By Cassandra Sweet
Published August 31, 2010
Dow Jones Newswires
A group of coal and power companies said Tuesday that it has decided to stick with a government-backed project to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from a coal-fired power plant despite a significant change in plan.
The FutureGen Alliance said that it would like to build and operate a pipeline and underground storage facility where carbon dioxide emissions from an Illinois coal-fired power plant would be shipped and stored. The group said it will need to find a location for the storage facility, and will need to reach agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy on terms before proceeding.
Earlier this month, the DOE awarded $1 billion to the project, as part of a broad initiative to combat climate change. The department, however, completely revised the project from an earlier plan.
The new project, known as "FutureGen 2.0," would retrofit a now-shuttered Ameren Corp. (AEE: 28.90 ,0.00 ,0.00%) coal-fired power plant in Meredosia, Ill., and help establish a pipeline network to ship and store more than one million tons of carbon-dioxide a year.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Hurricane Earl Upgraded To Category 4 Storm AgainTen Worst Places to Live7 Steps to Becoming a One-Income FamilyBurger King Said to be Considering SaleGood Fat: How Being Overweight Can Work to Your Advantage"The Alliance is pleased that DOE and Senator Durbin have been able to preserve the $1 billion in funding for advancing clean coal technologies and the associated jobs, and we look forward to working with them and our new partners in making FutureGen 2.0 a success," Steve Winberg, a general manager at Consol Energy Inc. (CNX: 33.73 ,0.00 ,0.00%) who is also chairman of FutureGen's board, said in a statement.
An earlier plan envisioned building a first-of-a kind "clean coal" power plant in Mattoon, Ill., using a different technology.
The Energy Department proposed locating the new project's storage facility in Mattoon, but town officials said they no longer wanted the project in their town.
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, said Tuesday the project is expected to generate 1,000 construction jobs and about 200 permanent jobs, and that more than two dozen Illinois communities have expressed interest in hosting the CO2 storage facility.
The new project, to be developed by the FutureGen Alliance, which backed the original "clean coal" project, along with Ameren, Babcock & Wilcox (BWC: 22.81 ,0.00 ,0.00%) and Air Liquide Process & Construction Inc., would be the first to use advanced oxy-combustion technology on a commercial scale.
Oxy-combustion burns coal with a mixture of oxygen and carbon dioxide instead of air to produce a concentrated carbon-dioxide stream for "safe, permanent storage," the department said.
The original FutureGen project was intended to be the first commercial-scale project that combined technology to capture and store carbon-dioxide emissions with coal gasification, a process where heat and pressure are applied to coal, creating a synthetic gas that fuels turbines to generate electricity. FutureGen leaders struggled to line up backers and some members of the alliance pulled out in order to start their own projects.
(Siobhan Hughes and Stephen Power contributed to this article)
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Biofuel Company Mascoma Acquires SunOpta BioProcess
SustainableBusiness.com News
Biofuel company Mascoma Corporation today announced the acquisition of SunOpta BioProcess Inc. (SBI), a division of SunOpta Inc. (Nasdaq: STKL; TSX: SOY).
Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.
SunOpta BioProcess specializes in fiber preparation and pretreatment technologies that will add to Mascoma's capabilities for converting non-food cellulose (wood chips, energy crops and organic solid waste) into ethanol and co-products.
Both SBI and Mascoma have made significant progress towards commercialization and collectively have development partners in the US, Canada, China, Brazil and South Africa. In early 2010, SBI announced a major contract to supply its fiber preparation and pretreatment technology to one of the largest operators in the new energy sector in China.
“The combined company has extensive commercial experience, with the application of our technologies around the world, and the technology breadth to offer a complete biofuels solution," said Bill Brady, CEO of Mascoma.
The transaction has received all necessary corporate approvals. SBI will operate as Mascoma Canada, a wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary of Mascoma, and SunOpta Chairman Jeremy Kendall will join Mascoma’s Board of Directors.
Steve Bromley, President and CEO of SunOpta, said, “This transaction allows SunOpta shareholders to continue to participate in the commercialization of low-cost biofuels and xylitol through an equity investment in Mascoma. More importantly, it allows SunOpta to realize on its stated objective to focus on its core value-added natural and organic foods business.”
Mascoma, through its affiliate Frontier Renewable Resources LLC, is currently developing a commercial scale production facility in Kinross, Michigan. The facility is based on technologies developed in Mascoma’s laboratories in Lebanon, New Hampshire and operating in its 57,000-square-foot demonstration facility in Rome, New York. The facility will also incorporate technologies developed by SBI from its pilot operations in Waterdown, Ontario and Brampton, Ontario.
SunOpta, Inc. owns an an 18% stake in Mascoma Corporation.
Mascoma also has a long list of high profile investors, including General Motors, Khosla Ventures, Marathon Oil, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Flagship Ventures.
Website: www.mascoma.com
Biofuel company Mascoma Corporation today announced the acquisition of SunOpta BioProcess Inc. (SBI), a division of SunOpta Inc. (Nasdaq: STKL; TSX: SOY).
Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.
SunOpta BioProcess specializes in fiber preparation and pretreatment technologies that will add to Mascoma's capabilities for converting non-food cellulose (wood chips, energy crops and organic solid waste) into ethanol and co-products.
Both SBI and Mascoma have made significant progress towards commercialization and collectively have development partners in the US, Canada, China, Brazil and South Africa. In early 2010, SBI announced a major contract to supply its fiber preparation and pretreatment technology to one of the largest operators in the new energy sector in China.
“The combined company has extensive commercial experience, with the application of our technologies around the world, and the technology breadth to offer a complete biofuels solution," said Bill Brady, CEO of Mascoma.
The transaction has received all necessary corporate approvals. SBI will operate as Mascoma Canada, a wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary of Mascoma, and SunOpta Chairman Jeremy Kendall will join Mascoma’s Board of Directors.
Steve Bromley, President and CEO of SunOpta, said, “This transaction allows SunOpta shareholders to continue to participate in the commercialization of low-cost biofuels and xylitol through an equity investment in Mascoma. More importantly, it allows SunOpta to realize on its stated objective to focus on its core value-added natural and organic foods business.”
Mascoma, through its affiliate Frontier Renewable Resources LLC, is currently developing a commercial scale production facility in Kinross, Michigan. The facility is based on technologies developed in Mascoma’s laboratories in Lebanon, New Hampshire and operating in its 57,000-square-foot demonstration facility in Rome, New York. The facility will also incorporate technologies developed by SBI from its pilot operations in Waterdown, Ontario and Brampton, Ontario.
SunOpta, Inc. owns an an 18% stake in Mascoma Corporation.
Mascoma also has a long list of high profile investors, including General Motors, Khosla Ventures, Marathon Oil, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Flagship Ventures.
Website: www.mascoma.com
Energy efficiency: The EU's new action plan
Published: 01 September 2010 The European Union is drafting a new energy efficiency action plan to make good on its pledge to combat climate change and reduce its dependency on imported oil and gas.
Milestones
Oct. 2006: Commission presents Action Plan for Energy Efficiency.
10 Jan. 2007: Commission's 'energy and climate change package' identifies energy efficiency as a priority (EurActiv 11/01/07).
30 June 2007: EU member states begin to submit national energy efficiency action plans to Commission.
Oct. 2009: EU agrees on tyre efficiency labelling (EurActiv 02/10/09).
17 Nov. 2009: EU reaches compromise on Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EurActiv 18/11/09) and Energy Label (EurActiv 19/11/09).
6-7 Sept. 2010: Informal meeting of EU energy ministers to debate energy efficiency.
Early 2011: Commission to present new Energy Efficiency Action Plan.
Policy Summary
In October 2006, the European Commission presented an Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, with the aim of consuming 20% less energy by 2020. It estimated that making such energy savings would allow Europe to reduce its CO2 emissions by 780 million tonnes and save €100 billion in fuel costs, dwarfing the cost of the necessary investment in energy-efficiency technologies.
To achieve the objective, the strategy identified specific actions in ten priority areas to be implemented between 2007 and the end of 2012 (see EurActiv LinksDossier). Actions taken since then include:
Efficiency standards for product groups such as televisions, refrigerators and lighting (see EurActiv LinksDossier on 'Eco-design requirements for energy-using products')
Recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (see EurActiv LinksDossier on the 'EPBD')
Legislation to limit the CO2 emissions of cars (see EurActiv LinksDossier on 'Cars and CO2')
Creation of the Covenant of Mayors (EurActiv 11/02/09).
Member states also committed to submitting national energy efficiency action plans to the EU executive under the Energy End-Use Efficiency and Energy Services Directive by June 2007. The plans were to outline how each country meant to reach an indicative energy saving target of 16% by 2016.
Nevertheless, rather than putting Europe on track to 20% energy savings, the Commission has conceded that the block is at best heading towards 11% savings.
A mid-term review of the plan was scheduled for 2009, but the Commission has now indicated that its communication on the revised plan will be published at the end of 2010 at the earliest.
Issues
The revised action plan will try to reinforce the EU's efforts on energy efficiency to help it to reach its goal of reducing energy consumption by 20% by 2020.
Preliminary results from a study by Ecofys and Fraunhofer ISI, to be published in September 2010, show that EU policy measures would have to triple to achieve this energy savings target. Meeting the objective would reduce energy bills annually by €78 billion, create one million jobs and save 560Mt of CO2, the study says.
Buildings to focus attention
The plan will focus in particular on the building, utility and transport sectors, according to the European Commission. It may also be accompanied by legislative proposals, such as a recast of the Energy End-Use Efficiency and Energy Services Directive (ESD), according to the Commission.
One of the main sticking points of the plan has been uneven implementation of measures identified under the 2006 plan, which the revision will seek to address.
A blueprint drafted by the previous Commission in 2009 proposed stripping down the complex action plan to fewer and more targeted actions, but it then decided to pass the file on to the incoming executive instead.
The blueprint targeted the buildings sector with a European Buildings Initiative to stimulate the renovation of 15 million buildings by 2020. It further suggested obliging all member states to set up a National Energy Efficiency Fund to support preferential loans or risk-sharing facilities, for instance.
Other initiatives in the draft plan included creating a network of smart cities to pioneer new technologies in a bid to cut emissions by more than 20% by 2020. The power sector was addressed via the intention to provide incentives - beyond CO2 trading - to encourage further cuts in energy use. Measures included a new directive obliging each member state to set up a white certificate scheme.
Buildings will certainly be at the centre of the new strategy, given that the sector accounts for 40% of Europe's energy consumption. Potential measures range from aiming to renovate a certain number of buildings by equipping them with high efficiency standards to policies to speed up the uptake of smart electricity meters.
Among other proposals that have been floated is a European training strategy for an energy-efficiency workforce. This would address the need to have more skilled architects, builders and installers who are capable of carrying out energy-efficiency improvements, as well as certified experts to carry out energy audits.
Other sectors: Transport and cities
Transport is another sector where efficiency improvements will be crucial, as the sector's emissions continue to rise. MEPs, for their part, have been calling for improvements in the sector to be included in the new strategy.
Some options include stricter vehicle efficiency standards, speed management, promoting a shift to less energy-intensive forms of transport and public transport, and the promotion of renewable and alternative fuels.
The Commission is planning to table a White Paper on the future of transport at the end of the year, which will outline measures for sustainable transport up to 2020.
A smart cities initiative would bring together initiatives in several sectors, and such a proposal has already been included in the EU's strategy for funding the Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan, published in October 2009 (EurActiv 07/10/09).
The idea is that the EU would select 25 to 30 European cities to champion energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as pioneer smart networks, a new generation of buildings and alternative means of transport.
Binding target?
Unlike the EU's 2020 targets on greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy, which are mandatory, energy efficiency remains an aspirational goal.
The previous Commission's leaked draft action plan said the EU executive would introduce a directive imposing mandatory energy-saving obligations on member states in line with the previously agreed voluntary target to use 20% less energy by 2020. The paper suggests that the targets could be either sector-specific, potentially limited to buildings or cover all aspects of the economy.
An efficiency target is technically more difficult to administer than a renewables target, for instance, as it is not clear how efficiency would be measured in the first place.
The draft did not specify whether the EU should set an absolute cap on each member state's emissions by 2020 or whether the savings would be related to their projected energy consumption. It said an impact assessment to explore these options, as well as the likely need for burden-sharing measures between member states, would be needed before any proposals could be tabled.
Moreover, few member states have explicitly supported a binding target for fear that it would come at a high cost.
Speaking in Brussels in July, EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger said he would evaluate progress made by member states towards the voluntary target in 2012 in order to see whether there was a need for binding targets (EurActiv 12/07/10).
If member states have made good on their pledges, there will be no need for stronger regulation at European level, Oettinger suggested. But if there is no marked progress in the next ten years, "then we need more and stronger European regulation," he stressed.
Connie Hedegaard, the EU's climate action commissioner, said she does not think the target needs to be binding (EurActiv 18/01/10).
MEPs, on the other hand, have called for a binding target as part of the revision.
Positions
Danish centre-right MEP Bendt Bendtsen (European People's Party; EPP), who is drafting the European Parliament's report on the revised action plan, argued that more implementation will be key in unlocking energy savings. He also stressed the importance of more innovation in the transport sector.
"Our real problem is a lack of financing, so we have to look at structural funds and we also have to find ways of accessing private capital," Bendtsen said.
UK Liberal Democrat MEP Fiona Hall (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe; ALDE), the shadow rapporteur on the revision of the action plan, stressed the importance of keeping an open mind on all possibilities, as the need for energy-efficiency improvements stretches across various sectors.
"We need to look at the possibility of EU-wide targets which would capture energy efficiency on the supply side as well as looking at the demand side of energy efficiency," she said.
Hall added that the EU should look at the possibility of introducing targets for member states to renovate a certain percentage of buildings each year, on which there are currently no obligations.
EuroACE, the European Alliance of Companies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings, argued that a revision of the Energy End-Use Efficiency and Energy Services Directive (ESD) should introduce binding national targets for energy savings in buildings as well as a mandatory target to increase the renovation rate.
"The mandatory approach has clearly been more effective for meeting the carbon reduction and renewable energy targets and, without a clear and measurable target for reducing the demand for energy use in buildings, Europe risks falling far short of its efficiency goal," the association said.
EuroACE pointed out that a binding target for energy savings in buildings is easier to calculate and administer than an overall primary energy savings target. It added that the rate of renovation will have to increase by a factor of two or three from the current rate of 1.2% to 1.4% by 2020 for Europe to meet its goals.
The Energy Efficiency Industrial Forum (EEIF), which includes organisations like the European Copper Institute, the European Lamp Companies Federation and the European Federation of Intelligent Energy Efficiency Services, called for an ambitious building strategy concentrating on the refurbishment of existing buildings, coupled with a financing strategy for very low-energy buildings.
"Policymakers need, as a priority, to direct a higher proportion of EU funds directly to energy efficiency, for example via the EU recovery plan, ETS revenue spend, structural funds and other routes," the companies said. They urged the Commission to identify new proposals to "bridge the gap between large grants as provided via the structural funds and EIB [European Investment Bank] loans and the small investments typically required in many energy efficiency projects".
A coalition of energy efficiency industries and NGOs, including EuroACE, Cogen Europe, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and others, regretted in a letter to EU leaders the lack of commitment to energy efficiency in the 'Europe 2020' strategy for growth.
"Even taking into account the economic recession and policies adopted since the 2006 Energy Efficiency Action Plan (EEAP), a three-fold increase in policy impact will be needed to achieve the 20% target," they wrote. The coming months will present "a narrow window of opportunity," they argued.
"The forthcoming Energy Action Plan and review of the 2006 EEAP must set out the framework and new legislation to ensure that the savings gap is closed," the coalition stressed. It called for targeted efficiency policies and binding targets.
The Energy Efficiency Action Plan Taskforce of the European Construction Sector, which includes business associations like the European Construction Industry Federation (FIEC) and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), NGOs like the European Climate Foundation, and the European Investment Bank (EIB), argues that binding renovation targets are needed to encourage the roll-out of large scale, systematic and quality-controlled renovation programmes.
"Such targets need to be well formulated, related to a common understanding of the level of improved performance needed, connected to financing and incentive systems and be fully co-ordinated. They also need to be supported by effective energy performance certificate schemes that allow investors and fiscal authorities to make a fair appraisal of the energy performance and savings potential of a building," the experts said.
They estimated that the 2020 target should be set at 50 million buildings to undergo major energy renovation, which should be defined so that it can be tied to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.
Veolia Environnement argued that the revision of the action plan is an opportunity to identify and overcome barriers to efficient implementation of measures in priority areas such as co-generation, district heating and buildings.
Efficiency in the non-emissions trading sectors "will only be pursued if it is economical," the company said. "The energy efficiency framework needs to be transparent over time with clear objectives and targets, economically attractive and visible," it added, pointing out that it would have to be adapted to the high number of small projects that characterise the building sector.
Veolia therefore called on the EU to promote the use of products adapted to financing small projects while also encouraging the financing of "highly visible demonstration projects," particularly in public transport and thermal energy.
European environmental NGOs urged the European Commission to set a binding energy-efficiency target with an absolute cap on the energy consumption of each member state by 2020. In a letter to Commission President José Manuel Barroso, CAN-Europe, the EEB, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth Europe and WWF wrote that the binding target should be accompanied by harmonised provisions on measuring, reporting and complying with it.
They stressed the importance of including in the action plan measures on the coherent use of taxation to discourage the use of energy wasteful products. This should be complemented by reduced VAT for energy saving goods and services, they added. "A clear proposal from the Commission on this topic is instrumental in driving the debate at European level and should not be disregarded," the NGOs said.
Links
EU official documents
Eur-Lex: Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential (19 October 2006) [FR] [DE]
Eur-Lex: Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings (19 May 2010) [FR] [DE]
Eur-Lex: Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services (5 April 2006) [FR] [DE]
Eur-Lex: Directive 2010/30/EU on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (19 May 2010) [FR] [DE]
European Union
European Commission: End-use Efficiency & Energy Services
European Commission: Evaluation and revision of the action plan for energy efficiency: Report on the public consultation June-August 2009 (August 2009)
International Organisations
International Energy Agency (IEA): Energy efficiency
Business & Industry
Energy Efficiency Industrial Forum (EEIF): Contribution to the consultation on Energy Efficiency Action Plan 2006 (3 August 2009)
EuroACE: EU energy saving target key to achieving the new Europe 2020 objectives (18 June 2010)
Veolia: Revision of the 2006 energy efficiency action plan: Veolia's perspective (25 September 2010)
Energy Efficiency Action Plan Task Force of the Construction Sector: The Fundamental Importance of Buildings in Future EU Energy Saving Policies (12 July 2010)
Energy Efficiency Industrial Forum: 5Cs for Energy Efficiency: The cornerstone of a viable energy policy for Europe (June 2010)
NGOs and Think-Tanks
CAN-Europe, WWF, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace: Letter to Commission President: Revision of the EU’s Energy Efficiency Action Plan (29 October 2009)
WWF: Energy efficiency
Greenpeace: Energy efficiency
Think tanks & Academia
Pew Center on Global Climate Change: Corporate Energy Efficiency Project
Milestones
Oct. 2006: Commission presents Action Plan for Energy Efficiency.
10 Jan. 2007: Commission's 'energy and climate change package' identifies energy efficiency as a priority (EurActiv 11/01/07).
30 June 2007: EU member states begin to submit national energy efficiency action plans to Commission.
Oct. 2009: EU agrees on tyre efficiency labelling (EurActiv 02/10/09).
17 Nov. 2009: EU reaches compromise on Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EurActiv 18/11/09) and Energy Label (EurActiv 19/11/09).
6-7 Sept. 2010: Informal meeting of EU energy ministers to debate energy efficiency.
Early 2011: Commission to present new Energy Efficiency Action Plan.
Policy Summary
In October 2006, the European Commission presented an Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, with the aim of consuming 20% less energy by 2020. It estimated that making such energy savings would allow Europe to reduce its CO2 emissions by 780 million tonnes and save €100 billion in fuel costs, dwarfing the cost of the necessary investment in energy-efficiency technologies.
To achieve the objective, the strategy identified specific actions in ten priority areas to be implemented between 2007 and the end of 2012 (see EurActiv LinksDossier). Actions taken since then include:
Efficiency standards for product groups such as televisions, refrigerators and lighting (see EurActiv LinksDossier on 'Eco-design requirements for energy-using products')
Recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (see EurActiv LinksDossier on the 'EPBD')
Legislation to limit the CO2 emissions of cars (see EurActiv LinksDossier on 'Cars and CO2')
Creation of the Covenant of Mayors (EurActiv 11/02/09).
Member states also committed to submitting national energy efficiency action plans to the EU executive under the Energy End-Use Efficiency and Energy Services Directive by June 2007. The plans were to outline how each country meant to reach an indicative energy saving target of 16% by 2016.
Nevertheless, rather than putting Europe on track to 20% energy savings, the Commission has conceded that the block is at best heading towards 11% savings.
A mid-term review of the plan was scheduled for 2009, but the Commission has now indicated that its communication on the revised plan will be published at the end of 2010 at the earliest.
Issues
The revised action plan will try to reinforce the EU's efforts on energy efficiency to help it to reach its goal of reducing energy consumption by 20% by 2020.
Preliminary results from a study by Ecofys and Fraunhofer ISI, to be published in September 2010, show that EU policy measures would have to triple to achieve this energy savings target. Meeting the objective would reduce energy bills annually by €78 billion, create one million jobs and save 560Mt of CO2, the study says.
Buildings to focus attention
The plan will focus in particular on the building, utility and transport sectors, according to the European Commission. It may also be accompanied by legislative proposals, such as a recast of the Energy End-Use Efficiency and Energy Services Directive (ESD), according to the Commission.
One of the main sticking points of the plan has been uneven implementation of measures identified under the 2006 plan, which the revision will seek to address.
A blueprint drafted by the previous Commission in 2009 proposed stripping down the complex action plan to fewer and more targeted actions, but it then decided to pass the file on to the incoming executive instead.
The blueprint targeted the buildings sector with a European Buildings Initiative to stimulate the renovation of 15 million buildings by 2020. It further suggested obliging all member states to set up a National Energy Efficiency Fund to support preferential loans or risk-sharing facilities, for instance.
Other initiatives in the draft plan included creating a network of smart cities to pioneer new technologies in a bid to cut emissions by more than 20% by 2020. The power sector was addressed via the intention to provide incentives - beyond CO2 trading - to encourage further cuts in energy use. Measures included a new directive obliging each member state to set up a white certificate scheme.
Buildings will certainly be at the centre of the new strategy, given that the sector accounts for 40% of Europe's energy consumption. Potential measures range from aiming to renovate a certain number of buildings by equipping them with high efficiency standards to policies to speed up the uptake of smart electricity meters.
Among other proposals that have been floated is a European training strategy for an energy-efficiency workforce. This would address the need to have more skilled architects, builders and installers who are capable of carrying out energy-efficiency improvements, as well as certified experts to carry out energy audits.
Other sectors: Transport and cities
Transport is another sector where efficiency improvements will be crucial, as the sector's emissions continue to rise. MEPs, for their part, have been calling for improvements in the sector to be included in the new strategy.
Some options include stricter vehicle efficiency standards, speed management, promoting a shift to less energy-intensive forms of transport and public transport, and the promotion of renewable and alternative fuels.
The Commission is planning to table a White Paper on the future of transport at the end of the year, which will outline measures for sustainable transport up to 2020.
A smart cities initiative would bring together initiatives in several sectors, and such a proposal has already been included in the EU's strategy for funding the Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan, published in October 2009 (EurActiv 07/10/09).
The idea is that the EU would select 25 to 30 European cities to champion energy efficiency and renewable energy, as well as pioneer smart networks, a new generation of buildings and alternative means of transport.
Binding target?
Unlike the EU's 2020 targets on greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy, which are mandatory, energy efficiency remains an aspirational goal.
The previous Commission's leaked draft action plan said the EU executive would introduce a directive imposing mandatory energy-saving obligations on member states in line with the previously agreed voluntary target to use 20% less energy by 2020. The paper suggests that the targets could be either sector-specific, potentially limited to buildings or cover all aspects of the economy.
An efficiency target is technically more difficult to administer than a renewables target, for instance, as it is not clear how efficiency would be measured in the first place.
The draft did not specify whether the EU should set an absolute cap on each member state's emissions by 2020 or whether the savings would be related to their projected energy consumption. It said an impact assessment to explore these options, as well as the likely need for burden-sharing measures between member states, would be needed before any proposals could be tabled.
Moreover, few member states have explicitly supported a binding target for fear that it would come at a high cost.
Speaking in Brussels in July, EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger said he would evaluate progress made by member states towards the voluntary target in 2012 in order to see whether there was a need for binding targets (EurActiv 12/07/10).
If member states have made good on their pledges, there will be no need for stronger regulation at European level, Oettinger suggested. But if there is no marked progress in the next ten years, "then we need more and stronger European regulation," he stressed.
Connie Hedegaard, the EU's climate action commissioner, said she does not think the target needs to be binding (EurActiv 18/01/10).
MEPs, on the other hand, have called for a binding target as part of the revision.
Positions
Danish centre-right MEP Bendt Bendtsen (European People's Party; EPP), who is drafting the European Parliament's report on the revised action plan, argued that more implementation will be key in unlocking energy savings. He also stressed the importance of more innovation in the transport sector.
"Our real problem is a lack of financing, so we have to look at structural funds and we also have to find ways of accessing private capital," Bendtsen said.
UK Liberal Democrat MEP Fiona Hall (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe; ALDE), the shadow rapporteur on the revision of the action plan, stressed the importance of keeping an open mind on all possibilities, as the need for energy-efficiency improvements stretches across various sectors.
"We need to look at the possibility of EU-wide targets which would capture energy efficiency on the supply side as well as looking at the demand side of energy efficiency," she said.
Hall added that the EU should look at the possibility of introducing targets for member states to renovate a certain percentage of buildings each year, on which there are currently no obligations.
EuroACE, the European Alliance of Companies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings, argued that a revision of the Energy End-Use Efficiency and Energy Services Directive (ESD) should introduce binding national targets for energy savings in buildings as well as a mandatory target to increase the renovation rate.
"The mandatory approach has clearly been more effective for meeting the carbon reduction and renewable energy targets and, without a clear and measurable target for reducing the demand for energy use in buildings, Europe risks falling far short of its efficiency goal," the association said.
EuroACE pointed out that a binding target for energy savings in buildings is easier to calculate and administer than an overall primary energy savings target. It added that the rate of renovation will have to increase by a factor of two or three from the current rate of 1.2% to 1.4% by 2020 for Europe to meet its goals.
The Energy Efficiency Industrial Forum (EEIF), which includes organisations like the European Copper Institute, the European Lamp Companies Federation and the European Federation of Intelligent Energy Efficiency Services, called for an ambitious building strategy concentrating on the refurbishment of existing buildings, coupled with a financing strategy for very low-energy buildings.
"Policymakers need, as a priority, to direct a higher proportion of EU funds directly to energy efficiency, for example via the EU recovery plan, ETS revenue spend, structural funds and other routes," the companies said. They urged the Commission to identify new proposals to "bridge the gap between large grants as provided via the structural funds and EIB [European Investment Bank] loans and the small investments typically required in many energy efficiency projects".
A coalition of energy efficiency industries and NGOs, including EuroACE, Cogen Europe, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and others, regretted in a letter to EU leaders the lack of commitment to energy efficiency in the 'Europe 2020' strategy for growth.
"Even taking into account the economic recession and policies adopted since the 2006 Energy Efficiency Action Plan (EEAP), a three-fold increase in policy impact will be needed to achieve the 20% target," they wrote. The coming months will present "a narrow window of opportunity," they argued.
"The forthcoming Energy Action Plan and review of the 2006 EEAP must set out the framework and new legislation to ensure that the savings gap is closed," the coalition stressed. It called for targeted efficiency policies and binding targets.
The Energy Efficiency Action Plan Taskforce of the European Construction Sector, which includes business associations like the European Construction Industry Federation (FIEC) and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), NGOs like the European Climate Foundation, and the European Investment Bank (EIB), argues that binding renovation targets are needed to encourage the roll-out of large scale, systematic and quality-controlled renovation programmes.
"Such targets need to be well formulated, related to a common understanding of the level of improved performance needed, connected to financing and incentive systems and be fully co-ordinated. They also need to be supported by effective energy performance certificate schemes that allow investors and fiscal authorities to make a fair appraisal of the energy performance and savings potential of a building," the experts said.
They estimated that the 2020 target should be set at 50 million buildings to undergo major energy renovation, which should be defined so that it can be tied to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.
Veolia Environnement argued that the revision of the action plan is an opportunity to identify and overcome barriers to efficient implementation of measures in priority areas such as co-generation, district heating and buildings.
Efficiency in the non-emissions trading sectors "will only be pursued if it is economical," the company said. "The energy efficiency framework needs to be transparent over time with clear objectives and targets, economically attractive and visible," it added, pointing out that it would have to be adapted to the high number of small projects that characterise the building sector.
Veolia therefore called on the EU to promote the use of products adapted to financing small projects while also encouraging the financing of "highly visible demonstration projects," particularly in public transport and thermal energy.
European environmental NGOs urged the European Commission to set a binding energy-efficiency target with an absolute cap on the energy consumption of each member state by 2020. In a letter to Commission President José Manuel Barroso, CAN-Europe, the EEB, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth Europe and WWF wrote that the binding target should be accompanied by harmonised provisions on measuring, reporting and complying with it.
They stressed the importance of including in the action plan measures on the coherent use of taxation to discourage the use of energy wasteful products. This should be complemented by reduced VAT for energy saving goods and services, they added. "A clear proposal from the Commission on this topic is instrumental in driving the debate at European level and should not be disregarded," the NGOs said.
Links
EU official documents
Eur-Lex: Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential (19 October 2006) [FR] [DE]
Eur-Lex: Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings (19 May 2010) [FR] [DE]
Eur-Lex: Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services (5 April 2006) [FR] [DE]
Eur-Lex: Directive 2010/30/EU on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (19 May 2010) [FR] [DE]
European Union
European Commission: End-use Efficiency & Energy Services
European Commission: Evaluation and revision of the action plan for energy efficiency: Report on the public consultation June-August 2009 (August 2009)
International Organisations
International Energy Agency (IEA): Energy efficiency
Business & Industry
Energy Efficiency Industrial Forum (EEIF): Contribution to the consultation on Energy Efficiency Action Plan 2006 (3 August 2009)
EuroACE: EU energy saving target key to achieving the new Europe 2020 objectives (18 June 2010)
Veolia: Revision of the 2006 energy efficiency action plan: Veolia's perspective (25 September 2010)
Energy Efficiency Action Plan Task Force of the Construction Sector: The Fundamental Importance of Buildings in Future EU Energy Saving Policies (12 July 2010)
Energy Efficiency Industrial Forum: 5Cs for Energy Efficiency: The cornerstone of a viable energy policy for Europe (June 2010)
NGOs and Think-Tanks
CAN-Europe, WWF, European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace: Letter to Commission President: Revision of the EU’s Energy Efficiency Action Plan (29 October 2009)
WWF: Energy efficiency
Greenpeace: Energy efficiency
Think tanks & Academia
Pew Center on Global Climate Change: Corporate Energy Efficiency Project
New nuclear technology 'could benefit developing countries'
The world is on the brink of a nuclear power renaissance, say scientists.
Colin Stuart for SciDev.net, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 31 August 2010 11.00 BST Article historyThe world is on the brink of a nuclear power renaissance, and developing countries may also benefit, according to researchers.
In a study published in Science this month (12 August) British researchers outlined a vision for flexible and more user-friendly nuclear technologies, as worries over the climate change, energy supply security, and depletion of fossil fuels, are overturning decades of hesitancy over the safety of nuclear power plants.
Robin Grimes, materials researchers at Imperial College London and William Nuttall, senior lecturer in technology policy at the University of Cambridge, believe nuclear power will become viable for energy production in developing countries post-2030. "Outside currently established nuclear countries, flexible nuclear technologies will be especially attractive, reducing the need for grid infrastructure," Grimes told SciDev.Net.
The authors envisage ship-borne power plants providing energy to big cities, requiring less grid infrastructure and making it easier to invest in cost-effective nuclear energy from scratch.
Grimes also suggested 'fuelled-for-life core reactors' — fully sealed modular reactors that could last 40 years and remove fuel handling from the energy production process. These would also reduce workers' exposure to radiation, reducing the need for expensive monitoring.
Another idea is to develop reactors with replaceable parts to extend their 40–50 year life span, so that investment in reactors was more cost effective.
Technologies now under development could mean 'fast reactors' using uranium 15 times more efficiently than at present. They could become available by 2030, reducing the cost of raw materials.
But any country, developing or not, must show both an "economic need for nuclear energy" and "a clearly independent nuclear regulatory body that has access to the necessary facilities and the people to carry out its work," Grimes told SciDev.Net.
Safety and nuclear proliferation criteria as laid down by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty would need to be met, as well as compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency, standards.
If these criteria are met, reducing reliance on grid infrastructure is a key point for developing countries wishing to join the predicted renaissance, as it keeps costs low, Grimes said.
But some experts are doubtful. Referring to solar energy, John Finney, chair of the British Pugwash Group but speaking in a personal capacity, said that other options such as solar power might also suit developing countries.
Bob van der Zwaan, senior scientist at the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands said that nuclear energy was not a silver bullet, but could address climate change, pollution, and energy dependency problems "along with other options such as renewable".
Colin Stuart for SciDev.net, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 31 August 2010 11.00 BST Article historyThe world is on the brink of a nuclear power renaissance, and developing countries may also benefit, according to researchers.
In a study published in Science this month (12 August) British researchers outlined a vision for flexible and more user-friendly nuclear technologies, as worries over the climate change, energy supply security, and depletion of fossil fuels, are overturning decades of hesitancy over the safety of nuclear power plants.
Robin Grimes, materials researchers at Imperial College London and William Nuttall, senior lecturer in technology policy at the University of Cambridge, believe nuclear power will become viable for energy production in developing countries post-2030. "Outside currently established nuclear countries, flexible nuclear technologies will be especially attractive, reducing the need for grid infrastructure," Grimes told SciDev.Net.
The authors envisage ship-borne power plants providing energy to big cities, requiring less grid infrastructure and making it easier to invest in cost-effective nuclear energy from scratch.
Grimes also suggested 'fuelled-for-life core reactors' — fully sealed modular reactors that could last 40 years and remove fuel handling from the energy production process. These would also reduce workers' exposure to radiation, reducing the need for expensive monitoring.
Another idea is to develop reactors with replaceable parts to extend their 40–50 year life span, so that investment in reactors was more cost effective.
Technologies now under development could mean 'fast reactors' using uranium 15 times more efficiently than at present. They could become available by 2030, reducing the cost of raw materials.
But any country, developing or not, must show both an "economic need for nuclear energy" and "a clearly independent nuclear regulatory body that has access to the necessary facilities and the people to carry out its work," Grimes told SciDev.Net.
Safety and nuclear proliferation criteria as laid down by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty would need to be met, as well as compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency, standards.
If these criteria are met, reducing reliance on grid infrastructure is a key point for developing countries wishing to join the predicted renaissance, as it keeps costs low, Grimes said.
But some experts are doubtful. Referring to solar energy, John Finney, chair of the British Pugwash Group but speaking in a personal capacity, said that other options such as solar power might also suit developing countries.
Bob van der Zwaan, senior scientist at the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands said that nuclear energy was not a silver bullet, but could address climate change, pollution, and energy dependency problems "along with other options such as renewable".
Climate of Uncertainty
Global warming science is still evolving; will future IPCC reports reflect that?
On Monday an independent review found that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has downplayed uncertainties surrounding climate science. The review also found that the IPCC needs more robust safeguards against conflicts of interest, that it had committed "unnecessary errors" by failing to meet its own standards, that it had inadequately flagged its use of nonscientific sources, that it made claims with "high confidence" based on "weak evidentiary basis," and that it gave short shrift to dissenting scientists.
And for all that, the review added that the IPCC "has been successful overall and has served society well."
This week's report, in keeping with three earlier investigations into the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, limited its inquiry to the "processes and procedures" of the IPCC. While it found those wanting, it also saw no need to question their scientific result.
That's too bad, since the state of the science has moved on considerably since the IPCC concluded in its 2007 report that climate change was "unequivocal." A forthcoming paper in Annals of Applied Statistics details the uncertainties in trying to reconstruct historical temperatures using proxy data such as tree rings and ice cores. Statisticians Blakeley McShane and Abraham Wyner find that while proxy records may relate to temperatures, when it comes to forecasting the warming observed in the last 30 years, "the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature."
Also, last month, New Phytologist published a series of papers examining the Amazon rain forest's vulnerability to drought, following years of increasingly dire predictions that anthropogenic carbon emissions and global warming will kill off Amazon trees. Climatologist Peter Cox, a co-author on four of those papers, told us, "One of the things that turns out to be important is the extent to which tropical forests respond positively to CO2 increases."
The specifics of that relationship remain "a key uncertainty," Mr. Cox said, and recent findings have raised more questions than they've answered. But the fact that higher CO2 levels can make plants more efficient at using water means that not only might rain forests survive CO2-induced drought better than previously thought, but that carbon emissions overall might even be good for rain forests, up to a point. That's news, even if it has been little reported.
And while you've probably heard (frequently) that this summer appears to be the warmest on record, you may not have been told that an unusually cold spell in the Antarctic brought a chill to southern South America and is responsible for the deaths of six million fish and thousands of alligators, turtles and river dolphins, according to Nature News.
None of this proves or disproves anything, except that our understanding of how our climate works is still evolving. Is it too much to ask the climate establishment to acknowledge as much?
On Monday an independent review found that the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has downplayed uncertainties surrounding climate science. The review also found that the IPCC needs more robust safeguards against conflicts of interest, that it had committed "unnecessary errors" by failing to meet its own standards, that it had inadequately flagged its use of nonscientific sources, that it made claims with "high confidence" based on "weak evidentiary basis," and that it gave short shrift to dissenting scientists.
And for all that, the review added that the IPCC "has been successful overall and has served society well."
This week's report, in keeping with three earlier investigations into the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, limited its inquiry to the "processes and procedures" of the IPCC. While it found those wanting, it also saw no need to question their scientific result.
That's too bad, since the state of the science has moved on considerably since the IPCC concluded in its 2007 report that climate change was "unequivocal." A forthcoming paper in Annals of Applied Statistics details the uncertainties in trying to reconstruct historical temperatures using proxy data such as tree rings and ice cores. Statisticians Blakeley McShane and Abraham Wyner find that while proxy records may relate to temperatures, when it comes to forecasting the warming observed in the last 30 years, "the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature."
Also, last month, New Phytologist published a series of papers examining the Amazon rain forest's vulnerability to drought, following years of increasingly dire predictions that anthropogenic carbon emissions and global warming will kill off Amazon trees. Climatologist Peter Cox, a co-author on four of those papers, told us, "One of the things that turns out to be important is the extent to which tropical forests respond positively to CO2 increases."
The specifics of that relationship remain "a key uncertainty," Mr. Cox said, and recent findings have raised more questions than they've answered. But the fact that higher CO2 levels can make plants more efficient at using water means that not only might rain forests survive CO2-induced drought better than previously thought, but that carbon emissions overall might even be good for rain forests, up to a point. That's news, even if it has been little reported.
And while you've probably heard (frequently) that this summer appears to be the warmest on record, you may not have been told that an unusually cold spell in the Antarctic brought a chill to southern South America and is responsible for the deaths of six million fish and thousands of alligators, turtles and river dolphins, according to Nature News.
None of this proves or disproves anything, except that our understanding of how our climate works is still evolving. Is it too much to ask the climate establishment to acknowledge as much?
Tazzari Zero electric car comes to the UK
Retailer EV Stores will sell the Italian-built, lithium-ion-powered Tazzari Zero for £21,500. From BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
Lem Bingley for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 September 2010 16.08 BST Article history
The Zero, a compact two-seat vehicle, purpose built for battery electric propulsion, will be available in UK from 12 September 2010. Photograph: Tazzari Zero
Specialist electric vehicle retailer EVStores has announced it will begin selling the Tazzari Zero electric vehicle in the UK from later this month.
The company said the Zero, a compact two-seat vehicle, purpose built for battery electric propulsion, will be available from its London showroom from 12 September.
The Zero is powered by lithium-ion batteries that boast a range between charges of around 140km or about 87 miles. The car is also expected to reach an electronically capped top speed of 100 km/h (62mph) and will deliver acceleration from zero to 50km/h (31mph) in less than five seconds, ensuring the Zero should feel sufficiently powerful for urban roads.
The car is built by Tazzari, an Italian firm with a background in aluminium casting and other engineering services. Unsurprisingly, the Zero makes substantial use of aluminium in its construction to provide a light and strong frame. Including its 142kg battery pack, the Zero weighs under 550kg, or about 200kg less than a petrol-powered Smart ForTwo city car.
However, unlike the Smart, the Zero has been built to fit within European quadricycle rules, rather than the full-blown passenger car regulations. Quadricycles are not required to pass crash tests or meet other safety regulations.
EVStores said the UK on-the-road price for the Zero including batteries will be £21,500.
However, because of its quadricycle designation, the Zero is unlikely to qualify for the £5,000 grant that will soon be available to purchasers of full-blown electric cars, such as the upcoming Nissan Leaf or Mitsubishi i-Miev.
The government has yet to confirm precise eligibility criteria for its revised plug-in vehicle incentive scheme, but when the programme was unveiled by Labour in February it applied only to vehicles crash-tested to European, US, Japanese or an equivalent standard for cars.
The rules are widely expected to be retained, meaning that existing electric cars such as the Tazzari Zero and the iconic G-Wiz will not qualify for the incentive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
