So why is renewable energy so much more expensive in the UK compared to other countries?

British renewable energy is a lot more costly compared to renewable energy in other European countries, according to a recently published report. You can see this on: http://www.wua-wien.at/images/stories/publikationen/renewable-energy-versus-nuclear-power.pdf

Now, I don't doubt the reports general findings. Indeed my own research prompts me to say that renewable energy in the UK is not only rather more expensive compared to the rest of Europe, but also most of the rest of the world! But, the question is, WHY? A colleague recently popped me this question and it is one I have been asked before. One German renewable energy official commented to me a couple of years ago: 'How do you (Brits) manage to make renewable energy so expensive ?'

I don't think it has anything to do with 'purchasing power parity', that is what a pound will buy here as opposed to somewhere else when converted into the local currency (just look at the comparisons to see what I mean), so other factors will be in play, and my own studies of the energy point me very firmly in one direction:

The system of financing renewable energy schemes in the UK is designed (whether by intention or otherwise) to give a very large proportion of the income stream, earmarked for renewable energy and financed by effective levies on consumer electricity bills, to the major electricity suppliers rather than pay the renewable energy schemes themselves.

Under the Renewables Obligation (RO) (to cut a longer story short) the renewable energy (RE) generators are dependent on the major electricity suppliers to give them the long term contract they would need to raise the necessary bank loans and satisfy equity investors. They (the Big Six) take a big cut for doing this 'service' - which can amount to around 30 per cent of the income stream dedicated to renewable energy. In other words, if we had a system of German style 'feed-in tariff' contract that was available to anybody the money needed to pay for a given amount of renewable energy would be up to 30 per cent less. Yes, if RE was financed this way RE would be at least 25 per cent cheaper. Well, certainly for onshore schemes. The offshore wind picture is a bit more complicated since there are more uncertainties involved in that (eg you don't know how much the ships you need are going to cost to hire in advance), but the Germans still manage to do this a lot more cheaply!

Ah, you might say, the Government, under Electricity Market Reform (EMR) is introducing precisely this sort of system now. But, if you said that, you'd be dead wrong (admittedly a common fallacy). The 'contract for differences' (CfD) system being introduced is only available to electricity suppliers, or companies who can effectively act like electricity suppliers by trading on the UK electricity markets. Even then banks will tend to lend money at reasonable rates only to projects that are backed by the biggest electricity companies.

So, in short, the new CfD system replicates the existing ability of the electricity majors to siphon off up to 30 per cent of the incomes supposedly paid by electricity consumers for renewable energy.

You would be very welcome to ask why this is tolerated. Perhaps the simple answer is twofold. First, in the UK the Government has, by design or at least in effect, allowed the major electricity companies to cream off what economists call an 'economic rent' from renewable energy in order to compensate for the lost production from their power stations. I mean 'lost' in the sense that the power stations would be generating more if it was not for the renewable energy production.  - A sort of Faustian bargain. I have heard it said that RE is practically the only thing the Big Six can earn profits from now. Quite. This doesn't happen in Germany of course,where the electricity majors, as we hear, are suffering very badly indeed!

This leads us onto the second reason why this is happening. Now one can write lots of stuff about interest group theory to explain how this happens without there being any public discussion, but, again, the short answer is that it does not serve any of the major interest groups to raise the issue. Obviously the electricity majors like it; the Government is happy so long as they are happy and nobody else is able to make a big enough fuss, and the renewable energy industry is tolerant so long as they can carry on with their projects. The anti-windfarm/solar farm lobby won't be very interested in going on about how windfarms/solar farms could be a lot cheaper if the Government organised things differently.

The only interest groups that have tried to do anything about this are some independent renewables companies and some environmental groups. To give them their proper due. Friends of the Earth (FOE) actually published (two years ago) a report I wrote calling for German style feed-in tariffs (available to all-comers) to be established. See www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/david_toke_fits.pdf

I am very grateful to FOE for doing what they could here (it was certainly worth a try), but the report actually got rather more interest from abroad than it did in the UK! Some independent renewable energy companies tried pushing the boat out in the direction of looking for a broadly comparable solution, but sadly, they have too little political clout to make a crucial difference in political competition with the Big Six.

You have to remember that in Germany the independent renewables sector runs the RE industry. There the political interest group pressure is almost 180 per cent different to the UK. In this country it is the Big Six, give or take a couple of other multinational energy corporations, who will influence contractual terms. They are not too keen on opening up the market to real competition; indeed much nonsense is spouted in support of the the CfD system in that it is integrated to the British electricity market. Preserved for the sole indulgence of the big companies you mean! The biggest prize of course is to pay whatever it takes to preserve the idea of nuclear power, hence the likely bottomless incomes stream that will be opened up for Hinkley C and which will wipe out RE funding in the future. You can read my other posts on this I am sure.

I am not going to be completely pessimistic though. Smaller suppliers are entering the market, maybe even some ones backed by local authorities under what OFGEM calls its new 'supplier lite' scheme. That might change things. If we get Labour in power we might get a dedicated 'community feed-in tariff' - although that wouldn't apply to all independents, just ones owned in some sense by a community. But change in the UK is likely to come only slowly, and then under the impact of people doing things on the ground and building up the pressure that way. Small projects can gain funding under the small renewables feed-in tariff (in effect up to a MW or so). But that's only a start.

See below for some links to various recent argument on the subject. Note that there are a couple of comments below on the Government's new capacity mechanism. This now looks ever much more like a PR device that does little more than give more money to the Big Six and conventional power generators to try to keep them afloat from the threat of RE and other new technologies for that little but longer...........

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/community-energy-would-bypass-the-big-six-under-labour-9923413.html

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/14/edf-3bn-windfall-existing-power-plants

http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/igov/britains-dinosaur-capacity-market-will-worsen-energy-trilemma/

http://www.intelligentutility.com/magazine/article/382571/are-virtual-power-plants-future-european-utilities

http://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2014/12/22/the-uk-capacity-auction-a-backdoor-way-of-staving-off-the-utility-death-spiral

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91987576-8795-11e4-bc7c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3NCIJOIK2
19th December Tom Greatrex, Labour�s shadow energy minister, welcomed the broad framework of the policy. However, he repeated his argument that existing nuclear power stations � which cannot vary output in response to short-term peaks and troughs in demand � were being unnecessarily subsidised by the scheme.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/15/green-energy-co-ops-blocked-by-government-regulator

http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/hinkley-c-deal-likely-to-wipe-out-uk.html

http://party.coop/wp-content/blogs.dir/5/files/2014/12/next-gen-final-web.pdf?8b5145&8b5145

No commentsRead more

Mass redundancies in social science and humanities likely if research funding proposals are implemented

The Government is not only cutting back on the amount of research money available to universities, but it is considering a plan that is likely to radically shift the balance of research funding away from the residual elements still given to arts and social sciences and towards science subjects. This will, using my back-of-the-envelope calculation, lead to the loss of around 6000 academic jobs in social sciences, humanities and arts.

The large bulk of the research money already goes to science. In the case of the Research Councils, who fund research on a project by project basis, less than 10 per cent of the money goes to social science, humanities or arts. It is the so-called 'QR' funding stream, awarded mainly on the basis of the 6 yearly ''research excellence framework' audits, that gives a larger amount of research money for non-science subjects (about 30 per cent of 'QR' funds).

But, as can be seen in the Guardian article (see link below), the Government is backing a plan to distribute the QR money in the future through the Research Councils. If the Research Councils distribute the funds diverted from QR in the same proportions to science, social science etc as they do now, then funding for social science, arts and humanities will be cut from its current figure of around �730 million to about �400 million - a massive cutback. How many social science and humanities academics do you lose for �330 million? - quite a lot!

Of course a lot of argument might persuade the Government to allow a higher proportion of total funds to be given to Research Councils such as the ESRC and AHRC than is the case now, but the losses to the social sciences arts and humanities compared to the present system are still likely to be massive. This is especially when you take into account the real decline in total research spending that is happening.

How can the Government get away with this? Well, maybe they hope to win by divide and rule. After all, the scientists, engineers etc will get more money...............

But the social science and humanities academics had better wise up (and rise up!) pretty quick, or maybe just emigrate!

If you want to look at the stats and stories, see some references below:

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/dec/21/university-funding-reform-brain-drain-london

http://blog.universitiesuk.ac.uk/2014/06/12/funding-changes-impact-university-research-new-report/

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332767/bis-14-750-science-research-funding-allocations-2015-2016-corrected.pdf

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/invest/institns/annallocns/

No commentsRead more

Renewable Energy near top of SNP shopping list in case of minority Labour Government

The left's hopes of keeping the Tories out of office rose significantly when Alex Salmond implied that the SNP Westminster MPs would support a minority Labour Government after the May General Election, assuming a 'hung' Parliament. But the SNP would be demanding concessions, including some key renewable energy demands, for this to happen. Of course if the SNP is to be seen to be seriously about keeping the Tories out of office it has to make demands that Ed Miliband and his team might accept. Giving concessions on renewable energy policy would seem to be high on the list of 'plausible' demands. And of course this agenda would overlap mostly with that of the Green Party. But what sort of issues could that include?

An obvious one would be to make sure that reasonable incentives continue to be available for onshore wind, but, in contrast to the Tory/UKIP hatred of onshore wind, the SNP would be pushing at an open door as far as Labour is concerned - so this would not really count as a concession. Labour would continue to support onshore wind anyway. But the position on other issues is not so clear.

First the SNP is likely to demand a scheme to ensure there is 'proactive' investment in electricity distribution networks in Scotland. At the moment many wind schemes are stalled are stymied because of high costs and/or long waiting times to be connected to the grid. Smaller and community owned schemes are especially vulnerable here.

Second on the nationalist/green shopping list is going to be grid connections for renewable energy schemes on Scottish Islands. Currently there is an impasse on this, with transmission charges to high for the projects to pay and no wires to carry the power to the mainland anyway.

Third is support for Scottish offshore wind power. SSE has been given a contract for difference (CfD) for the 500 MW 'Beatrice' windfarm, but are the terms good enough to execute this project? SSE seems to be waiting until the election to find out and negotiate further.

Fourth is the issue of support for marine energy, wave and tidal power. There is quite an astonishing contrast between the sort of loan guarantees offered for nuclear power and the limited support offered for marine energy projects by the UK Government. The Scottish Government is having to bear the responsibility of funding much of the R&D for marine energy out of its discretionary funds. So the UK Government will be expected to come up with more support here.

Fifth will be more influence for the Scottish Government generally on renewable energy policy. Although the Scottish and Westminster governments have been actively cooperating on issues that directly affect Scotland, the trouble is that a lot of the main policies underpinning Electricity Market Reform have been discussed and implemented with little account being taken of the views of the Scottish Government. Given the fact that Scotland sites such a large proportion of UK renewable energy this sounds strange. This must change.

Of course we don't know if the Parliamentary arithmetic will allow such pressures to bear fruit. But if the arithmetic does suggest that a Labour Government is plausible (and this is highly likely to be a minority one) then the pressures on both the SNP and Labour leaderships to come to a deal, even though it will be a 'supply and confidence' deal, will be immense. The renewable energy demands should be obvious parts of an agreement between Labour and the SNP.

No commentsRead more

New study highlights enthusiasm of British farmers for renewable energy

A new study published by 'Forum For the Future' highlights the enthusiasm for investing and deploying renewable energy by farmers on their farms. This comes out at the same time that the Government is trying to stop farmers installing solar pv on their farms in an effort to throw a sop to UKIP.

'Forum For the Future', in collaboration with Nottingham Trent University, blow away the alleged conservatism of British farmers by indicating how large quantities of British electricity supply (much larger than that provided by Hinkley C) could be installed by 2020 - And integrated with existing levels of food production and increased biodiversity protection.

Yet Environment Secretary Liz Truss is keen to stifle such moves. She has orchestrated the removal of farm subsidies from land that is used for solar pv. Meanwhile the Department of Energy and Climate Change has said that solar farms must compete with large scale. windfarms for the same limited pot of money for long term contracts.

The report can be be seen at:
http://www.forumforthefuture.org/sites/default/files/Farm%20Power_Size%20of%20the%20Prize%20report_Nov-2014.pdf

As Jonathon Porritt (the founder of Forum for the Future) says on his blog:

'The National Farmers Union loves it � and you can�t say that very often! It�s true, of course, that wind has fallen out of favour with your coalition partners, who are competing furiously with UKIP to see who can more effectively trash our wind industry while simultaneously hammering the rural economy.

Despite the media and political spin, the majority of Brits like wind power. But solar power is really very popular. Not just on roofs (farmhouses and farm buildings have lots of roofs pointing in the right direction, or so I�m told!), but mounted on the ground.' 

The blog entry from which this quote is drawn can be seen at:  http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/some-friendly-advice-secretary-state

No commentsRead more

Government implies it may not sign Hinkley C deal before General Election

The Government has refused to confirm that it it will sign a contract with EDF allowing Hinkley C to be built before April 2015, which is only a few weeks before the General Election. This can be seen in the text below which contains an answer to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Caroline Lucas. This evasive response underlines the shaky status of the Hinkley C nuclear project. See the text below:

The Department for Energy and Climate Change has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (215723):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether he plans to sign a contract with EDF for Hinkley C nuclear power station before April 2015; and if he will make a statement. (215723)

Tabled on: 24 November 2014

Answer:
Matthew Hancock:

The Government is continuing to negotiate with EDF on both the Contract for Difference and the UK Guarantee for Hinkley Point C, and plans to sign a contract in due course.

The answer was submitted on 28 Nov 2014 at 13:36.

The project was supposed to be backed by investments from AREVA and also Chinese state owned nuclear companies, but investment from both of these sources (around half of the total equity capital) is now under question. AREVA, the state-owned French nuclear constructor and parent of the failing EPR reactor design,  is going bust and cannot afford the Hinkley C investment on its current balance sheet. The Chinese nuclear companies apparently want a greater share of the work on the project than EDF is willing to give. This underlines the core of the surviving French interest in the project - the interest of powerful nationalised French corporations to preserve their jobs in a declining industry. They have the power of the state at their disposal, ranged against the political inclinations of the Hollande Presidency to try to stop the nuclear dinosaur that controls the French state from eating up so much of its resources.

Now EDF are courting the Saudis and the Qataris for equity investment. It seems very doubtful, given the catastrophic nature of the EPR building programme so far in France and Finland, that these oil states would consider investing in Hinkley C as an attractive money-making venture. France does have good relations with these countries through arms sales that it makes to them. But, logically, it may be the case that such investments may only be procured if the French (or/and British state) agrees some formula to 'guarantee' the investments made by Qatar/Saudi Arabia.

The UK has already agreed to guarantee two thirds of the notional cost of the project so that EDF can take out a bank loan, (note the word 'notional' as if many people still believe this window dressing). As discussed in other posts, the UK will doubtless be horribly burned for a lot more money than has even been committed now if, as seems all but certain, the project goes wrong. But some guarantee from the French state will also be needed. Has Hollande been bludgeoned into agreeing this? Will the Treasury be suckered into also effectively guaranteeing  part or all of the cost overruns in the likely future debacle? The resources of the British and French states are needed to preserve the French nuclear dinosaur!

No commentsRead more

The real secret letter from the Treasury about disastrous Hinkley C is revealed

Hot on the heels of news of further escalations of delays (and thus)  costs for EPRs being built in Finland and France there is news that the Treasury is conducting a 'secret' review of the EPR project that is scheduled to be built at Hinkley C.

See http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/utilities/article4272779.ece

This is more pantomime nonsense broadly similar to all the facile Parliamentary deliberations about whether the �92.50 per MWh price to be paid over 35 years with a �10 billion Treasury loan guarantee is 'value for money'.....not to mention the EU Commission's irrelevant statements about 'protecting' UK consumers by saying that the developers should return money if the project ends up costing less than projected.

Costing less than projected! Costing no more than �92.50 per MWh over 35 years! And this �10 billion Treasury loan guarantee being just a notional sum that the UK consumers will not have to pay out!

All nonsense! It is isn't even self-deluding any more. The Treasury will now know full well that the only way the project will be built is if the Government gives full underwriting of all and effectively any costs involved in the project. Whether or not they admit or agree formally to that happening now is irrelevant, it is what will end up happening to get the plant finally built. The electricity consumer will be made to pay out far beyond the nominal prices so far agreed (see previous posts on this). The nominal price tag (�92.50 per MWh etc) mentioned in the Government's press releases is a fig leaf to hide the fact that the real price, costed on a commercial basis will be much, much, higher. As I have said in the past, in reality the project would be priced at being higher than that of an offshore wind project if it was costed using comparable criteria.

The Treasury, who actually have some financial analysts who have at least a passing grasp of energy economics and the realities of nuclear power economics, know full well that the Hinkley C scheme is a slow moving car crash.The latest leaked piece of news that there is a 'secret' review (if it was secret, why is it being announced to the press?) is merely another piece of apologia, a part of a cover story that will be reserved for roll-out in front of an inquiry some years later into what went wrong with the Hinkley C project. No doubt this inquiry will declare that there was good will on all sides, just a few well meaning mistakes made, and that the next nuclear project will work out as cheap as chips!

What is the 'real' secret letter likely to be from the Treasury:

'Dear Ed,

Given the worsening prospects for the Hinkley C prospect, including the virtual bankruptcy of constructors AREVA, the political meltdown surrounding EDF and the near certainty that the Hinkley C project will turn out to be much more expensive that even the price we have agreed, we do feel it is necessary somehow to signal that we have not been totally stupid in not noticing the sheer insanity of this project. For our part we want to emphasise that we are only going along with this project because of pressure from Number 10 to satisfy political pressure that 'nuclear power must be built', We also understand that you would prefer not to have to take responsibility for this fiasco, but you also know that your job depends on keeping up appearances about the project. So, we can circulate a story that we are conducting a 'secret' review into the project. This will demonstrate our concern, but allow some cover for us when the inquiry is organised in a few years time over how the project turned out to be so big a turkey without anybody in government appearing to notice.

We can all blame pressure from the PM's office to ensure that the deal was made for Hinkley C when that happens. Hinkley C construction is likely to begin to have problems before DC leaves office in 2019 or whatever, but the inquiry about the failures will take longer to appoint, and even longer to report, so he will be safely retired by the time blame is apportioned for the catastrophe. He can blame the French anyway.

It is still a shame, though, that it is the British electricity consumer who will have to pay out the countless billions of pounds of costs for overruns until probably at least the 2060s to get the power stations completed. But at least the money will not be available to spend on all of those awfully ugly wind and solar farms that your erstwhile green friends are so keen on !

Best Wishes,

George

No commentsRead more

pro-nuclear analyst calls for Hinkley C to be abandoned

Chris Goodall, one of those pro-nuclear greens who saw the radioactive light a few years ago but who didn't notice the sheer uneconomic nature of nuclear power has now realised that the Hinkley C project is such a shambles that it ought to be abandoned. He reports the comments of a nuclear engineering expert as saying that the Hinkley C EPR design is 'unconstructable'.

Goodall fears for the future of nuclear power if the project goes ahead. But then all EDF has to do is to take the UK Government for the complete suckers that they are since they have given the project a blank cheque in all but name to pay for what is all but certain to be a colossal financial disaster. It will be the UK Government, or more precisely, UK electricity consumers who will pay dearly, most likely well over and above the the facade of the �92.50 per MWh over 35 years price tag, complete with �10 billion of loan guarantees.

He says: 'by focussing on the increasingly unpopular EPR design, the country may have saddled itself with an unmanageable and hugely expensive construction project that will sour the prospects of all other nuclear technologies for another generation.

Perhaps those of us who still believe in the value of nuclear power should pray that sceptical investors refuse to commit their funds to the Hinkley project.'

I'm sorry Chris, but those of us who thought more deeply about nuclear  a long time ago realised the project was doomed in the post 1950s world. Goodall's article comes out with gems such as the notion that engineers could learn from one large nuclear power project to another is false since each project is unique for a given site so that there is little transferable learning. Well I'm sorry, Chris, but I remember Steve Thomas (now at Greenwich University) telling me precisely this way back in 1991 when I went to visit him when he was working at the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex.

You're really not telling us anything we don't know already.

But now Chris is giving credence to the gathering nonsense about small 'modular'  nuclear reactors. Oh give me strength! Please........I know people go on about small PWRs in nuclear submarines. These things cost billions to build, not all on the reactors of course, but it looks like it cost hundreds of millions of pounds just to build a reactor that generates a few megawatts of electricity! And that's with an easy, implicit solution, to coolant supply problems.

What the latter day 'green converts' to nuclear power should recognise quickly is that the very nature of nuclear power, requiring expensive containment and other safety mechanisms to meet 21st century standards makes it a very unlikely possibility for solving the 21st century's problems.

You can see Chris's article at:
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/Blogs/2605273/unconstructable_hinkley_c_could_end_uks_nuclear_dream.html

No commentsRead more

If Hinkley C is cheaper than wind power why does it need loan guarantees?

As the pro-nuclear establishment is now keen to justify EU state aid for Hinkley C it is trying to argue, against the forces of reality, that the deal makes nuclear power cheaper than onshore wind. Hinkley C is getting �92.50 for 35 years with 65 per cent (�10 billion) loan guarantees. Onshore wind, from 2017, is getting at most �90 per MWh for 15 years with no loan guarantees. How can Hinkley C possibly be cheaper?

 Look at the further details and the notion that nuclear is cheaper looks even shakier. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is conducting 'auctions' for wind power contracts under electricity market reform (EMR) which means that in practice the windfarms getting contracts will be paid less than �90 per MWh. If these schemes got loan guarantees then they would be even cheaper since the cost of borrowing would be much less. And then there is the difference in contract lengths, (15 versus 35 years)  for which the justifications are dubious. See my earlier blog post http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/wind-power-history-blows-away-ed-daveys.html

Of course in reality the likely cost overruns for Hinkley C will make the plant in practice rather more expensive than this 'deal' implies, and clauses in the contract that allow the Government to 'vary' prices paid to the nuclear operators will most likely be invoked to give the operators more money than the current 'deal'. In addition the British taxpayer is highly likely to have to pay out on the loan guarantees. The European Commission has done absolutely nothing to protect British electricity consumers and taxpayers from these problems. Far from protecting consumers, the whole point of the deal is to protect the developers. They know that once the project is started the UK Government will feel obliged to make sure the project is completed. See my post at http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/european-commission-issues-smokescreen.html

I hope to see the day that Hinkley C is completed. Now that is not because I want to see the plant built (far from it), but simply because I hope to live for many years longer!

So.......Its not just that onshore wind is cheaper than nuclear power, there's just no comparison between them.

No commentsRead more

The Failure of Conservatives on Global Warming.

Global Warming

Conservatives have allowed and seemingly even wanted Liberal
Ideology to Hijack the Global Warming/Climate Change Debate.

As a Pew Opinion Poll reflects, Global Warming has become yet another chapter in the ongoing U.S. Culture Wars between Liberals and Conservatives. This gulf in beliefs is especially wide with people who identify with the Tea Party movement (very anti "Big Government") -- where 41% surveyed were "Deniers", believing that Global Warming just isn't happening.

Where the News and Public Media emphasizes the extreme polarization and conflict, rarely is it conveyed what most climate scientists can actually agree on.

Agreement on the Basic Science: Global Warming Theory is based on Nobel Prize winning science1 -- which is clearly not "Junk Science". One basic concept area that everyone can relate to is Rayleigh scattering -- of why the the sky is blue. Applications

of the fundamental chemistry and physics of Global Warming theory are used in aircraft design, missile defense systems, and the space program.

---

¹ This includes: Rayleigh scattering and distillation, van der Waals (equations of state), Wien's law, Planck's constant (central to radiation theory).

Probably 99% of Climate Scientists can agree on a core of basic beliefs that does represent "a consensus on settled science":

1. CO₂ is a Greenhouse Gas;
2. Adding CO₂ will have a warming effect on the Planet;
3. CO₂ levels have risen dramatically during the Industrial Age;^{2 3}
4. In the past ~200 years, the Earth has warmed.
5. For the past 60 years, a large part of this warming is human driven.⁴

---

² NOAA data for 650 million years; NOAA data for past 1,000 years; IPCC AR5.
³ The level of CO² is now 42% above pre Industrial Revolution levels.
⁴ Views on what "large part" means -- a percentage of ~50% (Curry) to 100% (Schmidt).

CO2 Levels:

Temperature Levels:

Science Uncertainty: But understanding Climate Science/Change is much more than just this "basic science". Called a "Wicked Problem", this involves extremely complex issues of our Planet's natural variability (wind and ocean currents), geological events (e.g., volcanoes) and feedback loops.

Where Climate Scientists can and do sharply disagree is how much and how quickly human driven greenhouse gases will effect global temperatures and regional climates through:

1. Feedback Loops (e.g., cloud formation);
2. Impacts on Natural Variability (climate oscillations, e.g., El Nino).
3. The predictive ability of Forecasting Models (e.g., the "Pause").

In describing "Wicked Problems", perhaps the best analogy ever coined was by U.S. Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld of knowns and unknowns -- where applied to Climate Change there are:

1. Known Knowns (the Basic Science);
2. Known Unknowns (natural variability and feedback loops).
3. Unknown Unknowns (things we don't even know that we don't know).

The Rhetoric of Uncertainty: But it's important to understand that the current unknowns do not disprove a scientific consensus in the above "core beliefs". A good example of this is the current Global Warming "Pause" -- where for the past ~15 years there have been:

1. No statistically significant increases in Earth's land temperature,
2. Even though CO₂ levels continue to significantly increase.⁵

---

⁵ Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by ~25%.

Deniers or extreme Skeptics/Contrarians saying or implying this "Pause" disproves a core of "Basic Science Beliefs" is a classic application of anti-science. One can try to poke all the gotcha holes they want in "Theory X", but doing so doesn't prove an alternative "Theory Y" (e.g., a tactic used by Biblical Literalists that their attempts to cherry-pick supposed holes in the theory of evolution proves Creationism beliefs).

Ideological Hard-liners can also create all the ubiquitous "conspiracy theories" (i.e., Climategate) they want -- but this still won't change the above 99% Consensus either.

In Public Opinion Wars, the terms "settled science and consensus"
are a reaction to the incendiary statements of many Republicans.

Conversely, Anthropogenic (human driven) Global Warming Advocates need to do a much better job in their communication of uncertainty -- especially their defensiveness. A good start would be a well versed "consensus" recognition that Climate Scientists don't yet adequately understand the sensitivities of this "Wicked Problem" -- especially the ability of current Climate Models to predict near term decadal impacts.⁶

---

⁶ Called Transient Climate Response or TCR.

Clearly, CO₂ parts per million levels and temperatures have not responded in a linear cause and effect fashion in the short-term (as many initially believed). Maybe the long-term progression of Global Warming is a stair-step function (with pauses of decades or more). Maybe its a exponential log function when some thresholds are broken through until equilibrium. Maybe, its a combination of these functions with warming interacting and compounding natural variabilities on things we currently just don't even know about (unknown, unknowns).

We do know this -- if anything does happen with severe consequences, we won't be able to fix it as changes in atmospheric CO₂ concentration levels can persist for centuries. With a trajectory to double the Earth's CO₂ levels, mankind is conducting the biggest science experiment of all time involving very deep uncertainties.

Reaching a Consensus: A TED presentation provides a good perspective of how to be effective when taking on difficult, wicked problems. The lecture uses a example of Dr. Alice Stewart, who in the 1950�s thought she had found a solid statistical link between expectant Mothers who had received x-rays and childhood cancers. But while Dr. Stewart was eventually shown to be correct, it took the medical science community over 25 years to achieve a consensus in proving and accepting this linkage.

For over two decades within the medical and public policy arena, Dr. Stewart was labeled an Alarmist in her Catastrophic warnings.

As the TED lecture explains, science is most often messy and laborious. In resolving challenges, the Right Kind of both Advocate and Skeptic is needed in an environment of some basic trust -- not driven by tribalism and hard-line ideologies of political, religious, economic, and even academic special interests or egos.

Conservative Hot Buttons: In recent years, negative ideological "values" messaging from Conservative Think Tanks, Media Sources, and Religious Groups have associated and demonized environmental policy initiatives as big-government, socialism, anti-free markets, job loss, and even with Faith (worshiping the Green Dragon).

Global Warming is framed to hit all the hot buttons of Conservatives to create a perfect storm.

The effectiveness of this negative messaging is absolutely evident in national polling, where partisan divides on environmental issues are greater than on major issues like the budget deficit, health care, and Social Security.

Widest Partisan Differences Over Issues
(% rating each a top priority)

Issue:	Rep	Dem	Ind	Diff
Protecting the Environment:	28%	65%	48%	-37%
Problems of Poor & Needy:	32%	64%	48%	-32%
Reducing U.S. Budget Deficit:	80%	49%	66%	-31%
Dealing with Global Warming:	14%	42%	27%	-28%

Clearly, environmental issues have become a "hot button" among many Conservatives -- a litmus test in defining one's personal values:

"Global warming is a religion of a secular left that rejects the God of creation in favor of worship of creation. . . Any of those involved in the science of global warming oppose capitalism in general and America in particular. They are maladjusted, Al Gore type angry people in need of prayer." (Erick Erickson of RedState.com)

History of Republican Environmental Leadership: The current adversarial and combative attitude toward environmental issues hasn't always been the case. The Republican Party has a rich history in leadership and bi-partisan cooperation to address numerous serious environmental issues.

Two vivid examples are ozone depletion (President Reagan) and air quality (under both Bush Administrations) -- where significant improvements have been achieved without destroying the economy, advancing socialism, or worshiping a supposed Mother Earth.

Air QualityClick To See Improvement

Ozone HoleClick To See Improvement

When past Republican EPA Administrators⁷ serving under every Republican President thinks Anthropogenic (emissions from human activity) Global Warming is a real and serious threat, this should mean something to Conservatives -- no matter what Al Gore believes.

---

⁷ Ruckelshaus (Nixon), Thomas (Reagan), Reilly (Bush), Whitman (Bush).

Where Have the Conservative Thinkers Gone?: By reducing Global Warming/Climate Change to Culture Warfare, Conservatives have and continue to fail miserably. The Problem isn't "Junk Science" of liberal scientists, its the "Junk Thinking" by Conservatives. They are forgetting the very core principles of conservatism, and how these principles should be applied to any policy issue.

Fundamental Ideological Differences Between Liberal Vs. Conservatism

The "True Problem" for Conservatives is that from the get-go, the issue of Global Warming was hi-jacked by Liberal Ideology policy proposals. Conservatives have never developed meaningful and consistent policy alternatives based on their principles to pro-actively tackle this issue.

By arguing that no or little actions are warranted, Conservatives are choosing to play a very dangerous and high stakes "winner take all" game. No person on this Planet knows how the science or politics of Global Warming will eventually play out. Two things can absolutely happen: (1) Breakthroughs in science confirming the theory where the timing and consequences are unquestionably serious; (2) The occurrence of extreme weather events which overwhelms public opinion (correct or not) to demand immediate major policy actions.

Waiting to develop, taking a pro-active leadership position, and establishing credibility on conservative policy alternatives is a non-starter. If swings in public opinion do occur to take action, it will be too late. Liberal policies (e.g., carbon taxes) will be too entrenched and Conservatives' credibility will be shot (labeled as obstructionists).

Liberal Vs. Conservative Approaches to Global Warming PolicyIn their policy approaches to Global Warming, Liberals never really address:

1. No matter how a U.S. Carbon Tax is packaged, it will still be a regressive tax -- disproportionately impacting the poor.
2. Impact of a Carbon Tax on U.S. Manufacturing competitiveness. Will it result in increased imports, just outsourcing carbon emissions?
3. Any Cap & Trade System would be a new Wall St. toy. Remember how these financial derivatives wrecked the World's economies?
4. A Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard would take Decision Making out of the hands of our Engineers and place it with Politicians.

A Conservative Path : By bashing Liberals less and studying science more, there just might be a way out of this mess. Using an approach advocated by Dr. Ramanathan called "Fast Mitigation", a sound-science foundation for "no regrets" climate policies can be developed -- reflecting

and consistent with the Republican Party's history of environmental leadership and commitment on hard issues (e.g., ozone depletion, acid rain, air quality).

Fast Mitigation (basically targeted to improving air quality) coupled with policies to spur high economic growth using international trade just might provide the ticket needed. With pro-active "smart and creative" conservative leadership, meaningful and immediate reductions in the "Global" trajectory path of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved.

Fast Mitigation: While CO2 is about 77% of total greenhouse gas emissions, it is not the only thing that contributes to global warming. Other potent warming agents include three short-lived gases and dark soot particles -- called short-lived climate pollutants: Methane Ground-level Ozone (smog) Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) Dark Soot Particles

The warming effect of these short-lived climate and air quality pollutants (which stay in the atmosphere for several days to about a decade) delivers a very big punch. Methane is over 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in causing warming. Some HFCs can have a warming potential 11,000 times greater than CO₂.

Global Warming Potential of CO₂ & Short Lived Climate Pollutants ⁸

Greenhouse Gas:	Global Warming Potential Factor	Warming Time Potential
Carbon Dioxide:	1	>1,000 years
Methane:	21	12 years
Hydrofluorocarbons9:	1,300	14 years
Smog (O3):	.25	hours/days

---

⁹ Based on the most commonly used auto refrigerant (HFC-134a). A new refrigerant (HFO-1234yf) with a GWP that is just 4 times that of CO₂ and exists for only 11 days is scheduled to become the new standard for automakers in the U.S., Europe, and Japan.

According to Dr. Ramanathan, the warming effect of these pollutants is currently about 80% of the amount that CO₂ causes.

Changes in Radiative Forcing from Human Activity Emissions
Since the Industrial Revolution of 1750 (in W/m2)

Decision Making Under "No Regrets": Often the words "no regrets" are used as code "to kick the can down the road" by just calling for more research. Used in a correct context, "No or Low Regrets" should be a process of best efforts to make good decisions, especially under deep uncertainties.

With the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the authority to regulate CO₂ under the Clean Air Act (CAA)¹⁰ and EPA now promulgating Regs, Conservatives can try to:

1. Overturn the law by re-writing the CAA (through the election of a GOP President & super majorities in Congress).
2. Further fight the law in the Courts (e.g., current EPA Lawsuit).¹¹
3. Conduct Guerrilla Warfare (defunding EPA's Budget to enforce Regs).
4. Make the law better (or less onerous) through Bi-partisan cooperation.

---

¹⁰ Defined as a pollutant agent under the CAA effecting weather or climate.
¹¹ Both of the first two paths involve deep uncertainties. For example, to overturn EPA Regulations would likely require a super majority (60 votes) in the U.S. Senate. Also, based on other CAA legal precedents, overturning EPA authority is highly questionable.

What Conservatives should be very concerned about are the potential consequences if policy opposition is unsuccessful. By not developing pro-active alternatives, a huge void is created. If public opinion does ever demand immediate action (e.g., from catastrophic weather events) -- it will almost certainly be a liberal top/down approach based on command/control:

1. Carbon Taxes
2. Cap and Trade
3. Federal Energy Mandates (Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard).

Attributes of a Conservative Plan: A pro-active approach to Global Warming based on Fast Mitigation and economic growth (through international trade) fills this current Policy void -- and directly addresses what many consider catastrophic messaging that liberal policy actions must be taken immediately (e.g., carbon taxes, etc).

Buying Time: While Fast Mitigation to reduce short lived carbon pollutants is not a long term cure-all to Global Warming (AGW), it could have a dramatic and immediate effect in decreasing the growth rate (trajectory) in global atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.

Trajectory of Global Greenhouse Gases Since 1850 In Policy decision making, Fast Mitigation can buy some time (perhaps several decades according to Dr. Ramanathan) for our scientists and engineers to hopefully figure out this "Wicked Problem" and how to best address it:

1. Sensitivities of global temperatures and climate to increased CO₂.
2. Technology Breakthroughs (solar, natural gas fracking, nuclear, etc).

Improving Air Quality: In forming public opinion, a picture can be worth a thousand words. For many Americans, connecting with the need to reduce CO2 emissions (a colorless, odorless gas) can be difficult. Fast Mitigation targets known air quality pollutants (such as heavy truck diesel exhaust) that everyone can connect with for cleaner air.

Also, applied on a regional and local basis, Fast Mitigation can be tailored to reflect conservative principles of flexibility and de-centralized bottom-up approaches (compared to one-size-fits-all) targeted to where air quality issues are of higher concern.

Building Low Carbon Global Markets through Economic Growth: Using international trade to address concerns of Global Warming/Climate Change is a perfect example of applying conservative principles of bottom-up, de-centralized, flexible, and reward based no-regrets policy actions.

If reducing the trajectory path in green-house gases is to be truly treated as serious on a global stage, pragmatic lessons must be drawn from international trade -- where reciprocity reigns supreme. No country eliminates or reduces its trade barriers without reciprocal and meaningful concessions from trading partners.

As discussed in previous blogs (including criticism of the Obama Administration on coal use), the template of building low carbon markets is pretty straight forward:

1. Developing countries would commit (with verifiable standards) to building low carbon intensity economies by purchasing high technology/energy efficient American products.
2. In exchange, the U.S. would give Developing Countries unpreceded access into U.S. markets for their products.
3. Simply stated, this Policy approach accentuates stuff we're good at (high technology products) and stuff that Developing Countries are good at (low labor cost products) -- a Win/Win.

An example of this would be current U.S. efforts to create a large free-trade zone encompassing 11 other Pacific Rim countries (excluding China) -- called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. A good first-step would be for the U.S. to create some global "Enterprise Zones" with friendly developing nations (e.g., India, Philippines) to test the effectiveness of using trade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

1. Specific Industries would be targeted to develop and implement "Low Carbon Standards" (LCS) using U.S. high energy efficient technology.
2. In return, the U.S. would give special access into U.S. markets for these LCS products.

Facebook:

---

Additional News Stories:
Simple Explanation of Infrared Radiation
Basics on Global Warming Theory (Nobel prize winner, Dr. Molina)
Climate Etc. Blog thread on the Pause.
Wall St. Journal on Environmental Concerns since 1976.
Global Warming Potentials of Greenhouse Gases (GWP)
Climate Models -- (N.Y. Times)
Fast Mitigation in India -- (Washington Post)
U.S. Policy on Methane emissions -- (N.Y. Times)
U.S. Methane emissions -- (Slate Magazine)
CO2 Equivalents -- (Wikipedia)
Social Cost of Carbon -- (U.S. EPA)
Black Carbon and Arctic Sea Ice -- (What's Up With That Blog)
Estimated Impact of CO2 Power Plant Regs by State -- (Bloomburg News)
Comments on Fast Mitigation by Dr. Curry of Georgia Tech -- (Climate Etc.)
Comments on Black Carbon by Dr. Curry -- (Climate Etc.)
EPA Looking at New Regs on Methane Emissions -- (Fuel Fix).
Political Polarization and the Media -- (Pew Research).
Religion Vs. Evolution (Pew Research).
Who Wants What from the EU 2030 Climate Framework -- (Carbon Brief)
Global Carbon Trading -- (The Independent)
EPA Says U.S. Smog Rules Should be Tightened
True Conservative -- The American Conservative
Republicans Supporting a Carbon Tax? (Weekly Standard).
A Lesson that Carbon Tax Proponents Should Learn from Maryland.
Global Warming Blog/Twitter Wars -- How Much and How Fast.
Investors Support to Reduce Methane Emissions
Obama Readies Sweeping List of Executive Actions -- (Politico).
U.S. and China Reach Climate Deal -- (N.Y. Times).
Americans Trust Obama More Than Republicans on the Environment -- (Pew Research).
Air Pollution & Global Warming -- (Nature Magazine).
New Carbon Tax Bill Introduced in U.S. Senate.
Methane Reductions in Oil & Gas Industry.
GOP and Industry Will Fight EPA Proposed Reg on Smog -- (Politico).
Poll: Why People Don't Believe in Global Warming -- (Business Insider).
Advanced Nuclear Power Technology -- (MIT Research).
Obama Proposal on Methane.
The Damaging Effects of Black Carbon

Real-Time World-wide Map of Air Quality:

No commentsRead more

Hinkley C deal likely to wipe out UK renewables spending

A comparison of the payments schedule for Hinkley C and government projections of renewable energy spending plans suggests that from 2023 spending on first Hinkley C, and later other nuclear power stations, will obliterate spending on renewable energy.

As can be seen from the National Audit Office's (NAO) report on the 'levy control framework' (LCF) , a device used by the Treasury used to monitor and control renewables spending, spending on renewables (paid from consumer electricity bills) rises by an average of around �500 million a year from 2014-2021. Yet, assuming that the projected 3.2 GWe Hinkley C runs at 90 per cent availability, and assuming recent wholesale power prices of around �50 per MWh, consumers will be paying just over �1 billion a year extra to pay for Hinkley C - over 35 years. This is TWICE the annual increment for new renewables allowed under the LCF at the moment. In addition to this electricity consumers or taxpayers will also be liable to pay for construction cost overruns because the Treasury is underwriting �10 billion of the loans for the project.

If one assumes that the Treasury continues to apply the same cap on 'low carbon' generation spending as it is doing at the moment the spending on Hinkley C would mean that there would not be any spending on new renewable energy schemes possible until 2027. The payments under the Renewables Obligation to renewable generators come to an end in 2027, releasing around �3 billion under the cap. Yet, after 2027 spending on new nuclear is likely to gobble up all or most of this budget.  Assuming the same cap on total spending remains, even after 2027 renewables spending is likely to be little or nothing. This is because spending on two further 3.2 GWe nuclear projects (Sizewell C and another nuclear project) will take up most (or quite possibly more than all) of the �3 billion 'cap' on spending on renewables released through the end of the renewables obligation.

The details of the NAO's report on renewable energy spending can be seen at http://www.nao.org.uk/report/levy-control-framework-2/#

It should be noted that the Treasury actually projects spending on renewable energy to end by 2021. Within that spending on the 'feed-in tariff' for new small renewable projects tails off to almost nothing by 2018. See page 32 in the NAO report.

What this does reveal is that the Government effectively occupy a sort of 'through the looking glass world' where after 2021 renewable energy is expected to be a mature set of technologies not needing any premium price support whilst nuclear power is a 'new' (??!) technology that needs support for 35 years per project, along with state underwriting. The fact that renewable energy sources are much more popular than nuclear power (according to the Government's own polls as well as independent polls)  cuts no ice with this view.

The biggest joke on the consumer will happen when, as is perfectly likely, oil and gas prices fall back to the levels that have been common outside of oil crisis periods. Then consumers will have to fork out staggering sums for 'new' nuclear power stations, and certainly a lot more, each year, than the annual cost paid to renewables under the Renewables Obligation - for Hinkley C until at least 2058, even longer when other new nuclear power stations come on line.

No commentsRead more

How more nuclear will waste wind power

As noticed by Chris Goodall, in his column in the Guardian environment network, wind power production has for the first time exceeded nuclear. See http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/06/uk-wind-power-bests-nuclear-power-for-a-few-symbolic-minutes

But what Goodall misses, it seems completely, is that building more nuclear power stations will simply waste more wind power. He seems to claim that 'all' the investment in wind power will be 'wasted' unless we build a lot more interconnectors etc to accommodate fluctuating wind power supplies. Well, we do need more balancing of a variety of types, including demand response, interconnectors and as it gets cheaper, various types of storage, but it is an exaggeration to say that 'all' wind investment will be wasted.

The big waste comes with the nuclear investment. The problem with the ability of the electricity system to absorb more variable wind power supplies lies with the inability, and unwillingness, of nuclear operators to turn down their production when there is more wind power than can be absorbed by the grid. So obviously building more nuclear power stations (which are more expensive, MWh for MWh anyway than onshore wind for example) will only make the situation worse - more wind power will be wasted than will otherwise be the case without the nuclear power.

It would be helpful if Chris made this point - but I can see why he doesn't, because he advocates more investment in nuclear power. This is the biggest problem as far as Chris Goodall's commentary is concerned. He should clearly re-think his support for building more nuclear power before he starts to implicitly criticise wind power for its variability.

No commentsRead more

European Commission issues smokescreen 'protection' to hide consumer exposure over Hinkley C

The European Commission, in signalling its intention to give the green light to the British Government's Hinkley C nuclear power plant deal under the 'state aid' permission procedure has failed miserably to protect British consumers against the consequences of what must be the highly likely outcome of cost overruns in building the Hinkley C plant. Instead it has issued what must be seen as a smokescreen of 'protection' to British electricity consumers by asking the British Government to introduce rules clawing back profits made by EDF. See http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/03/eu-britain-edf-nuclear-idUKL6N0RY3FE20141003?irpc=932

Observers might be forgiven for imagining that the 35 year contract for Hinkley C, underpinned by �10 billion of state loan guarantees paying higher premium prices (�92.50) than privately built onshore windfarms receive for only 15 year contracts, will give EDF and their Chinese partners big profits. However this impression is an artefact of the ludicrous propaganda perpetrated for many years that nuclear power stations are potentially profitable, competitive, operations. They are no such thing. Hinkley C is most likely to result in further major  commitments being made by British electricity consumers or taxpayers to bail out the near inevitable cost-overruns of building Hinkley C.  The fact that only state owned companies (French and Chinese) are prepared to undertake the risk of this project, and even then backed by what will emerge in the fullness of time as an effective blank cheque by the British state, is a testament to the sheer bankruptcy of new nuclear build as a commercial proposition.

The nuclear constructors may set dates for commissioning of the project, but in reality they have no idea when they will be finished. The firm probability is that they will take a lot longer to build the plant than what is said in the wishful thinking that passes for pro-nuclear reports on the subject. All three EPRs (the model being used for Hinkley C) being built in Finland, France and China are acknowledged by the constructors themselves as running considerably behind schedule. And we do not even know whether the plant will work very well when they are switched on!

Assurances that the British consumers will not face any further liabilities for building the plant are politically worthless. Why? because if, on the basis of experience, the plant are not build on time and (thus) cost, then the constructors are very likely to ask the UK Government for more financial support. The British Government is unlikely to say no in such circumstances, whatever the Department of Energy and Climate Change claim today. Are they going to allow a half-built nuclear power station to remain as a monument to British folly, to be mocked by people around the world? No, they will commit British people to spending more money on the project to complete the dinosaur, no doubt backed by a new application to the European Commission for 'state aid', which the EU Commission will be minded to accept (as usual). You think this unlikely? Well, it has happened almost exactly like this before. Sizewell B nuclear power station, using a relatively well known PWR design, was left financially stranded when British electricity industry was privatised in 1990 and the new private electricity industry said they could not finance its completion. The Government responded by levying a 'fossil fuel levy' on electricity consumers to pay for the plant to be completed. Indeed the European Commission went along with this on the condition that the levy ended in 1998.

It is about to start again. So is a new comedy show of building more nuclear power in the UK.

No commentsRead more

Daft rumours spread about wind turbines and noise without any scientific basis

Anti-wind campaigners have broken completely new ground today by using a piece of research that had absolutely nothing to do with wind power to claim that wind turbines damaged people's hearing. Even though the story was nonsense, this hardly matters for the media involved. Just like the nonsensical europhobic story about capacity power auctions (see previous blog) this is an example of how there is an expanding market to cater for growing, feverish, hysteria among the backwoodsmen right wing in British politics. I reproduce part of a media release from RenewableUK, the trade association, below, which, as far as I can see, gives a reasonable summary of this affair:

RenewableUK slams false media reports claiming wind farms affect hearing

RenewableUK says media speculation that wind farms can affect people�s hearing is incorrect and irresponsible.  

Several national newspapers wrongly claimed today that research published in the journal Royal Society Open Science showed a possible link between wind turbines and deafness.

The expert who wrote the paper, Dr Markus Drexl from the University of Munich, told RenewableUK that the media had misrepresented his work, saying �It is certainly misleading and an over-interpretation of our results to state that living close to wind farms may cause hearing impairment or deafness. Our research did not include any work at wind farms�.

RenewableUK�s Director of Policy, Dr Gordon Edge, said: �Unfortunately, some reporters got it wrong - this is a classic case of Bad Science. When you actually read the scientific paper, it doesn�t make any mention of wind farms whatsoever. That�s because the level of low frequency noise that the scientists used in their tests was significantly higher than anything that anyone living near a wind farm could possibly experience.

�The Australian government published some excellent research on this last year which stated that the modest level of low frequency sound from wind turbines is actually insignificant. It�s well understood by acoustics experts that low frequency sound doesn�t pose any health risk to communities around wind farms and frankly it�s irresponsible scaremongering to suggest otherwise.�

For further information, please contact:

�              Robert Norris, Head of Communications, 020 7901 3013 or 07969 229913, Robert.Norris@RenewableUK.com

�              Adam Wentworth, Communications Officer, 020 7901 3038 or 07791 702702 Adam.Wentworth@RenewableUK.com

Notes:

1.    RenewableUK is the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries. Formed in 1978, and with more than 575 corporate members, RenewableUK is the leading renewable energy trade association in the UK.

2.    Royal Society Open Science paper: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royopensci/1/2/140166.full.pdf

No commentsRead more