100 Tories call for wind-farm subsidy cuts
The Tories believe it unwise to make consumers pay. Picture: Ian Rutherford
THE Scottish Government has launched a robust defence of its flagship green energy policy after concerns were raised by more than 100 Tory politicians about the cost of subsidies paid for onshore wind farms.
The MPS called for a dramatic cut to subsidies in a revolt against government policy, as they expressed serious concerns over the level of taxpayers’ money going to the sector.
Campaigners against wind farms in Scotland yesterday added their voices to the calls for subsidies to be slashed. However, the Scottish Government insisted it was committed to onshore wind and its renewable energy policies would save consumers money in the long term.
The Tory MPs wrote to David Cameron: “In these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines.”
They added: “We ask the government to dramatically cut the subsidy for on-shore wind and spread the savings made between other types of reliable renewable energy production and energy-efficiency measures.”
It will be an early headache for new Energy Secretary Ed Davey – promoted to the job after Chris Huhne’s resignation.
The same subsidy system, known as the Renewables Obligation, is used in Scotland as south of the Border, although the Scottish Government has powers to change the level of subsidies paid.
Scotland has a target of generating the equivalent of 100 per cent of the country’s electricity needs from renewables by 2020, with more from other sources.
A spokesman said: “The Scottish Government is committed to wind energy – including its potential to generate £2 billion annually for the economy.”
He added: “Developing our renewables potential will also save consumers money in the long term, relative to a continued reliance on fossil fuels.”
He said only the “right wind farms applications in the right places” would get planning approval.
Niall Stuart, director of trade body Scottish Renewables, described the Tories’ views as “absolute nonsense”.
“These proposals would jeopardise not just progress towards our renewable energy and climate change targets, but would also threaten billions of pounds of investment and thousands of jobs across the UK,” he said.
He argued cutting subsidies for onshore wind would end up putting up bills for consumers, because climate change targets would have to be met using other, more costly forms of renewable energy.
However, Susan Crosthwaite from Communities Against Turbines Scotland threw her support behind the idea of slashing subsidies for onshore wind.
She has also written to Mr Cameron, as well as Chancellor George Osborne, encouraging them to take the opportunity of Mr Huhne’s departure to make changes to the subsidy system.
“Cutting the subsidies would make the energy companies only install them if they were financially viable, which they are not.
“So it would bring the whole wind-farm business to a standstill fairly quickly,” she said. “It would kickstart the economy because it might mean energy bills could reduce a bit, and it would also mean the government would have the money to spend on other things.”
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 98 comments to this article
Page 1 of 7
tested
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 04:44 PM#92 bridgetthecat Why are you bringing up nuclear power when the discussion is about windpower. Unless, of course, your one of these numpties who thinks that windpower can replace nuclear. Nuclear can only be replaced by other baseload generation e.g. coal or gas. Nuclear provided 30% of our electricity last year but even if you covered Scotland coast to coast in windmills it would still require baseload generation. You really should do some basic research before you post.
Ron Greer
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 02:51 PMGreat post Black Grouse. Would be great if you could post it also on today's thread about cutting subsidies. 'Porty Tam' in particular needs an education in reality.
Black Grouse
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 02:01 PM#15. Re. claims about Danish CO2 emissions. Pity you don't read the Danish press, Fred. ‘WISE MEN: “DANISH WIND TURBINES MAY DAMAGE THE CLIMATE”’ Berlingske, 28 November 2011. ‘Investing billions in wind turbines and biomass is useless if the intention is to reduce CO2 emissions. In the worst case, paradoxically, it may well damage the environment, the Economics Council - the wise men - explains in an analysis for Berlingske Politics. The EU’s quota system for CO2 emissions is to blame for the complicated situation.* [...] ‘Electricity generators are a part of the EU’s quota system and if Denmark produces more electricity from fossil-free energy that means that Danish electricity plants require less quota. This reduces the price of quota and makes it cheaper, for example, for German industry to buy quota. Meanwhile, the aggregate quota and the aggregate emissions of CO2 are unchanged, the wise men write. ‘In that way the effect is that Denmark helps to reduce the costs of, for example, German industry and therefore contributes to improving German competitiveness, while the emissions of greenhouse gases in the EU are unaffected. [Our translation]. * The Economics Council consists of the Economics Council and the Environmental Economics Council, with representatives from an assortment of industry and employment organisations, the National Bank, Government and independent academic and environmental economists. The Council advises government and operates under the aegis of Ministry of Economics and Business Affairs. It is led by the ‘Wise Men’ a panel of four leading academic economists.
nabodican
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 01:45 PM88,89,90,91,92 & 93 Bridget the cat - When did they let you out dear? You are not by any chance married to Fred Bloggs are you ? The wee blawbag must be proud of you.
Ron Greer
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 01:11 PMThanks Hibby. Yes it's great to see the growing opposition to the views of Fred Bloggs and similar and that they no longer have the field to themselves.
bridgetthecat
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 08:47 AMSo the money Wind power get compared to Nuclear power is PEANUTS! Well done the SNP and Mr Salmond, fighting for Scotland, and trying to stop SCOTLAND BECOMING A NUCLEAR DUMPING GROUND FOR ENGLAND!
bridgetthecat
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 08:46 AM"Since its inception more than 50 years ago, the U.S. nuclear power industry has been propped up by a generous array of government subsidies that have supported its development and operations. Despite that support, the industry is still not economically viable, according to a report released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The report, "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies," found that more than 30 subsidies have supported every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to long-term waste storage. Added together, these subsidies often have exceeded the average market price of the power produced. "Despite the fact that the nuclear power industry has benefited from decades of government support, the technology is still uneconomic, so the industry is demanding a lot more from taxpayers to build new reactors," said Ellen Vancko, manager of UCS's Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project" w.nuclearpowerdaily.comreportsAfter_50_Years_Nuclear
bridgetthecat
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 08:46 AMSalmond and the SNP are right to block any more nuke power stations. "Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies, looks at the economic impacts and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry—past, present, and proposed. How would you like your subsidy? Nuclear power subsidies vary by type of ownership (public or private), time frame of support (legacy, ongoing, or new), and the type of cost (or "attribute of production") they address—from startup capital to decommissioning and waste disposal. Subsidies can take many forms, including tax breaks, accident liability caps, direct payments, and loan guarantees" w.ucsusa.orgnuclear_powernuclear_power_and_global_warmingnuclear-power-subsidies-report.html
bridgetthecat
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 08:45 AMWell done the SNP1 "All operating nuclear power plants in the U.S. were built with substantial public subsidies. These included large subsidies to research and development, plant construction, uranium enrichment, and waste management. Since its inception, the industry has also benefitted from government programs to shift key risks of the nuclear fuel cycle away from investors and onto taxpayers. A handful of studies have quantified subsidies to the nuclear-power industry over the decades, indicating aggregate subsidization at well over US$ 150 billion, and a subsidy intensity (government support per kWh output) normally exceeding 30% of the market value of the energy produced. These subsidies have enabled our existing commercial reactors to remain viable power providers, but only with additional capital write-offs. These write-offs have occurred not only through bankruptcies, but in the form of compensation for "stranded costs" as well. Basically, a cost was considered stranded if it made a plant uncompetitive at the time the electricity industry was being deregulated. Nuclear generation accounted for large share of total stranded costs in the United States, with nearly US$ 100 billion (2007$) of nuclear-related infrastructure deemed uncompetitive transferred as a liability to be bailed out by ratepayers. Although the industry frequently points to its low operating costs as evidence of its market competitiveness, this economic structure is an artifact of large subsidies to capital, historical write-offs of capital, and ongoing subsidies to operating costs" ww.globalsubsidies.orgensubsidy-watchcommentarygambling-nuclear-power-how-public-money-fuels-industry
bridgetthecat
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 08:45 AM88, drop dead.
norfolkboy14
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 08:18 AMGet behind this new initiative - please GOOGLE "E-PETITION 22958" follow the link and sign up to add your support. Get your friends to do the same.
nabodican
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 07:30 AMComment removed by moderator
The Great Bohunkus
Monday, February 6, 2012 at 11:22 PMComment removed by moderator
The Lord
Monday, February 6, 2012 at 10:44 PMComment removed by moderator
tested
Monday, February 6, 2012 at 10:13 PMComment removed by moderator
Page 1 of 7
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.