Fifty five years ago, on this day, April 22nd, 1971,
UTILIZATION OF SOLAR ENERGY-PROGRESS REPORT FARRINGTON DANIELS
Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin: “Fifth, a whole new emphasis on the use of solar energy comes now from the widespread concern over pollution of our environment. Solar devices produce no pollution-chemical, radioactive, nor overall thermal-and under some circumstances could replace some of our power generators which now do produce pollutant carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, radioactivity and excessive waste heat.”
(Read April 22, 1971) Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 115, No. 6 (Dec. 30, 1971), pp. 490-501
Published by: American Philosophical Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/985842
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the solar lobby had been talking about carbon dioxide for a while!
The specific context was that everyone was running around talking about energy supplies – and this is BEFORE the oil shock.
What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 60s, early 70s, solar energy proponents were pointing to carbon dioxide build up as a reason for advancing solar development as quickly as possible. It wasn’t always or ever their first argument, but it was in the mix.
What happened next: The environmentalists got contained, exhausted, and then the Oil Shock came and delivered the coup de grace.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
UK Introduced on 1 April 2002, the Renewables Obligation requires all electricity suppliers who supply electricity to end consumers to supply a set portion of their electricity from eligible renewables sources; a proportion that will increase each year until 2015 from a 3% requirement in 2002–2003, via 10.4% in 2010-2012 up to 15.4% by 2015–2016.
and
2002 MRET in Australia 1st Mandatory Renewable Energy Target established (following speech by Howard just before Kyoto)
The 2% to 0% target shenanigans – see Kent and Mercer 2006…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that from the 1970s scientists had been saying that continuing to burn coal (and gas and oil) for energy was going to lead to really bad outcomes and that therefore nuclear and renewables needed to be prioritised.
The specific context was that in the UK the Blair government was continuing to bank the emissions reductions from the “dash for gas” and do pretty much as little as possible on climate change. In Australia John Howard (Liberal Prime Minister) had slow-walked his 1997 (pre-Kyoto) promise of a renewables target.
What I think we can learn from this is that our political leaders don’t lead in any meaningful sense – they do what is convenient to their donors in the short term (next three years or so).
What happened next: Renewables continued to get not that much support in the UK – though that changed a bit in the 2010s – or rather, offshore wind took off. Howard continued to resist all growth in renewables as much as he could.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Who are you – where did you grow up, what contact did you have with ‘nature’? (There’s good evidence to suggest that the main determinant of people getting properly switched on to environmental issues is unstructured play with minimal supervision in nature before age 11)
Hello! I’m Marianna Dudley, I’m an environmental historian. I started life in Brazil, spent some early years in Sweden, did most of my growing up in Cornwall, and now live in Bristol. I had a lot of contact with nature as a child: my uncle and aunt had a farm, and I spent a lot of time there watching lambs being born, running around the yard, annoying the sheepdogs, and poking around the pond. If not there, we’d be at the beach. Cornish beaches are unbeatable and I’m definitely happiest bobbing in the Atlantic just offshore of one.
2) A little about your academic background – undergrad what where why, ditto for masters and PhD
Like many History undergraduates, I opted for History because it was infinitely interesting and I didn’t have a career plan. I went to Warwick, because the department had a great reputation and I liked its image as an egalitarian, modern university (unaware at that point that EP Thompson had long ago seen the direction of travel to Warwick University Limited!); in my final year I happened to attend a guest lecture by David Nye, the American historian of energy, technology, and environment. It proved pivotal, introducing me to environmental history, which connected my love of nature and my academic interests. I looked for where I could study it further, which led me to Professor Peter Coates at the University of Bristol. During my Masters, Peter and Tim Cole received funding for a project researching Militarized Landscapes. I joined as PhD student, with Peter and Tim as my supervisors, and Chris Pearson (now at Liverpool) as postdoc showing me the ropes. It was a dream team! I loved the research and writing, and published my PhD thesis as a book shortly after I finished – An Environmental History of the UK Defence Estate, 1945 to the present.
3) In a nutshell (sorry!) what does your book argue, and where did it “come from” – what gaps in the previous understandings was it filling, what ‘myths’ is it overthrowing, or at the least complicating?
Electric Wind: An Energy History of Britain is the first academic history of British wind power, so it fills a substantial gap. It argues that the history of wind energy goes back much further than the modern wind farm, and is more diverse than you might expect. Wind energy has developed alongside, not counter to, other energy systems such as coal, oil, gas, and nuclear, and this has important implications today as we plan for a decarbonised energy system. It also argues that wind energy’s development has been contingent on national and international politics; and that particular ideas and ideologies shaped state and industry involvement. I want the book to show that attention to energy history can enliven current discussions of eg. net zero, which can be repetitive and fail to explore the potential to rethink energy systems along more equitable lines. I also hope it stands as a contribution to modern British history, as it argues that the rise of wind energy is a history of the nation as understood politically, socially, culturally and environmentally. These elements are just as important as the technology, so I am keen to ‘complicate’ top-down technocratic accounts!
4) What were your favourite and least favourite bits of the process? (Are you, like me, an archive monkey?)
I loved the research process for this book, partly because I thought about it for a long time in terms of an energy journey around Britain. It took me to some fascinating places. Like most historians, I love visiting archives, particularly local/regional archives – which I used a lot for this research. But I’m a true environmental historian in that I love field work too – pairing the document record with the landscape, reading the history and getting to know the place as two dimensions of the same inquiry. These are the two sides of historical research for me – the archive and the field. I loved exploring Orkney and the Outer Hebrides in this way for the book; I have a strong memory of driving around Lewis and Harris in a tiny hire car, stopping for roadside scallop baps (!) and swims at perfect sandy beaches en route to interviews with energy activists.
As for my least favourite bits of the process? It was frustrating at times to realise how little industry interest there seemingly was in the history of wind energy. It is, and has always been, a relentlessly forward-looking sector, and I hope this book will show why wind energy’s past is not only worth exploring, but also incredibly useful for shaking up how we think about energy, how it’s produced and who it is for.
5) Who should read it (well, obviously, everyone should) and why? How would it help us make sense of our current and near future dilemmas/trilemmas/quadlemmas?
I wrote this book for anyone with an interest in nature, climate change, landscape, and infrastructure! I try throughout the book to connect global issues of energy and climate with energy as it is experienced on the ground and in everyday life. There can be debilitating overwhelm when it comes to climate action, so I want the stories of communities who effected real change throughout the book to offer narratives of hope and determination. I’d love to get the book on the radar of politicians and policy-makers as it shows how much sustained, socially-engaged policy can achieve – the achievements of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in the post-Second World War period are a brilliant example of progressive infrastructural planning with social good at its heart. I was excited when Labour announced the GB Energy plans, but so far it hasn’t lived up to the hype. Does anyone have Ed Miliband’s address? I’d like to send him a copy! Apparently it has already been recommended to the Parliamentary Knowledge Foundation library, so that’s a great start.
6) What next for you? What’s the next project?
Electric Wind was the work of many years of research, so I’m wary of jumping straight into the next big project. I’m continuing to think about energy, particularly its cultural dimensions; and am interested in unpicking the different threads which fed into the emergent green political movement in Britain in the 1970s. So we’ll see where that takes me!
7) Anything else you’d like to say?
Thanks for the opportunity to tell you more about the book. As well as writing about energy and environment, I spend a lot of my time teaching it. I direct the MA Environmental Humanities programme at the University of Bristol, and am constantly amazed by the breadth of interests and experience that our students bring to the classroom. Join us! https://www.bristol.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/taught/ma-environmental-humanities/
“No bids were received by offshore wind developers due to what companies said were unrealistically low prices.
Afterwards, wind farm manufacturers said they held positive discussions with Claire Coutinho, the new Energy Security Secretary, but were left bewildered days later by a meeting with Graham Stuart, the Net Zero Minister, who appeared to play down the auction results.
His comments during a meeting on Tuesday [12 September 2023] left some attendees unsure whether the Government was committed to addressing the issues in next year’s auction, multiple sources said.
Oliver, M. 2023. “Industry on hold after auction flop spooks developers. Sunday Telegraph, September 17”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 376ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that offshore wind was the accidental success story of UK renewable energy policy. There was a de facto ban on on-shore wind, thanks to the government of David “cut the green crap” Cameron, so offshore began to look attractive….
The specific context was that by this time two years ago (god it feels like forever) the Sunak government had decided that pissing on the environment might be a vote winner.
What I think we can learn from this is that we are stumbling into some very nasty situations. With our eyes open. Oh well.
What happened next
There’s another auction – with results due in December or so (everything’s delayed at present).
Here’s Reform’s Richard Tice on the latest auction
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
The same month, the Treasurer Peter Costello stated in a doorstop interview, ‘Well if you are asking me my view on wind farms, I think they are ugly, I wouldn’t want one in my street, I wouldn’t want one in my own back yard’
(Prest, 2007: 254)
Peter Costello, Press Conference 26 July 2006
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that hostility to renewable energy has a long history in Australia, dating back to the 1970s. Coal was king, and intended to stay that way.
What I think we can learn from this is that old white conservative men with brittle fragile egos and limited understanding of – well – everything – have delayed the “energy transition” to the point where it is impossible and everything is turning to very hot shit. Oh well.
What happened next – Costello didn’t “have the ticker” to challenge Howard for the top job. Renewables got some help under Labor of Rudd and Gillard, but nowhere near what was needed to push emissions down.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, June 24th, 2010 Australian renewable energy target was tweaked to differentiate between large and small scale.
To promote large scale renewable generators, on 24 June 2010, there was an amendment to the RET by differentiating between large scale renewable energy target (LRET) such as wind farms, solar plants and geothermal facilities; and also small scale renewable energy target (SRET) such as solar panels and solar hot water systems.
Effendi and Courvisanos 2012 p 247
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the resistance to renewables under Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007) had given way to Labor “all of the above” ness.
What I think we can learn from this – is that our technocratic lords and masters are not nearly as smart as they think.
What happened next – renewables took a hit again under various Liberal administrations (2013-2022). While things are moving forward, well, once you’re behind the curve, good luck catching up…
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs
Sun Day is a day of action on September 21, 2025, celebrating solar and wind power, and the movement to leave fossil fuels behind.
Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power on the planet – and gives us a chance to actually do something about the climate crisis. But fossil fuel billionaires are doing everything they can to shut it down.
We will build, rally, sing, and come together in the communities that we need to get laws changed and work done.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there were fierce debates within America about what “paths” should be taken, nuclear, coal, solar, etc. And this is just a cracking cartoon that does a really useful piece of work in explaining what’s going on.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Ten years ago, on this day, January 22nd, 2015, a very good reporter broke an important (and largely ignored) story about industry associations.,
Fossil fuel companies have taken up majority positions in key renewables trade groups steering them towards a pro-gas stance that influenced Europe’s 2030 clean energy targets, industry insiders claim
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the EU policymaking process was grinding on. And the big fossil fuel companies were thinking about ways to make sure that EU policy got nudged in directions that would make them richer.
If renewable energy might cut your profit margins, there’s one obvious thing to do, which is to make sure that renewables advocates are not as powerful as they otherwise might be. And one fairly painless way of doing that, rather than picking a fight in public (which has costs both financial and reputational) is simply to make sure that the trade associations that might push renewables are, if not absolutely captured, then at least partially so, with at least one hand tied behind their back.
Basically,the fox wants to be inside the hen house.
What I think we can learn from this is that this tactic of capturing the opposition is quite normal. It happened in Australia (see Paddy Manning on what was happening in 2009)
Manning, P. (2009). The fox in the hot house. Sydney Morning Herald, 15 August.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Twenty-two years ago, on this day, December 28th, 2002
RENEWABLE Energy Generators of Australia Limited has dismissed as flawed a recent government report, saying it would lead to the abandonment of renewable energy developments
Hobart Mercury (2002) Report on renewable energy `flawed’. 28th December
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in 1997, John Howard had – in the run up to the Kyoto COP – promised a 2% renewable energy target for Australia. He had slowed that process down as much as humanly possible. In the end, a Mandatory Renewable Energy Target had come in, in April of 2001. And started working. And then of course, another Howard acolyte launched a review that threw the whole thing into doubt. And here we have small trade association trying to point this out, getting a hearing and that leads to Hobart Mercury, and maybe elsewhere. Possibly of interest to Hobart, in Tasmania, because that’s just at this point Vestas must have been deep in the planning of starting its factory.
What we learn is that trade associations for new sectors struggle, because they don’t have many member companies. And those companies tend to be small and poor. And incumbents have better lobbyists, better connections, and it can be a real uphill battle. And often these little trade associations fall apart under lack of money and lack of personnel and all the rest of it.
What happened next
Howard successfully made life so hellish for renewables that his preferred options – coal, LNG – dominated throughout his reign. (Vestas pulling the plug in 2005 etc etc)
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
