Our electricity system is broken – soaring fuel bills, an over-reliance on overseas fossil fuels and an urgent need to tackle climate change highlight the severe energy crisis the nation faces.
So the inclusion of an Energy Bill in this week’s Queen’s speech to overhaul the UK’s failing electricity market was long overdue.
The Bill is a once in a generation opportunity to secure our long-term opportunity to make our power system cleaner, more affordable and less reliant on increasingly imported fossil fuels.
Such a move would be popular, too. A recent YouGov poll Friends of the Earth published to mark the launch of our new clean British energy campaign revealed that 85 per cent of the public want David Cameron to force the Big Six energy firms to develop clean British energy from renewable sources – and ditch dirty coal and gas.
But with the future of the nation’s energy system standing at an important crossroads, there are worrying signs that that the Coalition Government is preparing to head off in completely the wrong direction.
Rather than developing a safe and prosperous future offered by investing in renewable energy the Government seems intent on feeding the nation’s fossil fuel addiction.
Sadly, even senior Liberal Democrats who have spoken out for a cleaner future are now proving disappointing in power.
Ed Davey appeared to offer a fresh approach when he replaced Chris Huhne as New Energy Secretary in February, telling reporters:
“We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past where we have polluted our planet, where our countries have been dependent on fossil fuel imports where the price is high and variable. We don’t want to be dependent on that; we want to make sure we have our own energy production that’s clean and green.”
But within weeks he fired the starting pistol for a new dash for gas that could keep the UK hooked on costly and dirty fossil fuels for decades.
His announcement that there were be no restrictions on new gas-fired power stations pumping out carbon pollution until the middle of the century will leave us trapped in the same system, dominated by the Big Six energy companies – and hostage to expensive gas.
The Government’s independent climate advisor, the Committee on Climate Change, has warned that in order to meet the UK’s legally-binding climate targets the nation’s electricity sector must be almost entirely decarbonised by 2030. Allowing more gas power stations to be built will in itself drive a coach and horses through plans to meet this commitment.
The Energy Bill will have important repercussions for generations to come – it’s crucial we get it right.
This means resisting the dangerous distractions of nuclear power and dirty new energy sources such as shale gas.
Nuclear power is a gamble we simply don’t need to take. As well as producing highly dangerous radioactive waste, it’s never on time, always over budget and relies on huge public subsidies. And even if they can find companies to build them – power firms seem deeply reluctant at the moment – a new reactor takes up to 15 years to build. Time we just don’t have.
And shale gas, releases more greenhouse gases than natural gas, would be a considerable step backwards in the quest for clean energy.
Switching to clean power from our wind, sun and seas – along with cutting energy waste – is our best hope for affordable energy in future.
Between 2000 and 2010 average gas bills increased in real terms by 78 per cent and electricity bills by 30 per cent, driven the rising costs of fossil fuels. Between 2000 and 2010 the price paid by power producers for coal increased in real terms by over 71 per cent and the price they paid for natural gas rose by 90 per cent.
The potential of clean British energy is enormous – offshore energy alone could meet our current electricity needs six times over. Around a fifth of Germany’s electricity already comes from German renewable sources – the UK manages less than half of this. Developing the UK’s clean energy potential would also create tens of thousands of much-needed jobs.
The Liberal Democrats have traditionally championed the environment and their 2010 manifesto was judged by Friends of the Earth to be the greenest of the top three parties – it’s now time for them to show their true colours.
* Andy Atkins is Executive Director at Friends of the Earth.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dundee Creative Writing Group at Blackness Library #dundeewestend
Follow Stephen Sondheim and Hal Prince as they prepare the first West End production on Sweeney Todd
PODCAST - How to tackle the corrosion of trust in our politics
Shropshire Council meetings have become uncouth - some councillors also
My tweets
Welsh Labour Government emulate John Redwood
Michael BG
Andrew Melmoth
Kara Meddings
Tristan Ward
cim
11 Comments
Intersting that the survey doesnt mention the relative costs of different sources of energy.
Don’t you think that would have made a difference to people’s answers?
From David Mackay “Within British territorial waters, the shallow area is about 40 000 km2, most
of it off the coast of England and Wales. This area is about two Waleses.
The average power available from shallow offshore wind farms occu-
pying the whole of this area would be 120 GW”
So your idea that off shore wind could meet 3* our electricity needs is arguably correct. However
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c10/page_61.shtml
DTI claims that the maximum available would be very much less.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c10/page_65.shtml
sorry – it couldn’t meet our needs 6 times over. Current electricity capacity is around 50GW.
This is the sort of energy policy that gets Tories saying windmills are bunkum. You have to make the numbers add up
It’s no good waving your hands, talking of energy efficiency, and rubbishing nuclear, gas & coal if your proposal doesn’t work. If we REALLY want enough renewables, we’re going to need concentrated solar in North Africa, and some long HVDC wires. Nuclear works, and generates very little carbon dioxide. Gas generates half the CO2 of coal, roughly.
and around 12 GW of generating capacity – that’s 6 big power stations, will be decommissioned in the next few years.
Lets keep the lights on, at least.
Why does everything has to be a crisis? “Long overdue” looks like we’ve at fault for not doing something sooner – can’t we have a more upbeat, less blame-filled message?
Wind, sun, and sea power do not seem to be as “clean” as people seem to imagine – is there info on this somewhere? A lot of energy and material is needed to build turbines, transport them, construct their supporting structures, maintain them once built, construct the subsea power cable to deliver offshore power to the land. Has this been factored in to the calculations, bearing in mind too that carbon may not be the only bad thing?
Andy: If gas and coal are currently so expensive, why does wind still need govt support? Why isn’t the market just leading us to it automatically?
It’s essential we look carefully at what’s going on in Germany – a country which has shut down its nuclear energy production and made a signficant move towards wind and solar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_electricity_price_comparison
The article gives some insight into the issues.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/merkel-s-switch-to-renewables-rising-energy-prices-endanger-german-industry-a-816669.html
I hear the situation is horrific on the ground – whole industries going under, substantial economic collapse, impending black-outs and so on.
I will not support policies which are not costed and do not look at the consequences to society of their actions.
I will support costed policies and I will particularly support investment in research and pilot technology. I think we should, in particular, be looking at energies like tidal energy which are our natural strength, supporting the research in the Pentland firth and so on.
But I would not vote for a shut down of nuclear in the last election and I would not in the next on because the consequences would be horrific. It’s not that I never would – it’s just something we have to work towards coherently.
Bringing cheap energy online but also investing heavily in the future of green energy is the most coherent solution for this government in this precipitous economic situation.
The cost of global warming does not influence the accounts of the gas/coal industry, so government policy (in the form of regulations , taxes and/or subsidies) must be to make wave wind and solar more competitive.
I have opposed nuclear for most of my life after reading “Small is Beautiful”. The problem is that that book was written before we knew about global warming. Today I think that nuclear is less carbon polluting than gas and coal, and more capable of supplying the electricity we need on the scale we need it. If FoE want to make the case against nuclear, I would be interested to read it.
Choosing between energy sources is an immensely technical subject where a litle knowledge is a bad thing. Getting the mix right that makes energy production relatively risk free, affordable and reliable has to be the goal. The Sun is the source of all energy so we might start out with a european super grid sourced in the Sahara to generate enough power to meet our needs and leave some over for converting sea water into water for irrigating deserts.
I’m energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth. Thanks for all your comments to Andy Atkins’ article .
@jenny barnes:
The Offshore Valuation Report, endorsed by DECC and a raft of major energy companies says:
“We assessed the extent of the practical resource through a detailed mapping process based on five electricity generating technologies: wind with fixed and floating foundations; wave; tidal range; and tidal stream. The full practical resource – 2,131 TWh/year – exceeds current UK electricity demand six times over.”
http://www.offshorevaluation.org/downloads/offshore_valuation_exec.pdf
Furthermore, we have modelled scenarios using the DECC 2050 pathways calculator – we can keep the lights on and meet carbon budgets without nuclear and without the need for lots of unabated gas.
@richard dean
There’s lots of evidence that renewables ‘pay back’ the energy used in their manufacture, transport, construction, etc quickly, and hence provide very significantly lower carbon electricity than gas or coal. See for example: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn_383-carbon-footprint-electricity-generation.pdf and http://www.cse.org.uk/downloads/file/common_concerns_about_wind_power.pdf
@tim leunig
Renewable energy costs are falling and fossil fuel costs are rising. So subsidies for renewable energy should fall and ultimately disappear (unlike those for nuclear, where after 50 years massive subsidies are still required). The best onshore wind is already cost competitive with gas, and all new onshore wind is expected to be cost competitive within four years: http://bnef.com/PressReleases/view/172
@Rebecca Hanson
Friends of the Earth is not calling for an instant shut down of existing nuclear plants – simply for no new plants to be built. With major utilities pulling out of nuclear new-build left, right and centre, and costs apparently rocketing it looks increasingly unlikely that the industry has much of a future in the UK. See: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/nuclear-britain-edf-idUSL5E8G8FQ620120508
I have signed up to the Energy Bill Revolution on line, over 150 MP’s have now signed, plus many charities in support. EDM 47, take a look and see what is planned.