Chris Heaton-Harris is a British MP representing Daventry,
UK. He has recently been conducting a campaign against onshore wind farms
across the UK. Caroline Dineage the local MP representing Gosport has been
backing Chris Heaton and his campaign. During a radio broadcast on BBC Radio 4, The Today Programme
(5th July 2012), Heaton made a number of statements about UK energy
use and policy that were incorrect.
The statements are listed below (in italics) and were
transcribed from the show. Each claim is addressed individually:
- We
will hit our (UK) 2020 targets later this year (2012).
The 2009 Renewable Energy
Directive set a target of 15% for the amount of renewable energy that should be in use in the
UK by 2020. This is a huge challenge and it should be pointed out that this
target is for all energy, excluding transport. So where has Heaton gone wrong?
Well if we look at the latest
statistics for UK energy we find that renewables account for 11.1% of
electricity used in Q1 of 2012. However this figure does not include other
energy uses, such as gas used for heating. This of course is where Heaton is
misleading, because the EU directive includes all energy used not just
electricity. In order to prove his point Heaton has only used part of the data,
once other energy sources are included, then renewables represent a smaller
proportion (3.8% in 2011) of final energy consumption. In fact it is likely
that renewable electricity generation will probably need to be about 30% of
electricity in order to fulfil the 15% overall target.
It should be pointed out that because we are dealing with climate change and
carbon emissions, not aspirations for renewable energy, the targets set by the
EU for 2020 are just a start. So it would be wrong to imply that once the 2020
target is reached, that the UK would never have to do more with the energy
supply. The impression Mr Heaton gives is that the target is all there is.
- DECC
have set 13GW (wind energy capacity), we have 5GW built, 6GW through the
planning ‘gate’, 8GW going through planning at the moment. Which proves
the level of subsidy is way to high.
During this part of the
discussion neither Mr Heaton nor the interviewer made it clear that the figures
discussed included offshore wind energy targets. These targets are generally
greater than the onshore wind energy targets.
One of Mr Heatons objections to
wind energy is that it is too expensive, but given offshore wind is more
expensive, his objection would suggest he doesn’t like offshore wind energy
either. The logical conclusion from this is that he doesn’t want the renewables
targets to be met at all, since realistically offshore wind must be installed
to meet the 2020 UK target.
DECC figures for 2011 are:
Offshore wind = 1.83GW
Onshore wind = 4.65GW
Total = 6.48GW
So roughly speaking Heaton is
correct. However the vast majority of planned additional capacity is for
offshore wind, which is where most future wind projects will be. Because his
first claim is incorrect (that we have nearly met EU targets), the level of
subsidy is not to high at all if we are going to achieve 15%. Reducing
Renewable Obligation levels for onshore wind farms drastically now would mean
we would struggle to meet the 15% even with more offshore projects coming online.
- Lot’s
of these companies are not interested in renewable energy; they are
interested in harvesting a subsidy.
Heaton is making an assumption
here. Many of the companies he is possibly referring to, started in the
renewable energy business before subsidies were available. The whole point of
the subsidies is to achieve carbon emission reductions, they wouldn’t be
installing wind farms if the farms didn’t reduced carbon emissions and there is
plenty of research that shows renewable energy reduces carbon emissions. Heaton
is also stating an obvious fact here and making it sound bad. Renewable Obligations are financial
incentives to install renewables so does it matter if a company ‘believes’ in
the installation of renewables?
The primary outcome is emissions
reductions, the morals of the companies isn’t a factor in achieving a target.
Although if they were more interested in installing renewables one would assume
they would install more turbines (like Ecotricity), not less. So logically the
companies that are allegedly after subsidies and aren’t interested in renewable
energy are probably installing fewer turbines!
- The
subsidy doesn’t change until April 2013 and if they (wind farm
applications) are through the planning gate they can get constructed very
quickly.
(The implication being that if
they (6GW of turbines) are constructed and connected to the grid before April
2013, they will get the current subsidy)
This is just an extension to the
Heaton fallacy - that we will meet our renewables targets in a few months. As
stated previously his assumption only takes into account electricity, as soon
as you include other energy sources (a requirement of the 2009 directive and embedded in UK law), we see we have a long way to go yet to
achieve 15% renewables.
- We
have picked the wrong technology, wind is intermittent, and if it’s not
blowing it’s not going to achieve anything.
Well the rain is intermittent;
does Mr Heaton suggest that we should not drink water or use it to wash?
Plants seem to be quite successful at utilising the wind yet apparently us
humans are just not brainy enough??
The fact is, Mr Heaton is discussing an engineering problem and we wouldn’t
have the economy we have today without a whole string of engineers across
history solving the unsolvable. Heaton is relegating human ingenuity to the
rubbish heap and such attitudes are typical of the ‘conservative’ business
types wanting to avoid risk.
- Two
Decembers ago we had our coldest December on record and we had a massive
anti-cyclone above us and the wind didn’t blow and the lovely turbines
didn’t turn and no energy was produced.
Even if the wind didn’t blow,
carbon emissions over a 12-month period drop because wind farms replace high
carbon energy sources when the wind does blow! The issue of no wind or
intermittent wind just means that the grid has to cope with this new situation.
It is an engineering issue; there
are plenty of issues like this related to fault tolerance that have been solved
over many decades, so adding a new one doesn’t mean we need to give up. Why
should we give up, if previous great engineers didn’t also give up with similar
problems?
Heaton is kicking the teeth of
the engineering and systems professions, by believing that they are not
competent to devise methods of dealing with such scenarios.
As well as the idea of smart grids, various companies are developing new methods
to store energy so that when there is plenty of wind, some of the energy can be
stored and used when the wind isn’t blowing so hard. For example,
Isentropic
have developed a system that is as cheap and efficient as hydroelectric pumped
storage systems. The first
Isentropic system is to be installed soon at a
Midlands substation.
- Wind
energy doesn’t help energy security.
You have to question if there
ever has been energy security!
Fossil fuels are not secure because they are a finite resource and governments
need to plan for the time when we have none left. Nuclear (fission) energy
isn’t secure in the UK because the fuel has to be imported and there is always
a risk of an accident.
It should also be pointed out
that large power stations are at more risk of attack than distributed
renewables such as wind turbines.
Which is easier to bomb?
A large power station in the
middle of the countryside?
Or tens of thousands of wind
turbines, solar panels and other systems, evenly distributed across the nation?
Basically Heaton doesn’t understand security and it is no coincidence that the
military have a new interest in renewables in combat zones, because they reduce the dependency on
potentially long supply lines for energy. The same principle applies to wind energy and other
renewables, producing energy locally reduces dependency on our supply lines
from foreign nations.
- What
the subsidy does is provide £500 million to rich land owners, the big six
energy companies to produce expensive energy. This reduces the chances of
growth and pushes thousands of people into fuel poverty.
Energy is getting more expensive
and it will continue to get more expensive over long time scales no matter what
false economics and spin you use regarding market prices and the anti-science
called economics. However the costs of wind energy are coming down all the time and again engineering is giving us cost effective ways in other areas of development.
Can todays economic problems be blamed on wind turbines?
Sounds like a scape goat to me for failed ecomomics and politics practiced by the main political parties. More investment in green tech would boost long term growth, rather than endanger it. Plus of course current flooding and attrocious weather in the UK is an indicator of massive costs to home owners and businesses if we do not cut carbon emissions.
- In
the US as we speak energy prices are collapsing, and they are going to hit
their carbon emission targets, through a game changer, shale gas.
The simple fact is that the US
does not have any carbon emission targets. The only way Heaton could make such a claim is by imagining some fictional US carbon emissions target.
Plus shale gas or any gas does
little to reduce carbon emissions over the longer term. It may slow things down
a bit and prolong the upward trend in global temperatures by reducing the
steepness of the temperature curve. But the fact is CO2 is a long lasting green
house gas, so eventually we will hit the same high temperatures using gas as we
would using coal and oil.
- I
would prefer to spend the money we are spending on onshore wind on
projects like installing CHP boilers in all social housing projects.
Heaton justifies his view here
with the faulty belief that we will hit our renewable energy targets in the
next few months, but as pointed out previously, he has cherry picked data and excluded the full range of energy sources consumed (see claim/comment 1. above). Although micro CHP in homes is useful, there is no way it is
ever going to make the same impact on carbon emissions as renewable energy.
2009 Renewable Energy Directive:
2012 DECC bulletin:
Critique of the Stuart Young report:
