Energy confusion
Consumers have been faced with rising energy bills because of volatility in the gas market, not because of our ambition to rely increasingly upon renewable energy.
Despite repeated public statements from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), Chris Huhne, and Ofgem, confusion persists within the media about why energy bills have risen so sharply.
It is unfortunate that Bill Jamieson’s article (18 October) did little to clarify the issue. Last week Ofgem, whose principal objective is to protect the interests of electricity consumers, issued a report which said: “Higher gas prices have been the main driver of increasing energy bills over the last eight years.”
On Monday, a Friends of the Earth report said if we forged ahead with new fossil fuel power plants instead of investing in renewables it would add £300 per year on to energy bills. And the DECC suggests environmental and energy efficiency programmes will add £13 to the average energy bill in 2020.
Lastly, Mr Jamieson cites Mott MacDonald’s 2010 report which far from puts onshore wind in a negative light as he suggests. In fact, it concludes: “Onshore wind is the least-cost, zero-carbon option in the near to medium term, with a cost of £94/MWh some £5/MWh less than nuclear.”
Renewables provide Scotland with a win-win opportunity; producing clean energy, creating jobs and attracting investment.
Niall Stuart
Scottish Renewables
Bath Street
Glasgow
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Monday 28 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: 10 C to 16 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 9 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
J Mckenzie
Monday, October 24, 2011 at 09:29 AMThese comments read like a cross between the stone-age human at the dawn of farming compaining that his neighbour's newly planted crops spoil his view, and the "if it was good enough for your father, it's good enough for you" brigade. Why can't we strive to do better? I'll answer that: we can, we should, and we have to do better. And we will -- despite all the naysayers trying to drag us down. Wind farms are part of the necessary process whereby we ease our way into a lower-carbon future. As is reducing demand, and developing wave and tidal, and making use of CHP or CCS technologies, and improving the grid, and investigating energy storage techniques. Globally, we are not in a position to stop these things because they cost money -- it's far more expensive in the long run if we fail.
cajwbroomhill
Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 10:47 AMSorry, error, I should have typed: "In addition to No 6's..."
cajwbroomhill
Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 10:45 AMIn addition to No 7's main, economy point, but not his complex, prob. unworkable pricing suggestion, we must deal with the energy shortfall by exploiting more fossil fuels, including shale gas, and by very urgently developing better means of power generation than any now available. There's plenty of fossil fuel left, for the moment...
bobmillfield
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 08:17 AMThe only long term way to deal with the energy shortfall is to use less energy. The government should admit what everyone knows that continuous economic expansion is an impossible dream. We should be starting to implement a policy of prosperity without growth and one of the first steps is to use less energy. Fuel bills should be changed so that the more energy you use the dearer it gets this would encourage savings.
cajwbroomhill
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 05:49 PMThere's only a certain amount of money to go round. If it's spent on piffle, like anything to do with Edinburgh trams, or today's windmills or AGW, or warmaking, or nuclear deterrents, or foreign aid , or EU membership, there will not be so much left for useful purposes. Moreover, it's our money, or money borrowed on our behalf, after previous politicos,' mainly Gordon Brown's, incompetent bungling got us into the poorhoose! The above listed items of expenditure would keep us poor, indefinitely, so a reversal of such stupid, own-goal policies is needed toot sweet, and the tooter, the sweeter!
Back To The Future
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 12:23 PMNiall Stuart is probably smart enough to keep his options open, but there will be an awful lot of ordinary people who will lose their jobs and their businesses when this particular gravy train runs out of public funding. Another Darien Project ..."one of the most humbling episodes in Scottish history, leading to the nation becoming bankrupt and going, cap in hand, to seek union with England" Deja Vu ??
Ron Greer
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 10:32 AMSpot on #1 and #2. Looks like a windy spell and we can then add restraint payments to the bills of the fuel poor.
cajwbroomhill
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 08:43 AMNo 1 is absolutely right, but I would add that all the evidence re renewables, esp. Windpowered, shows that they are a "lose-lose" option for everyone but those benefiting financially, or , for a few, e.g., SNPoliticos, politically ( +\_ financially, who knows?). Even their dewy-eyed, ignorant fans lose out, when they pay their bills.
nabodican
Friday, October 21, 2011 at 05:49 AMOnce again Niall Stuart, mouthpiece of the wind industry is talking complete nonsense, where does he thinks Rocs and Fit come from , who does he think is to pay for grid strengthening to support windfarms, who is to pay for CCS nonsense. Wind power is neither carbon free , cheap or reliable. It is simply the gravy train that him and his ilk are riding at our expense.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.