Source: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
URL: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/debenandref.mp3
Date: 10/11/2012
Event: "Is this the beginning of the end of the Great Wind Revolution?"
People:
John Humphrys: Last week the Energy Minister said Britain was "peppered" with wind farms and enough was enough. This week one of the world's biggest wind turbine manufacturers announced it was cutting 3,000 jobs around the world. Is this the beginning of the end of the Great Wind Revolution? And if it is, should we be mourning the fact or rejoicing? Well, I'm joined on the line by Lord Deben, formerly John Gummer. who was the - who is the Chairman of the UK's independent Committee on Climate Change. Before I go to him, let's talk to Dr. John Constable, who is the Chairman of the Renewable Energy Foundation. And, Dr. Constable, in spite of the title of your organisation, you are not in favour of wind farms.
John Constable: Well, we're certainly not in favour of subsidising wind farms. And I think -
John Humphrys: Therefore, that would be the end of wind farms, wouldn't it, because without any subsidy they don't exist.
John Constable: Well, they've had a lot of subsidy for ten years now, and they haven't actually managed to move any further away from being subsidy-dependent. So, I actually think we're at an optimistic moment. We're re-thinking our climate change policy. And we're trying to make sure that it really is something which would impress the rest of the world, and be viable for them. And let's face it - we can't do this on our own. We have to provide an economically compelling example, to India and particularly to China. And at the moment we're just not doing that. So, if we really want to address climate change, we have to change it, and -
John Humphrys [interrupting]: Stop building wind farms.
John Constable: Well, stop subsidising.
John Humphrys: Right.
John Constable: This technology has to grow up -
John Humphrys: You're not satisfied with simply cutting the subsidy, you've got to - you're saying we should stop all subsidies to wind farms.
John Constable: Yes, I think they're counter-productive, actually. And the companies that have resulted from them are not strong. The technology hasn't matured rapidly enough, and it's still too expensive and too poor. And these things really need to change, and the subsidies have given no incentive to developers and indeed the industry to make their equipment cheaper and better. There need to be [?] handsome rates of return already.
John Humphrys [interrupting again]: So where does our - forgive me. Where does our renewable energy come from, then?
John Constable: At the moment, we have a great deal of biomass energy, actually, and -
John Humphrys [interrupting]: Is that what your members support?
John Constable: We don't have members. Biomass is cheaper -
John Humphrys: Your supporters, I suppose I should say.
John Constable: Supporters, yes. Yes, biomass is cheaper, but it's still - it's subsidy-dependent. We really need to get to a situation where the renewables of tomorrow can compete with existing fossil fuels -
John Humphrys: All right.
John Constable: - because that alone is actually going to spread around the world and lead to a much cleaner energy system.
John Humphrys: All right. Thanks very much for that. Lord Deben, is that it? It's all over - effectively all over for wind farms, at least new wind farms?
Lord Deben: No, not at all. What we need is a balance between all the ways of producing energy. For example, if we're able to frack gas, that would be a very good way of providing the gas needs of our heating, in the homes which don't have alternatives. But what we need to have is nuclear, and we need to have wind farms, and we need to have a whole range of other ways, including biomass. That's the way in which you do it. It's a sort of insurance policy, to make sure that, first of all, we insure against climate change - that's crucially important. But also to stop ourselves being dependent upon Russian gas and gas from North Africa. It is cost- will cost in 2020, at its height, each family about £100 a year. Well, as an insurance payment, that's not a very great deal, after all.
John Humphrys: Well, except that you don't have to pay a premium, as it were - to pursue the insurance analogy - for all these things. I mean, we do have to subsidise wind power, don't we - there is no way out of that. We want more of it, we've got to subsidise it, we've got to subsidise that which we have already.
Lord Deben: Well, it is perfectly true that what we have already we're subsidising, but actually the prices are coming down very considerably. And if you look at the likely effect, wind farms are going to be fully - onshore wind farms would be properly competitive. Offshore, of course, which is where we've decided it would be better to put them, because we've said that many people find wind farms - onshore - unacceptable, they're doing much more offshore - that is a more expensive thing to do. But that is a choice that we are making, largely on other environmental grounds.
John Humphrys: But you've heard what government ministers have been saying about wind power generally, over the last few weeks. At least it's the - sort of, pace has picked up over the last few weeks, hasn't it. A lot of hostility there.
Lord Deben: Well, the fact of the matter is if we are going to protect Britain from the huge effects, both of energy price rises and the devastation of climate change, then we have to do what we are proposing, which is to have a portfolio of different ways of producing energy, so that we can keep the lights on, keep people having a decent standard of living and, at the same time, not destroy our planet.
John Humphrys: Well, except that if you're going to spend money on some of those alternatives, you should rethink, perhaps - this is the argument, anyway - whether they are sufficiently efficient. And an awful lot of people say "Yeah, wind farms, showed a lot of promise, they've now reached the limit of their technological ability, and that isn't good enough."
Lord Deben: Well, that isn't the view of the major collection of experts. We turn to everybody, listen to them all. I'm afraid the rather curiously named - as you've pointed out - Energy Renewable Foundation [sic] does have a kind of bee in its bonnet about this, and it goes on and on about it. But it's - the fact is, that is not the generally accepted view. We have to do the best we can, with all the evidence that we've got. My job is to make sure I get the very best evidence and then give that evidence to the government, under the Climate Change Act, and that's what we shall continue to do.
John Humphrys: Lord Deben, many thanks.
Lord Deben: Thank you.