A Green Degree Blog: New Angles On Sustainability

January 7th 2013

Time To Put ‘Context’ Back Into Scientific Reporting: First Stop, Wind Turbines

Before I throw this first post of the new year into top gear, I just want to mention on the side that this isn’t going to be entirely focused on the topic of birds v wind turbines, although of course some of it will, as I’d like to use this opportunity whilst on the subject of context in science, to have a brief but hopefully interesting little poke around in it.

I’m sure many of you have read, or at least heard the debate raging between those who perceive wind turbines to be nothing more than trumped-up avian grinders, doing everything in their power to churn up as many feathered friends of the Earth as they can, or those who, and I’d like to say, with some rationality and understanding of the wider science, believe this to be some seriously outspoken hot air.

The reason I’m choosing to revisit this lovely little topic of conversation is due to a recent article posted in the not-so-environmentally-friendly ‘Spectator’, a well-known paper leaning on the Conservative side of the spectrum, and one which has sparked many angry rebuttals and responses in its time. This one, as I’m sure you can guess already, was aiming to yet again derail our well-earned trust and faith in wind farms worldwide, through the examining of some questionably outdated data on bird and bat deaths in Spain, Germany, Europe and elsewhere, written by what we should rightly assume to be a well-educated and reputable character, Clive Hambler, an Oxford lecturer and graduate in zoology. Seems legit right? Hmmm.

While I do not for one minute want to use this blog as a way to bash this man’s credentials and career, I do want to highlight just one of the biggest issues I, and as you can read in these articles, many others have with his piece; and boy is it a biggy. He’s missing a whole lot of context.

Posted at 10:00am and tagged with: wind, energy, birds, bats, death, anti, environmentalism, species, conservation, media, science, politics, data, context, rational, logical, debate,.

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.

Posted at 12:46pm and tagged with: delingpole, gas, wind, sensational, media, public, perception, shale, turbines, birds, death, telegraph, wwf, greenpeace,.

December 6th 2012

George Osborne Shows Us He’s Ready To Do Just As We Expected: Create Yet More Hot Air

|#

George Osborne today finally made crystal clear exactly what he thinks of the green agenda and renewable energy economy - that unless he gets smacked round the head by a spinning wind turbine, which lets face it, may do some good to his outrageously deluded mind, he won’t give it the time of day, or night, or anything inbetween. It’s all about the gas my friends.

With his Autumn Statement came many expectations from the climate and energy hawks amongst us, and it’s pretty safe to say that effectively all of them came to fruition as he stood defiant and commanding at the microphone, with an air which seemed to suggest he knows what he’s doing, and what he’s doing is in the best interest of us all. May have to think again on that one George.

It’s no secret that Mr Osborne and fellow energy minister Ed Davey generally sit at either end of the scale when it comes to the future of renewable energy and a low-carbon economy in this country, with the Treasury becoming increasingly characterised as the evil, gas-guzzling, fund-slashing body that it pretty much is. All the while, Davey is effectively fighting an uphill battle on every aspect of energy policy within the coalition, and despite having what should be powerful and influential bodies backing him, such as DECC, BIS and the CBI, he is being consistently shortchanged.

I will admit just quickly however that what Davey managed to achieve with the Energy Bill announced just last week was most probably the very best he could have gotten out of such a confused and lost government, and in many ways there’s plenty to praise about it. Contracts for difference and a multi-billion pound fund set for low-carbon projects and the development of a single counter-party setting the price alongside a capacity mechanism which could work means there’s plenty of good things going renewable’s way.

There was of course a huge omission in the delaying of the decarbonisation target decision until 2016, and the idea of excluding carbon-intensive industry just boggles the mind, but considering what Davey was actually up against, I find it hard not to applaud him. When you’ve got people like John Hayes and George Osborne throwing their weight and silly statistics around it’s damn surprising he got anything done at all.

So it must be a real kick in the teeth, groin and all other areas to Davey to hear what the Chancellor has planned for the UK energy market over the coming years, whilst he fights even harder to produce the goods over in Doha. Undoubtedly he knew some, if not all aspects of the announcement today, but that can’t make it any easier.

Posted at 10:00am and tagged with: osborne, treasury, gas, shale, fracking, AS2012, money, energy, davey, government, news, politics, climate, carbon, UK, renewables, low-carbon, coal, wind, data, science, education,.

November 6th 2012

It’s Time To Hand Over UK Wind Projects To The Community

|#

UK Wind energy has taken what can only be described as a potentially fatal blow in recent weeks, mostly due to our fancy new and obviously yet to adjust himself Energy Minister John Hayes, who slammed the industry in a poorly veiled release of emotion to various newspapers and public arenas.

His view brings to light issues which many of us were deeply worried about when he took position as the senior governmental minister presiding over energy matters, those pertaining to renewable energy and in particular wind farms, both on and offshore. He was well known for his relatively open anti-wind stance years before his new job was offered, but plenty hoped this rather large crease had been ironed out in the process of waking up and smelling the climate coffee. Apparently not.

John Hayes is a believer of many things wholeheartedly and affectionately, including things like gas, nuclear and domestic offshore drilling, but not of a future where the UK is ‘peppered’ with detestable wind farms ruining ‘this green and pleasant land’ to which he has taken it upon himself to be the guardian of. It is pretty certain that the UK will meet and possibly even exceed its wind deployment targets for 2015 and 2020, and we could undoubtedly carry on far beyond these ageing goals and continue to lead Europe in the generation of purely wind powered electricity, but Hayes doesn’t want that. His view: ‘enough is enough’ on the wind front; we’re going to reach our goals and therefore we should stop blighting the landscape with the bloody things. Because that will solve climate change won’t it John.

Aside from his complete ignorance and obvious political gaming on this subject, in the face of a shambolic energy policy, Hayes did raise one important point, albeit a painful one [for me at least] to come to terms with. If wind is to be deployed on any greater scale then it currently is, investigation and surveying into the impacts on communities must be taken more seriously than it is now for them to come to accept turbines in their backyard.

I personally feel that he said this to simply placate the environmentalists and wind industries out there who may be more angered than most if he had just outright stated his genuine dislike for the technology, but it can be read in another, more rational way.

We are a nation of ‘NIMBY’; we hate to have what is left of our humble British landscape marred by a dirty great wind turbine in our ‘backyard’ or a farm miles offshore polluting our view of the abundant shipping lanes, and this is precisely the reason why the industry hasn’t exploded like it should have done years ago. The UK is a windy place, and a consistently windy place at that, and a lot of the regions where the gusts hit the highest speeds, very little tends to exist, even if that may be due to constraints with the topography; think Scottish highlands and you’ll get this gist.

October 25th 2012

Somehow, UK Leads (Mostly) Europe-Wide Overachievement Towards Kyoto Targets

|#

Well I must admit, I for one did not see this news coming, and it has come at quite the shock to me, and I would like to think much of the developed world and climate hawks all around. The EU is set to meet and surpass the greenhouse gas emission targets set out in the Kyoto Protocol way back in 1997, cutting overall amounts by at least 5% per country involved, which is a sizeable amount whichever way you cut it.

Considering many other developed nations have either long given up on reaching these goals, or have simply backed out in the interests of domestic markets (think Canada and their precious tar-sand resources), or never actually ratified the Protocol in the first place, the fact that the EU has achieved this is quite some show of progress in the right direction.

What surprised me even more so, and this is undoubtedly where my powerful cynicism comes into play, or what I like to think of as realistic cynicism at least, is that the United Kingdom is leading the pack in slashing GHG emissions in real terms (actual tonnes of emissions), cutting them by 6% in 2011, equivalent to roughly 36m tonnes of CO2. Compare this to 5% for France and just 2% for solar-rich Germany, and you see what all the fuss is about. Personally, and I don’t believe I was alone in this thought, I always mostly ignored the government’s claims of how well we were doing and how we would easily meet our targets and surpass them, and given recent developments in our energy policy, I would be mad to think of it as truth; but apparently I was wrong.

Now, there are multiple reasons as to why this sudden drop in emissions came to be, and when combined, they would seem to account for much of the cuts we are now seeing and inevitably will be boasting about on the global stage. Firstly, a milder year for weather all round depressed gas and electricity usage, and secondly, cleaner wind and solar energy has steadily been coming online since the mid-noughties, and even though there are relatively few numbers of MWs being produced via renewables, they obviously have a impact.

However, and possibly more importantly, a practically stagnant European economy drove down the use of any form of energy, be it fossil or renewable, in part forcing the decline in emissions, and in others the maddeningly new high bill costs supposedly ‘needed’ to keep the Big Six running our country’s supply of juice.

Posted at 10:00am and tagged with: energy, climate, emissions, EU, europe, UK, kyoto protocol, cut, carbon, pollution, canada, china, us, germany, france, nuclear, solar, wind, greenhouse, government, politics, economy, growth, investment, osborne, hayes, cameron, policy,.

October 23rd 2012

The UK’s Changing Energy Supply; A John Hayes Approach (Another Shambles!)

|#

There are an almost endless number of perks to being a student at Imperial College, and in particular one studying the environmental and energy sciences, not least the free wine nights held ‘traditionally’ every Thursday night after a guest talk. However, this week’s treat was one of a slightly higher and more professional calibre - a talk by the recently crowned energy minister of state at DECC, John Hayes, the man leading the ‘greenest party ever’ forward unto the dawn.

I was unashamedly quite excited about this guest spot, as not only was it to be my first experience with a powerful politician in a public speaking environment, but it was also a man who was directly responsible for much of what I define as my most passionate of interests and enjoyments, the energy debate, and within that, the UK’s shambles of an attempt. So with this confidence, and of course a rather large expectation for something to annoy/anger/depress being said, I went to watch him speak to an audience of students, professionals, politicians and interested parties yesterday evening. The focus of the topic? The changing UK energy supply. Fascinating and current stuff for sure.

Unfortunately, it was not to be the case. Not only did I come out the talk feeling let down, disappointed, confused and kinda angry at the whole thing, but these feelings were far stronger than I thought I would experience going in. Politics never fails to surprise eh.

From start to finish, John Hayes, a man who recently replaced the much-loved by all (even greenies) Charles Hendry from an utterly un-environmentally linked background, gave us a masterclass in dodging the elephants in the room, not answering questions but doing enough to move on and being wholly like a Tory politician should be; funny in a way which boils the blood and patronisingly cocky at the same time.

When he finally stumbled onto the topic of energy sources and generation, with me believing at one point that he was never going to mention the words ‘sustainable’, ‘renewable’ or ‘climate change’, it was a speech filled with techno-political babble and attempts at covering everything possible with as little information as possible. He screamed past the likes of biomass production, solar PV and onshore wind without even mentioning offshore or tidal, focusing on the topic long enough to merely list their names, avoiding going into any deep, or even shallow conversation in regards to deployment, costs, future developments or the coalition’s stance. It was all behind us in a matter of seconds and yet it couldn’t have been more of an important topic when debating energy supply.

He only delved into onshore wind briefly when he wanted to point out, in a manner I felt similar to veiled hostility, that he had called for investigations into their costs and effectiveness, and to how best the communities affected by their development could be compensated. Of course, he was basically saying that he wasn’t prepared to talk at any length about them unless he was 100% sure they didn’t piss people off or ruin the countryside. Seems his anti-wind stance people had hoped he had dropped was still living on.

CCS, nuclear and natural gas, spiced up with some North Sea offshore drilling then became the main subjects of conversation, with each one generously fleshed out and described in a detail which was rarely employed anywhere else in his entire talk.

Posted at 9:50am and tagged with: john hayes, UK, energy, policy, politics, science, coalition, DECC, ofgem, ccs, carbon, gas, oil, wind, solar, fracking, shale, supply, anti, green, low carbon, debate, uni, talk, imperial, offshore, drilling, nuclear, market, big six,.

October 20th 2012

The Latest Terror Threat? The ‘Environmental Taliban’…What, What?

|#

Oh George, we marvel at how you consistently manage to spout something new and controversial, almost on a daily basis. You really are a character I don’t think people will be forgetting for some time to come, be that for better (unlikely) or for worse. So what has he done now? That’s if you haven’t already stumbled across the latest gobsmackingly stupid comment from the man who has simultaneously managed to upset both the wider public, most of the UK government including his own Party (22% of Tory’s voted for him out in a recent poll), the EU and most of the powerful energy industry players out there, and all roughly within a week or two. Amazing.

Mr. Osborne has now begun referring to those within Parliament who are campaigning for greener futures and a strong climate agenda as the ‘environmental Taliban’, in a stunningly short-sighted comment no doubt directed at Ed Davey and his keen followers, who in most cases are the majority of the public who know a thing or two about clean energy. It would seem that environmentalists have now moved on from being a Satanic cult (no joke, this was a real thing said by a real US political speaker) worshipping the devil that is the Earth/Gaia, and are now a group of radicals akin to dangerous terrorists. And he’s Chancellor of the Exchequer? Satan save us.

This name-calling comes at a very sensitive period for the entirety of UK energy policy, which is, for lack of a better phrase, a complete shambles, primarily driven by Osborne and his cohort of Tory followers who variously are either anti-wind, solar or renewables, and pro-offshore and fracking. Even if he meant the ‘Taliban’ reference as a joke, there will undoubtedly be people out there who do not take it so, and by extending his terminology to environmentalists as a whole, he’s including a huge number of people who believe climate change is real, we are responsible for the majority and that low-carbon is the only real solution. Hence why protests and Twitter campaigns such as #greenisworking have exploded in favour of condemning his actions (I’ve even seen one called #killgeorgeosborne, which is a likelihood seeming ever more likely…).

According to reports, the comment came as Ed Davey desperately attempts to push through a binding emissions cap on power plants for 2030, as well as clarifying legislation on the approaching switch to ‘contracts for difference’, a policy which aims to lock in value for renewable projects and promote low-carbon development, with the Treasury fronting the responsibility of guaranteeing support. Of course, Osborne doesn’t like this idea, and is rapidly becoming an aura of clean-tech skepticism and a loss of interest in decarbonising the grid, and as many fear, a reflection of the general Tory party backbench’s opinion.

Instead, Osborne has long rallied for a ‘dash for gas’, whereby abundances in domestic natural shale gas could be exploited to lower energy costs and secure resources for the future, a notion no doubt triggered by the explosion in gas extraction and a tumbling in energy costs over in America. While the idea of energy security and low costs are his way of appealing to a nation where 9% gas bill hikes are almost common place and keeping the house lit is becoming increasingly painful on the wallet, there are some rather major flaws in his plan.

Posted at 9:21am and tagged with: george osborne, Environment, taliban, energy, debate, policy, politics, ed davey, UK, parliament, Cameron, big six, coal, gas, fracking, oil, wind, solar, tidal, money, terror, green, jobs, PTC, US, Tory, climate, clean, low-carbon, Earth,.

September 22nd 2012

The Wind Industry Is Booming, But Boy Do Some Bleak Futures Lay Ahead

|#

Of all the renewable technologies open to us these days, there’s no doubt that wind is the outright winner in the capacity and cost race, and more specifically, onshore wind, those gleaming white towers some countries are lucky (and tolerant) enough to have dotting their countryside and coastal regions.

Global wind deployment was once again up last year, this time by a relatively humble 6%, equating to just shy of 42GW of energy capacity installed, when compared to the average of 23% for the five years leading up to 2010, but is nonetheless signs of rampant and continued uptake the world over. Asia takes the biggest bite, with 52.1% of the global share, most of that in China, in which a recent study undertaken by multiple parties has concluded that Chinese capacity could reach 300GW by 2020, and 400GW by 2030; they are absolutely HUGE numbers, and if achieved, mark a seriously devoted agenda from the communist-cum-capitalist nation.

Closer to home, Europe has fallen in the rankings, taking just 24.5% of new installations for 2011, with again, a large majority of that down to one country, Germany, whose brilliant FiTs and policies allow for cost-effective and quick deployment of wind turbines throughout the country to the tune of almost a 1/3 of all European cumulative additions.

However, a draft government regulation released a few weeks ago in Germany seems to be stifling this growth just as it gets some real pace, or at least in the offshore department. Offshore has unfortunately been a much less avidly followed form of wind energy, due to its high costs, difficult maintenance and installation issues and generally poor policy and regulation worldwide, but Germany has always been one of the leaders. This new announcement would slash incentives for offshore generation prices, from 1 Euro/MWh to 0.75 Euros; whilst this cuts costs slightly for consumers on the renewable section of their bills, it will ultimately put future projects off and may stunt growth of a crucial area for the industry.

On the plus side, the UK achieved a milestone for wind energy generation recently by producing 4.1GW of electricity, over 10% of the country’s needs, using those spinning blades to boil cups of tea and burn toast, beating the previous 3.8GW record set in May. Some decided to lessen this triumph by stating that 4.1GW roughly equals the output of just one single coal and biomass-fired plant, Drax, which is not only more reliable but not as expensive. Surely they can’t be serious? When Germany produced over half their energy needs via solar and wind earlier this year, I don’t remember seeing any rabid comparisons to numbers of coal or gas plants over there, so why here?

Posted at 10:00am and tagged with: wind, energy, sustainable, renewable, emissions, coal, gas, turbines, economy, politics, policy, rewards, windfall, farm, clean, green, asia, china, trade, war, onshore, UK, america, USA, elections, europe, electricity, germany, investment, PTC,.