Media bullsh**t on green energy deal
The Telegraph today boldly proclaims:
"WIND FARMS TO INCREASE ENERGY BILLS BY £178 A YEAR"
Err, hang on a minute....
The Government has agreed to invest £7.6 billion pounds a year towards meeting our 2020 targets.. by investing in new nuclear, renewables and carbon capture and storage. The Telegraph article goes on to say:
"Bills will go up over the next two decades by an estimated £178 a year under all the Government’s green and fuel poverty policies, with the contribution to nuclear and renewables making up £95 by 2020."
So of the £178 headline figure claimed to be solely because of wind farms...actually only £95 is from renewables at all - and even that figure includes expensive new nuclear power stations.
Many followers of the nuclear debate will already know that much of the UK's ageing nuclear infrastructure is at or beyond its life expectancy and companies such as EDF have been asking for huge subsidies to roll out new stations.
In fact DECC (the Department of Energy & Climate Change) say that 20% of the UKs entire current generation capacity of 82 gigawatts requires replacement this decade. DECC also point out that 250,000 new jobs will be created and that an over-dependence on gas would lead to higher annual energy bills - perhaps as much as £250.
So really, just how much of the £95 figure will go to nuclear verses all other forms of renewables, of which wind is just a single component? In September the Telegraph reported that new nuclear would add £70 to annual energy bills.
Even a dumbed-down 16 year old with GCSE maths can calculate that 95 - 70 = 25.
So the likely increase in annual bills (by 2020) resulting from all forms of non-nuclear renewable energy is £25.
Greenpeace attack "Toxic Tories"
Greenpeace yesterday revealed undercover investigations and interviews with Conservative ministers who are actively planning to water down the legally binding Climate Change Act and undermine energy secretary Ed Davey. In a scandal labelled as "energygate" Greenpeace claims:
Our investigation shows how leading Tories have launched an attack on the Climate Change Act, saying they have the blessing of George Osborne. We also reveal that David Cameron’s campaign manager for the Corby by-election was secretly behind the campaign of a rival candidate who ran against the Conservatives on an anti-clean energy platform.
John Sauven, Greenpeace executive director, claimed that their investigation revealed how..
Britain's energy future is at risk of being hijacked by a militant faction of climate-sceptic and anti-wind MPs on the radical right of the parliamentary Conservative party.
Shadow Energy and Climate Change Minister Caroline Flint condemned Tory energy minister John Hayes for undermining energy investor confidence for the second time in a month:
Onshore wind power is the cheapest and most developed form of clean energy, with the potential to create thousands of badly-needed new jobs in Britain
But government splits are undermining this key growth industry and putting Britain's energy security at risk.
David Cameron promised to lead the 'greenest government ever' but his failure to control his own ministers and MPs is scaring away investors and job-creators in the clean energy industry.
Visit the Greenpeace site and watch their video here.
EDF want HUGE subsidies for new nuclear
According to the Telegraph, EDFs CEO Vincent de Rivaz says he wants 14p per kwh of electricity before he'll build a new nuclear plant.
EDF is negotiating with ministers over a guaranteed electricity price in order to proceed with the project. It is likely to receive billions of pounds in subsidies, paid for through levies on all UK electricity consumers, if the market price remains below that level.
What? Isn't nuclear supposed to be the "cheap option" that costs soooo much less than renewables?
Ultra-expensive solar-pv only gets 21p per kwh and onshore wind only costs around 9p, so EDF must be smoking something to ask for this much. Surely even Climate-Change deniers sceptics would prefer to have onshore wind farms rather than nuclear power at that price?
Wind turbines DO reduce CO2 - FACT!
But of course, we wouldn't expect you to take our word for it.... Read the excellent report in the Guardian.
The assertion that wind turbines don't reduce carbon emissions is a myth, according to conclusive statistical data obtained from National Grid and analysed here in the Guardian for the first time. With a new wind generation record of 4,131 megawatts set on 14 September, the question of how far the UK's wind generation fleet can help in meeting our climate targets is increasingly controversial. Now it can be shown that the sceptics who lobby against wind simply have their facts wrong.
Independent think tank says wind is good
This week independent think tank IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) have published a new peer reviewed guide to wind power concluding that, guess what...
"unequivocally that wind power can significantly reduce carbon emissions, is reliable, poses no threat to energy security, and is technically capable of providing a significant proportion of the UK’s electricity supply with minimal impact on the existing operation of the grid. Claims to the contrary are not supported by the evidence."
The report also publishes many fascinating facts that dispel much of the nimby propaganda pushed out every time a controversial planning application is under consideration. For example, really how much do renewables add to typical household energy bills? According to the report an estimated £30 per year (from 2004 to 2010) - in contrast increases in the cost of wholesale gas added a whopping £290!
Hypocrisy Mucho?
Within the space of just two days we see these two headlines reported by The Independent:
MPs urge a 30% cut in emissions:
"Europe should commit to a tougher target for reducing greenhouse gases by 2020 to show global leadership on tackling climate change, MPs will urge today."
Wind Farm subsidies to fall by 10%:
"Reports had suggested the Chancellor, backed by pressure from 100 Tory backbenchers to reduce support for onshore wind power, was demanding cuts to subsidies for the technology of 25%."
In fact if you further consider that on-shore wind funded by the Feed In Tariff (FIT) is about to receive a 15% drop this December and Solar PV funding has been slashed and burnt.. it might lead to you wonder if the Coalition Government is, in fact, broken. Should MPs therefore be lecturing Europe on cutting emissions when, in fact, many European nations are leagues ahead of the UK? In 2009 the UK was second only to Germany in Europe and 10th highest in the world!
Time and again independent and Government reports have confirmed that on-shore wind is bar far and away the cheapest form of renewable energy available TODAY and some 3 to 4 times cheaper than off shore wind.
The UK needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Less than 5% of our energy comes from renewables and we are committed (morally as well as legally) to reduce our CO2 emissions massively if we are to have any chance of saving our planet.
Let's put our own house in order before lecturing others.
The bounty of tar sands
When you read statements to the effect that "there is enough oil to last for hundreds of years" combined with demands to remove subsidy payments from renewable energy sources, don't be fooled.
The reality of oil from tar sands is a toxic wasteland in which oil is blasted from the ground using high pressure steam. For wildlife and residents it is an ecological disaster on an apocalyptic scale. Indeed often referred to as a vision of Dante's Hell the once pristine Alberta wilderness is now a wasteland.
Such energy intensive oil extraction has of course, only been made economically feasible because of the current high cost of energy. What does this say about where energy prices are expected to go from here?
If we do see an economic recovery it will undoubtedly result in increased energy demands which in turn will force prices yet higher. The higher the price of oil, the more dirty and expensive resources become "attractive" and the more fragile the whole system becomes.
This is exactly why renewable energy subsidies are needed TODAY. To bring in the investment so that the UK is ready when conventional fossil fuel prices spike when economic recovery eventually happens. Aftertall, the £400 million renewable subsidy currently paid out will pale compared to the cost of living with, let along reversing, the effects of climate change.
This is why fossil fuels may appear cheaper, but they come with the biggest subsidy of all.
Tory "think tank" urges U-turn on Climate
Today's Telegraph reports that the Centre for Policy Studies and the Institute of Economic Affairs have urged the Government to “stop building wind-farms and repeal (or suspend) the Climate Change Act”.
Instead they say the UK should pollute its way to economic recovery with another dash-for-gas combined with fracking and nuclear.
This is blatant short-termism at the expense of reducing CO2 emissions, increasing energy security and doing something about Climate Change.
Only last week investment into new wind turbine R&D and manufacturing facilities from Siemens and Doosan was put on hold pending the result of on-going reviews of the renewable subsidy policy. This on top of Vestas recent announcement to not proceed with their planned blade factory in Kent.
The Green Revolution has the same, if not greater potential, to create wealth as the .com era. Sadly if certain people get their way the UK will be relegated to nothing more than a reluctant customer.
Vestas pulls out of Kent factory plans
Vestas have decided not to build a new factory in Sheerness that promised to create thousands of new jobs because....
... of the schizophrenic planning system and fears over meddling George Osbourne ditching the "Greenest Government ever" promise. Poor Ed Davey has been left running round trying to patch things up as usual.
A sad day indeed.
Dear Griff Ryhs Jones
Following a recent article in which Mr Jones was fiercely critical of onshore wind it's good see the balance being redressed by this impassioned response from a Radio Times reader:
In this age of scrupulous impartiality, when any opinion has to be counterbalanced by an opposing view - no matter how reasonable (or not) one or other might be - you did at least head Griff Rhys Jones's column as a "Point of View".
This should have given readers the important clue that the arguments put forward weren't facts. This was particularly so of his assertion that wind farms are a vestige of hypocritical green tokenism, sited at random - and thus without any planning or foresight.
Domestic-scale windmills on houses in West London are hypocritical green tokenism; on-shore megawatt-scale turbines sited after lengthy assessment to ensure their positive contribution to the environment, are not. These are the quickest, cheapest, most flexible - and most easily removable power generation generation technology we have.
They are part of a working landscape managed and modified by man for several thousand years. That landscape never was, and should not now be, preserved in aspic - otherwise we might as well rename it Disneyland. J. Holt, Herts.