Right for England? Setting the record straight on public support for onshore wind

New polling finds Conservative MPs are out of step with their constituents’ support for onshore wind

While national polling shows strong and growing support for onshore wind, the Government has suggested that wind projects often fail to win public support – particularly in England, where opposition is often assumed to be highest. On this basis, since 2015, the Government has prevented onshore wind from accessing the long-term price guarantee contracts available to other technologies, and has erected unique planning barriers in England. Despite Government efforts to drive clean growth, new onshore wind capacity is consequently set to reduce dramatically next year – as the current pipeline of legacy projects dries up.

New polling commissioned by 10:10 Climate Action suggests that the Conservative MPs who first called for these blocks to be put in place are now out of step with their constituents’ opinion on the issue. This suggests it is time for MPs to get behind onshore wind as a key part of the low-carbon future, particularly as the Government indicates it could move toward a more supportive position on the technology.

What does the polling tell us?

The polling was conducted across the 79 mostly English constituencies of Conservative MPs who signed a public letter to the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, in 2012, which called for cuts in government support for onshore wind.

While one might expect opposition to wind to be highest in these constituencies, the polling shows that three quarters of these MPs’ constituents actually back the technology. Perhaps surprisingly, 73% of respondents would also be happy to live within five miles of turbines.

These figures are consistent with the Government’s own statistics – which show that 76% of the British public now support the use of onshore wind. They are further backed up by polling commissioned by 10:10 Climate Action at the end of 2017, which indicates that 70% of people living in the south of England, excluding London, would be happy to host local wind projects – slightly higher than levels of support for local turbines in Scotland.

Nine out of ten constituents of the MPs who signed the letter opposing wind are unaware of the fact that the Government is blocking onshore wind – and only one in five would support a block on turbines.

These findings are significant in light of the fact that onshore wind is currently under a double lock in England – first because projects cannot access long-term price guarantee contracts, and second because planning barriers introduced in 2015 have led to an almost total cessation in applications for new wind projects. Analysis of the Government’s renewable energy planning database shows a 94% drop in new applications for wind since 2015 – covering everything from single turbines to larger projects.

As the basis for these planning blocks is an assumption that communities in England do not want local projects, this new evidence raises further questions as to why the blocks are still in place – particularly when onshore wind has been shown to be popular in the very places Conservative MPs fear it is not.

What does this mean for MPs?

The 2012 letter to David Cameron was signed by MPs over six years ago. Since then, the context has shifted dramatically. Most significantly, turbine costs have tumbled – with the result that onshore wind is now our cheapest source of new-build electricity. Widely accepted modelling by Baringa shows that some new onshore wind contracts would be agreed at a price lower than the wholesale cost of electricity – meaning projects could be classed as ‘subsidy-free’ and pay back millions to the government over their lifetimes.

Controlling the cost of energy bills for consumers is a priority issue for MPs, as is driving forward clean growth and tackling climate change – with dozens of Conservative MPs recently signing a letter calling for the Prime Minister to back the introduction of a new net zero emission target for 2050. As the cheapest source of clean energy, onshore wind should be at the heart of furthering this agenda – and MPs should be seizing such opportunities as the first steps in moving towards zero emissions over the coming 30 years.

Conservative MPs are also aware of the fact that they will need to perform better among younger voters to regain their majority at the next election. Bright Blue polling has found that climate change is the top issue 18-28 year olds want to hear politicians discussing more, and the second top issue for under 40s. Overall, Conservative voters have been shown by Bright Blue to favour onshore wind over gas, nuclear and coal, and 59% of them support onshore wind provided it receives no subsidy – a statistic that is increasingly significant in light of rapidly falling costs.

This new polling, together with onshore wind’s well-evidenced popularity among the British public on both the right and the left, tells MPs that it is time for them to get behind wind power. Blocking it risks being left on the wrong side of their own constituents – particularly the younger voters they will seek to win over in the next election.

Onshore wind is a hugely popular source of energy – even in the places where some MPs fear local communities do not want it. In light of this, blocking our cheapest source of clean power alongside government efforts to rapidly decarbonise our energy system looks increasingly untenable. Surely Conservative MPs now owe it to their electors to assure Ministers they are ready to see a change in the way the wind is blowing.

Ellie Roberts is the Campaign Manager at 10:10 Climate Action, a UK based charity that brings people together to take positive, practical action on climate change.

The views expressed in the article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

Blowing in the wind: are kites the next big step for renewable power?

To most people in Britain, kites are probably things of a childhood pastime – perhaps conjuring up memories of hours spent on less-than-tropical beaches. Yet, the very same principles which underpin kite flying are now being touted as a serious and exciting means to generate renewable electricity.

As with other forms of electricity generation, kites capture energy and use it to rotate a turbine. Each kite has a steel tether which is attached to a turbine, and as a kite harnesses wind energy, it ascends up into the sky. This in turn spins the turbine, which generates electricity. Kites often operate in tandem, with one rising and the other falling at the same time, which ensures energy generation is more constant. In addition, some kites will have rotor blades attached to them which generate electricity, too, in the same way that traditional windmills do.

A technology with the wind in its sails

Given that they both harness the wind as their source of power, kites are often compared to conventional wind turbines when assessing their potential to be a viable method of producing electricity. However, as beneficial for the environment as wind turbines are and have been for the UK, it would appear that kites could offer several potential advantages.

To start with, consider that the strength of the wind – and hence energy generation potential – steadily increases with altitude, with high-altitude winds having twice the velocity of ground-level winds. Moreover, not only do winds blow more forcefully at higher elevations, they do so more predictably, too. Combined, these two facts mean that kites can exploit a stronger and more reliable stream of energy to convert into electricity, relative to turbines on the ground or out at sea.

Another compelling argument in favour of kite generated energy is cost. We know that renewables like solar and wind turbines have, especially recently, seen their costs fall dramatically due to improved economies of scale and technological learning. Yet companies who are in the kite energy sector believe their blossoming technology has the potential to be even cheaper.

Kites use fewer materials in production, are cheaper to build and set up, are easier to maintain once running, and have the potential to last longer. If as a result of stronger and more predictable winds they produce more energy too, then they effectively become all the more inexpensive because of the crucial cost per megawatt hour of energy produced equation by which all generating technologies are judged. Indeed, one kite energy company believes it could install a 100 megawatt capacity wind farm and begin delivering electricity significantly less expensively than £44.50 per megawatt hour.

As with any new technology, however, kite energy generation must be able to transfer its promising potential on paper into the real world. Cost estimates such as the one cited above are certainly eye-catching, but need to be backed up by hard evidence gathered through doing. At the moment, regulatory uncertainty abounds, and investors would want to be sure that any money they put into the hitherto commercially untested technology is not too much of a gamble.

That kites use fewer materials relative to wind turbines also has important environmental consequences. Often made from carbon-fibre, kites do away with literally thousands of tonnes of infrastructure associated with conventional wind turbines – the massive blades and tower, plus the concrete foundations, for instance – thus meaning that they require fewer resources to fabricate, and hence contain less embodied energy. Indeed, the steel and concrete used to build wind farms are some of the most energy and water intensive production materials around – although it must be said that they and other renewables like solar are still much less carbon intensive, relative to conventional fossil fuelled power stations.

Another key selling point for kite generated energy is that kites can be deployed in a wider variety of locations, often where other forms of generation could not be. Conventional wind turbines are limited as to where they can be placed because they must be able to reliably tap into ground windspeeds of at least five meters per second. Consequently, this rules out much of the land across the world. However, higher altitude wind speeds are considerably more constant – regardless of the location 500 or so meters below, where the kites would be anchored. In addition, because of their nature, kites could operate in locations where it is unviable to erect conventional wind turbines because of complex terrain, for instance.

Interestingly, one location where kite energy wind farms could be constructed is on the offshore pilings on which current wind turbines – soon due to be decommissioned – stand. As modern wind turbines are now much larger, the existing pilings have effectively been rendered redundant, and thus replacement ones would have to be (relatively more energy and resource intensively) built, should newly proposed wind farm projects get the go ahead.

Possible turbulence?

Despite impressive credentials, kite energy is not without its drawbacks. From a safety perspective, some have expressed concern about what happens should a kite’s tether snap. Furthermore, others have pointed out the natural susceptibility to lighting strikes which kites will have, flying so high up in the sky. This could not only damage the kite itself, but more importantly knock out the small but vital computers in the kite which control it. 

Yet perhaps the greatest challenge with which kites could possibly be faced will be securing regulatory permissions to ascend to such high altitudes. It is not hard to imagine authorities expressing hesitation over agreeing to a series of kites being deployed anywhere close to residential areas, or airspace in the proximity of flightpaths, for instance.

The almost inevitable opposition from the small but vocal minority who already campaign against wind turbines on visual grounds could be a final stumbling block for kite generated electricity. Indeed, it is foreseeable that kites could engender even more opposition than conventional turbines – for whilst some claim that kites in full flight will be virtually invisible, even an ardent believer in renewable energy may not relish the idea of a network of cables extending hundreds, even thousands, of feet up into the sky.

Conclusion

Conventional wind turbines have undoubtedly helped the UK in reducing carbon emissions and decelerating climate change through the way in which they have provided a clean alternative to dirty, fossil fuelled power stations. In the years since their inception, the turbines have become more efficient, and the blades that power them ever bigger. Despite this, it is not unreasonable to look at the developing sector of kite technology and think that the future of renewable energy generation might lie a little higher above our heads than first imagined. 

Eamonn Ives is a Researcher at Bright Blue

Reflections on Bright Blue's Green conservatism conference

On Wednesday 1st November, Bright Blue hosted its inaugural Green conservatism conference – a day-long event of panel discussions and keynote speeches, all feeding in to some of the most pressing debates currently taking place in the environmental sphere. Specifically, we endeavoured to examine four distinct areas of interest: agriculture, conservation, the role of markets in energy, and energy security.

The day began with a keynote speech from the Minister of State for Climate Change and Industry, Claire Perry MP. She struck an optimistic tone about the economic and industrial opportunities the UK has going forward as a cleaner and more environmentally sustainable nation – citing the Government’s work in pioneering the Contracts for Difference reverse auctions which have led to a blossoming, and ever cheaper low-carbon power sector, and unprecedented investment in renewables like solar and wind since 2010. Perhaps most interestingly of all, the Minister acknowledged that current policy does not allow onshore wind projects to bid for low-carbon contracts, and that this inconsistency is something the Government is actively seeking to address.

Agriculture and CAP reform

The first panel of the day sought to explore the current and future status of agriculture in Britain, particularly in the context of Brexit. A vigorous debate ensued, with the panel divided as to what the future status of rural payments to landowners and farmers ought to be in the coming years.

Arguments were advanced both for and against maintaining large-scale state support for the agricultural sector. Those backing a continuation of payments made their case for doing so largely on the basis of food security and food standards, as well as to remunerate farmers for the various aspects of environmental stewardship they provide.

On the other side of the argument, however, the contradictory nature of CAP payments vis-à-vis environmental sustainability was advanced, along with the economic inefficiency which some believe they have encouraged in Britain’s agricultural sector. Regarding the stewardship role of farmers, it was argued that this could still be retained, albeit through a more targeted system of commissioning public ecosystem services where they are demanded.

The future of conservation

There was consensus on our second panel about the need to be doing a good deal more conserving. Each panellist, however, contributed a unique perspective on just what, exactly, the focus of conservation ought to be. Suggestions ranged from raw materials to soil quality, and ancient woodland to native species of flora and fauna.

One point of contention among the speakers was over the use of targets within conservation policy. Arguing against targets, some vocalised how they can give conservation efforts ever narrower focuses, whereas it can be more effective to examine issues of this kind holistically. The risk that a plurality of targets can quickly become contradictory of each other was also raised.

Nonetheless, other panellists defended this approach, largely on the basis that targets can serve as a spur to much needed action – for example, as we have seen with the phase out of petrol and diesel cars, or recycling rates. Furthermore, it was argued that targets may also usher in better data collection which can be crucial to understanding what elements of conservation policy are going right, or, importantly, wrong.

The panel also touched upon question of rewilding. Again, all broadly agreed that a degree of rewilding could be agreeable, yet there was debate around how far it should go. Some favoured the reintroduction of species like the lynx and beaver, but others drew the line at restoring native habitats, such as rewetting peatlands and reforesting upland woodlands which have been lost to agriculture, for instance.

Strengthening the role of markets in energy

Among the third panel of the day (and the first on energy), there was a general recognition that markets can and should be strengthened to deliver better outcomes for consumers. Different panellists highlighted the role that different technologies could play in revolutionising how we consume energy, such as big data, blockchain, connectivity, interconnection, and also demand flexibility services. As these cost-effective technologies develop and expand in the market, there will be greater scope for reducing government intervention.

Whilst there was broad praise for the Contracts for Difference reverse auctions which the Government has been conducting to drive down the costs of low-carbon power subsidies, the panel was split on the efficacy of large-scale nuclear projects like Hinkley Point C backed by now seemingly exorbitant strike prices. Some saw them as a necessary price to pay to ensure a secure supply of low-carbon energy, others as overly expensive and incompatible with a more decentralised, flexible electricity grid.

Energy security in the UK and Europe

Much in the same way as some members of the first panel on agriculture questioned the need for food security, so too was there scepticism on our fourth panel about the idea that the UK should be worried about energy security. Indeed, the panellists drew an important, under-appreciated distinction between self-sufficiency, which means that all energy is produced and generated domestically, and security, which means that energy supplies are secure through having diverse and reliable sources.

The panel was quite clear that we should not overstate the importance of Russian energy imports in the context of UK and European energy security, citing the maxim that “Russia needs Europe more than Europe needs Russia”. There was also significant optimism that improvements in renewables like wind energy will make domestic production easier, while new technologies such as electric vehicles and advancements in batteries will also help to bolster our storage capacity.

If there was one outstanding note of caution raised by the panel, it was that as our energy networks become increasingly interconnected and convergent, the potential danger of a successful cyber-attack on the system escalates. This, more so than conventional energy security fears, seemed to be where the panel thought resilience in our energy sector would be most needed.

Conclusion

The final two speeches were delivered by two former Environment Secretaries from the Major Government. While divided on the question of the UK’s membership of the EU, they are united on the imperative of protecting our environment.

First, the Rt Hon Lord Deben, Chair of the Committee on Climate Change, spoke of how business needs to assume a greater responsibility for tackling climate change, especially now that the science so clearly supports anthropogenic climate change. He stressed the idea of doing more to internalise hitherto externalised costs of pollution associated with consumption – in basic accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Furthermore, he highlighted how much more energy efficient everyday living has become as a result of EU regulations.

Second was the former Leader of the Conservative Party, the Rt Hon Lord Howard. Speaking with reference to his role as Secretary of State for the Environment during the Rio Summit of 1992, Lord Howard raised how, contrary to popular assumption, rising living standards and decarbonisation need not be antithetical – citing evidence that the UK has witnessed both the greatest decline in carbon emissions and greatest rise in per capita economic growth of all G7 countries over the past 25 years. He argued that Brexit would allow the UK to become even more environmentally friendly than it currently is.

In summary, the Green conservatism conference successfully brought together a range of policymakers, experts, and practitioners, particularly on the centre-right, with the shared ambition to realise a greener, more sustainable world, yet with different perspectives on how to achieve that desire. The debates which took place were testimony to the long-standing, but underacknowledged conservative commitment to environmental stewardship and conservation.    

Eamonn Ives is a Researcher at Bright Blue

One step forwards, two steps back? The strange case of Tory solar policy

The Conservative Party has had an on-off love affair with the solar industry ever since the heady days of David Cameron’s Quality of Life Commission. Professionally, I was happy to serve on the Commission. It helped to create the right political conditions for the launch of the feed-in tariff in 2010 and cemented Conservative support for it – something that had seemed impossible when we started debating the policy. In the intervening period, there have been a series of policy highs and lows. Too often it’s been a case of one step forwards, two steps back.

Right now, the real danger is that solar will be overlooked in the forthcoming Clean Growth Plan. There appears to be a mood afoot in Government that the job is done, that a so-called (actually non-existent) solar ‘target’ of 12 gigawatts by 2020 has already been met, and that there is little industrial value in UK solar. News this week that one solar farm has been developed ’subsidy-free’ for the first time in the UK has also led inevitably to a rather complacent response from Ministers. Yes, a solar and storage scheme developed on an existing solar farm site does offer a tantalising glimpse of a sustainable subsidy-free solar future into the 2020s and beyond. But one swallow does not make a summer, and it’s clear that very few such pathfinder projects can be developed subsidy-free in the foreseeable future.

In the context of what has happened to our sector since the 2015 general election, the Government would be unwise therefore to draw conclusions prematurely about the current health of the UK industry. Since 2015, employment in the sector has fallen by at least two thirds from a high point of well over 30,000. Large-scale solar deployment has stalled (notwithstanding isolated exceptions that nevertheless prove this rule), and the revised feed-in tariff has seen a dramatic year-on-year drop in rooftop installations. In 2015, there were 155,000 new domestic installations that year receiving the feed-in tariff. In the first six months of this year, the number was less than 5,000. It is undeniable that the sector suffered unnecessarily as a result of knee-jerk policy making in the aftermath of the 2015 election where solar was wrongly and public blamed for the LCF overspend. 

Ministers are keen to describe UK solar as a success story, and so it is. But what we need now from the Government is certainty and partnership for the future, rather than basking in past successes. The fact is, as the recent REN21 report showed, positive policies are still vital to the solar industry internationally. It is ironic that Solarcentury, a stalwart of the UK sector since the late 1990s, is now exporting successfully our UK solar expertise literally all around the world, while the UK domestic market remains in downturn.  

We need Ministers to build on the successes of the past, not assume that it is ‘job done’. Part of that will involve a change in mind-set in Whitehall – a previous Minister confirmed there are no solar champions in the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), which is quite extraordinary given the importance of this technology. In a recent Parliamentary written answer to a question about solar redundancies, BEIS Minister Richard Harrington MP said that: “many of those who work in solar are also skilled in other building trades, and will move between these with changes in demand.” It’s hard to imagine such a dismissive answer to questions about employment levels in other low-carbon economy technology success stories.  

For at least two years, the industry trade body the Solar Trade Association (STA) has been calling for a package of measures to ensure that solar can access a level regulatory and policy playing field. This includes action to reduce the burden of business rates on solar rooftop installations and to reduce the rate of VAT on solar storage. Charging people 20% VAT for batteries retrofitted to existing solar installations runs completely counter to the Government’s narrative about the importance of storage and the leading role that the UK can play in that emerging market. We are hopeful for action on this front in the forthcoming Budget.

The lack of a level playing field can also be seen in other policy areas. In particular, it is a nonsense that one of the cheapest renewable technologies, and the most popular, remains locked out of the Government’s competitive auction process for Contracts for Difference (CfDs). This is the mechanism that has seen a halving of the support level required for deploying new offshore wind from 2022. Quite rightly, this has been hailed as a potential game changer in the context of the eye-watering £92.50 strike price at 2012 prices needed for new nuclear. But solar inexplicably has been caught up in the fallout from the Conservative Party’s opposition to, and manifesto commitment to end support for, onshore wind. The reality is that solar could also deploy today at prices approaching half those required for Hinkley Point C. Yet we remain locked out of the scheme in a bizarre rejection of market forces. Including cheaper solar again in the CfD process would help to re-energise the UK market and help to put further downward pressure on solar and other technology costs and benefit bill-payers. It’s such an obvious policy move that it’s hard to understand what is holding Ministers back.

Finally, and inevitably, Brexit remains a destabilising factor in terms of solar industry investment in the UK. For our own part, Solarcentury is active all over continental Europe where markets are recovering nicely and we will have to make a decision in early 2018 on key issues such as headquartering and other contingency planning. In the meantime, Brexit does actually open up the prospect of helpful policy changes, including the possibility of scrapping VAT altogether for solar and other energy efficiency measures, and an end to the red tape of the EU’s unwelcome minimum import price for solar modules. Both issues add unnecessarily to solar costs in the UK. 

After a damaging two years of policy changes, there is now an opportunity for positive action leading to a renewed period of stability and certainty for investment in our industry. The solar industry success story deserves better than another policy round of one step forwards, two steps back.

Seb Berry is the Director of Corporate Communication at Solarcentury and Vice Chair of the Solar Trade Association

The views expressed in the article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue

Nuclear reactors: is big beautiful?

Nuclear power has long been a controversial source of energy. Detractors point to high infrastructure costs and difficulties associated with storing nuclear waste, amongst other concerns. Advocates, however, view it as a clean and reliable alternative, which the grid requires as the country steadily shifts away from coal and other fossil fuels which we have relied upon for decades.

But last week, the car giant Rolls-Royce released a report on small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), outlining how they think the technology – first developed several decades ago to power submarines – could foreseeably bridge some of the differences in opinion between pro- and anti-nuclear voices, and usher in a “once in a lifetime opportunity” for Britain to be at the forefront of nuclear technology. Such bold claims, however, require scrutiny – given Rolls-Royce’s commercial interest in the technology’s adoption, and also the relatively untested nature of SMRs as part of the energy system.

Typically defined as nuclear reactors which can generate up to 300 megawatts of electrical power, and can be produced in a single factory on a repeated basis – i.e., ‘modularly’ – SMRs have been touted by their supporters as a way for the UK to tap a reliable source of energy, able to ensure the lights stay on when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.

One of the main selling points of energy generated by SMRs – at least compared to conventional large-scale nuclear projects such as Hinkley Point C in Somerset – is cost. An economic fact true of most goods and services is that increased and repeated production has a tendency towards falling average unit costs – what economists would call economies of scale. For larger nuclear projects, which are effectively produced as ‘one offs’ every few decades or so, designers have been unable to exploit the potentially lucrative economies of scale because the actual technology involved typically changes to such a significant extent with each project. However, for SMRs, the opportunity to do so is theoretically much greater. Owing to the fact that a factory may fabricate many several SMRs, financial savings in materials and alike allow for a lower cost per reactor to be achieved, ultimately manifesting itself as a lower cost per unit of usable energy generated.

Others have highlighted the fact that financing SMRs could be more attractive to investors, relative to large-scale nuclear plants. Reasons for this are broadly twofold: on the one hand, capital expenditure costs will be lower given that the reactors will be much smaller – allowing a more diverse pool of investors to consider financing a project; on the other, the asset will begin generating dividends far sooner, because it can be built and operationalised more quickly, again, due to its smaller size. This could therefore mean that investors might agree to a lower strike price for their energy generated, given the fact they will not have to factor in more of a guarantee on their return on investment.

SMRs may not just make financial sense, but they could also play a vitally important role in expanding our nation’s ‘energy flexibility’, through helping to decentralise energy production. Decentralisation of energy can be advantageous for the environment because when energy is consumed close to where it is produced, transmission losses are minimised. Developments in other energy sources have already been heading in this decentralising direction for some time now – consider, for instance, solar photovoltaic panels atop people’s houses. Some have also suggested that because SMRs require less water for cooling than their larger cousins, they are more environmentally friendly in this respect, and could also help in bringing energy security to remote areas which may not be located close to seas or large rivers.

Nevertheless, questions do remain about SMRs. In this very blog, much of the financial case for them is based upon the theoretical assumption that economies of scale will be realised – and realised in sufficiently large proportions to warrant a revolution in the energy sector. Because the technology is so untested as a commercial source of electricity generation, estimates about how far costs will fall are difficult to accurately make at this stage.

Environmental NGOs have also criticised SMRs, largely on the basis that they are not strictly speaking a renewable form of energy generation – certainly, SMRs will still inevitably call for the intermittent disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Even if one is not inherently opposed to nuclear energy, it has been pointed out that nuclear waste is an area where large-scale plants have the upper hand over SMRs, because the latter would face a challenging coordination problem stemming from several nuclear sites all needing to dispose of individually lesser, but cumulatively equal, amounts of nuclear waste.  

Yet perhaps the foremost factor which could jeopardise the roll out of SMRs is the remarkable fall in the cost of certain forms of renewable energy, such as solar and wind power. Incidentally, these are technologies which have already very much felt the virtuous cycle of economies of scale themselves, as the costs of their parts have tumbled as they have become more and more widespread. Coupled with ongoing learning about how best to deploy renewables, and a fine tuning of the technology they utilise, wind and solar farms are now more efficient, and more cost-effective, than ever.

Indeed, in the aforementioned Rolls-Royce report, it is somewhat ambiguously claimed that they are “working towards” the medium-term target of £60 per megawatt hour of energy generated through SMRs. Initially, Rolls-Royce even concede that a figure of around £75 per megawatt hour is more likely. This would be noticeably more expensive than the £57.50 per megawatt hour of wind generated power, recently agreed to by two companies in the most recent Contracts for Difference auctions.

In 2015, the then Chancellor, George Osborne, signalled the Government’s ambition to explore new nuclear technologies – pledging £250 million into a nuclear research and development programme. Since then, it has launched a competition to invite engineers to submit their plans for the best value SMR design for the UK. As the nation continues its transition away from dirty and polluting fossil fuels, there is an ongoing debate about which technologies will power the UK forward. In theory, SMRs could have a number of potential benefits, relative to large-scale nuclear. But they also come with certain disadvantages, not least of which is their relatively untested nature.

Eamonn Ives is a Researcher at Bright Blue

Cracking a nut with a sledgehammer: how killing diesel risks taking local clean energy with it

Diesel engines don’t have a good rep these days. But while most public attention has been focused on those with wheels choking our streets, it’s a different bunch that the Government has actually been cracking down on.

Every year the Government runs a reverse auction for electricity generators (and some storage and ‘demand shifting’ projects) called the capacity market. Winners are granted public subsidy to be available during the winter to provide power if supplies become tight. What the Government really wants this to do is to incentivise new, large gas plants. But it turns out it’s cheaper to build small diesel plants. Few gas plants can compete - and thus few get built. Instead, we now have up to 2GW of diesel generators installed locally. This is not good press for the Government: diesel has high carbon emissions and local air quality impacts. We shouldn’t be subsidising them (nor should we be subsidising coal plants, by the same token). So the Government set out to cut them out of the picture.

So far, so good. But what happened next risks undermining not just diesel, but the shift to local, clean, flexible energy too. What went wrong?

A quick rewind. The power sector has seen radical changes in the last decade. The major story has, of course, been renewables. Much renewables capacity in the UK is locally installed, which ushers in a fascinating new paradigm in which power doesn’t just flow from the beating hearts of vast coal, gas and nuclear plants out to the veins and capillaries of towns and villages. Now our homes, businesses and fields are themselves centres of energy; either used onsite or transmitted to local consumers.

This actually makes a lot of sense. You cannot transmit power without losing some of it. The further it travels, the more you lose. The UK wastes 8% of the electricity it generates in moving it from A to B (and over 50% overall if you include thermal power station inefficiency). But generating wasted electricity still costs money - and still incurs wear and tear of infrastructure used to transport it - all of which costs bill payers. If electricity is generated closer to demand, lower losses should entail a more efficient system, and thus lower costs overall. 

The rules governing the use of wires and pylons by generators and suppliers of electricity were not designed to support local generators, but they do end up reflecting the fact they do not use as much of the total network. There are 14 regional electricity networks, each of which connects into the larger national grid. Suppliers with customers in those regional networks pay charges based on the amount of electricity they buy into them at peak times. If local generators produce electricity during those periods less electricity needs to be imported from the national grid. This saves the suppliers money in reduced charges, part of which is then passed onto those local generators as a reward. This is called an ‘embedded benefit’, and it helps incentivise building generation closer to where electricity is consumed.

At least it did.

Connected locally, diesel plants can do what big, central gas plants cannot - access these embedded benefits. Take this revenue stream away, the Government thought, and perhaps gas will be able to compete again. Ever since, there has been pressure on Ofgem to do just that. And three weeks ago they announced a cut of up to 93% - almost entirely removing it. 

So much for diesels. But this also deals a blow to renewables and storage projects (such as batteries or pumped hydro) connected locally, of which there is several times more capacity than there is diesel. Worse, unlike subsidy cuts which only affect future projects, this hits existing projects too - punishing them for a problem they didn’t cause. Reduced projected revenue, and increased uncertainty, is expected to cool investment in local, clean, flexible electricity infrastructure. Storage - that oft-touted key to a renewable future - could be hit particularly hard. With access to few public support levers, projects often rely on being able to deliver power at times when rewards are available to build a business case. 

But was this simply an unintended consequence?

Actual rule change is undertaken by industry panels, which are dominated by sector incumbents including the ‘Big Six’. Only they have the personnel and capacity to resource such involved work. The panel that presented proposals to Ofgem in this case did not have a single renewable energy or community energy representative on it. In the consultation that preceded the final decision seven out of nine of the big commercial players were opposed to the benefit. The two in favour either have no large central generation assets of their own, or their own interest in renewables.

Whether the product of genuine manipulation, or simply the inertial imbalance of representation on Ofgem’s panels, it is the incumbent generators who won. They are, theoretically at least, now more likely to be able to build new gas stations - as diesel competitiveness is reduced - capturing public funds in the process. And the renewable and storage projects causing such havoc for their business models just lost revenue. 

So it’s the transition to a local, clean, smart - and ultimately cheap - energy system that is losing out.

Which raises several questions. Should Ofgem’s remit formally incorporate the UK’s 2050 climate target, given its pivotal role in shaping the systems that must get us there? Should incumbents be allowed to continue dominating the processes that evolve regulations? And should the Government ensure that Ofgem is driving our energy system to one that is lower cost, more local and lower carbon?

Our answers would be: yes, no and yes. The rapid (and urgent) transition in the design and operation of our energy systems for a liveable planet simply demands it.

Max Wakefield is lead campaigner at 10:10, a charity that focuses on practical, participatory and positive solutions to climate change. 10:10 work with everyone, from policy makers and politicians to community energy groups and schools, to create the practical and cultural change necessary for a rapid transition to a low carbon UK. You can join 10:10’s campaign to challenge Ofgem’s decision here

The views expressed in the article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue

What happens when the wind doesn’t blow?

Renewables such as wind and solar are a UK success story. Their share of total electricity generation has increased from 9% in 2011 to 25% in 2015. Over the same period, prices have fallen by 50% for solar and 43% for onshore wind. Yet, despite this rapid improvement, critics of renewable energy continue to ask two questions: First, how do you keep the lights on when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun doesn’t shine? Second, what is the cost of maintaining security of supply while increasing renewable capacity? There are convincing answers to both that should help meet such understandable concerns.

Balancing technologies

Ministers are clear that maintaining security of supply is the government’s first priority for energy policy. A large expansion of renewables must be consistent with that aim.

Renewables supplied a quarter of the UK’s electricity last year. But the lights still stayed on because government and National Grid plan ahead by commissioning back-up or balancing capacity to complement high levels of renewables. This additional capacity falls into two categories:

• Fossil fuel back-up generation. Currently, this includes gas-fired power stations, diesel generators, and coal-fired power stations. Diesel and coal cause significant environmental harm, both in term of carbon emissions and air pollution. That’s why the Government has committed itself to phasing out all coal-fired power stations by 2025 and why Defra is investigating tighter emission regulations for diesel generators. As gas emits less carbon than either coal or diesel, it can play a medium-term role in backing up intermittent renewables as the power sector decarbonises. In our report, Keeping the lights on, we called for smaller-scale, flexible gas capacity in particular to be incentivised, through technologies such as reciprocating gas engines, so the grid can better respond to variable supply from renewables.
• Flexible ‘smart power’ technologies. These include interconnection (transmitting low-carbon power from Europe to the UK through sub-sea cables), storage (saving surplus power and deploying when demand rises) and demand-side flexibility (shifting non-essential demand away from peak times). The National Infrastructure Commission recently produced a report on the potential of these technologies, finding such a system could provide an additional £8 billion of savings to consumers every year by 2030. These technologies are still developing, but interconnectors already provide over 4GW of capacity, with plans for that to increase almost three-fold by the early 2020s. Storage capacity is currently over 3GW, but with rapidly falling battery costs, this will also increase significantly in the coming years.

System costs of intermittency

So the lights can be kept on, even with lots of renewables on the grid. But how much does this cost bill-payers? In her energy policy reset speech last year, the then Energy Secretary, Amber Rudd, argued that both the social cost of carbon and the system costs of intermittency should be included within the overall costs of different forms of electricity generation.

The system costs of intermittency are defined as the external costs imposed on the electricity grid as a result of integrating variable generation, including the cost of back-up capacity and the cost of balancing services. These system costs are highly contested and rely on a number of assumptions. A couple of trends can be observed, however. First, system costs for a particular renewable technology rise as the total capacity of that technology on the grid increases. Second, the costs decrease as the total capacity of balancing technologies, such as storage, increases.

For context, at the last auction for new capacity in 2015, onshore wind projects were awarded an £81 per MWh average strike price and solar projects £64.50 per MWh. Three recent reports have sought to quantify the system costs for intermittent renewables:

• First, Imperial College London’s report for the Committee on Climate Change provides estimates for the system costs of different intermittent technologies, assuming the power sector achieves its 2030 carbon targets. In this central scenario, they find that wind and solar would have a system cost of between £6 and £9 per MWh.
• Second, Nera’s report for Drax, which owns a biomass power station, estimated the system costs of intermittency are between £12 per MWh for onshore wind, £12 per MWh for solar, and £10 per MWh for offshore wind.
• Third, a recent report by Aurora Energy Research for the Solar Trade Association found that the intermittency of the currently planned 11GW of solar on the grid will cost around £1.40 per MWh. This would rise to £6.80 per MWh if solar capacity reached 40GW by 2030. But with additional wind on the grid (a total of 45GW by 2030), the figure falls to £5.10 per MWh. In a scenario where there is 8GW of batteries on the grid by 2030, intermittent solar would actually provide a net benefit of £3.70 per MWh by optimising the use of these batteries.

Conclusion

Technologies are available to enable a high volume of renewables to be deployed on the grid while keeping the lights on. Intermittent renewables do carry a cost to the system, although it is a small proportion of the overall cost of building and operating them. Along with the cost of carbon, this can be included in the price of new generating capacity to ensure a level playing-field for mature technologies. System costs can be significantly reduced by encouraging storage, flexible gas, interconnection, and demand-response flexibility alongside renewables.

Sam Hall is a researcher at Bright Blue

Story-telling: making the case for climate action

For two months this year, electricity generation from UK solar eclipsed that from coal. Granted, it was in the summer, but it is nevertheless significant to see the future overtaking the past. To energy policy experts this isn’t surprising: July was sunny, and coal is viewed as a poor investment. But when I mentioned this to a friend over the weekend, her response was one of perfect confusion: “So, why don’t we ever hear the good news about renewables?

Faced with austerity, policy experts and commentators focussed on proving the business case for investment and intervention in the low carbon economy. This should not have been difficult: the sector continued to grow rapidly even after the 2008 crash, turning over £121.7 billion in 2013 and employing 460,600 people. Energy efficiency is a particularly impressive performer in productivity terms – responsible for around 94,200 jobs and a disproportionately high £7.3 billion of Gross Value Added to the wider economy.

We have the hard economic modelling to back this up, showing that ambitious decarbonisation can outperform business as usual in terms of future economic growth (an increase of UK GDP by 1.1% in net terms, with average householders financially better off against business as usual scenarios where little is done to reduce emissions).  With around 45% of all new energy capacity worldwide now renewable, we thought we had spotted an opportunity for the UK to lead the next global industrial revolution – and we thought the numbers more than justified supportive policy and government investment.

In reality, a positive economic narrative alone has failed to get the job done. The Committee on Climate Change recently warned government that there is a growing gap between our commitments on climate change and what government policy will deliver.  Instead, we need to reach people emotionally about what decarbonisation looks like, speaking to their values as well as their wallets – as a more detailed look at energy efficiency policy should tell us.

Investments in energy efficiency offer big returns. Consumers benefit from bill reductions and there are wider social gains, such as a reduction in NHS admissions for respiratory illnesses following the retrofit of the homes of vulnerable people. A mass-retrofit of UK buildings would offer better value for money as an infrastructure commitment than High Speed 2. Yet, shortly after the last general election, subsidies for products and regulatory standards for new homes were scrapped. The indignation of industry, policy experts, and campaigners focussed on the economic short-termism of the cuts. The numbers added up. What more could have been done?  

Well, it’s possible that we were all having the wrong argument – or at least the right argument in the wrong way. Climate change communications tend to be negative, with the solutions often presented as a “loss” rather than a “gain”. For energy efficiency, for example, consumers have been concerned about lost loft space, the cost of installation, or changing ‘the feel’ of their homes. Psychological research has shown that negative or reactive messages can undermine trust in the long-term; not only do negative stereotypes prevent immediate action but they also stick, and undermine the wider case for change.

People with centre-right values are more likely both to believe negative misconceptions about low carbon solutions and to reject overall climate change messaging which they view as “doom-mongering”. The absence of a distinctively centre-right vision for climate change action might go some way to explain why greater doubt exists among Conservative MPs about climate science than for parliamentarians in other parties.

All of this suggests that we need to reach a broader audience, with a language and set of values that work for all voters. Without this, relying on numbers will not be enough to win the argument for rapid decarbonisation. Fortunately, the messages already exist – they have just gone unnoticed, as returning finally to energy efficiency again can illustrate.

As I write this I am sitting in WWF’s headquarters, the Living Planet Centre, in Woking. It is built using the cutting edge of low carbon, energy efficient technology. When we show guests around it, we focus on the business case for the building – we talk about the operational savings that come from switching to a ground source heat pump, or how much energy our solar panels generate on a given day. We talk, too, about some of the building’s secondary impacts, as part of the urban regeneration of Woking, or the improved wellbeing and productivity of our staff.

But what we often forget to do is point out that The Living Planet Centre is just a better building than most new buildings. It is also beautiful, an upturned ship of glass and wood which sits back into the green landscape of canal and heritage Surrey woodland. We should be able to make a case to the British public to say: “The changes we need to make to decarbonise our lives are also changes that will improve our lives - they will be more socially positive, economically beneficial, and (on occasion) more beautiful than sticking with the way we do things now.” We need story-tellers now, as well as economists.

Emma Pinchbeck is Head of Energy and Climate policy at WWF UK

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue.