It's certainly true that there will be a lot of politics in the Telegraph article. But it's also true that electricity bills have increased in order to subsidise the development of wind-generated energy. Both the present government and the previous have been quite clear about that.
The Renewable Energy Foundation quoted in the article is a UK charitable think tank that has been accused of being anti-onshore windfarms. The Guardian carried
a revealing article about them a couple of years ago. Like Lord Lawson's think tank mentioned in another thread, they have come to the attention of the Charity Commission, though the issue was resolved.
So obviously, due caution is needed in interpreting the claims. But I just don't have enough information to evaluate or rebut them.
Incidentally, I don't have a problem with the Telegraph paywall as I read it so rarely I haven't yet exceeded my free views per month so have never come up against it.
Here's the rest of the article:
The promise of future jobs is dependent on the building of large-scale wind farms at sea and the construction of factories in Britain to manufacture the turbines, which are currently almost all built abroad.
Industry figures show that for the 12 months to the end of February, the latest period for which figures are available, slightly more than £1.2billion was paid through the consumer subsidy — known as the Renewables Obligation. It was introduced by Labour to encourage investment and is added to all energy bills, meaning that besides households, industry and employers also pay, adding to the cost of all goods and services. According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, a think tank that has criticised the cost of wind farms, it currently adds about £47 to the average household’s cost of living. They say the total subsidy is likely to rise to £6billion by 2020 if the Government meets its target of providing 15 per cent of energy needs from renewable energy.
The industry’s projection is that by 2020 it will create up to 75,000 jobs — an effective subsidy of £80,000 a year — but failing to reach that figure will raise the effective subsidy. The foundation claims that the subsidy will actually cost jobs because businesses will relocate abroad — or close — to save on energy bills. Households will also have less disposable income because more money will go to pay fuel bills.
Among the examples of extremely high subsidies effectively for job creation is Greater Gabbard, a scheme of 140 turbines 12 miles off the Suffolk coast.
It received £129million in consumer subsidy in the 12 months to the end of February, double the £65million it received for the electricity it produced. It employs 100 people at its headquarters in Lowestoft, receiving, in effect, £1.3million for every member of staff.
Iwan Tukalo, general manager of Greater Gabbard Offshore Wind Limited, which is co-owned by SSE and RWE, said building the farm was a £1.5billion investment in British infrastructure.
He added that “as well as supporting significant local employment during the four-year construction period”, 95 per cent of its permanent employees were local people.
The London Array, Britain’s biggest wind farm, with 175 turbines, employs 90 people at its base in Ramsgate, Kent. The array, which is 12 miles offshore, became fully operational in the spring. The foundation predicts its Renewables Obligation subsidy in its first year of full operation will be £160million — effectively £1.77million per job.
In Scotland, Fergus Ewing, the devolved government’s energy minister, published figures earlier this year showing that 2,235 jobs were “connected directly to onshore wind”. There are 203 wind farms across Scotland, and the scale of Renewables Obligation support means each post is underwritten by £154,000.
Wind farms are controversial not only because of the cost, but also because of claims that the turbines, which can be more than 400ft high, are ruining the countryside. Campaigners have said the planning system remains loaded in favour of developers and that too little of the countryside is protected from their spread.
Earlier this month David Cameron signalled that local people would have more say over wind farms in their areas. Developers would have to offer much greater compensation for building them, and planners will be compelled to take into account their visual impact and the views of locals.
But energy firms will be able to offer incentives, including lower power bills for local people, in return for planning permission, which critics say amount to “bribes”.
Campaigners also warn that turbines do not generate power when the wind is too low or too high, and cannot store it, meaning conventional generation is needed as a backup.
Dr John Constable, director of Renewable Energy Foundation, said: “Subsidies can create some soft jobs in the wind power industry but will destroy real jobs and reduce wages in other sectors, in the UK’s case because the subsidies cause higher electricity prices for industrial and commercial consumers. The extravagant subsidy cost per wind power job is an indication of the scale of that problem.”
He added: “Truly productive energy industries — gas, coal, oil, for example — create jobs indirectly by providing cheap energy that allows other businesses to prosper, but the subsidy-dependent renewables sector is a long way from this goal; it’s still much too expensive.”
There is even doubt within the wind industry that job creation projections can be met. Last week, Renewable UK issued a 64-page report urging the Government to “agree a long-term vision” for offshore wind or see jobs created on the Continent.
An Energy Bill, currently before Parliament, is the subject of wrangling over prices for renewable energy for the next 20 years. The wind industry says that without price and subsidy guarantees, a “green collar” jobs boom will not materialise.
Manufacturers are warning that some planned wind turbine factories are under threat without the price guarantees.
Gamesa, a Spanish company which had promised to open a factory in Leith in Scotland, said a lack of certainty was hampering its plans, while Siemens said it needed pricing guarantees before building a turbine factory in Hull.
Robert Norris, Renewable UK’s spokesman, said: “Parents are wondering where their children will find work in the future; the answer is in the renewable energy sector.
“Our studies show that by 2021, more than 76,000 people will be working in the British wind industry in full-time, well-paid green-collar jobs.
“In the last financial year we attracted private investment of £2.5billion, proving that the wind industry is an engine for growth at a time when other sectors are struggling.”
If you could see the article you would see the dismaying horde of comments piling in with denialist nonsense.
Most of the jobs concerned with the manufacture of windfarms are abroad (UK's only manufacturer shut down some years ago when yet another contract went abroad).
I don't think it's enough say it's denialist nonsense. I'd like to be sure where the inaccuracy and misrepresentations lie, if there are any. I agree that the proper cost of fossil fuels is never factored into the price. And yes, it would be good if the
subsidies to fossil fuel could be made clearer, and if we had a simple carbon tax. If anyone could point me to a good analysis of the position in the UK I'd be very grateful.
(Edited to amend details about the REF.)
