Electricity – Scotland will soon be able to power every home in the UK and more

Greenhouse gas emissions generated by electricity generation in Scotland (2004-2022
Proportion of electricity generated in Scotland from low carbon and fossil fuels (2004-2022)

From Energy Statistics for Scotland – Q1 2024, today, the above dramatic achievements of the SNP Government from 2007 and these updates:

In the first quarter of 2024, 10,722 GWh of electricity was generated from renewable sources. This is a 4% increase compared to the same period in 2023.

There is 15.4 GW of renewable electricity operational capacity in Scotland as of the end of March 2024.

As of the end of March 2024, there are 790 renewable energy projects, with an estimated capacity of 46.8 GW in the planning pipeline. The largest contributor to this potential increase in capacity is storage (20.2 GW).

https://www.gov.scot/publications/energy-statistics-for-scotland-q1-2024/pages/key-points/

1 GWh would power around 870 000 homes so, 10GWh would do 8.7 million homes and 46 GWh would do 40 million homes.

There are only around 2.5 million households in Scotland and 28 million in the UK as a whole.

Source:

https://www.carboncollective.co/sustainable-investing/gigawatt-gw#:~:text=One%20gigawatt%2Dhour%20(GWh),operates%20continuously%20throughout%20the%20year.

22 thoughts on “Electricity – Scotland will soon be able to power every home in the UK and more”

  1. Ergo, according to Labour, Scotland MUST have a new mini nuclear reactor power station at Torness.

    The self-proclaimed ‘greenest government ever’ promulgates the lie that nuclear energy is ‘green’, but only according to whatever Labour in its Alice in Wonderland way defines as ‘green’. ‘Socialism’ it was once claimed was what Labour governments do, ergo ‘green’ is what Labour governments do – so burning coal, oil and gas are ‘green’.

    This is cynical cronyism of the kind which Labour has always done – the nuclear power station is to meet the demands of the thuggish leadership of the GMB union. There will be a ‘triple lock guarantee’ on the vast expenditure on Trident renewal because the GMB wants it.

    I am old enough to remember the ‘Atoms for Peace’ propaganda – that the nuclear future was of unlimited energy, so cheap that it could be given away.

    Alasdair Macdonald.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. My memory must be failing Alasdair, I recalled it as ‘so cheap it’s not worth billing for’, even though that has a distinctly US tilt…. The most expensive of ALL per kWh without exception, yet it’s gas generation which purportedly explains the high leccy tariff.

      The was also the ‘atomic age’ in a military sense – I fondly remember my dad recall having had to watch a ‘Pathetic News’ brief to learn survival of the populace was assured in event of a nuclear war by whitewashing the windows to reflect the ‘glare’, and unscrewing a door and ducking behind it to deflect the nuclear blast, – Bullshitting by government has never gone away….

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Bob, your recalled phraseology sounds plausible, now that I have searched my memory banks.

        “Atoms for Peace” was, undoubtedly a US policy under Eisenhower. However, it was adopted pretty much in its entirety as a concept in Western Europe.

        The science curricula in schools in the US was substantially improved as a result of the USSR developing nuclear weapons and, in Scotland (and, probably, the rest of the UK) our science curriculum was upgraded significantly. In my opinion, the courses and the accompanying materials were very good. I was in the first year group to sit Higher Grades under the new science curricula.

        When it came to the atomic and nuclear physics and chemistry parts of the curriulum, there was a noticeable propagandistic aspect to it, but, to be fair, we did get a pretty objective education.

        Interestingly, during that period Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University produced his famous ‘ducks’ to extract energy from waves. We had several speakers at our physics classes to speak about wind, wave and tidal power (The ‘new’ Strathclyde University was just across the street from the school). However, the fossil fuel lobby, including the NUM, EEPTU, and other unions, were hostile to renewables. The renewables proposals being put forward at the time were entirely feasible and had they received the kind of funding nuclear and North Sea Oil and Gas received, there could have been a strong renewables industry in Scotland from the 1970s.

        Alasdair Macdonald.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    1. If it was not for Scotland’s stats on green energy/renewable the UK’s stats in these areas would be much worse and that is true in a lot of areas eg child poverty. Without Scotland’s better performance the UK’s stats would be dire. Maybe why they want to hang on to us.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. It was North Sea oil and gas which underwrote sterling for much of the past 50/60 years. If Scotland had become independent the pound sterling would have slumped.

        Energy is, indeed, a factor in the determination to oppose Scottish independence. There are other factors, such as the territorial waters – Scotland, including territorial waters accounts for 51% of the UK area. As well as all the fish, there is the subsea minerals potential and the militarily strategic sea lanes.

        And, of course, there is English/British nationalist colonialism. Although the history of Scotland is not very comparable with Ireland, in that many of our ancestors were ardent colonialists, there is a valid argument that following the Jacobite risings there was colonialist suppression of peoples in Scotland. The stealing of Scotland’s oil by Westminster was arguable colonialist asset-stripping.

        Alasdair Macdonald.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. Note the ” We know that there are developers waiting in the wings, rubbing their hands with glee, for a connection to hook up even more unnecessary wind turbines. It will be a relentless onslaught just as it was when the Beauly to Denny line was approved “…. My emphasis…

      Like

      Reply

  5. G B Energy – Starmer’s/Westminster’s latest wheeze to rename Scotland’s assets as British ! – will be off to a great start .

    How long before G B Energy Privatisation puts up our energy bills ( again) and leaves Scots paying higher prices than our greedy southern neighbours , despite us generating most of their energy ?

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  6. I’d urge caution on some of the numbers, but there is no doubt Scotland has made substantial progress in the right direction despite the multiple obstacles caused by London mis-management and political skullduggery….

    However, from the headline figure “In the first quarter of 2024, 10,722 GWh of electricity was generated from renewable sources” – My total annual energy usage in Q1 next year will be ca.3450kWh, so 3 Million such homes could be powered and heated in winter if Q1 of 2025 performs as the year before.

    Bearing in mind that we don’t have a clear picture on how much of that alternative energy Q1-2024 was ‘switched off’ to accommodate grid restrictions or keep ‘the market’ happy, but it’s looking pretty damned good so far…

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply

    1. My apologies – ” My total annual energy usage” should have read quarterly not annual. Because my leccy and gas have been carefully recorded over the last 9 years as part of the now completed insulation project, I can make a fairly accurate prediction for the next Q1.

      Like

      Reply

  7. The chameleon that has been the Labour Party’s GB Energy policy merits so much more objective appraisal than it has received from the media. This deficit in critical assessment is important – is to be deprecated – given that GB Energy (GBE), and the location of its HQ, is clearly being pushed by Labour as its big inducement to voters in Scotland. IMHO GB Energy is the GREAT OBFUSCATION!

    What follows is just one example of the gushing, uncritical reporting that may well prove successful in seducing some voters in Scotland: ‘Thousands of Scottish jobs’ created by Labour’s proposed energy company’ – from STV News online on 31 May. We’re told this by the STV journalist in the opening lines:

    ‘Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said HIS PARTY WILL BRING “tens of thousands of new jobs” to Scotland BY BASING the headquarters of a new energy company there.’ (My emphasis)

    A moment’s consideration shows this for the guff it is. Firstly, is GB Energy going to employ tens of thousands in its HQ? Of course it isn’t! As an investment vehicle – (finally admitted by Labour I think but are enough voters aware?) – we can get a rough indication of job numbers from the Tory version of GB Energy – yes the latter is not quite so innovative as Labour would have us believe. The Tory version was called the Green Investment Bank, also headquartered in Scotland, in Edinburgh and directly employing between 100-150 people as I recall. Anyone think the Green Investment Bank was a game changer for Scotland’s economy?

    As far as I can determine, Labour never specifies how many jobs will actually be created directly in Scotland by GB Energy, i.e. jobs in its HQ.

    And a thought experiment: how many FEWER jobs might be created in Scotland by GB Energy’s prospective investments in renewables IF its HQ was NOT established Scotland? How big a difference would this make? Would the difference SIMPLY be the relatively small number employed in the HQ? Recall also, in the mid- 2010s the Green Investment Bank headquartered in Edinburgh also had a London office.

    Despite careful reading of the Labour manifesto and other statements from the party, it’s actually hard to find a definitive, unspun statement – notwithstanding STV’s reporting – of job creation attributed to the role of GB Energy specifically rather than to Labour’s GREEN PROSPERITY PLAN. The Plan includes multiple interventions, including a NATIONAL WEALTH FUND broadly comparable in scale of capitalisation to GB Energy.

    Moreover, I’ve struggled and failed to find a Labour Party statement as to whether the job creation total the party quotes – regardless of attribution to one or actually to a bundle of interventions – is for (i) ‘net additional jobs’; and is (ii) for direct jobs in a invested company/project or includes also indirect and induced employment.

    Back to the STV article, we are given this quote from the Labour leader and future PM: “On top of that, there will be new jobs, tens of thousands of new jobs, created by the transition to renewable energy, AND by locating GB Energy in Scotland, it makes Scotland the centre of that.’ (Again with my emphasis) The word ‘AND’ is working hard to support the obfuscation , to perpetuate a deceit.

    And on the employment and other beneficial economic impacts of the energy transition, what would happen anyway without GB Energy?

    For a bit of context, in addition to the evidence in the main blog post of Scotland already being a green energy ‘powerhouse’: the Times Money Monitor (October 19 2023) had an article entitled: ‘Renewable energy: how and where to invest’ (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/investing/diy-investing/renewable-energy-how-where-invest ).

    It notes: ’… THERE IS ALREADY EVIDENCE THAT BRITAIN’S BIGGEST ENERGY COMPANIES ARE PUTTING THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR FUTURES ARE’ and ‘Shell, for example, has spent about $2bn (£1.4bn) since 2016 on investing in renewable energy.’

    And it added: ’INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS SUCH AS BIG PENSION FUNDS ARE ALSO PUTTING VAST AMOUNTS OF MONEY INTO THE SECTOR. A recent survey from the alternative-investment manager Octopus found that they plan to plough $743bn into renewables in the next decade.’

    Crown Estates Scotland in February this year provided an update on its ScotWind leasing round for offshore wind: ‘Latest figures, taking into account all 20 projects, now show initial total Scottish commitments total £28.8bn, indicating an average of £1.5bn investment in Scotland per project built. Offshore wind projects typically take several years to plan, develop, and build. ScotWind projects are expected to be built from the late 2020s onwards.’

    Issues that arises therefore in the context of GB Energy as an investment vehicle include but are not limited to: will it invest in renewable energy generation projects that would not proceed without its investment? – if not, then its use of public funding is ‘DEADWEIGHT’! And winning votes for Labour in Scotland on such a proposition as GB Energy will verge on a democratic outrage!

    Candidly, the bauble of the GB Energy HQ being offered to entice the voters of North Britain sits atop a pile of carefully crafted and cleverly marketed deceptions. And that’s before one tries to tease out a credible ‘theory of change’ for Labour’s claims that actions attributable to GB Energy specifically will deliver reductions in energy bills for UK consumers and businesses!

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. For ‘ “tens of thousands of new jobs” to Scotland…” ‘ read 6 and one recycled – One ex-MP, 5 PR advisers and a secretary…

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. In this context, knight-of-the-realm-with-two-union-jacks-patriotic-Thatcherite-socialist(?????) Starmer has, several times, deployed the phrase ‘secure Scotland’s place in the union’.

      What do people think this connotes?

      Alasdair Macdonald

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  9. It’s not often that I’m inclined to write anything positive about a BBC Scotland journalist’s contribution. But here goes!

    The BBC’s ‘Business and Economy Editor, Scotland’, Douglas Fraser had an article (24 June) in the Scotland Business section of the BBC News website under this headline: ‘What would ‘GB Energy’ mean for Scotland’s green economy?’ (See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxxxljq070o )

    (Never unalloyed reaction to BBC Scotland tho’! Curiously, this article which attempts a critical appraisal did NOT appear in the Scotland Politics section despite this being six lines in: ‘Labour makes a big play of setting up GB Energy.’) – (my emphasis).

    We know that Labour’s GB Energy has been a bit of a shapeshifter – an energy producer ‘in its own right’ to an investment vehicle and/or something in between or something else. So what can we learn from BBC Scotland ‘s ‘expert’ in this piece below the ‘neutral’ headline?

    Firstly, tone iteration of Labour’s claim is repeated: ‘According to Scottish leader Anas Sarwar, this will be “a publicly-owned clean power company, to create good jobs and cut bills for good. And will be headquartered here in Scotland”.’

    And then the first bollocks alert: ‘If this sounds like an energy supplier, to provide your home with electricity and gas more cheaply than big, profitable, private companies, then think again.’ And on the element likely to attract most voters, most, Mr Fraser indulges in understatement: ‘The route to cutting your bill is not as clear as the promise sounds.‘

    In addition to the Labour manifesto’s statement that, in scope, GB Energy may invest in on- and offshore wind, in marine (wave/tide) and in nuclear energy generation (including big power stations and Small Modular Reactors), in carbon capture and storage, and in energy storage, Fraser reports also that: ‘GB Energy will partner with energy companies, local authorities, and co-operatives to install thousands of clean power projects, through a combination of onshore wind, solar and hydropower projects.” The target is for 20,000 such projects.

    And then we get another understatement from the BBC Scotland ‘expert’: ‘Already, GB Energy’s remit is looking stretched and it’s some way from getting started. That £8.3bn over five years is expected to do some heavy lifting.’

    Fraser asks the critical question in the appraisal of the business case for any government intervention: ‘But is GB Energy needed to make investment happen? Does it add value to the private funds already going into renewable power?

    We’re told: ‘The UK Government says £300bn has already been pumped into low-carbon investment, a very large share of that private money. A further £100bn is expected by 2030. There’s no shortage of private funds available if the investment conditions are right. GB Energy’s contribution, after meeting its numerous other objectives, looks modest by comparison.’ Yet another massive understatement! But Fraser avoids nailing the obvious answer to the crucial ‘deadweight’ challenge!

    He opines: ‘What developers are more likely to seek from government is co-ordination of much more grid capacity, consents to access the grid and the auctioned contracts which provide a floor price. They would also prefer more consistent policy-making. In recent years, they have seen Treasury support for carbon capture put on the table and removed, then put back out to competitive bids, as well as windfall tax on older windfarms.’ Notably, I can find nothing explicit or in ANY detail about Labour’s intentions towards investing in or otherwise incentivising the upgrading of the UK’s electricity power grid.

    And to his credit, Fraser asks another big question: ‘What, though, of that claim that GB Energy will “cut bills for good”? That is a good selling point to voters, but it’s harder to make that connection. It seems to depend on the assertion that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. That depends, in turn, on the form of renewable energy, on the amount loaded on to bills in subsidy, and on the price of fossil fuels. The latter is volatile. The gas price has fallen a long way in the past two years, and it’s not certain that renewables will remain cheaper “for good”.’

    ‘There is no mechanism mentioned that indicates the power generated by a GB Energy turbine would be any cheaper for customers than any other turbine. Nor is it clear how this fits with Scottish Labour’s support for a new generation of nuclear power north of the Border. If it is priced like the new nuclear plants being built in England and Wales, it could put bills up – if not for good, then for a long time.’

    And of Labour’s innovativeness: ‘Anas Sarwar and Sir Keir Starmer launched Labour’s “mission” on cheaper green energy in Edinburgh. So is this one area in which Labour is taking the state enterprise road in a way that Conservatives would not even contemplate?

    And the answer: ‘Well, no. Twelve years ago, the Conservative-LibDem coalition set up the Green Investment Bank and headquartered it in Edinburgh, to “accelerate the UK’s transition to a greener, stronger economy” by investing in green projects. It committed more than £8 billion of co-investment funds to 100 projects, and by 2017, it had deployed £1.5 billion of that, attracting £2.50 of private funds for every £1 it committed.’

    Was the Green Investment Bank HQ’d in Scotland worth voting for a Unionist party? The even more hyped GB Energy and the bauble of its HQ for Scotland may have even less to commend it! For Scotland’s sake, let’s hope Labour’s attempt at seduction fails miserably – it deserves to!

    And to Mr Fraser and BBC Scotland – is it not good for the professional soul to engage in decent, objective, balanced journalism?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. ‘GB Energy’s remit is looking stretched’ – apologies for my error that underplayed Labour and GB Energy’s ambition! Let me explain.

      I described above the stated scope of GB Energy’s £1.7 billion per annum investments over the term of the next parliament. I noted previously that, according to Labour’s manifesto, in scope are: (1) onshore wind (ii) offshore wind; (iii) marine (wave and tide); (iv) nuclear energy generation (including big power stations and Small Modular Reactors); (v) carbon capture and storage; (vi) energy storage plus (vii) investment in 20,000 local ‘clean power projects’.

      But I missed something. How could I have forgotten about this ‘minor’ addition to that list – ‘hydrogen’ – also in the stated cope of GB Energy’s activities. A ‘stretched remit’?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  10. The south west prevailing wind the driving force supplying the windfarms in the south of Scotland has travelled over hundreds of miles of English countryside compared to tens in Scotland.

    The plethora of senior politicians visiting Scotland on day trips from London just now are simply protecting the UK’s investments in the Scottish hills.

    It is surprising that none of the London parties have claimed as yet that Scotland is stealing England’s wind.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

Leave a reply to millsjames1949 Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.