A Green Degree Blog: New Angles On Sustainability

December 8th 2012

My Response To James Delingpole’s Sensational Outburst On The Recent WWF Wind vs Gas Report

James Delingpole, the infamous ‘interpreter of interpretations’ recently posted on his Telegraph blog an article on the latest report by the Cambridge Econometrics think tank for the WWF and Greenpeace, which stated that the UK economy would be £20bn better off if it decided to focus more heavily on offshore wind than gas in the coming decades.

It was a report which garnered widespread praise and support from many in the energy field, and detailed effectively how going down George Osborne’s ‘dash for gas’ path would inevitably lose us money in the long run, something many no doubt already had guessed.

However, Delingpole clearly seems to take an almost unbelievably sensational offense to this piece of science, and proceeds to write one of the most overblown and frankly prejudiced pieces of work I’ve come to read in a very long time, and on an influential media site such as the Telegraph to boot. This is my rebuttal to just some of his lamentable points made, many of which come straight out of a similarly acerbic blog from the ‘Eureferendum’ blog which shares his views.

The article instantly starts out by attacking personally and completely irrelevantly the status of the Cambridge Econometrics group and their head, Dr Terry Barker, as follows;

Turning to the source of this wisdom, we find the “think tank” originator named as “Cambridge Econometrics”, but to call it a think tank is something of a misnomer. The company actually describes itself as “an independent consultancy”, its business being the application of economic modelling and data analysis techniques to the needs of clients in business and government.

As to its “independence”, the company is a trading subsidiary of a charity, theCambridge Trust for New Thinking in Economics, which receives income from the company to pursue its registered objects.

What is interesting here is that Cambridge Econometrics seems to be a very profitable company, which, according to theaccounts submitted to the Charity Commission, turns over a cool £2-million-plus each year and giving its effective owner, Dr Terry Barker, a very comfortable living, plus pension. And Dr Barker has a certain amount of baggage. Hiscv says he is:

… the Chairman of Cambridge Econometrics, having founded the company in 1985. He is also Senior Departmental Fellow at the Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge. He is a member of the Editorial Board of Economic Systems Research, the International Journal of Climate Strategies and Management, the International Journal of Global Warming, and the Scientific Advisory Board of the World Wide Views on Global Warming. He was a member of the Scientific Committee of the Climate Change Congress, Copenhagen, March 2009, and was on the Writing Team of the Synthesis Report of the Congress.This is a warmist personified, which might suggest a certain bias in his approach to the subject of windfarms. And, if that isn’t enough to set an odiferous rat running, we find that the report itself is produced forGreenpeace and WWF-UK, which funded the work.

Stop Subsidising US Wind Power?!: A Rebuttal (Of Sorts) To An Ignorant Anti-Wind Rant

|#

I came across an article today priding itself on the subject of wind energy subsidies in the US and why investing in them any longer would be tantamount to breaking the law, and boy does the author do it with some vigour and confidence. Unfortunately, and I really doubt I will be the only one thinking the same thing, most of what this person writes is founded on ignorance, scientific falsehoods and a basic hatred for wind energy in any of its forms.

The article, titled ‘We Must Stop Subsidising Wind Power’, which you can find in the link at the end of this post, focuses on a myriad of detrimental effects the Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC), a hotly debated topic currently, as it stands to be shelved come the end of 2012, with so far no hope of a successor. While there are many powerful and well-informed societies, associations and individuals lobbying for its extension, its pieces like this which seriously undermine rational thinking.

Supposedly, American wind energy, and by logical assumption, the entire industry, is unreliable, severely expensive, economically damaging and highly dangerous to the environment, seemingly to the same degree that oil and coal are; a real and direct threat to the green side of life. It is simply deemed ‘not environmentally safe’. What an absolute load.

Let’s start with the first point, wind’s unreliability and thus pointlessly impractical employment as an energy source. The crux of the argument here is that due to the natural flux in wind strength and speed, turbines are entirely dependent upon fossil-fuel based sources to prop them up (I know) and therefore the price of this is passed onto consumers like you and me. Aside from this, it isn’t helping us reduce our emissions nearly as much as we hoped.

Yes, wind is unreliable as a quantity, just like market prices for fossil fuels or the accessibility of reserves, but this hasn’t stopped wind becoming THE primary renewable energy source worldwide, demonstrating the biggest growth rates and deployment percentages of any type. Not only this, but some of the leaders of free political-thinking in regards to clean energy sources have proven this is not the issue it is made out to be. Germany for instance powers over 8% of it’s needs through wind, and has demonstrated that the apparent reliance on oil or gas for baseload on the grid is not true; wind and solar alone can power a nation if handled rationally and smartly, something the US is quickly catching onto. Only last year, the US installed almost 7GW of wind, up 31% on 2010, and could meet 10% of energy requirements in six greedy states, a hell of a lot more than most, and installation prices have also dropped, hitting just $2.1 per watt, down 10 cents on 2010.

With smarter systems, demand-response software and upgraded grids, all technology which is not only well established and on the rise but relatively cheap to put in place, the apparent issues with fluctuating wind and lulls in power can be negated almost completely. Combine this with CCGTs and solar, a nation as hungry as America can happily guzzle electricity without so much as a mention of oil, coal or shale ‘something’.

Japan Sets A Risky New Bar In Solar Tariffs: Too Risky?

|#

Ater what seemed like a potentially tumultuous time for Japan once the final nuclear reactor was shutdown just months ago, it seems the fledgling nuclear industry may once again be getting a restart, after conformation from the Japanese government to go ahead with the reopening of two reactors in the near future. Considering the fallout from Fukushima and intense protestation from the Japanese citizens towards any sign of rekindling the nuclear fire this is an important step forward in the debate.

It couldn’t come at a better time, as current supplies of fossil fuel based energy has been ramped up to over 90% from 60% before the shutdown to deal with the increased strain on the country, which of course leads to higher emissions and a greater risk to society as a whole, a reaction I figured would be the case from the moment of hearing about the nationwide closures. Coming into the hot Japanese summer was no doubt a primary factor in determining the restart of both plants, as an overuse of A/C and the need for cooling would have likely overloaded the grid periodically - not something a leading 1st world nation wants to be fronting during such critical times.

What is even more reassuring however is the news of a brand new feed in tariff directed towards Japanese renewable energy, with solar in particular, a sector which is booming globally, and set to really explode in Japan if given the right treatment, ala Germany or the UK. Whilst these FiTs are common ground to those who follow the solar debate, the Japanese have taken what is in my view an extremely risky and brash angle, which could bring them closer towards a solar dominated grid with popularity through the roof, or complete economic slump and a positive drive away from renewables as it stands.

They’ve done this choosing to set their price per KWh at a staggering $0.53, which is triple that of China’s and double the current UK rate, which is set to fall over the coming months. Through this astounding figure, which translates to how much money a consumer will be paid per unit of solar energy they produce, Japan hopes to blow all other solar markets out of the water, installing up to 20GW of solar alone by 2016.

This tariff also applies to wind, geothermal, biomass and more, all of which Japan is seemingly rushing into as the global markets pick up pace and fossil fuel support falls all around. Even wind FiTs beat German prices, currently some of the best in the world, and many of these tariffs guarantee set prices for 20 years, a much more ambitious projection than all other renewable European nations.

Personally I believe this is wonderful news to the highest degree, and to see a country which only recently shut its entire nuclear capacity down, an energy source to the tune of 30% of nationwide production, to then rapidly put in place such radical policies to promote renewables is signs of good things ahead. When many other countries are blaming a lack of solar, wind and biomass on a lack of space, unfavourable conditions and poor public support, Japan is flying in the face of such issues; the nation is comparably small, highly mountainous, densely populated and a world leader in technology and economics, and they plough on like never before. Many nations should take note and learn, as Japan could be the next big green player.

However, before I get too excited and jump the gun, I would like to point out some potential problems, some of which could really derail this phenomenal move. Both of the big leaders in solar FiTs, Germany and the UK have both experienced the results of highly attractive and lucrative tariffs, set too high for the nations coffers to fund once installations shot up dramatically. Due to this, both have been forced to slash prices and guarantees in the face of public protest, in attempts to be able to continue paying the consumers who so gleefully latched onto the policy.

Now we see Japan setting prices at double the market rate, with 20 year warranties; is this not setting itself up for a huge fall if they calculated wrong and cannot continue funding the explosive growth as many analysts expect? Germany and the UK thought they had it sorted, and even though their sectors are still growing, solar installations have taken a wounding blow, one which will continue to bleed for a whole longer before the market reasserts itself.

If Japan doesn’t manage to control these tariffs, we could see problems in the solar market which could deliver a potentially fatal blow to FiT schemes around the world. When you’re dealing with such a fickle public as ourselves, the knowledge that two or three schemes failed to deliver their original promises could mean the end for something which is only just finding its feet.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23798

Posted at 10:20am and tagged with: Solar, Japan, Uk, Germany, Feed in tariff, FiT, Economy, Technology, Nuclear, Fukishima, Public, Politics, Policy, Market, China, Wind, Energy, Renewable, Green, Biomass, Fossil fuel, Climate, Carbon,.