What will the power plants of the future look like? The same old coal chuggers, but with carbon sequestration units attached? Pebble bed nuclear reactors? Acres of windmill generators?
Mantra Energy has something different in mind. Their patented technology, electro-reduction of carbon dioxide (ERC), allows factories to capture carbon dioxide. Once captured, the carbon combines with water to produce chemicals that energy plants can sell for profit.
If Mantra succeeds, the energy industry will go hybrid in more than one way.
Currently, factories can produce formate and formic acid using Mantra technology, but the company has more chemicals on the horizon. By innovating a vertical market, Mantra hopes to make carbon capture pay off in a new way.
We spoke with John Russell, Mantra’s VP of Technology Evaluation, to learn more about Mantra’s technology, how big energy companies will scale carbon capture, and what the competition looks like in the evolving carbon capture space.
BP: I’ve read that carbon capture sequestration (CCS) actually increases the cost of energy from a power plant. Could you tell me a little bit about that?
The first answer is yes, carbon dioxide is a major cost of CCS. The numbers from IEA (International Energy Association) and some of the major European engineering firms indicate that utilities will have to make massive capital investments to meet the needs of CCS, because a lot of power goes into it. Operating costs will be up, and they estimate that the cost of power to consumers will go up by 30%.
We don’t expect the cost of carbon capture to be a large part of our ERC system. ERC is not carbon capture, it is a different technology. Mantra is developing new technology in which it expects to capture CO2 at minimal cost. We are predicting for ourselves, for our own technology, that carbon capture will be a modest cost.
BP: Who are you ultimately planning on selling most of your ERC systems to?
That’s a fairly profound question. The answer comes in bits of pieces.
Initially, our ERC systems will go into demonstration projects, into smaller projects. These will be installed around the world as our technology gets known and as carbon reduction, carbon recycling, starts to bite.
These customers are going to be looking to the future. They’re not interested specifically in a demonstration, but in where that demonstration can end up. They’re going to be looking to build an ERC plant incrementally. They are in the process of arranging government support and internal finance, looking at what competitors are doing. As we see it, each demo will mark the very high probability of a future large sale.
The small commercial systems will follow. These are, say, 100 tons/day of formic acid production. These small commercial systems will provide the proof of the practicality and the economics of ERC. They will be designed to impress the general public, and government regulators, and customers will see that return on their investment.
This is very very very different from CCS, which is literally money down the hole.
Now, we move on to the large systems, a little further into the future. We expect to be building systems of 500 tons a day and larger as customers demand.
The decisionmaking process at this point gets political and economic.
Major emitters, we’re talking about the major emitters around the world, will emit depending on complex factors, like the regulatory climate that they see upcoming. They have to read the political climate and where it’s going.
They will be looking at the availability of federal subsidies and where they’re going. Governments will, I think, everywhere they’re serious, put wheels under it by arranging a subsidy of some sort. And they’ll also be calculating, company by company, what sort of economic return they can receive for themselves using the ERC system. They’ll also be looking over their shoulders at the pioneers, and asking themselves how they fare.
Once you get out that far, there are going to be very few companies and very few industries in the world that are going to be outside the market for Mantra’s ERC. Anywhere you’ve got a major emitter, it’s hard to imagine they’re not going to be under the kind of political and growing economic pressure that you already see in places like Europe. I think the industry leaders, the people to first adopt our technology, however, will tend to be found in the EU and the US.
BP: Since, ultimately, the volume of units that you sell has a lot to do with what governments and regulators want, are you doing anything to build connections with governments?
We’re a very small company. We’re a very new company. We don’t have those sorts of high level contacts today. We clearly understand that.
The way we’re going around that is to develop relationships with major companies who have those sorts of talents (Ed.: Mantra has already developed a relationship with 3M).
Think of the big companies in the US. They don’t get out of bed in the morning without thinking “how are we with Washington today?” We will work with companies like that.
BP: What makes you better than the competition?
Look at what’s been happening recently. The cost of energy has gone up the last two years. Most companies who have been thinking about this are already long down the road of saving energy and becoming more efficient. There are either only minor efficiencies left to get, or more efficiency will come to them at greater and greater cost.
Now, in terms of direct competition, the most obvious competitor we’ve got is CCS. Compared to ERC, we are profitable as compared to costly. We put out valuable products, CCS doesn’t. ERC is safe and immediately controllable; CCS, eh, there are questions about that.
ERC can be started small, really small, whereas CCS, logically, it has to be done big. By European projections, CCS costs a billion dollars and above—well above. Probably a billion and a half above based on what the EU is projecting. That’s a pricey first step.
ERC is an established industrial process. It’s based on electrochemistry. There’s nothing unknown about electrochemistry, other then of course the details of what we do. You can go out, get authorization for it, and build a plant today.
For CCS, there isn’t a legal and regulatory structure written for it, as far as I understand, anywhere in the world today. They’re working towards it, and it’s still open there are questions.
There are some parts of the world, and I name India and Scotland here, that are convinced that CCS is not practical.
There are other examples of carbon recycling. Maybe the best known one today would be Calera. It’s an interesting technology, but as far as I can see, it’s fixed. It makes one product.
The ERC system is capable of development. Because it’s an electrochemical basis, more can be done with it. Eventually, we’ll make a number of products. It’s a more broadly capable platform, if you will. We forecast that we’ll be more broadly profitable in the long run.
BP: The concept of energy companies selling a lot of chemicals on the side is new to me. Are setting up a new market model?
It’s new. If you go to the standard power plant, the standard utility, you’ll find big piles of coal and they make power. They sell electrical energy. They pretty well universally stick to their knitting. They’ve got no reason to do other complex things. They focus.
Now, there’s a real revolution having to go on here. It is on each of the major emitters, like power utilities. They now have to think beyond their core business, and they have to think about what they’re going to do with regards to CO2. They can either pay a massive amount of money into a project like CCS, or they can look for some other way to do it.
If they’re offered an approach that is more economical, that meets their requirement of doing something about emissions and also makes them money, we feel that they’ll be attracted to that. That puts them into a chemicals industry, into producing formic acid.
We will try to make it as painless as possible for them by arranging off-take licenses. They’ll make chemicals, but they don’t have to have a sales group go out and sell them. They don’t have to worry about what the market’s doing today in terms of what they’re making. There’s a group arriving at the door to take it away for them and paying them a fixed price.
But it is a new business model, if you will.
BP: That’s certainly an interesting proposition.
It’s an interesting idea. If you look down into it, my concept of the revolution that’s happening is that the last big shift in the handling of money was back in the 16th century, when we discovered double-entry bookkeeping. I believe it was a monk who discovered that. Today, we’ve always had two columns. Now we’ve got a third column. It reads carbon.
That’s a big shift in the way we think about things. When the board meets in mega-industry, it’s no longer simply how much, what return. The question attached to it is what emissions, and what do we do about it?
Learn more about Mantra Energy at their website, MantraEnergy.com.
Friday, 21 May 2010
Sweet Cybernetics: Glucose-Fueled Implantable Biofuel Cell
Our future artificial organs and other cyborg add-ons won’t be burdened with the inefficient and inconvenient batteries that implantable medical devices currently use. Traditional batteries require intermittent surgeries to remove implanted devices, replace the batteries and then replace the devices. Now, biofuel cells that use the body’s own supply of glucose are one step closer to becoming a reality after the first successful animal trial. Two rats carried the devices and proved that the biofuel cell can last at least three months and generate up to 6.5 microwatts of power, which gets within walking distance of the 10 microwatts used by pacemakers.
The human body already uses glucose to fuel its systems, so the biofuel cells make sense. Any practical human model would have to last far longer than three months and generate more power than the rat versions, but the study proves that the concept is possible. Long-lasting glucose cells could be used to power artificial hearts, artificial pancreases, and any number of biosensors without the need for frequent surgeries to change batteries. When your body is full of biofuel-running organs, you really will be able to say you live on sugar.
The human body already uses glucose to fuel its systems, so the biofuel cells make sense. Any practical human model would have to last far longer than three months and generate more power than the rat versions, but the study proves that the concept is possible. Long-lasting glucose cells could be used to power artificial hearts, artificial pancreases, and any number of biosensors without the need for frequent surgeries to change batteries. When your body is full of biofuel-running organs, you really will be able to say you live on sugar.
Next Generation Wave Energy Converter
May 20, 2010
UK-based wave energy developer, Aquamarine Power, has unveiled the design of its Oyster 2 wave energy converter. This renewable energy generator, which produces electricity from ocean waves, builds on the original Oyster 1 device, generates more power and is easier to install and maintain. The Oyster is anchored to the seafloor about half a mile off shore where waves pound against its frame to engage the hinge mechanism which in turn drives the hydraulic pistons to deliver high pressure water via a pipeline to an onshore electrical turbine.
Oyster 2 Design
Investors reject Royal Dutch Shell oil sands review
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
Shareholders in Royal Dutch Shell overwhelmingly rejected a resolution challenging the oil group’s investments in Canadian oil sands yesterday. Executives were also repeatedly criticised at a stormy annual meeting over the group’s operations in Nigeria.
About 11 per cent of shareholders either supported or abstained on the special resolution, which requested that Shell provide more information on its oil sands activities, including the financial, social and environmental impacts.
The majority voted against the motion, which had been tabled by a group of investors, human rights activists and native Canadian groups opposed to the extraction of crude oil from Canada’s bitumen-rich sands. The process is energy-intensive and environmentally fraught and releases far higher emissions of carbon dioxide than conventional oil production.
Speaking at the ill-tempered meeting in The Hague, Niall O’Shea, of Co-operative Asset Management, said that investing in oil sands would present “formidable energy and carbon penalties” for Shell in the long-term.
Peter Voser, chief executive, rejected the concerns: “It is part of our strategy. We see [oil sands] as a key part of the energy mix and Shell intends to play its part in a sustainable way.”
Shareholders also attacked Shell for its record on pollution and human rights in Nigeria. Kate Baden-Fuller, a longstanding independent shareholder, said: “I want to make sure my money is not being made from the misery of others ... The standard of living in Nigeria has gone down drastically. The pollution is so bad it has affected the drinking water and the fishing.”
Almost all shareholders voted in favour of the firm’s 2009 executive pay report. Last year they rejected the plan, prompting talks with leading shareholders that led to a series of new proposals.
Shareholders in Royal Dutch Shell overwhelmingly rejected a resolution challenging the oil group’s investments in Canadian oil sands yesterday. Executives were also repeatedly criticised at a stormy annual meeting over the group’s operations in Nigeria.
About 11 per cent of shareholders either supported or abstained on the special resolution, which requested that Shell provide more information on its oil sands activities, including the financial, social and environmental impacts.
The majority voted against the motion, which had been tabled by a group of investors, human rights activists and native Canadian groups opposed to the extraction of crude oil from Canada’s bitumen-rich sands. The process is energy-intensive and environmentally fraught and releases far higher emissions of carbon dioxide than conventional oil production.
Speaking at the ill-tempered meeting in The Hague, Niall O’Shea, of Co-operative Asset Management, said that investing in oil sands would present “formidable energy and carbon penalties” for Shell in the long-term.
Peter Voser, chief executive, rejected the concerns: “It is part of our strategy. We see [oil sands] as a key part of the energy mix and Shell intends to play its part in a sustainable way.”
Shareholders also attacked Shell for its record on pollution and human rights in Nigeria. Kate Baden-Fuller, a longstanding independent shareholder, said: “I want to make sure my money is not being made from the misery of others ... The standard of living in Nigeria has gone down drastically. The pollution is so bad it has affected the drinking water and the fishing.”
Almost all shareholders voted in favour of the firm’s 2009 executive pay report. Last year they rejected the plan, prompting talks with leading shareholders that led to a series of new proposals.
Where next for nuclear as Labour’s ‘unaccountable quango’ faces axe?
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
Fresh doubts have surfaced over plans to build a fleet of nuclear power stations in Britain after the Government pledged to scrap a planning agency designed to accelerate construction of new reactors and other big energy projects.
Greg Clark, the new Communities Minister, confirmed to The Times that the Infrastructure Planning Commission, created by Labour only seven months ago to streamline Britain’s fragmented planning system, would be disbanded.
In the first official comment on the IPC’s future since the formation of the Lib-Con coalition, Mr Clark said that the Government was “committed to abolishing this unaccountable central planning quango”. He indicated that the IPC would be replaced in due course, but declined to say when this would happen or how it would be done.
The remarks triggered a backlash from the nuclear industry, which fears that renewed uncertainty over planning issues will deter the tens of billions of pounds of investment needed to build the new plants.
Clare Spottiswoode, the chairman of Energy Solutions Europe, an American-owned group that helps to manage five nuclear sites in Britain, including Sizewell and Dungeness, said: “People are already nervous and this is just another area of uncertainty. The risk is they will just take their money elsewhere.”
Ian Marchant, the chief executive of Scottish & Southern Energy, which is part of a joint venture to build new reactors at Sellafield, said that he was “unhappy” about the decision. “We have just had a change to the planning system,” he said. “To change it again will just mean more delays.”
Ms Spottiswoode said that the industry was already concerned that the appointment of Chris Huhne as Energy Secretary had seriously dented confidence in the sector.
Each of the 11 proposed nuclear power plants will cost nearly £4.5 billion and have a capacity of up to 1,600 megawatts of electricity — enough to supply two million homes for up to 60 years.
Companies such as EDF, of France, and RWE and E.ON, of Germany, are expected to pay, but the economics of building the plants remains risky because of their high cost.
One industry insider said that RWE and E.ON, in particular, were “very skittish” about the outcome of the election and the appointment of Mr Huhne and the implications for the nuclear industry. “They cannot believe it,” he said. “The decisions about whether to invest in Britain will be made in Germany — and from Germany this really does not look good.”
The nuclear plants are considered essential if Britain is to have a realistic chance of meeting its goal of cutting CO2 emissions by 34 per cent by 2020 and to prevent it developing overreliance on gas-fired power plants.
The IPC was created as part of a move to strip local authorities of the ability to block or delay projects considered to be of high national priority. An important plank of the policy was to separate national decisions from individual planning concerns.
However, Mr Clark said that the organisation “patently lacks” accountability. He added: “We need to speed up the planning system and deliver new infrastructure like power generation. But it is vital that there are proper democratic checks and balances.”
The IPC, whose budget is £9.3 million, has 40 employees and was due to start considering applications on March 1. However, its work was delayed because guidelines were not approved by Parliament. The IPC’s chairman is Sir Michael Pitt, who is paid £184,000 a year for a four-day week. The body has offices in Bristol and has hired dozens of staff, including seven commissioners on salaries equivalent to £100,000 per year.
Adrian Bull, spokesman for Westinghouse, the American manufacturer of reactors, said: “It is very important that the UK nuclear industry has clarity over how planning applications will be dealt with and also the confidence that they will be dealt with in a timely way.”
Fresh doubts have surfaced over plans to build a fleet of nuclear power stations in Britain after the Government pledged to scrap a planning agency designed to accelerate construction of new reactors and other big energy projects.
Greg Clark, the new Communities Minister, confirmed to The Times that the Infrastructure Planning Commission, created by Labour only seven months ago to streamline Britain’s fragmented planning system, would be disbanded.
In the first official comment on the IPC’s future since the formation of the Lib-Con coalition, Mr Clark said that the Government was “committed to abolishing this unaccountable central planning quango”. He indicated that the IPC would be replaced in due course, but declined to say when this would happen or how it would be done.
The remarks triggered a backlash from the nuclear industry, which fears that renewed uncertainty over planning issues will deter the tens of billions of pounds of investment needed to build the new plants.
Clare Spottiswoode, the chairman of Energy Solutions Europe, an American-owned group that helps to manage five nuclear sites in Britain, including Sizewell and Dungeness, said: “People are already nervous and this is just another area of uncertainty. The risk is they will just take their money elsewhere.”
Ian Marchant, the chief executive of Scottish & Southern Energy, which is part of a joint venture to build new reactors at Sellafield, said that he was “unhappy” about the decision. “We have just had a change to the planning system,” he said. “To change it again will just mean more delays.”
Ms Spottiswoode said that the industry was already concerned that the appointment of Chris Huhne as Energy Secretary had seriously dented confidence in the sector.
Each of the 11 proposed nuclear power plants will cost nearly £4.5 billion and have a capacity of up to 1,600 megawatts of electricity — enough to supply two million homes for up to 60 years.
Companies such as EDF, of France, and RWE and E.ON, of Germany, are expected to pay, but the economics of building the plants remains risky because of their high cost.
One industry insider said that RWE and E.ON, in particular, were “very skittish” about the outcome of the election and the appointment of Mr Huhne and the implications for the nuclear industry. “They cannot believe it,” he said. “The decisions about whether to invest in Britain will be made in Germany — and from Germany this really does not look good.”
The nuclear plants are considered essential if Britain is to have a realistic chance of meeting its goal of cutting CO2 emissions by 34 per cent by 2020 and to prevent it developing overreliance on gas-fired power plants.
The IPC was created as part of a move to strip local authorities of the ability to block or delay projects considered to be of high national priority. An important plank of the policy was to separate national decisions from individual planning concerns.
However, Mr Clark said that the organisation “patently lacks” accountability. He added: “We need to speed up the planning system and deliver new infrastructure like power generation. But it is vital that there are proper democratic checks and balances.”
The IPC, whose budget is £9.3 million, has 40 employees and was due to start considering applications on March 1. However, its work was delayed because guidelines were not approved by Parliament. The IPC’s chairman is Sir Michael Pitt, who is paid £184,000 a year for a four-day week. The body has offices in Bristol and has hired dozens of staff, including seven commissioners on salaries equivalent to £100,000 per year.
Adrian Bull, spokesman for Westinghouse, the American manufacturer of reactors, said: “It is very important that the UK nuclear industry has clarity over how planning applications will be dealt with and also the confidence that they will be dealt with in a timely way.”
Coalition must commit to zero-carbon future for our homes and offices
The construction industry has made huge progress on green buildings, but a wave of uncertainty is sweeping through the sector
John Alker
The award-winning BedZed housing development in the London borough of Sutton is one of the leading examples of sustainable living in the UK Photograph: Rex Features
David Cameron said last week that this was going to be "the greenest government ever", so why am I feeling underwhelmed by today's coalition agreement?
The energy used in our homes and buildings accounts for 43% of the UK's carbon emissions. People are often surprised that figure is so high and that's because a lot of focus is given to how energy is generated, rather than how it is used. So as the UK Green Building Council, we were particularly interested to see how the Conservatives and Lib Dems are proposing to tackle our carbon-hungry built environment.
Unfortunately, the statement is a bit short of ambition and is worrying in part. A concerning phrase in the text looks pretty innocuous at first glance: "We will require continuous improvements to the energy efficiency of new housing." Surely that sounds like a good thing? Unfortunately it's not that simple. Without urgent clarification, this one line risks a wave of uncertainty sweeping throughout the construction and property sector.
In 2006, the previous government introduced the most progressive environmental policy of the New Labour years. It said that from 2016 every single new home built must be responsible for zero carbon emissions from the energy used in its operation. There has been confusion over the precise definition, but the principle is clear – build super-energy efficient homes, then provide all the remaining energy from renewable sources.
I hope we receive reassurance as soon as possible that the coalition fully supports the 2016 target. The target has genuinely galvanised housebuilders, architects and product manufacturers and helped transform a sector not traditionally associated with radical change. To pull the rug out from under the feet of all those companies who have been investing and innovating and preparing for 2016 would be disastrous. Missing this opportunity to commit to the target is pretty sloppy.
Let's not be churlish, there is much to welcome. A smart grid and smart meters, feed-in tariffs that provide an incentive to install renewables and a green investment bank – it's all good stuff, even if most of it was under way before the election.
There is also a commitment to "encourage home energy efficiency improvements paid for by savings from energy bills". This rather dry commitment refers to a rather radical idea, which has the potential to revolutionise our ageing, leaky housing stock which is responsible for 26% of our CO2 emissions. The biggest barrier to making home energy efficiency a mainstream activity, particularly for Victorian solid-walled properties, is the high upfront cost. Under a so-called Pay As You Save scheme (the Conservatives called it the Green Deal) the measures don't cost anything up front, but are paid for by spreading the cost over a long period, paid back through savings in energy bills.
Labour would say it was already committed to it, but we need legislation to get this sort of scheme up and running so if the coalition fast-tracks the necessary bill, that should be warmly welcomed. However, critics will argue that without reference to additional incentives or disincentives to encourage the take-up of such a scheme (such as different levels of stamp duty), today's statement doesn't go far enough.
There is another hole in the statement, and it comes in the shape of an office building – or a hotel, hospital or warehouse for that matter. Non-domestic (ie, non-residential) buildings are responsible for 17% UK CO2 emissions, yet they barely got a mention in any of the main party manifestos – even the supporting "green" documents.
And there is no mention of the previous government target for all new non-domestic buildings to be zero carbon by 2019. The same principles apply with a zero-carbon office as with a zero-carbon home. And the same criticisms apply by not re-committing to this target. Policy was not as far advanced in this area compared with the domestic sector, but it's still an omission. We also have no mention of the role for district heat or other sustainable community infrastructure, which will be an important part of the solution.
As for refurbishing our non-domestic buildings, there is a commitment to refurbishment in the non-domestic stock ("We will also take measures to improve energy efficiency in businesses and public sector buildings") but it's hardly inspirational stuff. Here, business would accept much more stringent demands being made of it, such as phasing out the worst performing properties over time. That means if a property is not up to scratch by a particular date, it can't be sold or rented until it's been refurbished. The basis for this would be much-needed improvements to the system of A to G ratings for buildings – and making sure every building in the country was reliably labelled.
What is completely lacking is any sense of a comprehensive strategy – a well thought through plan for decarbonising our built environment. Of course you wouldn't expect the Lib Dems and Conservatives to have precise details right now, but I'd like to see an indication that government has a vision for what this looks like. The Lib Dem manifesto talked of a "zero carbon Britain by 2050" – where has that ambition gone?
The ironic thing is that none of this need be a burden on either business or the householder. Buildings offer twice as much cost-effective carbon reduction potential as any other sector. Lower carbon buildings – whether new or refurbished – are better quality buildings, nicer to live and work in, with more natural daylight, cheaper to run, and more valuable in the long-term. Low and zero carbon buildings and the industry that delivers them, are worth potentially billions of pounds a year to the UK economy and could create over 100,000 new jobs. Let's not miss this open goal.
• John Alker is director of policy & communications, UK Green Building Council
John Alker
The award-winning BedZed housing development in the London borough of Sutton is one of the leading examples of sustainable living in the UK Photograph: Rex Features
David Cameron said last week that this was going to be "the greenest government ever", so why am I feeling underwhelmed by today's coalition agreement?
The energy used in our homes and buildings accounts for 43% of the UK's carbon emissions. People are often surprised that figure is so high and that's because a lot of focus is given to how energy is generated, rather than how it is used. So as the UK Green Building Council, we were particularly interested to see how the Conservatives and Lib Dems are proposing to tackle our carbon-hungry built environment.
Unfortunately, the statement is a bit short of ambition and is worrying in part. A concerning phrase in the text looks pretty innocuous at first glance: "We will require continuous improvements to the energy efficiency of new housing." Surely that sounds like a good thing? Unfortunately it's not that simple. Without urgent clarification, this one line risks a wave of uncertainty sweeping throughout the construction and property sector.
In 2006, the previous government introduced the most progressive environmental policy of the New Labour years. It said that from 2016 every single new home built must be responsible for zero carbon emissions from the energy used in its operation. There has been confusion over the precise definition, but the principle is clear – build super-energy efficient homes, then provide all the remaining energy from renewable sources.
I hope we receive reassurance as soon as possible that the coalition fully supports the 2016 target. The target has genuinely galvanised housebuilders, architects and product manufacturers and helped transform a sector not traditionally associated with radical change. To pull the rug out from under the feet of all those companies who have been investing and innovating and preparing for 2016 would be disastrous. Missing this opportunity to commit to the target is pretty sloppy.
Let's not be churlish, there is much to welcome. A smart grid and smart meters, feed-in tariffs that provide an incentive to install renewables and a green investment bank – it's all good stuff, even if most of it was under way before the election.
There is also a commitment to "encourage home energy efficiency improvements paid for by savings from energy bills". This rather dry commitment refers to a rather radical idea, which has the potential to revolutionise our ageing, leaky housing stock which is responsible for 26% of our CO2 emissions. The biggest barrier to making home energy efficiency a mainstream activity, particularly for Victorian solid-walled properties, is the high upfront cost. Under a so-called Pay As You Save scheme (the Conservatives called it the Green Deal) the measures don't cost anything up front, but are paid for by spreading the cost over a long period, paid back through savings in energy bills.
Labour would say it was already committed to it, but we need legislation to get this sort of scheme up and running so if the coalition fast-tracks the necessary bill, that should be warmly welcomed. However, critics will argue that without reference to additional incentives or disincentives to encourage the take-up of such a scheme (such as different levels of stamp duty), today's statement doesn't go far enough.
There is another hole in the statement, and it comes in the shape of an office building – or a hotel, hospital or warehouse for that matter. Non-domestic (ie, non-residential) buildings are responsible for 17% UK CO2 emissions, yet they barely got a mention in any of the main party manifestos – even the supporting "green" documents.
And there is no mention of the previous government target for all new non-domestic buildings to be zero carbon by 2019. The same principles apply with a zero-carbon office as with a zero-carbon home. And the same criticisms apply by not re-committing to this target. Policy was not as far advanced in this area compared with the domestic sector, but it's still an omission. We also have no mention of the role for district heat or other sustainable community infrastructure, which will be an important part of the solution.
As for refurbishing our non-domestic buildings, there is a commitment to refurbishment in the non-domestic stock ("We will also take measures to improve energy efficiency in businesses and public sector buildings") but it's hardly inspirational stuff. Here, business would accept much more stringent demands being made of it, such as phasing out the worst performing properties over time. That means if a property is not up to scratch by a particular date, it can't be sold or rented until it's been refurbished. The basis for this would be much-needed improvements to the system of A to G ratings for buildings – and making sure every building in the country was reliably labelled.
What is completely lacking is any sense of a comprehensive strategy – a well thought through plan for decarbonising our built environment. Of course you wouldn't expect the Lib Dems and Conservatives to have precise details right now, but I'd like to see an indication that government has a vision for what this looks like. The Lib Dem manifesto talked of a "zero carbon Britain by 2050" – where has that ambition gone?
The ironic thing is that none of this need be a burden on either business or the householder. Buildings offer twice as much cost-effective carbon reduction potential as any other sector. Lower carbon buildings – whether new or refurbished – are better quality buildings, nicer to live and work in, with more natural daylight, cheaper to run, and more valuable in the long-term. Low and zero carbon buildings and the industry that delivers them, are worth potentially billions of pounds a year to the UK economy and could create over 100,000 new jobs. Let's not miss this open goal.
• John Alker is director of policy & communications, UK Green Building Council
National Grid's green revamp will add £4 to energy bills
Network operator launches rights issue and announces £22bn spending plan to modernise ageing infrastructure
Julia Kollewe guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 May 2010 19.55 BST .
National Grid revealed today that new investment in a greener energy infrastructure will cost the average UK household an extra £4 a year on energy bills.
The group, which runs Britain's electricity and gas networks, announced it would ask investors for £3.2bn in a rights issue next month as it steps up spending to £22bn over the next five years, from £14bn in the past five. Three-quarters of the total will be spent in the UK.
The two-shares-for-five rights issue is heavily discounted at 335p and took the City by surprise. Finance director Steve Lucas explained that the company needed more equity to maintain its stable credit ratings in light of the ramped-up capital spending.
Lucas said: "This is a very major investment to get a major upgrade to the system to make it fit for the energy revolution." The company has worked out that the cost, which will be passed on to its clients, the energy companies, and ultimately to households, will be just £4 per average customer a year. "That's pretty good value," said Lucas. Transmission only makes up 5% of household bills.
The move came as the new government set out the full details of its coalition agreement. It wants to increase the 15% target for energy from renewable sources, subject to advice from the climate change committee. The measures announced include an offshore electricity grid to support a "new generation of offshore wind power" and promoting energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.
The government also hopes to roll out a new smart meters scheme to boost the number of homes with the energy-saving devices, which will be supported by the creation of a smart grid. A full feed-in tariff system to encourage renewable energy is planned, as well as a network of charging stations for electric cars. The creation of a green investment bank was also confirmed, along with "green financial products" to encourage infrastructure investment.
The shift to a low-carbon energy system "requires much greater investment in the electricity and gas transmission networks to deal with a very different flow of energy on the networks," said analysts at Morgan Stanley. "We believe the broad principles set out in the Con-Lib coalition agreement are supportive of this evolution, and therefore are supportive of the need to invest materially in transmission networks."
National Grid will spend an extra £5.6bn, including the proceeds from the rights issue, on replacing its ageing network and infrastructure in the UK to help the government meet its carbon emission reduction targets.
About £2.8bn has been earmarked for nine major projects to link up nuclear power and offshore wind farms in Suffolk, Somerset and Wales. A further £1bn will be spent on "rewiring" London and Birmingham – building deep-bore cable tunnels to replace the old system – and another £1bn on "other opportunities" such as installing new cables from Scotland to England and further gas interconnectors. The remaining £800m will go towards reinforcing the gas network to secure the country's liquefied gas supply from abroad. The investment programme is expected to create 5,000 new jobs.
Lucas hailed the new spending plans as a "very big step up". He added: "We're replatforming National Grid to a bigger company, with much bigger investments." The group is ramping up capital spending to £5bn a year from £3 to £3.5bn in the past.
National Grid also announced annual profits of £2.2bn for last year, up from £1.4bn the previous year.
There has been a debate over whether to move to a low-carbon system through developing the national infrastructure or investing in micro-generation. In recent years the Labour government came under heavy criticism for delaying decisions on energy generation and distribution, and for failing to encourage micro-generation.
Lucas said he saw the coalition agreement as "very supportive" in terms of greening up the economy.
Analysts at Nomura said: "We think the rights issue will be well supported and will remove one of the overhangs on the shares. We expect all the additional capital expenditure to be growth- and value-enhancing. Hence any initial adverse reaction to the announcement may be short-lived."
Julia Kollewe guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 May 2010 19.55 BST .
National Grid revealed today that new investment in a greener energy infrastructure will cost the average UK household an extra £4 a year on energy bills.
The group, which runs Britain's electricity and gas networks, announced it would ask investors for £3.2bn in a rights issue next month as it steps up spending to £22bn over the next five years, from £14bn in the past five. Three-quarters of the total will be spent in the UK.
The two-shares-for-five rights issue is heavily discounted at 335p and took the City by surprise. Finance director Steve Lucas explained that the company needed more equity to maintain its stable credit ratings in light of the ramped-up capital spending.
Lucas said: "This is a very major investment to get a major upgrade to the system to make it fit for the energy revolution." The company has worked out that the cost, which will be passed on to its clients, the energy companies, and ultimately to households, will be just £4 per average customer a year. "That's pretty good value," said Lucas. Transmission only makes up 5% of household bills.
The move came as the new government set out the full details of its coalition agreement. It wants to increase the 15% target for energy from renewable sources, subject to advice from the climate change committee. The measures announced include an offshore electricity grid to support a "new generation of offshore wind power" and promoting energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.
The government also hopes to roll out a new smart meters scheme to boost the number of homes with the energy-saving devices, which will be supported by the creation of a smart grid. A full feed-in tariff system to encourage renewable energy is planned, as well as a network of charging stations for electric cars. The creation of a green investment bank was also confirmed, along with "green financial products" to encourage infrastructure investment.
The shift to a low-carbon energy system "requires much greater investment in the electricity and gas transmission networks to deal with a very different flow of energy on the networks," said analysts at Morgan Stanley. "We believe the broad principles set out in the Con-Lib coalition agreement are supportive of this evolution, and therefore are supportive of the need to invest materially in transmission networks."
National Grid will spend an extra £5.6bn, including the proceeds from the rights issue, on replacing its ageing network and infrastructure in the UK to help the government meet its carbon emission reduction targets.
About £2.8bn has been earmarked for nine major projects to link up nuclear power and offshore wind farms in Suffolk, Somerset and Wales. A further £1bn will be spent on "rewiring" London and Birmingham – building deep-bore cable tunnels to replace the old system – and another £1bn on "other opportunities" such as installing new cables from Scotland to England and further gas interconnectors. The remaining £800m will go towards reinforcing the gas network to secure the country's liquefied gas supply from abroad. The investment programme is expected to create 5,000 new jobs.
Lucas hailed the new spending plans as a "very big step up". He added: "We're replatforming National Grid to a bigger company, with much bigger investments." The group is ramping up capital spending to £5bn a year from £3 to £3.5bn in the past.
National Grid also announced annual profits of £2.2bn for last year, up from £1.4bn the previous year.
There has been a debate over whether to move to a low-carbon system through developing the national infrastructure or investing in micro-generation. In recent years the Labour government came under heavy criticism for delaying decisions on energy generation and distribution, and for failing to encourage micro-generation.
Lucas said he saw the coalition agreement as "very supportive" in terms of greening up the economy.
Analysts at Nomura said: "We think the rights issue will be well supported and will remove one of the overhangs on the shares. We expect all the additional capital expenditure to be growth- and value-enhancing. Hence any initial adverse reaction to the announcement may be short-lived."
Offshore energy report could dash defeatist arguments against the rocks
A new report on the capacity in the UK for offshore wind, wave and tidal power should be used to put pressure on ministers
• Offshore green energy could make UK net exporter by 2050
Whenever you suggest that renewables could one day supply a large proportion of our electricity, scores of people jump up to denounce it as a pipedream, a fantasy, a dangerous delusion.
They insist that the energy resources don't exist; that the technologies are inefficient; that they can't be accommodated on the grid; that the variability of supply will cause constant blackouts.
I suspect that no amount of evidence will sway some of these people. There's a large contingent which seems to hate renewables come what may.
However often you point them to papers showing how a European supergrid, which could one day stretch from Iceland to North Africa, allows us to balance renewable resources against each other, ensuring constant supplies; however often you explain the potential of smart appliances, a smart grid and new energy storage technologies, they just clamp their fingers in their ears and shout: "No, no, no!"
I don't know how to explain this unreasoning antagonism, but it casts an interesting light on the oft-repeated myth that it is environmentalists who are hostile to new technologies.
But even the defeatists might be swayed by some of the findings of the Offshore Valuation report, just published by the Public Interest Research Centre (Pirc). It's the first time anyone has tried to work out how much electricity could be produced by offshore renewables in the UK, and the results are fascinating.
It examines only existing technologies – wind turbines with both fixed and floating foundations, wave machines, tidal range and tidal stream devices – and the contribution they can make by 2050.
It accepts the usual constraints on offshore renewables: maximum water depths, the need to avoid dense shipping lanes and other obstacles, the various technical limits. Having applied these constraints, it finds that the practical resource for offshore renewables in the UK is 2,130 terawatt hours per year. This is six times our current electricity demand.
Were we to use only 29% of the total resource, the UK would become a net electricity exporter. We would be generating energy equivalent to 1bn barrels of oil a year, which roughly corresponds to the average amount of North Sea oil and gas the UK has been producing over the past four decades.
The report estimates that this industry would directly employ 145,000 people and produce annual revenues of £62bn. The construction effort would be roughly similar to building the North Sea oil and gas infrastructure: eminently plausible, in other words, if propelled by strong government policy.
Were we to make use of 76% of the resource, the UK would become a net exporter of total energy. This is a tougher call, but not necessarily impossible: we'd be producing the equivalent of 150% of the energy output from UK's peak production year for oil and gas (1999).
It would mean building an average of 1,800 7.5 megawatt wind turbines every year. This is likely to stretch available manpower and construction capacity to the maximum, possibly beyond. But if enough investment is sunk into training, manufacturing and transport, the potential for creating both employment and income is enormous.
The national grid, the report estimates, could accommodate about 50% variable renewables (power sources whose output depends on the weather) by 2050, as long as it had 34 gigawatts of backup capacity, energy storage and interconnectors linking it with the continent. This is both plausible and affordable. (Backup, to address another persistent myth, does not mean that the necessary thermal power plants are kept running all the time, just that they are available if needed.)
There are some interesting implications. The UK could close its looming energy gap without using new sources of fossil fuels. It could do this without encountering the public hostility which often scuppers onshore windfarms.
The best wind resources are mostly way out of the sight of land: the further out to sea you go, the stronger the wind becomes. A recent study shows that offshore windfarms can greatly increase the abundance of fish and crabs. (My hope is that the foundations could be connected by a web of steel cables, so the windfarms could function as marine reserves which never needed to be policed, as trawling through them would be impossible.)
It also raises some important questions. If the offshore resource is so abundant and its deployment likely to cause hardly any political fuss, should we give up fighting for onshore windfarms? I don't know, but I would appreciate your views.
The report also makes me wonder whether, in the light of the damage they will do and of the far greater resources in the open sea, a Severn barrage and other tidal range devices are worth developing. The report suggests that the total practical resource for offshore wind is 1,939 terawatt hours per year, while the total tidal range resource is just 36 – and more expensive to deploy. Given the aggro tidal barrages will cause and the habitats they will destroy, are they worth developing?
If any of this is to happen, the big decisions will need to be taken in the next year or so. So if ever you meet ministers or officials, ask them these questions. Have they read the report? What do they intend to do about it?
monbiot.com
• Offshore green energy could make UK net exporter by 2050
Whenever you suggest that renewables could one day supply a large proportion of our electricity, scores of people jump up to denounce it as a pipedream, a fantasy, a dangerous delusion.
They insist that the energy resources don't exist; that the technologies are inefficient; that they can't be accommodated on the grid; that the variability of supply will cause constant blackouts.
I suspect that no amount of evidence will sway some of these people. There's a large contingent which seems to hate renewables come what may.
However often you point them to papers showing how a European supergrid, which could one day stretch from Iceland to North Africa, allows us to balance renewable resources against each other, ensuring constant supplies; however often you explain the potential of smart appliances, a smart grid and new energy storage technologies, they just clamp their fingers in their ears and shout: "No, no, no!"
I don't know how to explain this unreasoning antagonism, but it casts an interesting light on the oft-repeated myth that it is environmentalists who are hostile to new technologies.
But even the defeatists might be swayed by some of the findings of the Offshore Valuation report, just published by the Public Interest Research Centre (Pirc). It's the first time anyone has tried to work out how much electricity could be produced by offshore renewables in the UK, and the results are fascinating.
It examines only existing technologies – wind turbines with both fixed and floating foundations, wave machines, tidal range and tidal stream devices – and the contribution they can make by 2050.
It accepts the usual constraints on offshore renewables: maximum water depths, the need to avoid dense shipping lanes and other obstacles, the various technical limits. Having applied these constraints, it finds that the practical resource for offshore renewables in the UK is 2,130 terawatt hours per year. This is six times our current electricity demand.
Were we to use only 29% of the total resource, the UK would become a net electricity exporter. We would be generating energy equivalent to 1bn barrels of oil a year, which roughly corresponds to the average amount of North Sea oil and gas the UK has been producing over the past four decades.
The report estimates that this industry would directly employ 145,000 people and produce annual revenues of £62bn. The construction effort would be roughly similar to building the North Sea oil and gas infrastructure: eminently plausible, in other words, if propelled by strong government policy.
Were we to make use of 76% of the resource, the UK would become a net exporter of total energy. This is a tougher call, but not necessarily impossible: we'd be producing the equivalent of 150% of the energy output from UK's peak production year for oil and gas (1999).
It would mean building an average of 1,800 7.5 megawatt wind turbines every year. This is likely to stretch available manpower and construction capacity to the maximum, possibly beyond. But if enough investment is sunk into training, manufacturing and transport, the potential for creating both employment and income is enormous.
The national grid, the report estimates, could accommodate about 50% variable renewables (power sources whose output depends on the weather) by 2050, as long as it had 34 gigawatts of backup capacity, energy storage and interconnectors linking it with the continent. This is both plausible and affordable. (Backup, to address another persistent myth, does not mean that the necessary thermal power plants are kept running all the time, just that they are available if needed.)
There are some interesting implications. The UK could close its looming energy gap without using new sources of fossil fuels. It could do this without encountering the public hostility which often scuppers onshore windfarms.
The best wind resources are mostly way out of the sight of land: the further out to sea you go, the stronger the wind becomes. A recent study shows that offshore windfarms can greatly increase the abundance of fish and crabs. (My hope is that the foundations could be connected by a web of steel cables, so the windfarms could function as marine reserves which never needed to be policed, as trawling through them would be impossible.)
It also raises some important questions. If the offshore resource is so abundant and its deployment likely to cause hardly any political fuss, should we give up fighting for onshore windfarms? I don't know, but I would appreciate your views.
The report also makes me wonder whether, in the light of the damage they will do and of the far greater resources in the open sea, a Severn barrage and other tidal range devices are worth developing. The report suggests that the total practical resource for offshore wind is 1,939 terawatt hours per year, while the total tidal range resource is just 36 – and more expensive to deploy. Given the aggro tidal barrages will cause and the habitats they will destroy, are they worth developing?
If any of this is to happen, the big decisions will need to be taken in the next year or so. So if ever you meet ministers or officials, ask them these questions. Have they read the report? What do they intend to do about it?
monbiot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
