Today the Hootsmon reports:
"SCOTTISH ministers are expected to confirm today that a controversial plan to build a major new power line through the heart of Scotland will finally go ahead. The 137-mile line – between Beauly in the Highlands and Denny, just outside Stirling – is considered essential..."
But a few days ago, as noted a couple of posts down, it was:
"the First Minister focuses specifically on the controversy over high transmission charges for renewables firms in Scotland. As they are based further away from the UK's main centres of population, they are charged more for access to the National Grid. Mr Salmond said the charges were "totally unfair and totally unacceptable"."
So the line is "essential", but the charges needed to raise the money to pay for it are "unfair" and "unacceptable".
Is it stupidity or hypocrisy?
The other curious thing is that I posted a comment very similar to this on the Hootsmon's story last night. Today it is gone, and the story is barred from comment.
What's happened?
Another example of Kevin Pringle's notorious touchiness where any criticism of The Immense One is concerned?
If I were a CyberNat, at this point I would be calling Pringle, Salmond, and all those involved at the Hootsmon rude names, possibly involving female genitalia.
But I'm not, because as a Unionist I'm too mature, sensible and dashed stylish for that.
Got it?
EDIT TO ADD:
I've been reminded that the original Scotsman story was by David Maddox, so the comment ban may simply reflect their policy of not allowing comments on his stories. (He upsets the CyberNats into making threats, exposing his home address, and so on, apparently.)
The other development is that as expected, the approval has been announced.
"Scottish Energy Minister Jim Mather... told parliament: "Scotland's electricity network needs significant reinforcement to allow our vast renewables potential to be harnessed, transmitted and exported.
"Currently, we simply do not have the transmission capacity to carry the green energy which Scotland will generate over the coming years."
The minister said the new line, which could cost up to £400m..."Yes Jim, I'm glad you've got it at last.
No, we don't have grid capacity for all this "green energy".
Yes, it is expensive to build it - £400m is a lot of money.
Where is that going to come from?
Might I suggest about 73% from electricity consumers and 27% from the generation projects which need the wires to be built?
Does that sound "unfair" and "unacceptable" to you?
If not, please go tell your boss.
9 comments:
I don,t know is this normal way the cost is spread out.If you could give some more information it would be helpful.
From previous post (http://nat-mythbusting.blogspot.com/2009/12/salmond-new-low-and-epic-fail.html):
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/252B0D45-0F60-4E6F-AE84-475997230E23/35221/UoSCMI5R1.pdf
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/8B87819C-F80C-450D-8AC3-B0C16F606F3C/31609/FinalTariffs2009_2010.xls
Oh dear!
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Legal-action-threat-over-.5968778.jp
you've had 300 odd years to get it right and still folornly trying.
They had electricity transmission charges 300 years ago?
Someone should have told Michael Faraday, it would have saved him a lot of trouble.
SSE think they're about to be hit in the pocket, which is why they are squealing.
No principles or politics involved at all.
I wonder if they've thought it through. They have 10.7 GW of capacity, 7 GW of which is in England.
If they forced Grid to use a flat (or at least flatter) pricing structure, then the bills for all their English plant would go up.
"is this normal way the cost is spread out."
Ofcourse it is (!), it's the good ol' unionist dividend where the north pays more than the south, 'cos it does'
Our intrepid author then goes on to postulate...
"They have 10.7 GW of capacity, 7 GW of which is in England. If they forced Grid to use a flat (or at least flatter) pricing structure, then the bills for all their English plant would go up."
Did you get that?
He is concerned that we'd ALL have to pay more, not just parts of the United Kingdom.
Such an intensely anti-scottish statement could only have been made by a nat in disguise - this Sm753 fellow, has anyone checked his credentials - he's obviously a raving cybernat in disguise to raise such points.
Otherwise, we have a unionist arguing that (sharp intake of breath) Scots should carry the burden for the UK's renewable / carbon cutting more than the rest of the UK, despite that energy being shipped south and the UK managing to achieve it's carbon reduction targets.
Yes, it's blindingly stupid.
If I were to rank this site on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say 4..... but onlt because I'm feeling pity.
"the good ol' unionist dividend where the north pays more than the south, 'cos it does'"
If you're capable of reading the post, yuo'll have worked out that while power stations in the north pay more, consumers in the north pay less.
Supply and demand. Locational incentives. No politics or "bias".
Got that?
"Did you get that?
He is concerned that we'd ALL have to pay more, not just parts of the United Kingdom."
No, moron.
The point is that SSE pay National Grid charges for all their plant.
7 GW out of their 10.7 GW total is in England.
If they were to use the courts to force Grid to flatten their charging strucure, they might reduce charges for their hydro plants and Peterhead in Scotland, but put them up for all their plant in England.
Because Grid still needs to raise the same total, see?
SSE could end up shooting themselves in the wallet, which would be pretty funny.
"Otherwise, we have a unionist arguing that (sharp intake of breath) Scots should carry the burden for the UK's renewable / carbon cutting more than the rest of the UK"
Wrong.
I am saying that the --->private companies<--- building wind farms in remote regions which require the grid to be extended should pay the bulk of the costs of that extension.
Which they can afford to, since they're going to make lots of lovely profits out of the things.
On the back of the large subsidies we consumers are paying for all this greenery.
My goodness, someone got out of the wrong side of bed this morning, no doubt with his union jack pj's back to front also.
Oops a daisy.
Happy New Year nonetheless
it now seems that a six-month consultation by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in London has concluded that connection charges should be levied evenly on all developers regardless of where they are located or the difficulty of connecting."
This seems to fly in the face of your argument, are you now arguing against the Scottish Government AND the UK Government?
You really should read up a bit more before posting, this kind of thing seems to happen regularly to you.
"No, moron."
I accept your heartfelt apology.
Post a Comment