Making energy choices
- Generation ,
- Fossil fuels ,
- Nuclear ,
The new feed-in tariffs (FITs) for solar and wind is a cut of nly63% instead of the 91% originally proposed.
There is no doubt, however, that the new subsidy levels for renewable deployment will severely damage roll-out. The government is justifying the cut on the ground that subsidies should not be in perpetuity. With solar and onshore wind close to market parity in terms of cost per hour of electricity produced and with money for subsidies tight, it is as well that the industries do without significant subsidy now rather than later.
I can buy part of that argument. It always was the case that FITs were supposed to fall as costs for technologies came down. Solar panel prices have nosedived in recent years, and arguably the initial tariffs were set too high, but a more sensible continuing tariff degression would keep in line with this initial understanding, while not terminally frightening off investors and installers.
The part I don’t buy is the selectivity being levelled at renewables under the guise of the “stand on your own feet” argument. The truth is that pretty much all forms of energy are subsidised, and largely not on a degressing basis. The planned nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset will receive around £24 billion over 35 years. In the same week as the cuts to FITs were announced, the government held a second capacity auction – intended to ensure that power stations will be available to provide electricity when required. They will be subsidised to do this and be able to keep the profit from the power produced. Gas-fired and coal-fired power stations as well as existing nuclear power plants all will receive substantial standby payments.
I can also buy part of the argument for capacity auctions: paying to keep plants online makes sense. But the deployment of renewables – which generally can be faster than building large, conventional power plants – also contributes to keeping that capacity gap open. To tell one sector it must do without subsidy while another receives money betrays where the government’s energy priorities lie, rather than acting as a sound argument about subsidies. So the other truth right now is that in effect you pay your subsidy and you take your choice: and the choice of the government’s energy policy is to not prioritise renewable and low-carbon energy.
None of England’s water and sewerage companies achieved all environmental expectations for the period 2015 to 2020, the Environment Agency has revealed. These targets included the reduction of total pollution incidents by at least one-third compared with 2012, and for incident self-reporting to be at least 75%.
The UK’s pipeline for renewable energy projects could mitigate 90% of job losses caused by COVID-19 and help deliver the government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda. That is according to a recent report from consultancy EY-Parthenon, which outlines how the UK’s £108bn “visible pipeline” of investible renewable energy projects could create 625,000 jobs.
Billions of people worldwide have been unable to access safe drinking water and sanitation in their homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a progress report from the World Health Organisation focusing on the UN’s sixth Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 6) – to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all by 2030”.
The UK government is not on track to deliver on its promise to improve the environment within a generation and is failing to stem the tide of biodiversity loss, a damning new report from MPs has revealed.
The UK's solar energy capacity must treble over the next decade for the country to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, but is only set to double under a business-as-usual scenario.
The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) has today been launched to support financial institutions and corporates in assessing and managing emerging risks and opportunities as the world looks to reverse biodiversity loss.