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.


