Wave Power Delivers Electricity to US Grid For First Time

by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 09.28.10
Science & Technology (alternative energy)

photo: Ocean Power Technologies

While wave power often seems like the poor cousin of the renewable energy world, and frankly doesn't have the practical potential of wind or solar power, tapping the power of the sea does have its place and this next one is worth a bit of hand clapping: One of Ocean Power Technologies' PowerBuoys can claim to be the first wave power device to deliver electricity to the US grid.

As Renewable Energy World reports:


OPT's PB40 PowerBuoy was hooked up to the grid at the Marine Corps Base Hawaii as part of the firm's program with the US Navy to test wave energy technology. The connection demonstrates the device's ability to produce utility-grade renewable energy that can be transmitted to the grid according to international and national standards, says the firm.

The PowerBuoy was deployed three-quarters of a mile off the coast of Oahu last year and has produced power for more than 4,400 hours of operation. As for environmental impact, independent evaluation has found the PowerBuoy to have no significant impact. All good news, if a small step forward.


If you're unfamiliar with how the OPT's PowerBuoy's work, this passage from 2008 here on TreeHugger will fill in some of the knowledge gap:


While most tidal power uses a underwater mounted turbine of some sort the Power Buoy relies instead on the rising and falling of the waves to generate power. Power is transmitted to the shore via underwater cable. OPT says that the a 10 MW power station using this technology would occupy 12.5 hectares of ocean. Theoretically the technology is scalable to 100 MW power stations, according to OPT's website.

Royal Society's climate change guide cuts confusion out of the hard science

UK's 'definitive voice of science' hopes guide will counter confusion and bogus claims about man-made global warming
Duncan Clark guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 September 2010 00.01 BST

The Royal Society, the UK's leading scientific establishment, today publishes its own layman's guide to the science of climate change, in the hope of countering the confusion and inaccurate claims that continue to surround the topic.

The new guide – Climate Change: A Summary of the Science – seeks to cut through the confusion by summarising the degree of consensus and depth of understanding surrounding different aspects of the science of global warming caused by human activity.

The report, written by a panel of prominent scientists and chaired by Professor John Pethica, Royal Society vice president, breaks down the subject into three sections: aspects on which there is "wide agreement", "a wide consensus but continuing debate and discussion" and those which are "not well understood".

The document entirely supports the mainstream scientific view of man-made climate change as summarised by the UN's climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In previous years, the Royal Society has lent its weight to joint communiqués on climate change issued by leading science academies around the world, and these have even extended to making policy suggestions, such as calling on world leaders to agree emission reductions at the climate change summit held in Copenhagen in December.

The Royal Society's new report, by contrast, limits itself entirely to the physical science of climate change, and it is careful to lay out every qualification and uncertainty. But Pethica stresses that this approach does not signify an acceptance of criticisms that scientists had overstated their case in the past. "If the report sounds cautious, that's because the IPCC is cautious … There is no change in the science."

Solitaire Townsend, the communication specialist in sustainable development, said: "The Royal Society has for hundreds of years been the definitive voice of science – and unlike the IPCC it is not a politically appointed body. The new guide should have a strong impact on the UK, where policymakers, business leaders and others do pay attention to Royal Society briefings. However, it's less likely to change views in China, America and elsewhere."

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute, described the new guide as "excellent" and "an authoritative summary of the current state of knowledge". However, he stressed concern that two of the Royal Society fellows listed as contributors to the early stages of the report are also involved with Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation, which, Ward claims, "campaigns against climate researchers and promotes inaccurate and misleading information about climate change".

Although public concern about the impacts of global warming remains high in the UK, several polls taken in the past year have suggested a rise in number of people who are uncertain or sceptical about the scientific basis of man-made global warming.

This shift in opinion could be related to a range of factors, including the very cold winter, the Climategate affair involving leaked emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia, and one well-publicised error in the most recent scientific assessment by the IPCC.

Free solar panels may not be the bargain that they appear to be

Energy companies' offer of free solar panel systems may sound attractive but consumers could save thousands of pounds even if they took a loan to buy their own kit

Rebecca Smithers guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 September 2010 07.00 BST

The rash of free solar panel offers being promoted to householders aren't quite the financial bargain they first appear to be, a consumer rights group warns today.

Using figures from the Energy Saving Trust, Which? reveals that consumers could save as much as £10,500 over 25 years – depending on where in the UK they live – by taking out a loan to buy their own system.

Even in the UK's sunniest region, the maximum consumers could save is £412 a year from their electricity bill, compared with the £1,313 that free solar panel companies such as British Gas and Isis Solar will collect from the feed-in tariffs (FITs), the government' incentive scheme that pays for small-scale renewable energy generation.

Which? says that consumers would be much better off paying to install their own system and keeping the lucrative FIT income. The Guardian came to a similar conclusion last month, showing that householders could save thousands of pounds by buying their own panels rather than "renting their roof".

Most companies that Which? spoke to value the free systems at about £19,000 so the initial cost of installing panels could be off-putting. The best rate loans start at 7.8% over five years, but even with a higher-interest, longer-term loan, buying your own system is still likely to work out cheaper. Consumers are urged to use the Energy Saving Trust's online Cashback Calculator to work out how much could be saved.

Ever since the Labour government announced the introduction of FITs in February, City investors and at least one hedge fund have been looking at ways to cash-in on the deals that have transformed solar take-up in other parts of Europe. This is now happening in Britain where a clutch of companies are vying to install a complete electricity-generating system on your home either free or for a £500 payment. In return for electricity exported to the national grid from the photovoltaic cells on your roof the companies would receive FITs worth £900 to £1,450 a year .

Simon Osborn, the principal policy adviser for environment at Which?, said: "If you have the means to pay for solar panels yourself, then you may well be better off arranging to have them installed yourself."

The group's chief executive, Peter Vicary-Smith, added: "With energy prices as high as they are many people will jump at the offer of 'free' solar panels. Whilst they will save you money, you'd be better off in the long run if you bought your own solar panels, even if you have to take out a loan to cover the initial outlay."

Tidal wave of support for green energy

Lucy Ardern | September 28th, 2010



THE Gold Coast developer of a green energy device that has orders from around the world, has been heartened by a shift towards renewable energy in his own country.

Tidal Energy founder Aaron Davidson said he was pleased to hear the Gillard government was swinging back towards positive and proactive solutions to environmental issues.

''It has been heartening to hear the change in the government,'' he said.

Have your say on the feedback form below
''It is looking like we will see a more honest approach to green energy.''

Mr Davidson said his company had benefited from Federal Government grants in the development of a water turbine system, which creates power with low pressure.

But it had just given he and partner Craig Hill 'a taste for the possibilities', rather than the ability to progress it into a real business.

''Companies like ours need funding to take it to a commercial stage,'' he said.

''We have managed to make it work without that money, but it has taken years.''

The Tidal Energy partners have just secured $35 million in orders from around the world and an offer of $200m investment from a Chinese company after 20 years spent developing the device and looking for support.

The Gillard government yesterday announced a parliamentary committee to pave the way for a price on carbon emissions, which the Greens will co-chair.

Wind will power fossil fuel-free Denmark in 2050, report predicts

Danish climate commission report predicts the country could switch to renewables by the middle of the century

From BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 September 2010 10.46 BST
The falling cost of renewable energy and rising cost of oil and gas will allow Denmark to develop an energy network entirely free of fossil fuels by 2050, according to a report published by the government's climate commission.

The committee predicted that wind and biomass energy could meet the bulk of the country's energy requirements.

It also argued that switching to renewables would be cheaper than continuing to use fossil fuels, particularly if predictions of soaring oil and gas prices are borne out.

The report was welcomed by Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas, which said the research could help further bolster the country's position as a leading generator of onshore wind energy.

"The report will also send a very clear and important signal to other countries that wind is a sustainable source of energy for future development," said Vestas chief executive Ditlev Engel. "This is a great opportunity to solidify Denmark's reputation as a laboratory for green, CO2-free power technology solutions that are globally required."

The report recommended that the government immediately start devoting 0.5 per cent of the country's annual GDP to renewable energy investment in order to help achieve the 2050 target, resulting in a total spend of 17bn kroner (£1.9bn) by 2050.

The Danish climate and energy minister will now consider the commission's report ahead of the release of the government's official climate strategy proposal in November.

Salmond claims 100% green electricity in Scotland 'achievable' by 2025

First minister Alex Salmond at the Scottish Low Carbon Investment conference says that Scotland could theoretically generate all its electricity from renewable sources by 2025


Motivational speakers tend to say that if you're going to aim for anything, aim high and think big. Alex Salmond, the first minister of Scotland, has done precisely that. Again.

Over the past five days, Salmond has doubled his government's target for generating "green" electricity. Last Thursday he tore up the Scottish government's goal of making half of Scotland's electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and replaced it with a new target of 80%.

Today at an international low carbon investment conference in Edinburgh, he set a higher goal, claiming Scotland could actually generate all of its electricity – currently about 6.8GW – from green sources by 2025.

Salmond has built his career on being a motivational speaker. He told the conference the opportunity presented by offshore wind and marine energy was "a pivotal turning point in human history, on a par with the move from hunter-gathering to settled agricultural communities or the discovery of the New World in 1492".

His critics accuse him of being much better at selling than delivering. And industry anxieties about how easily and quickly these goals can be reached are intensifying: today an official study published by his own government said these ambitions "were not easy to achieve".

The Scottish government's offshore wind industry "route map" stated: "The barriers to development are considerable and the timelines are challenging." There were significant problems with existing infrastructure, the lack of grid connections and dock facilities, worries over finance and the environment, and a shortage of engineers, it warned.

But Salmond has influential supporters. Ian Marchant, the chief executive of one of the UK's largest renewables companies, Scottish and Southern Energy, told The Guardian his firm had been pressing for the 50% target to be dropped for some time.

"We think that the 50% was a slam dunk," he said. Today's onshore projects and already authorised offshore schemes sorted that. Industry and the government needed to be "deliberately stretched" by the new 80% target. "If the past record is anything to go by, we will get there," he said.

Even generating 100% from renewable sources was achievable; and it could be doubled by 2030. Over the next 20 years, Marchant added, "I calculated that Scotland's potential is roughly 200% for renewables, onshore wind, offshore wind, hydro and biomass."

Neither man pretends the warnings in the "route map" paper are wrong. But the question neither can yet answer is how readily the gap between rhetoric and delivery will be closed. The investment conference should help address that, but the challenges are significant and sobering, even without factoring in the justifiable anxieties about protecting the marine environment, landscapes and industrialisation of coastal cities.

Estimates about the capital cost of building the vast offshore windfarms needed around the UK vary: the main working figure at present is that £200bn will be needed by 2020, with 40% of that spent in Scotland. And senior investment experts are clear about this: after the worst global recession of modern times most of that will have to be funded, at first, by the taxpayer.

The investment agency Scottish Enterprise said recently at least £222m would be needed immediately to upgrade 11 ports and fabrication yards, such as Dundee, Leith and Aberdeen, to make them capable of supporting offshore wind farms. And that figure excludes cash for new wave and tidal energy infrastructure around Orkney and the Pentland Firth.

Salmond remains publicly optimistic. He is hoping to launch a new green energy investment bank with at least £360m to spend later this year; he predicts worldwide energy costs will continue to rise with demand and oil scarcity increasing, and believes wind power plant costs will fall (a view born out by a report yesterday that said offshore farms could be nearly 25% cheaper to make by 2025).

But his own advisers seem much less gung-ho, at least for now. Raymond Flanagan, Scottish Enterprise's low carbon investment manager, warns that the energy giants, such as Marchant's company, will have to find much of the money.

But at present, offshore power remains a risky investment. Installing one gigawatt offshore currently costs around £2.6bn. Until those costs "dramatically" decrease, most power companies will be put off. "The appetite for risk over the last couple of years has diminished, so life has become more difficult," he said.

"Financial solutions must be found to go beyond the limitations of the utilities' balance sheets," he said. In other words, Salmond and David Cameron, the UK prime minister, have their work cut out installing the 30GW of offshore wind capacity they seek by 2020.

Amyris IPO: Biofuel Firm Plans to Start Trading Tomorrow

By Katie Fehrenbacher Sep. 27, 2010, 3:19pm


Update: Reuters reports that according to an underwriter Amyris priced its IPO at $16, below its planned range of $18 to $20 per share. We’ll bring you more in the morning.

Next-gen biofuel producer Amyris plans to officially price its shares for its IPO today, and will start trading Tuesday on the NASDAQ. According to a release put out this afternoon, Amyris CEO John Melo will preside over the closing NASDAQ bell on Tuesday, and according to the company’s latest S-1, Amyris is expected to use the trading symbol AMRS.

Amyris filed its original S-1 back in April, signaling its plans to IPO on the NASDAQ this year. Just two weeks ago, the seven-year-old company amended its S-1 to estimate the IPO price between $18 to $20 per share, which at the top range would raise up to $122 million. That range was a slight boost from its previously planned maximum offering of $100 million back in April.

If Amyris’ IPO is priced in the mid-range at $19 per share, the company says its net proceeds of the offering will be $89.1 million, after deducting “estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us.” The company plans to spend that money on factory equipment it hopes will bring its technology to commercial scale.

Yes, Amyris is not producing its next-gen biofuel at commercial scale yet, and doesn’t plan to do so until 2011. The company booked its first revenue from a $24.3 million federal grant, awarded on a conditional basis late last year, in May. A good chunk of Amyris’ current revenues comes from reselling ethanol produced by other companies.

According to the latest filing, Amyris brought in revenues of $26.36 million for the first six months of the year, and had a net loss of $36.53 million. Backed by more than $244 million from a long list of investors, including Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins, Amyris says as of June 30, 2010, it had accumulated a deficit of $156.5 million.

A positive first day of trading might be somewhat rare in these current market conditions. A variety of greentech companies have abandoned offerings or suffered weak IPOs; Tesla was the exception. Thin-film solar firm Trony Solar dropped its IPO plans in August, Solyndra withdrew its much-anticipated IPO earlier this year, rare earth element developer Molycorp (s mcp) priced its IPOs below expectations, and Shanghai’s geothermal company Nobao Renewable Energy gutted its march to the New York Stock Exchange, too. Another next-gen biofuel developer, Gevo, filed an S-1 earlier this year, planning to raise up to $150 million in an IPO, but at least one analyst thinks Gevo will likely raise closer to between $80 million and $100 million.

An Overhead View of China’s Pollution

China Real Time Report
Dalhousie University, Aaron van Donkelaar
NASA data shows fine particulate matter density world-wide.To get a sense of how China’s air quality compares with the rest of the world, there’s a new map of global air-particulate pollution from Canadian scientists using National Aeronautics and Space Administration satellite data. The verdict: It doesn’t look good.

Eastern China’s industrial area is just about the reddest part of the map, meaning it has the highest concentration of particulates. That doesn’t bode well for the hundreds of millions of people there. And if you’re in the middle of that red zone, you’d have to travel far afield for fresh air.

The researchers, Aaron van Donkelaar and Randall Martin at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, used U.S. space-agency satellite data to measure particulate matter across the globe, figuring ground-based detection is nonexistent or spotty in many areas. The map was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

It’s important to note that the data used for this map are derived from 2001 to 2006. But as The Wall Street Journal noted in July, authorities affirmed that China’s air quality continues to get worse, not better.

According to the NASA post, health officials say fine particulates can get past the body’s hair-like cilia defenses, penetrate the lungs and blood, and lead to chronic diseases, such as asthma, cardiovascular disease and bronchitis.

– Alex Frangos

Laos sees big fish as small price to pay for hydropower

Plans for hydropower plant on the Mekong River threaten habitat of four of the world's largest freshwater fish, says WWF
Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Friday 24 September 2010 16.12 BST

Despite the risks to the world's biggest freshwater fish, Laos has rejected calls for a dam moratorium on the lower reaches of the Mekong because it wants cheap power to develop its economy.

The south-east Asian nation moved this week to secure regional approval for the first major hydropower plant on its stretch of the river in the face of protests from international conservation groups.

Catfish the length of cars and stingrays that weigh more than tigers are threatened by the proposed 800m barrier, but the government said the economic benefits outweigh the environmental risks.

"We don't want to be poor any more," said Viraphone Viravong, director general of the country's energy and mines department. "If we want to grow, we need this dam."

In a submission to the Mekong river commission (MRC) on Wednesday, Laos said it wants to build a 1.26GW-hydropower plant at Sayabouly in northern Laos to generate foreign exchange income.

If approved, about 90% of the electricity would be sold to neighbours Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia.

It is part of a major plan to expand the economy through the utilisation of natural resources. According to Viravong, 20% of Laos' GDP will come from hydropower and mining by 2020, up from about 4% today.

Sayabouly is the first of 11 proposed dams on the lower reaches of the Mekong, a river that is already heavily dammed upstream in China.

The MMRC – made up of representatives from Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand – will now assess the environmental impact of the project, but conservation groups fear the procedure is flawed and have called for a 10-year moratorium on hydropower on the river.

"This dam is the greatest challenge the MRC has faced since it was formed. It is the most serious test of its usefulness and relevance," said Marc Goichot, of the WWF. "It is already very clear this dam would amplify and accelerate the negative impacts of Chinese dams to the Mekong delta. What are the other impacts?"

Concerns have been raised about sedimentation, fisheries and the migration patterns of endangered freshwater species.

Four of the world's 10 biggest freshwater fish migrate up the Mekong to spawn. Among them is the Mekong giant catfish, which is the size of a bull shark, and the Mekong stingray, which can weigh up to 600kg.

The dam – which is being designed by Swiss company Colencois and the Thai contractors Karnchang – is also likely to affect the flow of nutrients along a delta that sustains tens of millions of people.

The Laos authorities insist the dam will be designed to mitigate the impact on food security, ecosystems and wildlife, but officials acknowledge that no solution is ideal for the environment.

"It won't be 100% perfect, but we believe mitigation measures will be effective. We must balance out the costs and benefits," said Viravong.

He felt there was no alternative. "We have done studies on micro-energy and renewables, but they are expensive. I don't think the world can subsidise that. If we do it ourselves, only cheap energy from hydropower will do."

• To order Jonathan Watts' eco-travelogue, When a Billion Chinese Jump, for £9.99 (RRP £14.99) call 0330 333 6846 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0330 333 6846 end_of_the_skype_highlighting or visit guardianbooks.co.uk

Japan to drill for controversial 'fire ice'

Japan seeks to improve energy security by drilling for frozen methane but environmentalists fear a leak of the greenhouse gas, which is 21 times as damaging as carbon dioxide

Michael Fitzpatrick guardian.co.uk, Monday 27 September 2010 09.22 BST
In a bid to shore up its precarious energy security Japan is to start commercial test drilling for controversial frozen methane gas along its coast next year.

The gas is methane hydrate, a sherbet-like substance consisting of methane trapped in water ice – sometimes called "fire ice" or MH – that is locked deep underwater or under permafrost by the cold and under pressure 23 times that of normal atmosphere.

A consortium led by the Japanese government and the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (Jogmec) will be sinking several wells off the south-eastern coast of Japan to assess the commercial viability of extracting gas from frozen methane deep beneath local waters. Surveys suggest Japan has enough methane hydrate for 100 years at the current rate of usage.

Lying hundreds of metres below the sea and deeper still below sediments, fire ice is exceedingly difficult to extract. Japan is claiming successful tests using a method that gently depressurises the frozen gas.

Tokyo plans to start commercial output of methane hydrates by 2018. At present, Japan imports nearly all its gas – about 58.6m tonnes of liquified gas annually – and is heavily dependent on oil imports. In a desperate attempt to secure more oil, for example, Japan recently did a deal with the United Arab Emirates. In exchange for using Japan as a base for Asian oil trading, Japan now has priority to purchase rights to up to 4m barrels of immediately accessible crude.

Lucia van Geuns, an energy analyst at the international energy programme of the Clingendael Institute, said: "Methane hydrates could make Japan energy independent. Japan put a lot of R&D into this project because of course the less energy it imports the better. Whether they can commercialise methane hydrates remains to be seen.

"If it does succeed, and that's very much a long shot, it will have a huge impact – equivalent to the use of gas shales in the US."

Japan's trade ministry, which is behind the scheme, has requested a budget of ¥8.9bn (£667m) for the drilling to start next spring. The huge budget reflects the difficulties of drilling deep offshore. In Japan, hydrates in the Sea of Kumano are found about 30km offshore in about 100 metres of water and at a depth below the seabed of 200 metres, making it difficult to mine the unstable hydrates.

Concerns had been raised that digging for frozen methane would destabilise the methane beds, which contain enough gas worldwide to snuff out most complex life on earth. Methane itself is a greenhouse gas which is 21 times as damaging as carbon dioxide and any leakage from wells could be an environmental problem.

Professor Gerald Dickens, of Rice University in Texas,a leading researcher into methane hydrates, thinks accidental releases can be avoided."The only potential issue in regards to drilling would be if there is greatly over-pressured gas immediately beneath the gas hydrate. However, there is growing belief and rationale to suggest that this cannot occur in nature. So, as far as drilling there should be no issue."

Environmentalists, however, are concernedabout the burning of more earth-locked hydrocarbons. Methane may be a cleaner-burning fossil fuel than coal or oil but will still release many tons of CO2. Jogmec acknowledges the problems, admitting mining of methane ice could lead to landslides and the devastation of marine life in the mining areas. "There are many other technological problems to overcome," says the Jogmec website. "Not least that when you drill you create heat, which turns the frozen methane into gas, which could then leak uncontrollably through the sea to our atmosphere."

The US, China, Canada and South Korea are among other countries seeking to develop commercially viable extraction technology and each is now exploring the mining of methane hydrates from their own sea beds.

"Some commercial production of methane from methane hydrate could be achieved in the United States before 2025," says a US government report on the subject.

Wind turbine price 'could fall 25% by 2025'

Energy Research Centre says competition and innovation will cut offshore turbine costs – provided government backs industry

• Global wind energy capacity edges towards 200GW
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Monday 27 September 2010 15.42 BST

The UK's efforts to hit its renewable energy target are likely to be boosted by a near-25% fall in the cost of offshore wind turbines by 2025, engineers claimed today. But they warned that the prices may not fall – or could even rise – if the government cuts its financing of research and development, or if competition between wind turbine makers or improvements in technology do not materialise.

Last week the Carbon Trust, which has an offshore wind accelerator R&D fund, was named on a list of government quangoes under review, while US wind turbine maker Clipper entered crisis talks with its parent company over "significant liquidity strain".

Today's report by the UK Energy Research Centre follows the opening last Thursday of the world's largest offshore farm off the coast of Kent, and predicted that offshore wind was likely to fall from £149 per megawatt hour (MWh) in 2009 to around £115/MWh in 2025. The fall, it said, would come from competition between turbine-makers driving down prices, innovation, manufacturing scale and standardisation and a better UK supply chain.

Offshore wind is seen by government as crucial in the push to meet a target of generating 30% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020, but is almost twice as expensive as electricity from gas power stations. The UK currently has only 1GW of installed offshore wind, the equivalent of one coal-fired power station.

Like the opening of the Thanet offshore farm, where British firms reaped just 20% of the £900m invested in the project, UKERC's report highlights the UK's reliance on foreign technology. Around 80% of offshore wind components are imported, it says, meaning the UK is failing to grow jobs and cut costs by reducing exposure to fluctuating exchange rates.

Robert Gross, the report's chief author, said: "The UK is not yet fully benefitting from being a world-leader in the field [it has the world's highest installed capacity of offshore wind power]. In effect UK consumers are subsidising Danish and German wind energy companies."

Gross also said that while it is feasible in engineering terms for around 3,000 offshore turbines to be built by 2020, it will be "a big ask" on a financial level. Earlier today, Susan Rice, managing director of the Lloyds banking group in Scotland, warned that many companies are still wary about the risks and upfront costs of building multibillion-pound offshore windfarms.

Like other sources of energy, offshore wind's costs rose considerably in the past decade despite expectations it would fall, the report notes. Capital costs for projects coming online in 2008 were double those of 2003 levels. "Rising commodity prices [steel is a key component for turbines], supply chain shortages and currency movements created a perfect storm," said Gross.

However, Gross said the better outlook today meant his report's worst-case scenario – which sees the mid-2020s price of wind power rise to £185/MWh – was "very unlikely."

Guy Shrubsole of the Public Interest Research Centre, which in May published a report on the offshore energy resource around the UK, said: "Investing now in offshore renewables will reap big rewards later. Making the right investments now could unlock an enormous renewable energy resource – one big enough to make the UK a net electricity exporter in the future." PIRC's study suggested the cost of offshore wind could drop to as low as £70-£90/MWh by the middle of the next decade.

Shetland deepwater wells likely to be approved in face of Greenpeace action

• Chevron first in line to explore north Atlantic prospects
• Greenpeace prepares to take government to court

Terry Macalister The Guardian, Monday 27 September 2010

The government is shortly expected to give permission for new deepwater drilling off the Shetland Islands in a controversial move that could trigger a legal confrontation with Greenpeace.

The environmental group fears the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) could make a decision as early as tomorrow for the first wells of this kind off Britain since BP ran into trouble in the Gulf of Mexico.

US company Chevron will be first in line for permission to explore two prospects, with BP following, but Decc officials insisted last night that a decision had yet to be taken.

Greenpeace yesterday started a new campaign of direct action using swimmers against a Chevron-chartered ship, Stena Carron, in a bid to stop it sailing to the Shetlands where it is expected to drill on the Lagavulin prospect. The Greenpeace protestors took to the waters of the north Atlantic less than 48 hours after a separate occupation of the same vessel was ruled illegal by an Edinburgh court.

The protest comes just after the UK government derailed attempts by other nations in the European Union to introduce international scrutiny of deepwater drilling operations that could have led to a moratorium offshore.

Greenpeace said it planned to extend the wider campaign against David Cameron's administration, including going to court to seek a judicial review.

"We think the government is acting irrationally if it presses ahead with new drilling permits when the lessons from the Gulf of Mexico have not yet been learned," said Ben Ayliffe, a spokesman for Greenpeace. "We will be doing all we can to ensure a change of policy."

Late last week Richard Benyon, a minister at the department for the environment, was dispatched to Oslo to head off a German initiative to subject drilling to far more scrutiny following the BP well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

Germany wanted firm action taken under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the north-east Atlantic treaty (known as Ospar) but retreated in the face of opposition from Britain, Norway and the Netherlands – all big North Sea oil producers.

Greenpeace condemned the result of the Ospar summit, saying it sat very badly with the coalition government's supposed commitment to taking environmental issues more seriously. "When the self-styled 'greenest government ever' sends its ministers overseas to block international scrutiny of its deepwater drilling regime, it's obvious they have something to hide," said Ruth Davis, policy director at Greenpeace.

"With ministers acting as special envoys for the oil industry, it's no wonder people feel they need to take peaceful direct action against new deepwater drilling, to protect their oceans and their climate."

Last Friday the campaign group lost a case brought by Chevron, forcing its activists to abandon a direct action against the Stena Carron drillship that was being prepared for operations off the Shetlands.

A court in Edinburgh ordered Greenpeace to end its protest on the grounds that it endangered the safety of the vessel. Activists spent four days in a "survival pod" hanging off the ship's anchor.

The environmental group's action follows similar protests against Cairn Energy's drilling off the coast of Greenland. Greenpeace says both waters – off the Shetlands and Greenland – are inappropriate for oil exploration given the unspoiled natural environment and the new information from BP's Deepwater Explorer accident about how devastating a blowout can be to the local shoreline.

BP, Chevron and Total of France are all pushing Decc to give permission for further drilling west of the Shetlands. Decc itself has estimated that 17% of the UK's unexploited oil and gas reserves may lie in this deepwater Atlantic area. BP already has Foinaven, Clair and Schiehallion as producing fields there, and wants to drill the North Uist prospect.

The department is keen to see the area developed but is also wary of allowing BP and others to drill in deep water so soon after the Gulf of Mexico spill. BP has already withdrawn from a planned new licensing round off Greenland rather than risk being banned by the government in Nuuk.

The move to the Shetlands and Greenland are all part of a wider push towards the Arctic as oil companies are forced into increasingly environmentally sensitive areas as reserves in more accessible and less controversial locations.

Last week the Russian government held a major conference on the Arctic which is believed to be the home of one quarter of the world's resources of oil and gas at a time when global warming is breaking up the ice and making it easier to drill.

Russia, America and other countries are all pushing to have their sovereignty accepted by the United Nations amid fears of a a new cold war over this polar region.

Bill Bryson: 'Have faith, science can solve our problems'

Bill Bryson will honour scientists in a lecture celebrating 350 years of the Royal Society. He tells Max Davidson why his favourite is an obscure 18th-century vicar

By Max Davidson
Published: 7:00AM BST 26 Sep 2010

Bill Bryson: 'I've just been to Paris with my wife for a couple of days. Wonderful city, but it's not London, not even close.' "Think of a single problem confronting the world today," says Bill Bryson, in full rhetorical flow. "Disease, poverty, global warming… If the problem is going to be solved, it is science that is going to solve it. Scientists tend to be unappreciated in the world at large, but you can hardly overstate the importance of the work they do. If anyone ever cures cancer, it will be a guy with a science degree." There is a fractional pause, then a sheepish smile. "Or a woman with a science degree."

There never was a less chauvinist author than this gentle, genial American who, with his folksy humour, has charmed the nation, men and women in equal measure. The bestselling author of Notes from a Small Island, that quirky love letter to all things British, now lives in a large rectory in Norfolk, where he devotes a lot of time to his garden. I meet him outside a library in Norwich, and he could be one of the natives, with his unprepossessing manner and his comfy, lived-in clothes.

Twin peaks - and troughsIn the small island of which he wrote so lyrically, he has become part of the furniture, his love for his adopted country undimmed. "I've just been to Paris with my wife for a couple of days," he tells me. "Wonderful city, but it's not London, not even close." And on Thursday he will go in to bat for one of the great British institutions, the Royal Society, the most august scientific body in the world.

Bryson is no stranger to science. In 2004, he published A Short History of Almost Everything, a serendipitous overview of science and scientists which became an instant bestseller. Not having done much science at school, but insatiably curious about the nuts and bolts of the world, Bryson wanted to share some nuggets of knowledge he had picked up. "You don't need a science degree to understand about science," he insists. "You just need to think about it." But for the author of an easy-to-read primer on general science to step up to the plate – as baseball fan Bryson might put it – in the rarefied company of Fellows of the Royal Society is another matter.

Previous fellows include Isaac Newton, Christopher Wren and Charles Darwin, plus enough Nobel Prize winners to fill a laboratory, so some great ghosts will be stirring when Bryson delivers a lecture in London's Guildhall marking the 350th anniversary of the society.

"I'm not a scientist, I'm what you might call an informal cheerleader. But I feel very excited to be associated with the society. On big occasions like this, I look around my audience and think, 'Well, you're not in Iowa now, Bill.'" The son of a Des Moines sports journalist has strayed a long way from his roots, but he is proud of his links with the Royal Society, because it is classless: a community of ordinary people with extraordinary minds.

Of the 8,000-odd fellows of the Royal Society, past and present, his favourite is the Reverend Thomas Bayes, an obscure 18th-century Kent clergyman and a brilliant mathematician. "He devised a complex equation known as the Bayes theorem, which can be used to work out probability distributions. It had no practical application in his lifetime, but today, thanks to computers, is routinely used in the modelling of climate change, astrophysics and stock-market analysis."

In the flesh, Bryson reckons, Bayes would not have struck anyone as remarkable. "There is the odd exception, like Albert Einstein, but as a breed, scientists tend not be very good at presenting themselves. It took The Royal Society, with its instinct for excellence, to recognise that Bayes was a genius. Over the years, its record in identifying great scientists early in their career has been quite extraordinary."

The 17th century astronomer Edmond Halley was made a fellow before he received his degree from Oxford. Charles Darwin was elected in 1839, just three years after his first Beagle voyage, long before he had developed his Theory of Evolution. Throughout its history, the Society has remained true to its core principles, cleaving to the notion of peer review, funding research projects, and publishing journals of scrupulous scientific accuracy.

"It is quite simply the voice of science in Britain," says Bryson. "It is intellectually rigorous, not afraid to be outspoken on controversial issues such as climate change, but it is not aggressively secular either, insisting on a single view of the world. In fact, there are plenty of eminent scientists – Robert Winston, for instance – who are also men of faith."

Bryson has a respect for science that borders on the devotional. When the scientific community comes under attack, he is tigerish in its defence. And at a time when some scientists, such as Russell Stannard, the eminent physics professor and lay preacher, are starting to argue that the only ''new'' discoveries will be ones of such intellectual complexity that only computers can arrive at them, or even understand them, Bryson still has faith in the curiosity and ingenuity of people.

He has another bee in his bonnet about which he has become increasingly vocal – litter. Since 2007, he has been President of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, and makes no bones of the fact that those strewing England's green and pleasant land with crisp packets should face the full force of the law. "If someone went into a pub and said, 'I don't believe it, I've just been fined £200 for throwing a cigarette carton in the street', people would sit up and take notice." For a second, there is real anger behind the kindly face. "As for people who throw litter out of cars: if they got three points on their licence every time, they would kick the habit in no time."

Bryson has no illusions about his powers of influence. "I can't fix the world. If you want to make a difference in life, you have to direct your energies in a focused way. I'm going to be 60 next year, so it's time to start putting down cudgels."

What does this Anglophile, who fell in love with the country in the 1970s, make of the Britain of 2010? "Well, I wouldn't live here if the positives didn't far outweigh the negatives. Before the election, I interviewed the three main party leaders, and it struck me how lucky your country was to have had three such able, smart, fundamentally decent people to choose from. In my country, you can get a really decent president followed by a crazy, scary one. Or an idiot."

• To celebrate the 350th anniversary of the Royal Society (royalsociety.org), Bill Bryson has edited 'Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society' (£25, HarperPress), available from Telegraph Books for £23 plus £1.25 P&P. To order, call 0844 871 1516 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0844 871 1516 end_of_the_skype_highlighting or visit books.telegraph.co.uk

Nuclear power: a clean solution or a cul-de-sac?

By John Lichfield

Saturday, 25 September 2010

Far from being a guarantee of a greener future, the revival of nuclear power would be a costly cul-de-sac. Au contraire, nuclear energy can be cheap, clean, abundant and secure. Europe will never meet its carbon emissions targets by wind and solar power alone.


Two visions of the nuclear future – a sceptical British view and the enthusiastic official French view – collided head on at yesterday's Lyon environmental conference.

Tom Burke, a former head of Friends of the Earth and a leading anti-nuclear campaigner, took his nuclear scepticism into the most pro-nuclear, and nuclear-dependent, country in Europe. He was opposed by France's "Monsieur Nucléaire", François Roussely, former president of Electricité de France (EDF) and the man charged by President Nicolas Sarkozy with charting France's nuclear future.

Mr Burke, a regular adviser to British energy ministers and the Foreign Office, said his anti-nuclear arguments went beyond fear of radioactive leaks or the proliferation of nuclear arms, or worries about waste. A nuclear revival would soak up the "capital and skills" which would be better invested in "more reliable and less costly low-carbon energy technologies".

Mr Roussely said there were three arguments for nuclear power. It was clean, cheap and more secure, geo-politically, than oil or gas.

Simple Solution to Carbon Capture

Hugh Price • September 22, 2010

In New Haven, W.Va., the Mountaineer Power Plant is using a complicated chemical process to capture about 1.5 percent of the carbon dioxide it produces. The gas is cooled to a liquid at a pressure of about 95 atmospheres and pumped 2,375 meters down to a sandstone formation, where it is meant to remain indefinitely. The objective is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere from the coal burning at the plant.

This certainly seems to be doing it the hard way. Extracting just this 1.5 percent of the carbon dioxide from the plant’s flue requires a $100 million investment, and whether the gas will remain underground or bubble to the surface is in question.

Fortunately, there is a way to capture and store excess carbon from the atmosphere that is cheap, efficient and environmentally friendly. It relies on two technologies that have been in use for more than 8,000 years: agriculture and the garbage heap.

Some basics: Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it to sugars and other organic compounds. Some of this carbon is burned by the plant, and the rest is used to increase the plant’s mass. If the plant or its components are eaten by an animal, some of that carbon will be burned by the animal, with the remainder used to increase the animal’s mass. When the plant or animal dies, the remains are generally consumed by bacteria, which burn some of the carbon and use the remainder to create more bacteria.

When this process is in equilibrium, living things return as much carbon to the atmosphere as plants take out of it. And the carbon dioxide generated by these organic processes is exactly the same as the carbon dioxide released by burning coal or oil.

With an overabundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is reasonable to ask, “Where are the plants?” Why hasn’t the Earth’s vegetation grown larger and faster to absorb the additional carbon dioxide? The answer is that it probably has. Some of the 20th century’s improvement in crop yields may be due to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, eventually those plants die or are eaten, returning their carbon to the atmosphere. To remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the plant material has to be prevented from decomposing.

Any gardener knows that compost heaps must be turned regularly. Without access to oxygen, bacteria cannot break down plant material. The principle can be harnessed for carbon capture: All that is necessary is to pile the plants high enough, and the carbon at the bottom will stay put indefinitely. After all, this is how all that coal and oil formed in the first place.

Piles of plant material are not like ordinary landfills, of course. There is no need to worry about toxins leaching into the water supply. No elaborate liner or monitoring is required. Plant material need not be transported to distant sites or pumped underground but can be piled up where it grows. It is not even necessary to cover the heap with soil.

The most obvious target for such a technique is agricultural waste. Worldwide carbon dioxide emissions in 2006 were estimated at about 28 billion metric tons, of which the United States was responsible for 5.8 billion. That represents about 1.6 billion tons of carbon.

In 2009, the combined U.S. production of corn, wheat and soybeans was 487 million metric tons. That production measures the usable part of the plants. It is reasonable to believe that there is at least as much material in unused stalks and leaves. If just this material were stored rather than burned or plowed under, it could compensate for almost a quarter of the U.S. carbon footprint. The Mountaineer Power Plant could match the captured carbon of its high-tech approach by piling up the plant waste from 12,000 acres of farmland, at a tiny fraction of the cost.

Other land could be managed to maximize carbon capture. There are millions of acres of woodlands in North America where trees are grown for paper and lumber. Can leaves, bark and branches that are now discarded or burned be piled up instead? Is it more beneficial to recycle paper or to collect it?

Instead of trying to manufacture ethanol from switchgrass, would it be more effective to burn oil and bury the switchgrass? We sometimes pay farmers not to grow crops to sustain prices; should we pay them to grow otherwise useless crops and stockpile them?

The biggest problem with this approach may be that it’s so low-tech. No green-technology subsidies are required, so there may not be a natural constituency for it.

On the other hand, environmentalists should love it. What could be greener than growing plants? And for those concerned about the economy, this approach provides a low-cost method of reducing the country’s carbon footprint without increasing the cost of energy. It is also reversible. If current concerns about carbon dioxide concentrations turn out to be unwarranted, the stockpiled material will be readily available for use. What could be simpler?

Pressure mounting for Rajendra Pachauri to resign as IPCC head

Pressure is mounting for Rajendra Pachauri to resign as head of the UN climate change panel over fears that his increasingly troubled tenure is hampering efforts to halt global warming.

By Heidi Blake
Published: 9:21AM BST 23 Sep 2010

The Indian chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been dogged by controversy since he was forced to admit a serious error in a landmark report arguing the case for man-made global warming earlier this year.

Climate sceptics have long been vocal critics of Dr Pachauri, but environmentalists and politicians have now joined a chorus of voices calling for his resignation after eight years in the job. An independent report last month recommended chairmen of the IPCC should serve for no longer than six years.

Dr Pachauri's standing was badly damaged earlier this year when it emerged that the claim in a 2007 report by the IPCC that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 was a mistake.

The former railways engineer has admitted the error dealt a grave blow to the credibility of the IPCC, which was set up to sift through scientific research and produce the most authoritative reports for the UN.

Tim Yeo, chairman of the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, joined calls for his resignation this morning.

"I’m afraid I think Dr Pachauri should resign. Firstly he personally has lost credibility, particularly in relation to his claim about the melting of the Himalayan glaciers in the next 30 years," he told the BBC.

He added: "It’s vital that this body is led by someone whose academic and intellectual credentials are unquestioned and I’m afraid that can no longer be said of him."

The Indian government has swung its full support behind Dr Pachauri, but many of the chairman's former allies now believe that he should resign in order to avert a clash between India and the IPCC.

The BBC reported that Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, the eminent British climatologist, is among those who now believe that Dr Pachauri has no alternative but to step down.

Greenpeace said in February that Dr Pachauri's resignation and the installation of a new leader would restore confidence in the IPCC.

A damning report into the running of the UN climate change panel by the independent InterAcademy Council recommend last month that the chairman should serve only one six-year-term at a time and called for checks on conflicts of interest by board members.

The review did not comment specifically on Dr Pachauri's tenure but the one-term recommendation would force the current chairman's out of office if accepted, as he is already serving his second term.

Dr Pachauri has also come under scrutiny because of his other role leading The Energy Research Institute (Teri), a think tank promoting sustainable development.

Questions have been raised about "conflicts of interest", with some arguing that Dr Pachauri had a vested interest in proving climate change by business dealings with carbon trading companies. However he was cleared on any financial wrongdoing recently by an independent review.

The 70-year-old has also hit the headlines for ‘steamy novels’ he penned while travelling the world in his demanding job.

Biggest offshore wind farm takes UK's capacity to 5GW

By Sarah Arnott

Friday, 24 September 2010
The world's biggest offshore wind farm opened in Thanet, seven miles off the Kent coast, yesterday.


The £780m scheme, built in two years by Sweden's Vattenfall, consists of a hundred 115-metre turbines spread over 35 sq km and can generate enough power for 200,000 homes.

The Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, said at the official opening of the site: "We are an island nation and I firmly believe we should be harnessing our wind, wave and tidal resources to the maximum."

The 300 megawatts of electricity produced by the Thanet wind farm – plus the expansion of the Crystal Rig onshore wind farm in the Scottish Borders – takes Britain's total installed wind power capacity to more than 5 gigawatts for the first time.

Wind power is now powering almost three million homes, according to the industry group RenewableUK. And delivery is accelerating as the industry expands: the turbines generating the fifth gigawatt have been installed within the last year.

Massive offshore installations such as that at Thanet are crucial if the UK is to meet green targets for 15 per cent of all energy to come from renewable sources by 2020. RenewableUK's chief executive, Maria McCaffery, said: "Five gigawatts is an important milestone because it takes us within reach of our 2020 targets, while proving that each successive gigawatt takes less and less time to deploy."

But the cost of offshore wind farms, and the relative immaturity of the industry, continue to pose a challenge to investors. Arnaud Bouille, at Ernst & Young, said: "To ensure long-term success, capital needs to be deployed at scale to projects that deliver attractive commercial returns and economic growth."

GOP Lawmakers Sought Energy Stimulus Funds

By Louise Radnofsky
Opposition to the Obama administration’s economic-stimulus package didn’t stop at least 24 congressional Republicans from lobbying the Department of Energy on behalf of companies and constituents who wanted stimulus contracts and grants from it.

Reps. Jo Bonner of Alabama, Dan Lungren of California, Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman of Colorado, Lynn Westmoreland, Jack Kingston and Nathan Deal of Georgia, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Fred Upton, Vernon Ehlers, Thaddeus McCotter, Candice Miller and Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Jim Jordan and Michael Turner of Ohio, Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Phil Roe and Zach Wamp of Tennessee and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington along with Sens. Mike Crapo of Idaho, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee and Bob Bennett of Utah wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and top Energy Department officials asking them to consider particular recipients for stimulus dollars in 2009.

The Wall Street Journal requested the letters through the Freedom of Information Act last fall, but only received a response from the department this week.

The Energy Department is distributing around $48 billion in stimulus money, for projects such as modernizing the electric grid, advanced energy research, renewable energy and advanced battery manufacturing.

The letters from the GOP lawmakers frequently describe the merits of particular energy projects or companies. Many of the names of the companies were redacted by the Energy Department, making it impossible to tell how many of the the projects have received funding.

The WSJ previously reported that more than a dozen Republican lawmakers had supported stimulus-funding requests submitted to the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service. Among them were Reps. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Sue Myrick of North Carolina and Jean Schmidt of Ohio and Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Richard Shelby of Alabama.

Lawmakers of both parties routinely send letters in support of federal funding for projects in their constituencies. Some Republican lawmakers have deliberately avoided sending requests for stimulus dollars because of their opposition to the bill, others have previously said that they are simply performing a service for their constituents and that they have a right to a share of the spending once it has been agreed upon.

A spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) declined to comment.

Democrats have accused Republicans of hypocrisy, highlighting instances where party leaders have described the package as a failure and called for its cancellation.

California Toughens Energy Standards

SAN FRANCISCO—The state with some of the nation's most ambitious clean energy standards went even further Thursday: Regulators approved new regulations requiring utilities to draw a third of their power from alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal in 10 years.

California already is pushing utilities to reach a 20-percent-renewable standard by next year, which has been a struggle to accomplish. Toughening the rules could prompt regulators across the country to do the same, but some consumers fret that they will end up paying for the changes in the form of higher utility bills.

"To the extent that prices do become unreasonably elevated, there must be a safety valve to protect retail customers," said Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney at The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group.

At a time when nearly one-eighth of the state's work force is jobless, some want California to dial back, not bolster, its leading-edge air pollution rules. A November ballot measure bankrolled by Texas oil companies would delay the state's landmark 2006 global warming law until the unemployment rate falls dramatically.

Advocates of the proposed utility standards plan say it will usher in "green" jobs and save rate payers money in the long run by decreasing dependence on fossil fuels.

"This standard is going to further diversify and secure our energy supply while also growing California's leading green technology market, which will lead to cost savings for consumers," Mary D. Nichols, chairman of the board considering the new rules, said in a statement after the vote.

Some clean-air advocates gave tepid support for the regulation but said it is filled with loopholes that would allow utilities to circumvent clean-energy upgrades.

Regulators say California now gets nearly 14 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, excluding large hydroelectric plants and nuclear power, which do not count toward either the proposed or the existing standards.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he favors raising the state's renewable mandate to 33 percent to help the state comply with the 2006 global warming law, which seeks to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The California Legislature failed to vote by the end of its session on a bill that would have adopted the 33 percent standard. The California Air Resources board took up the issue Thursday. Rules set by the board are more easily undone than laws approved by the Legislature, and its requirements would need to be adopted within a year by a state legal office that reviews new regulations.

Laura Wisland, a clean energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said her group wants a 33 percent standard, but not this one.

She said the air board's plan would actually slow clean technology investment because it allows utilities to meet the entire 33 percent by purchasing "renewable energy credits" rather than actually using renewable energy to supply their customers. The credits would represent renewable power that was generated at facilities outside California and never ends up in the state.

"California doesn't get any power for that (energy credit) purchase, so we get no greenhouse gas reduction benefits, no air quality improvements and no clean jobs," Wisland said. "But the utilities still have to provide electricity for customers, and that could still come from fossil fuels."

Under current law, utilities are not authorized to use any renewable energy credits to satisfy the 20-percent targets. All the energy must be produced in California or in another state connected to its power grid.

The air board said it will consider placing a cap on renewable energy credits as the regulation's language is finalized in coming weeks.

One of the state's three large, investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas&Electric Co., said it is committed "to working to achieve the 20 percent and 33 percent targets."

The company, which has more than 6 million customers in central and northern California, has struggled to meet the 20 percent goals in the set time frame, but says it has made substantial progress. PG&E has contracts for renewable energy deliveries representing more than 20 percent of its future needs, but many of those projects are not yet producing energy, said Cynthia Pollard, a company spokeswoman.

Utilities face fines for failing to meet the goals but can seek extensions.

Cindy Montanez of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power applauded the regulation and said the utility is moving quickly to increase its renewable energy. "We want to see real emission reductions and real jobs created. We think this is a smart way forward," she said.

Consumer advocates warned that the proposal did too little to protect utility customers from fluctuating energy costs. Young said there are no cost caps in the current plan, but added that officials will be able to add them later if they are needed.

In a state with a 12.4-percent unemployment rate and heated contests for governor and senator, the debate over whether a renewable electricity standard will create or kill jobs has been fierce.

California voters will have a big say in the future of the state's efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions when they vote Nov. 2 on Proposition 23. The measure would delay the global warming law until California's unemployment falls to 5.5 percent and stays there for a year. The proposition would not affect the renewable energy standards, legal experts said.

Congress considered imposing a national renewable electricity mandate in the latest energy bill, but the idea was nixed amid heavy opposition from utilities. Senate Democrats hope to pass a bill after the midterm elections that would mandate utilities get 15 percent of their energy from such sources by 2021.

Renewable energy projects are under way across the West, though many are years from being able to deliver power to energy-hungry cities. On Thursday, the California Energy Commission approved plans to build a massive solar energy plant in the Mojave Desert that could generate enough power for about 140,000 California homes.

Hawaii has a 40 percent renewable energy requirement, but has given its utilities until 2030 to meet the standard.

European Commission withholds research on biofuel policy

- September 22, 2010
The European Commission is accused of withholding research on the environmental impact of EU biofuels polices. (Reuters, EU Observer, European Voice)

Four Environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Commission on Monday to gain access to a study that assessed the environmental impacts of an EU policy that requires member states to use renewable energy sources to meet 10% of their transport needs by 2020. Under the rules adopted last year, it is expected that this target will be met in large part through the increased use of biofuels.

The study carried out for the Commission by the International Food Policy Research Institute, based in Washington DC, assessed what the environmental impacts would be if member states used biofuels to meet 7% of their road transport fuel needs by 2020.

It analyses the impact of this level of biofuel use on indirect land-use change: where forests are converted into cropland to replace those lost to biofuel production. Environmental groups are concerned that such practices can lead to an increase in carbon emissions.

The study is part of an assessment that the European Commission is undertaking to examine the impact of the EU policy on indirect land use changes. The Commission’s assessment is due to be completed by 31 December this year, and could result in changes to the current EU rules if it is found that existing policies would have detrimental impacts to the environment.

The legal case against the Commission says, “The Commission is withholding scientific evidence demonstrating the true environmental impacts of EU biofuel policies. The concern underlying policymaking on biofuels is that the Commission is conforming the science to the policy, not the policy to the science.”

The case is being brought by ClientEarth, a not-for-profit group of environmental lawyers which has its headquarters in London; Transport and Environment a sustainable transport campaign group based in Brussels; European Environmental Bureau, a campaign group also based in Brussels; and BirdLife International, a group of conservation organisations with its headquarters in the UK.

According to Reuters, this is not the first time the Commission has withheld research on its biofuels policy.

Nor is it the first time the Commission has stifled research that puts its policy proposals in a bad light (See Nature's news story on the EU's chemcial's policy).

World's largest wind farm opens off Kent

By Emily Beament, PA
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Environmental campaigners today urged the Government to invest more in renewables, as the world's largest offshore wind farm was officially opened off the UK coast.


The Thanet offshore wind farm, off the south east coast of England, has 100 turbines which will produce enough green energy a year to power the equivalent of more than 200,000 homes.

Energy company Vattenfall, which has constructed the farm - now the biggest offshore wind site in the world - said the electricity produced substantially increases the amount of green power generated in the UK.

The total capacity of the UK's onshore and offshore wind turbines now exceeds 5GW, enough to power all the homes in Scotland.

The progress on wind power was welcomed by Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne, who is attending the official launch of the wind farm today.

Mr Huhne said: "We are in a unique position to become a world leader in this industry. We are an island nation and I firmly believe we should be harnessing our wind, wave and tidal resources to the maximum.

"I know that there is still more to do to bring forward the large sums of investment we want to see in low-carbon energy in the UK, and we as a Government are committed to playing our part."

Friends of the Earth warned the UK's record on renewable energy remained "dismal", and called on ministers to invest more in green power, saying it would also deliver jobs and low-carbon industry.

The environmental group wants to see the Government guarantee funding of at least £2 billion a year for the Green Investment Bank, which aims to boost private sector spending on low-carbon technology.

And Friends of the Earth is calling on ministers to remove the barriers to developing offshore wind, for example by upgrading ports so they can ship out offshore wind turbine parts.

Campaigns and policy director for the green group, Craig Bennett, said: "The Thanet offshore wind farm is an important stride forward in securing our energy supplies and protecting us from the worst effects of climate change.

"Despite years of Government promises, the UK's record on renewable energy is still dismal - we urgently need to invest in green energy projects and to develop a sense of community ownership in them.

"Now is the time to be increasing renewable energy - nothing would do more damage to investor confidence than for the Government to raise doubts about long-term support for the industry.

"Investing in renewable energy will boost our economy by creating new green industries and jobs - the Government must ensure adequate funding and make the UK a world leader in tackling climate change."

Chris Huhne announces 250,000 green jobs to boost the economy

The energy secretary says the green deal will include modernising 26m homes to make them energy-efficient
Patrick Wintour, political editor guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 September 2010 20.57 BST

A plan to create almost 250,000 jobs in green industries, including nuclear power and home insulation, will turbo-charge the economy and help offset budget cuts, the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, claimed today.

The "green deal" will lead to thousands of workers modernising some 26 million homes to make them more energy efficient as part of the coalition's ambition to be the "greenest government ever".

Setting out the plan, Huhne said: "Since there is no money left, my department is pioneering new ways of turning this government into the greenest ever.

"We use more energy to heat our homes than Sweden, where it's seven degrees colder in January. We might as well be standing outside burning £50 notes. By stopping this waste, we can make big savings on bills, and use them to pay businesses for the cost of insulation. This is the green deal."

Huhne was unable to give any news on whether there will be public funds for the proposed green investment bank or whether the Treasury will provide any start-up funds for up to four pioneering carbon capture and storage plants.

There is an interval of a couple of years in which the Treasury would need to subsidise the projects before an industry levy could fund the plants.

Negotiations with the Treasury are continuing, and Liberal Democrat sources said there was no guarantee that there would be an announcement by the time of the spending review on 20 October.

In his set piece conference speech, Huhne pledged that by the end of the parliament Britain would boast the fastest growing renewable industry in the EU. He also promised that he would require energy firms to tell consumers before they raise prices.

He said: "In any other business consumers know the price before they buy. Energy should be no different."

Huhne will use an energy bill this autumn to require consumers to be informed on their bill what they going to pay at current consumption levels on their existing tariff or an alternative tariff.

He risked some controversy by making it clear he will go ahead with nuclear power stations so long as there is no hidden public subsidy. He does not regard a carbon floor price as a subsidy to nuclear power since it will be available to other industries, including renewables.

Huhne told Lib Dem members that if they expected the chancellor, George Osborne, to support taking more low-paid earners out of the tax system, they had to respond.

"George Osborne expects me to deliver our agreement on nuclear power, which is that there is an important place for new nuclear stations in our energy mix as long as there is no public subsidy. A deal is a deal, and I will deliver," he said.

He argued there is no need for subsidy since nuclear power is "now a mature technology, not an infant needing nurture". He said, "I am fed up with the stand-off between renewables and nuclear which means we have neither – we will have both. We will have low-carbon energy and security of supply". Liberal Democrats MPs in the coalition agreement have a right to abstain for the new nuclear power stations in line with party policy, he said. Huhne has not yet said whether he will personally abstain

He also announced a new "government-wide carbon plan" setting out policies and deadlines for each department to "ensure real action on climate change".

Audrey Gallacher, head of energy policy at the watchdog Consumer Focus, said: "Getting energy suppliers to give consumers more warning of price rises is something we've called on Ofgem to do – and this announcement is a step in the right direction.

Strangford tidal power project takes top award

By Linda Stewart
Tuesday, 21 September 2010

The team behind the tidal turbine at the mouth of Strangford Lough has just won a major award for its groundbreaking work.

Marine Current Turbines was recognised for making the ‘Best Use of Renewable Energy Sources’ at the Sustainable Ireland Awards 2010 for its SeaGen tidal technology which has been operating in Strangford Lough since 2008.

The award, sponsored by NWP Recycling, was presented to MCT’s co-founder and technical director, Peter Fraenkel, at a ceremony at the Ramada Hotel in Belfast where the keynote speaker was the Northern Ireland Environment Minister, Edwin Poots.

The independent judging panel said it was impressed with MCT’s SeaGen project.

The scheme has scored a world first, using innovative technology to harness sufficient energy from the strong tides in Strangford Lough to power hundreds of homes all year round.

“To say that it has taken a lot of time and effort, not to mention inventiveness and ingenuity, would be an understatement, but the company clearly had an abundance of belief, know-how and drive to reach its goal,” the judges said.

The 1.2MW turbine has the capacity to generate power for the equivalent of about 1,500 homes.

It works in principle much like an underwater windmill, with the rotors driven by the power of the tidal currents rather than the wind. In September 2009, MCT was ranked the world’s top tidal energy company in The Guardian/Clean Tech Global 100 Survey and in June 2009 won Renewable Energy Developer of the Year in the UK Renewable Energy Association Annual Awards.

MCT has just announced that it will partner ESB International in taking forward plans to develop a tidal energy farm of up to 100MW off the Antrim coast.

GE's Advanced 2.5--Megawatt Wind Turbine to Power Germania Wind Project Expansion

Posted on: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:16:00 EDT

SALZBERGEN, Germany, Sep 21, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) --
GE (NYSE: GE | PowerRating) announced today that Germania Windpark GmbH & Co. KG, one of Germany's leading wind power developers, has selected GE's advanced wind turbine technology for the expansion of a wind farm near Magdeburg in central Germany.

GE is supplying three 2.5-megawatt wind turbines for the expansion of the wind farm Gross-Santersleben Sud, where eight GE 1.5-megawatt wind turbines are already operating. The expansion will add 7.5 megawatts of clean, wind-generated electricity.

"The Gross-Santersleben Sud wind park expansion builds on a long-term relationship that we have with GE's wind business," said Markus Tacke, managing director of Germania Windpark. "Many of our previous projects with GE have featured 1.5-megawatt wind turbines, so this expansion will be the first project to implement GE's advanced 2.5-megawatt machines."

GE and Germania Windpark also have signed a full service agreement (FSA) covering the new wind turbines. GE's FSAs are designed to provide wind turbine owners with total support for all of their planned and unplanned maintenance and operational needs. The new service agreement has just been introduced this year by GE.

"GE's full service agreement was an important requirement for our decision and we appreciate GE's flexibility on this contract", said Willi Rausse, managing director of Winvest Finanzierungsservice.

The 2.5-megawatt series platform represents GE's most advanced wind turbine technology in terms of efficiency, reliability and grid connection capabilities. The 2.5-megawatt platform is designed to yield the highest annual energy production in its class and builds on the success of GE's 1.5-megawatt wind turbine, the world's most widely deployed wind turbine with 14.000 units now installed.

"Customers in 19 different European countries have chosen GE's 2.5-megawatt series technology and Germania has now joined that group," said Stephan Ritter, general manager--wind, Europe for GE Power & Water. "GE is the industry leader in terms of wind turbine installations that use rotors that are 100 meters and longer. Germania's project will benefit from our experience, and we are pleased to be partnering with them."

GE's wind business operates a wind turbine manufacturing facility in Salzbergen. In addition, GE's wind operations in Germany and across Europe are supported by the GE Global Research Center in Munich, where GE researchers and engineers are focused on increasing the reliability and performance of wind turbines.

About Germania Windpark GmbH & Co. KG and Winvest Finanzierungsservice GmbH & Co.

Germania was founded in 1993 as one of the first companies dealing in the professional development of turnkey wind parks in Germany. Winvest Finanzierungsservice GmbH & Co. followed in 1995 and is responsible for financing and marketing of all developed projects.

Between the establishment of the company and the present day, 51 projects with 243 wind turbines and a rated output of around 267 megawatts have been planned. The majority of these projects have been established and commissioned as turnkey solutions, with two projects (66.7 MW) currently in construction and due for commissioning shortly.

About GE

GE (NYSE: GE) is a diversified infrastructure, finance and media company taking on the world's toughest challenges. From aircraft engines and power generation to financial services, health care solutions and television programming, GE operates in more than 100 countries and employs about 300,000 people worldwide. For more information, visit the company's website at www.ge.com.

GE serves the energy sector by developing and deploying technology that helps make efficient use of natural resources. With nearly 85,000 global employees and 2009 revenues of $37 billion, GE Energy www.ge.com/energy is one of the world's leading suppliers of power generation and energy delivery technologies. The businesses that comprise GE Energy--GE Power & Water, GE Energy Services and GE Oil & Gas--work together to provide integrated product and service solutions in all areas of the energy industry including coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy; renewable resources such as water, wind, solar and biogas; and other alternative fuels.

A new oil rush as Cairn Energy reports first find off Greenland

By Sarah Arnott


Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Cairn Energy has struck oil off the coast of Greenland, just weeks after an earlier exploration well found traces of gas in the region.


The latest strike found traces of oil and gas "intermittently" in a 400-metre section of rock in the Sigguk block near Disko island. The earlier well, which discovered non-commercial gas volumes, has now been sealed and exploration costs of $84m (£54m) written off. But the two finds are the first positive evidence of hydrocarbons in the region, and Cairn's shares shot up by 2.27 per cent to 436.5p yesterday.

Sir Bill Gammell, the chief executive of Cairn, said: "The presence of both oil and gas confirms an active, working petroleum system and is extremely encouraging at this very early stage of our exploration campaign."

Cairn is making a major bet on Greenland. The Arctic island – three times the size of Texas but home to just 57,000 people – is tipped as one of the world's largest undiscovered hydrocarbon reserves, with some analysts estimating it could hold as much as 20 billion barrels of oil and gas under its freezing coastal waters.

And Cairn is selling a 51 per cent stake in its Cairn India business to the miner Vedanta for $9.6bn (£6.2bn), with a view to ploughing money into its Arctic venture. "For the foreseeable future, it's Greenland, Greenland," Sir Bill said at last month's interim results.

Cairn's two discoveries are far from conclusive. But the company's progress is being closely watched. Cairn is the first to drill in the Baffin Bay Basin, an area the size of the North Sea off Greenland's west coast, but ExxonMobil and Chevron also have licences to explore the area. And the Greenland government is in the process of auctioning further licences.

BP has ruled itself out but 13 companies are said to have shown an interest in acquiring drilling rights, among them Shell, Statoil and Tullow Oil.

It is not only the oil industry with its sights on Greenland. The region is also set to be the next major battleground in big oil's on-going fight with environmental campaigners over deep-water drilling. Green groups claim that the risk of an accident in such hostile, iceberg-infested waters is high, and that the resulting pollution in such a cold, remote and pristine wilderness would be worse even than that from BP's Gulf of Mexico spill.

Greenpeace activists boarded Cairn's Greenland drilling rig at the end of last month to protest against its activities. Four people were arrested when they were forced off by bad weather.

Nord Stream Will Benefit the Whole EU

Regarding Alexandros Petersen's op-ed on Nord Stream ("The Russo-German Energy Pincer," Sept. 8), Nord Stream is being constructed to satisfy Europeans' increasing demand for imported gas that is due to dwindling domestic supplies and increased consumption. Mr. Petersen is simply wrong in claiming that Nord Stream only serves German interests; gas to be transported through Nord Stream has already been contracted to customers in the U.K., the Netherlands, France and Denmark, as well as Germany. Its shareholders are French and Dutch in addition to German and Russian, and financing for the project has been raised on the international capital markets from 28 lenders. The offshore route, although more expensive to construct, will save money in the long term through lower operational costs, and thus fills a gap in the market.

As for Mr. Petersen's assertion that Germany needs to supply Nord Stream gas to Poland for the project to be "worthwhile," neither the Federal Republic of Germany nor any of the German Länder have a stake in the project. Commercial contracts for gas are made between the Russian producer and the purchasers in the European Union. Furthermore, the target markets for Nord Stream gas are those economies in northern and western Europe where demand is expected to significantly increase over the coming years. Nord Stream is not in competition with Polish supply routes.

Nor has Nord Stream been delayed by the process of assessing its environmental impact; from the very start environmental considerations were at the heart of the project and Nord Stream paid over €100 million for the most comprehensive environmental studies ever undertaken in the Baltic Sea.

Mr. Petersen talks about energy solidarity, but fails to understand that Nord Stream, as an official EU priority project, is a key component for energy solidarity and security of supply for the whole EU.

Ulrich Lissek

Communications director, Nord Stream

Zug, Switzerland

How Hillary Clinton's clean stoves will help African women

Poorly ventilated small fires are claiming millions of lives – as wood for them wrecks the environment

Madeleine Bunting guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 September 2010 13.30 BST

One of the most powerful women in the world is talking about cooking stoves. Thank God. Today, Hillary Clinton will describe the huge impact that something as simple as cooking fuel has on millions of lives. Want to know what is one of the leading causes of death for women and small children? You might imagine HIV/Aids or, given the focus on maternal mortality at the UN Summit in New York, you might suggest that women's greatest risk is death in childbirth. But just as dangerous and much less well publicised is the risk of inhaling smoke from cooking on open fires which leads to lung and heart diseases. According to the United Nations, smoke costs 1.9 million lives a year.

Think about it; every day, millions of women across Africa and India spend several hours crouched over small fires cooking. Often their homes have no chimneys and poor ventilation. This daily proximity destroys lungs. Small children staying close to their mothers are equally vulnerable. Finally, this huge story is percolating through to the mainstream. Clinton is due to announce $50m (£32m) in seed money to the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, to supply 100m fuel-efficient stoves across Africa.

What makes this situation so frustrating is that it is as destructive of the environment as it is of human tissue. In many countries, chopping trees for firewood is leading to long-term environmental degradation. When I visited western Uganda, the results were shockingly evident. The beautiful hills are now largely stripped bare of trees, much of the deforestation has occurred in the last 50 years, and the results are long run-off scars across the hills where rain has washed the soil away. Further environmental damage is done by the tons of soot spewed into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.

Clean, sustainable energy supplies are going to become a crisis issue across eastern Africa. The pace of deforestation and population growth is such that experts predict that within 25 years, supplies of firewood – the main source of cooking fuel – will have largely run out. Given that the staple foodstuffs of these African countries require cooking (for example millet, sorghum), the impact on nutrition and hunger will be huge. And fuel impacts on women's lives in other ways; as the supplies become more scarce, they have to walk further and further to collect what they need, as the collecting of firewood is a woman's task. In places of conflict such as Darfur or Congo, it is collecting firewood which exposes women and children to the risk of rape.

This is a problem that does not require expensive technology. It is about using fuel efficiently. Watch this video by one manufacturer of clean stoves in China now exporting to Africa. We know exactly how to make these stoves at relatively low cost. The challenge is to distribute them fast enough to pre-empt the kind of crisis predicted for east Africa. One really interesting possibility is linking clean stoves to microfinance schemes enabling small local businesses to develop who will be able to sell the stoves. Millions are needed, and there is no time to waste.

Aid follows fashions – over the last few years millions of malaria nets have been flooding in to Africa with dramatic results – hopefully Clinton's initiative will set a new trend. And this is a subject that people ought to really get behind in the way that the Alliance for Safe Motherhood has mobilised campaigners on maternal mortality. Stoves are a feminist issue – where are you Mumsnet?

Chris Huhne urges Liberal Democrats to back new nuclear power stations

Huhne tells delegates at the Lib Dem conference there is an important place for new nuclear stations 'as long as there is no public subsidy'
Hélène Mulholland, political reporter guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 September 2010 15.27 BST

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat energy and climate secretary, today urged his party to back new nuclear power stations as part of the "give and take" of being in government with the Conservatives.

Huhne used a keynote speech to tell delegates that almost 250,000 jobs in green industries would be created as part of the government's "green deal" which would help offset the economic "drag anchor" of budget cuts.

Huhne highlighted the proposals as he became the latest senior figure to urge the party to accept less palatable policies in the coalition agreement.

Yesterday, Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister, urged party members to "hold their nerve" and stick with the coalition deal during the difficult period ahead.

A key policy area in the partnership deal likely to arouse strong feeling involves plans to allow the building of nuclear power stations – a policy to which the Lib Dems, and Huhne himself, have long been opposed.

In recognition of the party's stance, the coalition deal stipulates that Lib Dem ministers would be free to maintain their opposition to nuclear plant construction as one of several opt-outs agreed by the parties on policy areas that are seen as red-line issues within their own camps.

But Huhne told delegates at their party conference in Liverpool that "a deal is a deal".

"I expect George Osborne [the chancellor] to take more millions of the low-paid out of income tax even though he is a Conservative minister implementing a Liberal Democrat pledge.

"And George Osborne expects me to deliver our agreement on nuclear power, which is that there is an important place for new nuclear stations in our energy mix as long as there is no public subsidy. A deal is a deal, and I will deliver."

Three years ago Huhne, then shadow energy spokesmen, urged ministers to stop the "side-show" of new nuclear power stations. "Nuclear is a tried, tested and failed technology and the government must stop putting time, effort and subsidies into reviving this outdated industry. The nuclear industry's key skill over the past half-century has not been generating electricity, but extracting lashings of taxpayers' money."

Aides to Huhne insist his opposition was based on the subsidies to the nuclear industry.

Today, the energy secretary said nuclear was now a "mature technology, not an infant needing nurture" as he emphasised that government plans to wave through construction would be done without subsidies from the state.

"I'm fed up with the stand-off between renewable and nuclear which means we have neither – we will have both. We will have low-carbon energy and security of supply."

He told delegates the government's "green deal", which is due to be presented in legislation in late autumn, would present a "green revolution" for the country.

He said his department was pioneering ways of turning this government into the "greenest ever" with thousands of green jobs being created as part of the drive to improve insulation in homes across the country.

Under the policy, companies will pay upfront to insulate homes, with householders paying back from the energy savings that will result.

Huhne promised it would mean a "revolution" and was "the most ambitious energy-saving plan ever put forward".

He expected the energy efficiency sector to employ 246,000 people in installation and supply-chain roles by 2030, he told delegates.

"Under the green deal consumers will save energy and save money. But the green deal could also create a whole new industry that will help offset the drag anchor of the budget squeeze. Not just the 26,000 people working in insulation now, but up to 250,000 jobs in every part of the country, working on 26 million homes. And going into commercial premises too, so that small businesses also save money."

As part of the switch to low-carbon energy, Huhne backed the construction of giant wind farms around the coast of Britain.

A new wind farm at Gwynt y Mor off the north Wales coast will have the potential to power a third of Welsh homes, he said. "I want to see this again and again round Britain's coasts."

Huhne also announced a new "government-wide carbon plan" setting out policies and deadlines for each department to "ensure real action on climate change".

British Airways backs biofuel project

Manama: Mon, 20 Sep 2010



British Airways, together with Airbus are backing Cranfield University’s pioneering project to harvest algae in order to produce jet fuel in commercial quantities.

The Sustainable Use of Renewable Fuels (Surf) consortium which includes British Airways, Airbus and Cranfield University, was announced at the Aviation and Environment Summit in Geneva.

Surf is based around Cranfield’s ‘Sea Green’ project and will serve as an advisory group supporting the definition, objectives and outcomes of this project. The university already has a pilot facility on campus which is growing and processing algae for bio-fuels but the eventual aim is for Sea Green to be an ocean-based facility for the sustainable production of commercial quantities of biomass for biofuels.

It is envisaged that the first commercial quantities of products from Sea Green will become available within three years.

“Sustainable fuels will play a critical role in reducing the carbon footprint of global aviation by 50 per cent by 2050, delivering substantially lower life-cycle emissions whilst avoiding other environmental impacts,” stated Jonathon Counsell, head of Environment at British Airways.

The Cranfield project follows British Airways’ recent announcement that it plans to establish Europe’s first sustainable jet-fuel plant and to use the low-carbon fuel to power part of its fleet from 2014.

The new fuel will be derived from waste biomass and manufactured in a state-of-the-art facility that can convert a variety of waste materials, destined for landfill, into aviation fuel.

“This project and consortium aim to see how algae could benefit the aviation industry. It will look at ways to grow and harvest naturally occurring species of algae in large volumes and to process these into fuel. Algae grows naturally in sea water and with over 70 per cent of the surface of the earth being water, Cranfield’s Sea Green project is a logical and potentially high yield solution,” added Professor Feargal Brennan, head of Cranfield University’s Department of Offshore, Process and Energy Engineering.

SURF is made up of Airbus, British Airways, Rolls-Royce, Finnair, Gatwick Airport, IATA and Cranfield University.-TradeArabia News Service

Coalition drops further green pledges on timber and renewables

Government has reneged on pre-election promises to tackle illegally logged timber imports and reward green energy 'pioneers'
Allegra Stratton and Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Monday 20 September 2010 18.07 BST

The coalition is being accused of reneging on two of its key environment pledges in a further blow to the credibility of David Cameron's promise to lead the "greenest government ever".

In correspondence from a government minister to the Green MP Caroline Lucas, the government makes clear it will not honour a pledge to make it a criminal offence to posess, or bring into the country, illegal timber. Campaigners say such legal measures are necessary to help curb the 350m-650m square metres of forest that is illegally logged every year – possibly as much as 40% of the total market.

In a second policy turnaround, both the Lib Dems and Tories promised before the election to extend the green subsidy for energy from small-scale solar panel installations to around 6,000 people who had put up panels before the launch of the government subsidy scheme. Last week Chris Huhne, the climate and energy secretary, made clear that the coalition would not extend the scheme and such early adopters would have to be content with the "warm glow of being pioneers".

Green campaigners are likely to be especially disappointed by the apparent dropping of more stringent measures on illegal timber however, because the coalition document explicitly committed the two parties to introducing "measures to make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence."

But Jim Paice, minister for agriculture and food, has now told Lucas the government will not move beyond propsed EU legislation on timber import and "will not be pursuing further UK legislative action at this stage." That means any move to make possession of illegal timber a criminal offence has been effectively ruled out.

After the US made the import of illegal timber illegal last November, the then shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, promised a Tory government would pass UK legislation on top of any strengthened EU directive. He said such efforts would "send a message to the rest of Europe that we are ready to lead on closing the market to illegally timber" and criticised the then environment secretary, Hilary Benn, for failing to pledge the same.


In letters to Lucas and other backbenchers, Paice wrote: "Colleagues across the EU have come together to agree a strong and proportionate response and I am confident that the EU regulation with the first placing prohibition will stop illegal timber from coming on to our market. As such, our focus must now be on implementation."

"We should also recognise that much illegal timber comes into the country through negligence rather than deliberate criminal activity, and we anticipate that this negligence will be stamped out by the regulation. In a letter to another backbencher, Paice said: "In these difficult financial times, we need to focus on the principles of better regulation. There is little to be gained by initiating additional (and duplicative) UK legislation in this area and we must be wary of creating a disadvantage in our timber's trade's efforts to act as world leaders in the procurement of legal timber.

The EU legislation makes it an offence to place illegal timber on the market but does not make it an offence for anyone further down the supply change to handle illegal timber and that is why campaigners believe the UK government still needs to act. In his letters Paice acknowledges the EU legislation is "only the first step".



Lucas said: "It is deeply disappointing that a government that has an aspiration to be the 'greenest government in history' has fallen at the first hurdle. Deforestation is a key driver of climate change and they have flunked this test."

The coalition has also rowed back on pre-election promises on green energy subsidies. Under the feed-in tariff scheme launched in April, owners of solar panels fitted to existing houses since 15 July 2009 are paid 41.3p per unit of electricity, while householders who put up panels before that date get just 9p. Green energy campaigners had fought the difference, which they called a "betrayal", and senior Lib Dems and Conservatives had pledged to remedy it if they came to power.

Charles Hendry, the Conservative MP who is now minister of state at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), also wrote in February to campaigners and said a Tory government would pay higher rates to those who had installed early. "You will be pleased therefore to hear that we have decided that if a Conservative government is elected, we would ensure that micro-generation equipment installed before feed-in tariffs come into effect will nevertheless be entitled to the same terms as new installations," he said in a letter.

But last week, answering Lucas in parliament, Huhne ruled out any such move. "I considered the issue carefully on a value-for-money basis, and I am afraid that the advice from my officials was clearly that we cannot introduce retrospection in such cases because it does not represent value for money," he said on Thursday. "We are trying to introduce new schemes in future, and therefore, sadly, the only incentive and payback that people such as the hon Lady and I will get is the warm glow of being pioneers."


Green campaigners condemned Huhne's decision.

Juliet Davenport, CEO at green electricity utility Good Energy, said: "The UK microgeneration industry owes its existence to these early adopters who installed their own generation equipment because they wanted to make a difference to climate change. Many invested their life savings in such schemes because they believed it was the right thing to do – and they deserve to be recognised and rewarded for their entrepreneurial attitude, not penalised."


Cathy Debenham, director of renewable energy website YouGen, said: "I think it's really disappointing because both parties made this promise. It's rather weak of him to blame this on officials at Decc, because Huhne could do it if he wanted to do."