Rational thinking about renewable energy

We all know the accepted “facts” about renewable energy –

• Its running costs are essentially free
• So electricity supplies will be cheap
• Wind is the method that will be most effective in the short-term “until the other renewable sources are developed to a commercial scale”
• It can produce as much energy as we require to continue business as usual
• This will enable us to achieve our Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reductions targets
• This will enable us to keep the lights on, without relying on nuclear or fossil fuels
• The increasing loss of our natural landscapes, and impacts on wildlife to wind developments, are an unfortunate, but necessary, sacrifice
• It will kick-start an economic revival and bring large amounts of money and jobs into the country

I’ll come back to each of these assertions later.  However, let’s first examine what we need an energy strategy to deliver.

A country’s energy strategy should:

1.        Ensure enough energy is available for the population’s needs – both domestic and commercial – as an uninterrupted supply

2.        Ensure that, WHATEVER PRICING REGIME IS USED, no-one will suffer or their health be at risk because their home is inadequately heated

3.        Enable the country’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets to be met (it is arguable that a rider should be added - if it is possible without bankrupting the country – however, we have legal commitments to achieve these)

4.        Protect the environment whilst achieving these aims

So let’s examine whether the renewable energy targets in the U.K., currently being implemented primarily by industrial-scale wind developments, will achieve these requirements.

The first thing to ask is “why do we have renewable energy targets?”  The answer may seem obvious – to reduce and eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels – but hear me out.  What we require is enough energy for our needs, whilst cutting down fossil fuel use.  If we focus on reducing our energy requirements by energy conservation matters, we drastically reduce the scale of the energy generation task we have.   At this point, it is always said, “we need to do both’.  But the amount of public money directed at energy conservation measures compared to energy generation is pitiful.  This is despite the fact that energy conservation is in the order of three times as efficient, pound for pound, as the cheapest generation method).  The renewables targets, and associated subsidies, is a major disincentive for energy conservation measures.  The renewables energy targets are a “secondary driver” which it is assumed will deliver the GHG emissions targets.  For various reasons – e.g. increasing energy consumption; less efficient use of fossil fuels because of the energy regimes being used; carbon embedded in construction of generation and transmission developments – this may not be particularly effective.   Indeed, the evidence is growing that they are unlikely to deliver – more on that next tim

N.B.  I am writing this from the perspective of living and working in the U.K., in Scotland.  However, much of this will apply to other parts of the developed world – particularly regarding the economics.

I am writing this from a position of accepting that the U.K. has greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that we need to attempt to achieve, by the most effective and reasonable means.