On Energy Independence

Chris Cook explores how resilience, security and independence are bottom up not top down. This is how we move from a national grid to a natural grid.

Resource Resilience

Independence is not a policy: it is  an aim of policy, in the same way that Security and Resilience – which may be seen as aspects of Independence – may also be aims. I have been conducting action-based research into financial resilience (a system which does not come to within two hours of ATMs being switched off); resource resilience (keeping the lights on) and human resilience (capacity building).

 If resilient local infrastructure is networked then the result will be regional and national resilience. In other words, resilience, security and independence are bottom up not top down:. Since my experience includes decades in energy markets, much of it at high level, it seemed to me the best place to start is to develop and implement policies aimed at energy independence where I live in Linlithgow. In other words, West Lothian Questions have West Lothian Answers.

A Natural Grid

In 1973 the 400%  oil price increase from $3 to $12 per barrel – the Oil Shock – exposed Denmark’s 90% reliance on fossil fuels. The pragmatic reaction of the Danes was to apply the organising principle of resource resilience – or least resource cost – to fossil fuels. In other words, the Danes mandated that for any given use of heat, transport, power, light and other energy services the purchase of oil & gas as a commodity would be minimised.

This principle was applied across all possible energy services. It led to renewable energy, where the Danes acquired Scottish wind turbine technology and through building out turbines across Denmark  created the biggest global wind turbine manufacturer (Vestas) in a country with a similar population to Scotland. It also led to heat infrastructure throughout Denmark, notably combined heat and power; district heating and heat storage (infinitely cheaper than electricity storage); also to fiscal policies discouraging car use and enabling a switch to public transport and bicycles; and finally to massive investment in energy efficiency in buildings, and in zero waste generally.

The outcome has been that since 1973 while Denmark’s GDP has doubled, their use of energy has declined and their use of carbon fuels (and CO2 production!) has declined significantly. This image strikingly illustrates how Denmark’s fairly centralised National Grid evolved in the direction of what I term a distributed Natural Grid.



Linlithgow Natural Grid

Every village, neighbourhood, town and city in Scotland may develop such a Natural Grid. The aim of the Linlithgow Natural Grid (LNG) initiative was and is energy independence for Linlithgow. Our approach is straightforward: firstly, to benchmark existing energy generation and  use, and secondly then to make whatever interventions are necessary to develop Linlithgow energy sources and to reduce Linlithgow energy use through the use of the resource resilience organising principle.

But how can these interventions be afforded?  Firstly, energy independence with an oil price above $50 per barrel is an economic no-brainer. We currently see over £6.5m a year in the cost of energy services such as heat, transport, power and light bleeding out of Linlithgow to sheikhs, oligarchs, and the shareholders of the Big Six. The bad news is that as the cost of finite fossil fuels rises further, as it inevitably will, this bleeding will get worse. But the good news is that the more expensive fossil fuels become in £  then the more £ profits are to be made in saving them. What has been lacking is the correct energy market model and funding instrument.

Energy as a Commodity

The energy market model or ‘paradigm’ which has evolved since the mid 1990s sees generators buying fuel as a commodity and then selling electricity as a commodity to consumers for profit. One perverse outcome is that renewable electricity generation must be subsidised because it is sold wholesale for (say) 5p per Kilo Watt Hour to the Big Six but is then bought by consumers at a retail price of 15p/ kWh. A second perverse outcome is that  the Big Six resist energy efficiency savings since these act to reduce demand for their product and reduce their profits.

As major carbon-fuelled generation has been closed for environmental/climate change reasons – most recently Scotland’s last coal-fired power station at Longannet – the UK Grid has become increasingly fragile with very little spare generation capacity. In order to fund new infrastructure further complexity has been introduced, such as markets in CO2 Emissions and Capacity,

But as was publicly recognised  for the first time at the recent World Energy Congress in Istanbul the reality is that electricity – like water (which is currently being commoditised/marketised ) – is not a commodity but is a service requiring a different market structure and instruments.

Smart Markets & the Fifth Fuel

Consumers don’t use raw oil, gas, refined fuels or even electricity: they use heat, light, transport/mobility, communications, and power (eg to drive machines).  Financing operating costs may simply be achieved through consumers sharing the cost of a utility via a Platform Co-operative legal platform. But what about the vast cost of funding new infrastructure? This is where we may learn lessons from the past to create the new Smart Markets of the future.

James Watt’s Smart business model for Cornish tin mines water pumping in 1778 shows the way. Instead of selling his more efficient steam powered pumps to drain the mines of water, he supplied the use of his pumps in return for a third of the coal the tin mines saved. The more reliably and efficiently his engines worked, the more coal was saved. In other words, he did not sell his pumps as a commoditised transaction for profit: instead he shared the carbon fuel savings – through a simple production sharing agreement –  achieved from Pumping as a Service.

Hard nosed commercial energy companies such as Exxon are increasingly referring to the intellectual value which creates energy savings through efficiency as the Fifth Fuel which Scotland possesses in abundance. But how may the economic benefit from Scottish Fifth Fuel concepts be retained in Scotland? And how may nuclear and unconventional energy generation with unknown future environmental costs be avoided?

Fracking – a Modest Proposal

On a recent panel in Dalkeith with Tom Pickering of INEOS I engaged not on environmental grounds (which I leave to experts) but on my home turf of energy market economics. Upon hearing that Grangemouth uses as much energy as Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee combined – much of which is often visible in the atmosphere from where I sit – I suggested that it would make more economic sense for INEOS to invest in heat as a service than in fracking.

Waste Grangemouth heat could be piped to Grangemouth & Falkirk homes and businesses while the colossal underground  Central Belt heat resource of former mining areas could also be accessed using local skills and experience. INEOS could simply fund the supply of heat as a service in exchange for natural gas savings to be used as a petrochemical feedstock.  Although the audience seemed to appreciate it, this modest, if unexpected, proposal seemed to pass its recipient by.

Back to the Future

History provides solutions: firstly, we see that instead of selling ownership of intellectual property how it is possible to exchange its use for a flow of value from energy production (solar as a service) or from efficiency (carbon fuel savings).

The second innovation pre-dates modern finance capital of equity shares (via stock exchanges) and debt (from banks). In exchange for value received, an energy producer may simply issue a promise (credit instrument) which is returnable in payment for future energy supply. Note that such a credit is not a debt instrument, since the holder cannot demand money; it is not a derivative (forward) instrument since he cannot demand delivery either; and it is not an equity instrument since it confers no ownership or dividend rights.

Acceptance of energy credits requires trust in the producer to supply energy in the future against which energy credits may be returned in payment instead of £ sterling. As an investor who has provided value to the producer, the acceptor (literally) returns his promise in exchange for the intrinsic value of energy: indeed this accounts for the origin of the expression ‘rate of return’.

The shipping industry gives us a steer as to how a trust framework may be provided. For some 140 years shipowners have clubbed together to mutually assure risks which underwriters at Lloyds of London will not accept. Such mutual Protection and Indemnity (P & I) Club agreements – which are managed by a service provider (Thomas Miller) – could easily be applied to the mutual assurance of the risk of non-performance by energy producers.

A Low Carbon Enlightenment

While the attention of global investors has been on renewable energy, the real low hanging fruit – efficiency savings from heat/cooling and transport – has been largely ignored for want of technology and funding mechanism. But it was clear from discussions in Istanbul that there are two powerful commercial drivers which a Smart Market in energy services can harness. Firstly, the more expensive finite fossil fuels become the more profitable it is to save them, and secondly, companies using the Fifth (intellectual) Fuel as service providers need far less finance capital than the Big Six need to address market and credit risk in a role as intermediary middlemen.

Glasgow was once the Workshop of the World, and regions such as the Central Belt, North East England and South Wales remain repositories of vast reserves of the Fifth Fuel of energy engineering innovation, expertise and experience. The application of the Smart Market combination of energy as a service and energy credit funding  is complementary to energy commodity markets and could lead to what I recently heard described as a Low Carbon Enlightenment.

Comments (16)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Dougie Blackwood says:

    I wrote something along these lines a year or two back. I live in Helensburgh and at the top of the hill we have an unused reservoir, a very short distance away we have a large conifer plantation and lots of empty space that would easily be used for growing biomass.

    An Ideal opportunity to build a combined heat and power plant running on sustainable biomass. Make the electricity, run surplus heat into local houses and create local employment. Add in a few medium sized windmills making electricity; easy stuff. I would like to see also any unnecessary electricity used to make hydrogen and store it on site; when the wind doesn’t blow run a generator on the stored hydrogen. All local, no transmission charges, small to medium scale and not difficult to construct.

    Replicate around the country in all the small towns and villages and we no longer have the fear of “Brown Out” coming over the hill when we cannot get the huge generators either through the planning process or built on time.

  2. Chris Cook says:

    Good stuff, Dougie. Not forgetting using wind/solar PV to locally power heat pumps……should never put DC power through the AC grid unless we have to.

  3. lordmac says:

    One giant dynamo at the foot of Ben Nevis and water pumped to the top recicled will keep you in power all day long at very little cost when built

    1. Crubag says:

      Won’t it take energy to pump the water to the top?

      1. c rober says:


        Yes but energy that would otherwise be wasted or unused , ie wind still generating but use lower than generation.

  4. c rober says:

    I also did an article a while back , nothing fancy for papers , just for peers. Then again recently on my FB page for others , more updated than the original.

    It was based on shared power , but not heat , but can see the advantages of all of your inputs as well.

    Mine was based on when tide , wind and sun as eco power are not being harnessed , or stored. But since that article has came along Tesla batteries- Which I dont think is a viable answer neither. As short term as 2 years ago I was thinking in terms of eco batteries as being back pumped hydro , then thought out of the box on Hyrdrogen Storage being more ecological instead.

    IT also hinted at the Norway , sovereign wealth fund , Iceland , and Scotland using a shared energy grid – then expanding to southern Europe via ONLY a tax payer owned model and onto Africa. Where this is interesting is that Both Germany and Norway are gearing for a sooner rather than later ban of the I.C.E. so is relative , more so given the state owned nature of generation.

    I reckon that future is modernizing coal powered stations over nuclear , for the short term peak load . Nuclear with long term costs , long term price guarantees , so that rules Nuke option out for me. So coal as a stop gap , with open cast mines in Scotland , in these days of downward dog pound values also works , and then of course using the open pits as sanctuaries and other blue sky uses. Where this old but new coal power works is using a part of the energy generated as plasma for treated exhaust gases , dramatically reducing Co2 and enables the bi product a commodity – carbon for use in dyes , and eco inks.

    However the use of customers as their own storage , Tesla , got me thinking , and of course using what is off the shelf , so there to be used already. More so in the last few days when the Enercos have been coming out looking for subs from any and all govts , and citing price increases as well due to import costs.

    Basically I already acknowledge the DC to AC problem , but as we know to make power travel its AC only in the long distance lines. Its been that way for what 100 years , no deviation , so accepted as the norm.

    We already know housing of old is ac wired , and so dc wiring is a retrofit – more than just led spots for posers , but a greater thinking is needed in tariffs against electronics until a wall socket standard is established – in order to replace the internal ac-dc transformers. A Smart USB X if you will.

    But with ALL future housing we should be demanding that this DC is the norm , other than heavy use items which cannot be , the washing machines , cookers , irons and the like banished to but one room of AC- even to the point of whole roof two part solar , ie hot water and power at least for pre heating of the cold taps pre boilers input. But in new houses that AC means something else also , airconditioning , where it heats the air as well as cools around us , rather than the walls , pound for pound it is the winning heat system vs gas and electric resistance systems.

    But to get back to storage again , and not li-on batteries , which for a small property may work , but not in an old large one , where in Scotland this is the greater number.

    So is there another option , that can use something like old white meter heating via cheaper energy during off peak and be both AC or DC – to both create and store something more viable , well i think so and thats Hydrogen , fuel cells , and pressured tanks.

    But for that we need perhaps to also get the suppliers interested , in moving over from large power stations to mini home based powerstations , a connected grid , not unlike the map in the article of Denmark but to every home meter box.

    Of course there is more than just one benefit of such a localized hydrogen storage and generation system instead of batteries , theres fuel cell cars.

    FC which is a very low carbon power generation , and of course as I mentioned as the EU moves beyond I.C.E , where electric cars become that fuel cell for the home via plugin – and importantly your fuel for the car itself is not from a forecourt – but from a tank in your garden created on the cheap from generated but unused eco energy during the night. Range anxiety banished , Hydrogen on the fourcourts , hyrdrogen at home – win -win.

    Where this also benefits is the removal of oil price increases and of course decreases , which affects employment in Scotland , oil which was and always has been a long term chink in the indy armour.

    Those of us that are rural also see the benefit of this HSAG. We are sitting with two tanks already in the garden , one for fuel oil , the other for LPG , but I also have Airco heating in a modern home. And as everyone knows LPG is far more dangerous when stored than hydrogen , and those homes like mine , either new or old homes , well we may well be the early adopters – more so with any kind of incentives.

    Considering the drive to these communities for empowerment in housing , then they may well also be the future for the DC home too.

    1. c rober says:

      I had failed to mention two other key points on Hydrogen as the new fuel.


      With using Fuel cells , creating hydrogen locally stored for local use , perhaps through the car itself as the actual fuel cell – its only key exhaust as such is water – a resource recovered at least in part. With the i.c.e as we all know that exhaust is toxic to life , not just as a greenhouse gas costing the planet and its inhabitants in the future – but also every day in our local environment.

      Considering the use of bottled water , especially in some places like California , a major drought and smog area , and of course the eco damage that results from its creation with energy use to purify and bottling , culminating in plastic waste in our seas and landfills , then water being purified as a positive argument is also a major selling point in certain markets.No more plastic bottles, or at least a cliff like dropoff in use , just using a tap , hell even in the car itself right in the dash board next to that carry mug for your morning commute coffee.

      No2 , and coincidentally also the gas itself , a result of eco thinking that was bastardized by the petrochemicals , and the green groups kinda swallowed the whole diesel is good hook line and sinker.

      Yet we are still using diesel , still using heavy oil for rural heating , creating greenhouse gases and no2 even with plant based diesel taking up land for food .

      Our largest single polluters previously to our personal adoption of diesel cars were – Public Transport and Freight. We as drivers are being removed from the road , through uber and the like supplying personal car hire by the minute , and other growths in cars as a service e-startups – to coming from the very car manufacturers themselves , whom have started gearing for service supply and not ownership.

      To give you a further example of reducing city No2 and Co2.

      Take the I-road , from Toyota , electric personal transport , now being touted to councils and governments on leases – and not direct sale to the public .This along with modern apps means the removal of many of our city centres polluters – buses/taxis , and importantly with the advent of removing the driver with vehicle automation means door to destination is faster , and importantly cheaper. This vehicle though runs on battery , so still electricity from the grid , whereas Hydrogen and FC would be far better , and importantly change a short distance vehicle into a longer distance one.

      This is where eco change usually fails , cost.

      So if say the I-road is cheaper than the status qou , vs buying a normal car for work commuting combined with its fuel cost , parking fees and congestion charges , or of waiting on cabs or in cabs sitting in traffic with a driver cost overhead , or even the same price as public transport – then it will win , at least in that city environment. But sometimes that also means taxes and tarrifs as well as subsidies , but legislation imo is far better , and much lower cost – putting the onus on those that profit from it to make it cheaper – thus mass adoption.

      Here is where Hydrogen becomes economical to use in that scenario.

      The use of fuel cell in buses and lorries , if you tax harder the polluters then it affects the pockets of their customers with higher prices , which the electorate is never keen on . So what you do instead is mandate and legislate longer term. Then it becomes darwinian theory for the suppliers to adapt in order to survive. This is capitalism one on one , but be warned though this can also spectacularly fail when you try to modify the market , to control the beast wrongly backfires , capitalism page 2.

      So basically you are making ALL transport companies use Hyrdogen , as well as vehicle manufacturers , and where they can use the wasted eco generated power from the grid as a commodity to generate their own hydrogen off peak- much cheaper than the current option of fossil fuels , without even increasing taxation or giving subs.

      As I said earlier cheaper than the other option means adoption.

      Think of it as how Airlines work , hedging fuel costs , but where your bus/cabs/freight depot take that energy to create their own fuel…. or the elecos become the fuel cos.

      But for that we also have to address the elephant in the room , one that matters at least to UK govts – the Westminster tax receipts of fuel duty and the vat on top , circa 65 percent of the cost at the pump today…. so hardly a real incentive for any Westminster change in mindset.

      This is where our petrochemical pushers would need to gear towards , forced through legislation , so perhaps the rason for change in ICE thinking of many governments , and the forced changeover from ICE engine use in car manufacturers – The car makers starting pistol if you will has already been fired.

      But where we then need to watch is that through them , and the petrochems , it doesn’t become ALL about greenwashing – about increasing share holder profits and through taxpayer funded subsidies. In other words they have to want to do it , in order to survive , long term , no carrot and all stick.

      This part of our diesel based economy is highly important , I must stress that from the off , in that our food , and the bussing of people around to and from work at least greases the wheels of trade , so affects us all in our pockets from both minor and major changes.

      From your supermarket basket , to the very poor paid commuter workers that put that stock on the shelves , these are the over-weighted section of GDP … thus the best way to force adoption of Hydrogen and fuel cell technology.

      1. Chris Cook says:

        Indeed, the future lies in use (quasi leases) rather than ownership.

        Also I think hydrogen is a useful local energy vector but beyond local I’m not convinced.

        I quite like Riversimple’s new Rasa is up to with in wheel motors, and a mobility-as-a-service model.


        1. c rober says:

          Chris Cook ,

          I understood the in wheel motor as a child , reducing a motor being that of a bulky drive train and I.C.E weight , with braking systems adding further weight , so reducing to four smaller motors which also act as brakes was then a no brainer. But it has taken a long time to get there , and importantly the computerized control tech just wasnt there back then , nor the desire for change.

          This is where the stick rather than the carrot works , so why subsidise , when legislate the manufacturers becomes in their own interest in order to survive. Which is where we should be thanking Germany and Norway , one a major car producer the other an oil producer – where both have seen either the light or future profits in doing so.

          But for quasi leases this is just another profit increasing measure first , where the credit of the banks is reduced and passed on to them as a result.

          So if they see that as change , for increasing profit , then surely they will see the light in adapting it and removing the fuel companies next and generating their own fuel? Perhaps to the point of defeating not just petrochems , but also the electricity generators themselves , through these localised hydrogen creation and storage ideas I have mentioned , and where the car becomes the home generator instead of a tesla battery … Three markets for them from one…. four if your include credit from the banks.

  5. john young says:

    Are the SNP aware of these “visionary” ideas? to me who knows little technically they would appear to be very viable.

    1. Chris Cook says:

      I doubt it. The concepts are getting an international hearing – particularly in the Caspian region – but the UK is fixated on the commoditisation/privatisation invented by the City for the City.

      1. c rober says:

        Of course they are viable , but its the change for consumers thats feared , from the known to unknown , and of course the psuedo price increases that our politicians dont want being blamed on them – they are simply aiding by lack of better legislation.

        This is where the idea of subsidies as I mentioned is not a viable option , the onus needs to be put into the hands of the private companies in sticks not carrots – survive the legislation changes or die….. just like the lifeforms that created the fossil fuels in the first place.

        As I mentioned Norway , oil producer with sovereign wealth fund created from fossil fuels , and Germany land of the owners of most euro car makers outside of France , where both has started the ball rolling on the energy companies and car makers removing the internal combustion engines and pollution.

        So the race is on for those companies to get there without subs , and because the two above have retained so much of the nationalised energy creation , then they cannot easily be held to ransom thus subs.

        What I would like to see is direct action also on renationalising the grid and energy creation in Scotland , where not just the oil suppliers and car makers are given a boot up the backside – but that of the electric companies too.

        We simply cannot be held to ransom with the likes of Hinkley – the cost to build , the subbed pkwh cost and the taxpayer funded generational clean up costs , and of course where that could be foreign state owned – EDF and China.

        So hydrogen generation is the best option , combined with solar hot water photo voltaic in housing and factory planning , tidal and wind needs to be both national owned , and where it is in down time creating Hydrogen for home use during peak time for fuel cells , where it could also be the very fuel for removing range anxiety in personal transportation , and through the car removing the likes of any hinkley need for peak time power generation.

        Too many of us think that the green agenda doesnt affect us , unless its in increased costs. This is something that needs to change , and without the stick legislation , and continuation of the carrot , with billionaire owned media to do the thinking for them , then there is no fast movement.

        Freeing up of the markets has not reduced energy costs , so its back to ownership.

        Only today I read in my foreign press that Scottish power have got grants to supply more turbines through the British taxpayer , SP a wholly owned sub of Iberdrola , the contract to supply the turbine parts has went to a Spanish company. This is the kind of stuff I had expected the brit press to come down on big time , but not a peep , not even from the SNP or Holyrood.

        On the plus side I also had in my inbox an article on sun following micro tractored pv panels achieving 36 percent efficiency. Something incredible if you know your PV , which if legislated for every house in Scotland to be built post 2020 , then it would mean the goal towards hydrogen home generation would be on a great track.

        Most homes are sitting there doing nothing but appreciating in value during the day when your at work , but it would also be generating the electricity for night time using say Tesla batteries – removing at least some of the peak draw from the grid if not all of it. But as you may know I am not really a fan of AC-DC-AC with the likes of Tesla batteries and seek an alternative , Hydrogen and fuel cells perhaps are that alternative which is cheapest to adopt and importantly can be developed faster than the battery has done over the last 100 years.

  6. Wul says:

    “The pragmatic reaction of the Danes was to apply the organising principle of resource resilience…”

    Aye, first step is you have to stop running your country as a vehicle for making profit and instead run it as if your citizen’s long term well-being actually mattered.

    Being in control of your own energy policy helps too.

    1. c rober says:

      Yep , personal and industrial benefits of keeping the generation and grid in nationalised hands.

      Low energy costs means cheaper to produce widgets , means exports are increased , more than just devaluing a pound – which as we know increases inflation , and of course home outgoings , including home energy based on imports ie coal or gas for heating. Having a UK economy weighted in financials doest help vs industry neither , Denmark economy a different model to the UK.

      Danish state owned companies – Energy is a given , but there is others on which to model.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danske_Spil Lottery
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banedanmark rail grid and servicing
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energinet.dk energy
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostNord , shared owner with Sweden

      But we never hear much about how bad it is in Denmark , on austerity , on housing , on electricity price. So either they manage North Korean like controls on emmigration and personal views , or they might well be doing something bloody right through their parliament.

  7. Olmo says:

    This piece seems to owe a fairly heavy debt to Amory Lovins. The idea of efficiency as a “fifth fuel” or source of energy in itself began with his defending the coal and oil industry against encroaches into their market share in power station fuel from nuclear power after the ’73 oil crisis.

    It’s good that this article brings up the ’73 crisis, because the history of energy post-73 is extremely instructive regarding climate mitigation. The French and Swedes took about 15 years from that standing start (reacting to the same oil price shock) to decarbonize their grid. Now the French grid has a carbon intensity of about 80g CO2/kWh whereas Denmark has about 250g CO2/kWh. So if we want to make climate change the principle, Denmark is certainly not the best example to follow.

    Regarding “natural grids” etc. This appears to be a buzzword for gas fired CHP – very popular in Denmark, but not a truly low carbon technology. If I remember correctly the IPCC says CHP can reduce emissions relative to standard uses of gas for heating and electricity by about 150-200g CO2/kWh. That’s pretty good but remember gas in electricity generation has emissions of ~400 g CO2/kWh. So you’re left with a technology which is over twice as dirty as solar PV (80) or roughly 10 times as dirty as nuclear or onshore wind (~15). This isn’t ambitious. Countries with heavily nuclear grids can and do use large amounts of truly low carbon electric heating. Small modular reactors could also be used in so-called “natural grids” in exactly the same way as gas boilers, using waste heat for district heating albeit it truly low carbon. Next generation thorium reactors also generate enough heat to be capable of certain uses for industrial process heat, knocking out more fossil fuel uses.

    (Aside: Returning to Lovins: thanks in part to people like him, the US abandoned Nixon’s 1973 “Project Independence” plan to build 1,000 reactors by the year 2000. A rough back of the envelope calculation shows that would have decarbonized the US grid twice over and made a huge dent in global climate targets. )

    A key problem with promoting efficiency as a panacea is Jevon’s Paradox, which says that efficiency just in effect makes “energy services” cheaper and thus leads to greater consumption of these services, such that the overall level of energy consumption remains the same. The best way to avoid Jevon’s Paradox retarding decarbonization is to put an extremely steep tax on carbon. Jim Hansen promotes revenue neutrality in carbon taxation – ie., you give the revenue raised back to the public in a “universal basic income” style payment. (One reason this is so important is it tends to get far more buy-in from the right wing, especially in the US where Republicanism is synonymous with “anti Big Government”.)

    An extremely interesting development in environmentalism in the past few years has been that environmental pressure groups in North America have fought this proposal where it has appeared, first in British Columbia and now, on the ballot for November, in Washington state (proposition I-732). (See the recent article “The Left vs a Carbon Tax” in Vox)

    One can only presume (and I think Hansen would agree) that certain vested interests are extremely threatened by removal of ring fencing around clean energy funding. If the effective policy was simply to /solve climate change/ — which is completely synonymous with /cutting greenhouse gas emissions/ — extremely large stakeholders in the current policy arrangements which have apparently serve other prerogatives — namely subsidizing renewables as an end in itself, and perpetuating use of gas — would lose out. Badly.

    Final observation. We seem to have quite a few analysts in Scotland opposed to nuclear and fracking but which are not particular realistic about the prospects for a decarbonized 100% renewable Scotland at all. For example they almost never explain how we’re going to store wind energy with maths. (Handwaving about interconnectors and Rube Goldberg style kinetic energy contraptions just won’t cut it unless you run the numbers.) When these same analysis propose a continued dependence on gas one must wonder whether these are the voices of North Sea interests at work behind the scenes, because without fracking or new nuclear Europe’s dependence on Russian gas or LNG imports is going to increase greatly. This can only have a sanguine effect on domestic oil prices.

    Perhaps the real agenda here is to turn Aberdeen back into the boom town it was in the 00’s? It would be nice if nationalists were simply honest about the interests of Scottish economic stakeholders. The murmer seems to be: “we’re really green and not at all dependent on oil… but it’s just really nice to have it y’know?”. It’s starting to sound rather threadbare… are we serious about decarbonization or are we serious about tartan-checked greenwashing?

    1. Chris Cook says:

      Some excellent observations, thanks.

      I see a ‘Natural Grid’ as the outcome – in terms of grid architecture – of the application of a ‘least resource cost’ economic organising principle rather than a ‘least £ cost’ economic organising principle. As you will know CHP is only one of many efficiency measures Denmark took in relation to heat: others include district heating and heat stores (unlike electricity, heat & cooling eg ice may be stored for long periods) and massive expenditure on building efficiency and so on, while investing in biomass and other renewable fuels. Also Denmark had energy security in mind at the time – Climate Change came along decades later.

      Since my interest is principally in legal and financial structures, markets & instruments, I don’t propose to engage in discussion of nuclear energy other than in relation to how it may be financed and funded without recourse to the tax-payer. I’d be interested in your thoughts as to how that may be achieved.

      re Jevons Parodox, this is only an issue if conventional (‘least £ cost’) debt & equity financing & funding is used.

      If on the other hand, investment is made within suitable risk and production sharing agreements through an instrument with a return linked to the value of carbon fuels or in energy as a service (ie heat, mobility, light, power and so on delivered to the end user) then the more expensive energy becomes in £ terms, the greater the £ return to the investor. Such credit instruments pre-date conventional debt, equity & derivatives by millennia.

      In relation to renewables – which currently fall foul of the business model of the Big Six – Scotland gave away leading technology to the Danes decades ago.

      But heat transfer and heat pumps and related engineering is another matter, where Scotland was and remains in the lead. There is colossal heat resource under the Central Belt and all of it would displace gas, both conventional and fracked. Likewise there is enormous heat resource in marine, estuarial, lochs lakes and rivers. All of this naturally occurring heat resource is available to be pumped using renewable energy with direct drives which avoid the AC grid altogether.

      Scotland has barely begun to scratch the surface of natural heat resource, and this is almost entirely due to the toxic energy as a commodity business model now in use whereby reduction for demand for their product is the last thing the Big Six want.

      As for your carbon tax point, I would go further and cut out the Scottish government altogether, leaving them with a supervisory/quality contril role,

      This is simply achievable through a carbon levy on fossil fuels, and a levy on the commons of renewable energy (aimed at harvesting the ludicrous level of economic rent extracted by investors and developers) which would result in an Energy Pool fund available for investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency through ‘energy loans’ with a return linked to energy.

      Then an energy dividend would be paid directly to all Scots, but this would not be paid in inflationary £ sterling. It would instead be paid in energy credits returnable in payment for energy as service eg mobility, heat & power in particular.

      In this way the funding may be collected pooled and distributed without passing hrough government hands at all and those who have greater than average privileged rights of use of the commons of renewable energy and finite fossil fuels would make a net transfer to those with below average use

      As for Aberdeen, the Oil & Gas Authority held a major meeting there last week which I attended on Maximising Economic Return (MER). But unless and until the OGA (and UK) transition from the least £ cost economic organising principle and the energy-as-a-commodity market paradigm then in my view their efforts are doomed to failure.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.