Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Exiled_Tyke

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

This is promising news. I suspect it's just Johnson changing his opinion to reflect what he thinks the public will like at any given time, but that works well for onshore wind.

The comments by ministers seem fair, reflecting the fact that the public seem to be far more accepting of onshore wind than it may have appeared 10yrs or so back. In fact the quarterly attitude surveys over the last 10yrs have shown a modest rise in approvals from about 67% to low 70's, but a large drop in opposition from 12% to 8%. It would seem fair to assume that if the visual impacts of onshore wind were really so bad over the last decade, then opposition would not have fallen by a third.

Johnson to defy cabinet fears and push for onshore wind expansion

Boris Johnson is expected to open the door to more onshore wind at next week’s energy strategy, despite some cabinet ministers lobbying against relaxing planning laws to allow more turbines.

The cabinet is split over whether to aim for more onshore wind projects, which can often get into lengthy planning battles, after officials drew up plans for a target of 30GW by 2030.

Ministers have not yet made a final decision but one senior government source said Johnson was “open minded” and “passionate” about offshore wind.

The business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, has made clear publicly that he would like to see planning rules relaxed in order to facilitate the building of more onshore windfarms. Michael Gove, who oversees the planning system, has also spoken in favour.

Kwarteng has suggested the public’s opposition to windfarms has fallen away, given the push for net zero and the renewed interest in energy self-sufficiency since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“There were quite understandable political reasons that people didn’t want to see large-scale, onshore winds in their vicinity. I think that’s changed,” he told the i newspaper earlier this week. “I think the prime minister has been very clear that onshore wind has got to be part of the mix and we’ve got to look at planning.”

He added: “The argument about onshore wind in 2015 was a historic argument even before we committed to net zero and the circumstances today with Putin. Russia, Saudi Arabia, all of those things mean that we’ve got to have more energy independence and I think onshore renewables are absolutely part of that.”

The public say they are in favour until it is their back yard - the Lib Dems captured a safe Tory seat by the local candidate claiming they opposed lib dem national policy on housing development.

WE only have ourselves to blame.

This is incorrect. The Lib Dem candidate and indeed leader opposed the changes in planning laws NOT the Lib Dem policy of building new homes. Ed Davey "said it was wrong to see the debate as “between the wrong homes in the wrong places and no homes at all.

“We want to see 300,000 more homes built a year including 100,000 social homes for rent, through an approach that puts local communities not developers first."

The explanation for the Amersham win goes far beyond this one particular issue.

But why are you bringing politics into this anyway. It shouldn't be relevant to this discussion. 

michaels

Exiled_Tyke said:

michaels said:

Martyn1981 said:

This is promising news. I suspect it's just Johnson changing his opinion to reflect what he thinks the public will like at any given time, but that works well for onshore wind.

The comments by ministers seem fair, reflecting the fact that the public seem to be far more accepting of onshore wind than it may have appeared 10yrs or so back. In fact the quarterly attitude surveys over the last 10yrs have shown a modest rise in approvals from about 67% to low 70's, but a large drop in opposition from 12% to 8%. It would seem fair to assume that if the visual impacts of onshore wind were really so bad over the last decade, then opposition would not have fallen by a third.

Johnson to defy cabinet fears and push for onshore wind expansion

Boris Johnson is expected to open the door to more onshore wind at next week’s energy strategy, despite some cabinet ministers lobbying against relaxing planning laws to allow more turbines.

The cabinet is split over whether to aim for more onshore wind projects, which can often get into lengthy planning battles, after officials drew up plans for a target of 30GW by 2030.

Ministers have not yet made a final decision but one senior government source said Johnson was “open minded” and “passionate” about offshore wind.

The business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, has made clear publicly that he would like to see planning rules relaxed in order to facilitate the building of more onshore windfarms. Michael Gove, who oversees the planning system, has also spoken in favour.

Kwarteng has suggested the public’s opposition to windfarms has fallen away, given the push for net zero and the renewed interest in energy self-sufficiency since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“There were quite understandable political reasons that people didn’t want to see large-scale, onshore winds in their vicinity. I think that’s changed,” he told the i newspaper earlier this week. “I think the prime minister has been very clear that onshore wind has got to be part of the mix and we’ve got to look at planning.”

He added: “The argument about onshore wind in 2015 was a historic argument even before we committed to net zero and the circumstances today with Putin. Russia, Saudi Arabia, all of those things mean that we’ve got to have more energy independence and I think onshore renewables are absolutely part of that.”

The public say they are in favour until it is their back yard - the Lib Dems captured a safe Tory seat by the local candidate claiming they opposed lib dem national policy on housing development.

WE only have ourselves to blame.

This is incorrect. The Lib Dem candidate and indeed leader opposed the changes in planning laws NOT the Lib Dem policy of building new homes. Ed Davey "said it was wrong to see the debate as “between the wrong homes in the wrong places and no homes at all.

“We want to see 300,000 more homes built a year including 100,000 social homes for rent, through an approach that puts local communities not developers first."

The explanation for the Amersham win goes far beyond this one particular issue.

But why are you bringing politics into this anyway. It shouldn't be relevant to this discussion. 

Apologies for the example but the point is that if you ask people in a survey whether we should build more homes to prevent homelessness then they all say yes but if you propose new homes in their village/town they all scream that their is not enough infrastructure/the inbuilt land needs to be protected and the homes should go somewhere else.  Those most vociferous are also those whose houses are on land that was fields most recently....

Personally I think letting local communities have a share in the returns (through reduced bills) sounds like a good idea, normally it is the minority who are strongly against who have their voices heard not the majority who are mildly in favour but not fussed enough to say so.

shinytop

Exiled_Tyke said:

But why are you bringing politics into this anyway. It shouldn't be relevant to this discussion. 

Lots of people bring politics into these discussions.  Is this not allowed?  Or is it only certain opinions that are?   

Spies

Earth Hour tonight https://www.wwf.org.uk/earth-hour 

Anyone participating? 

Martyn1981

Nice article, and always important to remind ourselves that whilst green and ethical energy production and storage are important, there's nothing better than 'negawatts' be it through insulation, efficiency or conservation.

I liked the bit where he points out that the energy revolution has already happened / is now unstoppable.

“Solar and wind are now the cheapest bulk power sources in 91% of the world, and the UN’s International Energy Agency (IEA) expects renewables to generate 90% of all new power in the coming years. The energy revolution has happened. Sorry if you missed it,” he says.

Energy efficiency guru Amory Lovins: ‘It’s the largest, cheapest, safest, cleanest way to address the crisis’

Temperatures dropped far below freezing this week in Snowmass, Colorado. But Amory Lovins, who lives high up in the mountains at 7,200ft above sea level, did not even turn on the heating.

That’s because he has no heating to turn on. His home, a great adobe and glass mountainside eyrie that he designed in the 1980s, collects solar energy and is so well insulated that he grows and harvests bananas and many other tropical fruits there without burning gas, oil or wood.

Nicknamed the “Einstein of energy efficiency”, Lovins, an adjunct professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, has been one of the world’s leading advocates and innovators of energy conservation for 50 years. He wrote his first paper on climate change while at Oxford in 1968, and in 1976 he offered Jimmy Carter’s government a blueprint for how to triple energy efficiency and get off oil and coal within 40 years. In the years since there is barely a major industry or government that he and his Rocky Mountain Institute have not advised.

But for much of that time efficiency was seen as a bit of an ugly sister, rather dull compared with a massive transition to renewables and other new technologies. Now, he hopes, its time may have come. Lovins is arguing for the mass insulation of buildings alongside a vast acceleration of renewables. “We should crank [them] up with wartime urgency. There should be far more emphasis on efficiency,” he says.

shinytop

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60889001

We'll all own a bit of it now whether we like it or not.

There is also a very positive story on wind power in the Times but it's pay walled so  I won't bother linking it. 

Coastalwatch

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60889001

We'll all own a bit of it now whether we like it or not.

There is also a very positive story on wind power in the Times but it's pay walled so  I won't bother linking it. 

Yep, another white elephant along with HS2, the latter of which will only benefit a very small minority of the population.

QrizB

Coastalwatch said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60889001

We'll all own a bit of it now whether we like it or not.

There is also a very positive story on wind power in the Times but it's pay walled so  I won't bother linking it. 

Yep, another white elephant along with HS2, the latter of which will only benefit a very small minority of the population.

HS2 is what, four times the price of HPC?
Or, put another way, for the cost of 100 miles of high-speed railway we could have 12.8GW of new-build nuclear, roughly 30% of our winter electricity demand.

Coastalwatch

QrizB said:

Coastalwatch said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60889001

We'll all own a bit of it now whether we like it or not.

There is also a very positive story on wind power in the Times but it's pay walled so  I won't bother linking it. 

Yep, another white elephant along with HS2, the latter of which will only benefit a very small minority of the population.

HS2 is what, four times the price of HPC?
Or, put another way, for the cost of 100 miles of high-speed railway we could have 12.8GW of new-build nuclear, roughly 30% of our winter electricity demand.

That maybe, but surely would be even better served putting toward renewables and have double the energy available in half the time rather than gambling on Sizewell C actually being completed and coming on stream when it's too late anyway. In addition the recommendation of the Examination Authority, for approval or otherwise, has yet to be completed so just another gamble to add to the the lop sided equation.

shinytop

Coastalwatch said:

QrizB said:

Coastalwatch said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60889001

We'll all own a bit of it now whether we like it or not.

There is also a very positive story on wind power in the Times but it's pay walled so  I won't bother linking it. 

Yep, another white elephant along with HS2, the latter of which will only benefit a very small minority of the population.

HS2 is what, four times the price of HPC?
Or, put another way, for the cost of 100 miles of high-speed railway we could have 12.8GW of new-build nuclear, roughly 30% of our winter electricity demand.

That maybe, but surely would be even better served putting toward renewables and have double the energy available in half the time rather than gambling on Sizewell C actually being completed and coming on stream when it's too late anyway. In addition the recommendation of the Examination Authority, for approval or otherwise, has yet to be completed so just another gamble to add to the the lop sided equation.

Is that peak or capacity?