Well done Cambridge. :) Keep vigilant tho for 2006...Oxford University switched back in 2002, and now is talking about switching back to fossil fuels. The campaign has to be defended - mostly through letting students know what is going on.

Matt

P.S. Don't worry tho, Oxford will switch away from green electricity over my dead body...:)

A few facts on so called "Green electricity" seem appropriate. Your readers may be interested in findings from other countries that have invested heavily in onshore wind farms. In Denmark, the construction of over 5000 wind turbines (that is 1 per 1000 population - UK equivalent 60 000 turbines) has not prevented carbon emissions from rising in that country. The Danish electricity generator ELSAM has now acknowledged that building wind turbines can not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
In Germany, now the world leader in wind energy (over 14000 MW installed capacity), the grid operator Eon-NETZ has found that its wind turbines required a level of back up from conventional "fossil fuel burning" power stations that exceeded total wind turbine power output. No closure of conventional power stations was possible. Effects on reducing global warming = nil.
Notwithstanding claims that wind turbines do not harm birds, the flagship journal of the wind industry "Wind Power Monthly" described a Spanish windfarm as "wreaking havoc with the natural order of raptor life on two continents" The same journal also recently reported on unexpected and serious kills of bats by wind turbines. Wind farms construction has also been associated with the complete destruction of peat bogs, which are important carbon sinks.
Wind farms are estimated to require between 25-50 billion pounds of public subsidy over the next 25 years based on present levels of support. Not surprisingly the energy regulator OFGEM has described this as "stupid and misguided" The resulting increases in utility prices will fall regressively on the poorest in society. Personally, I would rather see this level of funding used to support higher education, and remove the need for "top up fees", rather than contributing to the fat cat salaries enjoyed by many involved in "green electricity"

Good on y'all getting big institutions/companies to buy green electricity.

I don't know if you knew about the differences, as far as I understand, between green electricity bought from Good Energy (previously Unit-e), and other leccy companies. If you buy your electricity on a green tarriff from most power companies, you are not encouraging them to invest in sustainable power - they have a target set by central government to get 10% of their supply sustainably. When you buy from them, you are helping them fulfill their legal obligation. They will still support and invest in electricity that is killing us and the planet. Good Energy gets 100% sustainable electricity, way above any legislated target, and they reinvest and support small-scale green leccy providers. There's another 100% company who's name I've forgotten, who include incineration (which is baaad) in their 100% 'green' generation.

So not only campaign to keep 'em green, but get 'em properly green, with Good Energy (sounds like a cheesy ad!).

As for the anti-green leccy comments above, I'm not knowledgeable enough (nor have time to research it) to come back with a whole different set of quotes and figures that prove exactly the opposite point to her/his views, but it would be possible.

Suffice it to say that s/he worries about wind farms wreking havoc with birds, peat bogs, and that it'll hit the poorest in society. WELL. Burning fossil fuels is killing the planet and everything on it TOO FAST - there ain't no birds, bogs, poor or top-up fees on a dead planet. If you think the alternative is to go on as we are, burn more fossil fuels/nuclear, study the UN Panel on Climate Change's findings from 2,000 world scientists about climate change. Nor are there fat cat salaries in 'the green electricty industry', but sounds like there's chips and shoulders.

A. Gearanach states:

"Eon-NETZ has found that its wind turbines required a level of back up from conventional "fossil fuel burning" power stations that exceeded total wind turbine power output."

Essentially all this means is that over 50% of German electricity comes from non-wind sources. Correct me if I am wrong, but that "14000 MW" generated by wind, was 14000 MW that did not have to be generated by other methods. So what that no coal fired stations could be closed? No new ones had to be opened to meet the 14000 MW demand that was filled by the wind generation. Demand rises and, at the moment, wind farms are only being built to meet demand because why would a profitable coal (or other dino-fuel) station close down just because some other geezer build some wind turbines.

What we need is more consumer pressure on companies that commit to wind power ( http://www.good-energy.co.uk/ et al) which will cause more wind turbines to be built, forcing the old dino-stations out of the market. So currently it is correct to say that building wind turbines is not reducing polution. It is however reducing the increase in polution, and with sufficient comsumer pressure could actually reduce polution in the long run.

Remeber kids - 90% of statistics are bullshit, especially when they come from the nuclear (and hence weapons) lobby's bullshit attempts to discredit the most environmentally friendly and decentralised, electricity generation techniques available!

Escuse me while I go back to installing a wind turbine on my garden shed...