UK Energy Secretary Huhne Blasts 'Unholy Alliance'

Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
October 26, 2011 | 36 Comments

UK Energy Secretary Chris Huhne delivered a sharp defense of the nation's renewable energy industries Wednesday while decrying criticism from the "climate skeptics and armchair engineers" he says are impeding the progress of the green economy.

Huhne made his comments during a keynote speech at RenewableUK’s annual conference in Manchester where he said renewable energy technologies would deliver “a third industrial revolution every bit as profound as the first two.” According to Huhne, just this year, there have been approximately 9,000 jobs created and £1.7 billion invested in the UK renewables sector.

He also criticized what he called “the curmudgeons and faultfinders who hold forth on the impossibility of renewables” describing them as “an unholy alliance of short-termists, armchair engineers, climate sceptics and vested interests who are selling the UK economy short.”

His speech came amid growing dissatisfaction with what some are calling “green taxes” and the role those taxes are playing on utility bills. The government recently announced plans to slash subsidies for biomass and hydro. There are also indications that there will be cuts to the feed-in-tariff, which some fear could deflate the residential solar market.

“If FiTs were cut to a degree that destroys the residential solar industry, that would threaten 25,000 jobs across the country and would mean that the only people to benefit from solar PV electricity would be the rich,” said Dan Green, CEO of HomeSun. “This is not right. The solar industry can take a cut of 30 percent; any more and access to solar PV to all is gone.”

The onshore and offshore wind industries have been somewhat spared by the cost-cutting measures.

Huhne’s comments received wide applause from those in renewable energy industries.

“The Secretary of State’s emphatic defense of the renewables industry will provide a welcome and timely boost for everyone working in this dynamic sector,” said Maria McCaffery, RenewableUK’s Chief Executive.

Nick Molho, head of energy policy at WWF-UK, said, "Chris Huhne's comments today are a dose of sanity in an energy debate which has been all over the place recently. As he says, claims that 'green polices' are the reason for high energy bills are simply wrong; bills have been driven up by rises in the gas price and anyway, subsidies for renewables are dwarfed by huge global subsidies for fossil fuels.”

Ben Warren, partner for environmental finance at Ernst & Young, added, “At a time when opportunities for economic growth in the UK appear sparse, this market has the potential to create enormous opportunities for UK businesses by reducing the economy's exposure to ever increasing fossil fuel prices.”

36 Comments

ANONYMOUS
October 30, 2011

On one side of the debate: Solar energy, with some initial industrial pollution wastes to contend with during initial manufacture, then, years of clean energy.
On the other side: "Burn tec" energy production with ongoing health and environmental destruction which will increase over time to a non-recoverable tipping point for human life, and to satisfy needs of a finite amount at best, but which will never be reached.
Debate the support points all day or for the rest of your life.......... or.........
Lets do a little science experiment like the demos we did in high school.
Just put some oil, gasoline, and wood (paper will do) and some mercury, arsenic, lead oxide, and other things you may find lying around into a large can and light it up. Now, hold your head over it and breathe deeply. Notice how it feels and how, if you really try, you may get a sense of the same thing that is occuring to our earth atmosphere at a slightly slower time frame. Remember, this is just an experiment. But keep breathing as long as you can. Someone else will save you.

Allen Gerhardt
October 30, 2011

Actually figuring the price of external costs of fossil fuels is not too hard to do and has been calculated to show that Coal costs between $300 to $500 billion every year in the US. The real costs of gasoline has been figured at $12 to $15 per gallon. The subsidies to nuclear power over the last 50 years is so high that we could have given away free electricity to citizens at less cost, and that does not include the unpaid for solution to the extreme long term storage of nuclear wastes. New nuclear power even in markets like Turkey costs more than even solar power. And solar power has none of the safety concerns of nuclear power. Baseline power can be provided by hydro, geothermal, ocean current, and distributed variable sources when a smart grid with the ability to move energy is utilized. CSP with molten salt storage can also be used for full time power. Not every power system needs it's own backup, as regional backup systems can stabilize the grid over large areas. all the variability issues have solutions, and many are finding that large amounts of variable energy can be managed economically, when the desire to do so is in place. Most of the problems arise from trying to maintain an outdated energy model, instead of embracing the future.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1727949/coal-use-costs-half-a-trillion-dollars-each-year-in-health-economic-environmental-impacts?partner=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+fastcompany/headlines+(Fast+Company+Headlines)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/24/us-utilities-smartgrid-epri-idUSTRE74N7O420110524

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/04/national-coal-expert-mining-is-a-loser-in-practically-every-way

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/06/237150/stunner-new-nuclear-costs-as-much-as-german-solar-power-today-and-up-to-0-34kwh-in-2018/

Christopher Golightly
October 29, 2011

I tell those "critics" who are qualified technical people, forcing themselves increasingly desperately to defend the indefensible, that it is never too late to switch teams once you start to realise and understand what may occur. Having worked in offshore oil and gas for 24 years, how could I ever go back to that ego-driven greedy bearpit. In offshore wind we - and the future - now desperately need experienced professionals to join us. Open up, figure it out and make the plunge. It would be worth it Keller.

Phil Manke
October 29, 2011

Way to go Mark-Hadley!., Et Al................
Many of the 'limited thinking' critics may not be open to many of the ways solar energy affords a peaceful and non-conflicting energy source. The ego sees threat in all things that will render its fearful vision as useless.............
Having a clean power production facility right at ones disposal and responsibility is an awesome and wonderful thing.
More and more minds are realizing that a simple change of heart that allows opening to new possibilities is all that is required to free ones self from the prison of rigidly held beliefs.

Bob Wallace
October 29, 2011

Read it. Let's move on.

Nuclear is priced off the table. Wind is cheap. Solar is getting cheap. Storage prices are falling. Geothermal is affordable and its price will decrease a bit. Tidal is maturing and will likely generate cheap electricity.

You can't build an expensive nuclear plant and sell your power at a rate that will return your investment. Take the most optimistic price I've seen, $0.12/kWh. (And that was presented by an industry insider who refused to release the details behind his estimate. There's no way to know if he included all costs.)

If you've got to sell your power 24/7 at $0.12/kWh to keep your business viable what do you do when half the time wind is on the grid at $0.05/kWh? Raise your price to $0.24/kWh the rest of the day? You could try that.

Now, what do you do when the Sun comes up and kicks out electricity at $0.15/kWh (and rapidly falling) for six hours? You double your selling price again to $0.48/kWh in order to survive on six hours of sales?

Sorry. Storing up some cheap wind or affordable solar or even burning some natural gas is far cheaper than what you need to earn.

You are bankrupt.

Mark Hadley
October 29, 2011

By the way, everyone should read the blog by DrAlexC at http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/10/japans-tipping-point#readercomments

Mark Hadley
October 29, 2011

I wish I could share the euphoric feeling of supplying my own electrical energy from thin air and light with everyone who has all the arguments for not doing it.

Allen Gerhardt
October 29, 2011

Obviously renewable energy is a serious threat to the ones that spent all their money on fuel dependent systems, hoping to capitalize on a diminishing resource, now to see it being replaced before the prices get to serious levels. Why else would they spend so much time lying about the competition? They are so desperate that they can't see how stupid they look, denying the obvious. Do they think the sensible and responsible ones will just abandon renewable energy and go home and cry because they have made false derogatory claims about them? How stupid could someone be to have such expectations? The advantages of clean renewable energy are self evident, and no amount of lies can hide that. As far as global warming and the reasons for it are concerned, anyone still disputing that is not worth listening to, as they have no concern for facts or evidence. One might as well ask your dog about global warming, since he doesn't care about facts or evidence either.

Bob Wallace
October 28, 2011

And again Keller, the climate change denier, dons top hat and tails and does a tap dance as he avoids confronting the data.

He makes the statement "Factoid: the planet has not been warming over the last ten years". Then when he is presented with data that proves him incorrect he dances away from that right-wing talking point to another and another.

Now he's saying we should ignore the thousands of Americans who die each year from breathing coal smokestack emissions because "it's just too hard to do that math".

"Stick with things that can be kicked counted." Just step over those dead children. Too hard to assign a dollar amount to a dead child.

And you wonder, Keller, why we call you guys names?

Michael Keller
October 28, 2011

Do not have a problem with zeroing out subsidizes for anybody producing (or not producing) "stuff" such as power, food, etc. However, the impact on fossil energy prices is unlikely to be that great, while it would likely be catastrophic for renewable energy since it is so much more heavily subsidized (on a per unit of energy produced basis).

also, the idea that you can simply stop using fossil (or nuclear for that matter) energy is pretty simple minded and belies a fundamental lack of understanding of energy use and economics.

I would shy away from attempting to use externality costs (e.g. health care costs) in any argument because such cost are too difficult to determine (as in highly subjective), thus making reaching agreements pretty close to impossible. Easier to stick with things that can be kicked and counted.

FYI The price of natural gas has actually plummeted over say the last 10 years or so in the US. Why? Technology advancements.

Christopher Golightly
October 28, 2011

Ah so. Coal-Nuclear chap. All is clear. Somewhat desperate last gasp slanted self-interest. Old energy. Agree with points on saving energy and embedded costs. But filthy old coal plants, Japanese nuclear nightmares and especially Macondo style frontier oil is going away. Time to buy a new hat. Great strides to come in new tech. offshore wind, PV solar and tidal power schemes. All intuitively good for future. Most young engineers are moving into this, of course, for obvious reasons.

Andrew Truitt
October 28, 2011

2 points to add to the discussion:

1) With the cost of PV modules at record lows, solar power is currently cost competitive in many markets which is why global demand is and has been increasing exponentially. As fossil fuel prices continue to increase this trend is likely to continue.

2) Fossil fuels have been subsidized for years. If those subsidies were to disappear RE would be even more competitive, and if the embedded costs of dirty power (e.g. healthcare costs and environmental effects) were included in the price of energy we would finally have a level playing field and renewables would be even more attractive.

Bob Wallace
October 28, 2011

Nice tap dance.

You bring nothing. You get to take nothing home.

The climate change facts and reasons are laid out right before you. If you wish to be intentionally blind, that's your loss.

Large scale renewable installation is ongoing. Fact. The world has moved on.

Michael Keller
October 28, 2011

I am not pushing new nuclear in the US as we have alternatives that are significantly less expensive. However, it may make sense in parts of the world that have no indigenous energy resources.

I would characterize the NOAA work as drawing conclusions when there are large gaps in our understanding of the underlying dynamics of climate change. As such, we are not yet at the point where we can confidently predict what impact CO2 ultimately has. Stated somewhat differently, other considerations that we do not yet sufficiently understand may have a much greater influence.

The approach I advocate (greater efficiency in energy production and use) is readily accomplished, reduces costs, reduces CO2 while buying time. The additional time allows technology to spiral in on the more cost effective use of renewable energy. My thinking is based on the history of electronics and computers where ever advancing technology achieves truly spectacular cost reductions. Point of fact, we are seeing these affects in renewable energy, but are not yet at where large scale deployment is generally a competitive option.

Bob Wallace
October 28, 2011

Clearly we should emphasize efficiency. That's the low hanging fruit. Interestingly US residential energy consumption per capita has remained roughly flat since 1973. That's thanks to the work we've done to improve the efficiency of appliances and other energy uses even though we've flooded our lives with new energy-using applications.

http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2011/10/efficiencys-success-is-flat-us-energy.html

But, let's watch the cost stuff. Wind is one of the cheapest ways we have to create new generation.

Solar will be a cheap option in a very few years. It's already beating gas peaker power in sunny locations.

I'm guessing you're pushing new nuclear, Keller. That is the second most expensive way to create new generation. It's cheaper than only new coal with all its hidden costs rolled in.

Now, would you please explain to us what's incorrect on the NOAA explanation of climate change, or are you not up the the challenge?

Michael Keller
October 28, 2011

Not only do I have the education, I have over 40 years in the energy business.

Fact is, the climate is too complicated (as in non-linear) for our models to make any meaningful distant future predications.

Seems to me we should concentrate first on creating and using energy more efficiently, with renewable energy more of a secondary solution because renewable energy is generally neither particularly cost effective nor a particularly effective solution to a problem that may or may not be significant. From a purely thermodynamics standpoint, harvesting very diffuse energy is inherently difficult. Better to work on using more concentrated sources more efficiently, as the economic payback is much better. Such an approach noticeably reduces CO2 as a happy byproduct.

Christopher Golightly
October 28, 2011

I spend enough of my time professionally refuting this sort of shallow baseless politicised nonesense from blustering ignoramuses who do not have the education or experience to understand what they are doing or saying. I just don't have the time or inclination to provide back-up links and information to people who are blind anyway. I know that oil companies pay a fair bit to employ people to come on these sites to obfuscate and disinform. Recent announcements of BP and Shell quarterly profits show they can afford it. You may or may not be one of those individuals Keller. If you are, fine, the pay is pretty good. If not, there will come a time when you wake up and realise you and others have done a great disservice indeed. However I meet several like minded individuals and figure out they don't give a flyer anyway unless there is a dollar in it. However, yes, thankfully you are on the wane at last. I do not have "a position". I have the truth. This winter in N. Europe will be cold apparently, so more ammo for you twerps.

Bob Wallace
October 28, 2011

I "are perfectly validate (your) point".

Here, Keller, read this page and explain to us, using data from a reliable source, where the National Climate Data Center erred.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Michael Keller
October 28, 2011

As usual, you are perfectly validate my point.

Bob Wallace
October 28, 2011

How many times do you expect us to do that Mike?

People have refuted your junk over and over and over. We're just plain tired of deniers telling us bogus stuff like "the planet has not been warming over the last ten years".

You're just noise in the system. Good thing is, there are fewer and fewer of you folks every day. The last of a dying breed....

Michael Keller
October 28, 2011

Try logically refuting the arguments instead of resorting to personal attacks. That also applies to Huhne.

Further, demonizing those with whom you disagree is a sure fire indication that your position is a pile of crap.

Bob Wallace
October 28, 2011

I'm old enough to remember the time when there were still a significant number of people who continued to believe that the world was still flat. Or at least they pretended to believe that out of the desire for attention or just to be contrary.

The Flat Earth Society, also known as the International Flat Earth Research Society still exists and has about 3,000 members.

I suspect we'll have to put up with a few deniers interjecting their ridiculous comments into discussions about how we solve the climate problem which we have created far into the future.

Christopher Golightly
October 28, 2011

I do not think "Keller" knows very much about geology and I do not think (s)he has studied the climatalogical data too well either, like many other ill-informed and dangerous people commenting on climate change. Also a spelling problem THERE I think. Bit of a giveaway. Putting up with this sort of dolt is just something related to freedom of speech and the internet I suppose we all have to accept. We have about 10 years to put this right or things are going to go exponential and get rather nasty all over the world. If the situation goes in the "bad" direction, all previous talk about "energy costs" and short term economic arguments will look rather pathetic. If greedy incompetents like BP and the like are indeed permitted to continue to take technically challenging risks to gain excessive profit and maintain emission levels in places like offshore Alaska and deepwater GoM (!), and the horrific shale gas plans develop as they could, then things will be quite bad for our descendants. This is a critical time and of course it is necessary now to fight against this type of ill-educated ignorance and stupidity when it is encountered. Very hard. Well done Mr Huhne.

ANONYMOUS
October 28, 2011

Confusion is claiming clean green renewable exists;
Green higher costs yes
Argue green plants and trees being killed by ozone and man's ineffective land use yes.

Clean enerfgy hydro and geothermal comes close but like all other forms of energy requires mande made equipment and hazardous chemicals to produce energy

Yes sun is solar radiation reacting with two hazardous chemcials in an man made environment is unpredictable and inefficient in an environment rich in ozone pollutants snd produce Volatile organic compounds. High heat above 75c and humidity reduce efficiency and all charts used by the industry show 5 hrs/day and less of good sun.

Wind turbine circulates the same ozone Volatile organic compounds and use all the equipment and chemicals in the housing behind the blades to turn; all subject to OSHA regulations Volatile organic compounds.

Man is destroying the earth by his own inefficiency lack of understanding and everyone claiming to haver the answer and management skills to save the earth.
I have a solution but not the answer; recycle everything we throw away and find new uses. Energy consumption will be cut in half.

If we recycle all the plastics bottles we throw away at what point in the future do we stop making new bottles 3-5-7 years?

How many new homes and buildings do we build when something gets old and small? Do stores need to carry everything produces or do we need the lastest fad or gadget?

According to God he will destroy the earth one day without our help.

ANONYMOUS
October 28, 2011

The essence of greed may be defined as acquiring more resources (wealth) than one needs to sustain their life just to make it more difficult (sparse) for ones brother to obtain those resources for themselves. Untill we see that we have a common Mother in this world, we will all suffer at the demands of ego.

Michael Keller
October 28, 2011

Glaciers several hundred feet thick covered massive parts of North America during the last ice age. The point: the globe has been warming on its own for some time and man has had nothing to do with the warm-up.

Factoid: the planet has not been warming over the last ten years, in direct contradiction to the current theories claiming that the increased CO2 is warming the planet. The point: climate is extremely complicated and overwhelms the ability of current climate models to predict the future.

As to the finite supply of fossil fuels. Currently we have adequate supplies. As the fuels become scarcer, the price will go up and that tends to unlock supplies that were previously too costly to recover as well as other options also previously too expensive (e.g. renewable energy). The point: artificially driving up the price of energy because renewable energy is currently too expensive is economically stupid.

Further, renewable energy is not capable of making even a dent in global CO2 emissions because large parts of planet's population are using more energy as there lot in life improves. The point: deploying renewable energy because it meaningfully reduces CO2 is simply a poor justification.

Deploying renewable energy because it is more cost effective than its competitors is a good reason to use the energy source. However, we are not there yet, in most (but not all) applications.

Mark Hadley
October 28, 2011

I see the facts of energy consumption as a factor of where it comes from. Even if we forget about carbon release and global weather issues, the fact remains that burning fossil fuels is a finite energy source. Turning to renewable energy is the proper first step towards whatever solution will be figured out in the future. Fossil fuel is finite. At some point fossil fuel will be precious. Then where will we find the money to consume energy?

Government should be spending money on incorporating RE into their energy infrastructure, as a way to lead by example.

Cost for RE? I've got 220 watt panels on the way to my business to expand our RE system at $0.88 per watt with full CE, UL, and warranty's. Just because the cells are not in a neat line, do not make a poor panel.

The problem I've faced on every level of utility scale project design is a mindset to get rich at the expense of an RE label. Biomass gasification furnace and boiler cost several times what they did just 11 years ago, without a justifiable increase in materials cost.

Christopher Golightly
October 28, 2011

Keller asks three questions. The answer to all three, from anyone who has done any reasonable amount of reading and background study is YES. The comment "no as the planet is more habitable than it was during the ice age" is perhaps one of the stupidest I have read all year from any of the amateurs and armchair engineers. As a geologist and engineer working in offshore renewables I am becoming more and more concerned about the effects of global warming we are now seeing as the climate starts to change rapidly. Those amateurs we hear much from in the UK are usually either oil and gas related individuals or politically of the right (or both quite often). Not all are ill-informed and it is right to have a debate, but not with people who are obviously verging on the moronic like this guy.

Bob Wallace
October 28, 2011

Mike swings.

Mike misses....

Michael Keller
October 27, 2011

Government cheaper. That is an oxymoron.

The planet has been getting warmer since the last ice age. The issues are: (1) is man causing most of the warming; (2) is warming actually a catastrophe; (3) can Western nations reducing CO2 emissions make any difference.

Item (1) = insufficient information and too complicated to draw any meaningful conclusion.
Item (2) = well so far, no as the planet is more habitable than it was during the ice age.
Item (3) = might as well spit in the ocean for all the difference we can make.

Try using energy more efficiently because it puts more money in our pockets and that is how jobs actually get created. Government "make work" is not capable of improving the lot of the average citizen.

Bob Wallace
October 27, 2011

Or, governments have spent too little, need to spend faster, to get renewables cheaper.

That's what most Americans believe. Over 70% of Americans want the government to do more to promote renewable energy, even if it costs them additional money.

Only around 5% of Americans still hold on to the disproved belief that global climate change is not happening. Of course, to them, it makes no sense to replace fossil fuels with clean energy. But we can't risk our future in order to appease a small number of 'the last to understand'.

Those who question green energy, not evil, but intentionally self-deluding. If they would take time to look at the data they would realize that the "world is not flat".

Michael Keller
October 27, 2011

Ah, if anyone dares question green energy, then they must be evil. Ergo they must be demonized and burned at the stake.

Fact is, governments have spent too much money and need to cut back. Subsidies for renewable energy are discretionary expenditures that need to go, along with all subsidies given to those who produce "stuff". Those renewable products that make sense will survive because they can compete. The vast army of oxygen wasting bureaucrats is also a discretionary expenditure that needs to be heaved over the side.

Bob Wallace
October 27, 2011

What, do I see some of "the curmudgeons and faultfinders who hold forth on the impossibility of renewables" ... "an unholy alliance of short-termists, armchair engineers, climate sceptics and vested interests" showing up in this discussion?

Michael Keller
October 27, 2011

Looks to me like the remarks of a bureaucrat attempting to intimidate anyone observing "the emperor has no cloths on". Expensive green energy is simply a poor solution to a vastly overstated problem. Money is being diverted into the pockets of an industry unable to provide a competitive product. That directly reduces general economic activity because the consumer and industry have less money to spend as they see fit.

ANONYMOUS
October 27, 2011

Chris Huhne and the government have it all wrong.

I'm a leading supplier of software energy calculation in UK. Having to sat through a presentation by the BRE it's obvious that the only jobs created by RHI and the Green deal are bureaucratic jobs. They are training an army of pointless assessors to go round and inspect peoples houses. The Green deal will force the price of installing renewable technology through the roof (excuse the pun). As is being paid for via the energy companies this is effectively a tax. The obvious solution is just to increase the price of fuel and then people will make their own decision. Far too simple for a government to consider and politically unpopular. Hence the UK creates an army of paper pushers while the research development and manufacturing goes overseas.

Phil Manke
October 27, 2011

I agree with many of the references, Steve. The renewables industry must recognize that there are vast numbers of wage and profit makers in the 'burn-tec' industries and supply chains who see solar energy and other renewables as simply a threat to their livelihood, and nothing more. I feel this is the main obstacle to the RE move to mainstream adoption. It is also the main reason that govt incentive programs are beneficial to some and an extreme threat to others. It is also why solar energy is more easily introduced into developing countries where burn-tec industries don't have a major throttling hold on commerce.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Steve Leone

Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California.