Jump to content

Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.


Pearbuyerbell

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Lester Freamon said:

Absolutely gone at the "she wants to spy on your family with a named state snoop, and punish us for things we say over a bread roll and soup" line.

 

It's true though. 

The Named Person plan failed (twice) because it blatantly contravened the ECHR and the original Hate Crime bill criminalised 'offensive' conversations within private homes.

Edited by Detournement
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Detournement said:

It's true though. 

The Named Person plan failed (twice) because it blatantly contravened the ECHR and the original Hate Crime bill criminalised 'offensive' conversations within private homes.

I know man. I was just trying to do a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, 101 said:

Sturgeon must condemn that she appears to have appointed a football fan as the minister for amongst other things, major events.

Never mind resign, if Sturgeon has been accused of allowing a situation whereby almost 20 social events has taken place in Scottish Government departments during lockdown/s, or even worse that she had attended any of them, or even, even worse that she had claimed during FMQs that there were no such events, some of the unionist loyalists around here would have wanted her hanging from a lamppost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Never mind resign, if Sturgeon has been accused of allowing a situation whereby almost 20 social events has taken place in Scottish Government departments during lockdown/s, or even worse that she had attended any of them, or even, even worse that she had claimed during FMQs that there were no such events, some of the unionist loyalists around here would have wanted her hanging from a lamppost. 

 

Screenshot_20220126_115827.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/01/2022 at 21:13, Saltire said:

This forum is absolutely about debate, but I'm not sure if you've fully appreciated the scale of this auction round. The figure awarded are for 25GW of offshore wind generation capacity, 5 or 6 times Scotland's peak demand. The capital cost for offshore wind is coming down quickly but recent capital costs are between £2m and £4m per MW installed. Extrapolating this:

Total Capital costs £50bn - 100bn

Scotland's GDP in 2020 was around £150bn

Scotland's (understated in my opinion) tax revenue in 2019  was around £12bn

I'm not sure where we would borrow the money required to invest on that scale on top of everything else that needs to be done in the energy transition and ongoing capital and revenue investment elsewhere. However, like our oil and gas, this resource is a bankable asset when it comes to borrowing in the bond markets

It seems to me that a fair tax regime to take revenue from these resources (and address fuel poverty) is a lower risk than trying to do it all ourselves in the public sector. Doing that is a legitimate view, but perhaps a much more difficult funding model. The key here is surely to reap the rewards of a sustainable energy source that allows Scotland to export a colossal energy surplus for income and pioneer large scale energy storage of this immense resource.

I have been involved in previous rounds of offshore auctions but not this one.

 

 

 

5 or 6 times Scotland's peak demand.  Really?  You are either deliberately or ignorantly ignoring the fact that with decarbonised energy generation, renewables will have to cover 100% of energy demand which is around 150 TWh whilst current output is around 33TWh.  This of course ignores that energy demand is not constant and peak demand is what we need to be able to cope with.  Unless we import energy from other markets to meet peak demand and then pretend that it all clean.  Just like we do with the 97% current claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, strichener said:

5 or 6 times Scotland's peak demand.  Really?  You are either deliberately or ignorantly ignoring the fact that with decarbonised energy generation, renewables will have to cover 100% of energy demand which is around 150 TWh whilst current output is around 33TWh.  This of course ignores that energy demand is not constant and peak demand is what we need to be able to cope with.  Unless we import energy from other markets to meet peak demand and then pretend that it all clean.  Just like we do with the 97% current claim.

I completely agree that overall energy demand is a huge issue and I am passionate about the energy question having worked in the sector for decades. Your quote is slightly out of context as the peak electrical demand figure I used was to emphasise the scale of Scotwind, in that context, and the funding/ borrowing required to deliver it. Believe me, I'm intimately involved in the sector and understand the scale of electrification of heat and transport and what that means for electrical infrastructure. You can see the forecast capacity expansion for EVs and heat pumps proposed by each DNO in their ED2 submissions for 2023-28 which still leaves a long way to go to decarbonise.

This topic is worthy of its own thread rather than being lost in various others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Saltire said:

I completely agree that overall energy demand is a huge issue and I am passionate about the energy question having worked in the sector for decades. Your quote is slightly out of context as the peak electrical demand figure I used was to emphasise the scale of Scotwind, in that context, and the funding/ borrowing required to deliver it. Believe me, I'm intimately involved in the sector and understand the scale of electrification of heat and transport and what that means for electrical infrastructure. You can see the forecast capacity expansion for EVs and heat pumps proposed by each DNO in their ED2 submissions for 2023-28 which still leaves a long way to go to decarbonise.

This topic is worthy of its own thread rather than being lost in various others.

I get that you used that in the context of Scotwind but as you point out above, looking at our current demand and stating that Scotwind would deliver a multiple of our electric needs is based on today's electric demand.  The reality is that with Scotwind and all other agreed renewables in the pipeline we don't even come close to getting to 50% of energy demand.

Also agree that it probably deserves a thread of its own as we need to be open about the challenges and costs of aiming for a decarbonised future.  The price increases coming in April will only be the start of power costs heading back to consuming a larger portion of income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...