The Matt Ridley prize for exposing environmental pseudoscience was inspired by Matt’s discovery that a Ridley family trust was making money from a wind farm company. All too often, hysterical groupthink, based on bad science, creates a climate in which politicians intone ‘something must be done’ and throw millions at pointless schemes. So the Ridley prize is awarded each year to the essay that best exposes the pseudoscience behind the government’s pet eco-projects.
Examples of pseudoscience include, says Matt, ‘the idea that wind power is good for the climate, or that biofuels are good for the rain forest or that organic farming is good for the planet or that climate change is a bigger extinction threat than invasive species’.
It was awarded for the first time last year to Pippa Cuckson who wrote about the environmental damage caused by hydroelectric power.
This year’s prize is for £5,000, reflecting the post-tax sum Matt’s trust receives. The prize is for an essay of 1,000 to 2,000 words and is open to writers of any age and residents of any country. Essays that have previously been published elsewhere can be submitted. The competition closes this year on 25 August.
Entries should be sent to: ridleyprize@spectator.co.uk
If they will award a prize for condemning hydroelectric power per se, I want nothing to do with their contest.
remember this is a prize for pseudoscience – so giving a reward means that the article is bad not good.
Janice Moore
I do not think that hydro electric was condemned per se.
having worked for the Environment Agency for some years we saw a lot of half baked schemes that were little more than token green gestures by a landowner who had no idea of the environmental problems that would be caused in order that he could have his tiny bit of green power.
The author identifies the problems with many-but not all- hydro electric schemes in the UK, a small crowded country where someones green actions are likely to impact on the historic rights of others.
tonyb
Is the prize for a fatuous essay already in existence? Or is it for a newly written fatuous essay? Or is it for an essay that exposes the fatuity of an essay already in existence? The object of the competition is unclear to me.
RE: “Matt’s discovery that a Ridley family trust was making money from a wind farm company…”
What…they shorted it?
First, GOOD FOR RIDLEY TO ABANDON INHERENTLY CRUEL AND GROSSLY INEFFICIENT WINDMILLS.
*****************************
Tony B (or anyone who could tell me),
I read the entire essay. I could find no hydropower that the author did not condemn. What hydropower would the author approve of?
In view of what I know of the many excellently run, salmon-friendly, hydropower operations here in Washington State, U.S.A., the author’s article is actually a parody of the apparent goal of the contest. She uses junk science to make her point! Salmon make it up the fish ladders by the hydropower dams here just fine.
Good for her to condemn POORLY DESIGNED, poorly run, hydropower. The author did a poor job, however, of distinguishing badly done hydropower from properly run hydropower, if that was, indeed, her intention. It may be she merely did a poor job at researching her topic.
The Ridley contest awarded a prize for an essay that, in part, used junk science to condemn without qualification (that I could find) hydroelectric power per se. Thus, I can only conclude at this point that it is a junk contest.
Janice
Who is the judge? Matt?
Janice
The author is writing about the British experience. Ours is a small overcrowded country where fiddling about with the flow of water is likely to have a serious effect on someone’s rights down river, be it a fishing club, boating, a restriction of flow dropping the water quality etc.
I can not think of a single example in MY country (not yours) where a hydro electric scheme would not have severe repercussions.
Less so in Scotland and Wales but In England there is very little scope for schemes that will produce worthwhile amounts of electricity without harming something.
Please bear in mind that England is the same size as New York state and has some 55 million people with jealously guarded water rights, including navigation, that go back 1000 years
tony
Tony,
Thanks for answering me. Much appreciated.
The author used the phrase “within our small island” [that would include, of course, Scotland and Wales]. She does not say, nevertheless, that her arguments are addressed only to the unique situation of England. That you are having to explain and defend her essay to this extent proves, to me, that it was poorly written.
You are a better writer than she by far. Enter the contest!
Thank you for taking the time to explain.
Janice
Janice Moore,
My reactions were initially similar to yours, and I also don’t consider the essay to be a particularly good one. The author missed one good example in the UK. There is, in fact, a large hydroelectric scheme built almost entirely inside a Welsh mountain (Dinorwig), and reputed to be the largest man-made hole in Europe during construction. It was built primarily to iron out the peaks and troughs of the daily demand-cycle on the national grid by pumping water uphill to a mountain lake during off-peak hours, and releasing back down it to generate power during peak demands or sudden failures of other supplies.
It was certainly expensive, but there was only one big state-owned monopoly supplier in those days, and they were in a position to plan a long way into the future. In retrospect, they did a pretty good job too, but were always buffeted about by changes of government plans and bleating about nuclear power from Greenpeace etc.
Be that as it may, The Spectator is not an academic science/engineering journal, but rather more of a political/current affairs magazine. I understand the invitation to mean writing about some nonsense that the contributor is aware of and has strong opinions about.
Self indulgent? Maybe. But there’s also no shortage of topics to choose from IMO.
In the end any form of energy generation will affect the environment in some way.
You can do two things:
Generate energy in the most (economically) efficient and environmental friendly way.
Don’t generate energy.
Instead of the essay contest, let’s just get rid of the politicians ? 🙂
She is talking about baby hydro schemes – one of those she discussed generated 2/3 of the power supply of a single supermarket. Schemes of this size are fruitloopery. Hydro has a very large impact on the environment – not so much damaging as transforming it -what was rapids becomes a lake – a volcano or earthquake could do as much. A few big schemes to generate a large amount of power is a very reasonable choice to make. Hundreds of piddling little ones is insane.
The efficiency of hydro depends on the size of the vertical drop. It sounds like the schemes she is discussing have minimal vertical drop on the order of what you’d see on a standard lock or weir in flat country. No wonder the amount of power they generate is so piddling.
Hydro is a great sustainable source of power. But only if you do it on a large scale in places where there is a decent amount of height to play with. Put in a dam way up in the mountains and create a large lake to capture 2/3 of the natural flow. Dig a massive tunnel through a mountain, drop it a thousand metres into another catchment and stick a powerhouse and some turbines at the end. NOW you are talking a decent amount of power – enough to justify a rearrangement of the landscape.
Michael Hart,
Thank you, so much, for your understanding and for your insightful and informed reply to my question. You make good points. Your kind attention is much appreciated.
Janice
Thanks for all that WELL-written, helpful, information, Ian.
You and Michael and Tony should all enter the contest!
Janice – I know all too much about some of those “salmon” friendly projects. Know why they often put fish hatcheries below large dams? I agree hydro is a good source of power, but Grand Coulee killed one of the best salmon runs in the world. The proposed Site C dam in BC north of you will wipe out thousands upon thousands of hectares of wildlife habitat and will displace thousands of moose, elk, deer, ad infinitum. Even the proponents agree with the significant damage but say the “benefits” outweigh the “costs”. I have worked on, and around, and studied hydro projects for over 50 years. That doesn’t make me an expert, but if it weren’t for the public, BC Hydro would have damed the Fraser River, the last remaining great salmon river we have. So, even though I can support hydro power, I also understand there is huge impacts including significant alteration of the microclimate – more precipitation, more snowfall, higher temperatures in a large area around the impoundment, and typically, dams flood some of the best agricultural land. Back in the late 60’s when the High Arrow dam was built in BC on the Columbia River with flood control money from the US, the local ski hill in Rossland, BC, suddenly started getting nightly snow falls of 4 to 6 inches of the most beautiful light powder you could imagine. As a skier, I loved it, but there were other impacts like no more freshets, and issues with the downstream trout fishery and lack of flushing. Law of unintended consequences. Oh – and BC doesn’t call a dam a “dam” but a “Clean Energy Project”. Having worked on a few, they really aren’t that clean. But relatively speaking, maybe.
http://y2y.net/our-work/campaign-news/site-c-campaign
https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/projects/site_c/document_centre/stage_3_reports.html
There used to be a site that had some very interesting comments from the public and interest groups. It was incredibly interesting but it has been disappeared – now get a “Not Found” error on the site.
I am neither for or against hydro power, just fair evaluations of the alternatives.
Hey, Wayne Delbeke, a warm and friendly “Hello” to you, up there. Thank you for sharing. Always good to bear in mind the big picture. Do you ever ski at the Mt. Baker ski area? Best snowboarding snow in the world! (I suppose skiiers prefer less moisture in their snow, eh?)
******************
Dear Tony B,
Now that my feathers have smoothed down again, I must say that I do think, given England’s magnificent, world-wide, reputation for, among other things, stellar scientific accomplishments, the finest literature in the world, and unflinchingly courageous valour in battle, you must at least find it pardonable that some of us forget to bear in mind just how quickly one can fly from one side of England to the other. #[:)]
Your American friend,
Janice
Part of me is tempted to expose the conspiracy and pseudoscience behind the Destroilet.
The essay is really a critique of the crony socialism (aka crony capitalism) indulged in by opaque and largely unaccountable quasi governmental bodies in the name of environmentalism.
I didn’t think it was that good, and more facts would have helped. This bit had me scratching my head.
At Gunthorpe, most of the river’s flow will be directed through the turbines, slowing it from 45 cubic metres per second to under 12 at the exit. This is slower than the worst flow recorded here in the famously dry summer of 1976.
I assume she means reducing rather than slowing, but where does the other 33 CM/sec go?
Janice: Yes indeed I have skied Mount Baker. Two friends and I skied had a top 10 day there in the late 60’s during a blizzard. I think there were only a half dozen or so of us on the hill (lots in the lodge). We skied the lift line all day long in knee deep powder and never saw our own tracks. I actually have some old super 8 movies of that day that I recently converted to digital. My cousin from Everett also skis there regularly. Have a great day, looking forward to another great ‘ski’ season (too old to board). The last few years have been phenomenal. All the best.
There is no question hydroelectricity causes environmental damage, but all development does.
If you were to compare the area damaged by hydroelectric schemes with the area damaged by growing biofuels on a per unit of energy produced basis, hydroelectricity would cause far less damage.
P.B.: “… where does the other 33 CM/sec go?”
J.M.: LOL. It’s the giant inside pedaling away to create all that power. He gets mighty thirsty.
***********
Keep on skiing, Wayne Delbeke!
“I didn’t think it was that good, and more facts would have helped. This bit had me scratching my head.
At Gunthorpe, most of the river’s flow will be directed through the turbines, slowing it from 45 cubic metres per second to under 12 at the exit. This is slower than the worst flow recorded here in the famously dry summer of 1976.
I assume she means reducing rather than slowing, but where does the other 33 CM/sec go?”
After filling up the reservoir, there should be no reduction or slowing of the water flow when averaged over a natural cycle.
Surely the most recent Mann presentation with the chart to the stars has to win…but the money should go to the debunkers. No point in encouraging the scoundrels.
The comming IPCC report?
“At Gunthorpe, most of the river’s flow will be directed through the turbines, slowing it from 45 cubic metres per second to under 12 at the exit. This is slower than the worst flow recorded here in the famously dry summer of 1976.
I assume she means reducing rather than slowing, but where does the other 33 CM/sec go?
To get the turbine running you need higher water pressure on the correct side of it’s blades? Maybee that is what she is trying to explain?