Onshore wind projects in England stall as no new applications are received
More taxpayer money needed
The government has received no new applications for onshore wind farms in England since cabinet ministers eased planning rules earlier this year – in a further sign that Rishi Sunak’s anti-green policy shift is driving investment abroad.
So far this year, only one new project, with a single turbine, has become fully operational in England, with many more being built in the EU – and in Scotland and Wales, where planning rules are less burdensome. This is despite renewables being seen as the cleanest and safest form of power, and having wide public support.
Since early September, when the communities secretary, Michael Gove, and energy secretary, Claire Coutinho, introduced changes to planning rules, claiming these would boost onshore wind investment, there have been no applications to local authorities, according to the industry’s representative body, RenewableUK, which has studied data held by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
International competition is intense: other countries are seeking to lure developers away from the UK to work elsewhere
The fall-off in onshore wind projects in England contrasts with rapid increases in investment in Germany, France and Sweden.
The collapse will add to growing unease in Whitehall after no one bid for licences in the latest auction for offshore wind projects because the price companies could charge for the energy was set at too low a rate.
The Observer understands that, with panic setting in behind the scenes, ministers will announce a new framework of pricing within days to try to attract more investment into the sector before it is too late. There is also dismay among civil servants and government advisers, past and present, over the effect that recent government pronouncements on the green agenda have had on companies’ investment thinking.
In last week’s king’s speech, the government announced an energy bill with plans for a new annual system of oil and gas licences, despite the UK’s commitment to net zero targets, prompting outrage from the green lobby. Coutinho said more oil and gas “wouldn’t necessarily bring bills down”.
Sam Richards, a former climate and energy adviser in No 10, who now runs Britain Remade, a campaign group promoting economic growth, said recent anti-green rhetoric from the government risked lasting damage to the UK’s bid to be in the vanguard of a green industrial revolution.
“Unfortunately, the government has been sending mixed messages to industry about the net zero transition – which could mean we lose out on the cheaper [energy] bills and good jobs that will come from building the industries of the future here in Britain,” he said.
James Robottom, head of policy at RenewableUK, the body representing about 500 companies in the sector, said other countries were doing far more to maximise opportunities. “Unprecedented financial incentives are being offered to renewable energy developers by the US and the EU,” he said. “International competition to secure private investment in clean energy projects is intense as other countries seek to lure developers away from the UK to work elsewhere”.
He added: “The government’s very slight changes to the planning system aren’t going to bring about a significant increase in the number of new onshore wind farms in England. There are still restrictions to onshore wind that aren’t faced by any other infrastructure – despite widespread cross-party support to end the de facto ban – which is dampening the confidence of investors who would otherwise be interested. Local communities that support onshore wind are being denied the chance to benefit from cheap clean power.”
In 2015, before the government changed planning rules to make it easier for local people to block onshore wind farms in their areas, there were 158 new onshore projects in England, involving the construction of 228 new turbines. By last year, only two projects, involving four new turbines, were built in England.
Ed Miliband, Labour spokesperson for energy security and net zero, said: “The British people are paying the price of this government’s dogmatic, ideological and self-defeating opposition to home-grown clean power – in higher bills, energy insecurity and failure on climate.
“The Conservatives presented an energy bill that won’t bring bills down. Their supposed lifting of the onshore wind ban doesn’t do anything of the kind and it is costing families £180 every year on their bills.”
The government said that across the whole of the UK – not just England – substantial progress was being made. “The last Contracts for Difference round saw a record number of successful projects across renewables, including onshore wind projects.
“The streamlined National Planning Policy Framework aims to make it easier and quicker for onshore wind projects to come forward where there is local support.”
********************************************
Rough Seas Ahead for Offshore Wind
Last year, the Biden administration fooled enough lawmakers to pass the deceitfully named Inflation Reduction Act, which was more of a Mini Green New Deal in disguise. Within it were the makings of, among other things, an administration plan to have 30 gigawatts of electricity harvested from wind power by the year 2030.
Prior to that, however, there were already several offshore wind projects in the planning stages. Two of the most important ones were slated for construction off the coast of New Jersey by the Danish company Ørsted — projects that were slated to create nearly 200 wind turbines over a vast 250-square-mile swath of the Atlantic Ocean in a territory that came as close as nine miles offshore. The first project, dubbed Ocean Wind I, had just been approved by the Biden administration in July despite local opposition.
But a funny thing happened on the way to green energy independence: Last week, Ørsted abruptly canceled the plans for Ocean Wind 1 and 2. Citing the uncertainty of a supply chain and high interest rates, the company pulled the plug on the project while still trying to get out of a $300 million guarantee promised to New Jersey if the project didn’t go forward. That’s small potatoes compared to the $4 billion Ørsted was writing off when it stopped working on the deal, though, and as Andrew Stuttaford writes at National Review, the Dutch company isn’t the only one feeling the heat: Siemens Energy and BP are also questioning their continued involvement in various projects, both here and abroad. Those companies again blame the economic, er, headwinds of supply chain issues and high interest rates, although Siemens also notes its competition from China.
The demise of Ocean Wind 1 and 2 also egged the face of New Jersey Democrat Governor Phil Murphy, who had just signed a deal that would have allowed Ørsted to keep its tax credits for the project rather than use them to give ratepayers relief. As The Wall Street Journal eloquently put it: “Phil Murphy huffed and he puffed, and a giant wind boondoggle blew the New Jersey Governor down. That’s the story of another failed green-energy project, as the follies keep being exposed.”
Yet continued failure of government-favored industries can only mean one thing: a bailout. Several Democrat governors with offshore wind-energy projects in their jurisdictions recently penned a letter to the Biden administration begging for assistance. “Without federal action,” complained the governors of Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, “offshore wind deployment in the U.S. is at serious risk of stalling because states’ ratepayers may be unable to absorb these significant new costs alone. Absent intervention, these near-term projects are increasingly at risk of failing.” In other words, it’s time for taxpayers to start paying through the nose for “free” wind energy.
Kevin Dayaratna, a senior research fellow and data analyst for The Heritage Foundation, deserves the last word on the argument. “If wind power is as great as advocates claim it is, then it should not need a federal bailout. These discussions about potentially bailing out the wind industry merely illustrate the industry’s incapability of being a reliable form of energy that can stand on its own.”
These are rough seas for offshore wind, whether it’s the high costs, the lack of reliability (as fossil-fueled backup sources of power need to be on standby), or the intrusion of thousand-foot towers and blinking nighttime lights on oceanside vistas. And those most affected are the ones with the deepest opposition.
The question is: Will Joe Biden and his Green New Dealers take “no” for an answer?
https://patriotpost.us/articles/101915
****************************************************Wind farms need to be in the ocean, not onshore, says Australian pioneer
Andy Evans has been beating the drum for offshore wind farms for more than a decade. He and his two co-founders launched Star of the South – an ambitious off-shore wind farm project, off the coast of Gippsland – back in 2012.
“We were the guinea pigs. When we set up the project, it wasn’t a strong time to be discussing renewable energy anywhere in Australia,” Evans says. “Realistically, though, offshore wind is just another large major infrastructure but it is out in the ocean with green benefits. It’s just taken a long while to get that narrative.”
For Evans, offshore wind farms just make sense: “Rather than building a lot of onshore wind farms, you can build them offshore because the wind is a lot stronger, it blows more frequently and we can build bigger projects.”
His role in renewables has seen him included in Australia’s 100 Top Energy Players, released in The Australian’s special magazine, The List.
Evans and his co-founders ran Star of the South for six years before handing the project over to the world’s largest green investment firm, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners (CIP). Evans’s team then went on to found Oceanex Energy, an offshore wind farm developer responsible for locating potential sites for new infrastructure.
He’s the first to admit that it’s been a slow journey but is optimistic that offshore wind is finally starting to gain momentum. In June 2022, the government passed legislation to allow offshore wind farm development. “Now we’re in the middle of making applications for the seven-year feasibility licences to do the assessment work to hopefully then build a project,” Evans explains.
Oceanex Energy has earmarked five potential locations around Australia, including one off Bunbury in Western Australia and four in NSW, including in the Hunter and Illawarra regions. The team also has plans to expand into New Zealand.
Local communities are divided on the wind farms, citing potential negative impacts to the marine environment and fishing industries. These concerns will all be considered as part of the lengthy approvals process that includes community consultation and environmental impact studies.
What isn’t in dispute is the financial benefits of offshore wind farms to regional communities. “During the construction phase, which is three to four years, there will be at least 3000 direct jobs,” Evans explains. “Once construction is finished, for the next 30 years there will be 300 permanent jobs. And they’ll all be local because it’s 24/7 machinery that needs maintaining.”
While wind farm roles won’t directly replace traditional energy jobs, Evans sees the opportunity for transition of employees. “When we look at coal, in NSW in particular, the last coal generator will shut by about 2033 and the NSW [wind farm] projects will realistically come on from 2030,” he says. “There will be a lot of jobs that are not exactly the same but they’re also not that different.”
Action on offshore wind farms may finally be moving forward but that doesn’t mean turbines will be floated tomorrow. “There will be no turbines in the water anywhere in Australia until about 2028 and that will be in Gippsland with the Star of the South,” says Evans, who is a shareholder in the project.
The slow pace of affairs hasn’t deterred Evans, who in November is releasing a documentary called Planet Wind: The Global Story of Offshore Wind to further educate people on why he thinks this is the way forward for Australia. (The feature will open the 2023 Offshore Wind Australia Conference in Sydney.) Rather, he is optimistic about our green future.
“This is an incredible economic and social opportunity for Australia,” he says.
“We’re one of the very few countries that’s blessed with so many resources where the supply of the resources outweighs the demand for it. Our population is tiny compared with the resources we’ve got at our disposal. I think we should be taking our resources and smarts to the world.”
***************************************************
Looking for the Net Zero exit sign
Let’s get serious about planning an orderly exit from Net Zero. We need a plan ready to go before a government comes to power with the desire to exit, only to find they are short on time.
Any government wishing to exit Net Zero will have to mandate it during their first term of office. That means the leadership has 18 months to set things in motion before our short election cycle returns their attention to the polls.
Instead of this, commentators are talking about an orderly exit from coal while most Australian governments and AEMO prescribe an insane stampede away from reliable fossil fuels.
You might think they realise the lights will go out unless we keep the coal fires burning, but unfortunately they are still inhabiting a parallel universe governed by the Net Zero delusion. Their intention is merely to slow down the retreat from coal operating under the belief that there will soon be enough renewable energy installed to take its place.
The ‘accelerating exit of coal’ in Australia, and everywhere else, is not happening for three very good reasons.
The transition to intermittent sources of energy has become functionally impossible in practice due to the combined effect of wind droughts and the lack of grid-scale storage.
Power is becoming more expensive and the price will continue to escalate as long as we spend billions, running into trillions, of dollars on assets that will be stranded in the absence of subsidies and mandates.
The unreliable energy industry leaves a trail of human, social, and environmental damage. It is a disaster from the exploration and mining of its raw materials to disposal of toxic junk at the end of the road.
The Net Zero program is not going to work, and Terry McCrann reminded us last Thursday that there is a way back to a future with cheap and reliable power from a mix of coal, gas, and nuclear. To this we can add hydro and off-grid wind and solar wherever it makes sense.
At the same time, McCrann put a damper on the prospects of nuclear power in the near future, with the story of the attempt to build a low-grade, mostly medical waste plant in the outback. Planning began in the 1980s when Hong Kong started construction on its second airport. Hong Kong finished their airport by 1998, but we still don’t have the nuclear waste disposal facility.
Zealots of the wind and solar industries will contest my call to exit Net Zero because they are animated by ideological, political, and financial motives that have nothing to do with good science and engineering principles, or even concern for the planet.
Trillions of dollars are in play in what many describe as a gigantic renewable energy ponzi scheme. Billions will be made by well-placed players before it collapses.
Looking on the bright side, in a macabre kind of way, the collapse of Net Zero may not be far away as more states and nations reach the inflection (tipping) point where conventional power capacity runs down to the point where wind droughts pose a mortal threat to the power supply. See Texas in 2021.
The call to exit Net Zero will appeal to those who face fuel poverty at home or the collapse of their profit margin at work. At this point, the case to leave Net Zero will need to be explained to the public. No doubt communities left in darkness will already be applying social pressure to politicians. There is always a point at which public outrage cancels out the vested interests puppeteering politicians.
Any public education campaign will be challenging due to the existing fortress of Net Zero zealots ensconced in mainstream media, the ABC, universities, and the corporate world.
The exit will need a clear majority in favour of the community and bipartisan support from the major parties. Forget about the Greens and the Teals.
Support in the major parties will have to be based on strong support in the party rooms, in the face of the influences that are currently driving both parties.
The party that comes into office with a mandate to exit Net Zero will need to spend some years in advance of their election to power working on the plan to get over the resistance from the myriad of departments, quangos, and other government-funded agencies that are currently dedicated to Net Zero.
The reform program must minimise failures that discredit the whole enterprise, in the way that Hewson failed to sell the GST and Whitlam’s hasty ‘across the board’ tariff reduction in the 1970s received negative press coverage which set back the push for deregulation.
In addition to the plan, prospective Cabinet ministers will have to be trained and prepared to go head-to-head with their departments and they will need alternative advisors. Gladys Berejiklian as NSW Transport Minister could serve as a role model because she spent years in opposition learning the trade and researching public transport systems around the world. She came in with a plan and she could not be easily snowed by the bureaucrats.
At the moment, talking about exiting Net Zero is just that… But the first step is to start the public discussion. Much depends on the capacity of the journalistic classes to stop endorsing and spreading misinformation about firming unreliable energy with more unreliable energy and puny storage devices. The debate will be transformed when reporters start asking the usual suspects, the energy ministers and Daniel Westerman and their associates, how that is going to work.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/looking-for-the-net-zero-exit-sign/
***************************************My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment