England is set to miss its target to generate 10 percent of its power from renewable sources, such as wind, the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) said on Monday.

BWEA said that on average across England only 50 percent of the renewable electricity generation would be met, with some regions such as the South West failing to reach even a third.

“In England we need to think carefully on how to use the lessons learned from 2010, as we attempt to reach the binding EU wide 2020 targets,” Maria McCaffery, BWEA Chief Executive said in a statement.

“All it takes is the political will to deliver. In Scotland renewables targets were backed by a policy framework and decisive central Government action,” she said.

The country’s overall target would only be met because both Scotland and Northern Ireland were set to outstrip their own targets, the BWEA said.

The report came ahead of the publication on Wednesday of the government’s Renewable Energy Strategy, which sets out how the country should reach its EU binding target of sourcing 15 percent of energy from renewables by 2020.

It followed another one by business lobby group CBI which said Britain needed to build more nuclear reactors and cleaner coal plants while putting less emphasis on wind power if it wants a secure low-carbon future.

BWEA said a slow and ineffective local planning system in England and Wales was tying down wind farm planning applications. It took 14 months on average before a decision was made, despite a guideline to do so within 16 weeks.

“Around a half of wind farm applications taken to appeal for refusal or non-determination are then approved, raising doubts about the ability of local planning authorities to deliver the nation’s renewables program,” it said.

(Source: www.reuters.com)

El proyecto corre a cargo del grupo energético británico Npower, filial del grupo alemán EWE, que ya opera instalaciones similares en este país.

El ministro británico de Energía y Medioambiente, Ed Miliband, afirmó que la nueva central, que producirá 750 megawatios, convertirá a la costa del norte de Gales en un “centro neurálgico de energía renovable”.

“El Reino Unido debe limpiar su suministro energético para luchar contra los efectos dañinos del cambio climático, y tener más energía eólica nos ayudará a lograrlo”, dijo Miliband, al resaltar que su país es un líder mundial en energía eólica marina.

Desde la organización ecologista Geeenpeace, su jefe científico, Doug Parr, calificó la decisión gubernamental como “un gran paso adelante” y animó al Ejecutivo a apostar por una “estrategia ambiciosa” para explotar las ventajas que ofrece la energía eólica.

En 2006, el Gobierno británico dio permiso para la construcción de la granja eólica marina más grande del mundo, llamada London Array, que se edificará a veinte kilómetros de la costa de Kent (sudeste de Inglaterra) y dispondrá de 341 turbinas.

Se espera que la primera fase de la edificación de London Array que finalice en 2012 con la instalación de 175 turbinas.

El año pasado, el Gobierno británico reafirmó su propósito de que la energía eólica se convierta en una importante fuente de generación de electricidad en el Reino Unido.

El Ejecutivo informó entonces de un plan para construir hasta 7.000 turbinas eólicas a lo largo de la costa del país que producirán energía eléctrica para los hogares británicos antes de 2020.

Así lo informó el diario The Independent destacando la inversión de estos países ricos en hidrocarburos en el área renovable del Reino Unido. Esto . Mas detalles in English.

This is the document that proposes that Britain’s renewable energy targets for electricity generation will be largely met by 3,000 offshore wind turbines and a further 4,000 onshore turbines. The Government is also in the process of establishing the new subsidy support structure to encourage investment in renewable energy, particularly, wind turbines.

The Government’s main support mechanism for the generation of renewable electricity consists of enewable Obligation Certificates ( ROC’s) which are issued to those who invest in and generate renewable electricity, but the cost of this support is borne directly by the consumer.

At no point has the full cost of the proposed wind strategy been fully and simply explained to the public and at no point has the public been told what alternatives there might be. The wind industry, green lobbyists and the EU have done a brilliant job of leading the Government down a path that not only makes absolutely no economic sense but is the height of irresponsibility.

If one uses the Government’s estimates for the electricity that would be generated by the 7,000 turbines, the new wind turbine subsidy structure and the current market price of the ROC’s, the annual level of subsidy that will be paid by the consumer is an incredible £6bn per year.

The wind industry will lock into these subsidies for 20 years, the expected useful life of the turbines. One can anticipate that further subsidies will have to be made available when turbines have to be replaced. The total output of these 7,000 turbines (as estimated by the Government) could alternatively be generated by 7 nuclear power stations, such as the one currently being built by EDF at Flamanville.

A nuclear power station can be easily connected to the grid and costs the consumer nothing since the cost is covered by the private sector. The private sector also expects to cover the cost of clean-up on decommissioning (EDF builds up a special fund for this purpose). Furthermore, a nuclear power station has an expected useful life of 60 years.

The Government has been so swamped by all the data generated by the thousands of consultant man-hours they have commissioned, that these simple calculations have not been done. If they had, it would have become immediately apparent that the EU’s obsession with renewable energy, as opposed to CO2 reduction through nuclear, should be pushed back and the bold decisions required to build the necessary nuclear capacity taken without delay.

The public is, instead, being asked to pay at least £120bn (and probably more than twice this over the 60 years that would be covered by nuclear) for an intermittent source of electricity which would necessitate considerable addition to the infrastructure of the National Grid.

It would have to be replaced after 20 years and, as far as the 4,000 onshore turbines are concerned, would do irreparable damage to the countryside, would leave approximately 5m tons of concrete in the ground, would require around 1.5m tons of scrap-metal and other components to be disposed of and with no certainty that the wind companies would still be in existence or have the wherewithal to carry out the decommissioning when required.

If this was not bad enough the simple fact is that the 7,000 proposed turbines would require back-up at virtually 100 per cent, in any event, in order to ensure security of supply at times of peak demand. The wind industry, as well as the Government, are totally misleading the public in this respect but there is irrefutable evidence that the UK is subject to relatively frequent extended periods of wind collapse that cover the whole country.

This means that the nuclear reactors or equivalent thermal power plants would have to be built anyway so they could kick-in when the turbines stop. Wind power, as a renewable energy source, is a concept that appears attractive and opponents can be easily demonised. This has been fully exploited by the wind industry which, supported by the green lobby, continues to pump out misleading propaganda to be sure of cashing in on the subsidy bonanza.

The reality is that the country is on the verge of being the subject of one of the biggest confidence tricks of all time. The Government has totally failed the country in not understanding either the economics or the operational issues of their proposed renewable energy strategy.

By allowing themselves to be taken in by the wind industry and swayed by the greens, the vital decisions necessary to ensure security of electricity supply have not been taken and it is fast becoming too late. Only a small percentage of the money saved by not pursuing a wind strategy would provide plenty of funds for communities willing to accept nuclear reactors and any reserve fund required to guarantee clean-up.

While we move closer to the precipice the Government issues yet more consultative papers, the Lib Dems proudly launch their “Apollo Project” energy policy, which would more aptly be named “Teletubby project”, and the Tories seem unable to grasp the nettle