Getting real on renewables

We need to replace the can’t-do culture when it comes to to green energy, argues Labour's Peter Hain

Labour has achieved a tremendous amount to accelerate renewable energy. But, despite spending constraints, we will have to do much better in future.

Strong leadership will be needed to overcome obstacles placed in the way of progress by officialdom and by those environmentalists and politicians who parade their green credentials but then oppose practical projects. We need a can-do culture to replace the can't- or won't-do culture around renewable energy among civil servants and other public officials.

As secretary of state for Northern Ireland in 2005-2007, I introduced bold measures such as changing the building regulations. From next month, all new developments will be required to have micro-generation schemes designed in. If that were to be extended across Britain, it would create a vibrant market for small-scale renewables, create jobs, cut energy bills and reduce emissions.

I also created a substantial new fund of grants to enable green technologies to be installed in people's homes, including free solar panels for pensioners in social housing. At £60m for a population of 1.7 million, that would be £2.2bn for the UK as a whole.

The government needs to do more of this kind of spending. It has also to face up to opposition from officials. A classic example in Northern Ireland was the planned marine current turbine in Strangford Lough, which has a fast and furious tidal flow. Against considerable resistance, I insisted on proceeding. It is hugely exciting - the first of its kind in the UK - and should be a prototype for other coastal locations.

It is excellent that the government is proceeding with a feasibility study into a barrage across the Severn Estuary, which would generate fully 5 per cent of UK electricity needs, the biggest renewable energy project by some distance on our island. But this, too, has met with resistance from the Environment Agency, Liberal Democrats and Friends of the Earth, who favour tidal lagoons that would generate barely half the energy.

Similarly, David Cameron parades his green credentials, hugging huskies in the Arctic and so on. But, given a serious practical project such as the Gwynt-y-Môr windfarm ten miles off the North Wales coast, with 250 turbines capable of powering half a million homes, he denounced it as a "giant bird blender". Clean energy projects - especially wind - produce "nimby" reactions from local people, MPs and councils. They speak green but act otherwise.

Government at all levels has to raise its game. Decisions need to be taken more quickly; streamlining planning for energy projects is vital to overcome nimbyism. This is not about riding roughshod over local views. It is about prioritising renewables. Britain has an abundance of natural resources, with a coastline and landscape that lend themselves to a variety of off- and onshore wind and other renewable energies such as wave and tidal.

It is time we got real about renewables.

Peter Hain is MP for Neath and a former Labour energy minister

Numbers that don't add up

£470m cost of building Sellafield Mox nuclear fuel plant. Opened in 2002, it has produced almost nothing since

2:1 ratio of building costs for Sizewell B nuclear power station to wind turbines for same energy output

150 kWh/m2yr energy consumed by a UK "ultra-low energy" home

140 kWh/m2yr energy consumed by average German home

8m tonnes of CO2 will be emitted each year by planned coal-fired plant in Kent - the first to be built in 30 years

Research by

Edmund Gordon

4 comments

Peter Martin's picture

Peter Hain might have mentioned in his article that what is really needed to increase the viability and reliability of renewable energy supplies is, a good relatively inexpensive energy storage device, or , in other words, a battery. This is probably the limiting factor facing the technology, rather the technology of the renewables themselves.

Britain at one time had a good lead in the development of sodium suphur batteries with much original work being done by British Rail, the UKAEA, and Chloride. However, nothing much came of this and the last I read of the program was this depressing article from the New Scientist.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15020320.700-germans-pull-plug-on-...

Meanwhile, the Japanese have fortunately not given up on the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery

So, if you want to get real on renewables, Peter, you need to get real on batteries first.

AmyBambini's picture

No need to keep worrying about nasty climate-changing coal, the solution is right here! http://www.ev-eon.com

Peter Martin's picture

" It is time we got real about renewables." and "2:1 ratio of building costs for Sizewell B nuclear power station to wind turbines for same energy output"

Yes these are good quotable sound bites.

'Renewables', or the renewable energy sources of wind, geothermal, tidal and solar, have their place of course, and if we can increase the contribution of these to to around 20 % of total requirements, we'll be doing very well.

I would suspect the cost of Sizewell B would have been somewhat less if, unlike a wind turbine, it hadn't been the only one built in the last 20 years, or if every aspect of its design hadn't been subject to quite the same level of microscopic scrutiny as was required to gain its planning approval. Even taking Peter Hain at his word for the 2:1 ratio of costs, it should still be pointed out that Sizewell B is slightly more reliable than a wind turbine. Peter Hain may be happy to retire to bed early should his electricity supply fail due to lack of wind or sunlight but I doubt his constituents would be equally sanguine.

As "Friends of the Earth" are quite right to point out, neither tidal power schemes nor wind turbines come at zero environmental cost. We should have a level playing field when it comes to deciding the energy source of all new power stations. It is very proper that each power station should not emit more than a certain level of radioactivity , for instance, yet be reliable regardless of wind or solar conditions. You may think, if these were the only considerations, leaving aside the CO2 question, that coal would be the natural choice. However, you'd be wrong. Nuclear wins hands down over coal even on this criterion. As Wikipedia explains it:

"When coal is burned, uranium, thorium and all the uranium daughters accumulated by disintegration — radium, radon, polonium — are released. The release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels in nuclear generating plants"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

JohnJones1's picture

It is much easier to appear nice and cuddly green rather than discuss the main issue. The main issue should be of course how the bulk of electricity should be generated rather than a small percentage which can be assigned to renewables.

Cheap oil is a thing of the past, so the stark choice is between coal and nuclear power. Which ever way we go it should be low in CO2 emission . Unfortunately there is little evidence to suggest that this is going to happen if coal is used.

Many environmentalists are rethinking their position on nuclear power. If we do go this way, it does raise the question of why bother with renewables if all we are likely to be able to achieve is a 20% or so contribution?

Latest tweets