Michael Portillo Article for the Sunday Times

Wind Power

18th September 2005

Britain did not come to a standstill last week.  Unlike five years ago, this time the fuel-tax protesters did not halt supplies to petrol statiions.  Nor is there any sign that they can force the government to change its fiscal policy as they did in 2000.  But with the recent announcement that two major airlines in the United States are filing for bankruptcy as a result of higher fuel costs, once again the world feels vulnerable to energy shortages and rising prices.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, who chairs the government's Sustainable Development Commission  urged ministers not to give into to protesters' demands.  He is right.  With oil flows disrupted by events in Iraq and the Gulf of Mexico, and with consumption in India and China rising sharply, it would be crazy to to cut fuel tax. That would encourage people to use more of a product that is in short supply.

However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, does not sound much saner than the protesters.  In a speech to the TUC he urged OPEC (the mainly Arab cartel of oil producing countries) to increase production. 

Understandably Brown is worried about oil prices.  The rises will reduce Britain's rate of economic growth, and so tax revenues will fall below the forecasts on which his economic policy depends.  For example, the Bank of England predicts growth this year of 2 per
cent, where Brown had forecast 3 to 3.5. 

But OPEC will argue that the world is doing too little to reduce its dependence on Middle East oil.  Anyway, Brown should not be seeking lower prices.  High prices give energy companies the incentive to develop oil and gas deposits that are costly to produce.  Many of those are in areas that are more politically stable than the Middle East, so exploiting them can improve our security of supply. 

This period of energy angst should be grabbed by politicians in the United States as an opportunity to argue the patriotic case for higher taxes on fuel.  Paying more for petrol would help to reduce American dependence on imports.  European politicians should now be making the case for developing other sources of energy, such as nuclear power. 

We should not be too concerned that Arab countries are getting rich at our expense.  Were the money to trickle down through the population, it might help to reduce poverty and ignorance, and that should make life harder for political extremists. 

High oil prices seem to be in everyone's interests, and past experience shows that the world is well able to adapt even to sharp price increases.

Brown urges other countries to put things right because the British government is too timid to implement a  long-term energy policy.  When environmental issues first became a global concern the UK was well placed to limit its emissions of noxious gases into the atmosphere.  The demise of the British coal industry during Arthur Scargill's leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers was enough, since it led to much greater usage of natural gas in power stations. 

But now it is harder for Britain to meet its targets. In response to the 2000 protests the Chancellor gave up the so-called "escalator" that sharply increased the tax on road fuels in every budget.  The surrender dealt a mighty blow to the government's energy strategy, which had been designed to force people onto public transport and to stimulate the development of new energy sources.  Britain's greenhouse gas emissions are now rising - up by more than 2 per cent since 2002. 

The nuclear power plants that are operating today produce about a fifth of Britain's electricity, and do so without contributing to global warming.  By having those stations, this country's emissions of greenhouse gases are  between 7 and 14 million tonnes less than if fossil-fuelled stations were substituted. Yet all but one of the nuclear plants will have closed by 2023.  If the government does not announce that they will be replaced by new nuclear stations, it will face a huge problem, and its green ambitions will look incredible.

During the general election campaign it was hinted that Tony Blair would soon bite the bullet and order another generation of nuclear plants to be built.  If the government is serious about global warming, the decision takes itself.  But Blair now appears to be in no hurry.  The official line is that he will make a yes or no decision during this parliament. 

One policy that is clear is that renewable sources are subsidised.  The way  we pay for wind turbines (for example) is far from transparent.  Companies that produce electricity from wind get a so-called renewable obligation certificate (ROC) for each megawatt-hour that they generate.  The power distribution companies are obliged to pay a market price for those certificates (as well as for the power itself), or be fined for failing to use renewable energy. 

According to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, the total cost of subsidies paid to renewable energy suppliers could reach £5 billion by 2010, with additional costs for the power lines needed to bring the juice from the mountainss and seas. We pay for it through our electricity bills.  What is more the Committee believes that a third of the subsidy goes to companies who do not need it.

I confess that I loathe wind turbines.  It dismays me that we can despoil vast areas of great natural beauty in the name of saving the planet.  Looking at a magnificent hillside or edge covered in these huge towers is, to paraphrase the Prince of Wales's famous remark on modern architecture, like seeing a finely shaped chin defaced by a growth. 

Some people claim to like the wind machines.  The former deputy leader of the Labour Party, Roy Hattersley, says that passing the wind farm near Tintagel makes him think of Camelot.  The noise reminds him of "the gentle hum of swarming bees" (sic).  I would compare it to the whine of an aircraft engine, obliterating the sounds of nature.  Positioned to catch the breeze on high ridges, the turbines scythe down migrating birds.  On a recent visit to Spain (where turbines have spread like a vicious pox) I heard that this month 47 vultures headed for the Straits of Gibraltar had been felled by turbine blades.

These windmills are not efficient.  In Germany during 2003 it was estimated that they were used only to a sixth of their capacity, largely because wind is unpredictable.  Fossil stations are kept turning over (and emitting greenhouse gases) in case they are needed to make up the shortfall, yet if the turbines produce too much electricity, the excess cannot be stored.  The turbines are to the countryside in our times what the tower blocks were to the cities in the 1960s.  I look forward to the parties when forty years from now we dynamite them.    

I would hesitate to make an economic case for nuclear power.  Today it seems that it could generate electricity more cheaply than windmills.  But we know little about the capital costs because it is a while since we built nuclear stations.. Still, past experience is far from encouraging. 

I realise too that nuclear power raises fears that windmills do not (unless you are Don Quixote).  But as with other technologies, as nuclear power evolves we get better at building in safety features.  The problem of waste is a challenge, but it looks as though it can be handled. 

The point about nuclear power is that it does the job.  Using remotely-located stations that would have much less visual impact than turbines, we could replace all fossil-fuelled stations (if global warming matters that much).  One day we could use electricity from nuclear stations to charge our battery-powered cars or to produce hydrogen on which our vehicles could run, all without producing greenhouse gases.  Even if we cover every last hillock of our green and pleasant land with wind turbines we will not get close to those achievements. 

Meanwhile, apart from desecrating the countryside, wind turbines are diverting resources that could be put to better use.  They provide a frivolous distraction for a government that should be implementing a serious energy policy.       

It is good news that the fuel-tax protesters failed to halt the country last week.  They should be heeded only inasmuch as they highlight a real problem, that  Britain is over-dependent on oil.  The traffic is still moving, but the government's energy policy is at a standstill.

I realise too that nuclear power raises fears that windmills do not (unless you are Don Quixote).  But as with other technologies, as nuclear power evolves we get better at building in safety features.  The problem of waste is a challenge, but it looks as though it can be handled. 

The point about nuclear power is that it does the job.  Using remotely-located stations that would have much less visual impact than turbines, we could replace all fossil-fuelled stations (if that were the policy).  One day we could use electricity from nuclear stations to charge our battery-powered cars or to produce hydrogen on which our vehicles could run, all without producing greenhouse gases.  If we cover every last hillock of our green and pleasant land with wind turbines we will not get close to those achievements.  Meanwhile, apart from desecrating the countryside, wind turbines are absorbing resources that could be put to better use.  They provide a frivolous distraction for a government that should be implementing a serious energy policy.       

It is good news that the fuel-tax protesters failed to halt the country last week.  But they should be heeded in the sense that they highlight a real problem.  Britain is over-dependent on oil.  Even if the traffic is still moving, the government's energy policy is evidently at a standstill.