Huhne Brands Renewable Energy Doubters 'Curmudgeons And Faultfinders'

Chris Huhne Renewable Energy

The Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 26/10/11 08:06 BST Updated: 26/10/11 08:47 BST

Energy Secretary Chris Huhne will attack those who doubt the future of renewable energy later, branding them "curmudgeons and faultfinders", while defending the government's record on investing in green technologies.

He will say: “At a time when closures and cuts dominate the news cycle, next-generation industries are providing jobs and sinking capital into Britain.

“Yes, climate change is a manmade disaster. Yes, the UK is only 2% of global carbon emissions. But if we grasp the opportunity now our businesses and economy can be much more than 2% of the solution."

Huhne will make the comments as part of a speech to a conference on renewable energy in Manchester later today. His comments follow claims by the WWF this week that at least 60% of the UK's energy could come from renewable sources by 2030.

The Independent views Mr. Huhne's speech as a riposte to the Chancellor George Osborne, who is thought to be sceptical about whether massive investment in green energy will pay off.

Unfortunately for the energy secretary the problems facing the industry are more pressing - on Tuesday MPs warned that the UK has inadequate reserves of carbon-sourced energy - with only 14 days supply of gas in reserve. This is less than a quarter than the reserves held by many other European countries including France and Germany.

Amid spiralling energy bills the government is due to announce its plans for its 'Cold Weather Initiative' this Friday. Some media reports have suggested that this winter will once again be colder than average, although these claims were dismissed by the Met Office earlier in October.

One renewable energy firm called on the government to force the Big Six energy firms in Britain to invest more.

Ecotricity founder Dale Vince said: “Britain needs huge investment in new sources of green energy to cover the looming gap in generation capacity.

“A target of 60% renewables by 2030 is achievable if government don't slash the Renewables Obligation for onshore wind (which will deliver the lion's share), if the planning system is reformed (as the government have promised) and if the energy companies commit to serious investment in new green energy - instead of shareholder dividends.

“Ofgem say the Big Six are making £125 per customer, but they spend less than £5 of that on building new green energy sources – that’s a scandal.

“The reason for this lack of investment is not just weak regulation but because the interests of the big energy companies are not aligned with the interests of the British Public - they want quick shareholder returns we need long term investment in energy infrastructure that will make Britain energy independent again.”

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

Energy Secretary Chris Huhne will attack those who doubt the future of renewable energy later, branding them "curmudgeons and faultfinders", while defending the government's record on investing in gre...
Energy Secretary Chris Huhne will attack those who doubt the future of renewable energy later, branding them "curmudgeons and faultfinders", while defending the government's record on investing in gre...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
02:10 AM on 10/27/2011
The solution is simply closed cycle nuclear in a molten salt reactor as proven 50 years ago at ORNL. I find it necessary to point out that global warming is real but it is also being used as an excuse to further a global taxing and regulating agenda. I mean, if it wasn't, why did the "world" not use closed cycle nuclear in a molten salt reactor as proven 50 years ago? The NRC wouldn't "allow" unlimited clean energy. Had they, we would not have to worry about (and eventually be taxed more due to) global warming. All those promising battery technologies would have been scaled up by the necessary orders of magnitude and we would have a thriving "global" infrastructure based on a type I civilization (as envisioned in sci-fy). But instead, we are being led into the trap of global control.
So, don't let GW be an excuse for more regulation, demand the real solution.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
03:05 AM on 10/27/2011
Do you have any evidence of this "global taxation and regulation agenda" beyond the fact that governments have a tendency to regulate harmful industrial byproducts?
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
10:30 AM on 10/27/2011
Sure. 10MW of heat dumped to air. Scaling that up will cost a certain amount of money.

What to do with the concentrated fission products that are produced?
Maybe the crickets can help us to assess the security risks of that too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KarlaElisa
The atmosphere is Toxic
12:25 AM on 10/27/2011
is the renewable energy captured and delivered by ways that are 100% sustainable?

this is the problem with ALL energy sources. if you have to extract something or cut a tree or expend ANY energy from a source that that is non renewable, the end result isn't really all that sustainable. what we have to do to build turbines or solar panels makes that energy non renewable in the long run. i hate that it's like this because i wish there was a techie way to solve this but so far i've not really saw one.

besides which, we've waited till the bath tub is overflowing to even begin discussing our options.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
03:08 AM on 10/27/2011
The source- the thing from which the energy is extracted, is what "renewable" refers to. In the long run, sun, wind, and tide can power 100% of the production of renewable power sources. It takes energy to put that infrastructure in place, but once we have it, the supply of energy is never-ending for as long as this planet is habitable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KarlaElisa
The atmosphere is Toxic
07:59 PM on 10/27/2011
but getting TO the 'once we have it' is what concerns me. i see no method or combination of methods that are going to remotely resemble what we have with cheap oil. and nobody seems to be talking about downscaling the modern conveniences like cars, planes and other means of transport that require ships, autos, trains and things like this be built...and they are built with petroleum products and metals. there is NO getting around that. it takes 8 gallons of oil to make a tire. the infrastructure itself will degrade over time. we can't have 'factories' ...there will be no infinite ability to manufacture these things. and forget electricity to power all we currently do.

and nuclear is not an option.

the only solution i see is ending industrial civilization and changing the way each and every one of us live in the developed world. we're the ones wrecking the environment at mach speed so we can continue to live like this. and that, is a cultural shift that very few here are prepared to make, but make they will as peak everything hits.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Lawyer13
retired Lawyer, General and Psychiatric Nurse, wit
11:04 AM on 10/26/2011
Who is paying for the investment in renewable energy, we are through our energy bills, Huhne does not need any fuel, he is generating his own hot air.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
03:09 AM on 10/27/2011
Actually, a lot of it comes through investment or business loans, just like any other power production.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
03:08 PM on 10/28/2011
Look. You don't seem to understand about carbon dioxide and infrared and the hidden economics of relying on combustion as an energy source for 7 billion human beings. Let me help you out. The rise in food prices from global warming that we are currently suffering would have been long delayed if we had switched to other sources of energy, and it is rapidly proving to be a lot more expensive than a shift to non combustion energy sources would have ever been. If power suppliers hadn't cut corners at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, we might have a shot at a viable nuclear industry today. If Ronald Reagan hadn't torn the solar panels off the white house, etc. Instead we are treated to witless screed from people who write in support of the combustion industry.