Over the last year renewables have been breaking records.
Over the last year renewables have been breaking records
Earlier this week something amazing happened. Wind power overtook nuclear as the third largest source of electricity on the UK grid, keeping the lights on as gas power stations caught fire, and atomic ones developed cracks in their boilers.
This was not a freak event. Over the last year renewables have been breaking records with monotonous regularity. In the second quarter of 2014 renewables contributed 17 per cent of national electricity demand. In fact if you close your eyes and listen carefully on any windy or sunny day you can almost hear the last creaks of the 20th century electricity system as it starts to fall apart.
Part of the reason is simply economics. Decentralised renewable energy means new winners and losers. Solar and wind can eat into peak power demand, reducing profits for traditional generators. In the domestic arena rooftop solar in the UK is rapidly approaching grid parity, the point where, unsupported, it is as cheap to generate your own electricity as to buy it from the grid.
This is a level of competition the utilities have not had to deal with before. The effects in Germany are already profound with RWE recently announcing that it has got into renewables far too late, possibly too late to survive. In the US the entire utility sector was recently downgraded by Barclays bank because of the disruptive effect of rooftop solar.
Ownership is changing too. In Germany just 5 per cent of renewable electricity is owned by the ‘Big Four’ utilities, with individuals, communities and independent generators taking the largest share. The same is starting to happen in the UK, just several steps behind.
The utilities and the fossil fuel companies are uncomfortable with all this of course. In response we have had years of scare stories. Renewables will never power a light bulb. Renewables are unreliable and will destroy the grid. Renewable are expensive.
Each and every one is being proven wrong. Wind and big solar are already cheaper than new nuclear power in the UK, and by 2020 big solar could be cheaper than gas. Offshore wind could be competitive with nuclear early in the next decade, and bring huge benefits in terms of energy security, jobs and manufacturing.
As for reliability, Germany has the most reliable grid in Europe, and the most advanced renewable energy economy.
Yet while those with vested interests may fret about the rise of renewables and the decentralised grid, for the rest of us it should be something to look forward to. Rapid growth, combined with grid upgrades and new storage technologies are bringing the possibility of a truly renewable electricity system within our grasp.
And what an achievement that would be. Energy security, jobs and carbon reduction. All in one. And since the sun and the wind will remain free as the technology to harness them improves, the potential for cost reduction is almost limitless. The countries which grasp this the quickest will be the winners in the 21st century, just as those who first piled into coal and steam were in the past.
Ed Miliband has already declared his support for a 2030 decarbonisation target. That will come through renewables. The challenge for politicians on both the left and right is to understand that this will change the system as we know it.
But that vision of change can be a positive one. Rather than constantly fretting about the fate of the big utilities, or designing complex markets to keep coal power stations going, we should be blazing a trail for renewable energy – showing our ambition for solar and wind, upgrading the grid, developing interconnectors with our neighbours and investing in research and developing.
Above all we should be putting power into the hands of our citizens: power for farmers, for ordinary people. On schools, on hospitals, on businesses. We should be championing community and decentralised renewables.
The Labour Party has already indicated it will support schools by allowing them to access finance to install solar, a key ask of Friends of the Earth’s Run on Sun campaign, but there is much more to do.
No one knows exactly what the future will look like. We are moving from a fixed hierarchy to an internet of energy, where power flows more than one way, and we can all take part. It’s already happening, and fast.
That’s surely something to be excited about. Politicians need to get on board, and be force for change, rather than a barrier.
Alasdair Cameron is a renewable energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
17 Responses to “Renewables are the future: get on board, or get out of the way”
Guest
Nope, I’m not using your policy.
1). It’s their USE. And you’re saying it – disconnect the poor when usage rises above the supply, i.e. when the sun isn’t shining
“Smart devices” are completely unrelated as concepts, and fridges and freezers are where it WON’T be applied, as keeping a level temperature is important for food. More washing machines which turn themselves on if the price drops during the day (or just in time for you to get home, anyway).
Why would business be paid to reduce usage (i.e. close), if they can just cut the poor off? This is not “imaginary”, again it’s the INTENT of smart meters, to remotely cut people off.
2) You are trying to link wikipedia, rather than looking at studies. Moreover, you are ignoring the costs of gas backup, grid connections, etc. – you are looking at ONLY the total costs on one side. Again.
You also don’t have numbers because you are not working in a numbers-based system, but an ideological one. Your demand for massively higher bills, hence disconnecting many of the poor in the first place…
We do, in fact, know what it means to move even marginally in your direction from soaring power prices in i.e. Germany.
3) So you claiming costs are “savings”. That you think there is an overall saving to denying poor power and heating, which means you are against social duties to assist the poor and the NHS, because those would eat up your “savings”.
I am not following your blind policy, as you lie viciously, and deny your anti-poor policy of denying people power and light.
I’m sure you will try and intimidate me by speaking for yourself and lying, as you scream hate at the poor and in fact are directly chucking over the idea of the cold sitting in the dark and cold.
Because that’s completely different to a 20-30% rise needed for new nuclear on sensible contracts.
Tom
1) Provide evidence of the intent you claim.
You clearly haven’t read very much (if at all) on this. Fridges are almost the go-to example, as Smart fridges would be able to flatten out the largest spikes in demand. See e.g. D. Mackay, Sustainability without the Hot Air. It’s available online for free, so you have no excuse.
Why would they? It’s irrelevant, they already do. But in any case – maybe because they’re contractually obliged not to just cut people off?
You seem to be confusing two completely different things. Smart meters clearly have advantages for energy companies – in that they no longer need to send people out to take meter readings. Presumably, they’ll also be able to cut off supply in case of non-payment. But that is a world away from cutting off supply to help balance the Grid, and would be subject to all the usual legal safeguards. To conflate the two, as you are doing, is entirely dishonest.
2) Did you even look at the Wikipedia page? It rather helpfully sets out in tables the findings of various Government studies. As they show, the levellised cost of many renewables (particularly onshore wind) is broadly comparable to nuclear.
I have then been very clear – if you want to start factoring in wider grid costs, then you have to do so with both renewables and nuclear. I’ve been clear that I don’t know the figures for this, but it’s equally clear that you don’t either, because otherwise you’d post them. As I have said many times, you are ignoring costs associated with a nuclear-heavy system – i.e. the need for large-scale backup power (National Grid have been clear that this is required), and the costs of a technology to cope with peaks and troughs in demand (nuclear doesn’t ramp up/down quickly enough). If you have such a systemic comparison, post it. If you don’t, stop making claims you can’t support.
3) You clearly haven’t followed here, and are just asserting your own nonsense. Yes, I think that moving to a low-carbon energy system saves money. Yes, that is entirely compatible with the price per unit of energy going up. What do you not understand here? If fewer people are being made sick by air pollution, we can spend less money treating them. It’s hardly rocket science.