Latest news with #ScotWind
BBC News
13 hours ago
- Business
- BBC News
Why does Donald Trump hate wind turbines?
"I am the evidence," was the eyebrow-raising comment made by Donald Trump when he appeared before the Scottish Parliament in was speaking as an "expert" witness on green energy targets, describing how he believed wind turbines were damaging tourism in Scotland. Five years before he first became US president, it was one of his earliest interventions on renewable energy - but since then his opposition to them has grown to become government policy in the world's biggest was objecting to 11 turbines which were planned - and ultimately constructed - alongside his Aberdeenshire golf his latest visit to Scotland, he described those turbines as "some of the ugliest you've ever seen". When Trump bought the Menie estate, about eight miles north of Aberdeen, in 2006, he promised to create the "world's greatest" golf course. But he soon became infuriated at plans to construct an offshore wind farm nearby, arguing that the "windmills" - as he prefers to call the structures - would ruin the view. The Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm contained the world's most powerful turbines when they were built in generate enough electricity to supply up to 80,000 homes but the wind farm was also built as a test and demonstration facility for new battled the plans through the Scottish courts, then appealed to the UK's Supreme Court - but he was unable to stop the "monsters" from going clearly left him smarting and he's not had a good word to say about wind power making the transatlantic crossing for his Scottish summer jaunt, the US president urged the UK to "get rid of the windmills and bring back the oil".He repeated his animosity on the tarmac of Glasgow Prestwick Airport, saying they were "ruining" Europe's fields and valleys. For clarity, there are no windmills in the North Sea. Windmills mill grain into flour. What he's seeing are wind making them sound like centuries old technology is a way to deride their rid of them - or even stopping more being built - would be at a huge cost to the initiative to lease the seabed around Scotland's coasts, called ScotWind, gave initial backing to 17 new wind farms - which has now been expanded to them, they're expected to bring in about £30bn of investment over the next onshore projects produce about four times as much power as offshore ones, but it's the latter which are expected to grow most rapidly in the coming decades. The Scottish government is currently consulting on plans to increase offshore generation capacity by 40GW by 2040, enough to power 45 million homes. The growing renewables sector already supports about 42,000 jobs in Scotland while oil and gas supports 84,000, according to the their respective industry while the renewables jobs are going up, the workforce built on fossil fuels has long been North Sea oil boom peaked in 1999 which means output has been in decline for a quarter of a not because of any government policy; that decline has been witnessed by three Labour prime ministers and five from the because of geology. Put simply, the oil is running out. The mature nature of the North Sea basin has not put off the president from talking up its his Aberdeenshire course, he posted on Truth Social (with his trademark capital letters) that the UK should "incentivize the drillers, FAST", and that there was "VAST FORTUNE TO BE MADE" for the UK from the "treasure chest" of has criticised the UK's taxes on oil and gas production which sees a headline rate of 78% when you include the temporary "windfall" tax, in force until that's the same rate levied by Norway, which shares the North Sea with the UK - although the industry here argues other Norwegian allowances are more rates for oil and gas production in the US are much lower – with a 21% federal tax and generous tax breaks, although some state or local taxes are also levied. Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill", meanwhile, removes incentives for renewable energy projects. Is Trump right when he says wind farms are killing birds? The president has also expressed great concern for the impact of wind farms on birds which, he says, they are the prime minister by his side, he told a news conference at his Turnberry golf course that shooting a bald eagle in the US could result in five years' imprisonment but the windfarms are "killing hundreds."He added: "They kill all your birds."While there is limited solid research into the impact of wind turbines on birds, a significant two-year study was carried out on the very site in Aberdeenshire which Donald Trump tried to were attached to the towers which detected and tracked birds passing through the site and, according to the developers, it didn't record a single bird research was carried out with the British Trust for Ornithology but further research is being undertaken across the globe to better understand how the birds respond to the its outcomes, it's unlikely to change the president's mind that wind is a "very expensive, very ugly energy".
The Herald Scotland
20-07-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
What has Scotland gained from having voted in 37 Labour MPs?
It's also the case that, by rejecting out of hand the Octopus Energy proposal of seven or eight "zones" for electricity, the Labour Government is ensuring that Scotland's economy will be more depressed than needs to be the case. Had zonal pricing gone ahead, there would have been a boost in economic activity for Scotland, with energy-hungry business operations looking to relocate, or to expand, their business in Scotland to benefit from the lower price of electricity. Our NHS and public services, hospitality sectors, and every other business would have benefited instantly. Across Dumfries and Galloway we previously sent Tory MPs to London to do their bit for Scotland in government but, instead, we got Brexit. And that despite Scotland voting 62% Remain in the EU. And now we have Labour in Westminster failing to as much as rejoin the European Economic Area with a single market) with the resultant loss of freedom of movement for people both ways; nor the customs union to facilitate the movement of trade and services. The question must surely now be: "What is the benefit to Scotland of being a part of this UK that is so much against what the people of Scotland want and need?" Ian Waugh, Dumfries & Galloway Indy Hub, Dumfries. SNP's wise policy on offshore wind Jill Stephenson (Letters, July 13) claims that the Scottish Government does not own any energy sources for wind generation and that these are actually the property of private companies. Is this the same Jill Stephenson who berated the Scottish Government three years ago for selling wind farm seabed licences at a much lower price as compared to Westminster? How do you auction off something you do not own? As regards the efficacy of that decision, it is perhaps worth noting a January 2022 article in the industry magazine WindEurope which commented as follows: 'The Crown Estate Scotland has announced the results of the 'ScotWind' seabed tender. They auctioned 8,600 km² of sea space which could host almost 25 GW of offshore wind. 17 projects won. With 15 GW most of the capacity that will now be developed to be floating offshore wind, the system the Scots have used for awarding seabed leases ensures the new offshore wind farms will be delivered at the lowest cost for taxpayers. "The option fees are much lower than in the UK's recent Offshore Wind Lease Round 4. Scotland chose a more sensible tender design with a maximum price ceiling of £100,000/km². This has avoided bidding at very high prices – which keeps the costs of offshore wind low for consumers. As seabed leasing costs are usually passed on to the electricity consumer, a price ceiling ensures that new offshore wind volumes are also delivered at the lowest cost for consumers." A business ceases to become commercially viable when its customers can no longer afford to buy its products. So keeping that price as low as possible becomes a pre-requisite for any energy policy. However Westminster has not only ignored that logic but has transferred the high prices it charged for its licences onto Scottish consumers. This has led to a number of businesses in Scotland closing as rising energy costs have made them uneconomic. How could any Scottish Government create a viable business in these circumstances? Robert Menzies, Falkirk. Read more letters We need a vote on Holyrood The cost of running Holyrood is spiralling out of control. With a total budget of over £41 billion it is questionable if Scotland really needs this expensive additional layer of government. The previous system before Holyrood was established was to have a Secretary of State for Scotland with a small team of Scottish civil servants running Scotland very efficiently at a fraction of the cost of Holyrood. There is growing support for having a referendum in Scotland to consider closing Holyrood and reverting to the old system, thereby saving billions. Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen. A disregard for human life Thank you so much for printing Denis Bruce's letter (July 13) regarding the statements of Lily Allen and Miquita Oliver on how much they are relishing their easy access to abortions, and how exciting an experience it is, totally disregarding the fact that for every abortion they have had, they have taken a human life, and all those involved in the process are now conditioned into seeing this as a service and part of the rights of any mother. Is that the road we are going down? Once this disregard for human life seeps out into all other avenues of what is acceptable, living in such a society for future generations looks very bleak indeed. Respect for human life is at the very centre of a civilised society. If this bill to decriminalise abortion, which is not yet passed, and still has to go to the House of Lords, could be stopped in its tracks, a great many people around the country, not just Denis Bruce, would be very relieved indeed. Let us learn from those countries who chose to go down that route some years ago and are now living to regret it. I never thought I would live to see the day when a mother could legally take the life of a baby about to be born. God help us all. Nancy Gilfedder, Glasgow. Am I worthy of preservation? "Every human has immeasurable value" asserted several distinguished academics (Letters, July 6) in response to the question of the merit of human life, otherwise "we descend into a jungle of barbarity". Indeed. In making their case, they cited various debates in society currently querying the sanctity of life but, frankly, they had plenty to choose from. An embarrassment of riches stretched out before them in that respect. We seem surrounded by politicians and commentators, expert on price but conspicuously poorly advised on value. Nowhere more so than upon the issue of welfare reform. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was literally brought to tears during a discussion on the theme (though, we were assured, for wholly unrelated reasons, and that the source of her obvious distress was "a personal matter"). As someone who has relied on benefits for many years, I consider myself a dab hand at budgeting. I have to be. When the sums do not add up, I am not afforded any claim to personal matters. Were I to tender such emotion, the barbarians around me would have a field day at my expense. So what are we worth? And whom amongst us should we prioritise for preservation? The aforementioned academics argued that the calculation is immeasurable. But someone will measure it. They always do. With or without hankies. Archie Beaton, Inverness. Has the Scottish Government got it right on offshore wind? (Image: PA) Crack down on charities This Government is spending, or should that be wasting, money like water and taxes are increasing and increasing. Cuts must be made. What about starting with charities? There are 200,000 charities in the UK. For the tax year to April 2025 the tax relief for these charities and their donors totalled £6.7 billion. Yes, billion not million. That is £6.7bn less to spend on where it is more needed. The Government should be more critical in allowing new charities and challenging existing charities with a view to reducing the numbers to see where savings can be made and whether they are still in the public interest. Just think what could be done with a 10 per cent saving. Top of the hit list should be the 1,717 migrant charities (up from the 2020 level of 1,104) which play a dominant role in preventing the deportations of migrants who had no right to remain in the UK. Clark Cross, Linlithgow. UK is at war with Russia Of course the latest Russian drone attacks on Ukraine should be condemned ("Zelenskyy's plea as Ukraine is bombarded", July 13), but let's not forget that Russia proper is being attacked with UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles, meaning the UK is effectively at war with Russia (that Brits aren't firing them is immaterial). Given the increasing importance of cyber warfare, Keir Starmer (who recently told us to prepare for war) is risking attacks on UK infrastructure. If the coming winter is marked by regular power cuts, with hospitals having to run on generators, we'll know who was stupid enough to up the ante. George Morton, Rosyth. Hypocrisy over Trump I see that the usual suspects are lining up to protest at the forthcoming visit of President Trump – left-wingers, the Greens and the SNP. Not that long ago, there was a visit from the Chinese leader, head of an odious government, with very few of the above turning out to protest. Why not? William Ballantine, Bo'ness.
The National
20-07-2025
- Business
- The National
Open letter to First Minister on the future for our energy needs
The UK is running away from the hard choices on energy. Its dismissal of ideas like zonal pricing – currently the only scheme yet presented that would allow the UK to maximise renewable energy generation, minimise infrastructure costs like pylons and to reduce fuel poverty while giving communities more incentive to take control of their own local energy generation – has been rightly criticised by you last week in a statement where you called out the UK for not doing enough on energy policy. It was concerning to note, though, that your critique wasn't backed up by much on what you want the UK to actually do instead. Even as you complained about the UK 'ruling out all options to bring down energy bills' by abandoning zonal pricing, I'm not clear if you support it or would bring it in if you had the power to do so. We all know that Scotland's devolved powers in energy are limited and that, right now, you couldn't do something like this, but also missing from your critique was what you plan to do with the powers you do have. Scotland's own devolved energy strategy has been woefully lacking in recent years – from the sell-off of ScotWind at bargain basement prices, through dropping climate targets that were designed to push action ever forwards, to flogging off (sorry, 'encouraging foreign direct investment in') every piece of our renewable energy sector to multinational companies and foreign public energy companies to ensure that everyone in the world can profit from Scotland's energy except us. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: 'Clearances' are not inevitable if the Highlands get investment We can take another path, though. Scotland must ensure that we own our own renewable energy future and the way to do that is by bringing it into public ownership. Here are several ways that you could do it. 1) A National Energy Company This is what most of us think of when we think about 'Scottish public energy', and it's the model that the Welsh Government adopted under the name Ynni Cymru. This is a single national company, owned by the Scottish Government or by Scottish ministers (similar to Scottish Water), that would own, generate and sell energy to consumers. There is a snag to this plan in that the Scotland Act currently prohibits the Scottish Government from 'owning, generating, transmitting or storing' electricity, so if we want the National Energy Company to be based around supplying electricity, then the first thing that the Scottish Government could be doing is mounting a pressure campaign to amend the Act – it puts Scotland in the ridiculous position that it's legal for the Welsh Government to own a wind turbine in Scotland but not the Scottish Government. Until that campaign is successful, there is something you can do. The Act quite specifically bans your Government from owning electricity generators. It does not ban other forms of energy. A National Heat Company based around deploying district heat networks could supply all but the most remote of Scottish households. While this would be a large infrastructure project, it wouldn't be larger than the one required to build the electricity pylons we need if we're going to electrify heat instead and the pipes would have the advantage of being underground and out of sight while ultimately providing heat to homes in a cheap, more efficient and ultimately more future-proof way that the current setup of asking people to buy heat pumps and just hoping that the grid can cope with the demand. 2) Local Electricity Companies So, First Minister, let's say that you're not a fan of campaigning for the devolution of more powers and really want Scotland to be generating electricity. You can't create a National Electricity Company but you can encourage local authorities to set up their own Local Electricity Company. Conceivably, the 32 councils could even jointly own one National Electricity Company – the Scotland Act merely bans the Scottish Government from owning the company. In many ways, this would be an even better idea than the Scottish Government doing it. Government borrowing powers are far too limited and you'd need to campaign for more borrowing powers to get the scale of action required to build the infrastructure we need – but councils have a trick up their sleeves. They are allowed to borrow basically as much money as they like so long as the investment the borrowing allows brings in enough of a return to pay back the loan. This is very likely how Shetland Council will finance its plan to connect the islands via tunnels – the construction would be paid for via tolls on traffic. Energy, as we know, is very profitable indeed so there should be absolutely no issue with councils being able to pay back their loans and then to use the revenue from their energy generation to subsidise local households against fuel poverty and to support public services. If we want to go even more local than this, then councils and perhaps the Scottish National Investment Bank could support communities to own their own energy. We've seen multiple times that community ownership generates many times as much local wealth building – as well as skills and jobs - than the current model of private ownership plus paltry 'community benefit funds'. 3) A National Mutual Energy Company This is another national-scale energy company that the Scottish Government could launch but in this case wouldn't own or control. Instead, the 'National Mutual' would be owned by the people of Scotland. In this model, every adult resident of Scotland would be issued one share in the company. They wouldn't be able to sell it and they'd have to surrender it if they ever stop living in Scotland, but other than this, it would be much like owning a share in companies like Co-op. The company would be run as any other commercial company and would be beholden not to the Government but to its shareholders – us. We'd jointly decide future energy strategy and even potentially have a say in how much of the company's operating surpluses are invested in future developments or distributed to shareholders (again, us) as a dividend. READ MORE: The Chancellor's words don't line up with her actions This model would be particularly suited to very large energy developments that cut across local authority or even national borders or to help develop offshore assets. Imagine ScotWind had been owned by the people of Scotland, instead of being flogged off to multinational companies in an auction that had a maximum bidding price attached. Conclusion First Minister, I applaud you for keeping up some sense of pressure on the UK Government on energy. As we make the necessary transitions required of us under our obligations to end the climate emergency, this is one of the sectors of Scotland that will change the most. It's vital that we get this transition right, or not only will Scotland see yet another generation of energy potential squandered in the same way that the coal and oil eras were, we'll see Scottish households bear the weight of others profiting from that transition while we still experience crushing levels of poverty and economic vulnerability. The UK Government may be ruling out all of their options on energy but that doesn't mean that you need to do the same. We don't need to wait until independence – as vital as it is – or to wait until Westminster gets its act together – which may or may not happen. We – you – have options too. It's time to take them. Yours, expectantly …
The Herald Scotland
10-07-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Methil fabrication yard boss reveals why he is staying
In an exclusive interview with The Herald, he said: 'I've stayed with this yard through all sorts of troubles and I'm staying with it now because of the fact that I can see the potential for the success of the yard becoming what it used to be and what it should be again.' He highlighted the scale of offshore wind development and the work being generated by this. Mr Smith said: 'I think that within Scotland there are probably two or three key companies, key facilities, that will be used to support ScotWind and the various other programmes. We always speak to each other. We are not looking at how we can beat each other, we are actually looking at how we collaborate, we are looking at how we can put forward a Scotland plc, a UK plc in order to make sure that the UK economy and what is left of the UK fabrication industry actually benefits from this because all of this work is right on our doorstep. Read more 'There is potentially…I would hazard a guess, when you look at the amount of work that is out there, I would say 20 years-plus worth of work that is sitting out there, and I think that will continue to grow. I really genuinely see Scotland playing a big part in this. It has to. The reality is it has to.' Mr Smith highlighted the scale of the investment being made in the yard by Navantia. Abel Mendez Diaz, commercial director of Navantia's Seanergies business, said of the Methil site: 'The yard at the moment as it currently stands is capable of executing any project we are now bidding for. Any additional investment will be to adapt the characteristics of the yard to the particulars of such a project, but this is very project-specific… 'There is a minimum that has to be met and, at the moment, Methil as it currently stands is perfectly fit to execute any project.' Asked how the Methil yard compared with his perception of it before it was acquired by Navantia, Mr Mendez Diaz replied: 'I have always been aware of the capacities of Methil because we were competitors in the past. We lost projects against Methil. I was very happy to be able to offer the capacities of Methil now under the Navantia portfolio.' He added: 'When I visited the place I was surprised in a way because I didn't know about the capacities regarding substations for example. I only knew about the developments made in the recent years in jacket foundations but I realised that the yard was capable of much more.'
Scotsman
04-07-2025
- Business
- Scotsman
ScotWind: Mingyang Smart Energy wind power project creates double-edged dilemma over security
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... When the West of Orkney Wind Farm received planning permission from the Scottish Government last month, it was a rare bright spot for a sector that's been bruised by global economic headwinds and domestic regulatory uncertainty for over a year. The decision marks a key step forward in the project's plan for 125 wind turbines to be fixed to the seabed about 30 kilometres west of the Orkney mainland, allowing the generation of enough electricity to power two million homes. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It also makes West of Orkney the first of 20 wind farms – collectively known as ScotWind – to be given such consent since Crown Estate Scotland awarded options to develop seabed acreage in the North Sea in 2022. The granting of onshore consent is a significant planning milestone for the Muir Mhòr Offshore Wind Farm project. Yet while the decision will be welcomed by the project's backers – TotalEnergies of France, Renewables Infrastructure Development Group of the UK, and Corio Generation, part of Australia's Macquarie – the mood among most of the other ScotWind developers is anxious. That's because, a thousand miles away in London, consent of a different kind is pending that has greater consequences for the future of ScotWind. Westminster has for months been grappling with whether to allow a Chinese wind turbine manufacturer, Mingyang Smart Energy, to build a wind turbine blade factory in the Inverness area. The deliberations have widened to whether the Chinese company's kit should be used in the UK's offshore wind supply chain at all. The case in favour is economically compelling. Mingyang, like many businesses in China's green tech juggernaut, produces turbines more cheaply than its European rivals. Mingyang's factory would also create hundreds of green jobs in the North-east of Scotland. Small wonder that Holyrood has earmarked £30 million for the project. The investment from Mingyang would be around £120m, attractive for Labour as it tries to attract foreign investment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The case against boils down to two issues: perceived security threats to the UK's critical national energy infrastructure and supply chain dependency. An aerial view shows wind turbine blades stored on the quayside ready for shipping at the Siemens Gamesa blade factory in Hull. Picture: Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images Concerns have been raised by MPs including Andrew Bowie, Nick Timothy, Christine Jardine and Harriet Cross that because the operational software embedded in a turbine remains in the control of the manufacturer after installation, the risk exists that a wind farm using Chinese turbines could be switched off, causing damage to downstream transmission and grid. Cyber espionage is another worry. Germany has already raised a red flag. A paper commissioned from the German Institute for Defence and Strategic Studies by the country's defence ministry this year said that the Waterkant wind farm off the German coast should not go ahead on the grounds of public safety, citing planned use of Chinese wind turbines. For anyone who still thinks this is far-fetched, it's worth reading two recently published government policy documents that lay out the stark geopolitical reality of our times. China is assessed in the Strategic Defence Review as a 'sophisticated and persistent challenge', while the National Security Strategy says: 'Economic coercion will become more common as other states weaponise trade or use export controls and supply chain dependencies to gain advantage." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Dependency stems from the fact that more than 60 per cent of ScotWind's wind farms are designed to be floating units in deep waters, unlike the fixed bottom technology used by West of Orkney. Mingyang specialises in floating turbines. The only other manufacturers in the game, Vestas and Siemens-Gamesa, are too financially constrained to develop floating turbines at scale any time soon. They are also busy fulfilling existing orders for fixed-bottom projects. This means that, without Mingyang, much of ScotWind is less likely to materialise, jeopardising the UK's overall offshore wind targets. The government now finds itself on the horns of a geopolitical dilemma. Sir Keir Starmer, on whose desk the Mingyang decision likely now sits, must now navigate between the White House's antipathy towards wind power – expressed yesterday in the gutting of Biden-era tax credits for wind and solar in Trump's 'big beautiful bill' – and China's desire to expand its wind power champions in Europe. Tension flared last month when China's embassy in London slammed as 'groundless' any 'so-called security concerns' over the use of Chinese wind equipment in the UK's energy infrastructure. This came after a report that Washington had warned London about national security risks associated with allowing Mingyang to build a plant in the UK. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The dilemma is complicated by the fact that another Scottish offshore wind project, Green Volt, backed by Eni of Italy and Tokyo Electric Power Company, reportedly intends to use Mingyang turbines. It was the only successful bidder from Scotland at the last government auction that allocates offtake prices, meaning it is well advanced. Allowing Mingyang in with technical and legal safeguards would be one option. Another would be to incentivise Vestas and Siemens-Gamesa to ramp up floating wind turbine technology, providing more flexibility to developers. I understand one measure under consideration is sweetening the terms of the next auction to make it more viable to incorporate Siemens-Gamesa turbines in project plans. Germany might also look at channelling some of the up to €1 trillion recently approved as part of relaxing the 'debt brake' to upgrade its military and infrastructure for its own offshore wind champion, Siemens-Gamesa.
