Money For Nothing

A guest post from Joe Public.

Such prescient lyrics, composed in 1985

"Money for nothin' and chicks for free 

Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it

Lemme tell ya them guys ain't dumb"

Who'd like to be paid, not for doing something, but for not doing something?

Charles Hendry, Minister of State for Energy, has stated recently that “in 2011 constraint payments totalling £12.1 million were made to wind farms through the balancing mechanism”. 

The Renewable Energy Foundation claims on its database the biggest recipient of constraint payments was Hadyard Hill wind farm in south Ayrshire which received £2,150,068 since 2010. It is operated by Scottish & Southern Energy on land owned by former presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament Alex Ferguson. According to his declaration of interests last year, he estimated his rental income to be between £40,001 and £45,000 a year.

REF's enlightening database is searchable & sortable. An invaluable tool.

It was Bob Dylan who sang:

"The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,

The answer is blowin' in the wind."

Meanwhile, in Hungary, a $billion-worth of Forints is being put to good use, in the ultimate recycling scheme...

Annually, Hungary recycles about $1 billion worth of old forints (currency of Hungary), and converts the worn out currency into briquettes. After which, these are distributed to different charitable organizations . The briquettes are used as a heating fuel. This unique government program covers up to a third of the expenses in heating some of the buildings.

Tweet

Ofgem And The National Grid

Next month Ofgem are due to publish a consultation document which will show the cost of feeding the north of Scotland's renewable energy into the national power grid could fall by 80%.  The costs are estimated in a draft pricing and investment model.

It suggests the access charge for wind and marine power from the north of Scotland would fall from £24 per kilowatt to less than £5. Currently a sliding scale of charges show those in the south of Scotland pay around £12 per kilowatt and in much of the south of England there is a subsidy of more than £6 per kilowatt.

The draft report shows how the cost per kilowatt in the north and north-west of Scotland would fall from £24 to less than £5 if the cost of accessing the grid was equally spread.  If it was equalised not to support renewable power but new build gas-powered electricity generation, the unit cost would be £12 throughout Britain.  Sounds good so far.

One of my readers, Joe Public, brought this to my attention and sent me his comments:

My own view about the Ofgem report is that there's a lot of political pressure being exerted. 

It's all very well for the powers-that-be (no pun intended) to complain about Access Charges to be £24/kW for generation from the north of Scotland, but they conveniently ignore the fact that those points of generation are very distant from the actual 'average' market. 

1. It's only right & fair that Transmission Costs (distance-related) apply. Electricity (unlike Natural Gas from the North Sea) is not very efficient to transmit over distance. Therefore the Access Charge for electricity generated much closer to the point of demand must be far lower.

2. Unreliable power sources such as wind & solar need virtually 100% conventional power generation as back-up. 

No-one, anywhere in Scotland, would depend upon wind or solar to power a hospital, because it has zero critical dependency.

3. The emotive statement in the Beeb's article "Sharing the costs equally across the UK would remove the financial incentives to build any new nuclear power stations, and shift a projected £17bn of nuclear investment to other technologies." really means getting every electricity-user (pensioners & those on the bread-line included) in the UK to further subsidise those investors already receiving massive feed-in tariffs for what electricity they generate. [And in some cases electricity generated for which there's no immediate demand.]

4. The Beeb's article seems to imply its an either/or scenario - (nice, green, clean) wind +solar vs (nasty, polluting) nuclear. Conveniently ignoring the fact that only the latter is 24/7/365 reliable.

Joe isn't pro-nuclear but he's aware we need power to be dependable and affordable. If Scotland is to be the 'renewable power house of Europe' then we have much to do to achieve a reasonable balance between price and reliability.

Tweet

'The Wind Gives and the Wind Takes'

Alpha Ventus is currently the largest wind farm to be built under open-sea conditions. It is situated in the North Sea off the coast of Germany.

The Spiegel has an informative article on Germany's offshore wind turbine industry and in particular details of the installation of Alpha Ventus.  The base elements, which are as tall as buildings, were welded together in Scotland and Norway.  The tubes in the seafloor came from Rostock in north eastern Germany, the transformers from Regensburg in Bavaria and the rotor blade from Bremerhaven and Stade, near Hamburg.

Notice anything? As Alex Salmond remarked in his speech at the SNP conference on Saturday, it's a sad state of affairs when Scotland can't afford to develop and produce its own turbines and has to rely upon foreign companies for supplies.  The decision to bring Longannet to an abrupt halt is a massive blow to the fledgling offshore renewable industry and a decision which appears to have been taken for political rather than practical reasons.

Germany, like Scotland, has made a bet it can't afford to lose when it decided to at least partially replace nuclear with wind energy. But offshore energy production is an expensive business and each individual plant currently requires about 450 maintenance hours a year - far too much according to Ralf Klooster who is the supervising technician for an Alpha Ventus maintenance team.  The amount of time his ship's crew can work in a single stretch will be reduced to 10 hours soon and when that happens two crews will be needed for maintenance.  Costs will increase. Says Klooster: "They're not as strict about this in England."  I wonder if that also applies to Scotland.

The Spiegel article is written by a journalist who spent a day with Klooster and his team.  It certainly gives an insight into the offshore wind turbine industry.  A worthwhile read.

Tweet

A Wind Storm Is Brewing

Most of us interested in the renewable energy business are aware it doesn't come cheap. In fact renewable energy is expensive, very expensive here in Scotland.

Windfarms here pay £21.58 per kilowatt hour to put electricity on the grid, while a farm near London would receive a £6.90 per hour subsidy. Ofgem have investigated this alleged discrepancy and the reponse was - in a nutshell - 'tough'.

Near here there is a small community who have a few windmills set on a local hillside.  They've been there for a few years since the people were bated by the promise of subsidies, yet only now are the same people questioning the real impact of these massive structures which dominate their beautiful countryside. 'They only last 20 years at most. Who will remove them when their lifespan is finished?'  Just one question which should have been considered before assent was given.  But  windfarm developers are clever, they know the law inside out and they see the Scottish government's enthusiasm as a wonderful short-term opportunity to fill their coffers.

Many aren't happy with the present destruction of the Scottish countryside but fortunately a few from the south-west border area have decided to protest and in style. 

They're holding a wind turbine conference on the 11 November at the prestigious Ayr racecourse (parking available). It's only £26 a ticket, which should include eats and treats, so it should be a very interesting day out.  Unlike many of these conferences this one is open to all.  At present I'm unable to commit to attending but I do hope nearer the date I'll be able to be there to listen to the great and good preaching the benefits of wind power against those who have a much more practical and sensible view.

Tweet

Unclaimed Subsidies

click to enlarge

No matter how 'attractive' politicians try to make solar energy it would appear the average householder isn't falling for it.  Could it be that they don't believe the UK government?

Most Scots associate solar with sunshine and thus shun the high installation costs of domestic solar panel technology which they consider would be of little benefit. If solar was the way to go housing developments would be including solar in their designs.  They are not.

Add to that the fact that Scottish Renewables say they are being charged too much to connect to the electricity grid and the mounting opposition to wind farms being given the go-ahead around the north western edge of Scotland's largest national park and there's a serious threat to the Scottish government's renewables target.

Is Scotland - or the rest of Britain for that matter - benefitting from wind turbines?  No. Consumers are the losers because added to their energy bills is the cost of the huge amounts paid in subsidies to wind farm companies, two thirds of which are based abroad.  Businesses from Denmark, Japan, the US, Norway, Sweden, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Germany also own British wind farms and according to the Renewable Energy Foundation think tank from next year, £523m in subsidies will go to foreign companies.

Did I ask whether solar and wind energy will benefit domestic consumers in the future?  No I did not, because we all know the rip-off will continue and we're powerless (excuse the pun) to do anything about it.

source

Tweet

Solar Panels On The Wane

One of America's largest solar panel manufacturers, Solyndra Inc., is filing for bankruptcy and laying off more than 1000 employees.

Last year President Obama visited the Freemont plant and praised the company for their energy-saving manufacturing and he attempted to acquire a government loan for them to stay afloat.  That backfired because lawmakers called Obama's decision to support the company as "a dubious investment".

Solyndra Inc blames their problems on foreign competition which is creating products with prices that they can't compete against.  They also say that 'a slowing demand for solar panels coupled with a global market' has rendered them unable to continue.

Financial analyst Adam Krop adds:

“I don’t see anyone swooping in,” says the analyst from Ardour Capitol Partner in New York. “I don’t see this technology as very viable in the long-term."

Two other large American-based solar power manufacturers also called quits in August.

It would appear heavy competition from Chinese manufacturers has caused the price of solar panels to drop nearly 50% in 2011, yet companies here is the UK are still selling them at 2010 prices - with some increasing the cost.

Most, if not all, of the UK's solar panels are manufactured abroad and UK companies which promote them are "middle men"; thus increasing the price to the consumer some £x fold.  Now that it's been openly stated that prices have decreased 50% in the US this year has there been any reduction in the final price to consumers?  No.

Why not? Because I agree with Mr Krop.  Solar panels are not viable in the long term.  I've a friend who installed them on her house two years ago and has already spent a considerable amount of money having them cleaned.  More than her 'pay-back' fee by far she says. The cleaning of these panels involves scaffolding because nowadays nobody will go on a roof without a harness and scaffolding.  Plus this non-existent Scottish summer hasn't produced the power she was told by the salesman.

I don't blame her for trying, because she has a small holding in a very open area and she is a carbon emissions believer, yet she has donated nothing to the Grid since her system was installed so therefore she has had no income. Also she has, this 'summer' on many occasions to use her boiler to heat her home later in the day.  Fortunately, or unfortunately whichever way you look at it, she has friends who do have knowledge of solar technology and she was well warned that its installation could prove to be a liability but she likes to think she's part of the green community.

Usually what happens in America happens here and if the demand there has so dramatically reduced then...

source

Tweet

Killing Us To Save The World

A guest post by Apogee.

I wonder if the politicians are starting to realise the mess they are in with global warming.

In the 50's and 60's there were attempts to modify weather with spraying various things, dry ice, yes CO2 was one -I think bromide was another and we dont know what else. This should be stirred because the illegitimates are taking us to the cleaners.  The reason for the experiments was ostensibly to cause rain where the climate had become dryer than it used to be.  Manipulation of weather is still continuing and the German greens have brought the issue to the attention of the public.

If you think about the possibility of the planet cooling, the result of the current actions may be the reduction of coal and atomic power stations to nil and the realisation that there is not enough generation capacity to supply needs when we are in a situation where the coal mines have deteriorated to the point of being unusable. Having no quick means of increasing generating capacity, the government will need at least three years to get enough generating capacity of any kind and the quickest will be ........coal!  

By that time the country will be in increasing power deficit which will only be corrected at the end of the correction time. And if, as seems to be the case, the whole country will be literally be freezing to death. Never forget that although gas may be available - if you can afford it - central heating systems require electric power to operate and if the electric is not there the heating will not run. If the weather gets too cold the windmills will not turn so will not  generate, assuming that there is any wind to turn them.

So will the average citizen have back-up electric generation capability? Very unlikely and will there be fuel for it if available? Equally unlikely.

So what is the answer? Either a sudden outbreak of sanity and logical thinking by our politicians to get us out of the "green bubble" we are now in (and you thought the credit bubble was bad!) or the only sane alternative is to emigrate to any other country with a reasonable warm climate and living standards which will have you and your dependants; In other words become a refugee. Because it is very probable this country will no longer be able to pay the current levels of benefits and pensions that are paid now.

Apogee

Tweet

42% Better? Not For Me it Isn't

Today Friends of the Earth Scotland issued a press release publicising their latest research.  In their opinion meeting our climate targets could 'increase employment, cut health-care costs and reduce social exclusion'.  The report is entitled '42% Better'.

I'd like to comment briefly on a few bits of their report because it does disappoint me the lengths to which these pro-environmental campaigners will go to substantiate the biggest scam in recent times.

I sincerely believe that we need to reduce pollution all over the world. As a person who respects the soil and the environment but not to a hysterical degree, I compost and send the my excess leaves off to the council in a bin along with those garden prunings which I know will take a couple of decades to reduce to a decent composition.  But I'm not longer allowed to have get rid of my leaves by burning them. ( Now therein lies another story - perhaps for tomorrow).

I'm told to divide cooked food into my 'garden surplus' (the stuff you shouldn't even considering composing) into a separate bin destined for recyling is a lie.  In my area all bins, with the exception of paper bins, all go into the same landfilll. I don't use my paper bin because I don't buy newspapers and I shred everything I receive by post,   That, I think in my naviety, thinks protects my identity.

Yet some of the biggest and wealthiest countries are ignoring my efforts I think that's a waste of time.  I appreciate the question of pollution but I don't think Scotland is going to rescue the rest of the world by introducing extreme measures or rescue Scotland.  I won't go into statistics (they're boring and you can spend days trying to find sensible numbers)  but I will name a couple of countries who have no regard for this emissions scam. China and India have increased their carbon emissions and continue to do so even although we plough billions of our hard earned money into them through the  Yet our wee island's governments feel we must continue down the road, (oops they don't like the word roads the FoE), of ensuring any good living citizen in this country who works/has worked for years will be financially broke.

The report, '42% Better', identifies extra jobs in energy efficiency and public transport, health care savings arising from reduced obesity, improved mental health and reduced respiratory disease, and social inclusion gains from reductions in fuel poverty amongst the many non-environmental benefits of a strong climate policy. Even in the limited case studies examined, the estimated value of the health benefits alone exceeds £2bn.

Have you ever heard such nonsense?  Let me give you another quote from Duncan McLaren, CE of FoE Scotland.

"The report focuses on policy measures in the parts of our economy unaffected by the European Union's emissions trading scheme: such as housing, transport and agriculture."

So we're not dancing to the EU's emissions trading scheme which currently excludes housing, transport and agriculture.

In this next quote I have highlighted what I consider are pure spin (to be polite) points in bold.


For example, improving and insulating the homes of those in fuel poverty in Scotland, could avoid an estimated 180,000 cases of anxiety and depression each year, and cut days lost to work and school as a result of respiratory illnesses by up to 25%. The increased levels of fitness resulting from raising cycling rates to Danish levels could save over 1,600 lives a year, and help cut obesity rates in Scotland in half, especially if supported by the widespread adoption of low-carbon, low-meat diets.


Let me start by saying how will improving and insulating homes of many of us in  fuel poverty 'eliminate 180,000 cases of anxiety and depressions each year?  I qualify for the term 'fuel poverty' but because I claim no other benefits I'm refused help.  By dipping into my small savings I can pay my bills - for now.  Do these people really think that by improving homes with insulation will reduce anxiety and depression?  They haven't spoken to anyone in my age group who would tell them that our anxiety - which may lead to depression - is cause by the knowledge that we utility users know we will have to cough up more and more of our pension(s) to fund this great scam.

days lost to work and school as a result of respiratory illnesses by up to 25%.


How can these people make that statement defeats me.  It's brainwashing.  There is no scientific evidence that this will happen.  In fact, since the ban on smoking in pubs and public places came into our legislative process.   Even worse is the propaganda pushed out by statistics yet this blogger has been diligent enough to analyse the figures.  Please do look.

There's nothing more I could desire than Scotland manufacture (and invented) products which could be sold world wide in connection with reducing polutution. I have no objection to driving a low emissions car yet I do have objections a driving 'a electric car.  One of those things wouldn't get me to and back from the shops in Dundee or Perth and I can't see plugs lining my route home.  Just for those of you who have been courageous enough to read this far, I run a car which costs me £30 a year in tax.  It can cope with four passengers comfortably over a couple of hours trip and I still get around 55 to the gallon.  It's diesel.  The emissions are low.  Would I want to do 1000 miles in a day in it?  Naw.  I'd have to have an ambulance waiting at my destination because it's not a 'comfort' car, it's a utility one.  That's all I need.

We still produce the best engineers in the world, (albeit with a couple of them in the US), yet our engineers are moving to other countries to work and then import their excellent products to us.  What does that say about Scotland or the UK.

Of course there are short-term benefits from this scam, there always are from scams. The jobs will be short-term.  How many windmills can we produce? A lot less than ships which have been essential to the civilised work for centuries.

It's hard to find the details of how often these windmills would need replaced, yet the expense of erecting and maintaining them is vast.  Maintaining windmills won't last forever.  We will always require boats/ships/fishermen/engineers/care workers.  I could give an endless list of a coherent society and well balanced society.  However this week it was announced by one major utility company they intend to raise the cost of domestic rate by just less than 10%. That's only the beginning, believe me.  No government will argue with the multiples.  We were sold out years ago when our basic utilities were privatised.  But then, those of us who still believe in common sense in fuel tariffs and support those of our older generation who hadn't planned for such extreme bills, but are want to have a standard of living which doesn't require other taxpayers to subsidise, aren't taken in by the FoE.

The answer from our politicians will be the same as David Cameron gave yesterday about giving our military's independence to France.  "I can't do anything".  We pay them for doing nothing.  Remember that on polling day.

source: Friends of the Earth Scotland

Tweet

Disarray in the Renewables Industry

The windfarm industry seems to be in a little difficulty. Yesterday it was reported that Scotland's largest wind turbine manufacturer has filed for insolvency only 18 months after the Scottish government ploughed millions of pounds of grant funding into the project in a bid to rescue the factory, which employs about 120 people.  Such a shame of these people lose their jobs but hopefully their skills are transferable to other sectors of the engineering industry.

Today we're told more than 230 separate local campaign groups against windfarms are operating across the UK and these groups are scoring striking successes in defeating planned windfarms - even when faced with the weight of official recommendations.

In the last 12 months to September, there has been a 50% drop in planning approvals in England and approvals for windfarms in Scotland have also fallen.  The figures are revealed in a report, which will be published next week, on the state of the industry.

Windfarms are ugly and an eyesore.  Nobody could possibly think otherwise unless they're viewing them from a distance of over 20 miles and it's the eyesore and noise which are the main objections from campaigners.  They want all windfarms to be built off-shore but environmentalists and industry experts say this is unrealistic.  The time needed to build off-shore farms can be up to seven years, they are more expensive and the technology is still relatively immature.

Perhaps it's time for both the Scottish and Westminster governments to reassess their plans to have windfarms generate more than a quarter of Britain's electricity.  People are now realising, in order to reach that target, the whole country will have to be covered in these massive turbines.

A spokesman, from Friends of the Earth, said he could understand why people were opposed to windfarms in their local areas but a compromise needed to be found.

"The dilemma is that we believe people should be able to say what they want where they live but at the same time every part of the country has to do its bit if we are to get emissions down to a sustainable level."

Campaigners will be thrilled to know FotE are on their side - but only as long as they reduce their emissions.  How about local governments offices closing half a day a week?  That would reduce local emissions and possibly cause far less upset that the sight and sound of a windfarm in the locality.

source

Tweet

Crisis, What Crisis?

Christopher Booker was on his hobby horse about Britain's energy policy at the weekend.  It is a mess.

In 2007 the Scottish government increased their energy policy to 50% of electricity to be drawn from renewables by 2020 with an interim target of 31% by 2011.  No mention was made about the source of the investment needed to produce these extraordinary figures, but we know what most of it will be - massive hikes in utility bills.  That's the crisis. The consumer is going to have to pay for these targets.  People like me will no longer be able to keep their homes warm and will be forced to sell and move to expensive one-bedroomed boxes - so well insulated that fresh air isn't welcome - or try for council accommodation, which doesn't exist.  Otherwise they can just slowly fade away with hypothermia. All in the cause of boosting the coffers of the energy companies.  I digress.

We also have the Westminster Climate Change Act which commits Britain, uniquely in the world, to cutting its CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, at a cost of up to £18 billion a year or £374 billion in total.  According to Booker and other climate change sceptical observers, none of this will have an impact on reducing overall CO2 emissions as we contribute less than 2% to the global total, while China's emissions alone increase by more than that every year.

As one of my readers commented recently (I publish this with his permission):

Is it possible that the fools in parliament who voted for this were mentally incompetent and lacking in any knowledge and judgement of what they were voting on, were advised by cretins who equally were on a religious war and were even more lacking in knowledge of the subject, and therefore the vote and the act should be stricken from the law of the country as being impossible to attain. If a law is impossible, should it not be stricken from the statute?

How they could pass into law a piece of rubbish about CO2 without a clue as to what was going on, makes one wonder about the rest of the laws of the land.

If you haven't read James Delingpole on the subject of climate. It's certainly worth a few minutes of your time. We're not being receptive enough to government brainwashing by all accounts.

It does make you wonder doesn't it?

Tweet

The Bloom Box

In the world of energy the Holy Grail is a power source that's inexpensive and clean. Bloom Energy launched their long-heralded Bloom Box this week.

Have a peek and if you're interested in a review one can be found here. The box in the video is the industrial type but there is a much smaller domestic box available. It's a snip at around £2,000 but don't throw out your boiler!

Tweet

Scotland could be 100% Renewable in 20 Years

A new report says Scotland could generate all the electricity the country needs from renewable sources within two decades.

The Power of Scotland Renewed Report, based on research by independent energy analysts Garrad Hasson, was commissioned by four leading environmental charities and published yesterday. It says that by 2030 renewable energy can provide between 60% and 143% of Scotland's projected electricity demand. The report also states that by 2030 Scotland will no longer need to burn any fossil fuels to provide electricity if the country can fulfil it's potential to find renewable energy sources, such as wind and wave power.

A Scottish government spokeswoman said, "This report vindicates the Scottish Government's position to substantially invest in green, renewable energy sources and ambition to become Europe's green energy powerhouse. It concludes that a considerable amount of our future electricity needs can be met by renewable sources."

"Scotland has a quarter of Europe's entire tidal resource and wind energy potential - including massive offshore as well as onshore wind power capabilities. There are hugh economic and employment opportunities for Scotland and the Scottish Government has already announced plans to take advantage of these strengths which will result in the creation of thousands of green energy related jobs in Scotland."

The four environmental charities involved in the production of the report were Friends of the Earth Scotland, WWF Scotland, Scottish campaigns for the World Development Movement and the RSPB Scotland.

Source: The Courier

Tweet

UPDATE on Why Can't the Westminster Government Understand NO

UPDATE

I posted this earlier but I would like to bring your attention to a post by Peter Curran who write the Moridura blog.  In his latest post, along with his thoughts about nuclear, he has details of a Radio Scotland interview Alex Salmond had with Gary Robertson this morning.

As some of you can't access the BBC iPlayer I do hope you will find this worthy of a read. I certainly did.  

Tweet

Why Can't the UK Government Understand No?

Today's Scotsman has a dreadfully cheap headline 'Minister provokes nuclear war over Scotland's energy future.'  Aside from the over-dramatic headline, it seems we're to receive a visit from the UK government's Energy Secretary Ed Milliband today. Amazing isn't it, never see a high heid yin from Westminster for months and then suddenly they're all here to show us what a wonderful job they're doing for us all.

Ahead of his visit, Mr Milliband yesterday challenged the SNP to reverse its opposition to nuclear power "for the sake of the planet as well as jobs."  Now, where have I heard that before?  He went on, "Credible solutions to the challenge of climate change require we use the full range of low-carbon fuels.  Even previous opponents of nuclear power have accepted that it is wrong to rule out new nuclear in these circumstances." Dizzy has some interesting information about nuclear companies which is worth a read.

While Mr Millband is promoting his love of nuclear energy, our own Jim Mather will be visiting the Isle of Lewis where a controversial 53 turbine wind farm near the Callanish standing stones is expected to be given the go-ahead shortly.  A spokesman for Mr Salmond accused Mr Milliband of trying to dictate Scotland's energy policy and of frustrating its efforts towards renewables. "We would never seek to interfere in the energy debate south of the Border," he said. "Similarly it's not Ed Milliband's job to dictate an energy strategy north of the border."

Scotland doesn't want new nuclear.  We want to base our future and our children's future on renewable energy.  Why can't the UK government understand the word NO?  For many reasons I suspect not least some of them given by Dizzy on his blog.  We know where we're going with our energy policies and it's time Westminster realised we won't be bullied by them or anyone else.

Tweet

SCOTLAND'S NEW GREEN ENERGY REVOLUTION

There was little press coverage yesterday about what our First Minister Alex Salmond hailed as a ‘new green energy revolution.’  He predicted renewable technology off Scotland’s coast would soon create enough energy to power the nation up to 10 times over and announced that permission had been given for companies to begin surveying sites on which to build 10 offshore windfarms.  The 10 sites have the potential to generate over 6GW of offshore electricity, equalling Scotland’s energy consumption on an average day.

“Scotland has a fantastic competitive advantage in developing offshore renewables, with up to 25% of Europe’s offshore wind, wave and tidal energy potential and a world-class scientific capacity and skills base.  If you like, this represents our second big win in the energy lottery.  We have to make sure that, with this new big win, the benefits are here to stay for the Scottish economy,” Mr Salmond said yesterday in Aberdeen.

The BBC was promoting Jim Murphy’s 'idea of the week' that Scotland needs nuclear to secure energy supplies and jobs.  He knows the majority of people in Scotland are against nuclear but he continues to beat the drum for his pal Gordon, whose brother makes billions out of building nuclear power stations.  Short term thinking Jim, we’ve had enough of that in the past decade.  

Today’s buzz words are renewables, marine renewables Jim, Scotland’s renewables.

Tweet