Chuka Umunna
:Ed's Google Speech and What It Means for Responsible Capitalism
Jack Butler
:Miliband Talks the Talk on Tax Avoidance - But Can Anyone Walk the Walk
Jemma Wayne
:Time to Stop Laughing at Farage's Bad Jokes
Duncan Weldon
:Chancellor Should Heed IMF Advice and Increase Infrastructure Spending Now
Alistair Darling
:Salmond's Default Position Bankrupts His Credibility
I'm not sure what country Tory Energy Minister John Hayes thinks is "peppered" with wind turbines - it certainly doesn't reflect the nation that I've been crossing back and forth in recent weeks as Green Party leader. Britain after all, despite our rich wind resources, is only the world's eighth largest producer of electricity from wind - far behind China and the US, as well as Germany and France, despite our rich wind resources.
Mr Hayes hasn't spelled out his preferred alternatives - whether he'd want to see our "green and pleasant land" turned into one giant industrial site with fracking and coalbed methane extraction, or studded with nuclear power plants, producing immensely expensive power even before the fact that we haven't solved the fuel disposal problem is factored in.
There are many arguments against both of those options, but in fact you don't need to get beyond the economic one to rule them out.
Onshore wind has the advantage of being one of the most affordable renewable energy sources. Generating electricity from onshore wind turbines typically costs around 7-9p per kWh, which is around half the cost of offshore wind and a quarter of the costs of solar photovoltaic panels. And we don't have to worry about the fuel "price" rising - the wind is going to keep blowing.
Wind is competitive with new coal-fired power stations (not of course that we can afford the carbon emissions from those) and cheaper than new nuclear power.
If we are serious about meeting our carbon emissions targets then we need to get on with wind. The wind is a free and widely available fuel source; once the turbines are in place, there is no fuel or waste-related costs.
And if the Tory-Lib Dem government doesn't get it - the public does. As recently as 23 October a poll run by the ICM showed that nuclear power, coal and gas-burning were less popular with the population of the UK than wind farms. Some 67% of people said they would rather have wind turbines than a gas-fired power station near their home. Only 11% preferred the gas burning station. Nuclear power and coal-fired stations were even less popular.
No energy source functions 100% of the time - but still as Green Party leader I still get the truly clueless question from media sources that really should know better, variations of: "But the wind doesn't blow all of the time so wind power can't work, can it?" In fact, wind turbines produce electricity 70-85% of the time and last year generated enough electricity for more than 3.5 million homes.
But there's an even bigger concern behind the latest row. Whatever happened to David 'Hug a Husky' Cameron? Has he been replaced by a 'Frack the Countryside' lookalike?
Every personnel move that he's made lately has raised the role of fossil fuel advocates and climate doubters and move aside or down those prepared to act on evidence.
Take the rise of Owen Paterson, who once described wind power a "massive waste of money" and also promised to "fast-track" fracking, to secretary of state for environment, food and rural Affairs, and the appointment of Peter Lilley, vice-chairman and senior independent non-executive director of Tethys Petroleum Ltd, an oil and gas company, on to the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee.
In the Department for Communities and Local Government, Nick Boles was appointed planning minister within days of the Policy Exchange thinktank - which he set up and ran until he joined the government - advocating that the way to solve a perceived UK building crisis was to allow firms to build on greenbelt land.
And environment secretary Caroline Spelman was replaced by Owen Paterson, a man who was not only the first member of the Cabinet to oppose gay marriage, but also described subsidies for renewable power as "Soviet" at this year's Tory conference.
No wonder the 'green economy' companies, and the CBI are worried about the government's direction, when they know that these industries, which hold huge potential to provide jobs and to secure Britain's economic future, need policy certainty and a clear direction.
Neither of these has been this government's strength in any area of administration, but on environmental issues we really cannot afford to have this clearly inadequate, inappropriate team in charge. Mr Cameron clearly should remove Mr Hayes from responsibility for renewable energy, and put people with a sensible track record of being prepared to listen to evidence, in these key posts.
Natalie Bennett: Fuel Crisis: You Might Think Britain Has a Problem - And You'd Be Right
Matthew Goodwin: With a New Leader, Where Next for the Greens?
Natalie Bennett: The Green's Radical Alternative
David Toke: Will the Government Write a Blank Cheque for Nuclear Construction?
John Hayes (UK politician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Hayes replaces Charles Hendry as energy minister ...
John Hayes - The Conservative Party
John Hayes MP, South Holland and The Deepings - TheyWorkForYou
New nuclear reactors could be eligible for subsidies, says minister
PMQs: David Cameron defends stance on Europe and energy: live
MP wins green energy assurance from Prime Minister
They, together with Holland and Denmark, are developing integrated systems to share power and to supplement their respective national grids with power generated from wind, tide and solar... currently, more than 15% of Germany's entire electricity is generated by wind, with solar and geothermal making up another 10% approx... and growing every day...
Renewables are not designed or envisaged to completely replace conventional power plants, they are designed to generate supplementary power and to gradually decrease our dependence on imported fossil fuel - and of course, they don't pollute the environment...
I too have travelled around mainland Europe, where the majority of turbines are in small clusters or singles, and many are community-owned; something that successive governments have failed to permit - perhaps under pressure from the electricity providers?
Mr. Hayes is a luddite; he sees no further than the structures, and the country isn't 'peppered' with turbines; perhaps concentrated in the most suitable locations, which is bound to wind up the 'the answer's no, now what's the question' brigade.
Wind energy will never replace 'conventional' sources of generation, although it does contribute in increasing volumes to the mix of generation methods we need for energy security.
This government has effectively torpedoed the solar industry, whilst simultaneously maintaining subsidies to 'conventional' production/development, so I hold out little hope meeting our legally binding emission targets... and I believe they cynically don't care.
I'm an unapologetic supporter of renewables and their continued support by taxes; after all, every form of energy in its infancy has received subsidies; some still attract them - the nuclear industry.
So let's try to be open-minded and grasp the nettle; we need energy generation from as many sources as we can muster - wind power can and does contribute...
(and in case you're wondering, yes, I would welcome turbine(s) in my back yard..).
...I don't envy your proximity to a nuclear plant, though... No matter what the cost, I would move, and it wouldn't bother me one bit to move to an area with turbines..
Now if we installed community owned turbines in small groups as they do in mainland Europe, you'd e amazed how quickly the opposition disappears; nothing like the prospect of earning money to concentrate the mind... but our politicians (I'm sick of them too, by the way) are unduly influenced by the energy providers, so the promotion of community ownership has never taken off in the UK.. pity; we could learn an awful lot from the experiences of our near neighbours..
In the US Georgia Power concluded that building a new nuclear unit at Vogtle would, over the plant lifetime, save $5 billions over the best alternative, a CCGT.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Vogtle_making_good_progress_despite_delay-0309127.html
The TVA currently building another plant found that in 2010 it's combined fuel, operations and maintenance costs for nuclear were less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, which explains why nuclear ends up cheap on the long term :
http://www.tva.gov/power/nuclear/wattsbar_unit2.htm "Why TVA needs more nuclear power"
Combined operation and maintenance cost of wind is similar given costly repairs of blades, gears, power lines.
I know EDF was asking for a very high price recently. Still that price still was not higher than the cost of all the offshore wind currently being massively built. And it was the result of lack of competition between potential providers caused by all the dithering of the government on what the final plans would be.
For nuclear the Green always focus exclusively on the failed projects, and the initial cost.
But given that the plant is there for much longer than a wind turbine, the amortized cost ends up low. Nuclear is certainly the only area where the Greens suddenly become adamant to get a profit return on investment as fast as City broker would.
Whether on or off shore, wind farms are the long term green answer to our energy needs. They are expensive to install but will provide for our energy needs for many years to come and so would swiftly return the investment.
...unlike the nuclear industry which still attracts subsidies
...unlike the oil/gas industries which still receives subsidies for the development of new fields...
F&F number 2... well said...
Or salt of the earthed?
“his preferred alternatives”
Sweet FA by Gaslight?
“Onshore wind has the advantage of being one of the most affordable renewable energy sources.”
Plus: If we devise a replacement renewable harvesting methodology, these devices can be recycled by those who replace us.
“we don't have to worry about the fuel "price" rising - the wind is going to keep blowing.”
Its as constant as politicians’ un-kept promises about price regulation.
“If we are serious about meeting our carbon emissions targets then we need to”
turn the tide in our favour. By exploiting that too.
“the wind doesn't blow all of the time so”
optimise the process of electrically cracking water into oxygen and hydrogen. Which can be stored and used when required. Even for powering vehicles. Or, if turned back into electricity through fuel cells, supply pure water as a usable by-product.
“wind power can't work”
If Luddites are allowed to interfere with the mills.
"optimise the process of electrically cracking water into oxygen and hydrogen"
What the first law of thermodynamics?
"In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced."
"In a thermodynamic process of a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the increment of heat accumulated by the system and the increment of work done by it"
Ergo, you cannot produce energy, it can only be converted. It requires energy (in this case electricity and water) to separate Oxygen from Hydrogen. You would not have increased usable energy, rather converted it and due to the second law of thermodynamics - and the incidence of ‘entropy’ - some energy will always be lost.
We cannot just store electricity. Heat thus energy thus electricity is always lost. We have ideas of how we could prevent this, no realised commercial solutions.
The whole point of wind turbines is to convert the energy in wind into electricity (a net usable energy increase) not come up energy intensive processes that are themselves net losers of usage energy.
If the green party was genuine it wouldn't be haranguing the govt to increase investment in a technology that can't work but you would be campaigning for more hydro power (small scale rivers and tidal power which will work all the time - at least until the moon goes away)... or how about trying to get geothermal energy harnessed - we have quite a few deep coal mines that could be used - and it would be quite nice if the coal mining communities were to benefit from those.
Lets have people in positions of influence who think about alternatives rather than simply going for highly visible ineffective solutions
Oh – and it doesn’t even reduce carbon emissions or create energy security because wind power, being by nature intermittent and unreliable, requires near 100 per cent back-up from conventional, fossil-fuel power ticking away on “spinning reserve”.
Once these inconvenient truths are given a proper airing – as they will as the result of the calls-for-evidence being demanded by Hayes and Paterson – the wind industry will become unsustainable. And not before time. Though I’m a newcomer to country life, what I have seen of the misery wrought on my beloved Northamptonshire by the ruthless, rapacious and utterly mendacious wind industry has shocked me to the core.
Northamptonshire now as more applications for wind farms than anywhere else, even though our wind speed is the lowest in the Country, looks bad, what’s going on, something smells, it makes no sense, other than the generation of massive £283,088 per turbine for the greedy power companies?
The wind farm already built in the county generates a feeble 19% of capacity, no wind farm should be built that cannot achieve 30% of capacity. Prince Phillips agrees it’s a disgrace, perhaps he could put some Royal stick about.
I have no problems with wind farms where they work well off the coast at sea, preferably over the horizon, but be warned 7000 more inshore turbines are planned. We should strongly object, or see our Country visually ruined by these expensive eyesores, the only winner the operator fat on subsidies!
"According to Professor Michael Jefferson (Business and Sustainability) who has carried out research into the effectiveness of wind farms…"
Is that the same Michael Jefferson who used to be the chief economist for Shell? I guess we already know his extremely reliable and unbiased views on non-fossil fuel technologies then! Like everything else you've written here, it is ill informed ideological garbage.
Northamptonshire has the lowest average wind speeds in the UK, so ergo wind farms in Northamptonshire will always under perform and operate at poor capacity. The ten turbines at Burton Wold, Burton Latimer have in the 3 years of operation achieved a feeble 19 per cent of actual capacity. On this basis alone no more wind farms should become a blot on the landscape within our county or any where else in the UK where the average wind speed is insufficient to produce an efficiency of more than 30 per cent.