By stewartb
The headline question is of current relevance as the Scottish Government initiated a public consultation on June 13 (closing August 13) to inform the updating of policy on offshore wind energy. Here are the consultation questions:
‘1) Does “up to 40GW of new offshore wind by 2035-2040” demonstrate an appropriate level of ambition for the Scottish Government?’
‘2) What additional actions do you believe should be taken by the Scottish Government, UK Government and agencies in order to realise the full potential of Scotland’s offshore wind sector?’
Source: Scottish Government (June 18, 2025) Offshore wind policy statement 2020 update: consultation – ‘This consultation will inform the Scottish Government’s update to its 2020 Offshore Wind Policy Statement, particularly with regard to an updated ambition for offshore wind.’ (https://www.gov.scot/publications/update-2020-offshore-wind-policy-statement-scotlands-offshore-wind-ambition/ )
We’re given this for context: ‘The ScotWind and INTOG leasing rounds symbolise the enormous economic potential of offshore wind and put Scotland at the forefront of development globally, with a current reported potential pipeline of over 40GW of offshore wind projects on top of our existing operational capacity.’ (My emphasis. INTOG = Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas.)
The document makes certain key statements of intent by the Scottish Government:
a) ’We want to see the maximum possible deployment of the Scottish offshore wind project pipeline, whilst balancing the impact on the marine environment and other marine users.’
b) ’To reinforce our absolute commitment to maximising the deployment of offshore wind in Scotland, ..…’ (SMP-OWE = Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy)
Arguably, these statements beg some other questions:
- on the reference to ‘enormous economic potential of offshore wind’ – enormous for which economy?
- is ‘maximum possible deployment of the Scottish offshore wind project pipeline’ what Scotland needs to develop a resilient domestic energy system when much of the additional electricity generated offshore Scotland will be transmitted for use by households and industries in England – and sold at a price set to reflect England’s energy system and market?
- to establish the resilient energy system Scotland’s needs, should supporting investment in ‘predictable’ tidal energy, enhancing various forms of electricity storage within Scotland, supporting the construction of an interconnector between Scotland and the European mainland etc. be prioritised alongside the existing offshore wind project pipeline in an integrated energy strategy specifically for Scotland?
- is (over)emphasis on maximising electricity generation from Scotland’s offshore wind resources a response to the demands of energy-hungry England rather than to the requirements of a resilient energy system and market designed specifically for Scotland? Candidly, does Scotland in Union even have any option other than the maximising of offshore wind?
- might an (over)emphasis on maximising electricity generation from Scotland’s offshore wind resources be a tacit recognition that Scotland in Union has limited means of valorising its renewable energy assets and little or no agency when it comes to shaping a future energy system and market optimal to Scotland’s needs? And an acceptance that Scotland will be remaining for the foreseeable within the energy system and market of Great Britain designed for England’s needs and wants?
Recall: TO VALORISE – ‘to enhance or try to enhance the price, value, or status of [an asset] by organized and usually governmental action’ (Merriam Webster Dictionary)
Scotland’s energy contribution to England
Descriptions of the existing and planned High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cables linking wind farms offshore Scotland with England report the scale of transmission capacity. The cables, which will be located almost entirely offshore, include the Western Link and Eastern Green Link (EGL) cables 1 to 5.
The table below collates statistics on transmission capacities. Of course, investors – public and/or private – wouldn’t install these cables unless convinced: (a) that their capacity to transmit will be complementary to the available levels of electricity supply; and (b) there will be sustained market demand for the scale of electricity transmission the cables make possible.
Capacity to supply ’12 million homes’ – is that a big number?
Of course, electricity is required to power more than just homes, so the ‘number of homes’ metric may be a rough and ready comparator (see Addendum). But given this is the metric the UK government, its regulator OFGEM and others in the energy industry use, let’s stick with it for now in order to get some perspective.
How many ‘homes’ does England have? In 2023 there were 28.4 million households in the UK. In 2023, the number of households in Scotland was 2.5 million.
Sources: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2023 and https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/publications/households-and-dwellings-in-scotland-2023/
When marking the coming on stream of the Moray West wind farm in April 2024 – a site with the capacity to generate (just) 882 MW of electricity – Ian Murray MP, Secretary of State for Scotland said: ‘Ocean Winds’ Moray West offshore wind farm – which will power 1.3 million homes – half the homes in Scotland’.
Source: https://www.offshorewindscotland.org.uk/news/2025/april/24/moray-west-becomes-fully-operational/
12.2GW capacity to transmit electricity from Scotland – is that a lot?
Let’s set this alongside reports on what the new nuclear power stations, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C will cost and deliver. The BBC News website (June 10) had this headline: ‘Sizewell C pledged to lower bills but will take at least 10 years’.
We learn: ‘The funding announced on Wednesday, which includes £2.7bn already pledged in the Autumn Budget, only covers five years of a decade-long project.’
And this: ‘There have been several different funding announcements made about Sizewell C over many years by different governments. The Department for Energy Security confirmed to the BBC that with Tuesday’s £14.2bn investment announcement, a total of £17.8bn of taxpayers’ money had been put towards the project to date.’ (my emphasis)
EDF, the state-owned French company that will build Sizewell C also leads on the other nuclear power plant – with two nuclear reactors – under construction viz. Hinkley Point C in Somerset. The BBC reports that EDF accepts that Hinkley Point C ‘would cost more than £40bn, compared to a 2022 estimate of £26bn. Hinkley Point is expected to switch on in the early 2030s, which will be over a decade late and having cost billions more than originally planned.’
Also from the same BBC article: ’The government has said Sizewell C will generate enough power for some six million homes.’ EDF has claimed Hinkley Point will also power c. 6 million homes (https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c )
So two nuclear power stations costing at least £17.8bn for Sizewell C plus £40bn for Hinkley Point are estimated once operational to have the capacity to power 12 million homes.
From the same BBC article: ‘Separately to the Sizewell C investment, the government announced Rolls-Royce had won a government contract worth £2.5bn to build three state of the art nuclear reactors.’ This is for what are termed Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
The BBC News website also published the graphic below comparing large, conventional with small, modular nuclear reactors (source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c3v50qy35pwt?page=2 ). Note the use of ‘number of homes’ supplied with electricity as a means of characterising and comparing energy systems. Each SMR is projected to deliver enough energy to power just under 1 million homes.
Questions
What scale of investment would be required to establish predictable electricity generation from toxic waste-free tidal power at a scale sufficient to address both Scotland’s future electricity demand growth and the technical/operational requirements for a reliable, resilient energy system, a system and market designed specifically to meet Scotland’s needs?
And if an attractive and feasible proposition, does Scotland in Union have the agency to make it happen?
Addendum
On the metric, ‘powering number of homes’, here is an explanation of how it’s arrived at (Source https://bellrockwind.co.uk/calculations/ ):
‘The equivalent number of homes which could be supplied is calculated by:
- wind farm installed capacity (in MW)
- multiplied by the number of hours in one year (8,760)
- multiplied by the DESNZ’s average load factor (%) for offshore wind over the last three years published within the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, Table 6.3, DESNZ, 2023)
- divided by the average annual household energy consumption (in MWh) (being the average annual household energy consumption over the last three years of data published within Energy Consumption in the UK 2023, Table C9, DESNZ, 2023).’
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
It is being reported in the newspapers that Labour Minister Ed Milliand has abandoned plans to charge less for electricity in Scotland. This was reported as such in The Guardian newspaper.
However in the Daily Mail (the non so called ‘Scottish’ edition) they reported it as this:
“Ed Miliband ‘abandons zonal electricity pricing’ plan that would have charged people in southern England more for power than Scots” just so that we all know whose side they , the Daily Mail, are on i.e. not the “Scots” .
This is the same story as The Guardian but with a different pro English spin put upon it.
Unsurprising that The Telegraph also put the same pro English spin on this story as they reported “Ed Miliband has abandoned controversial plans to charge southern households more for electricity than those in the North”….
Meanwhile neither the Daily Mail or The Telegraph will concede that currently the place in the “North” as in where the “Scots” live is the country that is supplying approximately 2 million English homes with electricity via a large-scale subsea electricity cable to transmit renewable energy from Scotland to England.
Instead these English rags are trying to promote that the sweaty Jocks , who they as rags , often love to report as being those within the UK, as a nation , are those who are heavily subsidised by the UK, and who were, via via Zonal pricing, potentially going to gain yet ‘another’ benefit as in ‘cheaper electricity’. (which they as Scots see their own country Scotland produce in abundance).
This is where we in Scotland are already paying way more than the English for our electricity. (another fact that these two rags and other like them will ignore as it does not suit or fit their anglified agenda , which is to present Scotland as the poorest, neediest , weakest link and most -supposedly- subsidised people within their UK).
It seems to me that Labour’s GB Energy, which they reported was a way for them, as the new Labour UK government, to be able to get energy bills down is now clearly nothing but a damp squib of a Labour supposed ‘UK’ project, the GB Energy HQ may be located (tactically for political reasons) within Scotland but it has proven to be nowt but an empty gesture as there is no tangible benefits that have come to Scotland via reduced energy prices or jobs since Labour won the UK GE last July !
We did however see Ed Milliband many tweets in respect to reduced bills for various areas within England in places like Hospitals , Schools and Colleges , thanks to what he referred to as being a GB Energy projects …so the power and advantages lies only with regions within England in regards to GB Energy and not the place , Scotland, where it’s supposed HQ is based.
Who knew Scotland would be ignored by UK Labour ?
Well we all did on here (and others did too) and we also knew that after reading about GB Energy that it was just yet another Labour party initiative that was created as yet another opportunity for private investors to benefit from yet another Scottish resource , while the people of Scotland would see nowt of benefit from something that is yet another very valuable Scottish resource stolen to mostly benefit other areas in the UK (and too the UK government’s Treasury) that is sourced via our country, Scotland.
It was reported in March this year that:
“The boss of one of the UK’s biggest energy providers says people living in Scotland could have the cheapest electricity in Europe“.
“Greg Jackson, who founded Octopus Energy, wants the electricity market to be reformed to introduce zonal pricing“
“He argues that if prices were based on local generation, the high levels of renewable energy being produced in Scotland would keep bills low”
Now with what has been a backlash against Zonal pricing Labour are now said to have done yet another U Turn , as we cannot have the sweaty Jocks benefitting from something their own country, Scotland, produces, as the UK (mainly English media and politicians) will not condone this or indeed allow it and neither it seems will Labour either as the current UK government, hence the U-Turn.
(Had it been the opposite, as in England benefitting from reduced zonal pricing, then this U Turn and backlash would not have ever occurred as it would have been ‘all steam ahead’ ).
Liz S
LikeLiked by 4 people