Didn't know about that one.

I note that the successful argument was based on the imagined impact to the tourism industry, rather than the visual effect per se.

> Doubly so now electricity prices are through the roof.

Electricity prices would still be through the roof. The prices are all set on the international markets.

> Electricity prices would still be through the roof. The prices are all set on the international markets.

Only to the extent that electricity can be imported and exported via international connectors, which are of course limited in their capacity.

Prices are not set internationally, but domestically. Energy is not a tangible, stored commodity like coal which is internationally priced.

If what you said was true then America's electricity would be priced the same as Europe's, whereas it is way cheaper.

Therefore building out additional electricity production in the UK could well lower prices, depending on matching of demand and supply, agreed prices in contracts, length of contracts, etc, and of course whether additional connectors are deployed.

Gas prices are a big component of electricity prices at the moment and they are mostly imported.

There's actually a similar but much more widespread talking point about gas, claiming the price of that is set on the international market and therefore the UK producing more gas locally would not help reduce prices. That should come with the exact same caveats (only to the extent that it can be imported and exported, American prices are much cheaper for Europe's because of this, and that's likely a big reason why electricity prices are much lower there) but the mainstream media unfortunately ignores them.

There is also a caveat that any cost savings from locality may be wiped out by higher costs in other areas. It may well be cheaper to invest in the US or Middle East and import as LPG. Transport costs are only one factor. And it is not like domestic supply would have no transport costs either. Running pipelines through rural England to fracking sites is not exactly cheap.

It depends who owns the energy production. If the government keeps a stake then they can use the additional profits to shield consumers from prices.

Scotland has one of the biggest gas fields in Europe, why should it rely on ugly and unreliable Wind turbines? Esp Global Warming probably makes Scotland's climate more comfortable, and its proximity to Greenland means sea levels might even fall.

I am Scottish and I would be proud if all our energy needs were met by non-polluting and abundant resources such as wind and tide.

Even if you didn’t believe in man-made global warming, surely the idea of cleaner Scottish air would be a bonus.

They already are. Scotland has hit 100% renewable energy already on a few days.

This is false.

https://fullfact.org/environment/scotland-renewable-energy/

No, it’s not false, that article takes a deliberately obtuse definition and uses it to debunk something which wasn’t claimed.

Clearly due to the nature of grids and shared generation nobody can guarantee that all electrons used came from wind power (nor does anyone care!?!) but Scotland is an exporter of energy and at times its entire needs could be met from its renewable generation.

Not sure which part of Scotland producing lots of renewable energy you find difficult to cope with, but renewable production is here to stay, cheaper than other sources and a growing part of the mix.

Our economies are linked, so even from a selfish perspective, the effects of global warming will felt even in places where the weather doesn't directly cause problems. If the effects of climate change get bad, we are likely to see widespread war.

How are wind turbines uglier than gas platforms?