Hunhe gone - Time for a new 'policy'

Farewell Chris Huhne.  Can't comment on the case, of course (that might be considered perverting the course of justice!) but let's look at the state of UK energy policy, for which his former department is, in large part, responsible.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is very busy promoting the installation of renewable energy sources so as to help the UK reach its self-imposed target of a reduction in carbon emissions (30% of renewables and 40% of low carbon content in electricity by 2020).

They are furthering this aim, which no other industrialised nation is following, by subsidizing renewable energy sources, including Wind Power and Solar Power.

The latter programme took something of a blow last October when the Government announced, with very short notice, that they were halving the level of Feed in Tariff that would be able.  Cue panic from the 'greens' and  the Solar Power installers and a legal challenge which they won (so the reduction delayed).  The Solar Power installers spoke of there being 25,000 jobs at risk because of the government's action.  (Note:  The Solar Power industry employs a total of 25,000 people! - No scare-mongering there then!)

Wind Power projects have been heavily subsidized and generating capacity coming online, has  grown considerably in recent years and this is scheduled to continue and further accelerate in coming years, however, even with this massive and very expensive programme, renewable energy sources will struggle to reach government targets.

Cost of the Wind Power subsidy? There are widely conflicting numbers ranging from  £4-600 up to £1-1,200 per year for each and every family.  It is possible that the variation in the total cost of the subsidy is due to what is and isn't included and so the upper limit may include all energy subsidies.

I have written previously of the dilemma that Wind and Solar power sources produce.  That is, there is a requirement for fossil fuel back-up capacity to cover for the vagaries of the environment.

• Solar Power produces nothing at night!  
• Wind turbines produce nothing when the wind speed is less than 2.5 metres per second (around 5.5 MPH)  and must be switched off when the wind speed is greater than 25 metres per second (around 55 MPH) 

 Per Wikipedia:

On the evening of the 5th into the 6th of April, 2011, the wind in Scotland was high, it was raining heavily, which also created more hydroelectricity than normal. The grid became overloaded and a transmission fault in the system "meant the surplus energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to be cut". Wind farms operators "were paid £900,000 by the National Grid to disconnect their turbines for one night because the electricity was not needed". A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), described this situation as "unusual" and said more electrical storage was needed, adding: "In future we need greater electrical energy storage facilities and greater interconnection with our EU neighbours so that excess energy supplies can be sold or bought where required."

Wikipedia . on the subject of standby capacity continues to inform:

There is some dispute over the necessary amount of reserve or backup required to support the large-scale use of wind energy due to the variable nature of its supply. In a 2008 submission to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, E.ON UK argued that it is necessary to have up to 80–90% backup. National Grid which has responsibility for balancing the grid reported in June 2009 that the electricity distribution grid could cope with on-off wind energy without spending a lot on backup, but only by rationing electricity at peak times using a so-called "smart grid", developing increased energy storage technology and increasing interconnection with the rest of Europe. In June 2011 several energy companies including Centrica  told the government that 17 gas-fired plants costing £10 billion would be needed by 2020 to act as back-up generation for wind. However as they would be standing idle for much of the time they would require "capacity payments" to make the investment economic, on top of the subsidies already paid for wind.

No one from the 'Green' lobby, seems prepared to comment on how the promotion of Wind and Solar Power can be seen as 'green' when they require such a high level of back-up supply capacity requirement.  Remember that these back-up stations can't just be switched on and off like an electric kettle, to meed the fluctuations in supply from these unreliable sources. 


This same 'Green' lobby is then opposed to the construction of these new fossil fuel power stations (e.g. Kingsnorth) and is strongly opposed the the greenest energy source - Nuclear Power.  Currently Nuclear power accounts for around 18 to 20% of UK needs.  Today this represents around 3 times the volumes  of what Wind and Solar Power are expected to contribute by  2020.

To me it is indisputable that by 2020 and indeed, 2050, we will continue to have a very heavy reliance on Gas, Oil and Coal for the production of energy in the UK.  For me it then follows on, that the focus should be on finding ways to 'capture' the carbon that is produced, rather than this being released into the environment.  I would suggest that this is where any energy subsidy should be directed rather than into inefficient (wind power typically operates at around 20 to 25% of capacity) and expensive  forms of renewable energy.

I would also suggest that, just as in America, the UK should quickly get engaged in the production of Shale Gas (personal interest already declared) and reduce our growing reliance on imported gas.

I welcome comments and particularly from 'Greens' so they can better help me understand the conflict between renewables that must be backed-up with fossil fuels.