Cheaper electricity bills on the Way for Scotland?

[ProDave]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp91md1lj92o

 

Areas with more supply than demand (most of Scotland, certainly the Highlands) could get cheaper electricity pricing.

 

About time, for a long time we have been paying more, in spite of so much renewable generation here.

[saveasteading]

Moray has yet more power as of this week, none of it needed locally. Nearly all being sent Spouth. There should be a meter or 2 at some point between there and London.

"It's Scotlands wind".

 

Logically there is slightly less wind reaching the land.

 

news item.:

 

Moray West in the Moray Firth has 60 turbines each standing 257m (843ft) above the surface of the sea, making them the tallest turbines to be installed in UK waters according to the operator. 

 

 

Ocean Winds, the consortium operating the wind farm, said it would have capacity to generate up 882MW of electricity - enough power for 1.3 million households.

Edited April 24 by saveasteading

[JohnMo]

Don't think I will hold my breath for the change to actually happen.

[saveasteading]

It's a good thing. So much power available and so much better ecologically.  

 

But I do think it is a local resource and local people should be charged the real cost, and not the price based on gas.

 

 

[SteamyTea]

Why would a local generator sell at a lower rate to locals when they can supply at a higher rate nationally.

It is the same arguement with natural gas. 

[ProDave]

7 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Why would a local generator sell at a lower rate to locals when they can supply at a higher rate nationally.

It is the same arguement with natural gas. 

I would settle for not being charged extra.  At the moment. we in "remote" parts are charged MORE for our electricity due to distribution costs.  Back in the day when electricity came from a small number of big power stations and there were none of those up here, then you could just about follow the thought process that they had to build lots of long high voltage pylons to get the electricity to us.

 

But NOW more is generated here than we can possibly use and they are building more pylons to transport the power south.  So at the very least charge the cost of that to the users in the south and reduce our charge for being "remote"

[SteamyTea]

49 minutes ago, ProDave said:

would settle for not being charged extra.  At the moment. we in "remote" parts are charged MORE for our electricity due to distribution costs

Same down here.

Not as if the CCTV at Plymouth is that far away.

 

Think it was more to do with local infrastructure, rather than the bulk transport if power, which is very cheap.

 

We did get a 5p/litre reduction on transport fuel 'because we are so far away from a depot', but that vanished during COVID when fuel dropped to a quid a litre.

The fuel depot is in Plymouth. So only about 80 miles away.

Edited April 24 by SteamyTea

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

The fuel depot is in Plymouth. So only about 80 miles away.

Since Grangemouth stopped as a refinery, our fuel now must come from somewhere in England.  That is 300 miles or probably more to the nearest refinery to get our fuel.

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, ProDave said:

refinery

You may well find that there are still terminals and depots though.

A lot of fuel is delivered by underground pipework.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_oil_pipeline_network

 

Why I never got disturbed by fuel trucks much when I lived near Buncefield.  Eventhough it was a fuel truck that was involved in the explosion.

[LnP]

On 24/04/2025 at 16:36, SteamyTea said:

Why would a local generator sell at a lower rate to locals when they can supply at a higher rate nationally.

Perhaps because the regulator sets it up to work this way, since the context to the proposal is to help the UK achieve its net zero target. They want to incentivise renewable generation close to the demand to reduce the required changes to the grid. Beefing up the grid to get electricity from far away places is expensive and the pylons are politically difficult. 

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, LnP said:

Perhaps because the regulator sets it up to work this way

Yes.

There are a lot of complex interactions in the market.

Maybe it is too complicated and needs to be simplified to both encourage low emissions and a long term stable price.

Reducing generation emissions could be easily done by imposing a tonnes of CO₂/MWh tax.  The only contentious bit then is the price.

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

imposing a tonnes of CO₂/MWh tax

Isn't that already in place. Certainly been in place for over a decade offshore, so see no reason why it wouldn't be in place onshore.

[SteamyTea]

48 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Isn't that already in place. Certainly been in place for over a decade offshore, so see no reason why it wouldn't be in place onshore.

I think it is for the generation companies, but really needs to be at the consumer level.

As we all know, deep down, we are not really paying enough, or changing habits enough, to affect the environment in a positive manner.

[Mattg4321]

Won't be holding my breath for anyones price to come down. More likely some pay the same and some pay more.

[LnP]

3 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

I think it is for the generation companies, but really needs to be at the consumer level.

As we all know, deep down, we are not really paying enough, or changing habits enough, to affect the environment in a positive manner.

Generators already have to buy, trade and surrender carbon credits through the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. At the consumer level, you're talking about a carbon tax and you're right, a lot of economists think it's the right way to incentivise reducing carbon emissions. Unfortunately it's politically difficult. Canada used to have one and it was very unpopular. The first thing Mark Carney did when he became prime minister was to ditch it. Pity.

[Mattg4321]

Ah yes, no self respecting religion will be taken seriously without a good dose of self flagellation!