Alan H wrote:
Scotland already produces about 40% of Scottish demand from renewables and that is set to increase. From a New Scientist article last month:
With all these measures on the table, Toke [of the University of Aberdeen] estimates that Scotland can meet its 100 per cent target by 2023 for less money than it would if it remained part of the UK.
There yer go, perhaps the economists and accounts are not always right?[/quote]
OTOH, maybe you should be thankful there are accountants and economists about!
Scotland may very well be able to meet its target for less money, but it will still have to subsidise it massively.
I can't remember the precise figures, or indeed to measures used, but it's the relative amounts which are important. According to Radio 4 this morning, (sorry, not sure which programme...) gas costs (IIRC) less than £60 per unit, the new nuclear power plant has been guaranteed £90 per unit (which is much higher than current bills to energy users), onshore wind, about £120 per unit, offshore wind about £130 per unit, and the proposed tidal generator over £160 per unit.
So let's take London, say. We could buy electricity from an independent Scotland, over 500 miles away, at £160 a unit, or from independent France, maybe 100 miles away, at less than £90 a unit, and still meet our targets for carbon generation.
OTOH, England could get fracking, reduce the cost of energy, divert the subsidy into scientific research, and beat its targets in a much more sustainable way than impoverishing millions and throwing tens of thousands out of work.