
My speech from the Spectator debate




A slightly adapted version of my speech from the Spectator debate has been posted at the magazine's Coffee House blog.
Read it here.
Books
Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
A slightly adapted version of my speech from the Spectator debate has been posted at the magazine's Coffee House blog.
Read it here.
Last night's Spectator debate produced a resounding victory for the forces of light. Votes were held on the motion "Scotland's energy policy is a load of hot air" before and after the debate. Struan Stevenson and I were ahead after the first vote, although not strongly so, but produced a strong swing during the course of the evening which left us with a resounding victory.
Louise Gray assesses Owen Paterson's elevation to the cabinet, and in particular his attitude towards wind farms.
He suggested that wind farms can be “inefficient” – and fail to cut carbon emissions - because they have to be backed up by gas turbines.
“I am not convinced building wind farms in my area is the right way [forward] because you have more problems. You have to have back up from gas – that is operating inefficiently. “
This correspondence between a member of the public and Defra comes via the Countryside Guardian email newsletter.
From: Dr T****
To: noise <noise@defra.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:18
Subject: Wind turbine noise
Dear Sirs
I would be most grateful if you would let me know to what extent your Department has had discussions with independent ( ie not Government or wind industry funded) medically qualified experts on the environmental health problems associated with the installation of wind turbines near homes. My literature researches identify a number of truly independent medical experts who express very real concerns at the adverse noise effects on resident health and especially from the low frequency component of the turbine noise..
Owen Paterson has given his first major interview, choosing Farmer's Weekly for this important occasion.
You have a reputation for being a climate change sceptic. Are you?
I’m practical. I’m really amazed by the way this has all blown up. There has been significant opposition in my part of the world to inland wind farms – for the sensible reason there is no wind there.
But I am clear that climate change is happening – climate change has been happening and will continue to happen. And it is quite obvious there is a man-made element to that.
What I want to see is the right measures in the right place delivering the right results.
From my own direct constituency experience I don’t personally think that inland wind farms are effective at reducing carbon. I don’t even think they are effective at producing energy.
Delingpole is seeking help in fisking the claims made about wind power by RenewableUK (formerly the British Wind Energy Association). The specific claims are in this article by the organisation's deputy CEO, Maf Smith:
Why I don’t think wind costs the earth
By Maf Smith Deputy Chief Executive, RenewableUK
Britain is the windiest country in Europe so let’s use it to the full. We have enough wind energy installed to supply nearly five million households all year round. We already get five per cent of our electricity from wind turbines – we’re on course to get 25 per cent of it by 2020. Turbines don’t need much wind to start turning that’s why they generate electricity for at least 80 per cent of the time.
Having rejected the idea of standing in the Corby by-election as a UKIP candidate, Delingpole has now apparently decided to stand after all, but as an independent anti-windfarm candidate.
Gerard Wynn's article points out the differing views on wind intermittency of the green subsidy junkies at IPPR and those who have to deal with the problem, namely National Grid.
Regarding day-ahead variability, the [IPPR] study did not anticipate problems: "Wind power, at penetrations likely in the UK by 2020, is variable and predictable in much the same way as demand," it said.
That confidence is not matched by Britain's transmission operator, National Grid, which published a consultation earlier this year on whether to upgrade its wind power forecasting.
"The main challenge associated with wind power is its variability; wind power output is highly dependent on weather conditions and carries a high degree of uncertainty," it said.
"As the volume of wind power capacity increases, so will the effect of wind variability and hence the accuracy of the wind power forecasts will become more important for both National Grid and the industry in terms of balancing their own position."
The National Grid highlighted the problem of cut-out, for example, where high wind conditions force turbines to switch off, removing output suddenly: "These events are difficult to forecast accurately in terms of magnitude of impact and timing."
There's more on these lines in the article. Read the whole thing.
This press release was recently released by the Scottish Government. The short notice is, well, extraordinary.
Local communities are being encouraged to get involved in Scotland’s plans for offshore renewable energy, as a series of public meetings kick off over the coming weeks.
The meetings will provide information about the planning process on how Scotland can utilise offshore wind, wave and tidal energy, and seek the views of members of the public to help inform this work...
Meetings will take place in the following locations:
- Edinburgh, September 3: Premier Inn, Morrison Street, Haymarket
- Kirkwall (Orkney), September 4: Kirkwall Town Hall, Broad Street
- Aberdeen, September 5: Camelite Hotel, Stirling Street
- Glasgow, September 6: Glasgow Royal Concert Hall, Sauchiehall Street
- Newton Stewart (Dumfries & Galloway), September 7: McMillan Hall, Dashwood Square
- Stornoway (Lewis), September 27: Bayhead Bridge Centre, Lamont Lane
- Inverness, September 28: Crown Court Townhouse Hotel, 25 Southside Road
Updated on Aug 31, 2012 by
Bishop Hill
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has got together with some green energy consultants to discuss whether wind energy is a Good Thing. Given the nature of the co-authors, I'm sure you can guess their conclusions.
The authors propose what they call a steady state model of the electricity grid.
Adding wind energy to electricity supply without altering demand will displace or push out an equivalent amount of supply from the marginal plant.
When Gordon Hughes gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology COmmittee the other week, I was struck by the vehemence with which his evidence was denounced as "balderdash" by Grantham Institute policy wonk Robert Gross. Unfortunately, Dr Gross's explanation of precisely why he thought this eluded me, as his subsequent narrative seemed to me to be little more than handwaving.
Being an inquiring sort, I decided to delve a little bit into Dr Gross's positions on wind power and started to read some of his publications. While I haven't got to the bottom of the dispute with Prof Hughes over the effect of wind on carbon emissions, I did find some interesting bits and pieces about just how you reduce intermittency of wind power by installing lots of turbines - a "wind carpet" in the jargon.
The Compliance Committee of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which enforces the Aarhus Convention, has released its final findings and recommendations regarding the case presented by Mr. Pat Swords, a chemical engineer from Ireland (1). In a nutshell, the UN is saying that if the EU wants to be in compliance with the said Convention, to which it is a party, it must have its 27 Member States properly reassess their National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP), and submit them to popular consultation. The Aarhus Convention requires that, in matters affecting the environment, the citizens be consulted in a transparent manner before any policy is embarked upon. The Convention applies principles adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro.
Gerard Wynn, writing at Reuters, tries to explain the effect that wind generation will have on electricity grids in Europe. The point he's getting at is that because wind and solar (a) have zero marginal cost and (b) are vastly subsised, they will displace gas (and coal) when they are available. That means that gas and coal have to recover their fixed costs and make their profit at times when wind and solar are not available, rather than 24/7 as previously.
The effects could be scary. No, make that terrifying:
Britain's Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has estimated that prices would have to rise to as high as 10,000 pounds ($15,700) per megawatt hour (MWh) for short periods, from an average of around 45 pounds. Prices in Britain have historically never exceeded 938 pounds per MWh.
This press release, issued by Communities Against Turbines Scotland, has just been sent to me.
In respect of the Scottish Government's target based renewable energy programme, a serious complaint has been filed to hold both the UK and the Scottish Government to account via the United Nations. It should be appreciated that both the EU and the UK are now being held to account by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in respect of their non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention.
A Communication lodged by a Scottish Community Council with UNECE’s Aarhus Convention Compliance team has been accepted as valid for consideration (Ref. ACCC/C/2012/68). This is important because it strikes at the flawed consultation process at the heart of the Government's renewables programme. Also, Ref. ACCC/C/2010/54 has found public participation arrangements related to the NREAP (Nation Renewable Energy Action Plan) to be deficient.
This Communication has been filed on behalf of the Avich & Kilchrenan Community Council, under the Aarhus Convention which provides for access to information in environmental matters. Broadly, it requires Governments to make available the scientific justifications for programmes which are said to affect the environment in which we all live. Again broadly, the Scottish and UK Governments have not done this.
A few days ago, I noted some rampant misrepresentation of Gordon Hughes GWPF report by the Chief Executive of RenewableUK, the self-help group for subsidy junkies. It now appears that responsibility for this onerous task has been passed down to the deputy CEO, Maf Smith. In an article in the Express, Mr Smith is quoted as follows:
We want to keep electricity bills as low as possible. So we have to stop importing massive amounts of expensive fossil fuels from abroad as we have no control over how much they cost. We know exactly how much wind costs: just 2p per household per day – that’s according to independent regulator Ofgem.
I'm speechless.