting. The failure to more fully develop this energy potential over the last thirty years has been because of the huge overhang of excess generating capacity built in the 60s and 70s, particularly the nuclear plants which run at full throttle (except when they need fixed). Inevitably, the old power transmission infrastructure is inadequate or in the wrong place for these new sources of generation, so new lines need to be built.

I think you agree that there is a major political dimension to the whole matter. However, it is not just your stated favourites Salmond and MacAskill (maybe Mather would have been a better one to mention) that have a political axe to grind here. The higher the transmission charges, the greater the incentive to build new power plants in SE England, which means nuclear power plants, most likely. It is stating the obvious to note that there is a big political lobby behind that (see post 3 above), linked strongly with the Labour party, which coincidentally I read this morning is in dire need of £10M.

Just needs some political will to create the incentives then Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have more than sufficient energy for its own needs generated from renewable sources

DTI/BERR have looked at the economics of transmission charging for wind projects in some detail. They found that, in most cases, the greater return generated through high capacity factors in the North of Scotland more than compensated for higher transmission charges.

Incentive for new nuclear fission power plant is a way of motivating the claim of uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes. I think could be a safer and cleaner way of generating electricity without neutron production, avoiding proliferation of nuclear weapons.