Renewables set to save UK £45bn
Yes, you read that correctly... A report published by the Climate Change Commission (CCC) and presented to Government ministers estimates a saving of £45bn if the UK electricity supply moves away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewables. Put another way this represents a saving of £1600 for every UK household.
This of course is quite contrary to the propaganda spread by climate change deniers and 'big oil' lobbyists that opting for the renewables route will cost everyone an arm-and-a-leg.
The report indicates that between 2010 and 2020 the switch to low carbon forms of energy would add around £100 per year to annual fuel bills. Of course that's not to say the cost of fossil fuels will not also be increasing and the overall increases in energy costs must not be blames purely on renewables. UK gas prices are expected to jump significantly next year as long term supply contracts for LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) from Qatar are due to be renegotiated in light of increased demand from Europe and Japan following the Fukushima incident.
As noted by energy minister Ed Davey this week
“The real reason for high energy bills is high global gas prices. I can’t control global gas prices but I can put a cushion between the high global gas price that people face and the bills consumers pay,”
So if anything the report probably underestimates the long term prices for oil and gas. The CCC’s £45bn estimate represents the value of savings in today’s money that British households would collectively make between 2020 and 2050. It is based on expected changes in the price of gas and the penalties big companies will face for their carbon emissions and could potentially rise as high £100bn – or more than £3,000 per household – if those figures have been substantially underestimated.
The report will likely increase tensions between George Osborne’s dash-for-gas Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change secretary Ed Davey. Davey insists a decarbonisation target should be included in the Energy Bill and to apply from next year, while Osborne is pushing to defer a decision on whether to introduce a decarbonisation target until 2016.
To provide some balance it is good to note that at least some Conservative MPs support the CCC report such as Tim Yeo:
“There has clearly been quite a big attempt to portray decarbonisation as a huge burden to the consumer. But this report provides a robust rebuttal to that argument on anything but a short-term basis.”
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.
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.
NPPF Update
Towards the end of December 2011 the House of Commons Select Committee for Communities and Local Government published their report on the Draft National Planning Policy Framework or NPPF.
While their findings may not be quite as rosy as the interpretation chosen by minister Greg Clarke they are none the less far from damning. For the most part the debate seems to have evolved around the definition of Sustainable Development - because, says the NPPF, planning authorities should have a default presumption in favour of them.
Just about everyone has commented on the definition of Sustainable Development, but the one proposed by the committee seems to address many of the concerns of both sides:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of existing communities and future generations to meet their own needs. It is central to the economic, environmental and social success of the country both that these three aspects of development are addressed positively and equally and that planning both serves to protect and to enhance and add value to the environment. This is the core principle underpinning planning.
Policies in plans and decisions on development should be assessed against the principles that the nation and areas within it should live within their environmental limits; should achieve a sustainable economy and should seek to ensure a strong, healthy and just society.
The achievement of sustainable development through planning should be based on the responsible use of a sound evidence base and developed through an open and democratic system
Naturally we believe there is a very strong case that renewable energy projects, and in particular onshore wind projects, are sustainable development not least because they:
- Reduce CO2 emissions and therefore help mitigate the effects of Climate Change
- Reduce the increasing dependence on imported fossil fuels
- Reduce the cost of household electricity bills as fossil fuel costs continue to rise and eventually surpass those of renewable sources
- Provide valuable local income via extra employment and community reward schemes
- Promote the development of community owned schemes where local residents benefit financially from decentralised energy generation