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
HM Gov burnt £700M loosing solar pv court case
Rumour has is that the total cost for the Governments failed attempt to re-instate the illegal cuts to the Solar PV feed-in-tariff could amount to £700M. The Supreme Court dismissed the Government appeal in March 2012.
Given the 2010/11 budget for the entire FITs scheme was only £867M this appears to be a massively expensive "own goal".
In the meantime many installers are reporting a 95% drop in installations since the start of April.
For a fraction of the £850bn spent on bailing out the banks, free solar panels could have been installed on every suitable household roof in the country. This would have done away with the need for the solar pv feed-in-tariff and created tens of thousands of jobs in the process.
1000's of new jobs at risk after Tory attack on wind
The Guardian on Sunday reported that thousands of new jobs and over £500m of foreign investment is on hold after the Tory 'Green Revolt' from a few weeks ago.
In addition, proposals to reduce Feed In Tariffs and previous cuts to the value of certificates awarded under the Renewables Obligation have added to the financial uncertainty.
As a result, proposed new developments including factories and R&D plants from several major manufacturers are now at risk pending reassurance from the Government that they are not back tracking on previous commitments to a low carbon economy.
General Electric. £100m manufacturing plant "on hold"
Vestas. £???m. 2,000 jobs in a new Kent factory. "waiting to see"
Siemens. £210m + 700 jobs. "significant lack of enthusiasm"
Mitsubishi. £30m in R&D. "Commitment from Government is vital"
Well done Tories.
FITs phase 2B review is brain dead
Last week HM Gov released the consultation document for next found of Feed In Tariff 'slashes'.
Clearly, this is now about saving money and no longer about encouraging the take-up of renewable technology. Specifically in the 100kW - 500Kw wind sector (although broadly true for higher) both the consultation and the research evidence (Parson Brinckerhoff) it cites admit that capex for larger wind is expected to continue to increase. This really should not be a surprise - wind turbines are large machines and require significant labour to put them up with no new "breakthrough" technology or mass production economies of scale around the corner. It is reasonable to expect iPods to get cheaper, but sadly not wind turbines.
In the summary of deployments so far, they note less than 15% of the predicted mid-wind installations were achieved. DECC suggest the reason wind targets have not been met are perhaps because land owners do not realise they can install wind turbines or fear it will make them too unpopular. How about, getting planning permission for wind turbines in this country is akin to playing the lottery but where the ticket can set you back £50,000 (often a lot more) and the draw might not be for 12 months.
When you dig a little deeper, the research that DECC undertook in order to determine future prices of wind turbines amounted to ringing a handful of micro-turbine suppliers for an informal quote. Pure genius.
So, given targets have not been met, and the costs are indeed rising - what DECC propose is staggeringly, breathtakingly stupid.... a 3.2p/kWh (15.5%) cut. Worse still they further propose to reduce the tariff by a minimum 5% per year from 2014 onwards.
Collectively we in the West have polluted and poisoned for free, now its time to start paying for the clean up. If you want a green revolution - it does not come free.
In the past we have broadly supported the efforts of the Coalition Government, sadly they are no longer walking-the-walk, just talking-the-talk. Despite brave words from Cleggy & Davey the 101 Tories might have their wicked way after all.
UK emissions jump by 3.1%
New figures show a sudden jump of 18 million tonnes of extra greenhouse gas emissions from the UK. According the a report in the Guardian:
Virtually all of the rest of the leap in the UK's carbon emissions comes from technical problems forcing nuclear power stations to shut down. The biggest reactor in the country, Sizewell B, was offline for six months, meaning more coal and gas had to be burned to fill the electricity gap, pumping more climate-warming gases into the air. Other reactors had problems too in 2010 and more recently events as varied as a rogue school of jellyfish and winter tornadoes have closed atomic energy plants.
When a wind turbine explodes, as in a recent storm, a megwatt of power is lost. When a nuclear plant falls off the grid, 1000 megawatts is lost. The comparison puts the lie to the sceptics charge that wind power is "unreliable".
Proof that with no new nuclear reactors on the horizon, plugging the "hole" with coal and gas will be disastrous.
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.
2012 off to a windy start..
According to Renewables UK, 2012 started where 2011 left off - very windy. On December 28th UK wind plant generated 12.2% of UK power, beating the previous record of 10%.
During the period covering December 1st to January 5th approximately 5% of UK generation came from wind.