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.


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.


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.


Daft energy bill? (UPDATED)

UPDATE (01/06/2012)

George Monbiot is  the latest commentator to spell out the inconsistencies in the draft daft energy bill. In his recent Guardian article Monbiot goes as far as to accuse the energy minister, Ed Davey, of deceitfulness. While the bill talks the talk over reducing CO2 emissions by placing caps on the amount of CO2 allowed per unit of electricity and requiring new coal powered plant to use CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) the actual small-print, says Monbiot, has been cleverly worded with get out clauses that will result in business-as-normal.

For example, to gain permission for a new coal fire powered station, the developer merely has to declare that CCS technology "is or is to be, or has been, used in commercial electricity generation for the purposes of or in connection with a CCS demonstration project". Key is the phrase "is to be" - meaning nothing more than an intention.

The bill also allows gas power stations to emit MORE (not less!) CO2 than they do today until the year 2045.

It is worth pointing out that 2050 is the year by which global temperature rises must have been pegged at 2 degrees Celsius if we are to avoid runaway climate change. Only last week the International Energy Agency's chief economist released 2011 data showing a 3.2% rise in CO2 emissions to 31.6 Gigatonnes.

"When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet" Fatih Birol, IEA Chief Economist

UPDATE (23/05/2012)

For a detailed blow-by-blow analysis of the draft Energy Bill read here. Our favourite response has to be from Nick Molho (head of energy policy at WWF) who said:

Given the increasing concerns around the economic viability of new nuclear and the repeated delays to the CCS [carbon capture and storage] demonstration programme, renewable energy and energy efficiency are our best bets to deliver a secure, cost-effective and low-carbon power sector by 2030.
But renewable energy investors need clear, unequivocal, long-term support from ministers, who must face down sniping from the backbenches and certain sections of the media. The government must also recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn't work in the energy sector and that we need targeted financial support mechanisms for renewables.

Original Post

The Guardian today reports that  the anticipated Draft Energy Bill will backtrack on previous Government commitments to be the "greenest ever" and promote new gas and nuclear generation at the expense of renewables.

The new "dash for gas" could all but destroy any hope of meeting CO2 emissions targets but worse still, could totally undermine the fragile solar, wind and tidal industries. Thousands of jobs have already been lost in the solar pv industry following a 50% cut in subsidy earlier this year with another cut planned in the Autumn.

Retaining the dependency on imported foreign gas will saddle future generations with the cost of finding alternative fuel sources and the UK will have failed to take advantage of the "Green Revolution".

New nuclear power stations are likely to add £200 a year to household energy bills according to a report on BBC Radio 4 this morning. This makes the current £5 for renewables look cheap.

If the new energy bill does call for a new dash-for-gas-and-nuclear it will be a sad day indeed for the UK.


The economic benefits of wind (DECC report)

A few months ago there was a major outcry from 101 Tory MPs urging the Government to drastically cut the annual £400M subsidy paid to wind farm operators.

It's true, £400M sounds like a lot of money. But just last week a report, jointly published by the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) and RenewableUK, that details the wider economic and social benefits of onshore wind produced the following statistics:

  • 8,600 jobs and £548M resulting from direct supply chain business
  • 2,400 jobs and £85M resulting from indirect income effects of employment
  • 300 jobs and £11M resulting from tourism
  • £198M in tax revenues

All of the above are set to increase, by an amount proportional to the roll-out of new capacity. For example, if the UK were to achieve  the 2020 target of 19GW of capacity the figures are as follows:

  • 17,900 jobs and £580M in the supply chain
  • 5,400 jobs and £192M from indirect income
  • 800 jobs and £27M from tourism
  • £572M in tax revenues

Not only does onshore wind represent by far the cheapest form renewable electricity, but for every £1 spend in subsidy, the UK benefits from more jobs and more foreign and domestic investment currently worth £1.61 (excluding tax revenues).


Open letter to PM from Caroline Lucas

by Caroline Lucas MP

Dear prime minister,

I welcome the fact that, after almost two years in power, you used the recent Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM) event to finally indicate the level of your commitment to creating an urgently needed green economy.

It was encouraging to hear you acknowledge that the main cause of recent energy bill hikes has been rising gas prices – not green policies, as many in your party and your government seem intent on claiming.

Indeed, since you were elected as prime minister, a yawning gulf has emerged in the government over key energy and climate change policies and, as you will know, there is widespread concern that this is proving disastrous both for our economy and our environment.

I share these concerns.

Since the CEM was a high-level ministerial event, attended by energy ministers from 23 different countries, I would have expected the prime minister of what aspires to be the "greenest government ever" to make far more of this opportunity.

It was an ideal chance to show real ambition for our trailblazing renewables sector and champion the potential for building a resilient economy through investment in tackling climate change, as well as addressing fuel poverty.

Instead your remarks were short on real content and commitment. They revealed poor leadership, poor understanding of the risks of climate change and a poor grasp of the opportunities afforded by renewables and energy efficiency.

You have confirmed that your government believes the UK should remain addicted to gas and fossil fuels. Given the huge potential of our national renewables and energy efficiency sectors to provide secure and home grown clean energy for the future, and in particular our potential to become a world leader in marine renewables, this lack of vision is bad for the economy and bad for consumers.

I agree that renewables need to become financially sustainable. That is the purpose of providing public subsidies to new industries. But it is disingenuous to demand that renewables suddenly become financially sustainable at the same time as your government is indirectly subsidising the dirty fossil fuel industry to a tune of six times more than renewables.

Your weak position on our long term energy mix is ill-informed, will be costly to householders in future, and won't put our country on track to exploit the employment opportunities of a truly thriving renewables industry. Nor does your position recognise the need to cut carbon emissions in line with the science.

The Climate Change Act commits the UK to cutting carbon emissions reductions by 80% by 2050, but these are the wrong targets. They only give us a 50-50 chance of keeping climate change to below 2C.

Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the International Energy Agency, warns that "under current policies we estimate energy use and CO2 emissions will increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would probably send global temperatures at least 6C higher within this century."

Achieving a more secure, sustainable energy system, in line with the goal of limiting the rise in global temperatures to under 2C, is still possible but requires urgent action by the world's governments. And it requires honesty with the public about the risks of inaction to the economy, for example, to health, agriculture, food production, water resources, coastal flooding, and extreme weather events.

As prime minister, you can begin to make a real difference if you attend the Earth summit in Rio in June. Governments are currently failing to avert the prospect of catastrophic climate change, so the UK has an opportunity to lead by example on the world stage, starting by giving its backing to an EU target of at least 30% greenhouse gas reductions by 2020.

The scale and urgency of the threat of climate change demands national and international leadership of extraordinary boldness. It's time for you, who rebranded the Conservative party on the environment, to step up.

Yet we clearly need some better policies than those you are offering at the moment. Your government's nuclear policy is tatters – you pledged not to spend public money on subsidising new nuclear, yet it's clear that it cannot be built without state aid. The huge costs and liabilities involved in nuclear make it completely uneconomical, and it certainly won't deliver energy security or emission reductions in the timescales required. Meanwhile, carbon capture and storage remains little more than a pipe dream, and the era of cheap fossil fuels is over.

So here are five measures that would help, and should have been in your speech:

Instead of saying yes to shale gas exploration, the government must declare a ban on all fracking. Serious questions remain over the impacts on groundwater pollution, health, air pollution, whilst the evidence indicates that the exploitation of shale gas is incompatible with tackling climate change. Moreover, since shale gas extraction will also divert investment away from renewables, the UK's potential reserves must be left in the ground.

A commitment that electricity market reform (EMR) legislation will be designed specifically to enable the development of various renewable energy technologies, rather than being written by and for the nuclear industry. Nuclear power has no place in a green energy future.

We need a road map to demonstrate how the UK's electricity sector will be virtually zero carbon by 2030, as recommended by the UK's own independent advisers on the Committee on Climate Change, and required to meet existing climate targets.

An end to subsidies to fossil fuels, and for the UK to show leadership on this internationally. The UK and other G20 leaders committed to this in 2009 and have done little since. The UK fossil fuel subsidy is estimated at £3.63bn in 2010, mostly in the form of VAT breaks and considerably more than the £1.4bn subsidy for renewable energy in the same year.

Reducing energy demand should be made a priority, both in the proposals for EMR and elsewhere across government policy making. Energy efficiency is the best way of keeping bills down, addressing fuel poverty and reducing the need for new energy supply of any kind, yet your speech yesterday was silent on the subject

These polices don't just make economic and environmental sense, they have public support too. A recent poll by YouGov revealed that 64% of people want their electricity 10 years from now to be sourced from renewable energy, while just 2% want more gas.

The climate crisis is real – so too is the economic one. That's why I am urging you to use the Queen's speech to announce legislative proposals that will help us overcome both, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, eliminating fuel poverty and reducing climate emissions – and sending a clear message to your party, to detractors in your government and to other leaders internationally.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Caroline Lucas MP

Brighton Pavilion, Green party

Published 30 April 2012