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.
Wychavon says "no" to wind turbines
The planning committee at Wychavon District Council last week decided to tear up their officer's recommendation and refuse permission for the Apex wind turbine. This despite the fact that, according to Worcester County Council, their district is the most polluting of all in the county and 50% worse than the second highest district of Bromsgrove, emitting over 1.4 million tonnes of CO2 in 2005.
Given the single medium sized turbine applied for is right next to the industrial, commercial and leisure developments alongside the M5 at Warndon it would appear that local councillors do not want wind turbines anywhere in their region.
Effectively this decision signals Wychavon is closed for business when it comes to wind energy.
RSPB to install wind turbine at HQ
The RSPB has recently unveiling plans to build a wind turbine at its UK headquarters in Sandy, Bedfordshire.
The RSPB believes that renewable energy is an essential tool in the fight against climate change, which poses the single biggest threat to the long term survival of birds and wildlife.
In addition to campaigning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the RSPB is committed to reducing its own carbon footprint be generating its energy needs from renewable sources wherever possible.
The proposal will be a significant step for the wildlife charity, which is joining forces with green energy company, Ecotricity.
The RSPB and Ecotricity will shortly be submitting a planning application for a meteorological mast to be erected close to the charity’s head offices at The Lodge nature reserve near Sandy in Bedfordshire. This is the first step in determining if this site is suitable for a wind turbine.
If the site is found to be suitable, the proposed wind turbine will be erected, at the earliest, in autumn 2013 and will measure 100m at its highest point. The RSPB states that t will generate around two thirds of the RSPB’s electricity needs across all of its UK operations.
Martin Harper, RSPB Conservation Director said: “We are keen to promote the use of wind energy where it does not result in unacceptable impacts to wildlife and we are confident that this is a suitable location to do so.
“All of us have a part to play in helping to meet the UK Government’s target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, and this turbine will be one more step along the way.
“We need a revolution in the way we generate and use energy – but we want that revolution to take place in harmony with the natural environment.
“We know that with the right design and location wind turbines have little or no impact on wildlife. The RSPB has commented on over 1,500 wind farm applications. In the small number of cases – around six per cent – where we feel there is likely to be a significant impact on wildlife we have lodged an objection. In many of these cases the developers have listened and redesigned their plans to make sure they do not threaten wildlife.
“We hope that by siting a wind turbine at our UK headquarters, we will demonstrate to others that with a thorough environmental assessment and the right planning and design, renewable energy and a healthy, thriving environment can go hand in hand.”
Dale Vince, Founder of Ecotricity, said: “Ecotricity’s mission is to change where Britain’s energy comes from because this is our biggest single source of the carbon emissions that cause climate change.
“It’s essential that wind energy projects provide their vital environmental benefits with the minimum environmental impact. To ensure this, we conduct detailed studies on up to 27 different areas of potential impact such as health and safety, cultural heritage and wildlife. Our aim is to ensure that any wind project we build will be a good neighbour, for people and for wildlife, for the entire lifetime of operation.
“So far our studies show the Lodge site is suitable for a wind turbine and would make a significant contribution in reducing the RSPB’s carbon emissions and energy costs.
“Ecotricity is a British company which started 16 years ago as the world’s first green energy company and we don’t pay dividends to shareholders, instead we use our profits to build new sources of green energy.”
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.
Apex MX making the news again..
Today's Droitwich Advertiser reports on calls from the so-called Tibberton Action Group (TAG) to reject the proposals for a medium size wind turbine at the Apex motocross site next to the M5 motorway despite a recommendation to pass by Wychavon planning officers. TAG claim the siting near to the motorway is dangerous even though the Highways Agency have given the project the all clear.
The 91m tall turbine would be 140m from the M5. Of note is the much larger 125m Ecotricity turbine in Reading which is only 150m from the M4. Clearly wind turbines can co-exist with major roads without incident since the severe weather conditions that cause ice to build up on the blades typically only happen one day per year in the UK. Keeping the turbine stopped until the ice has melted mitigates any risk. Still, TAG maintain that there is "a real risk of the turbine causing a major accident with significant loss of life" and that their "engineers" have calculated that huge lumps of ice could be thrown at 200mph to almost a kilometre away. No such evidence has been produced for scrutiny in their submission to the planning authority however.
Recent research papers have concluded the chance of being hit by ice thrown from a wind turbine at 150m is 1 in 1,000,000 which is about the same as the risk of getting struck by lightning. As above fitting ice sensors to detect the formation of ice before it becomes a problem almost completely eliminates any residual risk.
TAG also insinuate that the turbine will not be economically viable, although without the benefit of project capital costs this assertion can only be described as uninformed opinion at best and certainly not a valid planning matter on which the proposals could be refused. TAG point to the rumours that George Osbourne wants to redirect subsidies away from renewables and into nuclear power, however this highlights a misunderstanding of the current schemes since the Feed in Tariff is guaranteed until at least 2030 and at the prevailing rate (index linked) when the turbine becomes operational. Subsidies for future schemes may well drop but this would not affect operational plant. Furthermore, support for nuclear is at an all time low and expected to add £600 annually to the average household energy bill - compared to just £6 annually for wind.
In their most recent letter to the planning authority, TAG claim to have almost 90% support for their objections among villagers. However the Office of National Statistics lists Tibberton as having 482 residents in 194 dwellings. TAG have only 111 signatures on their petition which is less than 25%.
In a Worcester Evening News poll from earlier this year a whopping 67% of WEN readers said they supported wind turbines. In a recent poll for the Independent newspaper 68% of participants said wind power was an acceptable price for green energy with an even higher 79% in the 18-45 age groups.
DistGen MD, John Zamick said "the level of opposition has been somewhat surprising - you'd think that we were proposing a monster wind farm rather than a single medium sized turbine."
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).