This is the conclusion to my article in The National yesterday:
There are few countries in the world with better natural resources capable of delivering renewable energy way in excess of its needs than Scotland. It is the export of that excess energy that will make Scotland tick. And if it can export that energy in manufactured form by turning that capacity to generate power into the energy intensive products that other countries will not be able to afford to make, then the value-added that Scotland might make could be even bigger.
Any plan for Scotland's future that does not put renewable energy at its heart will be missing the point of what will make Scotland tick in the future.
The choice for Scotland is does it want the advantage that this brings or is it willing to let the politicians and bankers in London exploit it? It is as simple as that.
The conclusion makes sense, in itself.
What went before it is an example of the economics of walking about. I suggest that may also be worth reading.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The industrial revolution (IR) occured where there was energy (coal). IR 2 will be no different. The Australians export iron ore to China, the trajectory is to export low/zero-carbon steel (the Auzzies do not lack for renewable resource).
So Australia, so Scotland. A combo of off-shore wind & plenty of rain will do the trick. As for whining fisherman, evidence from off-shore farms off the North wales coast suggest that scour protection at the base of turbines provide ideal places for a resurgence of marine life (lobsters amongst other things).
What is needed is the political will (& belief) that it can be done. This was not lacking in the early 19th century, when industrialists worked with politicians. It needs to happen again.
Agreed
Steel (etc.) v Steal
Real or imagined, I’ve often felt that Scotland is held back in the Union by ‘England Centre’. It is better to portray Scotland as a ‘dependent’ of England than some powerhouse in waiting. There will be some Scots of course who will also be benefitting from this arrangement. There are are always homegrown snakes in the grass.
But I agree with everything you say.
The stark choice we’ve arrived at is between wind, solar and tidal farms in our landscape which we can see, which may ‘destroy’ our view of natural habitats (or affect house prices) or the rise in noxious gases that we can’t see and which are killing us and destroying the biosphere. We need to get used to seeing these planet savers around our country.
I have always worn a mask when cycling and you ought to see the filth that builds up on the filter. My brother in law has never done that and road races his bikes and for that (and living in London all his life), he now has asthma.
English and Welsh manufacturers have experienced a decline in exports going to the EU since leaving the continent’s political group, research from Make UK found.
A report by the leading manufacturing trading body said that Northern Ireland and Scotland both experienced a jump in their share of exports to the EU since Brexit in 2020.
In 2022, the UK’s share of exports to the EU rose from 50% to 52%, largely driven by tariff-free trade in Northern Ireland and an increase in demand for Scottish oil and gas.
“This [jump] was a result of sharp increases in the share of exports to the EU from Northern Ireland and Scotland over the same period, without which the overall UK share of goods exports would also be on a downward trend,” the report said.
Where are you, Richard, on the MMT gurus’ (particularly Mosler’s) claimthat exports are a cost and imports a benefit, very strongly refuted by Steve Keen? My local MMT group have been debating this a length, and we are pretty much agreed that it is only true for a country (like the US) that has vast domestic resources, and issues the world’s trade currency. It’s also an “I’m all right, Jack” attitude – “I’ve got the use of your exports in exchange for which you’ve got some bits of paper, ha ha”.
In my view (I hope ours) in the case of an independant currency-issuing Scotland it needs to have something of value to give said currency value for international trade – and that is where its energy exports come in, exactly as they do in Norway.
I am wholly with Steve Keen on this
The claim is total nonsense and discredits MMT
It seems to me that it depends entirely on the circumstances of the individual state, and how self-sufficient it is; especially in critical commodities or services, or the degree of concentration of resources for the State in question to produce the distinctive exported goods and services, and at what cost (especially internal opportunity costs); or the availability to it of natural tradable resources, however defined; in short it is a complex issue and a function of the specific conditions of each distinctive state. The circumstances of Saudi Arabia and Burundi (to take polar opposites in economics or tradable mineral resources), would be quite different.
The US is also separately a special case, because it is the ‘de facto’ World Reserve Currency; perhaps Mosler is merely displaying the understandably skewed perception of an American, universalising unconsciously a special peculiarity of US financial and economic hegemony.
As others have said it is obvious what needs to be done but unfortunately our governments are controlled by vested interests that are fighting to achieve two entirely different objectives.
First, to keep fossil fuels going as long as possible, at the highest price achievable and that all seems to be going just fine at the moment.
Second, to gain control of all aspects of the renewable energy market so that when the transition finally happens our energy supplies will be still be owned by the same people who own the fossil fuel industry. They will also still be dependent on exactly the same kind of wildly inefficient rigged energy “markets” as they are now, with zero security of supply.
Predictably, we will be told that for all sorts of complicated reasons, never properly explained but enthusiastically endorsed by the rich and their media propaganda machine, that renewable energy has to be just as expensive for customers as the old fossil fuels it has replaced.
Does anybody know who are the ultimate beneficiaries of all the wind farms currently operating around the UK coast? Does this topic ever get discussed in the UK media? A list would be interesting.
I think that is known. Try searching it….
I have commented previously on the opposition to wind farms around Scotland, Scotland Against Spin are against them, and look to have submitted a report to the Scottish Parliament according to various websites.
Around rural areas,there are many signs along the lines of “No ring of steel”
There are also objections to offshore wind farms.
On another issue, the recent marine conservation bill appears to have been amended.
There are also objections to a power line running from the Highlands to the South of Scotland.
There are many obstacles and issues to overcome in Scotland.
So?
Isn’t that always the case?
Clearly the production of clean energy is extremely important, but;
building vast new pylons right through the heart of the Highland when there are other options,
loading the cost of the facilitation of the transfer of power from north to south on the bills of the poorest areas in Scotland is not right,
forcing through compulsory purchases of farm land/private land for the building of sub-stations and pylons is not right,
electricity in the Highlands already costs 50p+ per unit, why is the same electricity when exported to England only 35p per unit?
wind farms in the Highlands already produce a massive excess of power resulting in frequent power downs of turbines, more recently the grid have been paying other countries to take this excess.
Yes wind power is the future, but not at all costs. Those living with the realities, wind farms, sub-stations and pylons should have this reflected in lower bills not higher bills. Where possible cables should be under the sea or under the ground.
https://www.communitiesb4powercompanies.co.uk/our-press-releases/our-press-release-16th-june-2023
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-65156487
https://www.communitiesb4powercompanies.co.uk/our-press-releases/our-press-release-16th-june-2023
Having spent 3 weeks in Norway, I was able to see at first hand how they distributed energy and energy generation throughout their country. It was impressive and well organised and I’m sure expensive – but they did it, no doubt – or in part – to their oil revenue being re-invested properly?
And we’re talking about a Norwegian geography that is actually bigger than anything I’ve seen in Scotland in terms of scale and challenge. So to my mind it can be done if the will is there. So, in Norway, the odd pylon or dam sneaks into your holiday snaps – big deal.
As to how it will be done and how fairly is much dependent on an industry that is now quite simply a rentier self-utility operation, not a public service. The problem of people living near windfarms and seeing cheap electricity as some sort of ‘compensation’ is the wrong way to go about anything. I’m stunned.
Electricity is expensive because we’re too reliant on carbon (and an under-regulated provider-ship) and that there are not enough windfarms perhaps? Has that entered anyone’s head yet? Would we not expect to see electricity prices drop with MORE windfarms and tidal generation (more units of consumption being produced) and better price controls/more state intervention? Maybe Mike Parr can put me straight? I defer to him.
The focus to me of Nicholas’ post though is all wrong. We have got higher (and rising) air temperatures.
Long term ice (trapped water) around the world is melting, entering rivers and emptying into the sea.
Sea levels are expected to rise.
Land is going to disappear (especially if there is no investment made in the defence of coastal areas).
People are going to be made homeless.
They will have to move and less affected areas will have to make room for them or they will perish.
Either way, those living in the Highlands might be seeing a lot more housing development in the future, never mind blummin’ wind farms. Are they going to moan about that too I wonder? Do they realise how much is going to have to happen?
Honestly – the paying less argument I’m presented with here has all the makings of a race that perhaps deserves to die out? Energy prices are as they are because of the market being set up as it is and too little renewables.
What an epitaph: ‘Here lieth Homo Sapiens, who died because of NIMBYISM because the view out of their windows and on their holiday photographs was more important than global warming and rising seas’.
Honestly! Are we not able to see what is important anymore simply because we’ve commoditised everything except our own survival?
Fair points. I do support wind energy, all my electricity comes from wind, but I do think it needs to be rolled out in coordinated way. Whether you like it or not the Highlands is one of the poorest areas in the UK and cost does matter. One problem with the rollout being by a limited number of players is that the costs can only be passed on to a section of users. Specifically SSEN are running the pylon building program but they can only pass on the costs to their own customers. A UK wide program, and I understand plans for super highway cables are quite advanced for England, would see costs more fairly distributed. Although a not for profit approach would be far better.
You highlight the absurdity of the cost structure for infrastructure
SSE are planning a new facility, basically a giant organic battery.
https://www.sse.com/news-and-views/2023/03/britain-s-largest-pumped-hydro-scheme-in-40-years-gets-100m-investment-boost/
Its a great idea if the environmental impacts are managed.
SSE are putting up £100m. Thats roughly 1.2 F35b aircraft. Where is the rest of the money coming from and who will end up paying for it?
I’m not saying we shouldn’t pay for it and therefore that it shouldn’t be done, but my view with infrastructure of this sort is that it should be publicly owned.
I totally agree with you about ownership Nicholas.
In social housing, the local authority sets its own interest rates for the loans for newbuild from its housing revenue account as part part of its housing revenue account business plan (the interest charged is used to re-invest in more homes). Sometimes however, HM Treasury will interfere and instruct us to add a percentage point. They can still do that and they do damn them.
So, the rate of interest applied currently on our developments is 4.35% over 50 years. But this is a choice – we know that what we build is built with a shelf-life of 60 years plus so we are only accounting for pay down for 50 years.
So if we are to keep things private in utility provision, it would be interesting to dig down into the private loan side of the investment and look at the loan provided by whatever bank is adding the loan to the funds put up by SSE and interrogate the terms of that.
To make the charges fair to the consumer, the loans would have to be cheap/fair, over a long period of time or both.
The regulations should make it clear to banks that their loans need to be more long term or lower rates or both. This is how PFI was supposed work according to a government pamphlet I read in the 1990s. It ended up being far from that.
Can the greedy short term private banking sector work like that – over longer loan periods, take a haircut in profit etc.?
I doubt it. But that’s why the current set up needs revisiting or getting rid of altogether. Another option is enable LAs to do it – but it would need a substantial and continuous investment from government to kick it off to set up a ‘utility revenue account’ or something like that.
Living in Scotland, I see and hear the objections to wind farms, but I also hear many many voices that feel in favor, especially if the local economy could benefit from community led infrastructure, long term sustainable subsidies and jobs.
I’ve lived in villages where handouts are given which look more like bribes, and planning given locally without an overall countrywide plan so that some areas feel surrounded whilst others have none.
Also, planners need to understand that you can have commercial forestry around wind farms meaning local economies can benefit twice.
Landownership is often an issue in Scotland with many Highland economies relying on large estates to finance jobs and local services, so me must be mindful of a just transition for rural workers.
I hope we get the chance.