Share
Stuart Nathan
Features editor
An ill wind and a lot of gas
Even for those of use used to dealing with mixed messages from politicians in the UK’s tangled energy environment, today has to mark some kind of record. On one hand, we have the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) announcing 10 per cent cuts in subsidies for on-shore wind farms, after a long tussle with the Treasury which wanted deeper cuts; DECC also said that gas should pay a significant part in UK electricity generation beyond 2030. On the other, the Commons Committee on Energy and Climate Change — the cross-party body of backbench MPs which is supposed to keep a check on the activities of the Department — has issued a report saying that the UK should end fossil fuel subsidies and cut back even harder on carbon emissions.
The Committee’s report also says that the government should work harder on convincing the public that it’s worthwhile investing in low-carbon technology. We can only wish them good luck with that, seeing as we’re far from sure what signals the government thinks it’s sending. There’s no explanation from the DECC as to why it’s cutting subsidies for onshore wind farms, apart from some vague statements about energy investment and jobs creation, with no reference to what these jobs might be. The suspicion that it stems from the hostility of rural MPs to wind farms because of their unpopularity with constituents is strong, and that’s hardly commensurate with convincing voters that low-carbon technologies are a worthwhile investment.
Meanwhile, the message about gas also sends a confusing message. If, as the Committee says, the UK needs to be setting the pace in carbon reduction, then why say that, because the price of gas might come down, we ought to be using more of it? The report says that the decrease in industrial activity owing to the recession is reducing emissions, and therefore the current target of a 20 per cent cut on 1990 levels by 2020 is no longer challenging, and that 30 per cent is a more appropriate target. Can we meet that if we’re using more gas after 2030? Do we need more technology in order for the two goals to be compatible? What’s being done to put such technology in place? In the internecine strife between government departments, between Liberal Democrat aspirations at DECC and Conservative dogma at the Treasury, any comprehensible message is being lost.
An outside observer could be forgiven for thinking that the UK doesn’t actually have an energy policy, just a series of groups with different interests pulling in different directions. Where these announcements leave the policy for new nuclear is anyone’s guess, and the companies who want to build and/or run nuclear power stations must be wondering what is going on. And as for any mention of carbon capture and storage — surely a vital component of any plan involving fossil fuels of any type, no matter what their cost, past 2020 — well, you’ll look in vain.
In short, it’s a mess, and it’s sad but true that this can’t be a surprise to anyone. There have surely been enough studies, enquiries and White Papers on energy policy for the government to know what messages it ought to be sending out. Today’s messages aren’t a help to anyone.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (23)
Anonymous | 25 Jul 2012 12:36 pm
Lets just do what the French have been doing for the last 30 years - build lots of atomic power stations and be done with it!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Carolyn Knight | 25 Jul 2012 12:40 pm
Gas - the answer to everything! Mrs. Thatcher abolished the mines and spotted North Sea Gas. 'Let's build loads of cheap gas-fired power stations!' After a little while: 'Where did all that North Sea Gas go?'
Never mind we can buy gas cheap from the Russians. Oh! Now we've got a problem with energy security.
Muddle fudge, muddle fudge.
Round and round we go!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25 Jul 2012 12:46 pm
Instead of worrying about sending the right sort of messages (right for who?) how about just telling the truth for once. Climate Change is an unproven computer model, an energy supply based on wind will lead to power cuts, carbon capture is an expensive delaying tactic to support self-interest groups in the scientific left, fossil fuels will last at least 100 years yet and give best flexibility and security against a baseload which must be nuclear. As for Energy Conservation, it creates nothing and won't light a single lamp (although it is of course good practice).
Politicians need to stop playing politics with our future in furtherance of their own careers, and just tell the truth, get on with taxpayer subsidised investment in nuclear and stop milking industry to subsidise it's climate change fantasies.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Malcolm W | 25 Jul 2012 1:09 pm
I agree that our energy policy is a mess. We need a firmer commitment to renewables (both onshore and offshore) as I'm sure this will be our long term energy future. However I don't think we can ignore nuclear since supply shortfall and climate change targets require quicker action. Since EDF seem to be the only players in building new nuclear, I don't see how we are going to get a fair deal on build and operating costs.
More research into wave and tidal and less reliance on gas and potentially dangerous fracking would be good.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25 Jul 2012 1:22 pm
The trouble with any energy policy is that it goes beyond the life of a single parliament and once that happens no politician is going to back a policy the other lot might be able to gain brownie points for, or conversely, blame them for making the wrong choice.
A decision to put off deciding is the best we can hope for.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
- - | 25 Jul 2012 1:24 pm
More wind, whether on or off-shore and "research into wave and tidal" will not stop UK dispatchable capacity shrinking from roughly 80 GW today to less, possibly much less, than 70 GW in 3 years time. More cold winters cannot be discounted and who knows the economy may pick up and increase demand?
CCGTs take at least 3 years to build and not one has received FID since 2008.
It is now certain that UK will see severely stressed system in the period 2014 - 2016.
All foreseeable years ago when they slipped the UK into an impossible straitjacket where technically rational energy policy becomes impossible.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
S. Danneels | 25 Jul 2012 1:30 pm
Indeed the messages are confusing and are not very well articulated!
Offshore wind farms are only part of the solution to tackle the non-fossil fuel agenda. It is expensive and will not provide enough energy to replace the fossil fuel power stations (Coal and Gas).
The Chancellor and DECC have been fighting over this for a while, explaining this 10% cut.
DECC sees Gas as important post 2020, as we will not have enough renewable energy in place (Wind, Solar, Biomass, Tidal). Also the potential from Shale Gas described by some could be an easy solution. But as Stuart mentioned, this should be linked to CCS, so the CO2 emission from those plants are controlled and therefore deemed green.
As for Nuclear, well it seems like the Government can't make their mind yet. Political decisions are urgently required to make because the general public does not want it after all the fears brought by Fukushima (although the relevance to the UK still need to be explained to me). But in the same time I am sure that the general public does not want black out as predicted by DECC for 2018 due to the lack of energy supply. Shall the UK follow suit Germany? Bear in mind that Germany is now importing Nuclear electricity from France...
It is time for Central Government to make some important decisions and promptly.
Investments are needed now to be able to cope with future demand as most of power plants are coming to the end of their life.
Developing and building new infrastructures e.g.; Power, Transport, Schools, Hospital, etc will provide a brighter future, and create jobs and economic growth now to turn this recession around.
Since the UK was at the forefront of the two previous industrial revolutions, there is no reason why they can’t lead the next one! I know this does not happen overnight… Let’s remain optimistic.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan De la hay | 25 Jul 2012 1:47 pm
Surely its time for a consistent government we can all have confidence in, any ideas, I pesronally have no confidence in the inconsistent shower of crooks & jokers on offer at the moment.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike | 25 Jul 2012 2:12 pm
Easiest way to sort out energy policy, is to remove it from the fiddling greedy hands of the Conservatives, and appoint an engineering council that cannot be over ruled by Government.
Consistent policy is what is needed, not some gratuitous back room dealing with large energy companies, to get them the best profits. Also change the way that power is generated, to micro-generation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
stewart boyle | 25 Jul 2012 2:43 pm
A really excellent editorial. The lack of consistency from Government - ie "we want a big Green Economy" so "let's chop wind subsidies and give mixed messages on the RHI and FITS so investors lose confidence in a longer-term market". This government is bottling it right now. Countries like Denmark Austria, Germany, Brazil and Finland didn't get their huge and successful renewable energy economies by sticking with it for a few years, there has been consistency for 20 years and they now reap the dividends. The UK approach is to produce countless reports and assesments and chop and change every few years.
Incidentally the anti wind, climate change deniers and pro-nuke supporters all seem to be 'anonymous' this week. If you people haven't got the honesty to declare who you are then don't expect to e taken seriously! Anybody can hide away behind a laptop and rant away - stand up for who you are, who you are affiliated to etc
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment