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.


The electric car for the rest of us...

This week US electric car pioneers Telsa announced their new model (the 'Telsa S') should top 250 to 300 miles on a full charge when it goes on sale later this year. Of course, the small print says.. with no head-wind, no aircon, windows closed, tyres correctly inflated and a brand new battery.

Even so, for a car in this class it is a technological breakthrough. But this comes at a hefty price tag of around $70,000. Would anyone, aside from a rich enthusiast, pay this much for a car that may just about get you from London to Birmingham and back?

Even with the high price tag there is cause of optimism as eventually all this technology will filter down to the rest of us. Perhaps.

So far, hybrids (normal petrol cars with a battery and electric motor) haven't proved to be massively economical offering around 70mpg. The first batch of European small electrics have been expensive and range constrained - often at less than 100 miles. As in many areas of energy storage, battery technology has not evolved to keep up. Lithium Polymer batteries, like those used by Tesla are still hugely expensive.

Enter the Fisker Karma... This American muscle car exhibits a very unique approach that seems to have been overlooked by many manufacturers. An all electric drive train with a small efficient petrol engine used purely to charge the battery pack. The Fisker turns the hybrid concept on its head but is a pure 400hp sports car intended for fun, but still achieves 300miles range with a claimed 120mpg.

Its long been known that around 70% of the energy released in burning petrol is lost as heat. A further 10% can be lost in the drive train, leaving around 20% to actually propel the vehicle. Diesel engines on the other hand can reach thermal efficiencies of 50%.

So our concept for an affordable transitional vehicle would be this:

  • Mid-size people carrier (eg Ford C-Max)
  • all electric 100hp drive train
  • high efficiency 1ltr diesel generator
  • 100 miles of all electric driving range extended to 400miles+
  • Combined 200mpg+

It's possible that this car could already be on someone's drawing board... we hope so!


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


Hello, we're back

UPDATE: Spoke too soon! There are still issues with the distgen.com domain. Distgen.co.uk is functioning correctly.

The distgen.com and www.distgen.co site is now back up and running again after yesterdays technical glitch.

Our apologies to anyone who was inconvenienced by the downtime.


Coalition stands firm despite attempted "green revolt"

Yesterday, deputy PM Nick Clegg took the opportunity to deliver a firm rebuttal to the attempted "Green Revolt" of the weekend. Introducing Ed Davey as the new Climate Secretary, Mr Clegg said:

"The race is on to lead the world in clean, green energy. Last year we saw record-breaking global investment in renewables, outstripping the cash piled into fossil fuels. The new economic powerhouses – China, India, Korea, Brazil – are now serious contenders for that capital. In today's world, the savviest states understand that going for growth means going green. Low-carbon markets are the next frontier in the battle for global pre-eminence. I want the UK to be the number one destination for green investment. We're in this race to win it."

Laura Sandys, a Tory MP who supports wind power, said:

"Wind often gets a bad press but actually it costs the average UK household only £10 a year and generates electricity 80% of the time. Onshore, offshore, marine, solar, waste to energy should all form part of our mixed energy economy. As a collective, these technologies have the capability to help guard families across the country against energy price shocks."

Yesterday we reported on the cynical nature of the MPs complaints about the (relatively small) £400m annual subsidy to wind energy. Here's another specific example: MP Simon Revell signed the letter even though engineering firm David Brown recently won a contract with Samsung to develop.... wind turbine technology in his constituency.

When Vestas pulled out of their Isle of Wight factory it was the local MP who bemoaned the decision, despite being a vocal opponent to several wind turbine applications on the island.

"Cake" and "Eat it" spring to mind.

The timing of revolt may also have led Vestas to have second thoughts about developing the new multi-million pound turbine assembly plant in Kent. Kent County Council officials have been scurrying over to Denmark in an attempt to patch things up.


Cynical Tory MPs attack wind

So the Telegraph reports that 101 Tory MPs have written to David Cameron complaining about on-shore wind power. Within the first half page of the story the contradictions are clear to anyone with a few brain cells to spare.

The primary complaint seems to be that on-shore wind turbine subsidy is too expensive at a time when the economy is struggling. No mention that off-shore wind is around three times more expensive to produce. No mention that on-shore wind is the cheapest renewable energy source on a £/kW basis. No mention of DECC data that shows increases in underlying fossil fuel prices are pushing up bills much faster than renewables. No mention of massive and record quarterly profits being made by the likes of Exxon Mobile ($9.4bn) or BP ($5.1bn) and certainly no mention of the billions of pounds that will need to be spent on climate change mitigation methods resulting from the use of fossil fuels.

Tracey Crouch, said: “It is tragic that we blight our countryside with hideous electricity pylons and now we intend not only to do the same with onshore wind farms but also to subsidise them."

So pylons are ugly and we should bury electricity cabling? Any idea how much that would cost? There are around 88,000 pylons in the UK and National Grid price underground cabling at £20m per kilometre.

So just be aware, the people who are telling you wind power is too expensive are the same ones what would advocate ripping out all the pylons at huge expense. As for the staggering subsidy of £522m - for this the UK gets a new industry that employs thousands of skilled workers and clean low carbon energy.

What did we get for the tens of BILLIONS used to bail out the bankers?

No, the answer is clear. Big oil is running scared of renewables and is lobbying hard to put the brakes on. Meanwhile the Tories have been spotted their chance to derail Coalition policy with the untimely demise of Chris Huhne.


The carbon cost of wind

A  comment was recently passed to us from a planning authority regarding one of our wind turbine applications. A member of the public had asked what the carbon cost of a wind turbine was in comparison to the claimed savings.

To answer this we first need to assess the relative "costs" of energy generating technologies. A 2011 Government report gives us the following numbers which represent the amount of CO2 released during the manufacture, delivery, installation, operation and decommissioning of each major technology expressed in grams of CO2 per kwh generated:

Technology Lifetime Cost in gCO2/kWh
Nuclear 5 to 7
Wind 5 to 20 (includes micro, onshore & offshore)
Wave/Tidal 12 to 39
Solar PV 75 to 116
Biomass 60 to 550
Gas 365 to 488
Oil 650
Coal 786 to 990 (includes use of carbon capture & storage)

The particular wind turbine in question (a Vestas V52 on 74m tower) with an average windspeed of 6.8m/s should be on the lower range of costs associated with wind energy, but for fairness we will choose a value a 10gCO2/kwh. Annual generation output is predicted to be around 2,000MWh.

So the total lifecycle CO2 "cost" can be calculated as below:

2,000,000 (kWh) x 20 (years) x 10 (gCO2/kWh) = 400 metric tonnes of CO2

Now let's look at the total lifecycle CO2 "saving" by calculating the CO2 released if we were to produce the same amount of electricity using existing UK powerplant. The Government publish the CO2 cost of UK grid electricity as 540gCO2/kWh, so the calculation is:

2,000,000 (kWh) x 20 (years) x 540 (gCO2/kWh) = 21,600 metric tonnes of CO2

Put another way, the turbine will yield an equivalent CO2 saving of 1,080 tonnes per year. So its quite easy to see that it will account for its entire lifecyle CO2 emissions in less than 6 months of operation.
This is why wind turbines are so popular, in UK and even more so abroad.

DG001 Rotor assembly and lift

Another milestone event today – the rotor assembly of our first turbine in Hampshire was lifted into place today.

The turbine is now all bolted together and ready for internal cabling to connected and powered up!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7T6ZjIj5OM]


DG001 Tower and nacelle installed

Another milestone event today – the top tower section and nacelle of our first turbine in Hampshire were lifted into place today.

Thankfully the weather remained calm and everything went to plan.. even the sheep seemed impressed! Tomorrow should see the rotor being installed and internal cabling being connected before commissioning can start.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzTNHLIWfPM]


DG001 Foundation concrete poured

Another milestone event today – foundation concrete pour for our first turbine in Hampshire! After the base section was lifted into place the previous week, a steel rebar frame was constructed to reinforce the concrete. Approximately 20 loads were required to complete the 100 cubic metre foundation.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMiIXOAnR-M]