The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

In defence of renewables

Huhne is right on climate sceptics and "armchair engineers".

WWF-UK yesterday launched Positive Energy, a report demonstrating that renewable technologies could provide the UK with well over 60 per cent of our electricity needs by 2030; and that we could do this without breaking the bank. The report was welcomed by a wide range of major companies, consumer associations and key commentators. Yet it comes at a time of increased anti-renewable energy sentiment in the media, to the extent that energy secretary Chris Huhne, speaking at the RenewableUK conference today, felt the need to directly rebut the "faultfinders and curmudgeons who hold forth on the impossibility of renewables".

Not only are renewables being blamed as the main reason for energy bill increases, but some outlets are increasingly arguing there is no point in the UK trying to fight climate change: the rest of the world is doing nothing anyway. "Let's focus on shale gas instead", cries the increasingly vocal anti-renewables lobby, claiming that this "wonder gas" will solve all our energy problems. These claims are inaccurate at best, downright disingenuous at worst, and should be seriously challenged.

Saying that renewables are the main driver behind people's bill increases could not be further away from the truth. The wholesale gas price, which rose by 84 per cent between 2004 and 2009, has been the main factor in increasing UK electricity bills by 63 per cent over that same period. Support for renewable technologies has, in contrast, represented only a small fraction of consumer bills to date. Furthermore, the industry is crying out for political certainty to drive costs down, belying the argument that we shouldn't support renewables until their costs drop.

By creating a low-risk environment with clear renewable targets and stable financial support schemes we can reduce the cost of capital, attract companies such as Vestas to invest in renewable energy factories in the UK, incentivise companies to mass produce renewable technologies and increase investment in R&D. All of these are critical to cost reductions -- and to job creation. Look at Germany, which already employs some 367,000 people in its renewable energy industry; something which the UK, which has seen the share of manufacturing per unit of GDP halve in the last 20 years, should surely want to emulate.

On the point that the rest of the world, especially China, is doing nothing to tackle climate change, that again is far from the truth. In terms of investment in renewable energy, the UK -- not even a top-10 world investor -- is playing catch up. According to a recent report from Pew, China is now the world's leading investor and installer of renewable energy, having ploughed over $54bn (£34bn) into renewable energy in 2010 alone;equivalent to the entire world's investment in the sector in 2004.

It's not just compared to China that the UK is lagging behind. Germany and Denmark are already heading towards a 100 per cent renewable electricity future and even Italy and France (well-known for its focus on nuclear) have substantially more renewables than the UK.

Saying that shale gas is the answer to all our energy problems is also fundamentally flawed. Leaving aside the environmental uncertainties around fracking -- such as groundwater contamination and methane gas leakage -- do we really think that relying even more heavily on a single fossil fuel (which already accounts for 80 per cent of our domestic heating and almost half our electricity) is a sensible idea?

Continuing to rely heavily on gas will take the world on a path to at least 3.5C of warming, according to the International Energy Agency. This is almost twice the temperature limit which scientific consensus says we should not exceed if we want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Unfortunately, climate change seems to have completely dropped out of the current energy debate, which is a tragic oversight. Putting aside the catastrophic environmental and human consequences that climate change could trigger, the cost of adapting to a changing climate will absolutely dwarf any of the costs needed today to decarbonise our power sector.

Nick Molho is Head of Energy Policy at WWF-UK

11 comments

Nav's picture

double dip coming..

http://redbox.hubpages.com/hub/Double-Dip-Recession-2012

Des Demona's picture

The sooner we stop all this distraction on wind, wave, solar or whatever, bite the bullet and go nuclear, the better.

It is the only feasible solution.

Dark Heart of Toryland's picture

@Des Demona

Nuclear power is the distraction. It is grotesquely expensive, even before the cost of dealing with waste products which remain severely hazardous for centuries. Just look at the absurd saga of the Sellafield reprocessing plant, which turned out to be a colossally expensive white elephant. And considering that the British government has been devoting considerable effort to prevent Iran investing in nuclear energy, would it not seem just a trifle hypocritical to go down that route? Never mind the dangers demonstrated by the ongoing Fukushima disaster, or the potential for a catastrophic terrorist attack.

Ian5's picture

Nuclear, is fine as a short term stop gap until we have a truely renewable system in place, but as a long term solution it is just unacceptable. Have you any idea of the level of waste that will have accrued by the time the first high level radio active waste has become "safe", and decommissioning costs are astronomical compared to replacement of the renewable technology. The only true draw back with re-newables is they are not reliable sources, so we need very high levels of redundancy and storage systems.

What we are not facing up to, too scared? is the fact that petrol is now basically a waste product of the oil industry, and that oil by-products control every facet of our lives, from computer and vehicle components to pharmaceuticals. When the oil does run out, the shit will really hit the fan... Then world population levels will need to be sorted...oh boy.

Ian5's picture

Oh the Chinese figures are a bit misleading as a large percentage of that investment is in manufacturing , the are by far the largest supplier of PV panels etc to the world. They have very little PV energy production themselves. Whilst we sit on our arses doing nothing or closing down what facilities we did have...eg Vesta Turbine factory....

Lox's picture

Des Demona, there's not a huge amount of uranium left-another few decades' worth if we switch from fossil fuels to nuclear.

Frankly, I think that a lot of the common arguments against fossil fuels are questionable. It's a question of science whether man made global warming is happening: not of politics. How many of us have access to reliable data on which to base a judgment, rather than our own prejudices?
Twenty years ago, you could argue that there were many vested interests in denying climate change as a result of CO2 emissions, but now there are at least as many vested interests in promoting it: the global carbon credits market is worth billions.
Having said that, we should of course switch to renewables. Once we run out of methane to make ammonia by the Haber process, there goes the artificial fertiliser industry, and with it the millions of people who'll starve: once we run out of oil and coal, we can all figure out how to replace all the plastic we use with...I don't know-wicker?

ABD's picture

Well, well - another 'report' from WWF - didn't they used to be the World Wildlife Fund before they blitzed the IPCC with non-peer reviewed reports and activists?

WWF are just political activists with an agenda using the demonisation of CO2.

I look forward to the next WWF report where they tell us all our energy needs can be provided by galloping unicorns.

Great to hear from scientific genius Chris Huhne too, who offsets speeding points when he isn't offsetting carbon or putting up our energy bills. With Huhne in charge, best to invest in candles.

Jon Anthony's picture

More stunning eco-bullshit trotted out by this discredited bunch. The reason Climate Change - or whatever it's called this month - has dropped off the radar, is because the populus have smelt a rather nasty left-leaning rat whose mantra will surely condemn us to years in the dark ages. The IPCC game is up, and all but elements of the left and the BBC, know it.

Shale gas largely contributed to a 25pc reducation in gas energy costs in the US. Clearly this has bypassed the WWF by as they drink in the rubbish spouted in Gasland. Only the likes of this bunch of green loons could damn a cheap, green energy source in favour of the hopeless pursuit of renewables, in the meantime completely ignoring the hideous cost of those 'green jobs', currently running at two jobs lost in the real world for every 'green job' created. Huhne needs shooting.

Gideon Polya's picture

Some key reasons why we need 100% renewable energy and non-carbon energy ASAP.

1. In 2009 the WBGU which advises the German Government on climate change estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2C temperature rise (EU policy) the World must emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. This means getting to zero emissions within 5-10 years (most EU countries), 6.6 years (UK) and 3.1 years (the US). Climate criminal Australia, a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG)pollution, had already used up its "fair share" of this terminal GHG pollution "budget" by mid-2011 and is now stealing the entitlement of impoverished, global warming-threatened countries like Somalia and Bangladesh (see "Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissions" : http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-yea... ).

2. Gas is dirty energy and we need to stop extracting gas rather than developing new sources. We must stop coal seam gas exploitation that despoils nature, agriculture and aquifers. Methane (most of natural gas) leaks and is 105 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year time frame and taking aerosol impacts into account. Significant methane leakage means, for example, that with existing power plants in heavily coal-based Victoria, Australia, at a 3.3% systemic gas leakage (the US average) burning gas for power is roughly as dirty GHG-wise as burning coal and at 7.9% leakage (as from fracking-derived gas in the US) burning gas for power can be twice as dirty GHG-wise as burning coal (see: “3 reasons the World must stop coal seam gas (CSG, coalbed gas, coalbed methane”: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article21302 ) .

3. In the context of a carbon-based energy economy nuclear is a major CO2 emitter from extraction and processing of uranium oxide, plant construction, plant decommissioning and radioactive waste disposal. Uranium-based nuclear is dirty (GHG-wise and radioactivity-wise) , dangerous and expensive and civil liberties-threatening in the case of a fast breeder-based plutonium economy (thorium is better).

It doesn't add up...'s picture

In 2010, the UK consumed 209.1 mtoe, while China increased its consumption by 244.5 mtoe or 11.2% - a rate that will see their consumption double in 7 years. China's extra energy came from coal (156.7 mtoe, +10.1%), oil (40.4 mtoe +10.4%), hydro (23.8 mtoe +17.1%), natural gas (17.6 mtoe +21.8%), renewables (5.2 mtoe +74.5%) and nuclear (0.8 mtoe +5.3%).

Those who truly care about the planet and consider that coal emissions are more damaging than natural gas would seek to keep the UK using gas rather than transferring its industrial output to China with its heavy marginal dependence on coal for energy. Of course, we depend on Chinese neodymium to make windmill generators. Meantime in the USA, where shale gas is already being developed apace, gas prices have fallen back to $3.60/MMBtu from levels of 2-3 times as much a few years ago, or about 23 p/therm, compared with our wholesale prices set at the margin by the high cost of long distance LNG imports that are around 62p/therm currently. How much is saving the panda going to cost us all?

Latest tweets