Renewable Energy Strategy

rwendland Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Good news speech this morning by Gordon Brown on creating a low carbon economy, including introducing financial incentives "such as feed-in tariffs or equivalent mechanisms" for decentralised energy and microgeneration. Why then announce equality laws on the same day to de-focus media interest?



The substance of the low carbon push is on the BERR website as the Renewable Energy Strategy Consultation.

The immediate measures in the consultation are flagged in GB's speech as:

  • one - raising the level of the Renewables Obligation and extending it to 2040;
  • two - introducing financial incentives such as feed-in tariffs or equivalent mechanisms to bring on renewable heat, decentralised energy and microgeneration;
  • three - removing, without delay, the barriers that currently prevent renewable generators connecting to the national grid;
  • four - changing the planning system to speed up renewable applications, requiring regional and local authorities to plan for renewables, and giving local communities a real stake in them;
  • and five - reducing delays and objections to new renewable installations from the Ministry of Defence, civil aviation and shipping.

From a first look, this seems pretty good - but needs study on the economics.

More than I expected from Hutton, who recently said "Britain aims to become the number one location for nuclear investment". But the economics of nuclear power still looks very flaky, with build cost estimates near tripling since 2003.

Update: The Register has a good analysis of the Renewable Energy Strategy.



tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Renewable Energy Strategy | 18 comments (18 topical)

Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#1)

by Al on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:05:49 PM GMT

I have to admit I wondered why they were putting two bits of good news out on the same day.

When Greenpeace refers to a government document as 'visionary' you know it must be being well received!


Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#2)

by Group51 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:34:57 PM GMT

"Why then announce equality laws on the same day to de-focus media interest?"

Poor political skill?


Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#3)

by Group51 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:49:47 PM GMT

I mean, they should have done the nuclear announcement on the same say as this (and this shouldn't have been a 'consultation' - WTF?  Just do it!!).

Remember when the nuclear announcement came, we were accused of ignoring green energy?  We should be joining up our thinking, politically.


Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#4)

by madasafish on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:06:49 PM GMT

Why announce equality laws?

os they really want to lose the white male working class vote.


Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#5)

by NB on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:49:59 PM GMT

With Mr Bean in charge what do you expect?


Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#6)

by AngryVoter on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:47:49 AM GMT

I remain skeptical of both proposals. Wind Farms don't work properly and indeed can be little more than a subsidized con, wind is not a constant here in this country and any short-fall comes in power is brought in by regular fossil fuel burning powerplants. The Nuclear issue, while annoying the greens, is perhaps the best alongside the idea of smaller-scale power generation utilizing methods that work, rather than wind farms which don't. Personally I wonder what's wrong with things such as wood-burning power stations and rubbish burning power stations, the energy from one is renewable, while the other is a constant stream of combustible rubbish from our consuming.

 

The "Equality Bill" after reading about it seems to be anything but. The law stipulates "positive" discrimination towards women and ethnic minorities. This I feel highly uncomfortable with as it seems to create inequality for one larger group that a pair of second slightly smaller groups.

An actual equality bill should stipulate that the one who is the most competent and skilled for the job should get it, regardless of colour, sex or creed. Not trying to pigeon hole and shove underqualified or even incompetent candidates who happen to be women or an ethnic minority.

Ontop of this there is now becoming a genuine underlying tension within the British mood, there's a sense of unfair play at work in the drive for "equality" which, rather than attempting to make people colour or sex "blind" as it should be.

[Incidently it's what I beleive in as a Tory, a person should get to places on merit, not on the colour of their skin, or wether they have female reproductive organs]

 


Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#9)

by jkitleft on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:19:23 PM GMT

Wind farms DO seem to work. I beleive they now produce 20% of Denmark's energy: when the Danes or Swedes do something, it must be good!


[ Parent ]

Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#11)

by raresurreylabourmember on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:27:33 AM GMT

The Equality Bill doesn't "stipulate" positive discrimination. It's basically just tidying up a slight problem left by previous discrimination legislation. While most people would agree now that there needs to be legislation to prevent either conscious or, as best as it can, subconscious prejudices from affecting employers' decisions, that isn't the same as saying that employers need to make decisions just the personal abilities of the candidates. They are also likely to want to consider how that person will fit in with their current team. It might be that one candidate is highly skilled than another, but the particular skills of the second would complement the existing workforce better. The issue the Bill is intended to clarify is that if an employer decides that they regard having a socially mixed workforce as a goal of theirs, it isn't illegal to take this into account when comparing roughly similar candidates.

I was watching a QT in which this came up the other day, and actually had to switch it off because I got so frustrated how some people were simply not listening to Yvette Cooper as she tried to explain the Bill. People kept complaining about the government trying to force employers to do something. But as regards positive discrimination the Bill is literally just making something legal that previously was illegal. There is fundamentally no way that can be construed as forcing anyone to do anything. 

 

Oh, and I agree with you about wood and rubbish burning. I have a feeling that one of the small parts of the Energy proposals was a suggested move to ban putting wood in landfills, so this issue isn't being left out. 



[ Parent ]

Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#12)

by jkitleft on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:18:56 PM GMT

Exactly, the employers are under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION. They just now have a right under the law to balance their workforce.


I have watched QT recently, but it's a good idea not to watch it. It lost ALL credibility after the notorious 9/11 episode. It just throws out populist crap as a supposed synonym for an intellectual argument, and we're supposed to think it's clever.


[ Parent ]

Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#7)

by Radford Mann on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:09:16 PM GMT

I may not have read the Equality Bill piece properly, but I'm not sure I 'get' it. As I understand it, the proposed law allows an employer to choose a woman over a man if both are similarly qualified. If two candidates are equally qualified, it's never been too difficult to find a reason to give the job to one over the other. Only a fool would just choose the man over the woman or vice versa. Surely, an employer would take into account a variety of things, none of them gender, before making their choice. Are there lots of cases of employers saying, "You know, I'd really love to employ this woman, but there's an equally qualified man so I'll have to give the job to him" that the new legislation is going to help?

Also, I did see that business has managed to persuade the government to drop the requirement for private sector firms to publicise their pay differential between men and women. Come on, folks, the Equal Pay Act wasn't passed yesterday! Pay the rate for the job and be done with it. If not, you should have to advertise that your firm's a sexist outfit. 


Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#8)

by Al on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:36:52 PM GMT

The country is one of the most windy in the world, somewhere in the UK there will always be a strong wind. I can't see somewhere the size of the UK having days with absolutely no wind. It's not like we're expecting 100% of energy to come from it.

As for the equalities bill, I think it's that if there is nothing to choose between employees, and the employers thinks there is a lack of representation in their office etc of women, or ethnic minorities, they are now legally allowed to choose the woman/ethnic minority over the man on that basis.

It's not saying that women or ethnic minorities should be chosen over people with better qualifications, only when both candidates are equal in other aspects.


Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#10)

by Free Radical on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:00:27 AM GMT

While the UK is indeed very windy there are still times when you get a high pressure system over the British Isles and little wind - sometimes for days on end.

This can happen in mid-winter as well as summer, in which case there is little sunshine too (especially with mid-winter fog!).

So wind power, though useful, is limited as to the percentage of the total power it can provide and has to have alternatives on standby. The rush for wind power is due to its cheapness as much as greeness - it's very cheap to set up wind generators (comparatively).

To be honest, after opposing nuclear power for most of my life, I am coming to the conclusion that it needs to be part of the mix - along with renewables, microgeneration and feeder systems, coal and gas with carbon capture. I think, despite the expense and the huge decommissioning expense, that nuclear power will be necessary to some degree until either massive solar and / or tidal power generation becomes economic, or until fusion power comes in (maybe 40 years hence?).


[ Parent ]

Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#13)

by rwendland on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:56:56 PM GMT

From what I can make out actual nuclear build cost quotes have about tripled over the estimated costs of 2003.

Around 2003 build cost estimates of around $1,500/kWe were being offered by the industry, and independent studies were using about $2,000/kWe.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company are looking to buy AP1000 reactors, and they say they'll cost $4.9+ billion a unit. With some back-of-envelope sums that works out at $4,400+/kWe - which is about triple industry 2003 estimates. Moody's Investors Service conservative estimate is between $5,000 and $7,000/kWe.

Keystone Center's latest price estimate is "reasonable estimate for levelized cost range ... is 12 to 17 cents per kilowatt hour lifetime" (6.2p to 8.7p/kWe). This is well above economic. It seems only regulated generators in the U.S. are looking at nuclear, even with the Bush incentive package - and they are asking the regulator to allow them to increase prices during nuclear build to partly fund build costs. Not allowed in the competitive UK market.

I think Hutton is going to struggle to deliver on Brown's hopes for nuclear. Maybe that is why Brown went to Saudi 2 weeks ago to try to get politically directed investment in nuclear. What the nuclear & wind industry really wants is carbon pricing, to up the competition's prices.


[ Parent ]

Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#14)

by madasafish on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:08:26 PM GMT

I specialsie in oil.
The 2008 Treasury forecasts for oil prices assumed  $90,per barrel this year rising if I recall correctly to $150 by 2030.

Absolute idiotic muppetry.

Anyone who assumes oil prices under $100 per barrel is a hopeless optimist. Current Reserve estimates (BP) say we have 42 years oil left at current consumption.. 

Anyoe who assumes current pricing under those scenarios is an economic idiot and should be fired.

As for nuclear, have you looked at steel prices? Or copper? They have virtually trebled in the past 5 years. A nuclear power station - or any power station for that matter - includes an awful lot of steel.

Before you make any comment on the issue, I can recommend a good background reading on oil. It should take about 2 months to get an idea of the key issues driving the current price.

By the way, anyone who quotes any politicians on this issue should be aware they are either ignorant or lying or both.
If you think oil prices are going back to $70 or lower - permanently - should think again.

As for wind woer? Well... lets put it like this. Maximum demand for electricity is in winter on cold days. Usually forosty ones. those are days when the wind speed is LOW.

Anyone suggesting windpower is an answer has done as much research as the proponents of local income taxes.

I do not claim to be an expert. But one thing I know is when I read proposals suggesting wind or tidal power is the answer.. then I know the proponent has usually done little homework...


The Government have a major problem on electricty generation . the lights are likely to go out in some period 2008-2016 for a long time: and it is clealry and demonstrravly the fault of Labour governments 1997 on.

And if you do not know what I am talking about, may I suggest another month's reading. It should scare you and make you realise how scarily incompetent Ministers have been and are.


Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#15)

by RedRooster on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:59:38 PM GMT

You may know about oil, but you clearly know nothing about wind.

"As for wind woer? Well... lets put it like this. Maximum demand for electricity is in winter on cold days. Usually forosty ones. those are days when the wind speed is LOW."

Most sensible proponents of wind power argue that to make it viable, you need a big network of turbines covering a wide area (say all the sea around the UK and Scandinavia).  That area is wide enough that the wind is always blowing SOMEWHERE in that area.  It's one reason why increased use of renewables has to go hand in hand with increased EU co-operation.  But the localisation of wind problem is so easily overcome by this method- the fact that you don't understand this makes the rest of your analysis pretty weak. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#17)

by rwendland on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:09:59 PM GMT

The BERR fossil fuel price forecasts look even more ridiculously optimistic than you suggest. The Central Scenario, upon which I think the Renewable Energy Strategy headline costs are based, have oil at 73$/bbl in 2007, down to 65$/bbl in 2010, slowly increasing to 75$/bbl by 2030 !!

Even the High High Scenario has oil 107$/bbl in 2010, increasing to 150$/bbl in 2015 and stabilising there thru to 2030.

From what I can see, this proposed Renewable Energy Strategy will cost very little at the High High Scenario, which itself may be an underestimate. Maybe Hutton knew this, and wanted to announce something dramatic sounding which in fact it is not anything very significant with realistic projections.

Yep, I know about the dramatic steel, and especially copper, price rises. But they would not account for a tripling in nuclear build costs, which I think must be significantly due to over-optimistic industry costings in the early 2000s.

I know WindGen build prices are also up a lot, from metal prices and increasing demand, but I've not spotted a study which indicates by how much. Would be interested if anyone has seen such a study.


[ Parent ]

Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#16)

by madasafish on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:17:44 PM GMT

And obviously you know little of the losses through the National Grid and the costs and problems involved in linking all these windy sites together...


Re: Renewable Energy Strategy (#18)

by rwendland on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:53:24 PM GMT

> you know little of the losses through the National Grid and ...

Sorry to dissapoint, but I have read the National Grid Seven Year Statement and more especially the Effectiveness of Marginal Generation due to Transmission Losses table ! Scottish wind is 15+% less effective than South West wind, unless we build a HVDC link.


[ Parent ]

Renewable Energy Strategy | 18 comments (18 topical)