Confusion from the Telegraph about renewables displacing carbon dioxide north of the border
When the renewables industry publicises a government calculations appearing to show that Scottish renewables displace more than eight million tonnes of carbon dioxide, how should a media organisation react? For the Daily Telegraph, the answer is to lambast the figure as “astonishing” and “incredible” and reference an apparently lower figure – of five million tonnes – from the Renewable Energy Foundation. But actually, the alternative figure the Telegraph cites as being from REF is an estimate of the carbon dioxide displaced only by renewables that receive subsidies – and so lower for that reason.
The story starts when trade body Scottish Renewables put out a press release claiming that Scottish renewables displaced 8.36 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions last year. The figure – calculated by comparing the total amount of electricity generated by Scottish renewable projects in 2011 with an estimate of carbon dioxide emissions if the same amount of electricity was supplied by fossil fuels – was sourced to an answer to a parliamentary question.
Here’s the chart the government supplied:
Image - Screen Shot 2012-10-25 At 11.53.26 (note)
Media coverage
The BBC wrote the story up, with quotes from both supportive and opposing voices. The Telegraph reported on it twice.
In the Telegraph’s first article, Scottish editor Alan Cochrane argues that ” it’s time for Alex Salmond and company to start taking the arguments against wind farms seriously”. Cochrane says that one of the reasons Alex Salmond should stop being so supportive of wind power is:
“…the claim, which we’re told was based on a parliamentary answer, that electricity generated through renewable energy projects has displaced over 8 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This astonishing figure was published by Scottish Renewables, the umbrella group that promotes wind power.”
Cochrane argues:
“…what the lobby group doesn’t tell us is that this incredible figure, which is contested by other experts, includes electricity produced by means other than by wind power – by hydro schemes, for instance.”
Scottish Renewables’s press release is headlined “Scottish renewables industry displaces more than eight million tonnes of CO2” and in the text it refers to “technologies such as wind and hydro”. So Cochrane’s sort-of-implication that the lobby group says all the savings are from wind power isn’t true.
REF’s figures
We’re not told who the “other experts” Cochrane cites are. But a clue may lie in another article printed in the Scottish edition of the Telegraph. The article, under the headline “Experts question renewable energy claims”, is by the Telegraph’s Scottish editor Auslan Cramb.
The article – which is not online – starts:
“A claim that electricity generated through renewable energy projects displaced over 8 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in Scotland last year was questioned yesterday by a group that promotes sustainable development.”
“…the Renewable Energy Foundation calculated that around 5 million tons of CO2 would have been displaced last year by renewables, such as wind and wave power, which receive subsidies north of the Border.”
The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) is a thinktank known mainly for its anti-wind stance – and it presumably represents “other experts” in this context.
UPDATED: Although we tried and failed to contact REF before this was published, its researchers subsequently got in touch with more detail on the 5 million figure. (See below.) What they explained is that the 5 million figure referred to something different – the amount of carbon dioxide displaced by only the renewables in Scotland which receive subsidies. This wasn’t particularly clear in the Scottish Telegraph article, which implied that the 5 million figure was a counter to the larger 8 million figure, which considered all renewables, subsidised and unsubsidised. In particular, the wording of the sentence quoted above is ambiguous, and particularly unhelpful. Given that this has ended up being quite complicated to unpack, I have put this note in, in place of our earlier attempts to unravel the figure, and updated the blog post to make it accurate – Ed.
A representative from Scottish Renewables told us that unlike its sister organisation Renewable UK, Scottish Renewables does have a mandate to cover hydroelectric power. And even if it didn’t, that wouldn’t make any difference to the UK government figures being reported. A spokesperson told us:
“The DECC figures refer to the CO 2 displaced by all types of renewable energy projects, and not just wind power. Scottish Renewables’ membership encompasses a wide-range of renewable energy sources, from newer technologies like wave and tidal energy, to technologies that have been around in Scotland for some years, like wind, and sources of power that have been around for decades such as hydro.”
Displacement?
It is worth commenting on the assumptions embedded in the government calculation itself. Questions about whether the need for back up from fossil fuel power stations reduces emissions savings from renewables don’t seem to apply here, as we’re talking about the actual amount of electricity renewables generate.
But the assumption that renewables will automatically ‘displace’ fossil fuels don’t necessarily hold water. The Scottish government has trumpeted its aim of meeting an equivalent of 100% of electricity from renewable energy by 2020. As we’ve discussed before, however, it also aims to ramp up production of fossil fuels – so in practice it would be producing more energy than it needs and exporting more. The calculation about exactly what impact renewables will have on emissions levels looks a bit more complicated if Scotland can export more electricity from fossil fuel power stations to the rest of the UK.
That issue aside, the Telegraph’s presentation of this issue probably says more about its editorial position than the credibility of the figures.
UPDATE 26th October
REF has now sent us a copy of its communication with journalist Auslan Cramb, which has clarified matters somewhat. It appears that REF’s calculation was based on the amount of carbon dioxide displaced by only those Scottish renewables receiving subsidies under the Renewables Obligation (RO).
The REF representative said in his email to Cramb that large scale hydro plant constructed before 1990 and some incinerated waste are excluded from the RO and that this could account for the difference between REF’s calculations and the government’s. The government’s calculation – contained within the answer to the parliamentary question – was based on the amount of electricity produced by all renewables, subsidised and unsubsidised.
The REF representative also suggests that the government’s estimate that renewables have displaced 8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide is based on the assumption that renewables displace fossil fuel power stations only, leaving nuclear out of the calculation. Nuclear is categorised as zero-carbon so assuming that renewables displace nuclear as well as fossil fuels will lessen the emissions saved.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) – which produced the government figures – tells us that it based its calculation on the “known fossil fuel mix for UK in 2011” ( Table 5A, p.124) – so REF’s assumption is right – nuclear has been left out of the calculation.
This does raise rather complicated questions about how the grid mix works, however. Gas and coal are known to be more flexible power sources – in others words easier to turn on and off – than nuclear. This could mean that renewables are more likely to displace gas and coal than nuclear. But we haven’t looked at this in detail.