Is GB Energy Company what it's name suggests?

[Andy Bee]

I thought this deserved it owns thread, as time goes on and more details come out I think it'll get lost in the Labour thread. More than willing to delete it if needs be.

Details are pretty sparse on the ground around this, thousands of stories relating to lowering energy prices, creating jobs and energy security sometimes coming from Anas Sarwar or Starmar himself but not many details on how they're actually going to do it.

It turns out that Starmar has admitted it will not generate its own energy or own any infrastructure so how do they create the 69.000 jobs parroted around, lower energy bills or increase energy security? It also begs the question why name it GB Energy if it's not an energy company?

It seems it's mainly an investment fund to use public money to invest in privately owned companies, it's all sounding a wee bit PFIish to me but I stand to be corrected.

[Stairway 2 7]

Thinks it's a great idea if it actually happens a big push for us all using clean energy, I'm dubious that it'll not be watered down. Swinney is at sea in his knocking it. He says it'll be a hammerblow to the oil and gas industry and Scottish jobs connected to that. We need to decide what we want, the status quo or net zero. It's an area Steven Flynn struggles with. He wants net zero but the oil industry sits in his constituency so he doesn't want a reduction of output

[Andy Bee]

Sarwar yesterday..........https://x.com/msm_monitor/status/1796125948313469309

Starmar today..........https://x.com/StephenFlynnSNP/status/1796459036193570847

[Stairway 2 7]

Flynn says it won't generate power but Starmer said today "it will generate power in its own right, as well as owning, managing and operating clean power projects alongside private firms." We'll see but Starmer could easily uturn. The best part about it is the windfall tax

£8.5 billion investment over 5 years funded by a windfall tax on the energy companies. Flynn is against the windfall tax which is abhorrent. One because the obscene profits they are making and two because they are literally killing the planet, so their money to go green can't be opposed unless your playing politics

[Jack]

Sarwar yesterday..........https://x.com/msm_monitor/status/1796125948313469309

Starmar today..........https://x.com/StephenFlynnSNP/status/1796459036193570847

Sarwar obviously didn't read the memo properly 🙄

[Andy Bee]

Of the £8.3bn, £3.3bn will be invested initially to fund local councils, metro mayors and community groups. These kind of schemes are already on the go, there's one in East Edinburgh I think created by Energy 4 All where local council buildings have solar panels fitted, the problem being a lot of schools were not permitted because of the National Grid being unable to cope. Schools obviously close for the holidays so all power being generated cannot be used and the grid can't take it.

In Dundee there's a solar farm being built for the James Hutton Institute, funded by a local share incentive with projected returns of 7% for the first 4 years and 6% thereafter. DRES (Dundee Renewable Energy Society) have raised over £2.6m in the first phase from local people and have now closed the fundraiser. The same problem there, it's a 2.6Mw system but they're only allowed to produce 250Kw above what the James Hutton Institute can use, planning consent was material on them being able to switch the system off if it was going to break the limit. From 2030 this limit goes up to 1Mw so it looks like there's no serious plans for grid upgrades in the near future.

So £3.3bn is not going to scratch the surface unless the National Grid is seriously upgraded with a huge amount of storage.

[Stairway 2 7]

Of the £8.3bn, £3.3bn will be invested initially to fund local councils, metro mayors and community groups. These kind of schemes are already on the go, there's one in East Edinburgh I think created by Energy 4 All where local council buildings have solar panels fitted, the problem being a lot of schools were not permitted because of the National Grid being unable to cope. Schools obviously close for the holidays so all power being generated cannot be used and the grid can't take it.

In Dundee there's a solar farm being built for the James Hutton Institute, funded by a local share incentive with projected returns of 7% for the first 4 years and 6% thereafter. DRES (Dundee Renewable Energy Society) have raised over £2.6m in the first phase from local people and have now closed the fundraiser. The same problem there, it's a 2.6Mw system but they're only allowed to produce 250Kw above what the James Hutton Institute can use, planning consent was material on them being able to switch the system off it was going to break the limit. From 2030 this limit goes up to 1Mw so it looks like there's no serious plans for grid upgrades in the near future.

So £3.3bn is not going to scratch the surface unless the National Grid is seriously upgraded with a huge amount of storage.

But surely £8 billion going to green energy from a tax on the oil companies is better than no money. How can the SNP be against a windfall tax and then still preach net zero. Thankfully the greens are pretty much backing labour as a Green party should although I was doubtful

[marinello59]

But surely £8 billion going to green energy from a tax on the oil companies is better than no money. How can the SNP be against a windfall tax and then still preach net zero. Thankfully the greens are pretty much backing labour as a Green party should although I was doubtful

Yeah, looks like a good thing, we need pro-active Government on this. I’m not so sure the thinking on this is that far removed from anything those in the SNP looking to a managed transition would like to see.

[Andy Bee]

But surely £8 billion going to green energy from a tax on the oil companies is better than no money. How can the SNP be against a windfall tax and then still preach net zero. Thankfully the greens are pretty much backing labour as a Green party should although I was doubtful


I'm not arguing the pros and cons of the windfall tax or raising the windfall tax here, I'm more concerned about what that £8bn is used for. I'm merely making the point that in the above two schemes local people are able to own, have energy security and get a return from generating their own energy. That's exactly the narrative GB Energy was initially sold to the public on, now I'm not so sure. As Starmar says "It's not an energy company"

James Hutton Institute will use 94% of the energy generated and the Edinburgh scheme has all buildings who were allowed panels to have energy locked in at 2015 prices. Both schemes benefit in lower costs and energy security. Chucking £5.5bn at the private energy companies and calling it GB Energy is not going to lower costs or increase energy security.

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm not arguing the pros and cons of the windfall tax or raising the windfall tax here, I'm more concerned about what that £8bn is used for. I'm merely making the point that in the above two schemes local people are able to own, have energy security and get a return from generating their own energy. That's exactly the narrative GB Energy was initially sold to the public on, now I'm not so sure. As Starmar says "It's not an energy company"

James Hutton Institute will use 94% of the energy generated and the Edinburgh scheme has all buildings who were allowed panels to have energy locked in at 2015 prices. Both schemes benefit in lower costs and energy security. Chucking £5.5bn at the private energy companies and calling it GB Energy is not going to lower costs or increase energy security.

You can't separate the windfall tax from it that's the funding. Plus Starmer says it will generate power it's SNP saying it won't. Swinney says today it's a bodyblow for the gas companies and jobs in the sector. Mixed messages on the effects it'll have on the gas companies.

[Moulin Yarns]

Of the £8.3bn, £3.3bn will be invested initially to fund local councils, metro mayors and community groups. These kind of schemes are already on the go, there's one in East Edinburgh I think created by Energy 4 All where local council buildings have solar panels fitted, the problem being a lot of schools were not permitted because of the National Grid being unable to cope. Schools obviously close for the holidays so all power being generated cannot be used and the grid can't take it.

In Dundee there's a solar farm being built for the James Hutton Institute, funded by a local share incentive with projected returns of 7% for the first 4 years and 6% thereafter. DRES (Dundee Renewable Energy Society) have raised over £2.6m in the first phase from local people and have now closed the fundraiser. The same problem there, it's a 2.6Mw system but they're only allowed to produce 250Kw above what the James Hutton Institute can use, planning consent was material on them being able to switch the system off it was going to break the limit. From 2030 this limit goes up to 1Mw so it looks like there's no serious plans for grid upgrades in the near future.

So £3.3bn is not going to scratch the surface unless the National Grid is seriously upgraded with a huge amount of storage.

On grid upgrade, the beully to denny upgrade happened about 8 years ago, but nimbys in Angus have the support of the Tory candidate to object to upgrade there.

[RyeSloan]

£8bn is peanuts really when you consider there has been £200 - £300bn invested in the last 15 years alone.

Quite where GB Energy will sit in amongst the likes of National Grid The Department of Energy & Net Zero and Ofgem seems rather unclear even to its proponents.

I’d suggest they would be better focusing on removing the Grid connection log jam, the bonkers Electricity Generator Levy and of course, my favourite bug bear, National Grid ESO finally upgrading its systems to use battery storage rather than gas.

Not sexy news and doesn’t have a big number attached for government spending but we have had a ludicrous situation where ESO has literally been ignoring using renewable battery power in preference to gas power….because the software and the algo’s have not been updated to account for the availability of battery storage when balancing the network.

All of which has blootered battery investment, hammered those that have already committed to building out the storage, increased emissions and cost consumers.

So rather than adding yet another cook to mix the broth they would be much better taking the time to sort out the current issues and put in place a stable, well thought out, long term energy framework and then leave well alone.

I would suggest if the government of the day did that then they would attract plenty enough investment without the public purse having to be opened once. Indeed, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how the reverse could be true and the exchequer is given a small piece of the investment return pie.

All of which is probably far too boring and sensible and hard work to actually be done and instead we have daft figures banded about (sounds a lot, actually is **** all), false promises (zillions of jobs created) and more confusion as to who does what and why.

For all our sakes I hope Kier and his merry band prove me wrong!

[Andy Bee]

£8bn is peanuts really when you consider there has been £200 - £300bn invested in the last 15 years alone.

Quite where GB Energy will sit in amongst the likes of National Grid The Department of Energy & Net Zero and Ofgem seems rather unclear even to its proponents.

I’d suggest they would be better focusing on removing the Grid connection log jam, the bonkers Electricity Generator Levy and of course, my favourite bug bear, National Grid ESO finally upgrading its systems to use battery storage rather than gas.

Not sexy news and doesn’t have a big number attached for government spending but we have had a ludicrous situation where ESO has literally been ignoring using renewable battery power in preference to gas power….because the software and the algo’s have not been updated to account for the availability of battery storage when balancing the network.

All of which has blootered battery investment, hammered those that have already committed to building out the storage, increased emissions and cost consumers.

So rather than adding yet another cook to mix the broth they would be much better taking the time to sort out the current issues and put in place a stable, well thought out, long term energy framework and then leave well alone.

I would suggest if the government of the day did that then they would attract plenty enough investment without the public purse having to be opened once. Indeed, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how the reverse could be true and the exchequer is given a small piece of the investment return pie.

All of which is probably far too boring and sensible and hard work to actually be done and instead we have daft figures banded about (sounds a lot, actually is **** all), false promises (zillions of jobs created) and more confusion as to who does what and why.

For all our sakes I hope Kier and his merry band prove me wrong!


Thanks S, very informative. I knew there were issues with the grid due to the constraints put on the above two schemes and your post clarifies that.

So it's becoming clear that GB Energy is not going to be a publicly owned company which will ultimately directly generate green energy for everyone at cheap prices as the initial launch tried to make people think. There will not be 10's of thousands of people building windmills, fitting solar, hydro or running around in their wee electric GB Energy vans fixing infrastructure etc, there's not going to be a huge HQ in Scotland manned by 1,000's of call centre staff dealing with the publics concerns of their GB Energy smart meter not working. It's a fund, it's a fund of £3.3bn initially for small projects around council areas. It's then another fund of £5.5bn to be used to invest in private sector companies which I agree will not scratch the surface.

If you disregard the actual GB Energy name this is all sounding a wee bit like The Green Investment Bank from the last decade. Interestingly I looked up the GIB's Wiki and found this excerpt.......

"The leader of the Green Party of England and Wales (and MP for Brighton Pavilion) Caroline Lucas, criticised the nomenclature of the GIB in January 2011, when she wrote that "It's a bit rich to call [the GIB] a green investment bank if it can neither borrow nor lend". Lucas argued that without these powers, "it would be a fund – that is, a pot of money that, once used up, is gone forever.".[17]

Criticism also centred on the location of the institution. Bloomberg claimed that "Most of the 50- 70 jobs will initially be in London..."[18] and some questioned that the decision to locate many jobs in London, despite the announcement headline of Edinburgh being chosen as winner of the location contest, pointed to a "bid to defuse Scottish independence... a blatant move to unite the capitals over Alex Salmond's key policy."[19]"

Any of this sound a wee bit familiar or am I just being cynical?

[JimBHibees]

Thanks S, very informative. I knew there were issues with the grid due to the constraints put on the above two schemes and your post clarifies that.

So it's becoming clear that GB Energy is not going to be a publicly owned company which will ultimately directly generate green energy for everyone at cheap prices as the initial launch tried to make people think. There will not be 10's of thousands of people building windmills, fitting solar, hydro or running around in their wee electric GB Energy vans fixing infrastructure etc, there's not going to be a huge HQ in Scotland manned by 1,000's of call centre staff dealing with the publics concerns of their GB Energy smart meter not working. It's a fund, it's a fund of £3.3bn initially for small projects around council areas. It's then another fund of £5.5bn to be used to invest in private sector companies which I agree will not scratch the surface.

If you disregard the actual GB Energy name this is all sounding a wee bit like The Green Investment Bank from the last decade. Interestingly I looked up the GIB's Wiki and found this excerpt.......

"The leader of the Green Party of England and Wales (and MP for Brighton Pavilion) Caroline Lucas, criticised the nomenclature of the GIB in January 2011, when she wrote that "It's a bit rich to call [the GIB] a green investment bank if it can neither borrow nor lend". Lucas argued that without these powers, "it would be a fund – that is, a pot of money that, once used up, is gone forever.".[17]

Criticism also centred on the location of the institution. Bloomberg claimed that "Most of the 50- 70 jobs will initially be in London..."[18] and some questioned that the decision to locate many jobs in London, despite the announcement headline of Edinburgh being chosen as winner of the location contest, pointed to a "bid to defuse Scottish independence... a blatant move to unite the capitals over Alex Salmond's key policy."[19]"

Any of this sound a wee bit familiar or am I just being cynical?

No think you are being accurate.

[nonshinyfinish]

I’d suggest they would be better focusing on removing the Grid connection log jam, the bonkers Electricity Generator Levy and of course, my favourite bug bear, National Grid ESO finally upgrading its systems to use battery storage rather than gas.

Not sexy news and doesn’t have a big number attached for government spending but we have had a ludicrous situation where ESO has literally been ignoring using renewable battery power in preference to gas power….because the software and the algo’s have not been updated to account for the availability of battery storage when balancing the network.

FFS.

Do you have a link with details about this? (Not because I think you're wrong, just so that I can share it with a better source than "a boy on .net told me")

[RyeSloan]

FFS.

Do you have a link with details about this? (Not because I think you're wrong, just so that I can share it with a better source than "a boy on .net told me")

Hee hee that description is probably about right though [emoji1787]

The issues are being (slowly) sorted and there has been an uptick recently thanks to ESO finally getting some sort of wriggle on. Still far from perfect and it’s had a lasting issue on investment and roll outs but here is a good article from last year that describes what has been going on.

https://tamarindo.global/articles/uk-national-grid-neglecting-storage-in-balancing-mechanism/

[nonshinyfinish]

Hee hee that description is probably about right though [emoji1787]

The issues are being (slowly) sorted and there has been an uptick recently thanks to ESO finally getting some sort of wriggle on. Still far from perfect and it’s had a lasting issue on investment and roll outs but here is a good article from last year that describes what has been going on.

https://tamarindo.global/articles/uk-national-grid-neglecting-storage-in-balancing-mechanism/

Cheers