Energy reality check (John Tulloch)

In the same week when the UK government was cracking down on energy costs with a price cap proposal, we had the extraordinary, simultaneous announcement that it will support – vicariously, via UK consumers’ pockets – island wind energy projects?
Viking Energy (VE) proponents are, needless to say, bursting with delight and while not wishing to pour cold water on their untold riches fantasy, a reality check is in order.
In a recent article on Lord Ian Duncan’s (Con.) gushing support for island renewables (, 22nd September and The Shetland Times 29th September), he was quoted as saying:
“What we’re trying to do is have islands defined as ‘islands off-shore’… which allows us to make a little bit of progress on that, in terms of the funding arrangements…”
He was alluding to the hitherto unsuccessful attempts to establish an “island strike price” (£115/MWh) that VE proponents claimed was essential to ensure viability.
As in the recent Tory election manifesto, he was vague about the precise nature of the promised support and on 23rd September, I posted the following questions below the online article:

1. “What size of cable is the UK government supporting?”
2. “Will the island strike price apply?”
3. “Will UK consumers pay for the grid connection?” Or,
4. “Will VE simply be allowed to enter the next offshore wind auction?”

We now have the answers:

1. The UK government has not committed to support any cable.
2. The island strike price will not apply.
3. There is no commitment to force English and Welsh consumers to subsidise the £1.017 billion grid connection.


4. VE will, simply, be allowed to enter the next round of UK offshore wind auctions.

The problem with this is that the winning bids in the last round came in at £57.50/MWh, half the price VE claims is essential for viability, even before the £1 billion grid interconnector is considered.
Ah but…, the government has pledged to commit £557 million in grants for “future projects”? Indeed – “free beer, tomorrow”, with the obvious, unstated condition that Scottish independence must first disappear from the political radar. Which it won’t.
Of course, given that Holyrood is so keen on promoting island renewables, an independent Scottish government will, no doubt, ensure that Scottish consumers/taxpayers fork out the same £557 million?
In a pig’s ear! Dream on.
Ultimately, all this will achieve will be the further steady drain of charitable trust funds into VE, financing continuing pursuit of a “Rainbow’s End” fantasy that recedes by precisely one step for each and every step taken towards it.
Meanwhile, expect the proposed 60MW cable to Caithness to be installed, Peel Energy’s Mossy Hill wind farm to be built and the Lerwick Power Station to close, at a cost to UK consumers of £376 million in additional, unnecessary subsidies.

John Tulloch


Add Your Comment
  • John Tulloch

    • October 26th, 2017 13:36

    The Daily Telegraph reports that Oxford professor Dieter Helm, commissioned by the UK government, has slammed ministers for making a series of “spectacularly bad” decisions that have caused consumers’ electricity bills to rise unnecessarily due to “excessive” green taxes and levies.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts green taxes will treble over the next 5 years, from £4.6 billion (2015-16) to £13.5 billion (2020-21), putting the total cost (to consumers) of decarbonisation at well over £100 billion by 2030.

    Prof Helm asserts, “much more decarbonisation could have been achieved for less; costs should be lower, and they should be falling further”.

    Greg Clark , the Business and Energy Secretary, reportedly said: “I am grateful to 
Professor Helm for his forensic examination. We will now carefully consider his findings.”

    I wonder then, will Mr Clarke permit a 60MW cable to be installed between Shetland and Caithness – instead of building a gas-fired power station – at a cost to UK consumers of nearly £400 million in additional, unnecessary subsidies?


Add Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

200 words left

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


Get Latest News in Your Inbox

Join the The Shetland Times mailing list to get one daily email update at midday on what's happening in Shetland.