Where now for onshore wind…? Modern Farmer
The UK is not on track to meet its renewable energy targets, according to a new EU report. Despite this, and despite the fact that onshore wind power is the lowest cost form of sustainable energy, the new Conservative government has just announced the early ending of the subsidies to this method of generation. By James Hunt:
The European Commission (EC) has warned in its renewable energy progress report that the UK is set to miss its key EU renewable energy target for 2020.
Adopted in 2009, a binding target requires the EU to source 20% of energy from renewables such as wind, solar and biomass by 2020. However, the UK, France and the Netherlands are to miss a crucial EU renewable energy target and should review their policies to get back on track, the EC says. Other EU countries falling behind are Luxembourg and Malta.
Yet only yesterday, the Government said that it was ending the subsidy scheme for onshore wind farms from April 1st 2016 – a year earlier than expected. This move, which seems to contradict PM David Cameron’s earlier claim to be the ‘greenest government ever’, is likely to reduce investment in the technology, just when the UK really needs it to meet its 2020 carbon emissions reduction obligations.
In 2013, the nation’s share of renewable energy stood at 5.1%, lagging well behind its 2020 goal of 15%. Even so, the Government claims that the UK is on track to meet the interim target of 5.4% for 2013 / 14 by the end of this year, albeit still lagging. None-the-less, the report states that the EU will meet its target of generating 20% of energy from renewable sources by the end of the decade.
It’s quite difficult to see, however, how the Conservative government will meet its climate change obligations now that it is to withdraw the onshore wind subsidies early. Energy firms had been facing an end to subsidies in 2017; now it is 2016, though there will be a grace period for projects that already have planning permission, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) says.
The cheapest
This controversial move means that the government is making it hard for wind turbine manufacturers, their suppliers (such as Voltimum partners ABB and Siemens) and investors to plan in the now still more uncertain climate for onshore wind – and this despite the continuing advances made by solar PV, wind is the cheapest readily-available form of clean energy in the UK.
It is this that makes many commentators think that the announcement is a purely political decision and nothing to do with making best use of the cheapest form of renewable energy. While it is certainly true that many people don’t like wind farms (many others do), it’s also true that many of these are in the Shires – the Conservative Party’s heartlands.
Amber Rudd, the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, is reported to have said that it is time to shift subsidies from onshore wind to other technologies that needed them more. However, she didn’t state what those technologies might be, and the government has not announced subsidies for other forms of energy in compensation.
Not only that, local communities will also be able to veto future plans for wind farms near them. Yet the point has been made – why is it that the government will give local people a veto over wind turbines, but they are not allowed to veto nuclear power stations being built next door, nor nearby fracking.
The onshore wind industry has attacked the move as a costly political move, and trade body RenewableUK has called for an urgent meeting with Amber Rudd to discuss the implications.
The are concerns in Scotland too, which would be home to 70% of planned future windfarms, yet the Scottish government says that it has not been consulted about the early withdrawal of the subsidies.
Fergus Ewing, the Scottish government’s energy minister, claims that it is irrational scrap onshore wind subsidies, saying (quoting from Scottish Power figures) that British consumers could ultimately pay £2 to £3bn more in energy bills.
