Comment posted Wind energy may be controversial but the logistics and the skills are mesmeric by Tim McIntyre.
Robert – I think you are correct that sea transport has been used for some time – someone I spoke to in Campbeltown told me the re-modelling of buildings and roads on the sea front was to eliminate the need for the long-loaders to have to execute multi-point turns to get round the existing buildings!
Tim McIntyre also commented
- …and you will note that I used the words “This will almost never happen” in relation to the output of the wind farm exactly matching local demand. The grid is needed to provide power balancing and control of voltage and frequency. Of course it is possible to do this in a standalone system – e.g. Eigg, but only sensible where the much higher cost of doing so is still cheaper than a grid connection.
- Malcolm – the point is that the tiny extra amount on your bill is your share of the cost of generating clean, green electricity – the fact that the community benefits is because they are fortunate to live close to a windy hill, and it is only natural for any community to capitalise on whatever natural resources they have to hand.
Amusing that you should refer to the Lottery which, when it first appeared, was described by someone as a ‘tax on the poor, the stupid and the hopelessly optimistic’ – is it really a fairer way to fund community projects than renewable energy?
Happy New Year by the way!
- Allt Dearg, along with the various other generating plants in the area, feeds into the 33kV network radiating out from the Port Anne grid supply point. If the output from those plants exactly matches demand in the local network, there will be zero power transfer at the busbars in Port Anne – i.e. the local plant is supplying local consumers.
This will almost never happen. Most of the time the generators will be producing a surplus, in which case the balance is exported to the wider grid at Port Anne, or a shortfall, in which case there is net import. Robert is correct – the grid is not like a giant loch with pipes feeding into and out of it – it is a network with nodes where power flows can be measured. This means that locally-produced power will always go firstly to satisfy local demand, and only the excess will be exported to the HV transmission system.
- Malcolm – in your post 31, you demonstrate that wind power is currently more expensive than the average of power generation costs from other sources. This is not in dispute generally, although it does not take into account the heavy taxpayer subsidies for nuclear which do not form part of the electricity price to consumers.
I was specifically referring to your earlier claim to Norma that Scottish consumers ‘alone’ were paying the entire subsidy cost of all wind power generated in Scotland – nonsense, for the reasons Doc explains. Also, you claimed that building the Tiree Array would result in a trebling of our electricity bills – also complete nonsense, for the same reason.
Then earlier still you claimed ‘for those not aware’ that the subsidy costs were in ADDITION to the higher overall cost of wind energy, which you have yourself disproved with your calculations.
- Malcolm – come on! ‘Hard facts’? – such as “Norma, we in Scotland alone pay £400 million pounds in subsidies to onshore wind farms.” and “If the offshore Tiree Array is built then our electricity bill will treble to £1500 per annum as we are pledged to pay 3 times the going rate over and above increased subsidies.”
Those are not hard facts – they aren’t even remotely factual! You have made them up on the spot, and now accuse others, who quote academic, government department and respected media sources, of only supplying information from those with their ‘nose in the trough’!
Recent comments by Tim McIntyre
- Porkie from Salmond on fiscal policy as Darling bests him again in Reporting Scotland interviews
I didn’t see either interview, so have no comment on newsie’s “Blow for Salmond as Darling Triumphant Again” analysis
Is is not the case that being part of a currency union primarily requires the participants to agree on limits to public borrowing, and particularly borrowing to finance revenue expenditure?
Fiscal policy covers the whole gamut of government revenue & expenditure, and so an independent government can surely still have effectively full control over public spending priorities, taxation and borrowing to invest in public infrastructure. These are surely the powers that matter most, particularly in terms of stimulating economic growth and achieving a fairer distribution of the nation’s wealth.
Personally I would be quite happy for an independent Scottish government to have some external discipline imposed over revenue borrowing – it would constrain them to funding public service expenditure increases through economic growth and/or tax. Whether you are part of of a currency union or not, the reality is that this discipline is imposed externally anyway, by the markets, so it’s not that big a deal. Plus we’re not exactly latched to a country with a record of tight fiscal control, as Mr Darling knows better than almost anyone else.
The comments which usually emerge about the supposed ‘dangers’ of currency union tend to refer to the absolute extremes of the Euro, i.e. Germany and Greece. This is a completely nonsensical comparison – Scotland & rUK have economies which are broadly similar, and Scotland, supposedly the ‘Greece’ in this analogy, has the natural resource clout to punch well above its weight in terms of economic potential. Where they differ significantly, e.g. in the import/export balance, a currency union would seem to offer at least as great an advantage to rUK as it does to Scotland.
I’m not any kind of expert on this, so I pose these points more as questions than assertions. Mr Salmond (and the Fiscal Commission) say a CU would be a good thing, for BOTH parties; Mr Darling (and Messrs Osborne, Balls & Alexander) say not. Who to believe? I haven’t seen any analysis of the benefits – specifically to rUK – of being in a CU with an independent Scotland, so would be interested to hear what Mr Strang (above) has to say on that.
- PHEW. Scotland can sleep easy. Alan Reid says we can keep the pound.
‘Of course an independent Scotland could use the pound if we wanted to’.
It’s a pretty uncontroversial and self-evidently truthful statement, so why the fuss?
Now if he’d said ‘Of course the UK will agree to a currency union with an independent Scotland’ that would be different…
- The food bank situation across the United Kingdom
Food banks are a symptom – not so much of a poor economy overall, but of one in which government policies have led to gross levels of social inequality, and no-one disputes that this has happened across the UK.
The SNP government has no constituency or mandate outwith Scotland, obviously, and I don’t recall the FM ever suggesting that Osborne’s policies were affecting Scotland any worse than the English regions. So that, and therefore this whole article, is a straw-man I’m afraid, newsroom.
Mr Salmond’s intention, I assume, is to point out that an independent Scottish government would be free to choose a different economic path, in which the wealth of the nation is shared more equitably.
- Andrew Argyle: Yes campaign impaled on currency
An interesting perspective from someone who sounds like he knows about these things – a UK union supporter too!
- Political whodunnit with reverberations
Sceptic 1 – “It has already been confirmed by the financial sector that any decision by the SNP not to pay their share of the UK debt would certainly be considered as a default…”
Can you provide a link to back this up please?
powered by SEO Super Comments