Tories plan to decimate Green Energy

This is a reposting of something I put up on my personal blog recently.

Hidden away within the recent Queen’s speech was a series of commitments to dismantle many of the Green energy policies brought in under both the last government and indeed the previous Major government. Obviously fearful that labour might win the next election, the Tories are taking a leaf out of G.W. Bush’s play book and trying to hammer through as much legislation as possible favourable to their pay masters.

Figure 1: The 2014 Queen's speech might well represent a major roll back of Green Energy

Figure 1: The 2014 Queen’s speech might well represent a major roll back of Green Energy

The Tories, aided by their lib dem lackies, firstly plan to make it easier for shale gas drillers to frack under people’s homes (wonder what that will do to house prices?). And this comes on the back of news that the US shale gas boom is running out of steam (not that this should come as a surprise to anybody who has been paying attention to the facts rather than the propaganda) and that even the US is now talking about the need to kerb emissions. Its as if the Tories were living in a cocoon through the winter storms (presumably in a coffin holding a handful of grave soil ;D).

And should protesters against fracking try to stop this drilling, the Tories are also seeking to tighten up trespass laws with another bill they’ve slipped into the queen’s speech.

Figure 4: Shale Gas well blow outs are not also a problem for locals [Credit:, 2014]

Figure 2: Fracking wellhead fire, coming shortly to a field in England [Credit:, 2014]

Perhaps more serious is the threat to fiddle with building standards. The Tories are now proposing to relax current standards for new buildings intended to ensure that new build structures are more energy efficient.

This is a hugely significant move. As I’ve pointed out before, as much as 30-40% of the UK’s final energy consumption involves providing heat to buildings. By contrast electricity is just 20% of the UK’s final energy consumption (and quite a bit of that goes towards heating!). So any measure that can reduce the energy consumption of buildings would go along way to both reducing the UK’s carbon emissions and reducing the peak demand for energy in winter (thus improving energy security).

Figure 3: Commitments to low carbon homes within the UK are now under threat [Credit:, 2014]

Figure 3: Commitments to low carbon homes within the UK are now under threat [Credit:, 2014]

And it would also mean saving money for not just householders, but also the government (by reducing the scale of the winter heating allowance…of course the Tories want to get rid of that too!). Not to mention less cases of pensioners freezing to death in winter in leaky cold houses. Such measures are also intended to counter the mistakes of the past. The fact is that the UK has in past housing booms thrown up lots of cheaply built but expensive to maintain houses which were poorly insulated, leaky, damp and without putting much thought into support infrastructure (e.g. drainage to avoid flooding, public transport to reduce the dependency for cars, etc.).

Obviously one doesn’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past, so given these facts, the previous Labour government introduced strict limits and tough new building codes. These went so far as to suggest that all new homes should be zero carbon by 2016. These rules were no bolt from the blue, but built on measures previously introduced by the Major government and indeed measures the current coalition originally supported.

The justification for the changes the Tories now propose (in what is another U-turn on the environment…anyone still remember that “greenest government ever” pledge!), is that these tough building standards are curbing house building (by making the costs of building homes more expensive). So given that the Troy plan for the next election is to trigger a housing bubble (and thus an artificial spur of growth), these building standards are proving more than a little inconvenient.

However its worth reflecting on the consequences of such a policy. It was all well and good throwing up cheap leaky homes in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s when the world was awash with cheap fossil fuels, but that is not the case anymore. Anyone buying these homes will essentially be locking themselves into a future of many decades of ever higher gas bills (while the zero carbon homes come with much lower running costs).

And of course, where is all the gas to run these homes going to come from? As I’ve previously discussed it is highly implausible to suggest the UK can rely on Shale gas and with events in Ukraine the security of supply of the UK’s gas supplies is under greater threat than it ever has been before. Obviously in such circumstance’s creating a whole new generation of natural gas users is hardly a sensible strategy, no more than previous Tory policy to get rid of energy efficiency grants intended to allow existing households to refurbish homes (make them more air tight, better insulation, etc.).

Wind-bagging hypocrisy

Figure 4: The Wind Turbine (badly positioned, not really much good other than publicity) on Cameroon's london home comes down

Figure 4: The Wind Turbine (badly positioned, not really much good other than publicity) on Cameroon’s london home comes down

Of course this comes on the back of the Tories letting slip that indeed they will oppose onshore wind farms after the next election, cutting subsidies and encouraging councils to block such developments. Cameron claims that this decision on the basis that after a decade or two of subsidy, surely wind power should be able to get by without subsidy?

A fair point I’ll agree, but equally he is proposing to provide a massive subsidy to nuclear power…an industry that has been dependant on massive government subsidy for the best part of 50 years (not just to building nuclear plants, but also costs such as the £73 billion and counting to dispose of nuclear waste). If subsidies to renewables are to be cut, then surely we should cut all nuclear subsidies too? Won’t that be the free market response?

Also its worth remembering that part of the point of subsidies to renewables (or nuclear for that matter) is to get around the fact that fossil fuel use is also in receipt of significant subsidies.

As a token gesture, the Tories do include a measure to introduce a 5p charge on plastic bags. A good idea, as I’ve discussed before, but clearly a classic example of bait and switch, as can be observed from the fact that the Daily Mail, which is usually allergic to anything environmental, actually praised this measure.

Figure 5: A plastic bag tax was included as a token gesture  [Credit: The Scotsman, 2014]

Figure 5: A plastic bag tax was included as a token gesture
[Credit: The Scotsman, 2014]

In short the Tory plan is to gut the environmental budget, repeat all of the mistakes of the past, leading to a Britain in future with yet more leaky, badly built, flood prone homes. The unfortunate owners of these new homes will find themselves trapped with the millstone of negative equity around their neck in a home they cannot sell and cannot afford to heat (once the shale gas fantasy runs its course).


About daryan12

Engineer, expertise: Energy, Sustainablity, Computer Aided Engineering, Renewables technology
This entry was posted in clean energy, climate change, economics, efficiency, energy, fossil fuels, Global warming denial, nuclear, Passivhaus, peak oil, politics, power, renewables, Shale Gas, sustainability, sustainable, technology. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Tories plan to decimate Green Energy

  1. Jason Bascom says:

    The beauty of this policy is the government has proposed this as a means to cutting household gas and electricity bills. The thinking is green subsidizes and legislation forcing companies to use environmentally friendly energy has come at, a direct cost to the consumer. It makes you wonder how the goverment will explain the rising cost of fossil fuels when these green subsidizes are gone.

    I realise it’s important to know what our foolhardy elected representatives are doing, but isn’t it just as important to know what steps science is taking to tackle the issue of nuclear waste and fossil fuel pollution? By this I mean alternative energy advances. I first discovered your blog because I was curious about what energy alternatives there were to fossil fuel and nuclear energy. This led me to finding out about Thorium energy. For a while there I was something of a cheerleader until asked myself ‘why hasn’t this happened yet?’. If the claims were realistic no government (however foolish) could resist the potential. After weeks of google searches I stumbled across your blog and the molten salt reactor concept article. Reading that article (thank you by the way) pulled the wool from my eyes.
    Although I’m beginning to think the wool is growing back as I recently saw this on youtube.

    Dense plasma focus fusion. The lecturer (Eric Lerner) is quite frank about the problems facing this approach, but seems optimistic it could be at least shown to work if funding were available.
    I am skeptical, but I don’t have the necessary expertise to know whether the data Mr Lerner provides is correct or made up. Is Eric Lerner to the focus fusion debate what Kirk Sorensen is to the thorium energy movement? Am I a sucker for a lie I don’t understand?
    Daryan, you’ve been very generous with your responses and I don’t want you to feel I’m taking advantage of that. If Dense plasma focus is pie in the sky, please respond with ‘bullshit’ and link if possible. Otherwise a simple ‘it has promise’ will suffice.

    • daryan12 says:

      I think my response would be too say it’s a nice idea, no harm in doing a little research but…..

      My understanding from physicists is that aneutronic fusion is even harder and more technically difficult to achieve than conventional inertial confinement fusion with D-T. Again, there may be an element of “grass is greener” syndrome at play. We know most of the major challenges facing conventional fusion experiments (or indeed conventional nuclear power with LWR’s) so any idea which is less mature looks better purely because its at such an early concept stage we’ve not worked out what the major technical problems are yet!
      Certainly to even start discussing costs of such a process is jumping the gun somewhat. One of the big question marks with Fusion is whether or not it will actually produce major cost savings compared to fission with LWR’s. Given the complex nature of such reactor designs, there is good reason to fear that such reactors will actually be more expensive, not cheaper. So achieving the sort of prices he suggests would be “challenging” to say the least.

    • daryan12 says:

      Oh, and as for green subsidizes they’ll find some convenient spin to still blame Green energy…either that or they’ll use Hinkley C to blame the French and Chinese for rising bills (even tho it’s not likely to be operational for at least a decade, and thus we won’t see its effects on bills kick in for some time).

      Consider that a major issue in the recent European election was the suggestion that EU citizens are coming into Britain as “benefits tourists” to take advantage of the UK’s benefits system. Of course there is actually no statistical evidence to support this, the number of such migrants are a tiny fraction of those British receiving such benefits. Indeed the vast majority of migrants to the UK (from the EU or beyond) are (like me) hardworking, law abiding types who pay their taxes and ultimately help subsidize Britain’s welfare state.

      However despite this complete lack of any evidence, with it clear this “benefit’s tourism” is just some xenophobic myth from the tabloid bigot brigade, the UK government is passing all sorts of draconian measures to clamp down on it, to the point where the likes of me are wondering if we should go back home (and pay my taxes in Ireland instead!) as the UK is becoming an uncomfortable place to work.

      Go figure!

  2. Pingback: What worries me about UK energy policy | daryanenergyblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s