By JIM LIEDELL
July 30, 2010and CHARLES KLEEKAMP
Dan Webb, then vice president of Webb Research Corp. in Falmouth, began his interest in wind power in 2004 when he started attending seminars on wind turbines. An energy-expert friend heightened Webb's interest by suggesting a utility-scale turbine of at least 1-megawatt capacity for the site of his family's high-tech business in the Falmouth Technology Park. This windy, industrial location is one-third of a mile from the nearest residence and 180 feet above sea level.
Webb hired a consultant, Boreal Renewable Energy Development of Arlington. In 2005 a detailed feasibility study was completed, supported by a grant from the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust. The study included turbine sizes from 100 kilowatts to more than 1 megawatt. By 2006 Webb applied for and received a substantial design and construction grant from the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust Large On-Site Renewables program.
Webb investigated running underground electrical cables to other nearby businesses within the Falmouth Technology Park. While well-intentioned, this approach was found to be too costly and impractical because of legal constraints on cable placement.
In 2007 new state legislation for virtual net metering, introduced by Rep. Matt Patrick of Falmouth, would resolve this problem and facilitate renewable energy projects statewide. The Green Communities Act, signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick in 2008, included the net metering provisions increasing the maximum allowed capacity of wind and solar systems from 60,000 watts (60 kilowatts) to 2 million watts (2 megawatts). Excess electricity not consumed on-site is paid for by the electric utility, or credits can be transferred to other electricity users.
The arduous process of seeking permits began. Webb recalled: "Navigating the maze of local, state and federal permits became sort of an obsession to reach the next milestone." It took three more years of grueling effort for Webb to obtain approvals from numerous entities.
Then in 2007 Webb obtained a $300,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As the project by then required more of his time and the company's money, Webb realized he needed to form a separate legal entity for the venture, and Notus Clean Energy LLC was born. The name Notus comes from the Greek god of southwest wind, the prevailing summer wind on Cape Cod.
Larger expenditures were soon required for detailed site surveys, engineering consultants, road and foundation designs, photo simulations and other necessary tasks. For example, a detailed noise study by Epsilon Associates determined the turbine sound level at nearest residences, under worst-case conditions, would be less than 2 decibels, barely perceptible to the human ear.
The Massachusetts Noise Control Regulation allows a noise level of up to 10 decibels above ambient (background) level, measured at the property line.
By 2008 all permits were in place and Notus began preparing a request for construction proposals.
Then in 2009 it was time to shop for a wind turbine in the 1.5-megawatt range. Utility-scale wind turbines are typically sold in large numbers and are difficult to purchase in small quantities. Wind energy development was growing rapidly in the United States in 2009 and established turbine manufacturers would not consider selling just one turbine. The only willing vendors had unproven designs or had never worked in the U.S. market, risks Webb was unwilling to take.
By summer 2009 negotiations began for the purchase of a new Vestas 1.65-megawatt wind turbine that had been in storage. This turbine had previously been purchased by the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust for the discontinued Orleans municipal project. (An identical turbine was purchased by the town of Falmouth and installed at its wastewater treatment plant.) Vestas is the world's largest wind turbine manufacturers.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 made Notus eligible for a 30 percent cost grant, in lieu of the previously legislated Production Tax Credit for wind energy. Notus can apply for these funds when the turbine is operational.
On April 1, general contractor Delaney Group Inc. broke ground. Construction was an impressive sight, and went smoothly. The foundation contains 26 tons of steel reinforcing bars and required 32 cement-mixer truckloads. The giant construction crane, assembled on site, weighs 500 tons and requires its own permit from the FAA.
Interestingly, construction was the fastest phase of the project. Turbine installation was completed on May 18, and "going live" awaits only connection to NStar's electrical grid. The Notus wind turbine will generate enough electricity to power about 500 homes, eliminating more than 1,000 tons annually of carbon dioxide emissions.
Jim Liedell and Charles Kleekamp are retired engineers and past directors of Clean Power Now.
Friday, 30 July 2010
Tidal energy wish granted by Government's £250,000 grant
Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 07:00
A BRISTOL company that specialises in developing the latest technology for harvesting tidal energy has won a grant for £250,000.
Marine Current Turbines is planning to use the funding to pay for research into the next generation of tidal power turbines.
The firm will be working alongside the Queen's University Belfast, Mojo Maritime and Edinburgh University on the project. The grant has come from the Government's Technology Strategy Board and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and will be used to develop a fully submerged version of the SeaGen tidal turbine. The company will lead the project, which will build on the success of its SeaGen tidal system that has been generating electricity for the National Grid for more than two years.
MCT's new technology will use similar turbines, power trains and control systems to those already proven with SeaGen.
The next-generation SeaGen will be able to be maintained above the surface of the water but will also have internal air-filled space to carry the equipment essential to connect the device to the National Grid.
Charles Hendry, the Energy Minister, said: "Wave and tidal stream technologies, such as SeaGen, have the potential to supply millions of homes with low carbon energy – reducing our dependency on foreign energy imports and cutting dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.
"SeaGen is an excellent example of the UK's world-class engineering and offshore expertise and skills."
Martin Wright, managing director of the firm, said: "The experience that we have gained with SeaGen's deployment and commercial operation is a huge asset in taking forward the development of the next-generation technology, and we greatly welcome the support given to us and our partners by the Technology Strategy Board, the EPSRC and the UK Government."
Iain Gray, chief executive of the Technology Strategy Board, said: "By 2050 we are going to have very different energy needs than we have today and we will be getting our energy from different sources.
"The UK is well placed to exploit wave and tidal stream energy resources with all of the coast line that we have, and it is expected this kind of technology will be an important part of the renewable energy mix needed in the future."
A BRISTOL company that specialises in developing the latest technology for harvesting tidal energy has won a grant for £250,000.
Marine Current Turbines is planning to use the funding to pay for research into the next generation of tidal power turbines.
The firm will be working alongside the Queen's University Belfast, Mojo Maritime and Edinburgh University on the project. The grant has come from the Government's Technology Strategy Board and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and will be used to develop a fully submerged version of the SeaGen tidal turbine. The company will lead the project, which will build on the success of its SeaGen tidal system that has been generating electricity for the National Grid for more than two years.
MCT's new technology will use similar turbines, power trains and control systems to those already proven with SeaGen.
The next-generation SeaGen will be able to be maintained above the surface of the water but will also have internal air-filled space to carry the equipment essential to connect the device to the National Grid.
Charles Hendry, the Energy Minister, said: "Wave and tidal stream technologies, such as SeaGen, have the potential to supply millions of homes with low carbon energy – reducing our dependency on foreign energy imports and cutting dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.
"SeaGen is an excellent example of the UK's world-class engineering and offshore expertise and skills."
Martin Wright, managing director of the firm, said: "The experience that we have gained with SeaGen's deployment and commercial operation is a huge asset in taking forward the development of the next-generation technology, and we greatly welcome the support given to us and our partners by the Technology Strategy Board, the EPSRC and the UK Government."
Iain Gray, chief executive of the Technology Strategy Board, said: "By 2050 we are going to have very different energy needs than we have today and we will be getting our energy from different sources.
"The UK is well placed to exploit wave and tidal stream energy resources with all of the coast line that we have, and it is expected this kind of technology will be an important part of the renewable energy mix needed in the future."
Biofuels: Food, Fuel & the Future
Biofuels can be a part of our energy future, but are not a solution and they will never play a dominant role. That one of the big ideas I took away from a talk on biofuels at the Wilson Center, called Biofuels: Food, Fuel & the Future. The reason we use fossil fuels is that they are so wonderfully concentrated. Coal, gas or oil represent millions of years of concentrated power of the sun captured by photosynthesis.
Any crop we grow captures only one season of energy or maybe a couple decades in the case of trees. This is a fundamental limit even if we can figure out how to efficiently capture the energy stored in corn, sugar, wood, palm oil or switchgrass.
All energy sources have economic & ecological costs
We noticed the BP oil spill because it is quick and compelling, but scientists have long known about the Gulf dead zone a more persistently serious problem. This is a vast area of the sea near the mouth of the Mississippi where fertilizer runoff (especially nitrogen and phosphorus) have caused extravagant growth of algae. When the algae die back and decompose, it sucks the oxygen out of the water, making life hard for fish. Much of this fertilizer runs off of corn fields. To the extent we turn more corn into ethanol, we make the problem worse. We tend to notice fast developing problems like the BP spill while the slow motions ones, like the dead zones, escape notice.
One of the dangers of something like the BP spill is that people panic and politicians and special interests take advantage. You can see this already in the calls for more biofuels and other alternatives. Remember the cause of the dead zone in the paragraph above. But it gets worse. The nitrogen fertilizer for the corn is often derived in part from natural gas and we have to account for the fossil fuels that go into planting, moving and refining the 1/3 of the American corn crop that becomes ethanol.
Panicking people & pandering politicians make poor policy
W/o massive government intervention, there would still be an ethanol industry. It would just be a lot smaller. Ethanol has a good use as an oxygenator added to gasoline. It makes gasoline burn more effectively & cleaner. In the early 2000s it replaced MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether), which had itself replaced lead as an octane enhancer a generation ago. But a little ethanol is good; a lot is less useful. Gasoline packs a lot more energy per gallon than ethanol. As you add ethanol beyond a small amount, it begins to decrease mileage. There are also other problems related to corrosion and evaporation, but I will let anybody who cares learn about that elsewhere.
Suffice to say that the push to use more ethanol as transport fuel moved it from being a high end additive to extend gasoline mileage to a low end commodity. Since it is less efficient & more expensive than gas, it raised the prices. Yet the push for more ethanol continues because it is driven by politics, not by economics or common sense.
Moonshinning
Let’s digress a little. You can make alcohol from almost anything that grows on earth. You can see that from the vast array of alcoholic beverages available worldwide, made from potatoes, corn, cactus, grapes, apples and even watermelon. But it is easier to make ethanol from some things than it is from others. It is relatively easy to make ethanol from sugar cane. That is why Brazil has an ethanol advantage. It is significantly less efficient to make it from corn and so far prohibitively expensive to make it from cellulous (i.e. switchgrass, wood chips etc).
We lose corn's comparative advantages when we make it into ethanol
The U.S. does not have a competitive advantage in making ethanol. For one thing, corn is not a great feedstock and to make that worse we (the U.S.) has a relative advantage growing corn as food for man and beast, but when we make it into ethanol, we manage to negate our natural advantages, converting a product we do well into a product that we do merely okay. Beyond that, corn ethanol tends to be produced near where corn grows, i.e. in the middle of the country. Much of the demand for liquid fuel is on the coasts. Ethanol cannot be transported via gasoline pipelines because it is corrosive and tends to create evaporation problems.Transporting ethanol by road and rail is relatively expensive. On the other hand, ethanol from Brazil is cheaper and closer – in terms of transport – because it is produced near ports in Sao Paulo state and can be easily sent via sea transport to places like Norfolk. That is why we have to subsidize ethanol production in the U.S. by $0.45 a gallon AND put a tariff of $0.54 on ethanol from Brazil.
In other words, public policy is pushing us toward one of the most expensive energy alternatives made even more expensive by public policy.
What about cellulosic ethanol? This can be made from materials that now go to waste, such as forestry waste or stalks and sticks from crops. We can also easily grow some crops, such as hybrid poplars or switchgrass, specifically for energy. The biggest problem is that we still cannot do it efficiently. Nature has been evolving for millions of years to prevent wood from easily being converted (i.e. fermented or rotted). There are better alternatives. The more you have to process something, the more costs you add. Wood chips, for example, CAN be turned into ethanol. But it is a lot easier to make them into pellets or burn them directly to make heat or electricity.
Gasoline is a great liquid transport fuel
The problem is liquid fuel. Gasoline makes great liquid fuel and alternatives cannot compete. Direct government attempts (such as subsidies and mandates) to change this equation don’t work well for that reason. Beyond that, alternatives and gasoline are locked in a feedback loop. If alternatives, such as biofuels displace a lot of gasoline, the price of gasoline drops relative to the biofuels in question, making them less competitive.
Government has a role, but it is supportive and indirect. Government should not try to pick particular technologies. The ethanol debacle should have taught us that. It can help with infrastructure and basic research. Real, sustainable gains come from increasing productivity that lowers costs or costs of doing business, rather than tries to pay them down with taxpayer money.
We have passed peak gasoline in the U.S.
A final interesting concept they talked about at the seminar was “peak gasoline.” People talk about peak oil. Peak oil is the theoretical spot where we have used up half of the petroleum available on earth. It is a slippery concept that is meaningless w/o specifying a price. At $5 a barrel, we reached peak oil years ago. We may never reach peak oil at $500 a barrel. Peak gasoline is an easier concept. Given the changing nature of our society, our driving habits and mileage efficiency, we probably reached the maximum amount of gasoline we will ever use. We cannot expect consumption to rise forever. Consumption is already dropping. Of course, we have not and may never reach “peak energy.”
We can live with the energy problem but never solve it
There will be no magic solution to the energy problem. We choose our energy portfolio based on cost, convenience, availability and mere preference. This is how it will always be. It is an ongoing situation, not a problem that can be solved. No matter what elegant and wonderful solutions we devise (and we will come up with some) we will still be talking about the same sorts of things fifty years from now. It is good to remember – despite the current pessimism – that our energy situation is better than that of our ancestors in terms of the amount of work we need to perform for each unit of energy. But as energy gets easier to get, we want more of it.
Any crop we grow captures only one season of energy or maybe a couple decades in the case of trees. This is a fundamental limit even if we can figure out how to efficiently capture the energy stored in corn, sugar, wood, palm oil or switchgrass.
All energy sources have economic & ecological costs
We noticed the BP oil spill because it is quick and compelling, but scientists have long known about the Gulf dead zone a more persistently serious problem. This is a vast area of the sea near the mouth of the Mississippi where fertilizer runoff (especially nitrogen and phosphorus) have caused extravagant growth of algae. When the algae die back and decompose, it sucks the oxygen out of the water, making life hard for fish. Much of this fertilizer runs off of corn fields. To the extent we turn more corn into ethanol, we make the problem worse. We tend to notice fast developing problems like the BP spill while the slow motions ones, like the dead zones, escape notice.
One of the dangers of something like the BP spill is that people panic and politicians and special interests take advantage. You can see this already in the calls for more biofuels and other alternatives. Remember the cause of the dead zone in the paragraph above. But it gets worse. The nitrogen fertilizer for the corn is often derived in part from natural gas and we have to account for the fossil fuels that go into planting, moving and refining the 1/3 of the American corn crop that becomes ethanol.
Panicking people & pandering politicians make poor policy
W/o massive government intervention, there would still be an ethanol industry. It would just be a lot smaller. Ethanol has a good use as an oxygenator added to gasoline. It makes gasoline burn more effectively & cleaner. In the early 2000s it replaced MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether), which had itself replaced lead as an octane enhancer a generation ago. But a little ethanol is good; a lot is less useful. Gasoline packs a lot more energy per gallon than ethanol. As you add ethanol beyond a small amount, it begins to decrease mileage. There are also other problems related to corrosion and evaporation, but I will let anybody who cares learn about that elsewhere.
Suffice to say that the push to use more ethanol as transport fuel moved it from being a high end additive to extend gasoline mileage to a low end commodity. Since it is less efficient & more expensive than gas, it raised the prices. Yet the push for more ethanol continues because it is driven by politics, not by economics or common sense.
Moonshinning
Let’s digress a little. You can make alcohol from almost anything that grows on earth. You can see that from the vast array of alcoholic beverages available worldwide, made from potatoes, corn, cactus, grapes, apples and even watermelon. But it is easier to make ethanol from some things than it is from others. It is relatively easy to make ethanol from sugar cane. That is why Brazil has an ethanol advantage. It is significantly less efficient to make it from corn and so far prohibitively expensive to make it from cellulous (i.e. switchgrass, wood chips etc).
We lose corn's comparative advantages when we make it into ethanol
The U.S. does not have a competitive advantage in making ethanol. For one thing, corn is not a great feedstock and to make that worse we (the U.S.) has a relative advantage growing corn as food for man and beast, but when we make it into ethanol, we manage to negate our natural advantages, converting a product we do well into a product that we do merely okay. Beyond that, corn ethanol tends to be produced near where corn grows, i.e. in the middle of the country. Much of the demand for liquid fuel is on the coasts. Ethanol cannot be transported via gasoline pipelines because it is corrosive and tends to create evaporation problems.Transporting ethanol by road and rail is relatively expensive. On the other hand, ethanol from Brazil is cheaper and closer – in terms of transport – because it is produced near ports in Sao Paulo state and can be easily sent via sea transport to places like Norfolk. That is why we have to subsidize ethanol production in the U.S. by $0.45 a gallon AND put a tariff of $0.54 on ethanol from Brazil.
In other words, public policy is pushing us toward one of the most expensive energy alternatives made even more expensive by public policy.
What about cellulosic ethanol? This can be made from materials that now go to waste, such as forestry waste or stalks and sticks from crops. We can also easily grow some crops, such as hybrid poplars or switchgrass, specifically for energy. The biggest problem is that we still cannot do it efficiently. Nature has been evolving for millions of years to prevent wood from easily being converted (i.e. fermented or rotted). There are better alternatives. The more you have to process something, the more costs you add. Wood chips, for example, CAN be turned into ethanol. But it is a lot easier to make them into pellets or burn them directly to make heat or electricity.
Gasoline is a great liquid transport fuel
The problem is liquid fuel. Gasoline makes great liquid fuel and alternatives cannot compete. Direct government attempts (such as subsidies and mandates) to change this equation don’t work well for that reason. Beyond that, alternatives and gasoline are locked in a feedback loop. If alternatives, such as biofuels displace a lot of gasoline, the price of gasoline drops relative to the biofuels in question, making them less competitive.
Government has a role, but it is supportive and indirect. Government should not try to pick particular technologies. The ethanol debacle should have taught us that. It can help with infrastructure and basic research. Real, sustainable gains come from increasing productivity that lowers costs or costs of doing business, rather than tries to pay them down with taxpayer money.
We have passed peak gasoline in the U.S.
A final interesting concept they talked about at the seminar was “peak gasoline.” People talk about peak oil. Peak oil is the theoretical spot where we have used up half of the petroleum available on earth. It is a slippery concept that is meaningless w/o specifying a price. At $5 a barrel, we reached peak oil years ago. We may never reach peak oil at $500 a barrel. Peak gasoline is an easier concept. Given the changing nature of our society, our driving habits and mileage efficiency, we probably reached the maximum amount of gasoline we will ever use. We cannot expect consumption to rise forever. Consumption is already dropping. Of course, we have not and may never reach “peak energy.”
We can live with the energy problem but never solve it
There will be no magic solution to the energy problem. We choose our energy portfolio based on cost, convenience, availability and mere preference. This is how it will always be. It is an ongoing situation, not a problem that can be solved. No matter what elegant and wonderful solutions we devise (and we will come up with some) we will still be talking about the same sorts of things fifty years from now. It is good to remember – despite the current pessimism – that our energy situation is better than that of our ancestors in terms of the amount of work we need to perform for each unit of energy. But as energy gets easier to get, we want more of it.
Oil industry safety record blown open
National Wildlife Federation says catalogue of oil industry accidents proves BP disaster in Gulf of Mexico is not a one-off
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 July 2010 20.18 BST
The oil industry has been responsible for thousands of fires, explosions, and leaks over the last decade, killing dozens of people and destroying wildlife and the environment across America, according to a report published today.
None of the individual incidents catalogued by the National Wildlife Federation comes close in scale to BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in America's history. But the thousands of lesser offshore spills, pipeline leaks, refinery fires and other accidents demolish the industry argument that BP's ruptured well was a one-off, and that the oil and gas business has grown safer, the report's authors said.
"These disasters make it clear that the BP disaster isn't a rare accident," said Tim Warman, who directs the global warming programme for NWF, which calls itself the country's largest conservation organisation. "These are daily occurrences. These are daily incidents of not paying attention."
In a further grim reminder, the American midwest was in the throes of its own environmental disaster today, with a ruptured pipeline gushing gallons of oil into Michigan's Kalamazoo River.
Enbridge Energy, which is Canadian-owned but based in Houston, said the spill may have reached 1m gallons. Federal government officials in Washington and the state of Michigan were struggling to stop the oil from reaching the Great Lakes.
In the Gulf of Mexico, meanwhile, while BP's oil well remains capped, a tugboat crashed into an abandoned well this week and set off a 100ft gusher of oil and gas.
The coastguard commander, Thad Allen, told reporters today that operations were switching from response to recovery, suggesting that equipment and personnel in the Gulf could be drastically scaled back in four to six weeks. "If you need fewer skimming vessels out there, there is going to be a levelling you need to consider," he said.
The report from the National Wildlife Federation drew on records from the Minerals Management Service, which regulates offshore drilling, and the Environmental Protection Agency, to come up with a figure of 1,440 offshore leaks, blowouts, and other accidents were reported between 2001-2007.
In addition to environmental damage, these caused 41 deaths and 302 injuries.
The safety record for onshore activities was even more dismal. Some 2,554 pipeline accidents occurred between 2001 and 2007, killing 161 people and injuring 576.
"Oil and gas is being produced in 34 states across the country and it is just not being regulated to the extent it needs to be," said Lauren Pagel of Earthworks, which monitors extractive industries.
At times, the accidents occurred far from industrial installations such as offshore drilling rigs or refineries. In one particularly gruesome incident from August 2000, three families with young children on a camping trip in New Mexico were consumed by a 500ft fireball from a ruptured pipeline. All 12 people were killed, and an official investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board later blamed the pipeline company for failing to detect or repair severely corroded pipes.
Four years later, a tanker truck lost control and crossed guard rails outside Washington DC, igniting 8,000 gallons of burning petrol on one of the country's busiest highways. "There was fire everywhere," the report quotes highway officials as saying. Four people were killed.
Among the causes for the poor safety record was the industry's relentless costcutting, despite record profits, said the report's authors, describing equipment failures, tank corrosion, and other signs of poor maintenance. The poor safety and environmental records were not restricted to the so-called Big Oil companies.
Enbridge Energy has had 400 separate spills between 2003 and 2008, spewing 1.3m gallons of crude into the environment, according to official records.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 July 2010 20.18 BST
The oil industry has been responsible for thousands of fires, explosions, and leaks over the last decade, killing dozens of people and destroying wildlife and the environment across America, according to a report published today.
None of the individual incidents catalogued by the National Wildlife Federation comes close in scale to BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in America's history. But the thousands of lesser offshore spills, pipeline leaks, refinery fires and other accidents demolish the industry argument that BP's ruptured well was a one-off, and that the oil and gas business has grown safer, the report's authors said.
"These disasters make it clear that the BP disaster isn't a rare accident," said Tim Warman, who directs the global warming programme for NWF, which calls itself the country's largest conservation organisation. "These are daily occurrences. These are daily incidents of not paying attention."
In a further grim reminder, the American midwest was in the throes of its own environmental disaster today, with a ruptured pipeline gushing gallons of oil into Michigan's Kalamazoo River.
Enbridge Energy, which is Canadian-owned but based in Houston, said the spill may have reached 1m gallons. Federal government officials in Washington and the state of Michigan were struggling to stop the oil from reaching the Great Lakes.
In the Gulf of Mexico, meanwhile, while BP's oil well remains capped, a tugboat crashed into an abandoned well this week and set off a 100ft gusher of oil and gas.
The coastguard commander, Thad Allen, told reporters today that operations were switching from response to recovery, suggesting that equipment and personnel in the Gulf could be drastically scaled back in four to six weeks. "If you need fewer skimming vessels out there, there is going to be a levelling you need to consider," he said.
The report from the National Wildlife Federation drew on records from the Minerals Management Service, which regulates offshore drilling, and the Environmental Protection Agency, to come up with a figure of 1,440 offshore leaks, blowouts, and other accidents were reported between 2001-2007.
In addition to environmental damage, these caused 41 deaths and 302 injuries.
The safety record for onshore activities was even more dismal. Some 2,554 pipeline accidents occurred between 2001 and 2007, killing 161 people and injuring 576.
"Oil and gas is being produced in 34 states across the country and it is just not being regulated to the extent it needs to be," said Lauren Pagel of Earthworks, which monitors extractive industries.
At times, the accidents occurred far from industrial installations such as offshore drilling rigs or refineries. In one particularly gruesome incident from August 2000, three families with young children on a camping trip in New Mexico were consumed by a 500ft fireball from a ruptured pipeline. All 12 people were killed, and an official investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board later blamed the pipeline company for failing to detect or repair severely corroded pipes.
Four years later, a tanker truck lost control and crossed guard rails outside Washington DC, igniting 8,000 gallons of burning petrol on one of the country's busiest highways. "There was fire everywhere," the report quotes highway officials as saying. Four people were killed.
Among the causes for the poor safety record was the industry's relentless costcutting, despite record profits, said the report's authors, describing equipment failures, tank corrosion, and other signs of poor maintenance. The poor safety and environmental records were not restricted to the so-called Big Oil companies.
Enbridge Energy has had 400 separate spills between 2003 and 2008, spewing 1.3m gallons of crude into the environment, according to official records.
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Tidal energy wish granted by Government's £250,000 grant
Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 07:00
A BRISTOL company that specialises in developing the latest technology for harvesting tidal energy has won a grant for £250,000.
Marine Current Turbines is planning to use the funding to pay for research into the next generation of tidal power turbines.
The firm will be working alongside the Queen's University Belfast, Mojo Maritime and Edinburgh University on the project. The grant has come from the Government's Technology Strategy Board and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and will be used to develop a fully submerged version of the SeaGen tidal turbine. The company will lead the project, which will build on the success of its SeaGen tidal system that has been generating electricity for the National Grid for more than two years.
MCT's new technology will use similar turbines, power trains and control systems to those already proven with SeaGen.
The next-generation SeaGen will be able to be maintained above the surface of the water but will also have internal air-filled space to carry the equipment essential to connect the device to the National Grid.
Charles Hendry, the Energy Minister, said: "Wave and tidal stream technologies, such as SeaGen, have the potential to supply millions of homes with low carbon energy – reducing our dependency on foreign energy imports and cutting dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.
"SeaGen is an excellent example of the UK's world-class engineering and offshore expertise and skills."
Martin Wright, managing director of the firm, said: "The experience that we have gained with SeaGen's deployment and commercial operation is a huge asset in taking forward the development of the next-generation technology, and we greatly welcome the support given to us and our partners by the Technology Strategy Board, the EPSRC and the UK Government."
Iain Gray, chief executive of the Technology Strategy Board, said: "By 2050 we are going to have very different energy needs than we have today and we will be getting our energy from different sources.
"The UK is well placed to exploit wave and tidal stream energy resources with all of the coast line that we have, and it is expected this kind of technology will be an important part of the renewable energy mix needed in the future."
A BRISTOL company that specialises in developing the latest technology for harvesting tidal energy has won a grant for £250,000.
Marine Current Turbines is planning to use the funding to pay for research into the next generation of tidal power turbines.
The firm will be working alongside the Queen's University Belfast, Mojo Maritime and Edinburgh University on the project. The grant has come from the Government's Technology Strategy Board and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and will be used to develop a fully submerged version of the SeaGen tidal turbine. The company will lead the project, which will build on the success of its SeaGen tidal system that has been generating electricity for the National Grid for more than two years.
MCT's new technology will use similar turbines, power trains and control systems to those already proven with SeaGen.
The next-generation SeaGen will be able to be maintained above the surface of the water but will also have internal air-filled space to carry the equipment essential to connect the device to the National Grid.
Charles Hendry, the Energy Minister, said: "Wave and tidal stream technologies, such as SeaGen, have the potential to supply millions of homes with low carbon energy – reducing our dependency on foreign energy imports and cutting dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.
"SeaGen is an excellent example of the UK's world-class engineering and offshore expertise and skills."
Martin Wright, managing director of the firm, said: "The experience that we have gained with SeaGen's deployment and commercial operation is a huge asset in taking forward the development of the next-generation technology, and we greatly welcome the support given to us and our partners by the Technology Strategy Board, the EPSRC and the UK Government."
Iain Gray, chief executive of the Technology Strategy Board, said: "By 2050 we are going to have very different energy needs than we have today and we will be getting our energy from different sources.
"The UK is well placed to exploit wave and tidal stream energy resources with all of the coast line that we have, and it is expected this kind of technology will be an important part of the renewable energy mix needed in the future."
Advanced Biofuel Trade Associations Express Support for Tax Policy on Second-Generation Biofuels
WASHINGTON--As Congress takes action on critical tax incentive packages, the leading advanced biofuel trade associations reemphasized the importance of advanced biofuels as promising opportunities for the United States to reduce its reliance on oil and create green jobs. Sustained and diverse federal programs, including tax incentives, can help producers secure financing for construction of projects. The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Advanced BioFuels Association (ABFA) and Algal Biomass Organization (ABO) today thanked Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander Levin (D-Mich.) for introducing legislation that would make algae and other second-generation biofuels eligible for the cellulosic biofuels production tax credit and create an optional investment tax credit. The groups released the following joint statement:
As a result of the recession, private capital has been on the sidelines. Enactment of an investment tax credit, similar to those given other nascent industries, can help second-generation advanced biofuel projects make the crucial step to commercializing innovative technologies. This approach was granted to the wind, biomass and geothermal industries under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, and this spring the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Treasury testified that this approach was a great success in the deployment of new jobs and new renewable technology over the last year. We believe the same results of creating jobs in the algae, advanced and cellulosic biofuels sectors can be realized with this much-needed boost by Congress.
Advanced biofuel producers seeking the investment needed to build biorefineries and infrastructure are finding it especially challenging to raise financing for first-of-a-kind commercial-scale facilities. Enduring federal commitment to increasing alternative energy production should provide potential investors the certainty they need to make long-term investments in new cellulosic and algae-based advanced biofuel facilities. An optional investment tax credit can provide second-generation biofuel developers critical flexibility in electing the form of tax incentive that best suits a given project.
BIO, ABFA and ABO believe these measures are a very good start to providing advanced biofuel producers assistance in attracting necessary capital to build new biorefineries. We look forward to working with the committee as well as leaders in the Senate to enact them.
The Chairman's discussion draft of tax legislation is intended to support industry efforts to secure project financing by strengthening and expanding federal tax incentives for second-generation biofuels. The legislation includes language authored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) that would open existing cellulosic biofuels tax credits to algae-based fuels. The proposed legislation also includes a provision introduced by Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) and co-sponsored by 15 members of the Ways and Means Committee that would provide cellulosic and algae-based biorefineries an option to choose a 30 percent investment tax credit in lieu of production incentives. Businesses would not be allowed to claim both the production and investment incentives but would be granted the flexibility to choose the incentive best suited to their business condition.
About BIO
BIO represents more than 1,200 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. BIO also produces the BIO International Convention, the world’s largest gathering of the biotechnology industry, along with industry-leading investor and partnering meetings held around the world.
About ABFA
The member companies of The Advanced BioFuels Association (ABFA) represent the new generation of advanced and renewable technologies that will help drive America's new economy and fuel a sustainable future for the world. For more information click on http://www.advancedbiofuelsassociation.com.
About ABO
The Algal Biomass Organization (ABO) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote the development of viable commercial markets for renewable and sustainable commodities derived from algae. Its membership is comprised of people, companies and organizations across the value chain. More information about ABO, including its leadership, membership, costs, benefits and members and their affiliations, is available at the website: www.algalbiomass.org.
As a result of the recession, private capital has been on the sidelines. Enactment of an investment tax credit, similar to those given other nascent industries, can help second-generation advanced biofuel projects make the crucial step to commercializing innovative technologies. This approach was granted to the wind, biomass and geothermal industries under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, and this spring the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Treasury testified that this approach was a great success in the deployment of new jobs and new renewable technology over the last year. We believe the same results of creating jobs in the algae, advanced and cellulosic biofuels sectors can be realized with this much-needed boost by Congress.
Advanced biofuel producers seeking the investment needed to build biorefineries and infrastructure are finding it especially challenging to raise financing for first-of-a-kind commercial-scale facilities. Enduring federal commitment to increasing alternative energy production should provide potential investors the certainty they need to make long-term investments in new cellulosic and algae-based advanced biofuel facilities. An optional investment tax credit can provide second-generation biofuel developers critical flexibility in electing the form of tax incentive that best suits a given project.
BIO, ABFA and ABO believe these measures are a very good start to providing advanced biofuel producers assistance in attracting necessary capital to build new biorefineries. We look forward to working with the committee as well as leaders in the Senate to enact them.
The Chairman's discussion draft of tax legislation is intended to support industry efforts to secure project financing by strengthening and expanding federal tax incentives for second-generation biofuels. The legislation includes language authored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) that would open existing cellulosic biofuels tax credits to algae-based fuels. The proposed legislation also includes a provision introduced by Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) and co-sponsored by 15 members of the Ways and Means Committee that would provide cellulosic and algae-based biorefineries an option to choose a 30 percent investment tax credit in lieu of production incentives. Businesses would not be allowed to claim both the production and investment incentives but would be granted the flexibility to choose the incentive best suited to their business condition.
About BIO
BIO represents more than 1,200 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. BIO also produces the BIO International Convention, the world’s largest gathering of the biotechnology industry, along with industry-leading investor and partnering meetings held around the world.
About ABFA
The member companies of The Advanced BioFuels Association (ABFA) represent the new generation of advanced and renewable technologies that will help drive America's new economy and fuel a sustainable future for the world. For more information click on http://www.advancedbiofuelsassociation.com.
About ABO
The Algal Biomass Organization (ABO) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote the development of viable commercial markets for renewable and sustainable commodities derived from algae. Its membership is comprised of people, companies and organizations across the value chain. More information about ABO, including its leadership, membership, costs, benefits and members and their affiliations, is available at the website: www.algalbiomass.org.
A-Power Renews Wind Turbine License Agreement with Fuhrlander
SHENYANG, China, July 28 /PRNewswire-Asia-FirstCall/ -- A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd. (Nasdaq: APWR) ("A-Power" or "the Company"), a leading provider of distributed power generation systems in China and a fast-growing manufacturer of wind turbines, today announced that it renewed its license agreement with German wind technology company, Fuhrlander AG ("Fuhrlander").
Pursuant to the renewed license agreement, Fuhrlander granted A-Power the right to manufacture, operate, service and sell 2.5MW wind turbines using Furhlander's F2500 technology throughout China.
"This license agreement with Fuhrlander represents a great opportunity for A-Power to bolster its position in the market of high capacity 2.5MW turbines, as the wind industry is increasingly transitioning to higher capacity turbines," Mr. Jinxiang Lu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of A-Power, commented. "Wind business is a key component of our long-term growth strategy for A-Power. We're very excited with the prospects that our partnership with Fuhrlander provides, which will allow us to continue to extend our presence in the market and to realize our goal of becoming a leading turbine manufacturer in China."
About A-Power
A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd. ("A-Power") is an engineering, procurement and construction ("EPC") services company. Through its China-based operating subsidiaries, it is the largest provider of distributed power generation systems in China and is expanding into the production of alternative power generation systems. Focusing on energy-efficient and environmentally friendly projects of 25MW to 400MW, A-Power operates one of the largest wind turbine manufacturing facilities in China and in March 2009, entered into an agreement to establish a joint venture partnership with GE Drivetrain Technologies to produce wind turbine gearboxes in Shenyang, Liaoning Province. It also acquired Evatech, a designer and manufacturer of industrial equipment for amorphous-silicon (a-Si) photovoltaic (PV) panels, in 2010.
In addition to the establishment of strategic relationships with the world's leading wind energy design and engineering companies, A-Power has formed joint research programs with Tsinghua University and the China Academy of Sciences to develop and commercialize other renewable energy technologies. For more information, please visit http://www.apowerenergy.com .
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release may contain forward-looking statements. Any such statement is made within the 'safe harbor' provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as "may", "will," "expects," "anticipates," "future," "intends," "plans," "believes," "estimates," and other similar statements. Statements that are not historical facts, including statements relating to anticipated future earnings, margins, and other operating results, future growth, construction plans and anticipated capacities, production schedules and entry into expanded markets are forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements, based upon the current beliefs and expectations of our management, are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements, including but not limited to, the risk that: inclement weather conditions could adversely affect our operating results in particular quarters and/or fiscal years; we may experience construction, manufacturing and development delays on our projects which could adversely affect our financial condition and operating results; our limited operating history and recent entrance into new jurisdictional markets may make it difficult for you to evaluate our business and future prospects; we may not be able to successfully develop our business in new jurisdictional markets, which would have a negative impact on the results of our operations derived from such new jurisdictional markets; our customers may not be able to obtain the financing required for these projects, and thus, we may not be able to derive revenues from such agreements, as well as other relevant risks detailed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including those set forth in our annual report filed on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009. The information set forth herein should be read in light of such risks. We assume no obligation to update the information contained in this press release, except as required under applicable law.
For more information, please contact
A-Power Energy Generation Systems
John S. Lin
Chief Operating Officer
Email: john@apowerenergy.com
Pursuant to the renewed license agreement, Fuhrlander granted A-Power the right to manufacture, operate, service and sell 2.5MW wind turbines using Furhlander's F2500 technology throughout China.
"This license agreement with Fuhrlander represents a great opportunity for A-Power to bolster its position in the market of high capacity 2.5MW turbines, as the wind industry is increasingly transitioning to higher capacity turbines," Mr. Jinxiang Lu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of A-Power, commented. "Wind business is a key component of our long-term growth strategy for A-Power. We're very excited with the prospects that our partnership with Fuhrlander provides, which will allow us to continue to extend our presence in the market and to realize our goal of becoming a leading turbine manufacturer in China."
About A-Power
A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd. ("A-Power") is an engineering, procurement and construction ("EPC") services company. Through its China-based operating subsidiaries, it is the largest provider of distributed power generation systems in China and is expanding into the production of alternative power generation systems. Focusing on energy-efficient and environmentally friendly projects of 25MW to 400MW, A-Power operates one of the largest wind turbine manufacturing facilities in China and in March 2009, entered into an agreement to establish a joint venture partnership with GE Drivetrain Technologies to produce wind turbine gearboxes in Shenyang, Liaoning Province. It also acquired Evatech, a designer and manufacturer of industrial equipment for amorphous-silicon (a-Si) photovoltaic (PV) panels, in 2010.
In addition to the establishment of strategic relationships with the world's leading wind energy design and engineering companies, A-Power has formed joint research programs with Tsinghua University and the China Academy of Sciences to develop and commercialize other renewable energy technologies. For more information, please visit http://www.apowerenergy.com .
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release may contain forward-looking statements. Any such statement is made within the 'safe harbor' provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as "may", "will," "expects," "anticipates," "future," "intends," "plans," "believes," "estimates," and other similar statements. Statements that are not historical facts, including statements relating to anticipated future earnings, margins, and other operating results, future growth, construction plans and anticipated capacities, production schedules and entry into expanded markets are forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements, based upon the current beliefs and expectations of our management, are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements, including but not limited to, the risk that: inclement weather conditions could adversely affect our operating results in particular quarters and/or fiscal years; we may experience construction, manufacturing and development delays on our projects which could adversely affect our financial condition and operating results; our limited operating history and recent entrance into new jurisdictional markets may make it difficult for you to evaluate our business and future prospects; we may not be able to successfully develop our business in new jurisdictional markets, which would have a negative impact on the results of our operations derived from such new jurisdictional markets; our customers may not be able to obtain the financing required for these projects, and thus, we may not be able to derive revenues from such agreements, as well as other relevant risks detailed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including those set forth in our annual report filed on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009. The information set forth herein should be read in light of such risks. We assume no obligation to update the information contained in this press release, except as required under applicable law.
For more information, please contact
A-Power Energy Generation Systems
John S. Lin
Chief Operating Officer
Email: john@apowerenergy.com
How to get to a zero-carbon economy
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Steven Pearlstein's column on climate policy and energy innovation ["Can regulation beget innovation?," Economy and Business, July 16] was half-right. Tighter environmental regulations have driven innovation while cleaning up smog-causing emissions from cars and power plants. But Mr. Pearlstein was wrong to suggest that merely pricing carbon will produce the low-carbon technologies we need.
Initial carbon prices will be very modest, while most forms of advanced carbon-free energy will be expensive. Carbon prices, consequently, will drive some additional demand for wind power and efficiency improvements -- and a lot of switching from coal to natural gas.
Deeper emissions reductions, however, will require development of technologies that won't meet foreseeable carbon prices; these include sequestration of coal's carbon dioxide emissions, improved storage of renewable energy, offshore wind power and, possibly, atmospheric carbon capture.
With or without carbon pricing, more direct government actions will be needed to spur development of low-carbon technologies, such as aggressive procurement of advanced energy technologies to catalyze markets, sponsorship of first-of-kind commercial demonstration projects for new technology, and setting carbon performance standards for power plants.
Getting to a zero-carbon economic system by 2050 will be a much heavier lift than previously thought. It's time to start.
Steven Pearlstein's column on climate policy and energy innovation ["Can regulation beget innovation?," Economy and Business, July 16] was half-right. Tighter environmental regulations have driven innovation while cleaning up smog-causing emissions from cars and power plants. But Mr. Pearlstein was wrong to suggest that merely pricing carbon will produce the low-carbon technologies we need.
Initial carbon prices will be very modest, while most forms of advanced carbon-free energy will be expensive. Carbon prices, consequently, will drive some additional demand for wind power and efficiency improvements -- and a lot of switching from coal to natural gas.
Deeper emissions reductions, however, will require development of technologies that won't meet foreseeable carbon prices; these include sequestration of coal's carbon dioxide emissions, improved storage of renewable energy, offshore wind power and, possibly, atmospheric carbon capture.
With or without carbon pricing, more direct government actions will be needed to spur development of low-carbon technologies, such as aggressive procurement of advanced energy technologies to catalyze markets, sponsorship of first-of-kind commercial demonstration projects for new technology, and setting carbon performance standards for power plants.
Getting to a zero-carbon economic system by 2050 will be a much heavier lift than previously thought. It's time to start.
Met Office report: global warming evidence is 'unmistakable'
A new climate change report from the Met Office and its US equivalent has provided the "greatest evidence we have ever had" that the world is warming.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 6:00PM BST 28 Jul 2010
It is the first time a report has brought together all the different ways of measuring changes in the climate The report brings together the latest temperature readings from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean
Usually scientists rely on the temperature over land, taken from weather stations around the world for the last 150 years, to show global warming.
Tony Blair urges Barack Obama not to let economic crisis overshadow environmentBut climate change sceptics questioned the evidence, especially in the wake of recent scandals like "climategate".
Now for the first time, a report has brought together all the different ways of measuring changes in the climate. The ten indicators of climate change include measurements of sea level rise taken from ships, the temperature of the upper atmosphere taken from weather balloons and field surveys of melting glaciers.
New technology also means it is possible to measure the temperature of the oceans, which absorb 90 per cent of the world's heat.
The State of the Climate report shows “unequivocally that the world is warming and has been for more than three decades”.
And despite the cold winter in Europe and north east America, this year is set to be the hottest on record.
The annual report was compiled by the Met Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Both the NOAA and Nasa have stated that the first six months of this year were the hottest on record, while the Met Office believes it is the second hottest start to the year after 1998.
Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office, said “variability” in different regions, such as the cold winter in Britain, does not mean the rest of the world is not warming.
And he said 'greenhouse gases are the glaringly obvious explanation' for 0.56C (1F) warming over the last 50 years.
“Despite the fact people say global warming has stopped, the new data, added onto existing data, gives us the greatest evidence we have ever had,” he said.
Sceptics claimed that emails stolen from the University of East Anglia show scientists were willing to manipulate the land surface temperatures to show global warming.
The scientists were cleared by an independent inquiry but the ‘climategate scandal’ as it became known cast a shadow over the case for man made global warming.
Dr Stott said the sceptics can no longer question the land surface temperature as other records also show global warming.
He pointed out that each indicator takes independent evidence from at least 3 different institutions in order to ensure the information is correct. Despite variations from year to year, each decade has been warmer than the last since the 1980s.
"Despite the variability caused by short term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” he said. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using different data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 6:00PM BST 28 Jul 2010
It is the first time a report has brought together all the different ways of measuring changes in the climate The report brings together the latest temperature readings from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean
Usually scientists rely on the temperature over land, taken from weather stations around the world for the last 150 years, to show global warming.
Tony Blair urges Barack Obama not to let economic crisis overshadow environmentBut climate change sceptics questioned the evidence, especially in the wake of recent scandals like "climategate".
Now for the first time, a report has brought together all the different ways of measuring changes in the climate. The ten indicators of climate change include measurements of sea level rise taken from ships, the temperature of the upper atmosphere taken from weather balloons and field surveys of melting glaciers.
New technology also means it is possible to measure the temperature of the oceans, which absorb 90 per cent of the world's heat.
The State of the Climate report shows “unequivocally that the world is warming and has been for more than three decades”.
And despite the cold winter in Europe and north east America, this year is set to be the hottest on record.
The annual report was compiled by the Met Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Both the NOAA and Nasa have stated that the first six months of this year were the hottest on record, while the Met Office believes it is the second hottest start to the year after 1998.
Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office, said “variability” in different regions, such as the cold winter in Britain, does not mean the rest of the world is not warming.
And he said 'greenhouse gases are the glaringly obvious explanation' for 0.56C (1F) warming over the last 50 years.
“Despite the fact people say global warming has stopped, the new data, added onto existing data, gives us the greatest evidence we have ever had,” he said.
Sceptics claimed that emails stolen from the University of East Anglia show scientists were willing to manipulate the land surface temperatures to show global warming.
The scientists were cleared by an independent inquiry but the ‘climategate scandal’ as it became known cast a shadow over the case for man made global warming.
Dr Stott said the sceptics can no longer question the land surface temperature as other records also show global warming.
He pointed out that each indicator takes independent evidence from at least 3 different institutions in order to ensure the information is correct. Despite variations from year to year, each decade has been warmer than the last since the 1980s.
"Despite the variability caused by short term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” he said. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using different data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”
Green light for electric car grants
By Peter Woodman
Thursday, 29 July 2010
A promised grant of up to £5,000 towards the cost of an electric or ultra-low carbon car has survived Government cutbacks. The Transport Secretary Philip Hammond yesterday said the funding, first announced by the Labour government, will go ahead from January 2011.
The grant will reduce the cost of new ultra-low carbon vehicles by 25 per cent, capped at £5,000. The incentive has been agreed until the end of March 2012, with the level of grant being reviewed in January 2012.
The Department for Transport said the announcement of the incentive has been made before the completion of the autumn spending review to support the early market for ultra-low carbon cars.
The grant covers electric, plug-in hybrid or hydrogen fuel-cell cars.
Thursday, 29 July 2010
A promised grant of up to £5,000 towards the cost of an electric or ultra-low carbon car has survived Government cutbacks. The Transport Secretary Philip Hammond yesterday said the funding, first announced by the Labour government, will go ahead from January 2011.
The grant will reduce the cost of new ultra-low carbon vehicles by 25 per cent, capped at £5,000. The incentive has been agreed until the end of March 2012, with the level of grant being reviewed in January 2012.
The Department for Transport said the announcement of the incentive has been made before the completion of the autumn spending review to support the early market for ultra-low carbon cars.
The grant covers electric, plug-in hybrid or hydrogen fuel-cell cars.
UK electric car grant scheme 'cut by 80%'
Government commits to just £43m of the original £230m promised for programme to subsidise the uptake of electric cars
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 July 2010 13.39 BST Article history
A government grant scheme to give motorists up to £5,000 off the cost of a new electric car has been cut by 80%, opposition politicians and green campaigners claimed today. The fate of a network of charging points to power such low-emission cars also hangs in the balance.
Following lobbying from electric car-makers, who argued abolishing the incentive would harm the cars' take-up and hit the creation of green jobs, transport secretary, Philip Hammond, today confirmed the grant will go ahead in January 2011.
"The coalition government is absolutely committed to low-carbon growth, tackling climate change and making our energy supply more secure," said Hammond. "This will ensure that the UK is a world leader in low-emission vehicles."
However, the government has committed only to an initial fund of £43m, to run until March 2012, which will be reviewed in January 2012. Under the original £230m scheme first announced in March 2010 by Labour, there was no plan to review the scheme annually said a spokesperson for shadow transport secretary, Sadiq Khan.
But a spokesperson for the Department for Transport (DfT) said the £43m in the first year was the same level of spending under the coalition's plans as it was under the former administration's. The first tranche of money could fund up to 8,600 cars, assuming all buyers took full advantage of the £5,000 discount.
Under the "plugged-in car grant" scheme, buyers of new electric cars will be offered up to 25% off the car's price, capped at a maximum of £5,000. All of the first generation of electric cars eligible for the grant, such as the Nissan Leaf, Mitsubishi i-MiEV and Telsa Roadster sports car, cost over £20,000.
Khan said: "This announcement goes nowhere near matching the ambition of the scheme as set out by Labour – there is money here for less than a quarter of the new low-carbon vehicles we envisioned. Thanks in part to this scheme and a grant from the last government, Nissan chose to manufacture its low-carbon Leaf model in Sunderland. By making Britain one of the world's leading markets for low-carbon vehicles, we could attract more manufacturers here. But to make that happen the coalition must show greater ambition than this."
There is also still uncertainty over a related "plugged-in places" project announced under the previous government to build thousands of new charging points to top up the vehicles on public streets. Almost all of the cars have a maximum range of 100 miles or less. The government said today that a decision on the financing and number of such points would be delayed until the comprehensive spending review in the autumn.
Greenpeace transport campaigner Vicky Wyatt said: "Electric cars are one of the ways we can cut our dependence on oil and move towards a clean, green transport system. That's why it's good news that the government has announced this first chunk of funding. But if the government is serious about putting hundreds of thousands more electric cars on Britain's roads, it's vital that Phillip Hammond makes a long-term commitment and stumps up the full £230m, as promised by the previous government."
"Nissan welcomes today's announcement by the government to offer consumer incentives for electric vehicles," said a company spokesperson. "In doing so, the government has signalled that Britain is serious about supporting new low-carbon technologies and is serious about helping consumers to make more sustainable choices."
Energy and climate change secretary, Chris Huhne, said: "Electric and low-carbon cars are fun to drive and essential to meet our climate targets. That's why we'll need a massive increase in the number of electric and clean green cars on our roads. Because this is new technology the government needs to step in to kick-start the market, which is why today's initiative is vital."
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 July 2010 13.39 BST Article history
A government grant scheme to give motorists up to £5,000 off the cost of a new electric car has been cut by 80%, opposition politicians and green campaigners claimed today. The fate of a network of charging points to power such low-emission cars also hangs in the balance.
Following lobbying from electric car-makers, who argued abolishing the incentive would harm the cars' take-up and hit the creation of green jobs, transport secretary, Philip Hammond, today confirmed the grant will go ahead in January 2011.
"The coalition government is absolutely committed to low-carbon growth, tackling climate change and making our energy supply more secure," said Hammond. "This will ensure that the UK is a world leader in low-emission vehicles."
However, the government has committed only to an initial fund of £43m, to run until March 2012, which will be reviewed in January 2012. Under the original £230m scheme first announced in March 2010 by Labour, there was no plan to review the scheme annually said a spokesperson for shadow transport secretary, Sadiq Khan.
But a spokesperson for the Department for Transport (DfT) said the £43m in the first year was the same level of spending under the coalition's plans as it was under the former administration's. The first tranche of money could fund up to 8,600 cars, assuming all buyers took full advantage of the £5,000 discount.
Under the "plugged-in car grant" scheme, buyers of new electric cars will be offered up to 25% off the car's price, capped at a maximum of £5,000. All of the first generation of electric cars eligible for the grant, such as the Nissan Leaf, Mitsubishi i-MiEV and Telsa Roadster sports car, cost over £20,000.
Khan said: "This announcement goes nowhere near matching the ambition of the scheme as set out by Labour – there is money here for less than a quarter of the new low-carbon vehicles we envisioned. Thanks in part to this scheme and a grant from the last government, Nissan chose to manufacture its low-carbon Leaf model in Sunderland. By making Britain one of the world's leading markets for low-carbon vehicles, we could attract more manufacturers here. But to make that happen the coalition must show greater ambition than this."
There is also still uncertainty over a related "plugged-in places" project announced under the previous government to build thousands of new charging points to top up the vehicles on public streets. Almost all of the cars have a maximum range of 100 miles or less. The government said today that a decision on the financing and number of such points would be delayed until the comprehensive spending review in the autumn.
Greenpeace transport campaigner Vicky Wyatt said: "Electric cars are one of the ways we can cut our dependence on oil and move towards a clean, green transport system. That's why it's good news that the government has announced this first chunk of funding. But if the government is serious about putting hundreds of thousands more electric cars on Britain's roads, it's vital that Phillip Hammond makes a long-term commitment and stumps up the full £230m, as promised by the previous government."
"Nissan welcomes today's announcement by the government to offer consumer incentives for electric vehicles," said a company spokesperson. "In doing so, the government has signalled that Britain is serious about supporting new low-carbon technologies and is serious about helping consumers to make more sustainable choices."
Energy and climate change secretary, Chris Huhne, said: "Electric and low-carbon cars are fun to drive and essential to meet our climate targets. That's why we'll need a massive increase in the number of electric and clean green cars on our roads. Because this is new technology the government needs to step in to kick-start the market, which is why today's initiative is vital."
Obama must take a lead on climate change – and soon
The US leader must lay out a comprehensive and costed plan to the American people showing how he will move beyond oil
• Global warming pushes 2010 temperatures to record highs
Jeffrey Sachs guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 July 2010 18.04 BST
All signs suggest that the planet is still hurtling headlong toward climatic disaster. The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has issued its "State of the Climate Report" covering January-May. The first five months of this year were the warmest since records began in 1880. May was the warmest month ever. Intense heat waves are currently hitting many parts of the world, yet still we fail to act.
There are several reasons for this, and we should understand them in order to break today's deadlock. First, the economic challenge of controlling human-induced climate change is truly complex. Anthropogenic climate change is caused by two principal sources of emissions of mainly carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: fossil-fuel use for energy and agriculture (including deforestation to create new farmland and pastureland).
Changing the world's energy and agricultural systems is no small matter. It is not enough to just wave our hands and declare that climate change is an emergency. We need a practical strategy for overhauling two economic sectors that stand at the centre of the global economy and involve the entire world's population.
The second major challenge in addressing climate change is the complexity of the science itself. Today's understanding of earth's climate and the human-induced component of climate change is the result of extremely difficult scientific work involving many thousands of scientists in all parts of the world. This scientific understanding is incomplete, and there remain significant uncertainties about the precise magnitudes, timing, and dangers of climate change.
The general public naturally has a hard time grappling with this complexity and uncertainty, especially since the changes in climate are occurring over a timetable of decades and centuries, rather than months and years. Moreover, year-to-year and even decade-to-decade natural variations in climate are intermixed with human-induced climate change, making it even more difficult to target damaging behaviour.
This has given rise to a third problem in addressing climate change, which stems from a combination of the economic implications of the issue and the uncertainty that surrounds it. This is reflected in the brutal, destructive campaign against climate science by powerful vested interests and ideologues, apparently aimed at creating an atmosphere of ignorance and confusion.
The Wall Street Journal, for example, America's leading business newspaper, has run an aggressive editorial campaign against climate science for decades. The individuals involved in this campaign are not only scientifically uninformed, but show absolutely no interest in becoming better informed. They have turned down repeated offers by climate scientists to meet and conduct serious discussions about the issues.
Major oil companies and other big corporate interests are also playing this game, and have financed disreputable PR campaigns against climate science. Their general approach is to exaggerate the uncertainties of climate science and to leave the impression that climate scientists are engaged in some kind of conspiracy to frighten the public. It is an absurd charge, but absurd charges can gather public support if presented in a slick, well-funded format.
If we add up these three factors – the enormous economic challenge of reducing greenhouse gases, the complexity of climate science, and deliberate campaigns to confuse the public and discredit the science – we arrive at the fourth and overarching problem: US politicians' unwillingness or inability to formulate a sensible climate-change policy.
The US bears disproportionate responsibility for inaction on climate change, because it was long the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, until last year, when China overtook it. Even today, per capita US emissions are more than four times higher than China's. Yet, despite America's central role in global emissions, the US Senate has done nothing about climate change since ratifying the UN climate change treaty 16 years ago.
When Barack Obama was elected US president, there was hope for progress. Yet, while it is clear that Obama would like to move forward on the issue, so far he has pursued a failed strategy of negotiating with senators and key industries to try to forge an agreement. Yet the special interest groups have dominated the process, and Obama has failed to make any headway.
The Obama administration should have tried – and should still try – an alternative approach. Instead of negotiating with vested interests in the back rooms of the White House and Congress, the president should present a coherent plan to the American people. He should propose a sound strategy over the next 20 years for reducing America's dependence on fossil fuels, converting to electric vehicles, and expanding non-carbon energy sources such as solar and wind power. He could then present an estimated price tag for phasing in these changes over time, and demonstrate that the costs would be modest compared to the enormous benefits.
Strangely, despite being a candidate of change, Obama has not taken the approach of presenting real plans of action for change. His administration is trapped more and more in the paralysing grip of special-interest groups. Whether this is an intended outcome, so that Obama and his party can continue to mobilise large campaign contributions, or the result of poor decision-making is difficult to determine – and may reflect a bit of both.
What is clear is that we are courting disaster as a result. Nature doesn't care about our political machinations. And nature is telling us that our current economic model is dangerous and self-defeating. Unless we find some real global leadership in the next few years, we will learn that lesson in the hardest ways possible.
• Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia university. He is also pecial adviser to UN secretary-general on the millennium development goals. There is a podcast of this commentary.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
• Global warming pushes 2010 temperatures to record highs
Jeffrey Sachs guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 July 2010 18.04 BST
All signs suggest that the planet is still hurtling headlong toward climatic disaster. The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has issued its "State of the Climate Report" covering January-May. The first five months of this year were the warmest since records began in 1880. May was the warmest month ever. Intense heat waves are currently hitting many parts of the world, yet still we fail to act.
There are several reasons for this, and we should understand them in order to break today's deadlock. First, the economic challenge of controlling human-induced climate change is truly complex. Anthropogenic climate change is caused by two principal sources of emissions of mainly carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: fossil-fuel use for energy and agriculture (including deforestation to create new farmland and pastureland).
Changing the world's energy and agricultural systems is no small matter. It is not enough to just wave our hands and declare that climate change is an emergency. We need a practical strategy for overhauling two economic sectors that stand at the centre of the global economy and involve the entire world's population.
The second major challenge in addressing climate change is the complexity of the science itself. Today's understanding of earth's climate and the human-induced component of climate change is the result of extremely difficult scientific work involving many thousands of scientists in all parts of the world. This scientific understanding is incomplete, and there remain significant uncertainties about the precise magnitudes, timing, and dangers of climate change.
The general public naturally has a hard time grappling with this complexity and uncertainty, especially since the changes in climate are occurring over a timetable of decades and centuries, rather than months and years. Moreover, year-to-year and even decade-to-decade natural variations in climate are intermixed with human-induced climate change, making it even more difficult to target damaging behaviour.
This has given rise to a third problem in addressing climate change, which stems from a combination of the economic implications of the issue and the uncertainty that surrounds it. This is reflected in the brutal, destructive campaign against climate science by powerful vested interests and ideologues, apparently aimed at creating an atmosphere of ignorance and confusion.
The Wall Street Journal, for example, America's leading business newspaper, has run an aggressive editorial campaign against climate science for decades. The individuals involved in this campaign are not only scientifically uninformed, but show absolutely no interest in becoming better informed. They have turned down repeated offers by climate scientists to meet and conduct serious discussions about the issues.
Major oil companies and other big corporate interests are also playing this game, and have financed disreputable PR campaigns against climate science. Their general approach is to exaggerate the uncertainties of climate science and to leave the impression that climate scientists are engaged in some kind of conspiracy to frighten the public. It is an absurd charge, but absurd charges can gather public support if presented in a slick, well-funded format.
If we add up these three factors – the enormous economic challenge of reducing greenhouse gases, the complexity of climate science, and deliberate campaigns to confuse the public and discredit the science – we arrive at the fourth and overarching problem: US politicians' unwillingness or inability to formulate a sensible climate-change policy.
The US bears disproportionate responsibility for inaction on climate change, because it was long the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, until last year, when China overtook it. Even today, per capita US emissions are more than four times higher than China's. Yet, despite America's central role in global emissions, the US Senate has done nothing about climate change since ratifying the UN climate change treaty 16 years ago.
When Barack Obama was elected US president, there was hope for progress. Yet, while it is clear that Obama would like to move forward on the issue, so far he has pursued a failed strategy of negotiating with senators and key industries to try to forge an agreement. Yet the special interest groups have dominated the process, and Obama has failed to make any headway.
The Obama administration should have tried – and should still try – an alternative approach. Instead of negotiating with vested interests in the back rooms of the White House and Congress, the president should present a coherent plan to the American people. He should propose a sound strategy over the next 20 years for reducing America's dependence on fossil fuels, converting to electric vehicles, and expanding non-carbon energy sources such as solar and wind power. He could then present an estimated price tag for phasing in these changes over time, and demonstrate that the costs would be modest compared to the enormous benefits.
Strangely, despite being a candidate of change, Obama has not taken the approach of presenting real plans of action for change. His administration is trapped more and more in the paralysing grip of special-interest groups. Whether this is an intended outcome, so that Obama and his party can continue to mobilise large campaign contributions, or the result of poor decision-making is difficult to determine – and may reflect a bit of both.
What is clear is that we are courting disaster as a result. Nature doesn't care about our political machinations. And nature is telling us that our current economic model is dangerous and self-defeating. Unless we find some real global leadership in the next few years, we will learn that lesson in the hardest ways possible.
• Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia university. He is also pecial adviser to UN secretary-general on the millennium development goals. There is a podcast of this commentary.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Liquid Phase Methanol Process Licensed to Biofuel Producer
27 July 2010
The Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOH) Process, funded by the US Department of Energy (DOE) and developed in collaboration with Air Products and Chemicals Inc., has been licensed to Woodland Biofuel Inc., which intends to use the technology to develop a wood-gasification process to produce methanol from wood-scrap. The first facility is planned in New York State.
The LPMEOH Process, developed for the production of methanol from coal, is an advanced indirect technology that utilizes synthesis gas, produced via gasification, to produce methanol. LPMEOH technology has the potential to be a more-efficient, lower-cost conversion route to methanol than commercially practiced gas-phase technologies.
The technology converts synthesis gas from the gasifier into methanol, which can either be sold as a value-added product or used as a source of peaking power for clean-burning integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants. Methanol can also be used as a source of hydrogen or synthesis gas for small fuel cells or industrial applications.
The original contract between DOE and Air Products and Chemicals, signed in 1981, included a repayment agreement, which has now been initiated, thanks to the Woodland Biofuel royalty license. The arrangement marks the first external license since the technology’s original testing and demonstration in the 1980s, at the DOE-owned 10 ton-per-day process development unit at Air Products and Chemicals’ syngas facility in LaPorte, Texas. DOE has received the first installment from the repayment agreement.
Building on this achievement, a commercial-scale demonstration of the LPMEOH Process was conducted under the CCT (Clean Coal Technology) Program, which resulted in a 260 ton-per-day facility at Eastman Chemicals’ site in Kingsport, Tenn. The facility is still in operation today.
The Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOH) Process, funded by the US Department of Energy (DOE) and developed in collaboration with Air Products and Chemicals Inc., has been licensed to Woodland Biofuel Inc., which intends to use the technology to develop a wood-gasification process to produce methanol from wood-scrap. The first facility is planned in New York State.
The LPMEOH Process, developed for the production of methanol from coal, is an advanced indirect technology that utilizes synthesis gas, produced via gasification, to produce methanol. LPMEOH technology has the potential to be a more-efficient, lower-cost conversion route to methanol than commercially practiced gas-phase technologies.
The technology converts synthesis gas from the gasifier into methanol, which can either be sold as a value-added product or used as a source of peaking power for clean-burning integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants. Methanol can also be used as a source of hydrogen or synthesis gas for small fuel cells or industrial applications.
The original contract between DOE and Air Products and Chemicals, signed in 1981, included a repayment agreement, which has now been initiated, thanks to the Woodland Biofuel royalty license. The arrangement marks the first external license since the technology’s original testing and demonstration in the 1980s, at the DOE-owned 10 ton-per-day process development unit at Air Products and Chemicals’ syngas facility in LaPorte, Texas. DOE has received the first installment from the repayment agreement.
Building on this achievement, a commercial-scale demonstration of the LPMEOH Process was conducted under the CCT (Clean Coal Technology) Program, which resulted in a 260 ton-per-day facility at Eastman Chemicals’ site in Kingsport, Tenn. The facility is still in operation today.
Algae Biofuel Under Development
By The News Team
Jul 27, 2010
Commercial and academic laboratories across the country are making significant investments in engineering algae to produce fuel, the New York Times reports. The goal is to develop a variety of algae - the Times calls it a superalgae - that is able to convert sunlight into lipids and oils, which can be used to produce biofuel, with greater efficiency. Labs are employing methods ranging from genetic engineering to chemically induced mutation.
Proponents of the efforts point out that algae has the potential to produce more than ten times the biofuel per acre that corn or soybeans might yield. Algae can also be cultivated on arid land or in brackish water, using neither of which competes with food production, and it is a prolific consumer of carbon dioxide.
However critics are concerned with the potential effects of a superalgae making its way outside of research facilities and competing with native varieties. Algae produces a large portion of the world's oxygen and is the basis for many aquatic biomes. And a few academics have predicted that introducing a highly efficient algae could kill less efficient native populations, cause a massive algal bloom, and deprive oceans of oxygen.
While no regulatory duties have yet been assigned to a federal organ to oversee algal engineering efforts, the Environmental Protection Agency will likely take the lead.
--Riley Blanton
Jul 27, 2010
Commercial and academic laboratories across the country are making significant investments in engineering algae to produce fuel, the New York Times reports. The goal is to develop a variety of algae - the Times calls it a superalgae - that is able to convert sunlight into lipids and oils, which can be used to produce biofuel, with greater efficiency. Labs are employing methods ranging from genetic engineering to chemically induced mutation.
Proponents of the efforts point out that algae has the potential to produce more than ten times the biofuel per acre that corn or soybeans might yield. Algae can also be cultivated on arid land or in brackish water, using neither of which competes with food production, and it is a prolific consumer of carbon dioxide.
However critics are concerned with the potential effects of a superalgae making its way outside of research facilities and competing with native varieties. Algae produces a large portion of the world's oxygen and is the basis for many aquatic biomes. And a few academics have predicted that introducing a highly efficient algae could kill less efficient native populations, cause a massive algal bloom, and deprive oceans of oxygen.
While no regulatory duties have yet been assigned to a federal organ to oversee algal engineering efforts, the Environmental Protection Agency will likely take the lead.
--Riley Blanton
Commercial hopes for wave energy
Oyster 1 has been undergoing sea trials since last year Wave energy developer Aquamarine Power has joined forces with BAE Systems in a project designed to help create the world's first commercial wave farm.
The two companies will examine ways of enabling large-scale commercial production of Aquamarine's new wave energy device, known as Oyster.
The £900,000 project has been co-funded by the Technology Strategy Board.
The Oyster has been undergoing sea trials at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in Orkney since November.
The device is a hinged flap connected to the sea-bed which uses wave power to deliver high-pressure water to an onshore turbine.
Under this new partnership, engineers at BAE Systems will work with Edinburgh-based Aquamarine to develop an intelligent diagnostic system and remote ballasting mechanism for the Oyster.
The companies believe these innovations will drive down maintenance costs and help to maximise energy production.
This in turn would pave the way for the Oyster technology to be rolled out on a commercial scale.
Aquamarine's chief executive, Martin McAdam, said: "The Oyster system works well.
"Our next step is to drive down the cost of electricity generated from wave power through improvements in Oyster reliability and reduced maintenance costs."
Aquamarine, which is seeking a total of £50m of investment in the Oyster, plans to deploy its new Oyster 2 device next summer.
The company believes the new version could deliver 250% more power than the original device.
The two companies will examine ways of enabling large-scale commercial production of Aquamarine's new wave energy device, known as Oyster.
The £900,000 project has been co-funded by the Technology Strategy Board.
The Oyster has been undergoing sea trials at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in Orkney since November.
The device is a hinged flap connected to the sea-bed which uses wave power to deliver high-pressure water to an onshore turbine.
Under this new partnership, engineers at BAE Systems will work with Edinburgh-based Aquamarine to develop an intelligent diagnostic system and remote ballasting mechanism for the Oyster.
The companies believe these innovations will drive down maintenance costs and help to maximise energy production.
This in turn would pave the way for the Oyster technology to be rolled out on a commercial scale.
Aquamarine's chief executive, Martin McAdam, said: "The Oyster system works well.
"Our next step is to drive down the cost of electricity generated from wave power through improvements in Oyster reliability and reduced maintenance costs."
Aquamarine, which is seeking a total of £50m of investment in the Oyster, plans to deploy its new Oyster 2 device next summer.
The company believes the new version could deliver 250% more power than the original device.
Government energy plans unveiled by Chris Huhne
Energy Secretary Chris Huhne today outlined a series of measures to improve energy efficiency, boost renewables and allow new nuclear projects to go ahead as he laid out the Government's energy policy.
Published: 1:33PM BST 27 Jul 2010
In the first annual energy statement to the Commons, Mr Huhne set out plans to secure the UK energy supplies and cut carbon emissions while ''keeping the lights on''.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change also published a series of ''pathways'' for how the energy system might look in 2050, outlining the scale of the challenge of meeting the legally-binding target to cut emissions by 80% by mid century.
Mr Huhne said the Government was laying out ''a clear strategy for creating the 21st century energy system that this country urgently needs for an affordable, secure, low-carbon future''.
The 32 measures outlined today include efforts to speed up the roll-out of smart meters, provide incentives for heat produced from renewable sources, and bring in emissions performance standards for power plants to make them cut their greenhouse gases.
Other steps aim to speed up connection of offshore wind farms to the grid, remove obstacles to private investment in new nuclear power and prop up the carbon price polluters have to pay for their emissions to encourage the development of low-carbon alternatives.
But the coalition was accused by shadow energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband of going "backwards not forwards" in its pledge to be the "greenest Government ever".
Mr Miliband accused the Tories and Lib Dems of employing the same "rhetoric without substance" in office that they used in opposition.
Laying out a series of policies which had already been pledged in the coalition agreement, Mr Huhne said the ''Green Deal'' to install insulation and other green measures in homes would transform finance for improving energy efficiency in buildings.
And in an effort to provide transparency to people on the costs of taking action on climate change, he said the Government would be publishing analysis of the impact of energy and climate change policies on household and business bills up to 2020.
According to the analysis published today, the extra cost of energy and climate change policies is set to add just £13 to the average household energy bill by 2020.
While efforts to cut carbon could lead to an 18% increase in gas prices and a 33% jump in electricity prices by the end of the decade, efforts to increase small-scale renewables on people's homes and make them more energy-efficient will lead to an overall 1% increase in bills.
Mr Huhne said the cheapest way to close the gap between energy supply and demand was to cut energy use, pointing to the green deal and to the publication of plans to roll out smart meters, which will provide consumers with information to help them save power.
The Government energy strategy also includes changes to the law to allow local councils to sell green energy to boost community-scale renewable schemes, putting forward proposals to create a green investment bank and carrying out a comprehensive review of the electricity market, including the role of regulator Ofgem, he said.
The 2050 pathways published alongside the energy statement today show six different routes to achieving the required emissions cuts by mid-century.
But each of them shows that ambitious reductions in energy use per person are needed and a substantial amount of heating, transport and industry needs to switch to electricity - the supply of which could have to double and will need to become low carbon.
A growing level of electricity will have to come from variable sources such as wind, which is going to increase the challenge of balancing the grid.
And sustainable bioenergy - fuel made from sources such as plants and algae - will be a vital part of the power system, the analysis shows.
Published: 1:33PM BST 27 Jul 2010
In the first annual energy statement to the Commons, Mr Huhne set out plans to secure the UK energy supplies and cut carbon emissions while ''keeping the lights on''.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change also published a series of ''pathways'' for how the energy system might look in 2050, outlining the scale of the challenge of meeting the legally-binding target to cut emissions by 80% by mid century.
Mr Huhne said the Government was laying out ''a clear strategy for creating the 21st century energy system that this country urgently needs for an affordable, secure, low-carbon future''.
The 32 measures outlined today include efforts to speed up the roll-out of smart meters, provide incentives for heat produced from renewable sources, and bring in emissions performance standards for power plants to make them cut their greenhouse gases.
Other steps aim to speed up connection of offshore wind farms to the grid, remove obstacles to private investment in new nuclear power and prop up the carbon price polluters have to pay for their emissions to encourage the development of low-carbon alternatives.
But the coalition was accused by shadow energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband of going "backwards not forwards" in its pledge to be the "greenest Government ever".
Mr Miliband accused the Tories and Lib Dems of employing the same "rhetoric without substance" in office that they used in opposition.
Laying out a series of policies which had already been pledged in the coalition agreement, Mr Huhne said the ''Green Deal'' to install insulation and other green measures in homes would transform finance for improving energy efficiency in buildings.
And in an effort to provide transparency to people on the costs of taking action on climate change, he said the Government would be publishing analysis of the impact of energy and climate change policies on household and business bills up to 2020.
According to the analysis published today, the extra cost of energy and climate change policies is set to add just £13 to the average household energy bill by 2020.
While efforts to cut carbon could lead to an 18% increase in gas prices and a 33% jump in electricity prices by the end of the decade, efforts to increase small-scale renewables on people's homes and make them more energy-efficient will lead to an overall 1% increase in bills.
Mr Huhne said the cheapest way to close the gap between energy supply and demand was to cut energy use, pointing to the green deal and to the publication of plans to roll out smart meters, which will provide consumers with information to help them save power.
The Government energy strategy also includes changes to the law to allow local councils to sell green energy to boost community-scale renewable schemes, putting forward proposals to create a green investment bank and carrying out a comprehensive review of the electricity market, including the role of regulator Ofgem, he said.
The 2050 pathways published alongside the energy statement today show six different routes to achieving the required emissions cuts by mid-century.
But each of them shows that ambitious reductions in energy use per person are needed and a substantial amount of heating, transport and industry needs to switch to electricity - the supply of which could have to double and will need to become low carbon.
A growing level of electricity will have to come from variable sources such as wind, which is going to increase the challenge of balancing the grid.
And sustainable bioenergy - fuel made from sources such as plants and algae - will be a vital part of the power system, the analysis shows.
Energy prospectors go west to Blackpool in search of 'shale gas'
Cuadrilla Resources, backed by former BP chief Lord Browne, hopes to extract gas from the Bowland shale
Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 July 2010 17.48 BST
Blackpool could become the new Houston if an experimental "shale gas" well being drilled in the north-west of England this week turns up the same stellar results that have been seen in America.
Lord Browne of Madingley, the former BP chief executive, is one of the backers of Cuadrilla Resources, which will start operations on a geological formation that stretches from Pendle Hill to the Lancashire coast near Blackpool.
The well being drilled is the first of its kind in Britain and comes after discoveries of huge reserves in the US promised to transform the energy landscape there and sent gas prices plummeting.
In an interview with Channel 4 News, to be screened shortly, Chris Cornelius, the founder of Cuadrilla, said that in future shale gas could reduce the need for some imports into Britain as North Sea supplies run down.
"It's very early days," he said. "It will take a lot of exploration and a lot of effort by small companies like us, and larger companies as well, but ultimately we are hopeful that we would find certain deposits here that would add to the net reserves of the UK."
The Financial Times recently claimed that shale gas would "change the world". The American finds have scuppered the plans of Russia and other countries to start exporting gas to the energy-hungry US.
Any kind of gas is a relatively carbon-friendly alternative to oil, and countries around the world are keen to find their own supplies that will help to limit climate change while also providing energy security.
But shale gas comes with its own environmental problems. The gas is reached by drilling wells deep into rock formations, which are then "fractured" or broken up with the aid of water and heavy chemicals, to release tiny pockets of trapped gas.
The US Congress is currently investigating the potential threat posed by these substances to local water supplies but the big oil companies have no doubt that shale gas is the new oil rush.
ExxonMobil has just bought a shale gas expert, East Resources, for $4.7bn (£3bn), while Shell has started to drill for shale gas in Sweden, and ConocoPhillips is drilling in Poland.
There have been no big discoveries yet in Europe but Cuadrilla is confident that it can make a strike in Britain. The company is backed by some of the most canny financial players in the world: the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm at which the former British prime minister Sir John Major used to have a seat on the board, and Riverstone Holdings, where Browne is UK managing director.
Cornelius told Channel 4 that his company had taken care to involve the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and other agencies to ensure that there would be no major problems attached to the drilling process.
"There are certain cases in the US where certain operators have been documented as having some issues, and they do exist. But I think we have done everything here working with the HSE and the Environment Agency in the UK to ensure that doesn't happen on Cuadrilla's location," he said.
A programme shown last month on HBO, the US cable television network, documented some alarming and spectacular pollution incidents allegedly caused by shale gas drilling – including tap water apparently so contaminated with methane gas that it caught fire. However, the Washington-based environmental thinktank the Worldwatch Institute argues that hydraulic fracturing is not necessary polluting – and insists that most of the documented incidents are the result of clumsy drilling and poor regulation.
The shale discoveries in America have not only led companies to wonder whether there could be similar finds waiting to be made in Europe, China and elsewhere in Asia but have upset the existing world gas order.
Gazprom, the aggressive Russian state-backed operator, has admitted that it is rethinking many aspects of its plans to export gas to America and elsewhere in the light of the collapse of gas prices in the US.
There have even been suggestions that geopolitics are changing as a result of shale gas discoveries. Some attribute Moscow's willingness to sign a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Washington and to accept tougher sanctions against Iran to Russia's realisation that it will have less opportunity to use energy as a foreign policy tool.
Shale gas is nothing new; the innovation lies in the development of new methodology for extracting it – for example, allowing mining companies to drill horizontally as opposed to vertically.
Twenty years ago, British Gas drilled a couple of exploratory wells in the north-west in an attempt to extract gas in commercial quantities.
Cornelius said: "They penetrated through the Bowland shale [part of the same geological formation that extends to Blackpool], and the old indications were that there was gas in that shale. So we decided that this area would be prospective, and after about a year's worth of work we decided that this was the place to start."
He added: "We're quite confident that we'll find gas – it's just whether we find gas in economic quantities. I don't think we'll ever be like the US, but I think there will certainly be the possibility that we'll find significant volumes of gas in various parts of Europe, which will be potentially commercial.
"It could help offset imports into Europe by a certain percentage, about 5% or 10%, if we're successful."
Blackpool's illuminations are often referred to as "the golden mile". If shale gas reaches its potential, the area might be known as the new gold coast.
Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 July 2010 17.48 BST
Blackpool could become the new Houston if an experimental "shale gas" well being drilled in the north-west of England this week turns up the same stellar results that have been seen in America.
Lord Browne of Madingley, the former BP chief executive, is one of the backers of Cuadrilla Resources, which will start operations on a geological formation that stretches from Pendle Hill to the Lancashire coast near Blackpool.
The well being drilled is the first of its kind in Britain and comes after discoveries of huge reserves in the US promised to transform the energy landscape there and sent gas prices plummeting.
In an interview with Channel 4 News, to be screened shortly, Chris Cornelius, the founder of Cuadrilla, said that in future shale gas could reduce the need for some imports into Britain as North Sea supplies run down.
"It's very early days," he said. "It will take a lot of exploration and a lot of effort by small companies like us, and larger companies as well, but ultimately we are hopeful that we would find certain deposits here that would add to the net reserves of the UK."
The Financial Times recently claimed that shale gas would "change the world". The American finds have scuppered the plans of Russia and other countries to start exporting gas to the energy-hungry US.
Any kind of gas is a relatively carbon-friendly alternative to oil, and countries around the world are keen to find their own supplies that will help to limit climate change while also providing energy security.
But shale gas comes with its own environmental problems. The gas is reached by drilling wells deep into rock formations, which are then "fractured" or broken up with the aid of water and heavy chemicals, to release tiny pockets of trapped gas.
The US Congress is currently investigating the potential threat posed by these substances to local water supplies but the big oil companies have no doubt that shale gas is the new oil rush.
ExxonMobil has just bought a shale gas expert, East Resources, for $4.7bn (£3bn), while Shell has started to drill for shale gas in Sweden, and ConocoPhillips is drilling in Poland.
There have been no big discoveries yet in Europe but Cuadrilla is confident that it can make a strike in Britain. The company is backed by some of the most canny financial players in the world: the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm at which the former British prime minister Sir John Major used to have a seat on the board, and Riverstone Holdings, where Browne is UK managing director.
Cornelius told Channel 4 that his company had taken care to involve the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and other agencies to ensure that there would be no major problems attached to the drilling process.
"There are certain cases in the US where certain operators have been documented as having some issues, and they do exist. But I think we have done everything here working with the HSE and the Environment Agency in the UK to ensure that doesn't happen on Cuadrilla's location," he said.
A programme shown last month on HBO, the US cable television network, documented some alarming and spectacular pollution incidents allegedly caused by shale gas drilling – including tap water apparently so contaminated with methane gas that it caught fire. However, the Washington-based environmental thinktank the Worldwatch Institute argues that hydraulic fracturing is not necessary polluting – and insists that most of the documented incidents are the result of clumsy drilling and poor regulation.
The shale discoveries in America have not only led companies to wonder whether there could be similar finds waiting to be made in Europe, China and elsewhere in Asia but have upset the existing world gas order.
Gazprom, the aggressive Russian state-backed operator, has admitted that it is rethinking many aspects of its plans to export gas to America and elsewhere in the light of the collapse of gas prices in the US.
There have even been suggestions that geopolitics are changing as a result of shale gas discoveries. Some attribute Moscow's willingness to sign a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Washington and to accept tougher sanctions against Iran to Russia's realisation that it will have less opportunity to use energy as a foreign policy tool.
Shale gas is nothing new; the innovation lies in the development of new methodology for extracting it – for example, allowing mining companies to drill horizontally as opposed to vertically.
Twenty years ago, British Gas drilled a couple of exploratory wells in the north-west in an attempt to extract gas in commercial quantities.
Cornelius said: "They penetrated through the Bowland shale [part of the same geological formation that extends to Blackpool], and the old indications were that there was gas in that shale. So we decided that this area would be prospective, and after about a year's worth of work we decided that this was the place to start."
He added: "We're quite confident that we'll find gas – it's just whether we find gas in economic quantities. I don't think we'll ever be like the US, but I think there will certainly be the possibility that we'll find significant volumes of gas in various parts of Europe, which will be potentially commercial.
"It could help offset imports into Europe by a certain percentage, about 5% or 10%, if we're successful."
Blackpool's illuminations are often referred to as "the golden mile". If shale gas reaches its potential, the area might be known as the new gold coast.
Former Vestas staff open wind turbine manufacturer on Isle of Wight
Sureblades will produce a new type of recyclable blade in a factory metres from the Vestas plant one year after its closure
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 July 2010 12.56 BST
Nearly one year after Danish wind giant Vestas closed the UK's only major turbine plant, a new British blade manufacturer is opening just metres from the old factory.
Sureblades, run by a team including three former Vestas staff on the Isle of Wight, is pinning its hopes on a new type of blade that will be 100% recyclable.
Working with Southampton University for the certification of its blades, the new company already has an order placed with Irish renewable energy company C&F Green Energy for 1,000 of its blades. The 4.6m-long structures will be used in 15kW turbines, enough to power a community.
Sean McDonagh, who is heading up operations at Sureblades, said the project had been a "beacon of light" for those involved in the Vestas plant closure last August, which led to 425 employees being made redundant. "It's been tough as no money was coming in for our families, but we knew it would work in the end, because this is a product the country needs for where it's going," McDonagh said.
Based on the same industrial estate as the former Vestas factory, which workers occupied during a 11-day roof-top protest against its closure last year, the company forecasts it will take on 40 staff within the next two years. "There are two big industries down here and people [former Vestas workers] have been on one-month contracts and not able to live their lives. When people heard about us, it's like they could get on with their lives, so they've been getting in touch," said McDonagh.
Working alongside McDonagh are the former Vestas employees Keith Hunsell and Glynn Milton, and Penny Smout a former special adviser to Ed Miliband. Unlike conventional turbine blades which use an epoxy resin that cannot be broken down, the company's blades will use a material that can be melted down and made into new blades after old ones are worn out. Sureblades said it also has another two potential orders in addition to the C&F deal, and it hopes to be fully operational by September.
Last year Vestas said the closure of the Isle of Wight plant was a result of a lack of demand and planning problems in the UK. Ditlev Engel, the CEO of Vestas, said at the time: "In the UK, there is a clear division between what the government would like to see happening and what certain local politicians want to see happening, or rather not want to see happening ... there is not necessarily the same ambition levels."
The Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers union (RMT), which represented and supported the Vestas workers last year, welcomed the new company. The general secretary, Bob Crow, said: "The former Vestas workers behind this imaginative new project have completely destroyed the argument put forward by the company at the time of closure that there was no market for UK manufactured turbine blades. Through their efforts to create jobs they have blown apart the bogus grounds put forward at the time for closure and redundancy of the workforce."
He continued: "RMT is very proud of what our former Vestas members have achieved so far and we are right behind them. They have also shown that it is far too easy for companies in the UK to soak up government grants and then just cut and run when it suits them without any meaningful consultation, never mind a ballot of the workforce."
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 July 2010 12.56 BST
Nearly one year after Danish wind giant Vestas closed the UK's only major turbine plant, a new British blade manufacturer is opening just metres from the old factory.
Sureblades, run by a team including three former Vestas staff on the Isle of Wight, is pinning its hopes on a new type of blade that will be 100% recyclable.
Working with Southampton University for the certification of its blades, the new company already has an order placed with Irish renewable energy company C&F Green Energy for 1,000 of its blades. The 4.6m-long structures will be used in 15kW turbines, enough to power a community.
Sean McDonagh, who is heading up operations at Sureblades, said the project had been a "beacon of light" for those involved in the Vestas plant closure last August, which led to 425 employees being made redundant. "It's been tough as no money was coming in for our families, but we knew it would work in the end, because this is a product the country needs for where it's going," McDonagh said.
Based on the same industrial estate as the former Vestas factory, which workers occupied during a 11-day roof-top protest against its closure last year, the company forecasts it will take on 40 staff within the next two years. "There are two big industries down here and people [former Vestas workers] have been on one-month contracts and not able to live their lives. When people heard about us, it's like they could get on with their lives, so they've been getting in touch," said McDonagh.
Working alongside McDonagh are the former Vestas employees Keith Hunsell and Glynn Milton, and Penny Smout a former special adviser to Ed Miliband. Unlike conventional turbine blades which use an epoxy resin that cannot be broken down, the company's blades will use a material that can be melted down and made into new blades after old ones are worn out. Sureblades said it also has another two potential orders in addition to the C&F deal, and it hopes to be fully operational by September.
Last year Vestas said the closure of the Isle of Wight plant was a result of a lack of demand and planning problems in the UK. Ditlev Engel, the CEO of Vestas, said at the time: "In the UK, there is a clear division between what the government would like to see happening and what certain local politicians want to see happening, or rather not want to see happening ... there is not necessarily the same ambition levels."
The Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers union (RMT), which represented and supported the Vestas workers last year, welcomed the new company. The general secretary, Bob Crow, said: "The former Vestas workers behind this imaginative new project have completely destroyed the argument put forward by the company at the time of closure that there was no market for UK manufactured turbine blades. Through their efforts to create jobs they have blown apart the bogus grounds put forward at the time for closure and redundancy of the workforce."
He continued: "RMT is very proud of what our former Vestas members have achieved so far and we are right behind them. They have also shown that it is far too easy for companies in the UK to soak up government grants and then just cut and run when it suits them without any meaningful consultation, never mind a ballot of the workforce."
UK businesses face steep rise in energy bills
Government plans to secure energy supplies and cut carbon emissions means higher energy prices and bills for businesses
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 July 2010 18.14 BST
Businesses can expect to face a steep rise in energy bills after the government today published a comprehensive plan to cut greenhouse gases and end Britain's dependence on risky oil and gas imports.
Although the individual policies had previously been announced in the coalition policy agreement or by ministers – and many were formerly Labour government initiatives – Chris Huhne, the energy and climate secretary, said the first annual energy statement provided more detail and a timetable for each move from consultation to legislation.
Alongside the energy statement, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition published what it said was the first yearly estimate of the impact of its policies on customer bills. The estimate shows that compared to prices with no government action, combined annual gas and electricity costs for households would rise only £13 by 2020, but those for businesses would increase by hundreds of pounds a year. This is because businesses would benefit less from energy-efficiency measures available to households.
A third document showing different policy options for meeting the pledge requirement to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050 was also published. It shows six "pathways" with different mixes of renewable energy such as wind and solar power, nuclear generation, and carbon capture and storage for gas and coal plants. Despite Huhne telling parliament he was confident new nuclear reactors would be built, one option shows that the targets could be met even without any new nuclear power plants to replace the current reactors when they go out of service by 2035.
As a result of the policies, "the lights are not going to go out on my watch", said Huhne.
The publication was welcomed by many groups and businesses involved in supplying and financing low-carbon power. Paul Golby, chief executive of power giant E.ON UK, said: "These changes are essential to ensure we can all play our part in making sure the challenge of the trilemma is met – a low-carbon future with secure and affordable energy."
However there were widespread concerns about continuing lack of detail and that progress would be hampered by a raft of new consultations and reviews of individual initiatives, including the promise to install "smart meters" in every home and testing new carbon capture and storage technologies.
Ed Miliband, the shadow energy and climate secretary who formerly held Huhne's job, accused his successor of going "backwards not forwards" on several policies, including delays caused by further consultation on incentives for renewable heat, cutting promised funds for the green investment bank, abandoning some renewable energy targets, and comments by Huhne's Conservative energy minister, Lord Marland, that "there should be no dramatic increase" in onshore wind turbines. Huhne's Department of Energy and Climate Change also announced two weeks ago that it was cutting spending by £85m including £34m of support for low-carbon technology.
Funding for many policies announced today will also depend on the outcome of a tough autumn spending review.
"Any fair-minded person looking at this statement will conclude that it is a huge disappointment – a huge disappointment to industry, to the country as well," added Miliband.
Huhne said public spending had to be slashed because the Labour government departed – in the words of outgoing Treasury secretary Liam Byrne – with "no money left".
"I don't think he [Miliband] does the cause of progressive politics or green politics any good if he believes there's a bottomless pit [of money]," added Huhne.
Responding to big projected increases in energy bills, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said that, while business accepted there would be increased costs, it was concerned that mooted government ambitions for a higher target for renewable energy would push prices even higher, and urged ministers to help high energy users who were competing in international markets, such as steel companies. Other businesses could pass on the higher bills to customers, said Matthew Farrow, the CBI's head of energy.
The projections assumed fossil fuel prices remain level at approximately US$80 (£51.46) a barrel of oil. Business bills would rise by less - and domestic bills be cut - if oil prices rose by the much higher estimates of the International Energy Agency or the US government, because of energy efficiency policies, said Huhne.
"The new study shows that a high-tech low-carbon future is within our grasp but it won't be achieved without massive public and private investment and a detailed plan," said Greenpeace executive director, John Sauven. "Right now it's not clear that ministers are committed to unlocking that investment, and without it any plan is worthless."
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 July 2010 18.14 BST
Businesses can expect to face a steep rise in energy bills after the government today published a comprehensive plan to cut greenhouse gases and end Britain's dependence on risky oil and gas imports.
Although the individual policies had previously been announced in the coalition policy agreement or by ministers – and many were formerly Labour government initiatives – Chris Huhne, the energy and climate secretary, said the first annual energy statement provided more detail and a timetable for each move from consultation to legislation.
Alongside the energy statement, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition published what it said was the first yearly estimate of the impact of its policies on customer bills. The estimate shows that compared to prices with no government action, combined annual gas and electricity costs for households would rise only £13 by 2020, but those for businesses would increase by hundreds of pounds a year. This is because businesses would benefit less from energy-efficiency measures available to households.
A third document showing different policy options for meeting the pledge requirement to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050 was also published. It shows six "pathways" with different mixes of renewable energy such as wind and solar power, nuclear generation, and carbon capture and storage for gas and coal plants. Despite Huhne telling parliament he was confident new nuclear reactors would be built, one option shows that the targets could be met even without any new nuclear power plants to replace the current reactors when they go out of service by 2035.
As a result of the policies, "the lights are not going to go out on my watch", said Huhne.
The publication was welcomed by many groups and businesses involved in supplying and financing low-carbon power. Paul Golby, chief executive of power giant E.ON UK, said: "These changes are essential to ensure we can all play our part in making sure the challenge of the trilemma is met – a low-carbon future with secure and affordable energy."
However there were widespread concerns about continuing lack of detail and that progress would be hampered by a raft of new consultations and reviews of individual initiatives, including the promise to install "smart meters" in every home and testing new carbon capture and storage technologies.
Ed Miliband, the shadow energy and climate secretary who formerly held Huhne's job, accused his successor of going "backwards not forwards" on several policies, including delays caused by further consultation on incentives for renewable heat, cutting promised funds for the green investment bank, abandoning some renewable energy targets, and comments by Huhne's Conservative energy minister, Lord Marland, that "there should be no dramatic increase" in onshore wind turbines. Huhne's Department of Energy and Climate Change also announced two weeks ago that it was cutting spending by £85m including £34m of support for low-carbon technology.
Funding for many policies announced today will also depend on the outcome of a tough autumn spending review.
"Any fair-minded person looking at this statement will conclude that it is a huge disappointment – a huge disappointment to industry, to the country as well," added Miliband.
Huhne said public spending had to be slashed because the Labour government departed – in the words of outgoing Treasury secretary Liam Byrne – with "no money left".
"I don't think he [Miliband] does the cause of progressive politics or green politics any good if he believes there's a bottomless pit [of money]," added Huhne.
Responding to big projected increases in energy bills, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said that, while business accepted there would be increased costs, it was concerned that mooted government ambitions for a higher target for renewable energy would push prices even higher, and urged ministers to help high energy users who were competing in international markets, such as steel companies. Other businesses could pass on the higher bills to customers, said Matthew Farrow, the CBI's head of energy.
The projections assumed fossil fuel prices remain level at approximately US$80 (£51.46) a barrel of oil. Business bills would rise by less - and domestic bills be cut - if oil prices rose by the much higher estimates of the International Energy Agency or the US government, because of energy efficiency policies, said Huhne.
"The new study shows that a high-tech low-carbon future is within our grasp but it won't be achieved without massive public and private investment and a detailed plan," said Greenpeace executive director, John Sauven. "Right now it's not clear that ministers are committed to unlocking that investment, and without it any plan is worthless."
Go for nuclear or ramp up solar with DECC's carbon calculator
The new 'pathways' calculator lays out ways the UK could hit its target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050
DECC 2050 calculator tool. Photograph: http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/
Electricity generation in the UK will double. Cars, hot water and the heating of buildings will be electrified. A new nuclear renaissance on a par with France's rush to nuclear in the 1970s will have taken place and fossil fuel power stations will capture 90% of their carbon emissions. This is just one picture of how Britain could hit its target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, as painted by a new calculator launched by the government today.
Created under the direction of David Mackay, chief scientific adviser at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, the calculator lays out different "pathways" for how we could meet the target. You get to play with two sets of sliders. One set affects energy consumption such as temperature within buildings, number of electric cars and so on. The other controls energy generation - you can choose how many wind turbines you want, go for nuclear, invest in bio-energy and ramp up solar. In other words, it's rather like the Guardian's very own "national carbon calculator", which we launched in April.
Like the Guardian's calculator, DECC's one has a deceptively simple front-end running off on an incredibly complicated spreadsheet of data. Unlike ours, it doesn't take into account emissions from consumption as the government doesn't count those towards targets. But like ours, a few minutes of play shows just show difficult it will be to cut emissions 80% on 1990 levels in four decades.
One scenario shown to me by Mackay and the team behind the calculator revealed how important nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS) will theoretically be. Taking a medium effort approach to all the levers available, ie doing a little bit of everything rather than pushing one technology or initiative particularly hard, shows that if you drop nuclear out of the equation you only cut emissions 67% by 2050. Cut out CCS too and that plummets to 49%.
Once you've cut both out, you'd need a total of 44,000 wind turbines (we have just under 3,000 at the moment), 900kms of wave farms, 10,600 tidal stream turbines and eight tidal range schemes to just get back to 72%. Of course, there are alternative ways of meeting the 80% target - as the calculator demonstrates - but getting supply and demand of energy to meet is just one of the surprisingly difficult challenges.
Fascinating though the calculator is, there is one obvious addition that it will hopefully include in a revised version due in the autumn: the financial cost of these choices. How politically plausible the decisions are would also be nice, but that almost certainly is impossible to calculate.
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Food for thought: Could biofuels rule the future?
Automotive News -- July 26, 2010 - 12:01 am ET
Dave Guilford is enterprise editor of Automotive News.
When you look at the array of fuels that might one day power automobiles, some are no-brainers. And some are pretty iffy.
Because of their ubiquity, relative cheapness and energy density, gasoline and diesel fuel will be around. With major automakers planning electric vehicles, some recharging stations will appear. The outlook for hydrogen and compressed natural gas, at least for now, is unclear.
What might surprise us, though, is biofuel -- a broad term for fuels derived from renewable resources such as plants.
Despite minimal consumer use of corn-based E85 so far, General Motors Co. is doubling down on biofuels. Researcher J. Gary Smyth told a conference this month that ramping up biofuels is "a major opportunity for the future."
Smyth, executive director of GM's North American science labs, said second-generation biofuels will be economical, won't deplete food crops and will lower vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide. Sources will include wood waste, grasses and municipal and industrial wastes.
In the long term, Smyth said, biofuels can compete with gasoline -- without a subsidy. GM is pushing to accelerate commercialization, entering strategic alliances with two startups, Coskata Inc. and Mascoma Corp.
Said Smyth: "We have to figure out how to maximize biomass in our energy policy because I believe it has a huge potential."
Obviously, it's not GM's only bet -- witness the Chevrolet Volt, in particular. But GM has some chips down on biofuels.
Dave Guilford is enterprise editor of Automotive News.
When you look at the array of fuels that might one day power automobiles, some are no-brainers. And some are pretty iffy.
Because of their ubiquity, relative cheapness and energy density, gasoline and diesel fuel will be around. With major automakers planning electric vehicles, some recharging stations will appear. The outlook for hydrogen and compressed natural gas, at least for now, is unclear.
What might surprise us, though, is biofuel -- a broad term for fuels derived from renewable resources such as plants.
Despite minimal consumer use of corn-based E85 so far, General Motors Co. is doubling down on biofuels. Researcher J. Gary Smyth told a conference this month that ramping up biofuels is "a major opportunity for the future."
Smyth, executive director of GM's North American science labs, said second-generation biofuels will be economical, won't deplete food crops and will lower vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide. Sources will include wood waste, grasses and municipal and industrial wastes.
In the long term, Smyth said, biofuels can compete with gasoline -- without a subsidy. GM is pushing to accelerate commercialization, entering strategic alliances with two startups, Coskata Inc. and Mascoma Corp.
Said Smyth: "We have to figure out how to maximize biomass in our energy policy because I believe it has a huge potential."
Obviously, it's not GM's only bet -- witness the Chevrolet Volt, in particular. But GM has some chips down on biofuels.
Wind Turbine Design Could Potentially Generate 20 Megawatts
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 2010, 11:45 CDT
A sycamore seed design may soon be revolutionizing the wind power industry, according to a recent report by the UK's Dailymail online.
British engineers are designing a giant wind turbine that would rotate on its axis and measure nearly 900 feet from tip to tip, generating up to 10 megawatts of power.
Engineering firm Wind Power Limited is developing the Aerogenerator, along with architects at Grimshaw, academics at Cranfield University and Rolls Royce, Arup, BP and Shell.
According to those behind the design, the turbines could generate 20MW or more of power.
Engineers are now looking at ways of adapting the design to make them more efficient because of the extreme weight gained after scaling up the diameter of the turbine.
The Aerogenerator has two arms coming out of its base to form a V-shape, with rigid "sails" mounted along their length. The arms act like aerofoils as the wind passes over, helping to generate lift.
The first Aerogenerator could be up and running by 2013.
Other firms are also trying to create a new type of wind turbine that generates up to 10MW of power. Clipper, another wind power firm, has already announced plans to build the giant Britannia wind turbines that could rise 600 feet above the North Sea.
Feargal Brennan, head of offshore engineering at Cranfield University, told the news agency: "Upsizing conventional onshore wind turbine technology to overcome cost barriers has significant challenges, not least the weight of the blades, which experience a fully reversed fatigue cycle on each rotation."
"As the blades turn, their weight always pulls downwards, putting a changing stress on the structure, in a cycle that repeats with every rotation – up to 20 times a minute."
"In order to reduce the fatigue stress, the blade sections and thicknesses are increased which further increases the blade self-weight. These issues continue throughout the device."
"Drive-train mountings must be stiff enough to support the heavier components inside the nacelle on top of the tower, otherwise the systems can become misaligned and the support structure is also exposed to extremely large dynamic thrust and bending stresses, which are amplified significantly with any increase in water depth.’"
Offshore power is seen as a more acceptable option for renewable energy than land-based turbines.
Theo Bird of Wind Power Limited told the news agency: "Offshore is the ideal place for wind power but is also an extremely tough environment."
"The US wind researchers who worked on vertical axis projects have always regarded the technology as great to work with at sea because it can be big, tough and easily managed."
Huhne said a boom in onshore and offshore wind turbines is needed in order to help the country meet its target of having 15 percent renewable energy sources by 2020.
He also said that plans for hundreds more wind farms could be pushed through.
Britain has 253 onshore wind farms and 12 offshore developments.
Huhne told the Dailymail on Sunday that there was "no money" for the state to subsidize new nuclear power.
He said the Dogger Bank area off the east coast of Yorkshire was a prime location to build new offshore turbines.
"It's relatively cheap to put turbines in that shallow area," he added.
Huhne also said it would be "quite a stretch" for Britain to rely on renewable sources.
However, it had to become more independent in its energy production so it could to withstand "shocks from the outside world," which could send prices soaring.
He said "It implies we would be building an awful lot of turbines around our coasts."
A sycamore seed design may soon be revolutionizing the wind power industry, according to a recent report by the UK's Dailymail online.
British engineers are designing a giant wind turbine that would rotate on its axis and measure nearly 900 feet from tip to tip, generating up to 10 megawatts of power.
Engineering firm Wind Power Limited is developing the Aerogenerator, along with architects at Grimshaw, academics at Cranfield University and Rolls Royce, Arup, BP and Shell.
According to those behind the design, the turbines could generate 20MW or more of power.
Engineers are now looking at ways of adapting the design to make them more efficient because of the extreme weight gained after scaling up the diameter of the turbine.
The Aerogenerator has two arms coming out of its base to form a V-shape, with rigid "sails" mounted along their length. The arms act like aerofoils as the wind passes over, helping to generate lift.
The first Aerogenerator could be up and running by 2013.
Other firms are also trying to create a new type of wind turbine that generates up to 10MW of power. Clipper, another wind power firm, has already announced plans to build the giant Britannia wind turbines that could rise 600 feet above the North Sea.
Feargal Brennan, head of offshore engineering at Cranfield University, told the news agency: "Upsizing conventional onshore wind turbine technology to overcome cost barriers has significant challenges, not least the weight of the blades, which experience a fully reversed fatigue cycle on each rotation."
"As the blades turn, their weight always pulls downwards, putting a changing stress on the structure, in a cycle that repeats with every rotation – up to 20 times a minute."
"In order to reduce the fatigue stress, the blade sections and thicknesses are increased which further increases the blade self-weight. These issues continue throughout the device."
"Drive-train mountings must be stiff enough to support the heavier components inside the nacelle on top of the tower, otherwise the systems can become misaligned and the support structure is also exposed to extremely large dynamic thrust and bending stresses, which are amplified significantly with any increase in water depth.’"
Offshore power is seen as a more acceptable option for renewable energy than land-based turbines.
Theo Bird of Wind Power Limited told the news agency: "Offshore is the ideal place for wind power but is also an extremely tough environment."
"The US wind researchers who worked on vertical axis projects have always regarded the technology as great to work with at sea because it can be big, tough and easily managed."
Huhne said a boom in onshore and offshore wind turbines is needed in order to help the country meet its target of having 15 percent renewable energy sources by 2020.
He also said that plans for hundreds more wind farms could be pushed through.
Britain has 253 onshore wind farms and 12 offshore developments.
Huhne told the Dailymail on Sunday that there was "no money" for the state to subsidize new nuclear power.
He said the Dogger Bank area off the east coast of Yorkshire was a prime location to build new offshore turbines.
"It's relatively cheap to put turbines in that shallow area," he added.
Huhne also said it would be "quite a stretch" for Britain to rely on renewable sources.
However, it had to become more independent in its energy production so it could to withstand "shocks from the outside world," which could send prices soaring.
He said "It implies we would be building an awful lot of turbines around our coasts."
Tenaska Chooses Fluor Carbon Capture Technology
Trailblazer Energy Center Will Use Econamine FG Plus at Pioneering Plant
SWEETWATER, Texas, July 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Tenaska has chosen Fluor Corporation's Econamine FG Plus(SM) carbon capture technology for use in its proposed Tenaska Trailblazer Energy Center, being developed near Sweetwater.
Trailblazer will be a pioneering 600-megawatt (net) electricity generating plant fueled by pulverized coal and is expected to be among the first full-scale commercial power plants in the nation, and the first in Texas, to capture 85 to 90 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) byproduct, sending it via pipeline to the Permian Basin to be used in enhanced oil recovery.
Based on the projected rate of capture, the plant will emit significantly less CO2 than an equivalent capacity natural gas-fueled plant.
Econamine FG Plus(SM) is a Fluor (NYSE: FLR) proprietary, amine-based technology for large-scale, post-combustion CO2 capture. The technology is one of the first and among the most widely applied commercial solutions proven in operating environments to remove CO2 from high-oxygen content flue gases.
"Fluor's Econamine FG Plus(SM) technology has been licensed at commercial scale in 26 industrial plants worldwide, including three in the United States," said Michael Lebens, president of Tenaska's Engineering & Operations Group. "The combination of Fluor's expertise with the technology and its 20 years of experience in practical applications makes it the best choice for use at Trailblazer."
Tenaska's initial design and engineering work for Trailblazer also is being performed by Fluor, the project's engineering, procurement and construction contractor. Fluor, based in Irving, Texas, designs, builds and maintains many of the world's most challenging and complex projects.
Dave Dunning, president of Fluor's Power Group, said the company is pleased that its technology has been chosen for the Trailblazer project. "Trailblazer represents an innovative environmental breakthrough in clean energy production that will have positive implications worldwide," he said. "Fluor is eager to move forward and begin building this important new energy source for Tenaska and Texas."
Trailblazer will generate more than $740 million in Nolan County economic impact during construction and during operation will provide more than 100 direct well-paying permanent jobs, plus an estimated 70 secondary jobs from increased local spending. In addition, the captured CO2 used in enhanced oil recovery will add more than 10 million barrels of oil production annually to the West Texas economy.
Arch Coal, Inc. has a 35 percent equity interest in the project and will supply the coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.
Tenaska recently completed an administrative hearing on its application for a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) air quality permit, and expects to have a final permit by the end of this year.
About Tenaska
Tenaska has developed approximately 9,000 megawatts (MW) of electric generating capacity across the United States. Tenaska's affiliates operate and manage eight power plants in six states totaling more than 6,700 MW of generating capacity owned in partnership with other companies. Tenaska Capital Management, an affiliate, provides management services for stand-alone private equity funds, with nearly $5 billion in assets, including nine power plants (with approximately 5,400 MW of capacity) and multiple natural gas midstream assets, including gas storage, gathering and processing facilities.
Tenaska is applying proven pre- and post-combustion technologies on a commercial scale in its two environmentally friendly clean coal projects. In addition to the Taylorville Energy Center in Taylorville, Ill., Trailblazer Energy Center in Nolan County, Texas, is expected to be the first commercial scale, conventional coal-fueled power plant in the world to capture a significant portion of its CO2. This plant's success would demonstrate how existing plants in the U.S. and China could be retrofitted cost-effectively with this carbon-reducing technology. Tenaska was recently listed in benchmarking studies by the Natural Resources Defense Council as having among the very best fleet-wide records in the United States for controlling emissions. For more information about Tenaska, visit www.tenaska.com
About Fluor Corporation
Fluor Corporation (NYSE: FLR) designs, builds and maintains many of the world's most challenging and complex projects. Through its global network of offices on six continents, the company provides comprehensive capabilities and world-class expertise in the fields of engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning, operations, and maintenance and project management. Headquartered in Irving, Texas, Fluor is a FORTUNE 150 company and had revenues of $22 billion in 2009. For more information, visit www.fluor.com.
SOURCE Tenaska
SWEETWATER, Texas, July 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Tenaska has chosen Fluor Corporation's Econamine FG Plus(SM) carbon capture technology for use in its proposed Tenaska Trailblazer Energy Center, being developed near Sweetwater.
Trailblazer will be a pioneering 600-megawatt (net) electricity generating plant fueled by pulverized coal and is expected to be among the first full-scale commercial power plants in the nation, and the first in Texas, to capture 85 to 90 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) byproduct, sending it via pipeline to the Permian Basin to be used in enhanced oil recovery.
Based on the projected rate of capture, the plant will emit significantly less CO2 than an equivalent capacity natural gas-fueled plant.
Econamine FG Plus(SM) is a Fluor (NYSE: FLR) proprietary, amine-based technology for large-scale, post-combustion CO2 capture. The technology is one of the first and among the most widely applied commercial solutions proven in operating environments to remove CO2 from high-oxygen content flue gases.
"Fluor's Econamine FG Plus(SM) technology has been licensed at commercial scale in 26 industrial plants worldwide, including three in the United States," said Michael Lebens, president of Tenaska's Engineering & Operations Group. "The combination of Fluor's expertise with the technology and its 20 years of experience in practical applications makes it the best choice for use at Trailblazer."
Tenaska's initial design and engineering work for Trailblazer also is being performed by Fluor, the project's engineering, procurement and construction contractor. Fluor, based in Irving, Texas, designs, builds and maintains many of the world's most challenging and complex projects.
Dave Dunning, president of Fluor's Power Group, said the company is pleased that its technology has been chosen for the Trailblazer project. "Trailblazer represents an innovative environmental breakthrough in clean energy production that will have positive implications worldwide," he said. "Fluor is eager to move forward and begin building this important new energy source for Tenaska and Texas."
Trailblazer will generate more than $740 million in Nolan County economic impact during construction and during operation will provide more than 100 direct well-paying permanent jobs, plus an estimated 70 secondary jobs from increased local spending. In addition, the captured CO2 used in enhanced oil recovery will add more than 10 million barrels of oil production annually to the West Texas economy.
Arch Coal, Inc. has a 35 percent equity interest in the project and will supply the coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.
Tenaska recently completed an administrative hearing on its application for a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) air quality permit, and expects to have a final permit by the end of this year.
About Tenaska
Tenaska has developed approximately 9,000 megawatts (MW) of electric generating capacity across the United States. Tenaska's affiliates operate and manage eight power plants in six states totaling more than 6,700 MW of generating capacity owned in partnership with other companies. Tenaska Capital Management, an affiliate, provides management services for stand-alone private equity funds, with nearly $5 billion in assets, including nine power plants (with approximately 5,400 MW of capacity) and multiple natural gas midstream assets, including gas storage, gathering and processing facilities.
Tenaska is applying proven pre- and post-combustion technologies on a commercial scale in its two environmentally friendly clean coal projects. In addition to the Taylorville Energy Center in Taylorville, Ill., Trailblazer Energy Center in Nolan County, Texas, is expected to be the first commercial scale, conventional coal-fueled power plant in the world to capture a significant portion of its CO2. This plant's success would demonstrate how existing plants in the U.S. and China could be retrofitted cost-effectively with this carbon-reducing technology. Tenaska was recently listed in benchmarking studies by the Natural Resources Defense Council as having among the very best fleet-wide records in the United States for controlling emissions. For more information about Tenaska, visit www.tenaska.com
About Fluor Corporation
Fluor Corporation (NYSE: FLR) designs, builds and maintains many of the world's most challenging and complex projects. Through its global network of offices on six continents, the company provides comprehensive capabilities and world-class expertise in the fields of engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning, operations, and maintenance and project management. Headquartered in Irving, Texas, Fluor is a FORTUNE 150 company and had revenues of $22 billion in 2009. For more information, visit www.fluor.com.
SOURCE Tenaska
Offshore wind needs £10bn to avoid missing green targets
By Sarah Arnott
Monday, 26 July 2010
Britain's offshore wind ambitions will face a £10bn funding gap within five years, energy experts will warn today, and the Government's legally-binding 2020 green targets will not be met unless the deficit can be closed.
This comes a day after Energy Minister Chris Huhne revealed plans for a huge expansion of the UK's wind turbines, saying wind power would be an "important part" of meeting the country's energy demands in the future.
A whopping £30bn of capital investment in offshore wind farms is needed over the coming decade if the UK is to produce the 30 per cent of electricity from renewable sources needed to comply with European regulations, according to the report from consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).
The number dwarfs current levels of investment, which run at around £8bn a year for all the utilities and National Grid combined. Given that the average offshore wind farm takes more than three years to construct, the £3bn annual investment requirement creates a capex exposure of £10bn by 2015.
"A massive injection of money is needed," Michael Hurley, head of energy at PwC, said. "We need a radical new plan to deal with what is going to be one of the biggest issues facing the Government in the aftermath of the departmental spending review [this autumn]."
The problem is that the money cannot come from the cash-strapped government. And with just £2bn of capital, the coalition government's planned Green Investment Bank will neither have sufficient funds to solve the problem nor have the remit to solve the problems in the design of the market.
Trickier still, the risks associated with offshore wind farms – both in terms of the construction process and the unpredictable power price – are putting off the companies that might build them, and the financiers that might help them raise the money.
"The real issue is the ramp-up required to meet the 2020 target is very, very significant," Mr Hurley said. "Business as usual simply will not work."
There are a variety of options available to the Government to help spur investment in offshore wind, says PwC. The simplest – already adopted in parts of the United States – is to add a flat levy to customer bills, to be spelled out separately from existing standing and usage charges. It is difficult to estimate the size of such a levy.
A more complex version of the same principle is to put the provision of offshore infrastructure within the existing, regulated estate of National Grid, thus leaving the fundraising to a single corporate entity. But the move is unlikely to prove popular with the company because it would leave it over-exposed to the massive construction risks associated with offshore wind.
Alternatively, the Government could approach the problem by raising the returns of the investment, by boosting the number of Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs) – the system already in place to reward green generation – associated with offshore wind.
Whatever strategy is pursued has to appeal to utilities and potential financial backers – ideally either pension funds or Individual Savings Account (ISA) holders, says PwC. "You may have an economic mechanism that works but [you] still have to get someone to finance it," Mr Hurley said. "The key is to make it attractive to pension funds, so it has to be simple."
The offshore wind industry is more bullish. Although Renewable UK supports the call for improved regulation, the lobby group denies that without such changes, the money will not be found. "The sums are huge and the structure of finance deals does not need a whole new approach," Maria McCaffery, the chief executive, said. "But the number of international investors beating a path to our door suggests a healthy level of interest."
There are 253 wind farms already in the UK, and 12 offshore. Mr Huhne this weekend identified Dogger Bank in the North Sea as the potential site for an offshore wind project.
Monday, 26 July 2010
Britain's offshore wind ambitions will face a £10bn funding gap within five years, energy experts will warn today, and the Government's legally-binding 2020 green targets will not be met unless the deficit can be closed.
This comes a day after Energy Minister Chris Huhne revealed plans for a huge expansion of the UK's wind turbines, saying wind power would be an "important part" of meeting the country's energy demands in the future.
A whopping £30bn of capital investment in offshore wind farms is needed over the coming decade if the UK is to produce the 30 per cent of electricity from renewable sources needed to comply with European regulations, according to the report from consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).
The number dwarfs current levels of investment, which run at around £8bn a year for all the utilities and National Grid combined. Given that the average offshore wind farm takes more than three years to construct, the £3bn annual investment requirement creates a capex exposure of £10bn by 2015.
"A massive injection of money is needed," Michael Hurley, head of energy at PwC, said. "We need a radical new plan to deal with what is going to be one of the biggest issues facing the Government in the aftermath of the departmental spending review [this autumn]."
The problem is that the money cannot come from the cash-strapped government. And with just £2bn of capital, the coalition government's planned Green Investment Bank will neither have sufficient funds to solve the problem nor have the remit to solve the problems in the design of the market.
Trickier still, the risks associated with offshore wind farms – both in terms of the construction process and the unpredictable power price – are putting off the companies that might build them, and the financiers that might help them raise the money.
"The real issue is the ramp-up required to meet the 2020 target is very, very significant," Mr Hurley said. "Business as usual simply will not work."
There are a variety of options available to the Government to help spur investment in offshore wind, says PwC. The simplest – already adopted in parts of the United States – is to add a flat levy to customer bills, to be spelled out separately from existing standing and usage charges. It is difficult to estimate the size of such a levy.
A more complex version of the same principle is to put the provision of offshore infrastructure within the existing, regulated estate of National Grid, thus leaving the fundraising to a single corporate entity. But the move is unlikely to prove popular with the company because it would leave it over-exposed to the massive construction risks associated with offshore wind.
Alternatively, the Government could approach the problem by raising the returns of the investment, by boosting the number of Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs) – the system already in place to reward green generation – associated with offshore wind.
Whatever strategy is pursued has to appeal to utilities and potential financial backers – ideally either pension funds or Individual Savings Account (ISA) holders, says PwC. "You may have an economic mechanism that works but [you] still have to get someone to finance it," Mr Hurley said. "The key is to make it attractive to pension funds, so it has to be simple."
The offshore wind industry is more bullish. Although Renewable UK supports the call for improved regulation, the lobby group denies that without such changes, the money will not be found. "The sums are huge and the structure of finance deals does not need a whole new approach," Maria McCaffery, the chief executive, said. "But the number of international investors beating a path to our door suggests a healthy level of interest."
There are 253 wind farms already in the UK, and 12 offshore. Mr Huhne this weekend identified Dogger Bank in the North Sea as the potential site for an offshore wind project.
Why RBS should be turned into the Royal Bank of Sustainability
New research suggests ministers could give a welcome boost to its environmental goals by reinventing RBS as a green investment bank
Ruth Sunderland The Observer, Sunday 25 July 2010
The coalition has promised to reform the banks, and it also wants to be the greenest government ever. Laudable goals – and research published tomorrow by former PricewaterhouseCoopers consultant James Leaton and economist Howard Reed suggests ministers could kill two birds with one stone by re-inventing RBS as the Green Investment Bank, or the Royal Bank of Sustainability (to keep the initials and save on a rebrand).
The report, to which I have contributed a short introduction, argues that if a green investment bank could deliver the potential of the low-carbon economy, it would create 50,000 jobs a year, helping pull the UK out of the slump and generating exports.
But this is unlikely if the Green Investment Bank is seen as a fringe operator rather than a serious institution. The idea of bringing together banking reform and the green growth agenda through RBS has a number of attractions, including harnessing its expertise in financing renewables; it has been particularly active in the offshore wind sector. Another advantage is the bank's strong position in the small- and medium-sized firms market, likely to be the source of much innovation in the low-carbon sector. RBS would also be in a good position to act as a distributor and promoter of green Isas, for customers who want their savings to support environmentally friendly projects.
Despite its large stakeholding, neither the Labour government nor the coalition has managed to prevent RBS from operating in ways which are arguably detrimental to the environment and the wider economy. The bank acted as a financial backer to Kraft in its controversial takeover of Cadbury, regardless of the fact that bid caused job losses in the UK; it continues to finance companies engaged in tar sands extraction, and it still pays large bonuses to some employees, notwithstanding public revulsion.
But whatever the view in Whitehall on this research, there are questions to answer about how the activities of RBS are aligned with taxpayers' interests – or not.
Ruth Sunderland The Observer, Sunday 25 July 2010
The coalition has promised to reform the banks, and it also wants to be the greenest government ever. Laudable goals – and research published tomorrow by former PricewaterhouseCoopers consultant James Leaton and economist Howard Reed suggests ministers could kill two birds with one stone by re-inventing RBS as the Green Investment Bank, or the Royal Bank of Sustainability (to keep the initials and save on a rebrand).
The report, to which I have contributed a short introduction, argues that if a green investment bank could deliver the potential of the low-carbon economy, it would create 50,000 jobs a year, helping pull the UK out of the slump and generating exports.
But this is unlikely if the Green Investment Bank is seen as a fringe operator rather than a serious institution. The idea of bringing together banking reform and the green growth agenda through RBS has a number of attractions, including harnessing its expertise in financing renewables; it has been particularly active in the offshore wind sector. Another advantage is the bank's strong position in the small- and medium-sized firms market, likely to be the source of much innovation in the low-carbon sector. RBS would also be in a good position to act as a distributor and promoter of green Isas, for customers who want their savings to support environmentally friendly projects.
Despite its large stakeholding, neither the Labour government nor the coalition has managed to prevent RBS from operating in ways which are arguably detrimental to the environment and the wider economy. The bank acted as a financial backer to Kraft in its controversial takeover of Cadbury, regardless of the fact that bid caused job losses in the UK; it continues to finance companies engaged in tar sands extraction, and it still pays large bonuses to some employees, notwithstanding public revulsion.
But whatever the view in Whitehall on this research, there are questions to answer about how the activities of RBS are aligned with taxpayers' interests – or not.
Empire State Building: Can the tallest be the greenest?
$13m refit aims to cut building's energy use by 40% and save emissions equal to 20,000 cars
Ed Pilkington in New York guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 July 2010 21.41 BST
When the Empire State Building was opened on 1 May 1931, having been designed in two weeks and built in an astonishing 15 months, it instantly became a symbol of human fortitude in the face of the Great Depression.
Now its current owners are attempting to reinvent it for the modern era by turning it into a green building symbolising human ingenuity in the face of inertia.
Its owners today unveiled new, environmentally friendly plans for the art deco building that stands on Manhattan's 34th Street and Fifth Avenue. By the end of this year, most of the work will have been completed in a $13m (£8.4m) investment designed to improve its energy efficiency, with the larger aim of providing a model that could spread across America and around the world.
For more than four decades, the Empire State had the distinction of being the tallest building in the world, a title it lost to the World Trade Centre in 1972. After the twin towers were destroyed in the 9/11 attacks, it once again became the city's tallest building, at 1,454 ft (443 metres) to the tip of its lightning rod.
But by 2006, when it was bought by Malkin Holdings, it had fallen into disrepair, a pale reflection of its former glory. Its 102 storeys were occupied largely by small businesses paying low rents, and the overall structure had a hangdog feel.
"When we took control of it, the place needed to be fixed. It was broken," Anthony Malkin, president of Malkin Holdings, told the Guardian.
Now the company is in the midst of a $550m renovation designed to put the building back on the map, part of which is the environmental project.
"We're doing this [making the Empire State greener] not because it's the right thing to do, but because it makes business sense. If we don't reduce our energy consumption, we will lose money and be less competitive against China, India, Brazil and the other expanding economies," Malkin said.
The makeover is expected to cut the building's energy use by almost 40%, reducing bills by more than $4m and paying back the cost of the refit in three years. That's a figure that is relevant not just to the Empire State but to the whole of New York city and other large metropolises like it.
Almost 80% of New York's energy consumption is through its buildings, mainly in the larger of the leaky older structures. Though politicians have tended to focus on energy consumption by individuals and tried to persuade families to cut their energy use at home, Malkin said the renovation of the Empire State Building would achieve savings in carbon emissions on a similar scale to comparable moves by 40,000 households.
The Empire State's retrofit will cut its carbon footprint by more than 100,000 metric tonnes over the next 15 years, the equivalent of taking 20,000 cars off the road. If that record were replicated by just a fifth of the largest buildings in America, it would save 2.3bn metric tonnes of carbon emissions, equivalent to the amount of greenhouse gas pollution produced by the whole of Russia each year.
At its most simple, the retrofit involves stripping out each of the Empire State's 6,514 windows and renovating them with an insulating film and a mixture of inert gases to make them four times more efficient at retaining heat or coolness.
At the high-tech end, the largest wireless network ever to be applied to a single building has been set up across the Empire State that allows valves and vents to be monitored and centrally controlled. Four central chillers have been replaced and smart air circulation systems have also been put in as a low-energy means of heating the building in winter and cooling it in summer.
Paul Rode of Johnson Controls, an energy management company that is leading the project, said the greatest energy savings have involved persuading the 300 tenants to use their spaces more effectively. As the occupants of the second largest office complex in America, after the Pentagon, much of the onus for change falls on them.
Each company renting space in the Empire State now has access to a website that records minute by minute how much they are spending on energy and compares it with other tenants in the building as well as to competitors in their industries externally.
Having revealed to the tenants their own consumption, the website then advises them what they can do to cut their bills by making basic changes, such as moving desks towards the centre of the building to release daylight into the space, switching lights off at night, or cutting back on air conditioning.
"We're showing what's possible without even installing a single solar panel, or a wind turbine or a geothermal unit, and you don't need additional grid capacity or any new power plants," Malkin said.
"This is low-hanging fruit that can be plucked easily and we should be getting on with it as quickly as possible."
A giant's highs and lows
• Constructed during the depression in 1930, the 102-storey tower was made from 60,000 tonnes of steel, and has 6,500 windows.
• In 1945 an Army Air Corps B-25 twin-engine bomber crashed into the 79th floor of the building in dense fog, killing 14 people.
• The building's mast (now the base of the TV tower) was originally designed as a mooring mast for airships, pictured. Because of several unsuccessful attempts and volatile wind conditions at 1,350ft, the idea was abandoned.
• The Observatory on the 86th floor opened in 1931 and was immortalised in An Affair to Remember (1957) starring Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr and then as the meeting point for Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks in Sleepless in Seattle (1993)
• The building is struck by lightning about 100 times a year. It acts as a lightning rod for the surrounding area
Source: Empire State Building Company
Ed Pilkington in New York guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 July 2010 21.41 BST
When the Empire State Building was opened on 1 May 1931, having been designed in two weeks and built in an astonishing 15 months, it instantly became a symbol of human fortitude in the face of the Great Depression.
Now its current owners are attempting to reinvent it for the modern era by turning it into a green building symbolising human ingenuity in the face of inertia.
Its owners today unveiled new, environmentally friendly plans for the art deco building that stands on Manhattan's 34th Street and Fifth Avenue. By the end of this year, most of the work will have been completed in a $13m (£8.4m) investment designed to improve its energy efficiency, with the larger aim of providing a model that could spread across America and around the world.
For more than four decades, the Empire State had the distinction of being the tallest building in the world, a title it lost to the World Trade Centre in 1972. After the twin towers were destroyed in the 9/11 attacks, it once again became the city's tallest building, at 1,454 ft (443 metres) to the tip of its lightning rod.
But by 2006, when it was bought by Malkin Holdings, it had fallen into disrepair, a pale reflection of its former glory. Its 102 storeys were occupied largely by small businesses paying low rents, and the overall structure had a hangdog feel.
"When we took control of it, the place needed to be fixed. It was broken," Anthony Malkin, president of Malkin Holdings, told the Guardian.
Now the company is in the midst of a $550m renovation designed to put the building back on the map, part of which is the environmental project.
"We're doing this [making the Empire State greener] not because it's the right thing to do, but because it makes business sense. If we don't reduce our energy consumption, we will lose money and be less competitive against China, India, Brazil and the other expanding economies," Malkin said.
The makeover is expected to cut the building's energy use by almost 40%, reducing bills by more than $4m and paying back the cost of the refit in three years. That's a figure that is relevant not just to the Empire State but to the whole of New York city and other large metropolises like it.
Almost 80% of New York's energy consumption is through its buildings, mainly in the larger of the leaky older structures. Though politicians have tended to focus on energy consumption by individuals and tried to persuade families to cut their energy use at home, Malkin said the renovation of the Empire State Building would achieve savings in carbon emissions on a similar scale to comparable moves by 40,000 households.
The Empire State's retrofit will cut its carbon footprint by more than 100,000 metric tonnes over the next 15 years, the equivalent of taking 20,000 cars off the road. If that record were replicated by just a fifth of the largest buildings in America, it would save 2.3bn metric tonnes of carbon emissions, equivalent to the amount of greenhouse gas pollution produced by the whole of Russia each year.
At its most simple, the retrofit involves stripping out each of the Empire State's 6,514 windows and renovating them with an insulating film and a mixture of inert gases to make them four times more efficient at retaining heat or coolness.
At the high-tech end, the largest wireless network ever to be applied to a single building has been set up across the Empire State that allows valves and vents to be monitored and centrally controlled. Four central chillers have been replaced and smart air circulation systems have also been put in as a low-energy means of heating the building in winter and cooling it in summer.
Paul Rode of Johnson Controls, an energy management company that is leading the project, said the greatest energy savings have involved persuading the 300 tenants to use their spaces more effectively. As the occupants of the second largest office complex in America, after the Pentagon, much of the onus for change falls on them.
Each company renting space in the Empire State now has access to a website that records minute by minute how much they are spending on energy and compares it with other tenants in the building as well as to competitors in their industries externally.
Having revealed to the tenants their own consumption, the website then advises them what they can do to cut their bills by making basic changes, such as moving desks towards the centre of the building to release daylight into the space, switching lights off at night, or cutting back on air conditioning.
"We're showing what's possible without even installing a single solar panel, or a wind turbine or a geothermal unit, and you don't need additional grid capacity or any new power plants," Malkin said.
"This is low-hanging fruit that can be plucked easily and we should be getting on with it as quickly as possible."
A giant's highs and lows
• Constructed during the depression in 1930, the 102-storey tower was made from 60,000 tonnes of steel, and has 6,500 windows.
• In 1945 an Army Air Corps B-25 twin-engine bomber crashed into the 79th floor of the building in dense fog, killing 14 people.
• The building's mast (now the base of the TV tower) was originally designed as a mooring mast for airships, pictured. Because of several unsuccessful attempts and volatile wind conditions at 1,350ft, the idea was abandoned.
• The Observatory on the 86th floor opened in 1931 and was immortalised in An Affair to Remember (1957) starring Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr and then as the meeting point for Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks in Sleepless in Seattle (1993)
• The building is struck by lightning about 100 times a year. It acts as a lightning rod for the surrounding area
Source: Empire State Building Company
Monday, 26 July 2010
Carbon Capture Still Pricey for China
Many environmentalists suggest that China will be the country that makes carbon capture and sequestration viable — but Chinese officials remain unconvinced.
Some Chinese leaders are skeptical of carbon sequestration efforts.With its vast manufacturing base and heavy reliance on coal for electricity, China, already the world’s top emitter of global warming gases, is beginning to dominate some clean-tech sectors, including solar and wind power. Environmentalists, and the U.S. government, think it can replicate that success with storing carbon.
Some of China’s biggest state-owned companies are actively trying to develop carbon-sequestration technology. Its leading power company, state-owned China Huaneng Group, is leading a consortium in building GreenGen, an advanced power plant that it plans to fit with machinery to siphon off carbon emissions.
The technology that strips out the primary global warming gas for storage underground, however, is extremely costly and consumes energy. Just this week, Peng Sizheng, an official from the Ministry of Science, was quoted by Chinese media saying that carbon capture shouldn’t be promoted in China because it’s too expensive.
His skepticism echoes earlier comments by energy czar Zhang Guobao. Carbon capture and sequestration “does not work as well as planting more trees or reducing desertification,” he told a conference last summer.
The high cost of storing carbon is affecting other initiatives to turn coal into oil. Chinese officials who used to back the process as a way reduce reliance on oil imports have now sharply cut support, and are allowing only a handful of coal-to-liquids projects, such as one proposed by South Africa’s Sasol Ltd., to proceed.
– Shai Oster
Some Chinese leaders are skeptical of carbon sequestration efforts.With its vast manufacturing base and heavy reliance on coal for electricity, China, already the world’s top emitter of global warming gases, is beginning to dominate some clean-tech sectors, including solar and wind power. Environmentalists, and the U.S. government, think it can replicate that success with storing carbon.
Some of China’s biggest state-owned companies are actively trying to develop carbon-sequestration technology. Its leading power company, state-owned China Huaneng Group, is leading a consortium in building GreenGen, an advanced power plant that it plans to fit with machinery to siphon off carbon emissions.
The technology that strips out the primary global warming gas for storage underground, however, is extremely costly and consumes energy. Just this week, Peng Sizheng, an official from the Ministry of Science, was quoted by Chinese media saying that carbon capture shouldn’t be promoted in China because it’s too expensive.
His skepticism echoes earlier comments by energy czar Zhang Guobao. Carbon capture and sequestration “does not work as well as planting more trees or reducing desertification,” he told a conference last summer.
The high cost of storing carbon is affecting other initiatives to turn coal into oil. Chinese officials who used to back the process as a way reduce reliance on oil imports have now sharply cut support, and are allowing only a handful of coal-to-liquids projects, such as one proposed by South Africa’s Sasol Ltd., to proceed.
– Shai Oster