On July 16th 2009 David Miliband, minister of Energy and Climate Change, presented a plan to increase radically the amount of renewable energy in the UK
Specifically he proposed to increase “fourfold” the number of turbines, onshore and offshore, and do this by 2020. This plan generated a vast amount of documentation and comment, not only from DECC but from a wide range of organisations, journals, newspapers and real experts in the subject. The fallout covered all the areas which would be impacted if the plans ever got implemented, including landscape destruction, wildlife, the electricity grid, planning, jobs, but above all the weakesses of wind energy itself.
This list of references contains a short comment and a link to the relevant article.
As we move into a General Election campagn it is also important that we know what the policies of the Conservative Party are. Documents from DECC, reflecting the Labour Government's policy. The Conservative Party's on Renewable Energy, including wind energy is contained in THE LOW CARBON ECONOMY: SECURITY, STABILITY AND GREEN GROWTH |
Commentaries, articles etc following David Miliband's July 16 2009 report
|
|
Number of wind turbines to quadruple under Renewable Energy Strategy
"Ministers have put wind power at the heart of a Renewable Energy Strategy, which is due to be released on Wednesday. It will outline how Britain is to meet its target of a 34 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2020. The Government’s plans are likely to include more than 4,000 additional onshore turbines by 2020, many built at beauty spots and on high ground which would make them visible across miles of open countryside".
|
The Daily Telegraph July 16, 2009 Country residents have been told that they must accept the building of "many thousands" of wind turbines as part of a new green energy strategy. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, announced yesterday that planning rules would be changed to make it easier for 6,000 onshore wind turbines to be built. Britain's "default position" would be to accept new onshore turbines, he said.
“How the hell did we let that happen?” we often ask ourselves when we look at the brutalist monstrosity tower blocks which we allowed to blight our towns in the sixties. In a few decades’ time we’re going to be asking exactly the same question about the 300 foot wind turbines ruining what’s left of Britain’s wilderness."
|
The Engineer on-line 16 July 2009 Government should be cautious on wind power Sections of the power industry – including voices from the renewables sector itself – have lined up with business leaders to warn the government of the perils of backing wind too strongly in today’s carbon change whitepaper. Power technology experts and tidal energy specialists joined the CBI in urging caution ahead of the expected announcement of a major expansion of the
|
The Times 17 July 2009 "The question that should have been at the heart of the White Paper is this: given our (limited) resources, where can Britain add the maximum benefits to this global problem? Where can it make a difference? The answer is largely in technology: we have some of the best scientists, very good engineers and best universities in the world. Where we can really help is by investing in developing carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear energy and new technologies for networks, batteries and the electrification of transport. The Government deserves credit for beginning to develop some of these.
|
|
The Sunday Times 19 July 2009 Danny Forston Ed Miliband’s 1,000-page opus is big on aspiration but short on detail, say industry chiefs, and Labour’s low-carbon dreams will remain just that without investment" Dominic Lawson "You may recall the Beyond the Fringe sketch in which Squadron Leader Peter Cook tells Jonathan Miller, the doleful pilot, that he must set out on a doomed mission because “we need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war”. I was irresistibly reminded of this by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, in his launch of plans to cut carbon emissions by switching to “renewables” for more than 30% of our energy use. This, he claimed, would “rise to the moral challenge of climate change”.
Renewable Energy Foundation This comment was made in answer to the BECC Renewable Energy Strategy report (see above) Daily Telegraph By Patrick Sawer Wind power plans 'flawed', say critics . The Independent, Thursday, 16 July 2009 |
Intermittency - the fatal flaw?
Just before the 16th July announcement that we were going to bet (nearly) all our money on windfarms to solve our energy problems, a report was deliverd to the UK Government, and other bodies by the consultancy Poyry, which specialises in energy. The report, called Impact of Intermittency, was intended to explore how far intermittent wind power could be be fed into the grid. It cost more than £1 million to produce.
A 30-page summary was produced by Poyry and a great deal of comment has followed from other sources.
1. Poyry's press release on the publication of the report
2. Poyry's 30 page Summary of the report
3.Windfarm Britain means (very) expensive electricity. This is a review of the Summary in The Register.
"According to James Cox, one of the report's authors: "Our worry at the outset of the study that the very dynamics of variable wind output would challenge the system operators, has moved to concern that the economic environment for thermal plant will be highly challenging.” "
Country Guardian will follow this argument closely.