Last Update: 8/16 2:40 pm
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - Did you know that biofuel is being grown in Salt Lake City? And the crops are now in the national spotlight.
The United States Army took a tour of the land which is just southwest of the Salt Lake International Airport. Earlier this year, Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, the South Davis Sewer District, Utah State University and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints partnered to create a biofuel feedstock pilot project.
Safflower plants were planted on about twenty acres of land. Every acre creates about 1,000 pounds of biofuel. "Here in the state of Utah we are basically researching and developing. Because if we can do it here, we can do it anywhere. That's become kind of our motto. So if we develop the technology here.. it can be easily transferred anywhere in the country," says Dallas Hanks, a Utah State University Research Scientist.
The purpose of the program is to find out if publicly owned lands that aren't suitable for traditional farming can grow crops that can be made into biodiesel. USU produces biodiesel from the safflower right at the farm using just power and water.
The military is interested in the process for use on its land across the United States, as well as across the world. That way, fuel wouldn't have to be brought in by a convoy.
Copyright 2010 Newport Television LLC All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Green prison: Where security meets ecology
A green prison sounds unlikely - especially in the US. But a ground-breaking facility in America wants to improve the environment as well as crime rates. By Rob Sharp
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
The Washington State Department of Corrections seems to think so. This week, the US Green Building Council awarded the department North America's most prestigious environmental award – a plaque for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design – for a 21-building, medium-security extension at its Coyote Ridge Corrections Centre in Connell, a small city in the state's Franklin County. Since the extension's completion in October 2008, each year the penitentiary uses 5.5 million gallons less water than its conventional equivalents, saving its operators around $370,000 (£235,807) in energy costs over the period. Its solar panels occupy 16,929sq ft and it floods its corridors with natural light. But is this money well-spent? The 19th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, whose theories considered prison design, once said: "The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation." It must follow that Coyote Ridge's all-encompassing social, humanitarian and environmental benefits speak for themselves.
"Every aspect of a prison design, from its staff to its location, is important," says Sean McConvill, co-author of the influential British book Prison Design. "Among these, no doubt, is respect for the environment and careful use of resources, which must have a beneficial impact on staff and inmates alike."
Indeed, Coyote Ridge's staff are congratulating themselves. The prison's facility manager, Glenn Jones, told reporters this month the jail had performed "better than we hoped". He described how its laundry system reduced reliance on a local aquifer, and how a rubbish recycling programme had cut the amount of waste produced by a half, impressing local legislators.
Environmentally, at the very least, it is easy to see why the $230m (£147m) extension has picked up a gong. From the outside, the barbed wire and monolithic concrete blocks make it look like any other correctional outpost. But then, visitors catch a glimpse of a "drought-resistance landscape" of gravel instead of thirsty grass (cutting water use by 25 per cent). In a 100-bed segregation unit and eight 256-bed units of inmate housing, state-of-the-art, long, thin windows keep cells cool in summer and retain heat in winter. Efficient boilers and ventilation systems help the prison slash its energy consumption by half. Building materials that don't contain volatile organic compounds make the interior more habitable.
For the psychological benefits, compare this to its British cousins, maligned for their oppressive, cramped designs. "It is the idea of punishment heaped on punishment," the progressive British architect Will Alsop said of British prisons in 2007. "The punishment [to inmates] is being taken out of society. That's fine. Not even the prisoners complain about that ... but they're being punished further. Why can't they have a shower in their cell?" That year, Alsop spearheaded The Creative Prison exhibition at east London's Yard Gallery, showcasing alternatives. His suggestions included "villages of smaller buildings" instead of large cell blocks, and allotments reminiscent of a high-security university campus. Coyote Ridge operates along similar lines: there's no reason to think its inmates won't benefit from "hybrid housing units", allowing increased movement for inmates who behave well but cannot be transferred to a minimum-security jail.
Then there are the social benefits. According to Prison Design, "a prison system can only function properly where there is a balance between security and a human environment, and buildings that will facilitate positive activities with staff and prisoners". The authors highlight inmates' frustration regarding "lack of freedom and movement" and an inability to manipulate their immediate environment. Coyote Ridge's modern ethos and hybrid accommodation are mitigating factors. Indeed its balance, as the authors see it, between "security requirements and over-oppressive atmosphere" is likely to stave off inmate hostility – reducing jealousy for resources, for example – and encourage acceptable behaviour. It's likely to reduce the ill-effects on staff and save taxpayers' money.
"The key to the success of the project was the team that planned, designed and constructed the new prison," said the state department. "Innovation and cost savings were provided by every member of the team." You'd equally hope the benefits will be felt by every one of the prison's 2,200 inmates.
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
The Washington State Department of Corrections seems to think so. This week, the US Green Building Council awarded the department North America's most prestigious environmental award – a plaque for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design – for a 21-building, medium-security extension at its Coyote Ridge Corrections Centre in Connell, a small city in the state's Franklin County. Since the extension's completion in October 2008, each year the penitentiary uses 5.5 million gallons less water than its conventional equivalents, saving its operators around $370,000 (£235,807) in energy costs over the period. Its solar panels occupy 16,929sq ft and it floods its corridors with natural light. But is this money well-spent? The 19th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, whose theories considered prison design, once said: "The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation." It must follow that Coyote Ridge's all-encompassing social, humanitarian and environmental benefits speak for themselves.
"Every aspect of a prison design, from its staff to its location, is important," says Sean McConvill, co-author of the influential British book Prison Design. "Among these, no doubt, is respect for the environment and careful use of resources, which must have a beneficial impact on staff and inmates alike."
Indeed, Coyote Ridge's staff are congratulating themselves. The prison's facility manager, Glenn Jones, told reporters this month the jail had performed "better than we hoped". He described how its laundry system reduced reliance on a local aquifer, and how a rubbish recycling programme had cut the amount of waste produced by a half, impressing local legislators.
Environmentally, at the very least, it is easy to see why the $230m (£147m) extension has picked up a gong. From the outside, the barbed wire and monolithic concrete blocks make it look like any other correctional outpost. But then, visitors catch a glimpse of a "drought-resistance landscape" of gravel instead of thirsty grass (cutting water use by 25 per cent). In a 100-bed segregation unit and eight 256-bed units of inmate housing, state-of-the-art, long, thin windows keep cells cool in summer and retain heat in winter. Efficient boilers and ventilation systems help the prison slash its energy consumption by half. Building materials that don't contain volatile organic compounds make the interior more habitable.
For the psychological benefits, compare this to its British cousins, maligned for their oppressive, cramped designs. "It is the idea of punishment heaped on punishment," the progressive British architect Will Alsop said of British prisons in 2007. "The punishment [to inmates] is being taken out of society. That's fine. Not even the prisoners complain about that ... but they're being punished further. Why can't they have a shower in their cell?" That year, Alsop spearheaded The Creative Prison exhibition at east London's Yard Gallery, showcasing alternatives. His suggestions included "villages of smaller buildings" instead of large cell blocks, and allotments reminiscent of a high-security university campus. Coyote Ridge operates along similar lines: there's no reason to think its inmates won't benefit from "hybrid housing units", allowing increased movement for inmates who behave well but cannot be transferred to a minimum-security jail.
Then there are the social benefits. According to Prison Design, "a prison system can only function properly where there is a balance between security and a human environment, and buildings that will facilitate positive activities with staff and prisoners". The authors highlight inmates' frustration regarding "lack of freedom and movement" and an inability to manipulate their immediate environment. Coyote Ridge's modern ethos and hybrid accommodation are mitigating factors. Indeed its balance, as the authors see it, between "security requirements and over-oppressive atmosphere" is likely to stave off inmate hostility – reducing jealousy for resources, for example – and encourage acceptable behaviour. It's likely to reduce the ill-effects on staff and save taxpayers' money.
"The key to the success of the project was the team that planned, designed and constructed the new prison," said the state department. "Innovation and cost savings were provided by every member of the team." You'd equally hope the benefits will be felt by every one of the prison's 2,200 inmates.
Scotland bids to host world's first floating wind farm
Scotland, Norway and US in the running for cutting-edge demonstration project
James Murray for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 August 2010 10.13 BST
The Scottish government yesterday revealed it is in talks with Norwegian energy giant Statoil about hosting the world's first floating wind farm at two potential sites off the Scottish coast.
Statoil is currently testing a prototype version of its Hywind floating turbine 10km offshore at Karmøy in Norway and, after a successful wave of tests, is now assessing potential sites for a full-scale floating wind farm.
The company is planning to deploy between three and five floating wind turbines to demonstrate the commercial viability of the technology and senior executives at the firm met yesterday with Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond to discuss the viability of two prospective sites – one off the coast of Lewis and one off Aberdeenshire.
The talks are at a fairly advanced stage with Scottish Development International and Marine Scotland having already worked with Statoil to undertake feasibility studies at the proposed sites.
Speaking following the meeting in Norway, Salmond said that the talks had been "very positive", adding that the project had the potential to revolutionise the offshore energy industry.
"The Hywind II wind farm project would see a Scotland-Norway collaboration push the boundaries of deepwater offshore wind beyond the 100m mark and open up vast areas of the world's oceans to the development of wind energy for the first time," he said.
A spokesman for Statoil told BusinessGreen.com that the latest talks had gone well, although he added that the company was also looking at potential demonstration sites in Norway and the US. "We are considering different countries and hope to be able to make a final decision in 2011," he said.
Offshore wind turbine foundations typically account for a sizable chunk of deployment costs and supporters of floating wind turbines are hopeful that the emergence of floating structures will allow developers to slash the overall cost of wind farms.
"The tests we have undertaken look good so far," said the Statoil spokesman. "Now we are looking to improve the efficiency and reduce the costs through the demonstration project."
James Murray for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 August 2010 10.13 BST
The Scottish government yesterday revealed it is in talks with Norwegian energy giant Statoil about hosting the world's first floating wind farm at two potential sites off the Scottish coast.
Statoil is currently testing a prototype version of its Hywind floating turbine 10km offshore at Karmøy in Norway and, after a successful wave of tests, is now assessing potential sites for a full-scale floating wind farm.
The company is planning to deploy between three and five floating wind turbines to demonstrate the commercial viability of the technology and senior executives at the firm met yesterday with Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond to discuss the viability of two prospective sites – one off the coast of Lewis and one off Aberdeenshire.
The talks are at a fairly advanced stage with Scottish Development International and Marine Scotland having already worked with Statoil to undertake feasibility studies at the proposed sites.
Speaking following the meeting in Norway, Salmond said that the talks had been "very positive", adding that the project had the potential to revolutionise the offshore energy industry.
"The Hywind II wind farm project would see a Scotland-Norway collaboration push the boundaries of deepwater offshore wind beyond the 100m mark and open up vast areas of the world's oceans to the development of wind energy for the first time," he said.
A spokesman for Statoil told BusinessGreen.com that the latest talks had gone well, although he added that the company was also looking at potential demonstration sites in Norway and the US. "We are considering different countries and hope to be able to make a final decision in 2011," he said.
Offshore wind turbine foundations typically account for a sizable chunk of deployment costs and supporters of floating wind turbines are hopeful that the emergence of floating structures will allow developers to slash the overall cost of wind farms.
"The tests we have undertaken look good so far," said the Statoil spokesman. "Now we are looking to improve the efficiency and reduce the costs through the demonstration project."
England's green and pleasant land may have to change to feed our thirst for fuel
As we look for alternatives to oil, our familiar pattern of meadows and pastures could become interspersed with biofuel plantations
Alex Randall guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 August 2010 10.36 BST
Yesterday Dustin Benton of the Campaign to Protect Rural England criticised the vision for the countryside outlined in our Zero Carbon Britain report. He argues that our proposals would disrupt the familiar look of the countryside.
Our vision for the countryside is about creating energy security, rural jobs and tackling climate change. It also increases food security – we can produce all of our own essential food in the UK. The benefits include many things the CPRE values: rural jobs, biodiversity and locally produced food.
But it does result in a landscape that looks very different. That said, I think the changes we propose are not as drastic or unattractive as Dustin imagines. We can avoid the monoculture plantations he's worried about and the increased diversity of what we grow will lead to a mixed patchwork landscape.
But we still face a dilemma about UK-grown energy crops. I'm pleased that we've agreed on the need for a rapid decarbonisation and to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. However, without UK-grown energy crops we have a problem: where will we get the aviation fuel from?
We have several other options:
• We could carry on making it from oil. This commits to looking for oil in increasingly difficult and dangerous places such as offshore drilling and from tar sands. Both of which are destroying the "warp and weft" of someone else's "historic landscape".
• We could make aviation fuel from biofuels grown in another country. This would destroy the "familiar meadows and pastures" of someone else's countryside. Recent experience has shown us that growing biofuels has led to a variety of problems including food shortages and human rights abuses.
• We could cut aviation entirely. No aviation means no energy crops interfering with our "valued English landscapes". We thought a two-thirds reduction in aviation was radical – but maybe you think we can persuade the British public to ditch flying completely.
Unfortunately Dustin's suggestion of importing solar electricity from north Africa doesn't help here. It could help meet electricity demand but does not help with aviation fuel. And it's aviation fuel that is the main demand for energy crops in our scenario.
This touches the core of our dilemma. I can't see a way to maintain an idealised chocolate box landscape that also provides us with enough aviation fuel to maintain even a small amount of flying.
All human societies have faced challenges. The scale of those facing us today are perhaps greater than any in recorded history. A changing climate, diminishing fossil fuel reserves and rising energy demands are inter-connected problems that need a common solution.
Dustin is right to say the landscape will change. We need a landscape that creates low carbon jobs, food and energy – not one that struggles to deal with a changing climate and its disastrous consequences.
• Alex Randall is a spokesman for the Centre for Alternative Technology
Alex Randall guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 August 2010 10.36 BST
Yesterday Dustin Benton of the Campaign to Protect Rural England criticised the vision for the countryside outlined in our Zero Carbon Britain report. He argues that our proposals would disrupt the familiar look of the countryside.
Our vision for the countryside is about creating energy security, rural jobs and tackling climate change. It also increases food security – we can produce all of our own essential food in the UK. The benefits include many things the CPRE values: rural jobs, biodiversity and locally produced food.
But it does result in a landscape that looks very different. That said, I think the changes we propose are not as drastic or unattractive as Dustin imagines. We can avoid the monoculture plantations he's worried about and the increased diversity of what we grow will lead to a mixed patchwork landscape.
But we still face a dilemma about UK-grown energy crops. I'm pleased that we've agreed on the need for a rapid decarbonisation and to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. However, without UK-grown energy crops we have a problem: where will we get the aviation fuel from?
We have several other options:
• We could carry on making it from oil. This commits to looking for oil in increasingly difficult and dangerous places such as offshore drilling and from tar sands. Both of which are destroying the "warp and weft" of someone else's "historic landscape".
• We could make aviation fuel from biofuels grown in another country. This would destroy the "familiar meadows and pastures" of someone else's countryside. Recent experience has shown us that growing biofuels has led to a variety of problems including food shortages and human rights abuses.
• We could cut aviation entirely. No aviation means no energy crops interfering with our "valued English landscapes". We thought a two-thirds reduction in aviation was radical – but maybe you think we can persuade the British public to ditch flying completely.
Unfortunately Dustin's suggestion of importing solar electricity from north Africa doesn't help here. It could help meet electricity demand but does not help with aviation fuel. And it's aviation fuel that is the main demand for energy crops in our scenario.
This touches the core of our dilemma. I can't see a way to maintain an idealised chocolate box landscape that also provides us with enough aviation fuel to maintain even a small amount of flying.
All human societies have faced challenges. The scale of those facing us today are perhaps greater than any in recorded history. A changing climate, diminishing fossil fuel reserves and rising energy demands are inter-connected problems that need a common solution.
Dustin is right to say the landscape will change. We need a landscape that creates low carbon jobs, food and energy – not one that struggles to deal with a changing climate and its disastrous consequences.
• Alex Randall is a spokesman for the Centre for Alternative Technology
Coal-fired power stations win reprieve
Exclusive: Government's decision to put pollution standards 'on hold' raises possibility of dirtiest coal plants going ahead
Allegra Stratton, political correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 15 August 2010 20.59 BST
The coalition is watering down a commitment to tough new environmental emissions standards, raising the possibility of dirty coal-fired power stations such as Kingsnorth going ahead.
Green groups are aghast that a flagship policy called for in opposition by both Lib Dems and Tories, and which they last year tried to force on the Labour government, will now not be implemented in the coalition's first energy bill to be published this year.
Their criticism of the government's commitment to green issues follows news last week that nature reserves could be sold off as countryside protection measures also bear the brunt of budget cuts in the Department for Environment.
Introducing a so-called "environmental performance standard" (EPS) for power companies would have restricted greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas plants and encouraged companies wishing to build to use more efficient technology.
The introduction of an EPS was personally championed by David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg when in opposition; their opposition to Kingsnorth became something of a cause célèbre – and even features in the coalition agreement – but was opposed by energy companies and Tory backbenchers.
The chief executive at one coal-plant operating company warned that the UK's renewable energy technology – which would be used to help new plants meet the target – was too undeveloped to make the EPS feasible.
Now government sources confirm they will not be bringing forward legislation in the autumn and will instead spend the summer working on "the larger picture". They will open a consultation on the idea in the autumn with the results being presented to parliament as a white paper in the new year.
Green campaigners believe this is noncommittal for a policy both parts of the coalition said could be implemented immediately when in opposition.
They believe a delay in the introduction of the standard until next year – with a few years for the legislation to pass through the house and for it to be set up – raises the possibility of new coal-fire power stations slipping through the system.
Greenpeace energy campaigner, Joss Garman, said: "David Cameron made the introduction of new rules to stop the most polluting power stations one of his flagship green policies, and Nick Clegg helped ensure it was a key part of the coalition agreement.
"Both Lib Dem and Conservative MPs voted for the introduction of such a measure just a few months ago, and if they U-turn on this and fail to put this measure into their new energy law, how can they claim to be the greenest government ever?"
The energy company Peel Power has already come forward with a proposal in Scotland to build a largely unabated coal plant.
The government's advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, said if the UK is to meet its climate targets it needs to decarbonise the whole power sector by 2030.
If the EPS is abandoned it would almost certainly reopen the debate about what the industry needs to change and encourage utilities to push forward with their original plans for a whole new fleet of dirty coal stations in the UK (the first to be built here for 30 years).
The consequences would be that the battle of Kingsnorth could be refought.
Along with opposition to the third runway at Heathrow, introduction of the EPS to bind the construction of new power plants was a key policy for both the Tories and Lib Dems.
In 2006 Cameron first proposed the idea, pointing to the experience of California. In June 2006, he said: "I can announce today that a Conservative government will follow the Californian model, and implement an Emissions Performance Standard.
"This would mean the carbon emissions rate of all electricity generated in our country cannot be any higher than that generated in a modern gas plant.
"Such a standard would mean that a new generation of unabated coal power plants could not be built in this country." In July 2008, Osborne repeated the pledge verbatim.
When Ed Miliband's energy bill came to parliament for a vote it was Conservative and Lib Dems who worked together to amend it to enable an emissions performance standard.
Though the plan had Cameron and Clegg's support during their time in opposition, Cameron's party was not convinced. At the time, the amendment put him on a collision course with his backbenchers, who remain hugely sceptical of his green agenda, and he did not impose a three line whip on them when they voted on the proposal.
Allegra Stratton, political correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 15 August 2010 20.59 BST
The coalition is watering down a commitment to tough new environmental emissions standards, raising the possibility of dirty coal-fired power stations such as Kingsnorth going ahead.
Green groups are aghast that a flagship policy called for in opposition by both Lib Dems and Tories, and which they last year tried to force on the Labour government, will now not be implemented in the coalition's first energy bill to be published this year.
Their criticism of the government's commitment to green issues follows news last week that nature reserves could be sold off as countryside protection measures also bear the brunt of budget cuts in the Department for Environment.
Introducing a so-called "environmental performance standard" (EPS) for power companies would have restricted greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas plants and encouraged companies wishing to build to use more efficient technology.
The introduction of an EPS was personally championed by David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg when in opposition; their opposition to Kingsnorth became something of a cause célèbre – and even features in the coalition agreement – but was opposed by energy companies and Tory backbenchers.
The chief executive at one coal-plant operating company warned that the UK's renewable energy technology – which would be used to help new plants meet the target – was too undeveloped to make the EPS feasible.
Now government sources confirm they will not be bringing forward legislation in the autumn and will instead spend the summer working on "the larger picture". They will open a consultation on the idea in the autumn with the results being presented to parliament as a white paper in the new year.
Green campaigners believe this is noncommittal for a policy both parts of the coalition said could be implemented immediately when in opposition.
They believe a delay in the introduction of the standard until next year – with a few years for the legislation to pass through the house and for it to be set up – raises the possibility of new coal-fire power stations slipping through the system.
Greenpeace energy campaigner, Joss Garman, said: "David Cameron made the introduction of new rules to stop the most polluting power stations one of his flagship green policies, and Nick Clegg helped ensure it was a key part of the coalition agreement.
"Both Lib Dem and Conservative MPs voted for the introduction of such a measure just a few months ago, and if they U-turn on this and fail to put this measure into their new energy law, how can they claim to be the greenest government ever?"
The energy company Peel Power has already come forward with a proposal in Scotland to build a largely unabated coal plant.
The government's advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, said if the UK is to meet its climate targets it needs to decarbonise the whole power sector by 2030.
If the EPS is abandoned it would almost certainly reopen the debate about what the industry needs to change and encourage utilities to push forward with their original plans for a whole new fleet of dirty coal stations in the UK (the first to be built here for 30 years).
The consequences would be that the battle of Kingsnorth could be refought.
Along with opposition to the third runway at Heathrow, introduction of the EPS to bind the construction of new power plants was a key policy for both the Tories and Lib Dems.
In 2006 Cameron first proposed the idea, pointing to the experience of California. In June 2006, he said: "I can announce today that a Conservative government will follow the Californian model, and implement an Emissions Performance Standard.
"This would mean the carbon emissions rate of all electricity generated in our country cannot be any higher than that generated in a modern gas plant.
"Such a standard would mean that a new generation of unabated coal power plants could not be built in this country." In July 2008, Osborne repeated the pledge verbatim.
When Ed Miliband's energy bill came to parliament for a vote it was Conservative and Lib Dems who worked together to amend it to enable an emissions performance standard.
Though the plan had Cameron and Clegg's support during their time in opposition, Cameron's party was not convinced. At the time, the amendment put him on a collision course with his backbenchers, who remain hugely sceptical of his green agenda, and he did not impose a three line whip on them when they voted on the proposal.
Scottish firm BiFab wins £4m contract to build prototype tidal energy turbine
Victory by Fife-based BiFab raises the prospect of thousands of new jobs for Scotland
A Scottish company has won the contract to build one of the world's most advanced tidal energy turbines.
The contract could kickstart a marine energy manufacturing boom in Britain because project developer ScottishPower wants hundreds more turbines to be built in the next few years, creating the prospect of thousands of jobs for Scotland.
Fife-based BiFab (Burntisland Fabrications), which traditionally has manufactured equipment for the North Sea oil and gas industry, will today be named as winner of the £4m series of contracts. It will build ScottishPower's first full-scale working prototype device, which the company claims is the world's most advanced. The design will be used for the 10MW tidal energy project, the largest in the UK and potentially in the world, in the Sound of Islay, off the west coast of Scotland.
This month ScottishPower submitted a planning application for the project in the fast-moving channel between the islands of Islay and Jura. It intends to tender contracts in two years' time for manufacture of the project's 10 1mw turbines.
ScottishPower has also recently been given a licence by the Crown Estate to develop a 95MW project in the Pentland Firth, which separates the Orkney Islands from Caithness, in the north of Scotland. Manufacturing costs are expected to fall as techniques are refined and contracts for both these projects are likely to be worth more than £100m.
The prototype turbine, which will be built by BiFab in Stornoway, on Lewis, has been developed by Hammerfest Strøm, a joint venture between ScottishPower, Norwegian energy group Statoil and other energy companies.
Thousands more of the tidal energy turbines could be manufactured in the next decade and beyond for use in Scotland. According to a government report, the fast-moving currents of the Pentland Firth could eventually generate up to 4GW of electricity, more than enough to supply Glasgow and Edinburgh. More than 7% of the world's tidal energy resource is also thought to be in Scottish waters. The Scottish government has a target of generating 2GW (2,000MW) of electricity from tidal and wave power by 2020.
Welcoming the announcement, Keith Anderson, director of ScottishPower renewables, said it was delighted that Hammerfest Strøm was building the first HS1000 turbine in Scotland. "We know that the company looked internationally to find the right levels of expertise to deliver this contract, so it is a major boost to Scotland's renewable energy industry and to the wider economy to see this new technology going into construction in Stornoway. With our projects in Islay and the Pentland Firth also being developed, we hope that the announcement today is just the beginning of what could be a major stream of new opportunities for the renewables and manufacturing industries in Scotland."
BiFab will use its new facility in Arnish, on Lewis, to build the 22 metre tall steel structure of the turbine, including its foundation and legs. Another Scottish company will be announced today as the winner of the bid to manufacture the nacelle, which supports the turbine generator. This company will also assemble the device, which weighs 1,100 tonnes.
Politicians in Edinburgh and London, as well as UK-based energy companies, are determined to reap the economic benefits of marine energy. In the 1980s and 1990s, Britain missed the opportunity to become a major manufacturing base for the wind energy industry, even though it has some of the best conditions in the world. Denmark, thanks to grants and other forms of early government support, is now a world leader in the industry. Only a handful of small wind industry manufacturers exist in Britain, which imports the vast majority of the wind turbines it uses from countries including Denmark and Germany. Experts say that wave and tidal energy technologies are at a similar stage of development as the wind industry 20 or 30 years ago.
Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, wants to make sure that Scotland becomes a world leader for manufacturing marine energy devices and the services and supporting industries that go with it. As North Sea oil and gas production dwindles, the companies that service offshore rigs and platforms, many of which are already in Scotland, are keen to adapt their expertise to the offshore renewable industry.
Salmond welcomed the news today. "Awarding £4 million of contracts to Scotland is a massive vote of confidence in the talent, expertise and infrastructure we have to support the development of a clean, green renewables future," he said.
Scottish Power plans to have its Sound of Islay project operational in 2013. It will provide enough electricity for Islay's 3,500 inhabitants for 23 hours a day and export power to the mainland. ScottishPower has signed a contract with Diageo, the drinks group, to provide power from the project to eight distilleries and maltings on Islay, including the makers of the Laphroaig and Lagavulin whiskies.
This year, in Britain's first marine energy licensing round, the Crown Estate gave 10 licences for companies to develop projects around Orkney and the Pentland Firth, including to ScottishPower.
Most marine energy developers are still carrying out more tests to make sure their devices can stand up to the harsh operating environment. The economics of large-scale marine energy projects are still sketchy, as few exist, and UK developers are entitled to large subsidies. For tidal projects, these are worth one and a half times those earned by offshore wind farms, and two and a half times for wave farm projects.
Backstory
Unlike the basic design for a wind turbine, which is uniform, The development of tidal power has been complex. There are hundreds of concepts for tidal and wave devices which take time and money to test. With so many different technologies at different stages of development it is not easy to plot its development, unlike wind power which benefited from the uniform windmill-style design. Ironically, ScottishPower's tidal device sits on the seabed where currents turn its blades to generate electricity.One industry executive recalls visiting the Pentland Firth where an array of companies were testing their prototypes, with mixed success. "It was a bit like Wacky Races," he said, referring to the cult 1970s cartoon in which drivers competed to win the title of the "World's Wackiest Racer"., he said: But after years labouring in the shadow of its more advanced renewable rival, the wind industry, marine energy is finally coming of age.
A Scottish company has won the contract to build one of the world's most advanced tidal energy turbines.
The contract could kickstart a marine energy manufacturing boom in Britain because project developer ScottishPower wants hundreds more turbines to be built in the next few years, creating the prospect of thousands of jobs for Scotland.
Fife-based BiFab (Burntisland Fabrications), which traditionally has manufactured equipment for the North Sea oil and gas industry, will today be named as winner of the £4m series of contracts. It will build ScottishPower's first full-scale working prototype device, which the company claims is the world's most advanced. The design will be used for the 10MW tidal energy project, the largest in the UK and potentially in the world, in the Sound of Islay, off the west coast of Scotland.
This month ScottishPower submitted a planning application for the project in the fast-moving channel between the islands of Islay and Jura. It intends to tender contracts in two years' time for manufacture of the project's 10 1mw turbines.
ScottishPower has also recently been given a licence by the Crown Estate to develop a 95MW project in the Pentland Firth, which separates the Orkney Islands from Caithness, in the north of Scotland. Manufacturing costs are expected to fall as techniques are refined and contracts for both these projects are likely to be worth more than £100m.
The prototype turbine, which will be built by BiFab in Stornoway, on Lewis, has been developed by Hammerfest Strøm, a joint venture between ScottishPower, Norwegian energy group Statoil and other energy companies.
Thousands more of the tidal energy turbines could be manufactured in the next decade and beyond for use in Scotland. According to a government report, the fast-moving currents of the Pentland Firth could eventually generate up to 4GW of electricity, more than enough to supply Glasgow and Edinburgh. More than 7% of the world's tidal energy resource is also thought to be in Scottish waters. The Scottish government has a target of generating 2GW (2,000MW) of electricity from tidal and wave power by 2020.
Welcoming the announcement, Keith Anderson, director of ScottishPower renewables, said it was delighted that Hammerfest Strøm was building the first HS1000 turbine in Scotland. "We know that the company looked internationally to find the right levels of expertise to deliver this contract, so it is a major boost to Scotland's renewable energy industry and to the wider economy to see this new technology going into construction in Stornoway. With our projects in Islay and the Pentland Firth also being developed, we hope that the announcement today is just the beginning of what could be a major stream of new opportunities for the renewables and manufacturing industries in Scotland."
BiFab will use its new facility in Arnish, on Lewis, to build the 22 metre tall steel structure of the turbine, including its foundation and legs. Another Scottish company will be announced today as the winner of the bid to manufacture the nacelle, which supports the turbine generator. This company will also assemble the device, which weighs 1,100 tonnes.
Politicians in Edinburgh and London, as well as UK-based energy companies, are determined to reap the economic benefits of marine energy. In the 1980s and 1990s, Britain missed the opportunity to become a major manufacturing base for the wind energy industry, even though it has some of the best conditions in the world. Denmark, thanks to grants and other forms of early government support, is now a world leader in the industry. Only a handful of small wind industry manufacturers exist in Britain, which imports the vast majority of the wind turbines it uses from countries including Denmark and Germany. Experts say that wave and tidal energy technologies are at a similar stage of development as the wind industry 20 or 30 years ago.
Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, wants to make sure that Scotland becomes a world leader for manufacturing marine energy devices and the services and supporting industries that go with it. As North Sea oil and gas production dwindles, the companies that service offshore rigs and platforms, many of which are already in Scotland, are keen to adapt their expertise to the offshore renewable industry.
Salmond welcomed the news today. "Awarding £4 million of contracts to Scotland is a massive vote of confidence in the talent, expertise and infrastructure we have to support the development of a clean, green renewables future," he said.
Scottish Power plans to have its Sound of Islay project operational in 2013. It will provide enough electricity for Islay's 3,500 inhabitants for 23 hours a day and export power to the mainland. ScottishPower has signed a contract with Diageo, the drinks group, to provide power from the project to eight distilleries and maltings on Islay, including the makers of the Laphroaig and Lagavulin whiskies.
This year, in Britain's first marine energy licensing round, the Crown Estate gave 10 licences for companies to develop projects around Orkney and the Pentland Firth, including to ScottishPower.
Most marine energy developers are still carrying out more tests to make sure their devices can stand up to the harsh operating environment. The economics of large-scale marine energy projects are still sketchy, as few exist, and UK developers are entitled to large subsidies. For tidal projects, these are worth one and a half times those earned by offshore wind farms, and two and a half times for wave farm projects.
Backstory
Unlike the basic design for a wind turbine, which is uniform, The development of tidal power has been complex. There are hundreds of concepts for tidal and wave devices which take time and money to test. With so many different technologies at different stages of development it is not easy to plot its development, unlike wind power which benefited from the uniform windmill-style design. Ironically, ScottishPower's tidal device sits on the seabed where currents turn its blades to generate electricity.One industry executive recalls visiting the Pentland Firth where an array of companies were testing their prototypes, with mixed success. "It was a bit like Wacky Races," he said, referring to the cult 1970s cartoon in which drivers competed to win the title of the "World's Wackiest Racer"., he said: But after years labouring in the shadow of its more advanced renewable rival, the wind industry, marine energy is finally coming of age.
Short-termism fails the environment
As seen in the current cuts, the environment always goes to the bottom of the priority pile in a war of political expediency
Leo Hickman guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 August 2010 09.00 BST
Is the coalition government now demoting the environment in light of its spending cuts? After a string of headlines over the past few days, it would appear so.
First we learned that the 40% cuts being earmarked for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs could see nature reserves being sold off and spending "slashed" on pollution and waste controls. Last month, a coalition of 25 leading conservation charities, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, attempted to head off these predicted cutbacks with a joint plea arguing that cuts "could have profound and perhaps irreversible consequences for wildlife, landscapes and people" and would be a "false economy – short-term savings would translate into huge long-term costs for our economy and our national wellbeing".
Then came the revelation in the Guardian that large coal-fired power stations could, according to green campaigners, be back on the table if, as now appears likely, the so-called "environmental performance standard" aimed at restricting power-station emissions fails to make it into the coalition's first energy bill, scheduled to be published later this year. Could this trigger a renewed fight over Kingsnorth, the proposed rebuilding of the coal-fired power station in Kent that came to symbolise the UK's climate legislation battleground in recent years?
In other spending cuts news, there have been reports of rail fares rising by up to 8% – the biggest increase since privatisation in the mid 1990s – should the Department for Transport also feel the force of the spending review, as is expected. As if our ludicrously priced trains weren't already pushing people into their cars.
And there was the news last month that the sustainable development commission, the government's sustainability watchdog, was to be axed. Cuts, as we are fast learning, are an inevitability for all sectors, but where will it end? The Times reported this week that the Treasury – that old adversary of the environment – is "planning to axe hundreds of millions of pounds from Britain's renewable energy and nuclear clean-up budgets" – a move being "robustly" resisted by Chris Huhne, the energy secretary.
The most telling line in the report is that Treasury officials "view the [Department of Energy and Climate Change's] £3.2bn budget as among the least damaging options for cuts". That's to say, the government's energy and climate change policies are now bottom of the pile when it comes to spending priorities.
How times have changed. Remember how this government was going to be the "greenest ever"? And how David Cameron rode those huskies in Norway, urging us to "vote blue, go green"? The first signs of a wobble were being reported here back in April ahead of the general election. But when the Conservatives failed to win an outright majority at that election and formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats there was some hope that the Lib Dems – Huhne most prominent among them – would use their presence to prevent the Tories from being tempted into conducting the most swingeing cuts, particularly when it came to governmental efforts to protect the environment. But as we are seeing in other sectors, too, this appears to have been built on false optimism.
Sadly, the critics of environmentalism are certainly right on one thing: care for the environment is something that blossoms during times of economic bounty and quickly wilts when times get tough. We've seen this play out before during the economic peaks and troughs of the 1980s and 1990s – and I expect we will see it again in the decades ahead. As has been observed many times before, environmentalism is typically a luxury pursuit of the wealthy few.
One of the principal challenges facing anyone concerned about the plight of the environment is how to break this relentless cycle whereby the environment ends up being a political plaything interpreted as little more than yet another cost code to be typed into a spreadsheet. The environment will never fare well when it finds itself caught up in a war of political expediency.
Humanity's fundamental flaw is that we are seemingly hardwired not to be able to do long-term thinking – our default setting is rarely one which looks beyond the present. Yes, we have certainly lived beyond our means in recent times and most agree that this must now be redressed. But taking a chainsaw to environmental regulations and conservation efforts will be judged by future historians to have been just as shortsightedly foolish as taking out a 110% mortgage.
Until we evolve beyond this mindset as a species, the environment will continue to be viewed by the likes of Treasury officials as "among the least damaging options for cuts".
Leo Hickman guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 August 2010 09.00 BST
Is the coalition government now demoting the environment in light of its spending cuts? After a string of headlines over the past few days, it would appear so.
First we learned that the 40% cuts being earmarked for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs could see nature reserves being sold off and spending "slashed" on pollution and waste controls. Last month, a coalition of 25 leading conservation charities, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, attempted to head off these predicted cutbacks with a joint plea arguing that cuts "could have profound and perhaps irreversible consequences for wildlife, landscapes and people" and would be a "false economy – short-term savings would translate into huge long-term costs for our economy and our national wellbeing".
Then came the revelation in the Guardian that large coal-fired power stations could, according to green campaigners, be back on the table if, as now appears likely, the so-called "environmental performance standard" aimed at restricting power-station emissions fails to make it into the coalition's first energy bill, scheduled to be published later this year. Could this trigger a renewed fight over Kingsnorth, the proposed rebuilding of the coal-fired power station in Kent that came to symbolise the UK's climate legislation battleground in recent years?
In other spending cuts news, there have been reports of rail fares rising by up to 8% – the biggest increase since privatisation in the mid 1990s – should the Department for Transport also feel the force of the spending review, as is expected. As if our ludicrously priced trains weren't already pushing people into their cars.
And there was the news last month that the sustainable development commission, the government's sustainability watchdog, was to be axed. Cuts, as we are fast learning, are an inevitability for all sectors, but where will it end? The Times reported this week that the Treasury – that old adversary of the environment – is "planning to axe hundreds of millions of pounds from Britain's renewable energy and nuclear clean-up budgets" – a move being "robustly" resisted by Chris Huhne, the energy secretary.
The most telling line in the report is that Treasury officials "view the [Department of Energy and Climate Change's] £3.2bn budget as among the least damaging options for cuts". That's to say, the government's energy and climate change policies are now bottom of the pile when it comes to spending priorities.
How times have changed. Remember how this government was going to be the "greenest ever"? And how David Cameron rode those huskies in Norway, urging us to "vote blue, go green"? The first signs of a wobble were being reported here back in April ahead of the general election. But when the Conservatives failed to win an outright majority at that election and formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats there was some hope that the Lib Dems – Huhne most prominent among them – would use their presence to prevent the Tories from being tempted into conducting the most swingeing cuts, particularly when it came to governmental efforts to protect the environment. But as we are seeing in other sectors, too, this appears to have been built on false optimism.
Sadly, the critics of environmentalism are certainly right on one thing: care for the environment is something that blossoms during times of economic bounty and quickly wilts when times get tough. We've seen this play out before during the economic peaks and troughs of the 1980s and 1990s – and I expect we will see it again in the decades ahead. As has been observed many times before, environmentalism is typically a luxury pursuit of the wealthy few.
One of the principal challenges facing anyone concerned about the plight of the environment is how to break this relentless cycle whereby the environment ends up being a political plaything interpreted as little more than yet another cost code to be typed into a spreadsheet. The environment will never fare well when it finds itself caught up in a war of political expediency.
Humanity's fundamental flaw is that we are seemingly hardwired not to be able to do long-term thinking – our default setting is rarely one which looks beyond the present. Yes, we have certainly lived beyond our means in recent times and most agree that this must now be redressed. But taking a chainsaw to environmental regulations and conservation efforts will be judged by future historians to have been just as shortsightedly foolish as taking out a 110% mortgage.
Until we evolve beyond this mindset as a species, the environment will continue to be viewed by the likes of Treasury officials as "among the least damaging options for cuts".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
