Posted By: BrianwilsonHave noted population reduction is a recommendation on forum

Not by me it isn't.

She never phoned or writes back

Here you go Brian. Look at the 'response' at the end of all the official statements...

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2118688/renewables-obligation-review-reaction

Renewables Obligation Review – the reaction

Figures from across the renewables industry offer their take on the proposed changes to subsidies

By BusinessGreen staff

20 Oct 2011

"Investing in green energy boosts growth and creates jobs - the offshore wind sector alone could provide up to 66,000 jobs in this country by 2020. Supporting clean, green, secure energy is the right thing to do for both the environment and the economy. Today's announcement makes clear the Government's commitment to supporting long-term investment in the UK's renewables industries."

Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister



"The renewables industry can bring in billions of pounds of investment into the UK economy. Our ambitions for these technologies reflect our desire for the UK to be the number one place to invest. We have studied how much subsidy different technologies need. Where new technologies desperately need help to reach the market, such as wave and tidal, we're increasing support. But where market costs have come down or will come down, we're reducing the subsidy."

Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change



"There is great relief that this document has finally been published. The delay had put billions of pounds worth of investment on hold. Developers will need to see these new numbers in legislation before they can resume development activity, however. We welcome the broad thrust of the proposals, although we have views on some of the details, which we'll feed in to the consultation.

The degression pathway is a new refinement to the Obligation. Renewables costs in the main are coming down, so it does make sense. Investment stability and certainty is crucial and is key to enabling the UK to meet its targets and for renewables to contribute to economic green growth, job creation and exports."

Gaynor Hartnell, Chief Executive of the REA



"Today's announcement on the support levels for renewable technologies is welcome. The level of support being provided should give the certainty and confidence for industry and investors to implement the mass roll out of renewables up to 2017. This in turn will bring significant economic benefits to the UK economy in terms of new inward investment and new jobs and strengthen the UK's security of supply.

We also welcome the recognition that financial support for renewables should be reduced in the future as costs come down as deployment ramps up. Experience from the Carbon Trust's offshore wind technology programme indicates costs can be reduced significantly through investment in innovation. Providing a signal today that support will be reduced in the future will incentivise industry to achieve cost reductions and will ensure renewable targets are delivered at the lowest possible cost to consumers."

James Wilde, Director of Strategy at The Carbon Trust



"We're perplexed by these RO banding proposals which show no sensitivity to the unique characteristics of solar and aren't structured to support the development of the UK industry. We're deeply concerned DECC doesn't understand mass market technologies like solar and we will redouble our efforts to explain during the consultation period. Given the astonishing press revelations that the solar FIT could be cut to 9p we now face a fight for the very existence of UK solar companies and more than 25,000 jobs."

Ray Noble, PV advisor to the Solar Trade Association



"These changes aren't as bad as many of us had feared, but it's clear there is a need for a more nuanced approach from DECC in the face of pressure from the Treasury. Onshore wind is the most cost-effective renewable technology out there, which is great news. But everyone knows that developers are now looking a lot more at smaller sites, since the biggest and best ones are now gone. Those sites require more support than the bigger ones. At the levels proposed today, we think around a fifth of those sites in planning could be seriously impacted by these changes. That's not good news for the Government if it's to hit the targets set out in the Renewables Roadmap.

"There are some winners from today, however. Solar levels have been largely maintained, and it's good that the Government has recognised the potential of our wave and tidal resources. The RO has and will continue to play a vital, and cost effective role in speeding up investment in renewables and delivering energy security. That will help move us away from the very fossil fuels that are causing families and businesses serious headaches about how they are going to pay their energy bills."

Juliet Davenport, founder and CEO of Good Energy



"Despite some prominent Tory scepticism over the role renewables can play in delivering clean and secure energy, it's a relief to see the doubters have lost this internal battle and incentives are being left in place to spark an expansion of green energy generation. David Cameron can build on this decision and show real leadership by now making the UK the world leader in marine renewables technologies, in the process providing new jobs and building economic growth."

Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace



"With GDP growth forecast close to zero and much debate about affordability and increasing energy bills, today's announcement of a cut in the support of both onshore wind and solar energy generation is not totally unexpected.

"The biggest loser will be the solar sector which is receiving its second setback in its short-lived UK history. This may be a missed opportunity for a maturing industry which had achieved significant cost reductions in recent years and demonstrated job creation benefits at a local level. For the onshore wind sector, the good news is that the proposed reduction in support will not kill the industry altogether, the bad news is that it will undoubtedly affect investments in the short term. The introduction of a carbon tax, as proposed under the Electricity Market Reform, may gradually make up for this lost revenue.

"The offshore wind sector is the clear winner out of today's announcement. The 2-ROC regime should provide the continued stimulus to support large investments in infrastructure projects. With an additional 10GW+ of offshore wind capacity required to be commissioned over the next decade for the UK to meet its 2020 targets, we can see an investment opportunity worth some £30bn which will be on the shopping list of large infrastructure funds and other institutional investors seeking to achieve long-term returns."

Arnaud Bouille, Director with Ernst & Young's Environmental Finance team



"Any reduction in financial support will have an impact on the industry, reducing deployment, and potentially jeopardising momentum as we strive to reach our carbon reduction targets. However, we recognise the need to drive down costs across the sector, especially offshore.

"Any changes need to be carefully balanced as the proposed onshore reduction would have a disproportionate impact on small community-based wind energy projects, as they don't enjoy the economies of scale which larger projects can harness.

"The measures to support Wave & Tidal energy are particularly welcome and will help build a domestic market big enough to drive innovation and lower cost. Onshore Wind is already the least expensive form of renewable energy on a mass scale and is currently providing the largest share of renewable electricity. These measures must not put its future deployment in doubt."

Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive of RenewableUK



"Providing stable and long-term investment certainty to the renewables sector is crucial for allowing large scale deployment of renewable energy. It's also key to reducing the costs of those technologies as fast as possible - which is good for consumers - and creating new jobs in the renewable energy manufacturing sector - which would be good for the economy.

"The Government needs to finalise this review as soon as possible and ensure that the levels of support that are agreed will not constantly be re-visited in the years to come. If this were to be the case, it would seriously undermine investment certainty in the UK's renewables sector and will result in the UK missing the boat in becoming a leader in manufacturing renewable technologies."

Nick Molho, Head of Energy Policy at WWF-UK



"Whilst today's statement will provide some further clarity, the recent government U-turns on Feed-in Tariffs and CCS funding at Longannet have fuelled the feeling of uncertainty within the market. Investors are asking themselves what else will change.

"Chris Huhne has a mountain to climb in regaining the confidence of the renewables sector. Certainty on ROCs will go some way towards achieving this, but the subsidy levels proposed today will cause disquiet among some parts of the investment community."

Jonny Clark, Director at consultancy WSP Future Energy



"This is bad time to be cutting the support for inshore wind, because it has to deliver the lion's share of renewable energy in the years to come - and the best onshore wind sites are already developed.

"The 10 per cent reduction for onshore wind support will save us all two quid a year per house - is it really worth it?

"Jeopardising enough clean energy for 1 million homes (as RUK says) for the sake of such a pitiful sum. When compared to the £1000 fossil support, £50 nuclear bill and the several hundred pounds bill rise from global energy markets that will have hit us by then - this makes no sense. It's a false economy, will cost more than it saves."

Dale Vince, Ecotricity founder and managing director
..................

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment

"Lots more biomass then - does no-one see the risks or care about the impacts?

Once again, a series of comments about a Govt. renewable energy plan that don't mention BIOMASS. The word doesn't appear in a single posting above. Why not? Biomass supplied 82.5% of UK renewable energy in 2010. Nearly 80% of transport biofuels are imported. DECC's most recent Renewable Energy Review postulated over 4GWe biomass electricity capacity in 2020. This consultation acknowledges that we will have to rely on imported fuel to a very significant extent to achieve that. The annual burn will be at least 40 million tonnes (ten times England’s indigenous wood production). Consultants for DECC have suggested that by 2030 the UK could be getting half to three quarters of all our energy from biomass. And taking 10% of global ‘spare’ biomass as fuel. The biomass power stations being proposed already around Britain's ports are dreadfully inefficient. At least 60% of the energy content of imported wood they will burn is going to be exhausted as waste heat to air and water. They don't have CHP, and are sited where heat supply is impractical anyway. They fail to meet the requirements of the new EC Energy Efficiency Directive - by a country mile. Unless you apply the flawed UNFCCC ruling that says biogenic combustion emissions are zero, these power stations don't produce any carbon savings and actually produce more emissions than coal per MWh because of worse power station conversion efficiency. And they produce local air pollution in spades. The proposals to maintain subsidies for bioliquids also mean we could soon be subsidising the use of palm oil in power stations. How Mr Clegg, does that equate to "clean green secure energy"? Big Biomass has lobbied hard to get the result it wanted in these proposals. Their business may help the UK meet the 15% RE target for 2020, but it will severely dent our chances of meeting our long-term carbon reduction targets. And make us reliant for decades on fuel imports when supposedly we have the best indigenous RE resources in Europe. "

The comment reflects concerns , it is frightening that this administration is forcing the public to invest £billions in 25yr air quality degradation when fully aware of adverse consequences to environment and health.
Apologies Steamy for appearing to generalise, should have qualified my comment with some folk on forum advocate population control.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/dec/14/british-public-support-renewable-energy
Interesting responses!!

That sounds like a "good" tax to me.

I now treat all such "polls" with extreme caution. Like statistics they can be made to say more or less whatever any particular vested interest has to say.

For example...

Geoff Sinclair is Principal of Environment Information Services and a consultant to CPRW.

"Wind turbines will destroy tourism in Wales."

Now, exaggerate your opponent’s point and of course he is wrong. Who said that tourism would be destroyed, effectively throughout Wales? The EDC quote “the most recent surveys” by MORI in Scotland that “nine out of ten tourists visiting some of Scotland’s top beauty spots say that the presence of wind farms makes no difference to the enjoyment of their holiday”. Of course the EDC happily quote from the sponsor’s Press Release. They probably haven’t looked at the details of the survey.

It covered tourists visiting Argyll and Bute and was first produced at a Public Inquiry in November 2002 into a wind power station proposal at An Suidhe, a hilltop overlooking the tourist Mecca of Inveraray. I was the landscape witness for the local Community Council, working with John Campbell QC. There was a simultaneous News Release from its sponsors, the Scottish Renewables Forum and the British Wind Energy Association, which claimed that 91% of visitors said the presence of wind farms made no difference to whether they would return.

But the survey covered only 307 people visiting Argyll & Bute on two weekends in late September, of whom under 20% (60) had actually seen any of the three installations. Only one - Beinn Ghlas, with relatively small turbines - could remotely be called intrusive, and then from few viewpoints, while the other two are difficult to see, being well-recessed into the remote centre of Kintyre.

It’s my business to look at wind turbines and apart from the occasional distant glimpse of one or two fragments I found only one place to see Beinn an Tuirc from 15km, and one place to see the fringe of Deucheran Hill from 10km at the end of a forestry dead end.

So 80% of interviewees had not even seen windfarms, including over 20% (62) who merely knew of their existence.

Their opinions were then prompted by being shown a location map and the answers were added to those from the original 60, who had actually seen some of these quite reclusive turbines. Hardly surprising most weren’t too bothered : I wouldn’t be (at present).

When the applicants were asked to provide that map and to explain how these other respondents had been prompted, they at once withdrew the material from the Inquiry and relied on it no further, despite the clear fact that it had been specially released to serve their purpose. They knew it would not survive cross-examination!

Nevertheless, the MORI survey is widely used to claim that 90% of tourists are not affected by windfarms. The report in Planning Magazine (1st November 2002 page 4) says “Wind farms backed in tourism survey”. Hardly any recent Environmental Statement is now complete without a similar reference.

Yet on 29th November Planning summarised the results of a very exhaustive survey by VisitScotland (the Scottish WTB equivalent) as “Study reveals tourist dislike of wind farms” noting that this contradicted the BWEA MORI survey and that the results had “forced 'Visit Scotland' to re-think its plans to promote wind farms as tourist attraction”.

An earlier and widely used Scottish Executive Survey claiming an equivocal response by residents has been withdrawn due to sampling errors pointed out by the burgeoning organisation 'Views of Scotland'.

The myth has exploded in the Committee’s face.”

Posted By: Brianwilsonhow we can reduce energy consumption by simple lifestyle changes e.g. cut-out foreign holidays?

How about something much more effective, everyday, but harder to stomach - like cut-out cement and concrete? Air travel is the easy target (like Chelsea Tractors, we can all tut-tut about something 'we' can do without) but its significance pales beside the world's mushrooming dependence on too-cheap, use-it-for-everything CO2-belching OPC.

OPC?

Nor indeed an APB from NYPD, 10-4.

And why wasn't the Pentium followed by the Sexium (or Hexium depending on pref for Greek or Latin)?

Marketing folks can only count up to 5?

Rgds

Damon

Give em credit, the BUK didn't stop there, but their LUK ran out before they tried it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2011/dec/23/europe-energy-interactive

Interesting comparison but does it tell the true story?

I understand modern nuclear techonology allows far more efficient use of fuel with far lower waste for final disposal which raises question, why the reluctance to embrace this in UK? Sustainable,benign, clean and on demand technology should be obvious first choice but is it realistic in forseeable future?

Posted By: Brianwilsonfar lower waste for final disposal

because any waste at all that has to be stored safe for thousand(s) of years otherwise lethal, is suicide to life on earth.

And because it's unnecessary.