Are we throwing caution and common sense to the wind in the rush to meet renewable energy targets? Wendy Holden
Moving to the country is the dream of many, and it was for us. Having lived for more than a decade in King’s Cross, central London, five years ago we found a beautiful castellated Victorian lodge in a protected landscape in Derbyshire.
We settled happily. The summerhouse was the perfect place for me to go about my business as a novelist, while my husband, Jon, spent every spare minute (and most of our money) engaged in the never-ending task of lovingly restoring our garden to its 19th-century glory.
The estate our house is on once belonged to the family of Charles Darwin, and the great naturalist is described as listening with interest to the wild boars in the woods across the valley. But what, I wonder, would he have thought of plans that will ruin the views he once enjoyed and compromise a protected landscape?
Recently, we discovered that a company called West Coast Energy was seeking permission to install wind turbines on Matlock Moor, not much more than a mile from our home. Our first reaction was positive. Like everyone with a sense of social responsibility, we believe in the importance of acting and thinking green, and the importance of renewable energy. We recycle fervently. Every compostable kitchen scrap ends up in those Dalek-shaped bins, while the back of our estate car is a holding pen for vast bags of plastic, glass and clothes intended for the recycling centre, along with heaps of those jute shopping bags we never remember to take into the supermarket, so end up buying even more of.
So the idea of a wind farm was fine, even if the site seemed a little close. Only when we saw the application and realised how close, and how enormous, inappropriate, landscape- and wildlife-endangering and, ultimately, ineffective it would probably be did the alarm bells start to ring.
Five turbines, each more than 400ft tall – almost the height of Blackpool Tower – would march along the sky-line, disfiguring not only our protected view, but that of anyone living locally or looking in our direction from within the Peak District National Park, which begins a few fields away. The colossal size of the turbines – at the absolute top end of the scale – is surely an indicator that any wind there might be in our area requires more effort than most to gather.
The East Midlands is set to meet its 2020 targets for renewable energy without Matlock Moor, if you take into account other schemes for which the green light has already been given. Which makes the irony of wind turbines liquidising rare bird and bat species right next door to the Darwin-connected estate, as wildlife enthusiasts fear, even more marked. Not only that: wind farms, particularly of the size planned, are noisy. Whatever their apologists tell you, they create a drone at a decibel level that has driven many unfortunates living close to them to distraction. And how green are they, anyway? What many people also don’t realise is that that wind energy needs other generation capacity – often coal-fired power stations – to back it up when, as is often the case, the wind drops.
In our case, the adverse impact on the local landscape must also be taken into account. The planned mega-turbines are close to the Chatsworth estate and the Peak District National Park.
Anything that undermines the appeal of either is a financial as well as an aesthetic threat to the district.
So, last year, together with a group of similarly concerned locals, we began the long process of opposition. The business of stopping wind-farm developments is, however, not an easy one. An already complicated bureaucratic procedure is further hampered by the fact that nobody wants to be seen, however erroneously, as “anti-green”.
Time is of the essence – not just in terms of the speed with which the development process can move, but the hours required of the individuals involved in stopping it. The organisers of our local action group have all given up enormous amounts of both time and energy to meetings, research, lobbying, PR and running a website (nowindfarminmatlock.co.uk).
You need money, too. In the interests of gathering as much accurate and relevant evidence as possible, Jon and I consulted, at some personal cost, a barrister who specialises in wind farms. We have also called in expert noise- and land-scape-impact advice. So goodbye, new car – appropriate, perhaps.
Not everyone will be prepared to go to these lengths, but anyone planning opposition should bear in mind the need to pay for professional advice that can cost thousands of pounds.
As things stand today, the Matlock Moor wind-farm application has been filed with the relevant local authorities, who will prepare their reports on the proposal for local councillors to consider this spring. While they may reject it outright, a planning appeal before an inspector seems likely – which would add at least another year to the process.
Similar applications to the one at Matlock Moor are being filed all over the country, causing similar controversy. Especially now, because, with the main-stream property market slumping, developers are spotting new and green-looking shoots of opportunity.
The rush for answers to environmental challenges has added to the panic, as regions stampede to fill renewable energy targets. My fear is that this will lead to a new breed of climate-change cowboys, who will use the environment as an excuse to obtain permission to develop a wind farm that they will build and sell on – aided in such speculations by government sweeteners and the willingness of landowners to do a deal.
West Coast Energy has acknowledged local concerns about its project, but says it “represents a viable and suitable site for a wind-farm development on this scale”. The company also claims to have considered in some detail issues such as noise, visual effects and the effect on ecology and birds.
We are not convinced. Maybe you’ll be the next to discover it’s not fairies at the bottom of your garden, but a planned Blackpool Tower-sized turbine or five.
HOW TO GET THE WIND UP THE TURBINE PUSHERS
- Work with local people, and with wildlife groups, ramblers, cyclists and other interested parties. Set up an action group and a website. Contact local media and your MP.
- Ask the developer for all relevant information, especially on noise and environmental effects.
- Determine how the application fits planning policy at national, regional and local levels. Object in writing to the relevant authorities.
- Have an expert take noise measurements: developers will claim your quiet corner is as noisy as Heathrow, so you won’t notice the drone.
- Find out what “landscape character” assessments the local authority has made.
- Ask an expert in planning law to look at the application.
Source - Sunday Times
Showing posts with label wind turbines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wind turbines. Show all posts
Sunday, 8 March 2009
Sunday, 16 November 2008
PV solar panels installation debate
PV solar panels are one of the least cost-effective ways of combating climate change and will take 100 years to pay back their installation costs, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) warned yesterday.
But as others have pointed out, the calculations failed to assume any rise in energy prices, when a conservative estimate of 10 per cent a year would transform the calculations.
In a new guide on energy efficiency, Rics said that roof panels for heating water and generating power are unlikely to save enough from bills to make them financially viable in a householder’s lifetime. In the case of solar panels to heat water for baths and showers, the institution estimates the payback time from money saved from electricity and gas bills will take more than 100 years – and up to 166 years in the worst case.
Photovoltaic (PV) panels for power – and domestic, mast-mounted wind turbines – will take between 50 and 100 years to pay back.
Given that the devices have a maximum lifetime of 30 years, they are never likely to recoup the £3,000 to £20,000 cost of their installation, according to Rics’ building cost information service. Instead, it suggested people wanting to cut fuel bills should insulate lofts and cavity walls, install efficient light bulbs and seal windows.
Joe Martin, author of Rics’ Greener Homes Prices Guide, said there was an argument for installing solar panels but it was not an economic one. “We wanted to bring some reality to this because there are a lot of missionaries out there. The whole push for household renewable power is that you can do these things and make back money but that’s not true on existing property,” he said.
The solar power industry accused Rics of failing to take account of the rising cost of energy and other financial benefits of renewable power in its figures. Jeremy Leggett, of Solar Century, said: “They are grossly irresponsible.”
Rics assessed the cost, annual savings, disruption and payback time of various energy-saving methods and gave each an overall rating of one to five stars.
Solar panels for heating and power and wind turbines generating between 3kW and 5kW merited two stars. Smaller 1.5kW turbines of the type installed on roofs paid back in 25 years, received a three-star rating.
By contrast, cavity wall insulation had a five-star rating: spending £440 would save £145 a year in fuel bills, paying back in three years, while an investment of £325 in extra loft insulation would save £60 annually, paying back in five years.
The figures were compiled before energy companies put up bills by up to 30 per cent last month and ignore state subsidies.
Last year, the Department for Trade and Industry slashed grants for the installation of household renewable power by 83 per cent, infuriating the fledgling micro-generation industry which complained the move rendered solar panels unaffordable to all but the wealthy.
Jeremy Leggett, executive chairman of Solar Century, complained that Rics’ figures failed to assume any rise in energy prices, when a conservative estimate of 10 per cent a year would transform the calculations.
In addition, Rics had failed to take account of a number of other benefits – renewable obligations certificates worth £160 a year to householders from next year; reductions in energy consumption of up to 40 per cent for schemes with a meter; the rising payments from energy companies for spare electricity put back into the national grid; and the increased value of an energy-efficient home.
He estimated the current payback of power-generating PV panels was 13 years.
Rics countered by saying it had not taken account of maintenance costs and that it deliberately chose not to include “ifs” in its figures. “I doubt however you do the sums, they [solar panels] make sense,” a spokesman said.
Source - The Independent
But as others have pointed out, the calculations failed to assume any rise in energy prices, when a conservative estimate of 10 per cent a year would transform the calculations.
In a new guide on energy efficiency, Rics said that roof panels for heating water and generating power are unlikely to save enough from bills to make them financially viable in a householder’s lifetime. In the case of solar panels to heat water for baths and showers, the institution estimates the payback time from money saved from electricity and gas bills will take more than 100 years – and up to 166 years in the worst case.
Photovoltaic (PV) panels for power – and domestic, mast-mounted wind turbines – will take between 50 and 100 years to pay back.
Given that the devices have a maximum lifetime of 30 years, they are never likely to recoup the £3,000 to £20,000 cost of their installation, according to Rics’ building cost information service. Instead, it suggested people wanting to cut fuel bills should insulate lofts and cavity walls, install efficient light bulbs and seal windows.
Joe Martin, author of Rics’ Greener Homes Prices Guide, said there was an argument for installing solar panels but it was not an economic one. “We wanted to bring some reality to this because there are a lot of missionaries out there. The whole push for household renewable power is that you can do these things and make back money but that’s not true on existing property,” he said.
The solar power industry accused Rics of failing to take account of the rising cost of energy and other financial benefits of renewable power in its figures. Jeremy Leggett, of Solar Century, said: “They are grossly irresponsible.”
Rics assessed the cost, annual savings, disruption and payback time of various energy-saving methods and gave each an overall rating of one to five stars.
Solar panels for heating and power and wind turbines generating between 3kW and 5kW merited two stars. Smaller 1.5kW turbines of the type installed on roofs paid back in 25 years, received a three-star rating.
By contrast, cavity wall insulation had a five-star rating: spending £440 would save £145 a year in fuel bills, paying back in three years, while an investment of £325 in extra loft insulation would save £60 annually, paying back in five years.
The figures were compiled before energy companies put up bills by up to 30 per cent last month and ignore state subsidies.
Last year, the Department for Trade and Industry slashed grants for the installation of household renewable power by 83 per cent, infuriating the fledgling micro-generation industry which complained the move rendered solar panels unaffordable to all but the wealthy.
Jeremy Leggett, executive chairman of Solar Century, complained that Rics’ figures failed to assume any rise in energy prices, when a conservative estimate of 10 per cent a year would transform the calculations.
In addition, Rics had failed to take account of a number of other benefits – renewable obligations certificates worth £160 a year to householders from next year; reductions in energy consumption of up to 40 per cent for schemes with a meter; the rising payments from energy companies for spare electricity put back into the national grid; and the increased value of an energy-efficient home.
He estimated the current payback of power-generating PV panels was 13 years.
Rics countered by saying it had not taken account of maintenance costs and that it deliberately chose not to include “ifs” in its figures. “I doubt however you do the sums, they [solar panels] make sense,” a spokesman said.
Source - The Independent
Monday, 3 November 2008
UK aims to support solar panels from 2010
The UK says it wants to guarantee a price premium for small producers of renewable power, for example from the wind and sun, from 2010.
The government included the proposals in amendments tabled Wednesday to an energy bill being debated and due to pass into law by December this year.
The plan would support households and communities which install solar panels or small wind turbines on their property.
They would earn a feed-in tariff, which guarantees a price premium for supplying electricity from renewable sources into the national grid.
“We hope to have it available by 2010,” said a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change Thursday.
Britain’s present price support, or renewables obligation (RO), is considered complicated and bureaucratic for small producers, and will be replaced by a feed-in tariff for microgeneration of renewable electricity up to 3 megawatts (MW) — enough to power about 1,500 homes.
The 3 MW cut-off would make feed-in tariffs available for schools, hospitals and communities as well as households.
“We don’t want to tinker with the RO,” the spokeswoman added. Some 95 percent of RO claimants now were above the 3 MW threshold.
The RO forces utilities to get a certain portion of their electricity from renewable sources or else pay a penalty, money which is then used to pay renewable power producers.
Feed-in tariffs have been very effective in boosting the adoption of solar power by households, farmers and communities in Germany. Such tariffs, also very popular in Spain, guarantee a certain power price premium typically for 20-25 years.
The government had not yet decided on the value or duration of a British tariff, the spokeswoman added.
Under EU targets Britain will have to get 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 compared to just 1.3 percent in 2005.
Source - Reuters
The government included the proposals in amendments tabled Wednesday to an energy bill being debated and due to pass into law by December this year.
The plan would support households and communities which install solar panels or small wind turbines on their property.
They would earn a feed-in tariff, which guarantees a price premium for supplying electricity from renewable sources into the national grid.
“We hope to have it available by 2010,” said a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change Thursday.
Britain’s present price support, or renewables obligation (RO), is considered complicated and bureaucratic for small producers, and will be replaced by a feed-in tariff for microgeneration of renewable electricity up to 3 megawatts (MW) — enough to power about 1,500 homes.
The 3 MW cut-off would make feed-in tariffs available for schools, hospitals and communities as well as households.
“We don’t want to tinker with the RO,” the spokeswoman added. Some 95 percent of RO claimants now were above the 3 MW threshold.
The RO forces utilities to get a certain portion of their electricity from renewable sources or else pay a penalty, money which is then used to pay renewable power producers.
Feed-in tariffs have been very effective in boosting the adoption of solar power by households, farmers and communities in Germany. Such tariffs, also very popular in Spain, guarantee a certain power price premium typically for 20-25 years.
The government had not yet decided on the value or duration of a British tariff, the spokeswoman added.
Under EU targets Britain will have to get 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 compared to just 1.3 percent in 2005.
Source - Reuters
Saturday, 13 September 2008
8 years to pay back solar panels costs
Solar panels are one of the most cost effective upgrades, according to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
The cost of adding solar panels to the average home is between £1,700 - £4,000, and the energy savings are worth as little as £240 a year, according to Rics, meaning it could take as little as 8 years to pay back the price of installation.
The report also reveals that the average cost of replacing a wall-mounted boiler with a more energy-efficient version is about £1,700. But with expected savings of just £95 a year, it would take up to 18 years to offset the cost.
The most cost effective energy saving measure is cavity wall insulation. At a cost of between £440 and £2,400, depending on the size of the home, and an average energy savings of as much as £145 a year, the cost could be paid back over as little as three years.
Joe Martin, director, of Rics’s Building Cost Information Service, said: “We all have a role to play in helping to reduce our carbon footprint, be it through changes to our behaviour or by choosing greener alternatives. The reality is, however, that most people struggle with the cost, time, and effort it takes to make these changes.
“The Greener Homes Price Guide gives consumers a comprehensive heads-up about the costs and effectiveness of green upgrades, whilst protecting them from being duped into changes that won’t save them money or do little to reduce their carbon footprint.”
However, the solar panel industry vigoursly denied the claims. Andrew Lee, head of solar at Sharp Electronics, said. “Rics’s claim on solar panels is massively misleading and potentially damaging for both the UK solar industry and the UK’s renewable energy targets, being based on outdated and inaccurate information. Instead of 50 years plus for payback, most average installations will payback within approximately 12-15 years.
“Solar power works, it’s long term and effective – and it’s more than adequate to meet the UK’s energy demands. What’s more, once installed, solar power is free – and super-green - it can even add up to 10 per cent to the value of your home.”
Less than 100,000 properties in the UK have some form of microgeneration system, such as solar panels, wind turbines and heat pumps. In contrast, German householders installed more than 75,000 solar generation systems alone in 2006. In Germany, the Government pays people to generate their own electricity, which is fed into the National Grid.
The research by Rics follows an investigation by Times Money which discovered that wind turbines are rarely cost effective.
A large free-standing wind generator can cost anything from £12,000 to £24,000 to install. But they are only really economic or practical for people in rural areas, particularly those not connected to the electricity grid. Even then, and taking account of electricity fed back into the grid, it would take at least 15 years for them to pay for themselves.
The same goes for ground-source heat pumps. They take natural heat from the ground and boost it to useable levels using a small amount of external electricity.
The Energy Savings Trust, a government-backed group that promotes better energy use, says that a six-kilowatt ground-source heat pump will cost up to £10,000 to install and save as much as £750 a year in energy costs. But heat pumps work best with under floor heating, which can cost a further £20,000 to install.
Source - The Times
The cost of adding solar panels to the average home is between £1,700 - £4,000, and the energy savings are worth as little as £240 a year, according to Rics, meaning it could take as little as 8 years to pay back the price of installation.
The report also reveals that the average cost of replacing a wall-mounted boiler with a more energy-efficient version is about £1,700. But with expected savings of just £95 a year, it would take up to 18 years to offset the cost.
The most cost effective energy saving measure is cavity wall insulation. At a cost of between £440 and £2,400, depending on the size of the home, and an average energy savings of as much as £145 a year, the cost could be paid back over as little as three years.
Joe Martin, director, of Rics’s Building Cost Information Service, said: “We all have a role to play in helping to reduce our carbon footprint, be it through changes to our behaviour or by choosing greener alternatives. The reality is, however, that most people struggle with the cost, time, and effort it takes to make these changes.
“The Greener Homes Price Guide gives consumers a comprehensive heads-up about the costs and effectiveness of green upgrades, whilst protecting them from being duped into changes that won’t save them money or do little to reduce their carbon footprint.”
However, the solar panel industry vigoursly denied the claims. Andrew Lee, head of solar at Sharp Electronics, said. “Rics’s claim on solar panels is massively misleading and potentially damaging for both the UK solar industry and the UK’s renewable energy targets, being based on outdated and inaccurate information. Instead of 50 years plus for payback, most average installations will payback within approximately 12-15 years.
“Solar power works, it’s long term and effective – and it’s more than adequate to meet the UK’s energy demands. What’s more, once installed, solar power is free – and super-green - it can even add up to 10 per cent to the value of your home.”
Less than 100,000 properties in the UK have some form of microgeneration system, such as solar panels, wind turbines and heat pumps. In contrast, German householders installed more than 75,000 solar generation systems alone in 2006. In Germany, the Government pays people to generate their own electricity, which is fed into the National Grid.
The research by Rics follows an investigation by Times Money which discovered that wind turbines are rarely cost effective.
A large free-standing wind generator can cost anything from £12,000 to £24,000 to install. But they are only really economic or practical for people in rural areas, particularly those not connected to the electricity grid. Even then, and taking account of electricity fed back into the grid, it would take at least 15 years for them to pay for themselves.
The same goes for ground-source heat pumps. They take natural heat from the ground and boost it to useable levels using a small amount of external electricity.
The Energy Savings Trust, a government-backed group that promotes better energy use, says that a six-kilowatt ground-source heat pump will cost up to £10,000 to install and save as much as £750 a year in energy costs. But heat pumps work best with under floor heating, which can cost a further £20,000 to install.
Source - The Times
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
A new eira for solar panels
Homeowners are to be offered extra financial incentives to fit their properties with solar panels and wind turbines in an ambitious green energy programme to reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.
At the heart of the £100 billion renewable energy strategy, due to be unveiled this week, is a proposal to encourage householders to generate their own power.
They will be able to sell back surplus electricity at premium prices to the national grid. At present it can be sold only at market rates.
Other proposals to ensure Britain hits its EU target of generating 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 are the building of 3,500 onshore wind turbines. About 2,000 are currently operational. John Hutton, the energy secretary, announced plans to build 7,000 offshore wind turbines last year.
Large areas of the countryside could also be planted with woodland and crops to be burnt in a network of smaller power stations. It is estimated the renewable revolution detailed in the consultation document could create 160,000 jobs and cost £100 billion over 12 years.
Gordon Brown hopes oil-producing countries may invest in greener energy schemes in Britain. As he headed to Jeddah for a summit on oil prices, the prime minister said it was in the interests of the oil-producing nations to fund more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Leonie Greene, spokeswoman for the Renewable Energy Association, said: “We can hit the target, but there needs to be action and urgency. The political impetus on renewable energy is coming from Europe and we’re playing catchup.”
The government’s new strategy will fail unless homeowners install alternative energy sources and fit proper insulation. Ministers envisage up to 7m solar heating systems by 2020, compared with 90,000 now.
While installing domestic solar panels can cost between £5,000 and £10,000, the government has been accused of failing to provide big enough grants. Environmental groups also complain about the lack of campaigns to persuade households to go green.
According to the strategy document, there could be a 90% increase in the use of ground source heat pumps, which heat homes by harnessing the warmth in the earth. Homeowners will also be encouraged to install wind turbines.
A generous package of grants and financial incentives will be needed to persuade householders to insulate their homes and use sustainable energy sources. Ministers will also look at the German system in which homeowners can sell surplus electricity to the grid at premium rates.
To date, most Britons who have converted their homes to green power have been motivated by concern for the environment. Some schemes can take more than 20 years to recoup the investment.
Donnachadh McCarthy, who lives in London and is author of Saving the Planet without Costing the Earth, said: “I’ve installed solar electric, solar-heated water, a wind turbine, a water harvester and a woodburner. It’s cost around £22,000.
“I got £400 in grants, so Gordon Brown has made a huge profit out of me. Having spent so much, I’ve a lot of catching-up to do. The woodburner is by far the best thing. I use waste wood from my local area, so it is completely carbon neutral.”
The government may also have to ease planning restrictions. When David Cameron, the Tory leader, first installed a wind turbine at his London home it had to be removed because it breached planning rules.
Perhaps the most controversial part of the government’s plans is the building of 10,500 wind turbines. Of those, 3,500 are onshore and are likely to face strong opposition.
Among proposals that have already been scrapped is a plan for a 27-turbine wind farm in the Lake District. Kyle Blue, who campaigned against the scheme, said: “The countryside round here was far too special to be ruined by wind turbines.”
The difficulty of hitting the 15% renewable target is illustrated by the fact the government wants to include the Severn Barrage – a tidal power station across the Severn estuary – in the official renewable figures for 2015. The scheme will not be completed until well after 2020.
The strategy says nearly 6% of electricity could be generated by bio-energy – the burning of wood and plants to generate electricity. It suggests nearly 880,000 acres could be turned over to bio-energy crops.
There are, however, concerns about the impact of a large increase in the use of bio-fuels on the environment and on food prices.
One of the dividends of a green energy revolution would be a reduction of more than 5% in oil use by 2020. It would also significantly reduce the UK’s carbon emissions.
The government’s renewable energy strategy was welcomed yesterday by environmental campaigners. John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: “If this plan becomes a reality, Britain will be a better, safer and more prosperous country.
“We’ll create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and use less gas, and in the long run our power bills will come down.”
Source - The Times
At the heart of the £100 billion renewable energy strategy, due to be unveiled this week, is a proposal to encourage householders to generate their own power.
They will be able to sell back surplus electricity at premium prices to the national grid. At present it can be sold only at market rates.
Other proposals to ensure Britain hits its EU target of generating 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 are the building of 3,500 onshore wind turbines. About 2,000 are currently operational. John Hutton, the energy secretary, announced plans to build 7,000 offshore wind turbines last year.
Large areas of the countryside could also be planted with woodland and crops to be burnt in a network of smaller power stations. It is estimated the renewable revolution detailed in the consultation document could create 160,000 jobs and cost £100 billion over 12 years.
Gordon Brown hopes oil-producing countries may invest in greener energy schemes in Britain. As he headed to Jeddah for a summit on oil prices, the prime minister said it was in the interests of the oil-producing nations to fund more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Leonie Greene, spokeswoman for the Renewable Energy Association, said: “We can hit the target, but there needs to be action and urgency. The political impetus on renewable energy is coming from Europe and we’re playing catchup.”
The government’s new strategy will fail unless homeowners install alternative energy sources and fit proper insulation. Ministers envisage up to 7m solar heating systems by 2020, compared with 90,000 now.
While installing domestic solar panels can cost between £5,000 and £10,000, the government has been accused of failing to provide big enough grants. Environmental groups also complain about the lack of campaigns to persuade households to go green.
According to the strategy document, there could be a 90% increase in the use of ground source heat pumps, which heat homes by harnessing the warmth in the earth. Homeowners will also be encouraged to install wind turbines.
A generous package of grants and financial incentives will be needed to persuade householders to insulate their homes and use sustainable energy sources. Ministers will also look at the German system in which homeowners can sell surplus electricity to the grid at premium rates.
To date, most Britons who have converted their homes to green power have been motivated by concern for the environment. Some schemes can take more than 20 years to recoup the investment.
Donnachadh McCarthy, who lives in London and is author of Saving the Planet without Costing the Earth, said: “I’ve installed solar electric, solar-heated water, a wind turbine, a water harvester and a woodburner. It’s cost around £22,000.
“I got £400 in grants, so Gordon Brown has made a huge profit out of me. Having spent so much, I’ve a lot of catching-up to do. The woodburner is by far the best thing. I use waste wood from my local area, so it is completely carbon neutral.”
The government may also have to ease planning restrictions. When David Cameron, the Tory leader, first installed a wind turbine at his London home it had to be removed because it breached planning rules.
Perhaps the most controversial part of the government’s plans is the building of 10,500 wind turbines. Of those, 3,500 are onshore and are likely to face strong opposition.
Among proposals that have already been scrapped is a plan for a 27-turbine wind farm in the Lake District. Kyle Blue, who campaigned against the scheme, said: “The countryside round here was far too special to be ruined by wind turbines.”
The difficulty of hitting the 15% renewable target is illustrated by the fact the government wants to include the Severn Barrage – a tidal power station across the Severn estuary – in the official renewable figures for 2015. The scheme will not be completed until well after 2020.
The strategy says nearly 6% of electricity could be generated by bio-energy – the burning of wood and plants to generate electricity. It suggests nearly 880,000 acres could be turned over to bio-energy crops.
There are, however, concerns about the impact of a large increase in the use of bio-fuels on the environment and on food prices.
One of the dividends of a green energy revolution would be a reduction of more than 5% in oil use by 2020. It would also significantly reduce the UK’s carbon emissions.
The government’s renewable energy strategy was welcomed yesterday by environmental campaigners. John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: “If this plan becomes a reality, Britain will be a better, safer and more prosperous country.
“We’ll create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and use less gas, and in the long run our power bills will come down.”
Source - The Times
Sunday, 20 April 2008
Veteran sets up $10bn clean energy project
T Boone Pickens is famous for thinking big. He founded his Texan oil company, Mesa Petroleum, in 1956 with just $2,500 (£1,200) in the bank. After a string of audacious takeovers he turned it into an independent empire that challenged the big oil companies, and today he is worth $3bn.
Now this straight-talking Southerner is launching the biggest and most audacious project of his career. This month he will make the first down payment on 500 wind turbines at a cost of $2m each. The order is the first material step towards his goal of building the world's largest wind farm.
Over the next four years he intends to erect 2,700 turbines across 200,000 acres of the Texan panhandle. The scheme is five times bigger than the world's current record-holding wind farm and when finished will supply 4,000 megawatts of electricity - enough to power about one million homes.
Source - big oil to big wind
Now this straight-talking Southerner is launching the biggest and most audacious project of his career. This month he will make the first down payment on 500 wind turbines at a cost of $2m each. The order is the first material step towards his goal of building the world's largest wind farm.
Over the next four years he intends to erect 2,700 turbines across 200,000 acres of the Texan panhandle. The scheme is five times bigger than the world's current record-holding wind farm and when finished will supply 4,000 megawatts of electricity - enough to power about one million homes.
Source - big oil to big wind
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
