Latest news with #SeventhCarbonBudget
The Herald Scotland
12 hours ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Does Scotland really need more offshore wind farms?
Often critics will say there are already enough onshore wind, but what does that mean? And is that really seen in the figures? The claims are examined here, as well as key issues like constraint payments and why so many of the UK's onshore wind farms are in Scotland. Claim: Scotland is already producing more electricity than it needs Yes. Electricity transfers data show that Scotland exported 21.0 TWh of electricity and imported 1.3 TWh of electricity in 2024. This means that Scotland's net exports of electricity (exports minus imports) in 2024 was 19.7 TWh. In 2024, Scotland generated a record 38.4 terawatt hours (TWh) of renewable electricity, suggesting that it exported around half. Claim: Scotland already has enough onshore wind capacity to meet its total electricity 2050 demand. Currently, according to DESNZ, Scotland has an onshore wind capacity of 10GW, and a gross peak demand of 4GW. However, NESO, in its Ten Year Statement estimates gross peak demand for Scotland in 2050 at between 8.5GW and 11GW depending on what degree of electrification takes place. 'Over the next 10 years,' it says, 'rapid growth in renewable -generated electricity in Scotland will mainly be attributed to offshore wind. This will cause far greater power transfer requirements across the Scottish boundaries, increasing the network reinforcement needs in some areas. Generation capacity in Scotland heavily exceeds demand, thus Scotland will be expected to export power into the rest of Great Britain most of the time except during periods of prolonged low wind, where the reverse may occur.' Graph of Scotland's gross electricity demand from NESO's Ten Year Statement (Image: NESO) However, in a renewable system, where generation is intermittent, capacity needs to be significantly higher than peak demand. Since there are, as yet, no target figures for Scotland's wind generation for 2050 – though overall, according to the Climate Change Committee's Seventh Carbon Budget, UK is aiming for 125GW offshore wind, 27GW onshore wind and 106GW solar- it's hard to know by how much Scotland is likely to exceed its own demand. Claim: Scotland already has enough wind consented and in planning for 2030 or 2035 One Caithness-bsed campaigner who has looked at the figures, is Kathrin Haltiner, who says, 'For the whole of Scotland for 2030 and even to 2035, what is already in the planning system, without any scoping applications, is more than enough to reach these caps and these caps are important because anything that goes over these caps is not going to help with net zero.' In a recent analysis she writes about the North of Scotland, noting that the Clean Power Action Plan 'caps onshore wind farm development for North Scotland at 9GW for 2030 and only adds a very small capacity increase for the whole of Scotland until 2035. Clearly SSEN's ambitions are oversized.' 'North Scotland already has 6.3GW of additional onshore wind farm capacity in the pipeline: 0.2GW under construction, 3.2GW consented and awaiting construction, and 2.9GW in planning (excluding projects only at scoping stage). "Together with the already built 3.8GW the potential capacity in North Scotland is 10.1GW, that is 1.1GW over the capacity advised in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. This means consents can be given more selectively from now on. The urgency used as an argument from developers to get a consent does not hold up anymore.' Do these figures stack up? What is current onshore wind capacity According to DESNZ, at the end of last year Scotland had an installed onshore wind capacity of 10.3GW of onshore wind. Haltiner came up with a slightly different figure when she added up all the operational capacity in the Renewable Energy Projects Database, making 9.4GW. This is also the figure I got when I did the same calculation. How much more is already in the process of being built? While recent official totals haven't been published, it is possible to total up the projects categorised as under construction on the Renewable Energy Planning Database, giving a figure for onshore wind under construction in Scotland of 1.7GW. A further list of projects consented to, but awaiting construction, totals 5.4GW. All together that's 7.1GW already underway. What about projects that are already in the planning process? Again, data in the REPD gives us an idea of what is a live planning application, as well as those projects that have been abandoned, refused or withdrawn. Kathrin Haltiner has totalled these up to 8.1GW. How does this compare with the cap for Scotland for electricity generation for 2030? The Clean Energy Action Plan, in its update on its annex, states that Scotland, as whole, has a cap for electricity generation for 2030 of 20.5GW. This is a massive leap from the current estimate of 10.3GW, and even more from the 9.4GW in the REPD. But are we nevertheless, as Kathrin Haltiner, suggests already in danger of exceeding it? According to Haltiner's calculations, if we add already operational wind to all the wind farms already under construction and consented to is, for the North of Scotland, 1.1GW greater than the sum of all onshore wind projects that are operational, in construction, consented to and in the planning system. For South of Scotland, the equivalent total is 2.5GW more than the 11.5GW cap. But the question remains, how many of those projects will make it through planning and become final operational projects? Another way of looking at it is that if, across Scotland, we already have 16.5GW already in operation, in construction or consented to, leaving only 4GW still to take up. But there are actually twice as many (8.1GW) of projects sitting in the planning system and not all of those can happen. Of course, some of those may, in any case, be withdrawn, some projects will be abandoned, others reduced, and some, even from the list of projects awaiting construction may not even happen. Others may not happen within the timeframe. Does that mean we are set to have much onshore wind for current caps? No, but in the unlikely event that every project that is sitting in planning were to be built Scotland would significantly exceed its cap. These figures suggest that only half of these projects can happen. Is it a reason to slow down? Not according to Scottish Renewables. Their director of onshore, Morag Watson put it this way, with different but similar figures - actually suggesting that even less of the projects currently in planning will be needed by 2030, but noting the need for continued urgency. 'Scotland has to increase its onshore wind capacity from 10GW to 20GW in about five years. In Scotland at the moment in the pipeline of projects that are consented but not yet built, we have 7.5 GW. So we need everything in the pipeline and just over 2 GW more. So this idea we have too much wind already is just not borne out by the strategic plans.' She also points out that the process of going through scoping, planning and constructing a wind farm can be long. 'Viking windfarm on Shetland, that was a 15 year process to make the needs case for that. Renewable projects can wait up to ten years for a grid connection and you only get a connection to the grid when it's needed.' 'A project can go through the planning system, but just because they have planning permission doesn't mean they are about to get built and connected to the grid. Post planning they'll get a grid connection date and they will work to that grid connection date as to when they start building.' Mostly Watson notes, the strategy up till 2030 is about reducing our dependency on gas, which is not only responsible for significant carbon emissions, but also, through its high price, drives up electricity bills. By 2030, the goal is to reduce the amount of gas used to generate electricity down to about 5% on the system. She says: 'At the moment it's about taking the gas and other fossil fuel generation off the system – replacing it with renewables because they are cheaper and more reliable in terms of pricings that you pay. ' Is there also enough in the pipeline for 2035? 'Post 2030,' Morag Watson explains, 'what we start to see is the electrification of transport and heat really accelerating. That's when you see electricity demand really grow." The next milestone and cap along the way is 2035, and what's striking is how little more capacity – just 700MW – is being allocated to Scotland over that period. This is a tiny fraction of what Scotland has already built and is set to achieve in the next five years. Scotland's offshore wind industry has already flagged that up as a problem. A group of 13 developers signed an open letter to UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband amid concerns of a 'de-facto ban' on Scottish onshore wind post-2030. Earlier this year a group of In the letter, they stated: 'Currently, the cap in the Plan will allow only 700MW of additional Scottish onshore wind capacity to connect between 2031 and 2035. 'This would result in a decrease in the rate of installations allowed after 2030 of over 90%, and amounts to a de-facto ban on Scottish onshore wind post-2030. What anti-wind farm campaigners see as ammunition for the argument that less windfarms should be consented, the industry itself is seeing as a threat, and reason to push for more capacity – but that capacity is determined by the grid, and therefore. Claim: Scotland is already doing more than its fair share of onshore wind Last year, Scotland, according to RenewablesUK, was operating 63% of the UK's onshore wind capacity. By 2030 Scotland will be producing 20.5GW of power, well over two thirds of the onshore wind generation in the UK, which is set at 27-29GW. As this map shows, Scotland is doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to onshore wind. Partly this is because previously England had a de facto ban on onshore wind developments. But there are, as Morag Watson told me, other factors that feed in to why Scotland, in any case, is getting most of the wind. 'The reason for this is you can only put onshore wind where the wind consistently blows at 7ms or faster and there are chunks of England where that doesn't happen. You cannot build a wind turbine within 800m of someone's home, or with the bigger turbines, within 1km of someone's home. "So if you take a map of the UK and take out everywhere where the wind is less than 7 m/s and then take out everywhere where you're within 800 m of someone's home, and then remove National Parks and national scenic areas, where you also cannot build wind, and again is why you don't see onshore wind predominantly down the west coast an central of Scotland, the only places you can build onshore wind are these parts of Scotland and mid Wales. This is why Scotland does do the heavy lifting on onshore wind.' But, she notes, England is doing most of the heavy lifting on solar. Unsurprisingly, the south of England, where the sun is stronger, is also where there are more solar developments. Why are wind farms so concentrated in the North East and Lanarkshire? Wind farms tend to be where the grid is, so they can connect to them – and hence pattern of distribution across Scotland follows those powerlines. There is very little transmission infrastructure down the west coast of Scotland, which means relatively few turbines there. It's often said that onshore wind developments in rural areas of Scotland are producing electricity for the cities to the south and England. But Morag Watson says, 'What is being built onshore in Scotland, is mostly what Scotland needs.' The overhead powerline system, she points out, is not just about delivering energy to the south, but also about sending off connections along the way to power homes and transport in the areas the lines pass through. Claim: Constraint payments are already costing millions and only going to rise – suggesting there is already too much onshore wind A report published earlier this year by the Renewable Energy Foundation found that wind farm constraints continue to rise, both in total volume and in cost. In 2024 the consumer paid more than £393 million in direct costs to discard 8.3 TWh of wind energy. This was a rise from the previous year's cost of £310 million. "Planning application data," the report said, 'shows that the, in our view, indefensibly high rewards for constraints continue to incentivise wind farm development in areas of the UK that have low demand and weak grid connection, resulting in high constraints. More than 98% of the total constrained volume, it noted, arises from Scottish wind farms. However, by far the biggest constraints wereapplied not to onshore wind, but offshore wind, including Seagreen. 'In particular, the offshore wind farm, Seagreen, whose majority owner is SSE, was alone responsible for 40% of the total volume of constraints. Seagreen is currently unsubsidised but 25% of its capacity has been awarded an as yet unimplemented Contract for Difference (CfD).' The most constrained onshore windfarms were Viking (Shetland), Dorenell (Moray), which is currently proposing an extension which would make the area home to the largest onshore array of turbines, Stronelairg (Fort Augustus), which claims to be on of Scotland's windiest windfarms, Bhlaraidh (Glenmoriston). Of these four, all but Dorenell are owned by SSE Renewables. However, Morag Watson points out that, relative to other impacts on electricity bills, like the fact gas prices set electricity prices 98% of the time in the UK (which has the highest electricity prices in Europe), the cost of curtailment is not that big. 'If you look," she saas, "at the cost of balancing the grid in the average electricity bill, which according to Ofgem is £929, £32 of that is the balancing, just under 3.5% and of that only part of that would be the cost of constraint payments. That's a vanishingly small part of your electricity bill. About £352 of your bill is driven by the wholesale cost of electricity – and that is driven by the gas price. So getting rid of the constraints and getting that gas down would be a really great thing for all of us.' Part of what is driving constraints is the pinch point around what's called the B6 boundary in the grid between Scotland and England, which has a theoretic transfer capability currently of around 6.7 GW. But it isn't the only problem. Arguably the B4 boundary, between the North of Scotland and South of Scotland transmission areas, which has a capacity of only 3.4GW is still more important. A recent blog published by UK Energy Research Centre, written by Professor Keith Bell and Callum MacIver of the University of Strathclyde looked at the 'impact of the role of transmission system availability (or rather unavailability) on rising curtailment costs in Britain'. They noted the importance of the B4 boundary. 'Lots of the wind in Scotland is located in the far North, including all of that new capacity from Seagreen, Viking and Moray East, totalling around 2.5 GW. The B4 boundary is therefore often the primary pinch point on the system.' The blog examines the impact of the failure to as yet build planned grid enhancement, especially the Peterhead to Drax undersea cable, which the system operator originally gave a delivery date of 2023, but is now not due till 2029. 'It seems clear we haven't built out enough North to South transmission capacity quickly enough, and that lies at the root of our current issues… but is there more to the story?' It goes on to point that an additional issue is that 'often, the real-time capacity on the B4 and B6 boundaries is well below the maximum level, often even below 50%.' The authors note also note that even these boundaries are not working to capacity. 'Not only have we, up to now, failed to add a 2 GW link across the congested Scottish boundaries, but B4 spent more than half of 2024 with an additional equivalent scale 2 GW reduction in operating capacity.' The reason for this? 'Ironically,' they write, 'it is due to the implementation of network upgrades'. This illustrates that in a grid undergoing significant works over the coming years, transmission is likely to vary. MacIver also looked at what the effect of additional network capacity across the B4 and B6 boundaries would have been and found that 'even a modest increase' across these boundaries of 500MW could have resulted in 'reduced curtailment costs by as much as 25% from the £1.65bn total in the 15 month period from the start of 2024 to the end of April 2025' and 'a 2000 MW uplift, in line with delivering the Peterhead Eastern Link project to its original schedule of 2023, then a full 73% of the thermal constraint costs could potentially have been avoided'. Overall, therefore, the constraint problem is an argument for more grid enhancement, particularly the development of undersea links, rather than less windfarms.
South Wales Guardian
30-04-2025
- Business
- South Wales Guardian
UK issued stark warning or risk floods and wildfires
Independent advisory Climate Change Committee raised fears that spending needed to protect communities and critical services such as the NHS from worsening weather extremes could be cut in the summer spending review. In a new report released by the committee, they've warned there has been no improvement since its last assessment in 2023, and accused the new government of failing to deliver the change in approach needed. The report warns that 6.3 million homes and properties in England are currently at risk of flooding, which is set to rise to eight million, one in four, by 2050. We have published our advice on the Seventh Carbon Budget. It is in line with previous Government commitments – the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Carbon Budgets, international commitments, and the Net Zero commitment in 2050. Adding that early deaths from heatwaves are projected to rise from the 3,000 seen in 2022's record hot summer to 10,000 a year by mid-century. The committee warns that without action to stop climate change, the UK will suffer a 7% hit to its economic output by 2050. While rising sea levels are worsening coastal flooding and extreme temperatures and drought drive an increased number of wildfires. Half of the UK's prime agricultural farmland is already at risk of flooding, which is set to worsen, while schools, hospitals and care homes are among the most vulnerable to impacts such as heatwaves. The Committee has published its advice to Government on the UK's nationally determined contribution, recommending an 81% reduction in emissions by 2035. More: The committee's assessment looked at 46 areas where adaptation needed to be delivered, and found only good progress for three: making rail and strategic road networks reliable and ensuring risks were properly disclosed and managed by financial institutions. The committee warned that delivery had actually worsened in the water sector due to a lack of credible plans to cut leaks and reduce water demand in the face of worsening drought risk. It added that the previous government's action plan fell short of preparing the UK for the climate change already being experienced and found little evidence of changes despite Labour's manifesto promising to 'improve resilience and preparation' for the country. The committee's chairwoman, Baroness Brown said: "People are worrying about the impacts of extreme weather, worrying about food prices. "People are worried about what's going to happen to their vulnerable friends and relatives. 'Despite all this, we are seeing no such change in activity from the new government, despite the fact that it's clear to my committee, it's increasingly clear to the public that the current approach to adaptation policy just isn't working." Sharing how the UK can act to help tackle climate change, the report lays out measures including: Recommended Reading A Government spokesperson said they would carefully consider the findings of the committee's report. They added: 'Alongside our transition to become a clean energy superpower and accelerating towards net zero, the Government is taking robust action to prepare for the impacts of a changing climate. 'We are investing a record £2.65 billion to repair and build flood defences, protecting tens of thousands of homes and businesses and helping local communities become more resilient to the effects of climate change such as overheating and drought.'
The National
30-04-2025
- Business
- The National
Independence is needed to secure Scotland's green future
Naturally, since the question of independence is one which is fundamentally about 'who decides?' for Scotland, Unionist and nationalist arguments are still woven right through the tussle over who can and should be doing what when it comes to energy policy, and where those powers to act would best rest. Effecting a transition which protects jobs and the environment is, however, something which needs to be dealt with immediately and regardless as to Scotland's constitutional status or people's personal preferences on that. When it comes to that transition, the Seventh Carbon Budget prepared by the Committee on Climate Change sets the challenge out starkly. Some 17% of employment in Aberdeen and 4% of employment in Aberdeenshire is estimated to be from oil and gas, the report says. As of 2021, direct employment in oil and gas in Aberdeen has declined by nearly one-third since 2015, with some estimates showing that around 14,000 people in the region will need to be moved to other roles or sectors between 2022 and 2030. READ MORE: ICC arrest warrant requests must be kept secret, court judges order Support for the just transition and North Sea workers was the subject of a debate which my colleague Kirsty Blackman secured last week at Westminster. Highlighting the current and very real lack of confidence in the energy sector, she pointed out how issues ranging from the inability to get grid connections, to the UK Government's current tax regime for the North Sea, conspire to stifle the investment activity that we desperately need to be taking place right now. We are, she warned, at a tipping point. One danger is that the highly mobile, highly paid oil and gas workers that we need in order to effect a transition at scale will go abroad if the opportunities for them to work in Scotland disappear faster than new opportunities are created. Another is that, unless the Labour Government picks up the pace, private investors will go to our European neighbours like Denmark or Norway where there is no lack of government appetite or pace. We already know what a failed energy transition looks like from the vandalism wreaked by the Tories on the coal industry in the 1980s. If we don't get this one right, then whole sectors and communities risk being left on the scrapheap as they were during the Thatcher years. And the transition certainly won't be 'got right' if it is left to the market alone to sort those things out. The jobs transition needn't just be a transition from energy jobs to other jobs in energy. To give one small example, I have recently been in discussions with the plumbing industry. A capacity crisis is coming for that industry in a few years' time because the financial constraints facing the training and education sector mean that the industry cannot possibly meet the demand for skilled labour that the market is going to have in the years ahead. One thing ministers could do straight away is to incentivise the private sector, using community benefit funds, to invest in apprenticeships in those areas, so that we are preparing alternatives and opportunities for people as the North Sea basin declines. That's the sort of 'belt and braces' requirement that the just transition Commission, which was set up by the Scottish Government in 2018 to provide scrutiny and advice on delivery, could be helping to push for. Northern Ireland is currently consulting on setting up its own commission; Wales established its own commission in 2023. So where is the UK-wide Just Transition Commission to similarly scrutinise the policy areas which the UK Government has kept reserved to itself? Even when it comes to jobs that the UK Government is directly in control of, the chairman of GB Energy has let the cat out of the bag about the '1000 new jobs' promised for Aberdeen, describing its work as 'a very long-term project', with the much-promised 1000 new jobs taking perhaps 20 years or more to realise. The Acorn project at St Fergus, the new power station at Peterhead and the investments in key strategic ports at Peterhead and Fraserburgh are vital and massive components of any just transition. While the UK Government was able to find almost £22 billion for carbon capture schemes in Merseyside and Teesside last autumn, it has yet to dig deep enough into its pockets for Scotland, despite all that it and its predecessors have taken from Scotland in the past five decades. Any hope there might be for a positive decision on funding the Acorn project at St Fergus is now in a most uncertain position in the June spending review, where we must imagine that the Chancellor will be more focused on squeezing through her self-imposed 'fiscal rules' than on meeting the far more important requirements of the future. Meanwhile, households are facing a third rise in energy costs since Labour came to power, partly as a result of a thoroughly dysfunctional energy market where electricity is priced according to the most expensive input needed to produce it. The typical offshore wind turbine contains more than three times as much material from abroad as it does from domestic manufacturers. And ownership of energy assets remains predominantly in overseas hands. While we miss out on present and future opportunities, the wider context to all of this is an energy market that is, paradoxically, working against both the interests of the consumer and the companies and investors who want to realise the green energy industrial revolution. So we come back to that fundamental question of 'who decides?'. There can surely be no question that when it comes to energy transition or indeed anything else, the people who care most about Scotland, and who are therefore best placed to take decisions of this magnitude, are those of us who have chosen to make our lives here, and who are therefore most invested in getting good outcomes for here. To get all of the opportunities for Scotland which should come from having all of the energy that we do, it's clear that Scotland's government needs all of the political power to match.
The Herald Scotland
23-04-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
MP calls for oil and gas plan, warning of many Grangemouths
'We're talking about a possible Grangemouth every week," she said, "in terms of the level of job loss. It's incredibly significant. Not nearly as devastating for local community as Grangemouth will be, but that kind of devastation will be spread.' Blackman spoke in advance of a Parliamentary debate which she tabled, at which cross-party MPs joined her call on the government to do more to support North Sea oil and gas workers, as the UK transitions away from fossil fuels to renewable energy production. She slammed the UK Government for its lack of a clear transition plan. 'There isn't a plan,' she said, 'that's in one coherent place and there's no governmental overview of that plan, so in terms of ensuring that the transition is just, we don't have any oversight of that." She also drew attention to job losses over recent years, some of which have occurred in her constituency. 'I'm really concerned about where we are. There already have been significant job losses and there are significantly more to come if the government doesn't get it together on this. 'The UK government will contend that they have done some things and to be fair they have put the skills passport in place. But the problem is that there is no point in having a skills passport if those jobs don't exist yet.' Projections for oil and gas industry job losses have varied widely from 200,000 (the total number of direct and indirect jobs in the industry as claimed by Offshore Energies UK), to tens of thousands, in an industry that supports 30,000 direct jobs. By Blackman's calculation if 200,000 jobs were lost over a decade, and Grangemouth losses are 400, this would be a rate of almost one Grangemouth a week. But this is also a sector that, according to a 2023 analysis by Uplift, had already seen oil and gas jobs halved in the previous ten years, 'despite the government issuing hundreds of licences in this period'. Already more than 200,000 jobs have been lost in that time. Academics at Robert Gordon University have predict a decline of around 30,000 jobs being lost over the next decade. The decline in jobs and its impact on community was described in the UK Climate Change Committee's Seventh Carbon Budget published earlier this year. 'Volatility in oil and gas markets," it said, "has led to periodic job losses in the sector and, over the last two decades, there has been a steady decline in North Sea production. These have had knock-on impacts on the local economy. As of 2021, direct employment in oil and gas in Aberdeen has declined by nearly one-third since 2015. Household disposable income has fallen and poverty has increased.' MP Kirsty Blackman (Image: PA) Three quarters of oil and gas workers, Blackman pointed out, live outside the North East of Scotland, and therefore she said, 'this is not just an Aberdeen issue'. She said: 'This is an issue across the UK because of the number of workers that there are all over the UK that travel offshore. If we keep going in the route that we're going with the reduction in the amount of oil and gas at pace and the Energy Profits Levy [windfall tax], we will see a lack of investment, we will see the jobs going down at a much quicker rate.' Part of the problem, she highlighted, is that 'offshore wind has not increased at the rate that we would like to see it increase' and she pointed out that she 'would like to see offshore wind moving much faster.' 'If that involves speeding up some of the processes around grid connections, for example, then that would make a very positive difference. If companies are unwilling to do final investment decisions on renewables because there is some unfathomable grid connection queue that is totally not acceptable and the UK Government needs to take that bull by the horns and sort it out.' Currently, the average North Sea turbine contains three times as much material from abroad as from the UK. As a result, the rapid growth of UK offshore wind – which currently accounts for more than a fifth of global offshore wind capacity – has not fully delivered promised local jobs or prosperity. 'There is also," Blackman added, "an issue around ensuring the proper offshore planning. So, if you look at areas offshore then some of the areas have been licensed for offshore wind. They've also been licensed for carbon capture and storage and for oil and gas extraction. Three different things which are incompatible. So there's not really a proper overview of that.' A major concern, she added, is the risk that Scotland and the UK will lose workers and skills to jobs in other countries. 'There are already in Aberdeen many people who work in Dubai," she said, "and many who work in other countries who are already highly mobile. These people that are incredibly mobile and very highly skilled will, and are already, moving to another country. We will lose those skills. We will lose that ability to capitalise on those skills that we're going to need for the renewables sector if we don't close this gap somehow.' Blackman called for the continued commitment of money to the transition. 'We need to see the Spending Review continue to commit to money to GB Energy for example in order to fund the just transition. We need to see that the spending review doesn't pull back on that. 'We need to see a commitment to ensuring that the jobs will continue and that there will not be this very regular tinkering of changes in terms of oil and gas. If you look at all of the countries that have had a windfall tax in place for example, almost all of them have now gone back on that, whereas the UK hasn't. That kind of clarity needs to be provided about actually the government's rhetoric matching the government's actions in this." Anas Sarwar, Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband (Image: PA) The debate took place ahead of a two-day energy summit in London co-hosted by the UK government and the International Energy Agency at which Keir Starmer is due to speak and coincides with a one million strong petition which will be handed into 10 Downing Street, calling for an end to new oil and gas drilling in the UK. Cross party MPs joined Blackman's call on the government to prioritise the needs of workers and communities in the transition. Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent West said: "The government must be bold and turn the dial for North Sea communities. For 14 long years there has been no plan, just job losses upon job losses as the oil and gas declined. We can only make Britain a clean energy superpower if we engage with these workers now and graft their incredible engineering skills into secure new clean jobs in the renewables sector. A just transition must be more than a soundbite.' READ MORE: Carla Denyer, Co-Leader of The Green Party and MP for Bristol Central commented: 'Whilst oil and gas companies lobby for lower taxes and more drilling to boost their own profits, workers and communities are bearing the brunt of a disorderly transition. In a declining basin, last-ditch attempts to double down on new oil and gas will not provide workers with the long-term security they deserve. 'It is high time the government stops betting on the private sector to do the right thing and starts delivering in the interests of workers, communities and the country as a whole. That means stopping the expansion of new oil and gas, investing in good quality renewable energy jobs and putting workers and local communities at the heart of transition planning.' Responding to the debate, UK Energy Minister, Michael Shanks said: "The truth is we should have been planning for this transition a long time ago... There is no greater example of the failure to plan when we knew years ago that Grangemouth was in a precarious position. We should have been planning at that point for the workforce. My driving purpose in this role is to make sure we don't make the same mistake again in the wider North Sea sector.'
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Petrol and diesel drivers switching to EV could be £700 better off
Electric cars could save drivers nearly £700 with proposals calling for an immediate end to fossil fuels. A Climate Change Committee (CCC) report has presented to the Labour Party government a new pathway to achieve a decarbonised UK by 2050. The plan requires reducing emissions by 87 per cent compared to 1990 levels by 2040 with electric vehicles being crucial. The report found that electrification will make up 60 per cent of emissions reductions by 2040. Interim Chair of the CCC, Professor Piers Forster, said: "The Committee is delighted to be able to present a good news story about how the country can decarbonise while also creating savings across the economy." READ MORE: Parking on driveway 'illegal' and UK households told to pay £7,000 for privilege READ MORE: Drivers urged to remember three documents they 'must' carry in car READ MORE Crucial check UK households must do this spring to avoid £3,500 bill By 2050, household driving bills are also predicted to be approximately £700 cheaper than today while energy bills are also expected to fall by a similar amount, with annual savings of around £716. Prof Forster said: 'For a long time, decarbonisation in this country has really meant work in the power sector, but now we need to see action on transport, buildings, industry, and farming. This will create opportunities in the economy, tackle climate change, and bring down household bills." He added: "Our analysis shows that there is no need to pitch action on climate change against the economy. We will need Government and business to deliver the investment, but we are confident that this Seventh Carbon Budget offers a secure, prosperous future for the UK." In addition, by 2040, the CCC's Balanced Pathway sees three-quarters of cars and vans and nearly two-thirds of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) on the road being electric, up from only 2.8% of cars and 1.4% of vans in 2023. The share of new car and van sales that are electric grows quickly, ahead of the zero-emission vehicle mandate, reaching around 95% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. This is propelled by the falling cost of batteries, which allows electric cars to reach price parity with comparable petrol and diesel cars between 2026 and 2028. The pathway also assumes battery-electric vehicles are chosen to decarbonise all HGVs.
