Memorandum by Barbara Frey
1. My name is Barbara Frey. I am a retired
medical librarian and library director, after spending a career
in university academic medical centres and teaching hospitals.
My interest in energy issues evolved from initial concern about
adverse health impacts on people when developers build wind turbines
too close to homes. Though official and corporate documentation
often states that wind turbine noise is inconsequential, this
is in direct contrast to the reports of those living nearby. Indeed,
there is a substantial body of research on the adverse effects
of noise on health, with an increasing body of evidence that wind
turbine noise also has an adverse effect on health. This particular
interest led to my broader concern about energy policies, with
their long-term economic and environmental implications, and how
politics often shapes these policies, rather than scientific evidence.
2. The confluence of volatile economic and
energy markets have combined to create an atmosphere of unease
and uncertainty among governments and people worldwide. In the
UK, the stability, predictability, and security of energy supplies
and costs have emerged as vital issues that need urgent attention
for the national security and economic viability of the nation.
Businesses and households are dependent not only on a secure and
steady energy supply, but also on the stability and predictability
of costs. It seems to ordinary people that the BERR (Dti) Energy
Department have, during the past decade, relied on the benefits
of North Sea oil and gas, yet failed to plan a future, though
fully aware of the declining North Sea resources.
3. This paper will not dwell on statistics,
as these would reiterate the details included in many submissions
for this Call to Evidence, not to mention numerous Government
papers and consultations and news reports.
Instead, this paper concentrates on the viability
and logic of available options, rather than unfounded fears, political
expediency, or agency, corporate, or organisation agendas. The
discussion revolves around a balance among energy resources and
markets, policy, and the public.
4. In a volatile energy market, such as
now exists, it is tempting to succumb to quick-fix solutions,
especially when current effects resonate to the broader economy,
weakened by threats of deepening recession and inflation. No matter
which direction people look, there are news reports highlighting
problems: underperforming schools, health care predicaments, declining
house values, contracting mortgage opportunities and rising interest
rates, rising unemployment, international strife, and skyrocketing
utility costs, just to name a few that are often publicised.
5. Moreover, the Government seeks to make
people more accountable for individual "carbon footprints"
even as local services are under threat. Particularly in rural
or remote communities, public transport is severely limited or
unavailable, forcing people to travel more often and greater distances
in their cars; just as they can least afford this option, they
are being penalised by the Government. Moreover, the UK has assumed
responsibility for reducing its carbon footprint as well. Public
and personal purses have only finite funds, so getting the energy
mix "right" the first time is critical.
6. A failure to strike the right balance
will without doubt lead to economic deprivation as the financial
centre in London decamps to other more thriving zones, eg Zurich
or Singapore. BERR (Dti) seem totally oblivious to the fact that
there is a commodity and economic realignment taking place in
the world; while a decade earlier, the UK held a position of strength,
this has slowly eroded by pursuit of a blinkered and untenable
energy and food supply policy, and instead pursued an economic
policy that failed to build these resources.
7. The issues of "carbon emissions"
and "carbon footprints" result from concern about "climate
change" and/or "global warming". The latter are
indeed quite different, yet often the terms are merged for commercial
benefit, without appropriate definition, so that people—including
officials responsible for decision-making—are unclear about
what precisely is involved, so that the foundations for discussion
shift constantly, sometimes within the same conversation, but
without attention to the definition of each.
8. Whatever one's views of "global
warming"—whether it constitutes an apocalyptic threat,
whether the UK can make a difference in a world of expanding economies,
indeed, whether it exists, the UK must make swift decisions about
its energy supply simply because of shifting world politics and
economic pressures. However, decisions about energy provision
and security must be devised and implemented by Government in
a calm, rational, scientific manner, without succumbing to lobbying
by organisations, trade associations, special interest groups,
or those who benefit by fear-mongering. Without doubt, failure
by Government to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy
(and food) will destine this country to a breakdown of life style
and a diminished standard of living, in contrast to the broader
prosperity enjoyed by the UK in the 20th century.
9. The current uneven economic climate is
partly due to the UK's reliance on imported energy supplies, such
as natural gas and oil, from countries as diverse as Russia, Nigeria,
France, Norway, and the OPEC nations. These supplies depend upon
the political environment and the national needs for each of those
supplier countries, with prices considerably affected by increased
competition globally for these same resources. China and India
are often cited as the more obvious growth economies competing
vigorously in world markets, but equally Russia has leapt forward
as a strident commercial competitor, understandably intent upon
achieving the best price on world markets for its products.
The UK cannot afford to sustain this arrangement.
If it continues to import most of its energy requirements from
world markets, not only will the UK's standard of living remain
under threat, its ability to withstand unwelcome influences on
its policies and governmental decision-making will also be in
jeopardy.
10. As an example, during the past few years,
GAZPROM of Russia has negotiated independent agreements with Germany,
Italy, and Austria regarding energy supplies. By negotiating arrangements
separately with these countries, GAZPROM has effectively—and
cleverly—split their interests, and thereby weakened any
EU advantage as a bargaining bloc, as each country will naturally
want to protect its own access to critical resources, should there
occur a crisis regarding energy supply and distribution of resources.
GAZPROM has pursued a policy of buying strategic stakes in energy
supply companies, including Norwegian gas fields that supply the
UK, and is now pursuing opportunities in the USA.
11. Because natural gas, coal, and oil are
finite resources, and because coal and oil are fossil fuels associated
with "global warming", renewable resources are in demand,
eg solar, wind, wave, tidal, and hydropower.
Renewable energy resources are often proclaimed
as a panacea to the nation's energy problems, but in actuality,
this is wishful thinking, and a "sticky plaster" response
to cover past neglect of designing a viable secure energy policy
for the UK, whereas the reality is far more complex.
12. This is not to deny that renewable energy
has a part to play in the energy mix for the UK. However, the
role of renewable energy needs more critical analysis, so that
it contributes effectively, benefitting the public and meeting
business requirements, without bending to other market, special
interest, and political influences, which lie outside an analysis
of and plan for energy requirements for the future.
If efforts to incorporate renewable energy into
the UK energy mix are tainted by self-serving motives, the public
will quickly lose faith in measures sought by Government, and
the economic pain endured by the public will translate to its
response at the ballet box.
13. Although there are now thousands of
wind turbines in Denmark and Germany, not one "conventional"
power station has closed; indeed, more are planned and underway.
However, as the law requires utility companies to provide a percentage
of output from renewable resources, wind turbines have become
the "quick fix" because they are "off the shelf".
The embrace of industrial onshore wind turbines by BERR has a
major negative impact on "the market" and on renewable
energy entrepreneurs. A level playing field would have encouraged
UK engineers and scientists to design and develop renewable technologies,
but the shortsighted "quick fix" solution by BERR has
produced an unreliable and insecure electricity supply devoid
of a realistic long-term plan.
14. One must step back and with objectivity
examine why wind turbines remain an attractive renewable energy
option for utility companies since:
— it is impossible to predict wind
turbine energy production (the wind has not enrolled in this scheme);
— wind turbines operate well below
"installed capacity" (circa 25%, and the wind energy
companies do not willingly share their data);
— the electricity generated by wind
turbines fluctuates constantly, thereby creating difficulties
for the national grid to accommodate these erratic fluctuations
(not to mention the high cost of changes to the grid to accept
the power generated by wind turbines); and
— "conventional" power stations
must remain operational to provide backup for wind turbines because
the wind does not always perform when electricity is required.
15. The requirement for utilities to provide
a percentage of energy from renewables dovetailed with the sense
of urgency surrounding global warming. This requirement, as underscored
by the Kyoto Treaty and the United Nation's IPCC recent report,
resulted in policy changes, leading to subsidies for wind turbines
and ROCs.
Utility companies and their wind energy divisions
and independent wind energy companies, receive "renewable"
allowances for wind turbines, which on land are relatively inexpensive
to construct, compared to developing other renewable options,
such as solar, tidal, or wave. The subsidies are paid on the "installed
capacity" for each turbine, not on their significantly lower
actual electricity production, and these subsidies are paid year-on-year.
Wind turbines have grown in height from under 23m to over 125m,
with "installed" capacities of 2MW to 3MW; the increase
in the installed capacity means greater subsidy per turbine. Moreover,
these companies also receive ROCs for providing the required percentage
of renewables, again based on the installation, not on actual
production.
Because wind turbines have provided a windfall
for utility companies, the subsidies and ROCs have distorted the
renewable energy market in favour of wind turbines, to the detriment
of other renewables, eg, solar, which receives minimal acknowledgement
or subsidy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), the wind
industry's trade and lobbying organisation, has been effective
in garnering media attention and working effectively with environmental
agencies, as well as with some government agencies, benefitting
from public concerns about global warming.
16. This misapplication of subsidies combined
with the ROCs has also stifled innovation and markets for other
renewables. For example, solar energy (photovoltaic and other
solar energy innovations) offers great potential for existing
homes and buildings and could easily be incorporated into new
buildings as well. The energy savings—and reduction in CO2
emissions—would be significant.
Yet the financial incentives weigh heavily in
favour of wind turbines. If those same subsidies now going to
utility companies—which would have to source a percentage
of production from renewables regardless—went instead to
home-owners, landlords, and builders for energy efficient improvements
and installations, the breadth and depth of CO2 and energy savings
throughout the country would provide greater benefit to the environment,
and also benefit people directly. This type of subsidy scheme
would at least reflect real CO2 and methane emission reductions,
and might extend to more public transport schemes, work toward
redesigning the fuel requirements for cars and other vehicles,
encouragement of alternate heating and cooling systems for homes
and offices, and the use of industrial waste and by-products for
energy sources.
17. The UK not only has finite energy resources,
it also has a finite land mass, with a dense and growing population.
Food is yet another commodity "growing" in value because
of increased global competition for food and fuel, increased cost
of delivering product to consumer, among other factors—the
UK will need all its resources to provide a secure and stable
food chain if food imports are threatened by crop failures, or
spiralling fuel costs. UK food production and agriculture, after
years of decline and "cheap" imports, may indeed become
a "growth" industry.
Wind turbine arrays, often sited in rural, agricultural
areas, require a significant land area and footprint. Each array
requires roads, concrete and steel foundations, ancillary buildings,
and either above ground pylons or below ground cables. These installations
break up ecological habitats and permanently alter environments,
industrialising agricultural and rural areas that are part of
a dwindling resource: arable land.
Wind turbine arrays also create a large footprint
to production ratio when compared to a conventional power station,
which has a smaller footprint and much greater energy production.
18. Environmental organisations have gone
quiet about biofuels. After applauding changes to allow and promote
crop production for fuels, these organisations neglected to foresee
the negative impact that these changes would have on food production
and costs. As crops were channelled from food to fuel, and as
costs escalated because of competition for these crops, food prices—for
people and for livestock—have risen sharply. The cost of
these food staples—corn, wheat, rice—has had a dire
impact on the most impoverished nations, straining their resources
and causing hardship and hunger among those who often have no
resources or hope of help.
Thus, another reason for careful consideration
of renewable energy options, because one must analyse the possibility
of unintended consequences. The cost—to ordinary people—is
too high.
19. Professor James Lovelock CH, internationally
acclaimed scientist, environmentalist, and author (Gaia hypothesis)
has suggested that nuclear power offers the most rational solution
to UK (indeed, world) energy needs, currently and well into the
future. There is genuine urgency to reduce CO2 emissions while
at the same time to guarantee a supply of energy to growing populations,
and this must be done quickly in order to avert a national or
global disaster. Professor Lovelock has said that even if one
covered the length and breadth of the UK with wind turbines, this
would do nothing to slow global warming, yet six new nuclear power
stations in the UK would contribute to an actual slowing of this
process.
Moreover, as Prof Lovelock notes, most recently
in his book, The Revenge of Gaia, methane, a far more destructive
emission than CO2, is released with the use of natural gas, including
any natural gas that escapes during its transit via the pipelines
or shipment. The rate of loss in transit is about 4%. According
to an article in the Financial Times, "Each methane
molecule is 30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon
dioxide, though methane has caused less global warming so far
because it is much less abundant in the atmosphere than carbon
dioxide." [Cookson C, Science briefing: Ice Age "trigger",
Financial Times May 30 2008]
20. Certainly, France exemplifies the benefits
of a nuclear energy program to its people, as it is electrical
energy independent, and therefore not as subject to the vagaries
and vacillations of the market or to external political influence.
Yet the UK public, and that includes many of
its politicians, have a visceral unease about nuclear power stations:
eg, presuming an equivalency of nuclear power with nuclear weapons
(untrue), and concern about nuclear waste and radioactive leaks.
Well-designed and properly maintained nuclear power stations produce
energy throughout the world, without incident, and newer nuclear
power stations have a smaller footprint than older reactors, as
well as running more efficiently with less radioactive waste.
21. Significantly, nuclear power stations
produce energy without carbon dioxide or methane emissions, and
produce at a capacity that serves a large population with a predictable,
stable, secure energy supply. With a network of nuclear power
stations, the UK would prosper from energy independence, leading
to security for its public, creating a more stable economic environment
even when world markets go through volatile cycles. This secure,
predictable stable, affordable energy supply is essential in order
to maintain the UK's stature as an enterprising and productive
country, and to provide its people with a future of opportunities
and prosperity.
Certainly, this is a critical objective, upon
which so many national and personal aspirations rely, and without
which these aspirations have little hope. The job of government
is to see these aspirations realised.
16 June 2008
|
