Broadcast from the beautiful Cornish town of St Austell, two leading renewable energy suppliers got a mention on Question Time, the BBC’s flagship political debate programme, on Thursday.
The mandatory question about energy prices (26 minutes in) prompted the usual myths about an aggressive, subsidy-hungry and landscape-blotting renewable energy industry, compared to a seemingly non-taxpayer funded, landscape- and air quality-enhancing fossil fuel industry. And we all know nuclear power isn’t subsidy hungry, don’t we?
The current Labour policy is to freeze energy prices for 20 months. The government’s proposal is to increase switching and competition. On Wednesday, energy secretary Ed Davey announced an annual review of competition in the market.
After a debate that offered more heat than light, we were delighted to hear reason from one of the members of the audience.
“I take my power from one of the smaller companies”, he said.
“They have 100% renewable energy. They have a wind farm at Delabole up in north Cornwall, and my bills have never been cheaper.”
He added, “You used to pay a premium [for renewable energy], but the rest of the market has now caught up.”
When pressed on who the company was he said, “Good Energy plc.”
‘You used to pay a premium’
As anyone who understands technology knows, a technology’s efficiency increases and price falls over time. This applies to mobile phones, computers and renewable energy. Conversely, this does not apply to fossil fuel-based energy where the raw material is harder to find and extract and the harm from extracting it and burning it rises exponentially.
One of the audience made the excellent point that that we are investing too little in wave power, which is odd for a country surrounded by waves. This also applies to offshore wind and tidal (Britain has some of the greatest tidal ranges in the world, for example).
Some sort of combined offshore wind, wave and solar pylon might be a good idea.
Matthew Hancock, business minister and Conservative MP for West Suffolk, who was defending the government’s focus on switching, said, “I have, in fact, switched to one of these newer renewable energy providers.”
When pressed on who he had switched to, he said it was Ecotricity.
While we welcome his enlightened decision, this is a contradictory position for a man who has lent his support to those who oppose wind farm development in his own constituency.
He may want to have a chat to the constituents of neighbouring fellow Conservative MPs Elizabeth Truss and George Freeman whose local areas have, respectively, Ecotricity’s existing single turbine wind farm and planned two-turbine wind farm, about why he’s willing to take energy from these blots on the landscape, but not support the development in his own constituency.
Being happy to blot someone else’s landscape but not your own is hardly a morally defensible position.
On its website, Ecotricity says of the Shipdham development, “This is the 10th year of Ecotricity trying to get planning permission for turbines on this site and so far we have faced three public enquiries and a trip to High Court. We have been given planning permission and then planning permission has been taken away from us.”
The local residents feel very strongly about the new turbines, saying that they “have been persecuted by repeated wind farm applications by this developer for 10 years.”
Hancock’s contradictory position reflects the challenge we all face.
Every household needs electricity. The UK needs cleaner energy. To happily take renewable energy, as long as the wind and solar farms are not next door, is hypocritical. Especially for a public figure who should provide clarity and leadership in the debate rather than confuse it.
Renewable energy is the only form of energy where the local community has a say. Nuclear and gas can be imposed by the secretary of state. The debate is not whether you want a renewable energy source near your home, but whether you’d prefer any energy source near your house. If you don’t, you have no real right to use it.
The right to use electricity comes with some responsibility for its generation.
Opposition to infrastructure development is the default position of most people, but caving in to this natural response would have meant no industrial revolution, no railways, no motorways, no sewers, no electricity grid and a failed economy.
We hope Hancock will now come out as a loud and proud supporter of renewable energy and wind farms.
Switch to Good Energy today. As the audience member said, “My bills have never been cheaper.”
Will Self-Driving Cars Be Better for the Environment?
Technologists, engineers, lawmakers, and the general public have been excitedly debating about the merits of self-driving cars for the past several years, as companies like Waymo and Uber race to get the first fully autonomous vehicles on the market. Largely, the concerns have been about safety and ethics; is a self-driving car really capable of eliminating the human errors responsible for the majority of vehicular accidents? And if so, who’s responsible for programming life-or-death decisions, and who’s held liable in the event of an accident?
But while these questions continue being debated, protecting people on an individual level, it’s worth posing a different question: how will self-driving cars impact the environment?
The Big Picture
The Department of Energy attempted to answer this question in clear terms, using scientific research and existing data sets to project the short-term and long-term environmental impact that self-driving vehicles could have. Its findings? The emergence of self-driving vehicles could essentially go either way; it could reduce energy consumption in transportation by as much as 90 percent, or increase it by more than 200 percent.
That’s a margin of error so wide it might as well be a total guess, but there are too many unknown variables to form a solid conclusion. There are many ways autonomous vehicles could influence our energy consumption and environmental impact, and they could go well or poorly, depending on how they’re adopted.
One of the big selling points of autonomous vehicles is their capacity to reduce the total number of vehicles—and human drivers—on the road. If you’re able to carpool to work in a self-driving vehicle, or rely on autonomous public transportation, you’ll spend far less time, money, and energy on your own car. The convenience and efficiency of autonomous vehicles would therefore reduce the total miles driven, and significantly reduce carbon emissions.
There’s a flip side to this argument, however. If autonomous vehicles are far more convenient and less expensive than previous means of travel, it could be an incentive for people to travel more frequently, or drive to more destinations they’d otherwise avoid. In this case, the total miles driven could actually increase with the rise of self-driving cars.
As an added consideration, the increase or decrease in drivers on the road could result in more or fewer vehicle collisions, respectively—especially in the early days of autonomous vehicle adoption, when so many human drivers are still on the road. Car accident injury cases, therefore, would become far more complicated, and the roads could be temporarily less safe.
Deadheading is a term used in trucking and ridesharing to refer to miles driven with an empty load. Assume for a moment that there’s a fleet of self-driving vehicles available to pick people up and carry them to their destinations. It’s a convenient service, but by necessity, these vehicles will spend at least some of their time driving without passengers, whether it’s spent waiting to pick someone up or en route to their location. The increase in miles from deadheading could nullify the potential benefits of people driving fewer total miles, or add to the damage done by their increased mileage.
Make and Model of Car
Much will also depend on the types of cars equipped to be self-driving. For example, Waymo recently launched a wave of self-driving hybrid minivans, capable of getting far better mileage than a gas-only vehicle. If the majority of self-driving cars are electric or hybrids, the environmental impact will be much lower than if they’re converted from existing vehicles. Good emissions ratings are also important here.
On the other hand, the increased demand for autonomous vehicles could put more pressure on factory production, and make older cars obsolete. In that case, the gas mileage savings could be counteracted by the increased environmental impact of factory production.
The Bottom Line
Right now, there are too many unanswered questions to make a confident determination whether self-driving vehicles will help or harm the environment. Will we start driving more, or less? How will they handle dead time? What kind of models are going to be on the road?
Engineers and the general public are in complete control of how this develops in the near future. Hopefully, we’ll be able to see all the safety benefits of having autonomous vehicles on the road, but without any of the extra environmental impact to deal with.
New Zealand to Switch to Fully Renewable Energy by 2035
New Zealand’s prime minister-elect Jacinda Ardern is already taking steps towards reducing the country’s carbon footprint. She signed a coalition deal with NZ First in October, aiming to generate 100% of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2035.
New Zealand is already one of the greenest countries in the world, sourcing over 80% of its energy for its 4.7 million people from renewable resources like hydroelectric, geothermal and wind. The majority of its electricity comes from hydro-power, which generated 60% of the country’s energy in 2016. Last winter, renewable generation peaked at 93%.
Now, Ardern is taking on the challenge of eliminating New Zealand’s remaining use of fossil fuels. One of the biggest obstacles will be filling in the gap left by hydropower sources during dry conditions. When lake levels drop, the country relies on gas and coal to provide energy. Eliminating fossil fuels will require finding an alternative source to avoid spikes in energy costs during droughts.
Business NZ’s executive director John Carnegie told Bloomberg he believes Ardern needs to balance her goals with affordability, stating, “It’s completely appropriate to have a focus on reducing carbon emissions, but there needs to be an open and transparent public conversation about the policies and how they are delivered.”
The coalition deal outlined a few steps towards achieving this, including investing more in solar, which currently only provides 0.1% of the country’s energy. Ardern’s plans also include switching the electricity grid to renewable energy, investing more funds into rail transport, and switching all government vehicles to green fuel within a decade.
Zero net emissions by 2050
Beyond powering the country’s electricity grid with 100% green energy, Ardern also wants to reach zero net emissions by 2050. This ambitious goal is very much in line with her focus on climate change throughout the course of her campaign. Environmental issues were one of her top priorities from the start, which increased her appeal with young voters and helped her become one of the youngest world leaders at only 37.
Reaching zero net emissions would require overcoming challenging issues like eliminating fossil fuels in vehicles. Ardern hasn’t outlined a plan for reaching this goal, but has suggested creating an independent commission to aid in the transition to a lower carbon economy.
She also set a goal of doubling the number of trees the country plants per year to 100 million, a goal she says is “absolutely achievable” using land that is marginal for farming animals.
Greenpeace New Zealand climate and energy campaigner Amanda Larsson believes that phasing out fossil fuels should be a priority for the new prime minister. She says that in order to reach zero net emissions, Ardern “must prioritize closing down coal, putting a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, building more wind infrastructure, and opening the playing field for household and community solar.”
A worldwide shift to renewable energy
Addressing climate change is becoming more of a priority around the world and many governments are assessing how they can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and switch to environmentally-friendly energy sources. Sustainable energy is becoming an increasingly profitable industry, giving companies more of an incentive to invest.
Ardern isn’t alone in her climate concerns, as other prominent world leaders like Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron have made renewable energy a focus of their campaigns. She isn’t the first to set ambitious goals, either. Sweden and Norway share New Zealand’s goal of net zero emissions by 2045 and 2030, respectively.
Scotland already sources more than half of its electricity from renewable sources and aims to fully transition by 2020, while France announced plans in September to stop fossil fuel production by 2040. This would make it the first country to do so, and the first to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Many parts of the world still rely heavily on coal, but if these countries are successful in phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable resources, it could serve as a turning point. As other world leaders see that switching to sustainable energy is possible – and profitable – it could be the start of a worldwide shift towards environmentally-friendly energy.
Economy2 weeks ago
Report: Green, Ethical and Socially Responsible Finance
Energy6 days ago
5 Easy Things You Can Do to Make Your Home More Sustainable
Sustainability4 weeks ago
Worldwide Cities Leading the Way in Sustainability
Environment4 weeks ago
Consumers Investing in Eco-Friendly Cars with the UK Green Revolution