Renewable energy hysteria alive in Australia and UK

It seems that some of the hysteria surrounding onshore wind farms in the UK has now spread to Australia. 

For Australia, a country that still generates an uncomfortably high proportion of its electricity from coal, to "wind farm refugees" protesting outside of its Parliament House, is a disturbing development.

UK energy policy, with its adherence to strict EU emissions targets, is streets ahead of Australia's. After all, Australia has only just suceeded in putting a price on carbon, after years of political wrangling.

So naturally it is distressing to read reports that seek to advance the agenda of NIMBYism at a time when Australia's renewable energy is only making up a fraction of total electricity consumption.

 I was shocked to read this unbalanced article in the Australian newspaper (well-known as the conservative mouthpiece of its owner, Rupert Murdoch), where a powerful energy company compared community opposition to wind farms with that of coal seam gas projects.

The Australian is treading a dangerous line here - the article quotes the submissions of Energy Australia and Origin Energy (both of which invest in renewable and fossil fuel projects) to the Renewable Energy Target review but doesn't canvass the opinions of any other wind industry participants or industry associations.

The paper should have led with the real news - that there is a critical underinvestment in wind projects and Australia risks not meeting its 2020 renewable energy target. 

However, the UK battle of fossil fuels versus renewables is far from over.  The government's on again, off again relationship with renewable energy is a product of intense infighting between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the governing coalition.

Fortunately, in the noise over a "dash for gas" and "rising energy bills," voices of reason are emerging in the UK energy debate.

On Tuesday, the Environmental Audit Committee, a group of MPs that scruntise environmental aspects of the budget, launched a scathing attack on the "mixed messages" the government is sending. The committee was particularly critical of what it described as a "veil of transparency" under which the new energy policy was crafted.

Even better, it described chancellor George Osborne's ludicrous attempts to pit the economy against the environment as "counterproductive and wrong."

The appointment of John Hayes as energy minister in September is seen by some to be a deliberate attempt by prime minister David Cameron to assuage the fears of tory MPs against wind farms.

If David Cameron's goal was to have the ridiculous views of this irrational bunch of NIMBY'ers represented on the national stage, he has succeeded.

After less than a month in the job, the slimy Hayes made his views on wind farms known when he said on the record that no new onshore wind farms should be built, lest the precious English countryside become "peppered" with them. He was quickly slapped down by the more senior energy secretary of state, Ed
Davey for breaking with departmental policy, but by then the deep rift in the coalition had already been exposed.

George Osborne - a self-professed gas aficionado - has been steadily undermining the energy debate all year long, with neverending hints about the relative expense of renewable energy versus "cheap" gas.

All this bickering is increasing the likelihood of delays to the government's electricity market reform strategy. The government is aiming to have two readings of the bill in parliament before the Christmas recess, which begins on 20 December.

Basically, this gives senior government ministers a week to get their stories straight and sing out of the same hymn book. The problem is, no matter how unified they appear, everyone knows that there is still strong opposition to renewable energy subsidies in the upper echelons of British politics.

Meanwhile, a host of energy investors are scrambling for more details on the new subsidies for low carbon generation - a convenient umbrella term that encompasses renewables and nuclear. At least seven projects are holding out on making a final investment decision to hear how their new Feed in Tariff based on a Contract for Difference will be calculated  - a payment that reimburses power producers when wholesale prices fall short of an agreed 'strike price'.

Investors interested in gas plants want to hear more about the new capacity mechanism - payments to encourage flexible generation to switch on and off when needed, to back-up intermittent renewable generation.

Autumn leaves

One thing I like about working near Bloomsbury is that there are a lot of nice parks nearby where, once inside, its possible to surround yourself by trees and forget the urban chaos of London.

I didn't realise Central London had so many trees until the middle of summer, when their weighty green boughs hang over the road, almost obscuring the buildings behind them.

In summer, Russell Square became a thick green forest, a popular relaxing spot for students studying nearby or schoolkids on excursions.

Come autumn, my fascination has switched from admiring the immense greenness, to watching the leaves turn all sorts of colours before gently being picked up by the wind and fluttering to the ground.

Each time I walk through Russell Square, something is different. One day a tree will have turned a light amber, while the one behind it is a powerful shade of purple. Another day, a section of trees will be completely bare, while another group will have just started turning brown.

Why do some trees decay faster than others? And why on earth are British kids wearing hi-vis vests when they go on school excusions - is that happening in other countries too?

Naturally, I turned to the internet for answers. Wisegeek says trees turn different reds, ambers and browns because they already possess these colours, but in summer the chorophyll in their leaves mask the colours.

But this doesn't explain why some trees lose their leaves faster than others, especially in the same spot. Just Gardening says trees with a northern exposure often change colour and lose their leaves faster than other trees with a different orientation, because they are losing sunlight hours faster. Trees facing south get more exposure to the weakening sun.

And it turns out temperatures don't really play a role in the rate at which trees lose their leaves. Sunlight exposure is more important, so trees will start to lose their leaves when the duration of daylight shortens, even if temperatures have not fallen sharply.

And as for the hi-vis vests? Well plenty of internet sites sell them for as little as £1.99, claiming they are a must for taking a group of rugrats around in the dark. As the days shorten and the natural light dims, I can see why they're becoming popular!