There’s no pot of gold at the end of the wind farm rainbow
‘States Members should be very wary about approving a proposition “in principle”’
Ted Vibert
•In effect, the Environment minister was telling the Island that there was a great pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if we support the principle of a wind farm to be built off our coast, on the seabed that the people of Jersey own
AS I listened to the Environment Minister extolling the virtues of wind farms in his speech to the States earlier this week – and read the enthusiastic coverage of it in the media – and heard his fervent belief that Jersey should support in principle building one off the Island’s south-west coast, I was reminded of the old adage often thrown at we journalists by disgruntled politicians of “never let the truth interfere with a good story”.
I found it hard to maintain my amazement to hear him tell the States – and therefore the Island’s population – that this was a “once-in-a-generation opportunity which we must seize to start developing our own independent electricity supply” and, even better, go into the business of exporting it to a world that is desperately short of that commodity.
I had to wonder whether the minister and I occupy the same planet.
What, in effect, he was telling the Island was that there was a great pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if we support the principle of a wind farm to be built off our coast, on the seabed that the people of Jersey own, which would be owned by a company of strangers – even though it could put out of business a company the people of Jersey own (the JEC).
This company has reliably supplied a vitally needed energy supply since it built its first power station on the Albert Pier in 1924 on which the Island has been almost totally dependent for so many aspects of our way of life and hand it over to outsiders.
This group of outsiders, he said, would be a consortium of people or companies highly experienced in wind-farm operations. And, said the minister, it was vital that they knew that the project had the full support of the Jersey government to give investors confidence to invest in the project.
It was comforting to see a number of our politicians realising that if they ever supported this proposal, they would be killing off the JEC.
Deputy Howell and Deputy Tadier were the first to question why the JEC were not involved in these plans, followed by Deputies Ward, Mezec, Luce and Scott.
The minister’s answers were fuzzy indeed, telling the States that because we owned the seabed, this would be leased to the company implying that somehow this would give the Jersey public some form ofa say in things.
What the questioners were really honing in on was this: if there is no public investment involved in creating this wind farm, what control could they exercise over the price of what they would charge the JEC for their electricity? (The JEC is 85% owned by the public of Jersey, yet we have little influence on how they run their operation.) Only recently, in America and Canada, wind farm companies that have built and operated wind farms, even those operating with generous subsidies from the government, who had guaranteed by legal contract to provide a certain quantity of electricity at a fixed price per unit on condition that they were given government land on which to build their wind farms, have found the costs of operating them grow to such an extent that unless the government allows them to increase their price, they would have to cease trading.
These state governments have had to agree to price increases and now this “cheap wind-farm electricity” is more expensive for them than that formerly produced by the replaced coal or oil methods.
Deputy Southern wanted to know whatwas the minister’s view about whether he felt the timing was right for Jersey to be involved in this scheme when only recently the UK government had chosen six sites off the UK coast for tenders to create wind farms, and not one company currently involved in building them put in a tender for any of them (which I reported a month ago).
The minister’s response to this was to say that we should not be parochial about this, but that we should look at the global scene where wind farms were “booming”.
I was surprised to hear that he regarded what was happening in the UK as being “parochial” so perhaps he is prepared to look at Europe.
Only this week Reuters reported that “costs have risen significantly in the past year for the Netherlands’ decadelong plan to connect its power grid to its proposed North Sea wind farms due to rising interest costs,” according to the country’s Economic Ministry.
The global offshore wind sector has seen huge increases due to inflation, high maintenance costs and slow development in countries, such as Britain and the US.
Last month, I reported that Vattenfall, the Swedish state-owned power supply company, who were building what would have been the largest UK wind farm off the coast of Norfolk, have ceased work on the project and “mothballed” it saying: “It was uneconomic to continue.”
In doing so, their spokesman said: “The investment needed no longer matches economic reality. The economics don’t stand up. It’s just a very, very difficult market for wind development at this time.”
In light of this, UK, European and US experience, I find it hard to believe that the minister has not been aware of all this information. By not revealing it to the States and dealing with it effectively, he is guilty of misleading by omission.
I know he has been extremely busy trying to rewrite another attempt at putting together a sensible and rational plan to stop people cutting down mature trees, and while I realise the importance of this work, if he decides to make a public statement on the record in the States about a matter so serious to all the people of the Island with such far-reaching consequences that will affect the future of our energy supplies, he really should put all the facts before the people.
And a warning to States Members that they should be very wary about approving a proposition “in principle”, which is what they are being asked to do.
Most of us who have been there understand the dangers of that and I’m sure experienced Members will not approve such an “in principle” decision. If the States agree in principle to “creating a wind farm” without knowing exactly where it will be located, what exactly it will achieve, who will own it, how will it be financed, what will be the future of the JEC and so on, all of which will only be given later, they are on dangerous ground.
Experience has found that when it does come up later, the States will be stuck with the fact that they previously approved it “in principle” and they can’t now start questioning the detail.
Experienced Members know of this trap and won’t fall for it as it has been tried many times before. The only proposition that should be put to the States on this issue is one when all the facts and all the consultations have taken place and there is a proper detailed proposition that deals with all the issues.
Since my article last month on this subject, I have received a fully researched paper headed: The Six Ways Renewables Increase Electricity Bills, which is a detailed analysis of wind farms around the world and how they cannot provide sustainable and economically viable electricity.
I won’t send a copy of it to the minister as he has already made up his mind to support wind farms and wouldn’t read it, but if any other States Members would like to get the real facts about wind farms I will be happy to send them a copy.
The report concludes that “investing in wind farms leads to the prospect, not so much of a car crash, but a pile-up in the fog of ignorance.”
•Ted Vibert can be contacted at tedvibertt@gmail.com
I found it hard to maintain my amazement to hear him tell the States – and therefore the Island’s population – that this was a “once-in-a-generation opportunity which we must seize to start developing our own independent electricity supply” and, even better, go into the business of exporting it to a world that is desperately short of that commodity.
I had to wonder whether the minister and I occupy the same planet.
What, in effect, he was telling the Island was that there was a great pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if we support the principle of a wind farm to be built off our coast, on the seabed that the people of Jersey own, which would be owned by a company of strangers – even though it could put out of business a company the people of Jersey own (the JEC).
This company has reliably supplied a vitally needed energy supply since it built its first power station on the Albert Pier in 1924 on which the Island has been almost totally dependent for so many aspects of our way of life and hand it over to outsiders.
This group of outsiders, he said, would be a consortium of people or companies highly experienced in wind-farm operations. And, said the minister, it was vital that they knew that the project had the full support of the Jersey government to give investors confidence to invest in the project.
It was comforting to see a number of our politicians realising that if they ever supported this proposal, they would be killing off the JEC.
Deputy Howell and Deputy Tadier were the first to question why the JEC were not involved in these plans, followed by Deputies Ward, Mezec, Luce and Scott.
The minister’s answers were fuzzy indeed, telling the States that because we owned the seabed, this would be leased to the company implying that somehow this would give the Jersey public some form ofa say in things.
What the questioners were really honing in on was this: if there is no public investment involved in creating this wind farm, what control could they exercise over the price of what they would charge the JEC for their electricity? (The JEC is 85% owned by the public of Jersey, yet we have little influence on how they run their operation.) Only recently, in America and Canada, wind farm companies that have built and operated wind farms, even those operating with generous subsidies from the government, who had guaranteed by legal contract to provide a certain quantity of electricity at a fixed price per unit on condition that they were given government land on which to build their wind farms, have found the costs of operating them grow to such an extent that unless the government allows them to increase their price, they would have to cease trading.
These state governments have had to agree to price increases and now this “cheap wind-farm electricity” is more expensive for them than that formerly produced by the replaced coal or oil methods.
Deputy Southern wanted to know whatwas the minister’s view about whether he felt the timing was right for Jersey to be involved in this scheme when only recently the UK government had chosen six sites off the UK coast for tenders to create wind farms, and not one company currently involved in building them put in a tender for any of them (which I reported a month ago).
The minister’s response to this was to say that we should not be parochial about this, but that we should look at the global scene where wind farms were “booming”.
I was surprised to hear that he regarded what was happening in the UK as being “parochial” so perhaps he is prepared to look at Europe.
Only this week Reuters reported that “costs have risen significantly in the past year for the Netherlands’ decadelong plan to connect its power grid to its proposed North Sea wind farms due to rising interest costs,” according to the country’s Economic Ministry.
The global offshore wind sector has seen huge increases due to inflation, high maintenance costs and slow development in countries, such as Britain and the US.
Last month, I reported that Vattenfall, the Swedish state-owned power supply company, who were building what would have been the largest UK wind farm off the coast of Norfolk, have ceased work on the project and “mothballed” it saying: “It was uneconomic to continue.”
In doing so, their spokesman said: “The investment needed no longer matches economic reality. The economics don’t stand up. It’s just a very, very difficult market for wind development at this time.”
In light of this, UK, European and US experience, I find it hard to believe that the minister has not been aware of all this information. By not revealing it to the States and dealing with it effectively, he is guilty of misleading by omission.
I know he has been extremely busy trying to rewrite another attempt at putting together a sensible and rational plan to stop people cutting down mature trees, and while I realise the importance of this work, if he decides to make a public statement on the record in the States about a matter so serious to all the people of the Island with such far-reaching consequences that will affect the future of our energy supplies, he really should put all the facts before the people.
And a warning to States Members that they should be very wary about approving a proposition “in principle”, which is what they are being asked to do.
Most of us who have been there understand the dangers of that and I’m sure experienced Members will not approve such an “in principle” decision. If the States agree in principle to “creating a wind farm” without knowing exactly where it will be located, what exactly it will achieve, who will own it, how will it be financed, what will be the future of the JEC and so on, all of which will only be given later, they are on dangerous ground.
Experience has found that when it does come up later, the States will be stuck with the fact that they previously approved it “in principle” and they can’t now start questioning the detail.
Experienced Members know of this trap and won’t fall for it as it has been tried many times before. The only proposition that should be put to the States on this issue is one when all the facts and all the consultations have taken place and there is a proper detailed proposition that deals with all the issues.
Since my article last month on this subject, I have received a fully researched paper headed: The Six Ways Renewables Increase Electricity Bills, which is a detailed analysis of wind farms around the world and how they cannot provide sustainable and economically viable electricity.
I won’t send a copy of it to the minister as he has already made up his mind to support wind farms and wouldn’t read it, but if any other States Members would like to get the real facts about wind farms I will be happy to send them a copy.
The report concludes that “investing in wind farms leads to the prospect, not so much of a car crash, but a pile-up in the fog of ignorance.”
•Ted Vibert can be contacted at tedvibertt@gmail.com