Renewable Energy Strategy (Jonathon Porritt)

Search

My Profile

Feeds

What are feeds?

Articles

Other Blogs

News Links

Organisations

« Greenpeace versus Unilever (Round Two) | Main | Food and the G8 »

Renewable Energy Strategy

There is a lot (mostly justifiable) cynicism out there regarding the use of targets to drive environmental improvements. In May, the think-tank Policy Exchange brought out an analysis of all the different targets set by the Government on environmental issues since 1997, and gave them a real pasting on just how far short they have fallen on so many of them.

But the implication behind the Report that any target-setting process in the field of environmental policy is largely a waste of time is entirely misplaced. Targets can drive both policy reform and improved outcomes.

And there is no bigger target out there at the moment than the EU’s target of providing 20% of all the energy it needs (not just electricity) from renewable resources by 2020. After some lively horse-trading, it was decided earlier on in the year that the UK share of that EU-wide target should be 15% - which means at least 30% (and probably close to 40%) of our electricity will need to come from renewables – it’s just so much tougher doing transport or heating by renewables.

Acceptance of this target led to months of the deepest angst inside BERR. On Thursday last week, it eventually delivered itself of a draft Renewable Energy Strategy. And it’s not half bad. Indeed, after a decade of incredibly damaging dithering, BERR Officials have at last begun to think through the reality of meeting energy security and low-carbon objectives through renewables.

Part of that new-found purpose is based on the development and deployment of the technologies themselves – particularly offshore wind, which is where we can get the biggest bang for our renewable buck. But the most encouraging thing about this draft Strategy is the recognition that making renewables work depends not so much on the technology bit as on other key aspects of energy policy, namely: energy efficiency (properly accounted for in the Strategy, for the first time since the 2003 Energy White Paper, though even now without a clear plan of action); planning (with really encouraging new emphasis on community and local benefits); grid connections (at long last, BERR is getting tough with Ofgem to get its own act sorted out on low-carbon measures); and even behaviour change – rumour has it that BERR won’t be too upset if their Lordships force the Government to give way on accepting the need for the accelerated introduction of feed-in tariffs – the single most important factor in driving the astonishing renewables success story in Germany and elsewhere.

Real breakthroughs – as Greenpeace and others have acknowledged. Still some blindingly obvious blind-spots (doing this in a way that further hammers the fuel-poor in the UK is really not smart), but without doubt the best thing to emerge from BERR over the last five years.

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on June 30, 2008 1:52 PM | Permalink

Comments (5)

Nice summary. However, I think that we need to stop thinking on central and governmental ways to increase renewable energy production, but encourage private investments that will lead to a dramatic change in the energy market. Instead of building huge solar or wind power farms, we should see many little solar panels and private wind turbine on each house or factory. That kind of progress will cause a dramatic price reduction, and will have a better potential in reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Dr. hill

Posted by green energy | July 1, 2008 5:50 AM

Many of us are still waiting with bated breath to hear how you justify having given conditional support for CHP being powered by vegetable oil in Blue-NG's Beckton project, considering:

(i) the world food crisis has both thrown millions into starvation and accelerated South American deforestation;

(ii) the UK is a net importer of foodstuffs as it is;

(iii) the UK is in ecological deficit, using more bio-commodities than it has sovereign biocapacity to produce - even excluding the notional ecological footprint of fossil and nuclear energy use;

(iv) vegetable oil has an ecological footprint several times greater than most alternative fuels, including solid biomass, and burning petroleum and planting trees to offset that.

(v) we have specific commitments to Millennium Goals for developing countries.

Additionally, were you happy with the conditions on the sourcing of vegetable oil laid down by Newham Borough Council?

Posted by Jim Roland | July 3, 2008 12:46 AM

Once upon a time there was a government department that stated that they would invest £100bn in renewable energy. This would help to generate 15% of the UK’s energy by 2020. Everyone was very happy.

The Department of Business, Enterprize and Regulatory Reform (the same body that scrapped smart meters for free for all) initially announced a saving of 1,400 Mt of CO2 for companies inside the European Emissions Trading (big power generators) and 900 Mt for those outside (smaller generators, home, heating and transport).

This subsequently turned out to be wrong, having already been released into the media. They had forgot to convert from carbon to carbon dioxide (a factor of 3.66).

This is not the first time this kind of error has been made. For CERT (Carbon Emissions Reduction Target) the government released all its initial statements in carbon and then reverted to CO2 at the last minute for the benefit of parliament.

The media are of course mostly scientific and numerically illiterates, and just hope that the government gets its figures right. In fact, ‘carbon’ and ‘carbon dioxide’ are regularly used interchangeably by journalists, television and radio presenters, as if they were the same thing.

Posted by JohnClarkson | July 4, 2008 11:48 AM

Another target that is totally unnecessary and is impossible to achieve. But never mind, it's us poor consumers who will pay the bill as the country becomes poorer and more uncompetitive. I fear for the long term future of the country when yet again policy is driven by ridiculous targets.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | July 7, 2008 7:36 AM

I do concur with Dr Hill. Whilst we should invest in major central wind farms, tidal and wave power; Government must also think bottom up, decentralised,mass numerically, small scale and user focused. This can only mean microgeneration. If the UK had as many solar/microhelix wind turbines,ground heat pumps as people have cars and plasma screens; we'd have an energy mountain reduced substantially at the source of use.

Government is looking into Feed in Tarriffs for microgeneration but this is only a sweetener. Government and lending institutions like Northern Rock must be prepared to offer Microgen soft loans and add on mortgages at 3.5%, to kick start mass microgen installation and intial affordability for the masses. This is key!

Posted by Rob Whittle | July 13, 2008 3:25 PM

Search

Feeds

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives