Nearly half the British public believe investing in renewables is the top priority for energy security, according to a new poll.
Nearly half the British public believe investing in renewables is the top priority for energy security, according to a new poll.
Perhaps more surprisingly, the view is reflected by voters across the four largest parties – including UKIP.
Almost half (48 per cent) of those surveyed picked investing in renewables as their number one energy priority, far ahead of building new nuclear reactors, which came in second at a distant 15 per cent. Support for fracking trails fourth at 13 per cent, after ‘reducing consumption’.
Fracking was even less popular in the forty most marginal Tory/Labour seats, with just 8 per cent seeing it as the most important energy priority – a worrying finding for pro-fracking incumbents.
Just 2 per cent of UKIP supporters think that reducing the number of future onshore wind-farms should the government’s main priority, while 37 per cent believe that investing in renewables is the most important energy need.
Securing our energy supplies was seen as a top five priority for the majority of voters, with 53 per cent ranking it an urgent issue.
Commenting on the poll, RenewableUK chief executive Maria McCaffery said:
“This poll shows that the public want to tackle our energy security crisis by investing in renewables like wind, wave and tidal power and offsetting the need to import volatile and dirty fossil fuels from insecure parts of the world. Onshore wind, as the cheapest low carbon electricity source is a crucial component of that so it’s no wonder that the electorate will reject Parties that rule out its future use.”
The ComRes poll for RenewableUK follows a study last week which showed that politicians opposing wind development are a ‘turn off’ for voters.
63 Responses to “Half UK voters support renewable energy as ‘top priority’”
Leon Wolfeson
Ill-informed? Yes, it’s not mentioned the fact that UK power prices are basically insensitive to input drops thanks to the current structure, but jack up prices at every hint of the same gas or coal prices going up.
There is absolutely zero consumer benefit to fracking here.
Leon Wolfeson
The fact is, investing in those *raises* the risks, not lowers them. Onshore wind, when you adjust for the capacity factor and add in the cost of the necessary gas backup is far from the cheapest option.
We should be pushing for a nuclear build option, or – like Germany – we’re going to end up with coal to keep the lights on.
itdoesntaddup
The price ratchet is dictated by the ever rising cost of more renewables and integrating them into the system. Miliband found this a very convenient mechanism to embed into OFGEM’s pricing role. Davey has extended it by guaranteeing fantastical prices to renewables and new nuclear via his CFDs.
At present there is zero fracking, so there can be no benefit. The benefit will come when we can replace expensive LNG imports with domestically produced gas, with either a large amount of tax collected on production, or much lower prices, according to how government fixes it. We know there’s plenty of gas.
Leon Wolfeson
No, the price ratchet is entirely down to the RO system.
There could be massive fracking, and gas prices could fall like a stone, and customers would still see absolutely zero benefit. You are showing you can talk plenty of gas, when the UK’s reserves are far from proven, the geology is massively problematical, etc.
Also, the Government has offered deals which eliminate collecting any substantial amount of tax for fracking.
itdoesntaddup
Governments change their minds on hydrocarbon taxation very readily. PRT was originally 30%: it got hiked to 75%, with 12.5% royalty and 52% corporation tax, because oil prices rose, and the North Sea was far more successful than had originally been guessed.
If gas prices remained consistently low the temptation for one party to change the energy regime would become overwhelming – especially as so much of the wind farm ownership is in foreign hands. A windfall profits tax would be an obvious temptation.
There is nothing particularly problematical about the UK’s geology for its shale resources, despite the propaganda attempts to convey that impression. In fact, the thickness of the shale will make it much cheaper and easier to exploit than the strata in the US. One well can be progressively sidetracked at multiple levels into laterals, substantially lowering drilling costs.
Educate yourself a little:
http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/another-day-another-shale-gas-report.html