Hamilton, Bermuda: 6th May, 2010 – The Listing Committee of the Bermuda Stock Exchange (BSX) announced the approval of the listing of the Ordinary Shares of GHG Energy Corporation, (GHG) (the ”Company”). The listing is effective from 28th April, 2010.
The Company was incorporated in Delaware, USA on 1st February 2010.
GHG was incorporated specifically as a Special Purpose Acquisition Vehicle to specialise in investments in low or zero carbon renewable energy technologies and related projects. Climate change is already a multi-billion dollar commercial sector and the United Nations has estimated that it will grow to $1.48 trillion by 2020. The Company intends to take advantage of this market opportunity by establishing or acquiring climate change products and services, or entering into alliances to provide such products or services, in six alternative or renewable energy investment sectors: Bio-Energy; Aquatic Energy; Energy Storage; Energy Saving; Wind Energy and Solar Energy.
Mr. Neil Cockle, Chief Executive Officer GHG, said: “I am delighted that GHG is now listed on the BSX; the Company will benefit from the international prestige and enhanced profile afforded by its BSX listing. Together with the finance raised, this will help us to make the acquisitions and partnerships that are central to the delivery of our business strategy. The management team intends to leverage these benefits in order to grow the Company’s activities over the coming months and years for the benefit of all stakeholders.”
BCB Securities Limited sponsored the listing of the Ordinary Shares of the Company.
“We are extremely pleased to have the opportunity to sponsor GHG Energy Corporation and look forward to continuing our relationship with the company," stated Randy Morris of BCB Securities Limited.
The issue is being introduced for listing under the Restricted Marketing provisions of the Exchange and is for securities that are aimed at Qualified Investors, being individuals or institutions that invest either a minimum of $100,000 or otherwise meet one of the suitability tests defined by the Exchange.
“The BSX is delighted to welcome the Ordinary Shares of GHG Energy Corporation to listing”, said Mr. James S. McKirdy, Chief Compliance Officer of the BSX.
For further information on GHG, please visit http://www.ghg-energy.com or contact Suzanna Hammond or Stephanie Charteris on +44 (0)20 7630 6633 or email: suzanna@green-energy-group.com or stephanie@green-energy-group.com.
*********
For more information on the Bermuda Stock Exchange (BSX), contact Bruce McMartin at 1-441-292-7212 or bmcmartin@bsx.com. Information is also available at www.bsx.com on Bloomberg at BSX .
The BSX was founded in 1971 and is the world’s leading fully electronic offshore securities market. The BSX list equities, mutual funds and bonds, as well as depository receipts. The BSX is a full member of the World Federation of Exchanges (WFE) and an affiliate member of IOSCO. In addition, the BSX is recognized by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) as a Designated Offshore Securities Market under Regulation S, The Financial Services Authority in the UK as a Designated Investment Exchange, The Bermuda Monetary Authority as a Recognised Investment Exchange and an Approved Stock Exchange under Australia’s Foreign Investment Funds (FIF) taxation rules.
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Western wind turbine makers fall behind in China
Tough’ green energy market may force some companies out in 5 years
By MARK SCOTT
Bloomberg News
May 15, 2010, 1:12AM
Share Del.icio.usDiggTwitterYahoo! BuzzFacebookStumbleUponWestern wind turbine manufacturers are losing ground in China, the world's fastest-growing green energy market.
The combined market share for companies such as General Electric and its European rivals, Vestas Wind Systems and Siemens, fell to 14 percent last year from 71 percent in 2005, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Sales are being eroded by local companies including Sinovel Wind and Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology.
“It's a tough market,” said Jesus Zaldua, president of Gamesa Corporacion Tecnologica's Chinese subsidiary, which has four wind-turbine factories in Tianjin. “Some companies will have to leave China in the next five years.”
To get back in the game, the foreign companies are introducing newer technology. Siemens, based in Munich, Germany, expects to open an $80 million plant this year in Shanghai to build 3.6-megawatt turbines — bigger than anything made by a Chinese company.
Gamesa plans to retrofit its existing plants to build 2-megawatt turbines and will open its fifth Chinese factory next year. The Spanish company's machines cost a third more and are more reliable than Chinese models, according to Beijing-based consultancy Mint Research.
“Competing on cost isn't the way to go,” said Jens Tommerup, president of the Chinese business unit of Vestas, which is based in Denmark. “It's about quality.”
Chinese manufacturers say they are improving their quality. Goldwind and Sinovel plan to introduce higher-output turbines next year.
“We already have 2.5-megawatt and 3-megawatt products” under development, said Thomas Yao, Goldwind's public relations director. “We are going to produce some 2.5-megawatt, and they will be put into mass production early next year.”
The head start in technology may pay off for Western companies, particularly as the Chinese venture abroad, said Keith Hays, global wind research director at Emerging Energy Research.
Western bankers, who would finance the majority of projects outside China, have more faith in U.S. and European turbine makers because of the companies' experience, he said.
“For now, the West has an advantage in quality,” said Hays, an industry consultant in Barcelona and Cambridge, Mass. “But the Chinese are catching up fast.”
Buoyed by $47 billion in stimulus spending for environmentally friendly power over two years, China installed more than double the number of wind turbines in 2009 than in the previous year. This year, the country plans to add 18 gigawatts of wind capacity, the equivalent of 15 nuclear power plants. That's double what's expected in the U.S., the No. 2 market, according to estimates from New Energy Finance.
Germany and Spain, Europe's largest wind energy markets, will add 1.8 gigawatts and 1 gigawatt in 2010, respectively.
Vestas, the top foreign wind turbine maker in China, installed turbines with a total capacity of 620 megawatts on the mainland last year, New Energy Finance said. Despite losing market share, Western turbine makers still are selling more units in China, UBS estimates.
“The very explicit growth targets for wind energy in China have spurred the growth and emergence of many new competitors, which has driven down the prices of wind turbines,” Tommerup said.
The biggest domestic competitor, Beijing-based Sinovel, sold turbines with a capacity of 3,523 megawatts.
Sinovel and Goldwind, the second-biggest Chinese wind-turbine maker, are among the top five global turbine manufacturers, even with almost no sales overseas, according to the Danish wind advisory firm MAKE Consulting.
Vestas and GE were respectively the first and second- largest suppliers of turbines worldwide in 2009, according to MAKE Consulting. Sinovel was third, followed by Germany's Enercon. Goldwind was fifth.
By MARK SCOTT
Bloomberg News
May 15, 2010, 1:12AM
Share Del.icio.usDiggTwitterYahoo! BuzzFacebookStumbleUponWestern wind turbine manufacturers are losing ground in China, the world's fastest-growing green energy market.
The combined market share for companies such as General Electric and its European rivals, Vestas Wind Systems and Siemens, fell to 14 percent last year from 71 percent in 2005, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Sales are being eroded by local companies including Sinovel Wind and Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology.
“It's a tough market,” said Jesus Zaldua, president of Gamesa Corporacion Tecnologica's Chinese subsidiary, which has four wind-turbine factories in Tianjin. “Some companies will have to leave China in the next five years.”
To get back in the game, the foreign companies are introducing newer technology. Siemens, based in Munich, Germany, expects to open an $80 million plant this year in Shanghai to build 3.6-megawatt turbines — bigger than anything made by a Chinese company.
Gamesa plans to retrofit its existing plants to build 2-megawatt turbines and will open its fifth Chinese factory next year. The Spanish company's machines cost a third more and are more reliable than Chinese models, according to Beijing-based consultancy Mint Research.
“Competing on cost isn't the way to go,” said Jens Tommerup, president of the Chinese business unit of Vestas, which is based in Denmark. “It's about quality.”
Chinese manufacturers say they are improving their quality. Goldwind and Sinovel plan to introduce higher-output turbines next year.
“We already have 2.5-megawatt and 3-megawatt products” under development, said Thomas Yao, Goldwind's public relations director. “We are going to produce some 2.5-megawatt, and they will be put into mass production early next year.”
The head start in technology may pay off for Western companies, particularly as the Chinese venture abroad, said Keith Hays, global wind research director at Emerging Energy Research.
Western bankers, who would finance the majority of projects outside China, have more faith in U.S. and European turbine makers because of the companies' experience, he said.
“For now, the West has an advantage in quality,” said Hays, an industry consultant in Barcelona and Cambridge, Mass. “But the Chinese are catching up fast.”
Buoyed by $47 billion in stimulus spending for environmentally friendly power over two years, China installed more than double the number of wind turbines in 2009 than in the previous year. This year, the country plans to add 18 gigawatts of wind capacity, the equivalent of 15 nuclear power plants. That's double what's expected in the U.S., the No. 2 market, according to estimates from New Energy Finance.
Germany and Spain, Europe's largest wind energy markets, will add 1.8 gigawatts and 1 gigawatt in 2010, respectively.
Vestas, the top foreign wind turbine maker in China, installed turbines with a total capacity of 620 megawatts on the mainland last year, New Energy Finance said. Despite losing market share, Western turbine makers still are selling more units in China, UBS estimates.
“The very explicit growth targets for wind energy in China have spurred the growth and emergence of many new competitors, which has driven down the prices of wind turbines,” Tommerup said.
The biggest domestic competitor, Beijing-based Sinovel, sold turbines with a capacity of 3,523 megawatts.
Sinovel and Goldwind, the second-biggest Chinese wind-turbine maker, are among the top five global turbine manufacturers, even with almost no sales overseas, according to the Danish wind advisory firm MAKE Consulting.
Vestas and GE were respectively the first and second- largest suppliers of turbines worldwide in 2009, according to MAKE Consulting. Sinovel was third, followed by Germany's Enercon. Goldwind was fifth.
The answer’s not blowing in the wind
Fitting a turbine to your roof might seem a tempting green investment, but could it turn out to be a white elephant? We explore the alternativesGordon Miller
Turbines can work well in exposed locations such as this one, but are less effective in towns
For someone keen not only to do their bit for the environment, but to be seen to be doing their bit, there is nothing better than erecting a wind turbine in the garden. The neighbours may be wary, but those spinning blades are clear proof of your green credentials.
When it comes to generating electricity, however, they may not be all they’re cracked up to be, as the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby has found. The presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions?, who courted controversy last year by erecting a 50ft turbine in the grounds of his Devon home, revealed last week that its blades were turning rather more slowly than he had hoped.
“It’s meant to produce about 11,000kW a year, but it’s not delivering anything like that,” he complained. “I’m afraid we need a very bad summer for it to deliver its potential.”
Dimbleby is not the only one to have been disappointed by wind power. David Cameron, keen to burnish his green credentials, made great play of his decision in 2007 to install a turbine on his west London home, but he was forced to remove it last year because he had not obtained planning permission. A spokeswoman said earlier this year that he had returned it to the architect. “The technology has moved on, so there was no point in putting it back up,” she said.
What’s wrong with turbines? Although highly effective when used in large numbers in offshore wind farms, they are not so well suited to domestic use.
To start with, there’s the cost: installing a 2.5kW-6kW system, described by the Energy Saving Trust (EST) as typical for domestic use, costs £11,000-£19,000. Then you must find somewhere suitable to position it. For optimum performance, it is best to have the turbine high on a mast or tower, as wind speed increases with height.
You will usually need planning permission, whether mounting it on the roof or on a wall.
Maintenance also needs to be considered. Wind turbines have a life of up to 22½ years, according to the EST, but require regular maintenance, which can be as often as once a year. The cost of operation and maintenance varies according to the size and type of system, but studies suggest that you should budget 1.5%-2% per year of the original turbine cost.
“If you live in an urban location, then don’t look at wind as a renewable energy solution — it just won’t perform,” says Rob Worthy, who runs a renewable-energy consultancy, SolaFlair (01865 424869, solaflair.co.uk). “To be effective, wind power needs ‘clean air’, with no obstructions. You don’t get that in built-up areas.”
Many of those contemplating installing turbines will have been persuaded by the system of “feed-in tariffs”, introduced by the government last month to persuade people to turn their homes into mini power stations. Under the scheme, homeowners are paid a guaranteed amount for the electricity they generate, which, in the case of wind power, can be as high as 26.7p per kilowatt-hour (kWh; one unit of electricity). That’s considerably more than it would cost a consumer to buy it from the grid.
Yet experts insist there are other, more cost-effective ways of generating energy in the home. Photovoltaic panels are probably the most attractive. These are powered by daylight — not just direct sunlight — and work even in Britain’s overcast climate, although their performance necessarily falls off in winter, with its shorter days.
The tariff paid on these is relatively high — up to 41.3p for each kWh generated. A system that delivers 2kWp (the peak output in kilowatts) should cost about £10,000 to install in a typical home and earn about £900 a year.
Those fortunate enough to have a river or stream running through their garden could consider a micro-hydro system. The installation costs are likely to be higher — as much as £25,000 for a typical system, according to the EST — but so, too, is the likely payback: an annual yield of 5%-8% is realistic. For such schemes to work, however, there must be a strong enough head of water.
An alternative is to produce your own heat, rather than generate your own electricity. Solar panels for heating water can produce up to 60% of the annual hot-water requirement of a typical home. For example, Worthy says the system he has installed at his home in Oxfordshire provides him with hot water from April to October. A typical system costs £4,000-£5,000 and saves £400-£500 a year on your electricity bill, he says.
Many green-minded engineers consider ground-source heat pumps to be the way forward. Using a series of pipes buried a few inches under your garden, these generate heat by taking advantage of the difference between the temperature of the air and that of the ground. This heat is used to warm water that is fed into a more conventional boiler. With a typical cost of £7,000-£13,000, such systems are relatively expensive, and require a decent-sized outdoor area.
Air-source heat pumps, which, as their name suggests, make use of heat in the atmosphere, are a cheaper alternative. They typically cost £5,000-£9,000 for a system suitable for a detached house, including installation, according to the EST.
Solar thermal, ground- and air-source heat pumps are not covered by feed-in tariffs at present, but this is due to change next April, when a Renewable Heat Incentive will reward homeowners who generate heat from renewable energy sources, rather than fossil fuel. It has not yet been announced how much will be paid per unit.
These and other incentives may, of course, change under the new government. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are keen to encourage greater use of renewable energy, but they could go about achieving this goal in a different way from Labour.
Dimbleby, meanwhile, seems undaunted by his disappointing experience with turbines. He has said he may install a ground-source heat pump at his Devon home instead.
Green energy: the facts
Wind: A 2.5kW-6kW turbine system — which may need planning permission — costs £11,000-£19,000, including installation, and could provide enough electricity for your home. A typical household could save up to £380 a year on bills, but maintenance can be costly.
Photovoltaic panels: These cost £8,000-£14,000, but savings can be substantial — about £200 off your bills each year. A 2kWp system should provide 40% of a household’s yearly electricity needs. They require little maintenance, but need to be kept clean, and you must clear overhanging branches.
Hydro: Installing a 5kW hydro scheme suitable for an average home costs £20,000-£25,000. Such systems are usually reliable.
Source: Energy Saving Trust
Turbines can work well in exposed locations such as this one, but are less effective in towns
For someone keen not only to do their bit for the environment, but to be seen to be doing their bit, there is nothing better than erecting a wind turbine in the garden. The neighbours may be wary, but those spinning blades are clear proof of your green credentials.
When it comes to generating electricity, however, they may not be all they’re cracked up to be, as the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby has found. The presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions?, who courted controversy last year by erecting a 50ft turbine in the grounds of his Devon home, revealed last week that its blades were turning rather more slowly than he had hoped.
“It’s meant to produce about 11,000kW a year, but it’s not delivering anything like that,” he complained. “I’m afraid we need a very bad summer for it to deliver its potential.”
Dimbleby is not the only one to have been disappointed by wind power. David Cameron, keen to burnish his green credentials, made great play of his decision in 2007 to install a turbine on his west London home, but he was forced to remove it last year because he had not obtained planning permission. A spokeswoman said earlier this year that he had returned it to the architect. “The technology has moved on, so there was no point in putting it back up,” she said.
What’s wrong with turbines? Although highly effective when used in large numbers in offshore wind farms, they are not so well suited to domestic use.
To start with, there’s the cost: installing a 2.5kW-6kW system, described by the Energy Saving Trust (EST) as typical for domestic use, costs £11,000-£19,000. Then you must find somewhere suitable to position it. For optimum performance, it is best to have the turbine high on a mast or tower, as wind speed increases with height.
You will usually need planning permission, whether mounting it on the roof or on a wall.
Maintenance also needs to be considered. Wind turbines have a life of up to 22½ years, according to the EST, but require regular maintenance, which can be as often as once a year. The cost of operation and maintenance varies according to the size and type of system, but studies suggest that you should budget 1.5%-2% per year of the original turbine cost.
“If you live in an urban location, then don’t look at wind as a renewable energy solution — it just won’t perform,” says Rob Worthy, who runs a renewable-energy consultancy, SolaFlair (01865 424869, solaflair.co.uk). “To be effective, wind power needs ‘clean air’, with no obstructions. You don’t get that in built-up areas.”
Many of those contemplating installing turbines will have been persuaded by the system of “feed-in tariffs”, introduced by the government last month to persuade people to turn their homes into mini power stations. Under the scheme, homeowners are paid a guaranteed amount for the electricity they generate, which, in the case of wind power, can be as high as 26.7p per kilowatt-hour (kWh; one unit of electricity). That’s considerably more than it would cost a consumer to buy it from the grid.
Yet experts insist there are other, more cost-effective ways of generating energy in the home. Photovoltaic panels are probably the most attractive. These are powered by daylight — not just direct sunlight — and work even in Britain’s overcast climate, although their performance necessarily falls off in winter, with its shorter days.
The tariff paid on these is relatively high — up to 41.3p for each kWh generated. A system that delivers 2kWp (the peak output in kilowatts) should cost about £10,000 to install in a typical home and earn about £900 a year.
Those fortunate enough to have a river or stream running through their garden could consider a micro-hydro system. The installation costs are likely to be higher — as much as £25,000 for a typical system, according to the EST — but so, too, is the likely payback: an annual yield of 5%-8% is realistic. For such schemes to work, however, there must be a strong enough head of water.
An alternative is to produce your own heat, rather than generate your own electricity. Solar panels for heating water can produce up to 60% of the annual hot-water requirement of a typical home. For example, Worthy says the system he has installed at his home in Oxfordshire provides him with hot water from April to October. A typical system costs £4,000-£5,000 and saves £400-£500 a year on your electricity bill, he says.
Many green-minded engineers consider ground-source heat pumps to be the way forward. Using a series of pipes buried a few inches under your garden, these generate heat by taking advantage of the difference between the temperature of the air and that of the ground. This heat is used to warm water that is fed into a more conventional boiler. With a typical cost of £7,000-£13,000, such systems are relatively expensive, and require a decent-sized outdoor area.
Air-source heat pumps, which, as their name suggests, make use of heat in the atmosphere, are a cheaper alternative. They typically cost £5,000-£9,000 for a system suitable for a detached house, including installation, according to the EST.
Solar thermal, ground- and air-source heat pumps are not covered by feed-in tariffs at present, but this is due to change next April, when a Renewable Heat Incentive will reward homeowners who generate heat from renewable energy sources, rather than fossil fuel. It has not yet been announced how much will be paid per unit.
These and other incentives may, of course, change under the new government. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are keen to encourage greater use of renewable energy, but they could go about achieving this goal in a different way from Labour.
Dimbleby, meanwhile, seems undaunted by his disappointing experience with turbines. He has said he may install a ground-source heat pump at his Devon home instead.
Green energy: the facts
Wind: A 2.5kW-6kW turbine system — which may need planning permission — costs £11,000-£19,000, including installation, and could provide enough electricity for your home. A typical household could save up to £380 a year on bills, but maintenance can be costly.
Photovoltaic panels: These cost £8,000-£14,000, but savings can be substantial — about £200 off your bills each year. A 2kWp system should provide 40% of a household’s yearly electricity needs. They require little maintenance, but need to be kept clean, and you must clear overhanging branches.
Hydro: Installing a 5kW hydro scheme suitable for an average home costs £20,000-£25,000. Such systems are usually reliable.
Source: Energy Saving Trust
10 questions for Chris Huhne, the new energy and climate change secretary
From reforms to the UK's renewable energy strategy to tackling the nuclear question, the new energy and climate change secretary faces a daunting in-tray• What the coalition means for environmental policies
James Murray for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 13 May 2010 10.20 BST
Chris Huhne has been appointed energy and climate change secretary - here are the issues he must face immediately:
1. What are you going to do about the nuclear option?
You are a member of a party that has long been staunchly opposed to nuclear energy, but now you are the energy secretary in a government that wants to move forward with plans for a new fleet of nuclear reactors.
The agreement between the Lib Dems and Conservatives insists you have " agreed a process" that allows Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while letting the government pass the National Policy Statements needed for new nuclear power plants.
It sounds OK on paper, but hardly smacks of the stable investment climate energy firms will need if they are to invest billions in nuclear. How will you reassure them that they can and should continue work on new reactors?
2. How do you plan to reform the Renewables Obligation?
It has never been perfect, but the big renewable energy developers understand and are comfortable with the current form of renewable energy subsidy. The Lib-Con coalition has agreed to effectively replace it with an extended feed-in tariff, while maintaining the current banded ROCs.
This was a Conservative idea and they said that moving towards a feed-in tariff would simplify the system, but does extending one subsidy scheme while retaining the previous regime really make things simpler?
More importantly, at what level will you set the feed-in tariff for different technologies? Too high and you are wasting bill payers money, too low and you will cripple the renewable sector. The UK is already facing an ominously tight deadline to meet its renewable target and any uncertainty for investors will only make meeting it harder. This needs to be sorted out quickly.
3. What are you going to do with councils that block wind farms?
Your predecessor, Ed Miliband, said the main reason the UK had such a poor performance on renewable energy over the past decade was because Tory councils blocked proposed wind farms. Both Miliband and your colleague Simon Hughes wanted renewable energy targets for individual councils to stop them opposing each and every renewables project. But any move to force through onshore wind farms will face fierce opposition from your new allies on the Conservative back benches.
The planning system remains the biggest barrier to new renewable energy capacity. How do you plan to address it?
While we're talking about renewables, the Lib-Con deal promises measures to encourage marine energy. What are they? This is one of the few green areas where the UK leads the world and it needs help – fast.
4. A floor price on carbon – really?
The Conservatives want a floor price on carbon and the Lib Dems have agreed. But how do you plan to impose it? The EU emissions trading scheme is a pan-European market, so how do you intend to effectively impose a floor price on carbon for British firms? Even if you can do it, how do you plan to stop them being left at a competitive disadvantage to their European counterparts? Most importantly, at what level do you set the floor price? Recent experiences have proven that anything under €20-€30 (£17-£25.50) is less than useless for many low-carbon technologies, but that is far higher than the current carbon price.
5. Can the green investment bank really make a difference?
Almost everyone agrees with some kind of low-carbon infrastructure bank in principle, but it will have to be pretty sizeable to make a substantive difference. Where will the money come from?
6. How will you sell green home loans?
Regardless of whether you call it the green deal or the pay-as-you-save scheme, the plans for a new green home loan scheme are to be welcomed. They should help overcome the upfront costs that stop many people improving the energy efficiency of their home. The only issue is whether you can sell it and get people to take out the loans. It is going to need a serious marketing strategy – any ideas?
7. What are you going to do about waste?
No one wants to talk about rubbish when they are trying to win votes, which is why the Conservative and Lib Dem manifestos only included a few sentences on waste strategy. But it is one of the most neglected areas of environmental policy and a sector where the UK could build genuine leadership. Talk of zero-waste ambitions and the promise of measures to encourage anaerobic digestion are welcome, but where is the detail?
8. What will you say when BAA come hammering on your door?
You've agreed to cancel the third runway at Heathrow, block any new runways at Gatwick and Stansted, and introduce a new per-plane levy on flights to replace the air passenger duty. In short, you've made an enemy of the aviation industry from day one. Many environmentalists would say this is no bad thing, but the industry is bound to argue that the UK needs more airport capacity. Are you going to stand up to them, or could we still get a Boris Island runway in the Thames Estuary?
9. How are you going to keep DECC relevant?
Even the government's staunchest critics would accept that the formation of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was a success. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband it enjoyed a high profile and the ear of Number 10. How do you plan to keep the Department's work near the top of the political agenda when all the focus will be on spending cuts and the health of the new coalition? The PR side of the job is going to be important, particularly with the Mexico summit coming up in November.
10. What are you going to say to Simon Hughes and Greg Clark when you bump into them in the Commons?
James Murray for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 13 May 2010 10.20 BST
Chris Huhne has been appointed energy and climate change secretary - here are the issues he must face immediately:
1. What are you going to do about the nuclear option?
You are a member of a party that has long been staunchly opposed to nuclear energy, but now you are the energy secretary in a government that wants to move forward with plans for a new fleet of nuclear reactors.
The agreement between the Lib Dems and Conservatives insists you have " agreed a process" that allows Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while letting the government pass the National Policy Statements needed for new nuclear power plants.
It sounds OK on paper, but hardly smacks of the stable investment climate energy firms will need if they are to invest billions in nuclear. How will you reassure them that they can and should continue work on new reactors?
2. How do you plan to reform the Renewables Obligation?
It has never been perfect, but the big renewable energy developers understand and are comfortable with the current form of renewable energy subsidy. The Lib-Con coalition has agreed to effectively replace it with an extended feed-in tariff, while maintaining the current banded ROCs.
This was a Conservative idea and they said that moving towards a feed-in tariff would simplify the system, but does extending one subsidy scheme while retaining the previous regime really make things simpler?
More importantly, at what level will you set the feed-in tariff for different technologies? Too high and you are wasting bill payers money, too low and you will cripple the renewable sector. The UK is already facing an ominously tight deadline to meet its renewable target and any uncertainty for investors will only make meeting it harder. This needs to be sorted out quickly.
3. What are you going to do with councils that block wind farms?
Your predecessor, Ed Miliband, said the main reason the UK had such a poor performance on renewable energy over the past decade was because Tory councils blocked proposed wind farms. Both Miliband and your colleague Simon Hughes wanted renewable energy targets for individual councils to stop them opposing each and every renewables project. But any move to force through onshore wind farms will face fierce opposition from your new allies on the Conservative back benches.
The planning system remains the biggest barrier to new renewable energy capacity. How do you plan to address it?
While we're talking about renewables, the Lib-Con deal promises measures to encourage marine energy. What are they? This is one of the few green areas where the UK leads the world and it needs help – fast.
4. A floor price on carbon – really?
The Conservatives want a floor price on carbon and the Lib Dems have agreed. But how do you plan to impose it? The EU emissions trading scheme is a pan-European market, so how do you intend to effectively impose a floor price on carbon for British firms? Even if you can do it, how do you plan to stop them being left at a competitive disadvantage to their European counterparts? Most importantly, at what level do you set the floor price? Recent experiences have proven that anything under €20-€30 (£17-£25.50) is less than useless for many low-carbon technologies, but that is far higher than the current carbon price.
5. Can the green investment bank really make a difference?
Almost everyone agrees with some kind of low-carbon infrastructure bank in principle, but it will have to be pretty sizeable to make a substantive difference. Where will the money come from?
6. How will you sell green home loans?
Regardless of whether you call it the green deal or the pay-as-you-save scheme, the plans for a new green home loan scheme are to be welcomed. They should help overcome the upfront costs that stop many people improving the energy efficiency of their home. The only issue is whether you can sell it and get people to take out the loans. It is going to need a serious marketing strategy – any ideas?
7. What are you going to do about waste?
No one wants to talk about rubbish when they are trying to win votes, which is why the Conservative and Lib Dem manifestos only included a few sentences on waste strategy. But it is one of the most neglected areas of environmental policy and a sector where the UK could build genuine leadership. Talk of zero-waste ambitions and the promise of measures to encourage anaerobic digestion are welcome, but where is the detail?
8. What will you say when BAA come hammering on your door?
You've agreed to cancel the third runway at Heathrow, block any new runways at Gatwick and Stansted, and introduce a new per-plane levy on flights to replace the air passenger duty. In short, you've made an enemy of the aviation industry from day one. Many environmentalists would say this is no bad thing, but the industry is bound to argue that the UK needs more airport capacity. Are you going to stand up to them, or could we still get a Boris Island runway in the Thames Estuary?
9. How are you going to keep DECC relevant?
Even the government's staunchest critics would accept that the formation of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was a success. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband it enjoyed a high profile and the ear of Number 10. How do you plan to keep the Department's work near the top of the political agenda when all the focus will be on spending cuts and the health of the new coalition? The PR side of the job is going to be important, particularly with the Mexico summit coming up in November.
10. What are you going to say to Simon Hughes and Greg Clark when you bump into them in the Commons?
Countryside to sprout solar farms as firms cash in on subsidy scheme
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
Fields in Gloucestershire’s rolling countryside, immortalised by Laurie Lee in Cider With Rosie, may soon be covered by thousands of solar panels.
Despite the lack of guaranteed sunshine, the solar farms will make a guaranteed profit because of a generous subsidy funded through increases in household energy bills.
The rate of installation of solar panels will increase five-fold in Britain this year because of this feed-in tariff, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Ecotricity, a renewable energy company based in Stroud, is planning dozens of solar farms and is considering sites near its headquarters.
Dale Vince, the company’s founder, admitted that trying to generate solar power under England’s frequently grey skies was an inefficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Even in the sunniest parts of England, the farms will generate a third less electricity than farms of the same size in southern Spain.
However, Mr Vince said that the Government’s feed-in tariff scheme, which began last month, had made solar farms economically viable.
He intends to announce within weeks the location of the first 25-acre, 5-megawatt solar farm. By 2020 Ecotricity plans to be generating 500 megawatts of electricity from solar panels, enough to power more than 100,000 homes. Mr Vince told The Times: “We are planning to build grid-connected solar farms all over the country.
“We are looking on the East Coast, the South West, the South East and around here in Stroud. We don’t want to go too far north because the sunshine drops away. Halfway up the country would be the cut off, a bit north of Birmingham.”
He denied that solar farms would be a visual blight on the landscape, arguing that they would be less obtrusive than wind turbines or rows of polytunnels used to grow fruit and vegetables.
“They won’t stand more than 2 metres (6.5ft) tall so you won’t see them if you look across the landscape because they will be obscured by hedgerows. “You would see them if you were standing on a hill but the visual impact is very minor compared with wind arrays.”
However, Mr Vince said that some of his farms would have solar panels and turbines in the same fields. “Solar panels and wind turbines complement each other well because in summer the winds are lighter but there is more sunlight, with the opposite in winter.”
He said that solar panels were six times as expensive per unit of electricity generated as onshore wind turbines, which are themselves several times more costly than gas or coal plants.
Commenting on the subsidy available, Mr Vince said: “We don’t think [a feed-in tariff policy] is the best way to go but it’s here and rather than sit and sulk and say it shouldn’t be done, we are just going to get on and do it.
“The more people do it, the more efficient and cheaper the technology gets.” The farms will cost £15-20million each but Ecotricity will receive index-linked income for 25 years from the feed-in tariff, which starts at 29p per kilowatt hour. This should deliver a return of at least 8 per cent a year.
The coalition Government has pledged to keep the tariff. Indeed, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats argued while in opposition that the rates were too low.
John Marjoram, the deputy mayor of Stroud and one of Britain’s first green councillors when elected in 1986, welcomed the idea of solar farms but said that 40 per cent of the district was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
“Of course we would encourage every sort of renewable energy because we are so far behind the rest of Europe. But we will also have to consider the visual impact,” he said.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England said that it would be better to place banks of solar panels on factory and warehouse roofs and above car parks. It said that some farms in the countryside could be acceptable, depending on the quality of the landscape.
Fields in Gloucestershire’s rolling countryside, immortalised by Laurie Lee in Cider With Rosie, may soon be covered by thousands of solar panels.
Despite the lack of guaranteed sunshine, the solar farms will make a guaranteed profit because of a generous subsidy funded through increases in household energy bills.
The rate of installation of solar panels will increase five-fold in Britain this year because of this feed-in tariff, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Ecotricity, a renewable energy company based in Stroud, is planning dozens of solar farms and is considering sites near its headquarters.
Dale Vince, the company’s founder, admitted that trying to generate solar power under England’s frequently grey skies was an inefficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Even in the sunniest parts of England, the farms will generate a third less electricity than farms of the same size in southern Spain.
However, Mr Vince said that the Government’s feed-in tariff scheme, which began last month, had made solar farms economically viable.
He intends to announce within weeks the location of the first 25-acre, 5-megawatt solar farm. By 2020 Ecotricity plans to be generating 500 megawatts of electricity from solar panels, enough to power more than 100,000 homes. Mr Vince told The Times: “We are planning to build grid-connected solar farms all over the country.
“We are looking on the East Coast, the South West, the South East and around here in Stroud. We don’t want to go too far north because the sunshine drops away. Halfway up the country would be the cut off, a bit north of Birmingham.”
He denied that solar farms would be a visual blight on the landscape, arguing that they would be less obtrusive than wind turbines or rows of polytunnels used to grow fruit and vegetables.
“They won’t stand more than 2 metres (6.5ft) tall so you won’t see them if you look across the landscape because they will be obscured by hedgerows. “You would see them if you were standing on a hill but the visual impact is very minor compared with wind arrays.”
However, Mr Vince said that some of his farms would have solar panels and turbines in the same fields. “Solar panels and wind turbines complement each other well because in summer the winds are lighter but there is more sunlight, with the opposite in winter.”
He said that solar panels were six times as expensive per unit of electricity generated as onshore wind turbines, which are themselves several times more costly than gas or coal plants.
Commenting on the subsidy available, Mr Vince said: “We don’t think [a feed-in tariff policy] is the best way to go but it’s here and rather than sit and sulk and say it shouldn’t be done, we are just going to get on and do it.
“The more people do it, the more efficient and cheaper the technology gets.” The farms will cost £15-20million each but Ecotricity will receive index-linked income for 25 years from the feed-in tariff, which starts at 29p per kilowatt hour. This should deliver a return of at least 8 per cent a year.
The coalition Government has pledged to keep the tariff. Indeed, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats argued while in opposition that the rates were too low.
John Marjoram, the deputy mayor of Stroud and one of Britain’s first green councillors when elected in 1986, welcomed the idea of solar farms but said that 40 per cent of the district was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
“Of course we would encourage every sort of renewable energy because we are so far behind the rest of Europe. But we will also have to consider the visual impact,” he said.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England said that it would be better to place banks of solar panels on factory and warehouse roofs and above car parks. It said that some farms in the countryside could be acceptable, depending on the quality of the landscape.
Fields in Gloucestershire’s rolling countryside, immortalised by Laurie Lee in Cider With Rosie, may soon be covered by thousands of solar panels.
Despite the lack of guaranteed sunshine, the solar farms will make a guaranteed profit because of a generous subsidy funded through increases in household energy bills.
The rate of installation of solar panels will increase five-fold in Britain this year because of this feed-in tariff, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Ecotricity, a renewable energy company based in Stroud, is planning dozens of solar farms and is considering sites near its headquarters.
Dale Vince, the company’s founder, admitted that trying to generate solar power under England’s frequently grey skies was an inefficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Even in the sunniest parts of England, the farms will generate a third less electricity than farms of the same size in southern Spain.
However, Mr Vince said that the Government’s feed-in tariff scheme, which began last month, had made solar farms economically viable.
He intends to announce within weeks the location of the first 25-acre, 5-megawatt solar farm. By 2020 Ecotricity plans to be generating 500 megawatts of electricity from solar panels, enough to power more than 100,000 homes. Mr Vince told The Times: “We are planning to build grid-connected solar farms all over the country.
“We are looking on the East Coast, the South West, the South East and around here in Stroud. We don’t want to go too far north because the sunshine drops away. Halfway up the country would be the cut off, a bit north of Birmingham.”
He denied that solar farms would be a visual blight on the landscape, arguing that they would be less obtrusive than wind turbines or rows of polytunnels used to grow fruit and vegetables.
“They won’t stand more than 2 metres (6.5ft) tall so you won’t see them if you look across the landscape because they will be obscured by hedgerows. “You would see them if you were standing on a hill but the visual impact is very minor compared with wind arrays.”
However, Mr Vince said that some of his farms would have solar panels and turbines in the same fields. “Solar panels and wind turbines complement each other well because in summer the winds are lighter but there is more sunlight, with the opposite in winter.”
He said that solar panels were six times as expensive per unit of electricity generated as onshore wind turbines, which are themselves several times more costly than gas or coal plants.
Commenting on the subsidy available, Mr Vince said: “We don’t think [a feed-in tariff policy] is the best way to go but it’s here and rather than sit and sulk and say it shouldn’t be done, we are just going to get on and do it.
“The more people do it, the more efficient and cheaper the technology gets.” The farms will cost £15-20million each but Ecotricity will receive index-linked income for 25 years from the feed-in tariff, which starts at 29p per kilowatt hour. This should deliver a return of at least 8 per cent a year.
The coalition Government has pledged to keep the tariff. Indeed, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats argued while in opposition that the rates were too low.
John Marjoram, the deputy mayor of Stroud and one of Britain’s first green councillors when elected in 1986, welcomed the idea of solar farms but said that 40 per cent of the district was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
“Of course we would encourage every sort of renewable energy because we are so far behind the rest of Europe. But we will also have to consider the visual impact,” he said.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England said that it would be better to place banks of solar panels on factory and warehouse roofs and above car parks. It said that some farms in the countryside could be acceptable, depending on the quality of the landscape.
Fields in Gloucestershire’s rolling countryside, immortalised by Laurie Lee in Cider With Rosie, may soon be covered by thousands of solar panels.
Despite the lack of guaranteed sunshine, the solar farms will make a guaranteed profit because of a generous subsidy funded through increases in household energy bills.
The rate of installation of solar panels will increase five-fold in Britain this year because of this feed-in tariff, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Ecotricity, a renewable energy company based in Stroud, is planning dozens of solar farms and is considering sites near its headquarters.
Dale Vince, the company’s founder, admitted that trying to generate solar power under England’s frequently grey skies was an inefficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Even in the sunniest parts of England, the farms will generate a third less electricity than farms of the same size in southern Spain.
However, Mr Vince said that the Government’s feed-in tariff scheme, which began last month, had made solar farms economically viable.
He intends to announce within weeks the location of the first 25-acre, 5-megawatt solar farm. By 2020 Ecotricity plans to be generating 500 megawatts of electricity from solar panels, enough to power more than 100,000 homes. Mr Vince told The Times: “We are planning to build grid-connected solar farms all over the country.
“We are looking on the East Coast, the South West, the South East and around here in Stroud. We don’t want to go too far north because the sunshine drops away. Halfway up the country would be the cut off, a bit north of Birmingham.”
He denied that solar farms would be a visual blight on the landscape, arguing that they would be less obtrusive than wind turbines or rows of polytunnels used to grow fruit and vegetables.
“They won’t stand more than 2 metres (6.5ft) tall so you won’t see them if you look across the landscape because they will be obscured by hedgerows. “You would see them if you were standing on a hill but the visual impact is very minor compared with wind arrays.”
However, Mr Vince said that some of his farms would have solar panels and turbines in the same fields. “Solar panels and wind turbines complement each other well because in summer the winds are lighter but there is more sunlight, with the opposite in winter.”
He said that solar panels were six times as expensive per unit of electricity generated as onshore wind turbines, which are themselves several times more costly than gas or coal plants.
Commenting on the subsidy available, Mr Vince said: “We don’t think [a feed-in tariff policy] is the best way to go but it’s here and rather than sit and sulk and say it shouldn’t be done, we are just going to get on and do it.
“The more people do it, the more efficient and cheaper the technology gets.” The farms will cost £15-20million each but Ecotricity will receive index-linked income for 25 years from the feed-in tariff, which starts at 29p per kilowatt hour. This should deliver a return of at least 8 per cent a year.
The coalition Government has pledged to keep the tariff. Indeed, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats argued while in opposition that the rates were too low.
John Marjoram, the deputy mayor of Stroud and one of Britain’s first green councillors when elected in 1986, welcomed the idea of solar farms but said that 40 per cent of the district was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
“Of course we would encourage every sort of renewable energy because we are so far behind the rest of Europe. But we will also have to consider the visual impact,” he said.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England said that it would be better to place banks of solar panels on factory and warehouse roofs and above car parks. It said that some farms in the countryside could be acceptable, depending on the quality of the landscape.
Liberal Democrats to abstain in parliamentary vote on nuclear plants
Plans for up to ten new nuclear power stations could be blocked after the appointment of Chris Huhne, a strongly anti-nuclear Liberal Democrat, as Energy Secretary. Under the coalition agreement, Lib Dem MPs would abstain in a parliamentary vote on a national planning statement on new nuclear plants.
Mr Huhne said yesterday that he would strongly oppose any form of public subsidy for nuclear plants, which remain far more expensive than gas-fired power stations.
He said: “If [power companies] come up with a plan that genuinely involves no public subsidy and that’s the agreement of the coalition Government — and I think frankly a very credible agreement in the current fiscal circumstances — then they will put it through the normal planning process under a new national planning statement and the proposal will go forward in the normal way.
“And we are committed on the Liberal Democrat side of the coalition that we will not vote against that.
“So if there’s a majority in Parliament in favour of a particular proposal — and there are an awful lot of ‘ifs’ here — then new nuclear will go ahead.”
In 2006, Mr Huhne attacked Labour for planning new nuclear plants. In a statement still on his website, he said: “Not only does nuclear cause a great threat to the environment through the large amounts of waste produced, but it is also economically unviable.
“Since the Chernobyl disaster, no nuclear power station has been built anywhere in the world without huge amounts of government subsidy.”
Ben Caldecott, head of UK policy at Climate Change Capital, the low-carbon investment manager, said: “There is a danger new nuclear will be kicked into the long grass. The Lib Dems have been such strong opponents of nuclear that it would be amazing if it was a Lib Dem energy secretary who instigated a new-build programme.
“I suspect that Chris Huhne will do his best to put it on the back burner.”
The Nuclear Industry Association said: “We would certainly hope it wasn’t kicked into the long grass and, as yet, we have no reason to think it will be.” It added that, subject to approval, the industry was planning to open the first new reactor at the end of 2017 and then additional reactors every 18 months-to-two years after that.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both want to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which was created by Labour to speed up the planning process for new nuclear plants.
However, the nuclear industry has been encouraged by the coalition agreement to set a minimum price for permits for emitting greenhouse gases. This would make nuclear more competitive by raising the cost of generating electricity from coal and gas.
Lakis Athanasiou, an analyst at Evolution Securities, said: “The main impact on new nuclear development of a Lib Dem heading DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) is likely to be more subtle than outright opposition, with delays caused by less desire to promote new nuclear and remove obstacles.”
Mr Huhne said yesterday that he would strongly oppose any form of public subsidy for nuclear plants, which remain far more expensive than gas-fired power stations.
He said: “If [power companies] come up with a plan that genuinely involves no public subsidy and that’s the agreement of the coalition Government — and I think frankly a very credible agreement in the current fiscal circumstances — then they will put it through the normal planning process under a new national planning statement and the proposal will go forward in the normal way.
“And we are committed on the Liberal Democrat side of the coalition that we will not vote against that.
“So if there’s a majority in Parliament in favour of a particular proposal — and there are an awful lot of ‘ifs’ here — then new nuclear will go ahead.”
In 2006, Mr Huhne attacked Labour for planning new nuclear plants. In a statement still on his website, he said: “Not only does nuclear cause a great threat to the environment through the large amounts of waste produced, but it is also economically unviable.
“Since the Chernobyl disaster, no nuclear power station has been built anywhere in the world without huge amounts of government subsidy.”
Ben Caldecott, head of UK policy at Climate Change Capital, the low-carbon investment manager, said: “There is a danger new nuclear will be kicked into the long grass. The Lib Dems have been such strong opponents of nuclear that it would be amazing if it was a Lib Dem energy secretary who instigated a new-build programme.
“I suspect that Chris Huhne will do his best to put it on the back burner.”
The Nuclear Industry Association said: “We would certainly hope it wasn’t kicked into the long grass and, as yet, we have no reason to think it will be.” It added that, subject to approval, the industry was planning to open the first new reactor at the end of 2017 and then additional reactors every 18 months-to-two years after that.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both want to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which was created by Labour to speed up the planning process for new nuclear plants.
However, the nuclear industry has been encouraged by the coalition agreement to set a minimum price for permits for emitting greenhouse gases. This would make nuclear more competitive by raising the cost of generating electricity from coal and gas.
Lakis Athanasiou, an analyst at Evolution Securities, said: “The main impact on new nuclear development of a Lib Dem heading DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) is likely to be more subtle than outright opposition, with delays caused by less desire to promote new nuclear and remove obstacles.”
Go-ahead for offshore wind farm sites
By Emily Beament, Press Association
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Expansions to offshore wind farm sites around the English coast which will provide enough power for an extra 1.4 million homes were given the green light today by the Crown Estate.
Five wind farm developments, off the coasts of Suffolk, Kent, Cumbria and in Liverpool Bay were given the go-ahead to extend their area, creating an extra 1.7 gigawatts (GW) of power.
All the area extensions will be subject to a full, new planning application, environmental impact assessment and consultation before construction can begin, the Crown Estate said.
And two projects off the coast of Norfolk have been given the go-ahead to install extra capacity to harness more wind energy within their designated offshore area.
In total the extensions permitted by the Crown Estate will provide an additional 2GW of power to the grid.
It is hoped the developments will add to England's energy security and provide jobs and a stable flow of construction projects for the supply chain before the massive "Round 3" expansion of offshore wind kicks in.
Rob Hastings, the Crown Estate's director of the marine estate, said the extra 2GW of power had been driven by "developers' appetite" for offshore wind.
He said: "It is another positive step in the maturing of the offshore wind industry and will significantly support the growth of the supply chain as it adds further to the pipeline of construction projects.
"This announcement shows the Crown Estate's commitment to help develop this maturing sector with a view to driving the UK offshore wind energy industry forward and creating a long-term sustainable energy source for the UK."
RWE Npower Renewables welcomed the green light to develop another wind farm with SSE Renewables next to their Outer Gabbard Sandbank site, around 19 miles off the coast of Suffolk.
The new "Galloper wind farm" scheme, which would have a capacity of around 500MW, will double the wind power which will be generated from the area.
Paul Coffey, chief operating officer of parent company RWE Innogy, said: "The opportunity to develop a wind farm close to the Greater Gabbard offshore wind farm site has a number of advantages: we know that this is an excellent site for a wind farm, there is already the necessary infrastructure in place, and if consented one can benefit from the long-term operational and maintenance activities due to the close proximity of the two wind farms."
Maria McCaffery, chief executive of industry body RenewableUK, said the announcement gave "definitive and positive" evidence of the environmental and commercial viability of existing offshore wind projects.
"The site extensions come as a direct consequence of the UK's world-beating offshore wind farms showing that, after a successful start, they have further potential for growth," she said.
In addition to the Greater Gabbard extension, Vattenfall Wind Power has been given approval to extend its Kentish Flats and Thanet projects off the coast of Kent, and Dong Wind UK has received the green light to extend Burbo Bank, near Liverpool, and Walney, Cumbria.
Centrica Renewable Energy has been permitted to install extra capacity on Race Bank and Warwick Energy can add to its Dudgeon site capacity, both off the Norfolk coast.
Responding to the announcement, Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tony Bosworth said: "This is another significant step forward along the path to a greener, safer future.
"The UK's renewable energy potential is huge - maximising it would slash emissions, increase energy security and generate tens of thousands of jobs.
"All the major political parties agree on the need to build a low-carbon economy - urgent measures to boost green energy must be a top priority for whoever forms the next government."
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Expansions to offshore wind farm sites around the English coast which will provide enough power for an extra 1.4 million homes were given the green light today by the Crown Estate.
Five wind farm developments, off the coasts of Suffolk, Kent, Cumbria and in Liverpool Bay were given the go-ahead to extend their area, creating an extra 1.7 gigawatts (GW) of power.
All the area extensions will be subject to a full, new planning application, environmental impact assessment and consultation before construction can begin, the Crown Estate said.
And two projects off the coast of Norfolk have been given the go-ahead to install extra capacity to harness more wind energy within their designated offshore area.
In total the extensions permitted by the Crown Estate will provide an additional 2GW of power to the grid.
It is hoped the developments will add to England's energy security and provide jobs and a stable flow of construction projects for the supply chain before the massive "Round 3" expansion of offshore wind kicks in.
Rob Hastings, the Crown Estate's director of the marine estate, said the extra 2GW of power had been driven by "developers' appetite" for offshore wind.
He said: "It is another positive step in the maturing of the offshore wind industry and will significantly support the growth of the supply chain as it adds further to the pipeline of construction projects.
"This announcement shows the Crown Estate's commitment to help develop this maturing sector with a view to driving the UK offshore wind energy industry forward and creating a long-term sustainable energy source for the UK."
RWE Npower Renewables welcomed the green light to develop another wind farm with SSE Renewables next to their Outer Gabbard Sandbank site, around 19 miles off the coast of Suffolk.
The new "Galloper wind farm" scheme, which would have a capacity of around 500MW, will double the wind power which will be generated from the area.
Paul Coffey, chief operating officer of parent company RWE Innogy, said: "The opportunity to develop a wind farm close to the Greater Gabbard offshore wind farm site has a number of advantages: we know that this is an excellent site for a wind farm, there is already the necessary infrastructure in place, and if consented one can benefit from the long-term operational and maintenance activities due to the close proximity of the two wind farms."
Maria McCaffery, chief executive of industry body RenewableUK, said the announcement gave "definitive and positive" evidence of the environmental and commercial viability of existing offshore wind projects.
"The site extensions come as a direct consequence of the UK's world-beating offshore wind farms showing that, after a successful start, they have further potential for growth," she said.
In addition to the Greater Gabbard extension, Vattenfall Wind Power has been given approval to extend its Kentish Flats and Thanet projects off the coast of Kent, and Dong Wind UK has received the green light to extend Burbo Bank, near Liverpool, and Walney, Cumbria.
Centrica Renewable Energy has been permitted to install extra capacity on Race Bank and Warwick Energy can add to its Dudgeon site capacity, both off the Norfolk coast.
Responding to the announcement, Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tony Bosworth said: "This is another significant step forward along the path to a greener, safer future.
"The UK's renewable energy potential is huge - maximising it would slash emissions, increase energy security and generate tens of thousands of jobs.
"All the major political parties agree on the need to build a low-carbon economy - urgent measures to boost green energy must be a top priority for whoever forms the next government."
Suspension from Kyoto carbon trading looms for Bulgaria
13 May 2010, 23:46 CET
(SOFIA) - Bulgaria will likely be suspended from carbon emissions trading as of June 30 for failing to comply with UN recommendations, Environment Minister Nona Karadzhova said Thursday.
The UN Compliance Committee of the Kyoto Protocol has taken a preliminary decision to revoke Bulgaria's accreditation to trade in carbon emissions, which is likely to be definitively confirmed on June 30, the minister said.
Bulgaria's previous government had not complied with the committee's recommendations to bring its system for recording greenhouse gas emissions up to scratch, she said, blasting the previous administration for its "criminal inaction."
The ruling will deprive Bulgaria of its right to sell an annual 40 million surplus sovereign pollution rights under Kyoto -- known as Assigned Amount Units or AAUs -- which were expected to generate up to 500 million leva (250 million euros) and which the government was counting on to battle the budget deficit.
It would also jeopardise companies' trading of surplus carbon credits -- the so-called EU Allowances (EUAs) -- which the European Commission just approved in late April.
Karadzhova expressed hopes Thursday that industries would be able to trade at least some of their surplus carbon credits by June 30, when the ban would come into force.
The government, however, would not be able to do this as parliament has yet to pass key legislation regulating carbon trade.
Karadzhova said she hoped to restore the country's accreditation as early as November.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, Bulgaria agreed to cut its CO2 emissions by 8.0 percent compared to their 1988 level and emit no more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 a year.
(SOFIA) - Bulgaria will likely be suspended from carbon emissions trading as of June 30 for failing to comply with UN recommendations, Environment Minister Nona Karadzhova said Thursday.
The UN Compliance Committee of the Kyoto Protocol has taken a preliminary decision to revoke Bulgaria's accreditation to trade in carbon emissions, which is likely to be definitively confirmed on June 30, the minister said.
Bulgaria's previous government had not complied with the committee's recommendations to bring its system for recording greenhouse gas emissions up to scratch, she said, blasting the previous administration for its "criminal inaction."
The ruling will deprive Bulgaria of its right to sell an annual 40 million surplus sovereign pollution rights under Kyoto -- known as Assigned Amount Units or AAUs -- which were expected to generate up to 500 million leva (250 million euros) and which the government was counting on to battle the budget deficit.
It would also jeopardise companies' trading of surplus carbon credits -- the so-called EU Allowances (EUAs) -- which the European Commission just approved in late April.
Karadzhova expressed hopes Thursday that industries would be able to trade at least some of their surplus carbon credits by June 30, when the ban would come into force.
The government, however, would not be able to do this as parliament has yet to pass key legislation regulating carbon trade.
Karadzhova said she hoped to restore the country's accreditation as early as November.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, Bulgaria agreed to cut its CO2 emissions by 8.0 percent compared to their 1988 level and emit no more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 a year.
India's new fast-breeder on track, nuclear power from September next
With another critical component set to join the Rs.5,600-crore ($1.25 billion) fast-breeder reactor at Kalpakkam, some 80 km from Chennai, scientists at the 500 mw nuclear power plant said the project will be up and running, as scheduled, by September next year.
The component that will be installed this week is called a thermal baffle, a cylindrical safety vessel that is part of the crucial equipment, which helps in keeping the sodium used in the plant cool.
"The 60-tonne thermal baffle, measuring some 12-metre in diameter and more than six metres in height, is made of stainless steel and is expected to be installed inside the main vessel this week," Prabhat Kumar, project director of the power plant, told IANS.
The sodium-cooled fast reactor, designed by the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), has three vessels -- a safety vessel, a main vessel and an inner vessel, all of which are critical to keep the fast-breeder reactor cool.
The baffle will go into the main vessel, also made of stainless steel, weighing some 200 tonnes, which will also hold the coolant liquid sodium, the reactor's core containing the fuel, and other components essential for nuclear power generation.
"The thermal baffle acts as a buffer wall against the radiation from the inner vessel, which holds liquid sodium at 550 degrees Celsius, and helps maintain the temperature in the main vessel at 400 degrees Celsius," said P. Chellapandi, associate director-design of IGCAR.
Officials said the fast-breeder reactor, being built by Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd, or Bhavini, is one of the key projects of India's three-stage nuclear power programme. India became the sixth country to have such technology, way back in 1985.
Speaking about the overall project, officials explained that more than 55 percent of the work was over, with 425 people, out of the 525 employees sanctioned so far, already on the payrolls of Bhavini.
"Orders worth Rs.3,550 crore ($785 million) have already been placed and around Rs.2,300 crore ($510 million) has been spent on the project till date," Kumar said. "Funding has not been a problem as the government will finance 76 percent of the cost."
He said, while the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) will fund 4 percent of the project cost, the remaining is expected to be met out of borrowings. "But till date, Bhavini has not drawn any money from NPCIL, nor has it resorted to any borrowings."
India currently has 17 nuclear power reactors under operation with a capacity of 4,120 MW. This is expected to go up to 7,280 MW after the completion of six projects under implementation, including the 500-MW fast-breeder reactor at Kalpakkam.
The component that will be installed this week is called a thermal baffle, a cylindrical safety vessel that is part of the crucial equipment, which helps in keeping the sodium used in the plant cool.
"The 60-tonne thermal baffle, measuring some 12-metre in diameter and more than six metres in height, is made of stainless steel and is expected to be installed inside the main vessel this week," Prabhat Kumar, project director of the power plant, told IANS.
The sodium-cooled fast reactor, designed by the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), has three vessels -- a safety vessel, a main vessel and an inner vessel, all of which are critical to keep the fast-breeder reactor cool.
The baffle will go into the main vessel, also made of stainless steel, weighing some 200 tonnes, which will also hold the coolant liquid sodium, the reactor's core containing the fuel, and other components essential for nuclear power generation.
"The thermal baffle acts as a buffer wall against the radiation from the inner vessel, which holds liquid sodium at 550 degrees Celsius, and helps maintain the temperature in the main vessel at 400 degrees Celsius," said P. Chellapandi, associate director-design of IGCAR.
Officials said the fast-breeder reactor, being built by Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd, or Bhavini, is one of the key projects of India's three-stage nuclear power programme. India became the sixth country to have such technology, way back in 1985.
Speaking about the overall project, officials explained that more than 55 percent of the work was over, with 425 people, out of the 525 employees sanctioned so far, already on the payrolls of Bhavini.
"Orders worth Rs.3,550 crore ($785 million) have already been placed and around Rs.2,300 crore ($510 million) has been spent on the project till date," Kumar said. "Funding has not been a problem as the government will finance 76 percent of the cost."
He said, while the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) will fund 4 percent of the project cost, the remaining is expected to be met out of borrowings. "But till date, Bhavini has not drawn any money from NPCIL, nor has it resorted to any borrowings."
India currently has 17 nuclear power reactors under operation with a capacity of 4,120 MW. This is expected to go up to 7,280 MW after the completion of six projects under implementation, including the 500-MW fast-breeder reactor at Kalpakkam.
How to Jumpstart Carbon Capture and Storage
By James D. Wolfensohn
Published May 13, 2010
The International Energy Agency estimates that carbon capture and storage (CCS) could contribute 19 percent of the total greenhouse gas emission reductions necessary between now and 2050.However, in order to make such a contribution, an estimated 3,400 CCS projects would need to be in place, trapping and burrowing away a volume of CO2 equivalent to twice the volume of oil and gas the world currently extracts each year. Existing technologies are insufficient to deliver on this scale.CCS is a nascent industry facing substantial hurdles. Commercial deployment of this technology involves overcoming a range of challenges, including policy and regulatory obstacles, financial and commercial barriers, technological issues and public acceptance. It will also require unprecedented cooperation between governments and private sector organizations.
The Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI), whose International Advisory Panel I chair, is an effort to address these very challenges and to ensure that the full potential of CCS is achieved. It was created to bring governments, industry and financial institutions together to galvanize global efforts to demonstrate and deploy CCS technology at an industrial scale.Central to this work is the need to invest in knowledge development and sharing, and organization analysis. The GCCSI is developing a global knowledge exchange program to coordinate the effective and timely international collection and dissemination of knowledge on CCS technology and implementation.By analyzing information from a range of sources, including distilling lessons from existing and proposed CCS demonstration projects, the GCCSI seeks to further global knowledge and expertise in this field and to serve as an impartial and trusted advisor to governments and industry in sharing this knowhow.The GCCSI’s knowledge program will be a broad reaching and dynamic service, drawing on information provided by GCCSI’s 200+ membership, as well as information elicited by region-specific teams that will continue to grow over the next year. These "local" teams will keep in contact with stakeholders in their jurisdiction and closely monitor developments in their region.Governments around the world have so far committed an estimated US$16 billion for individual industrial-scale CCS projects. These projects are already yielding valuable new experience and lessons which GCCSI hopes to leverage. The GCCSI is negotiating the sharing of information from these and future projects with governments from the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, Norway and the European Economic Commission.This year, the GCCSI will provide targeted financial support for up to 10 CCS projects around the world to assist companies in targeting specific barriers to their CCS projects. In turn, the companies will help support the GCCSI’s knowledge development and sharing activities. For instance, some projects are examining industrial uses for CO2, as opposed to having the gas stored.Carbon capture and storage is not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, but it could play an integral role in limiting emissions in the decades ahead. Given the great barriers facing the commercial deployment of CCS, however, the industry is unlikely to fulfill its potential without a concerted effort to accelerate its development. The GCCSI is committed to achieving this goal and working with its members aspires to see CCS established as one of the new engines of the green economy.James D. Wolfensohn is chairman of Wolfensohn & Company LLC, a private investment firm and an advisor to corporations and governments. He also chairs the International Advisory Panel of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.The institute holds a members' meeting today and tomorrow in Pittsburgh that is bringing together over 200 members including governments, leading corporations, non-government bodies and research organizations to discuss new approaches to accelerating CCS. GCCSI VP Dale Seymour wrote about the importance of collaboration in the process in a recent post for GreenBiz.com.
Published May 13, 2010
The International Energy Agency estimates that carbon capture and storage (CCS) could contribute 19 percent of the total greenhouse gas emission reductions necessary between now and 2050.However, in order to make such a contribution, an estimated 3,400 CCS projects would need to be in place, trapping and burrowing away a volume of CO2 equivalent to twice the volume of oil and gas the world currently extracts each year. Existing technologies are insufficient to deliver on this scale.CCS is a nascent industry facing substantial hurdles. Commercial deployment of this technology involves overcoming a range of challenges, including policy and regulatory obstacles, financial and commercial barriers, technological issues and public acceptance. It will also require unprecedented cooperation between governments and private sector organizations.
The Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI), whose International Advisory Panel I chair, is an effort to address these very challenges and to ensure that the full potential of CCS is achieved. It was created to bring governments, industry and financial institutions together to galvanize global efforts to demonstrate and deploy CCS technology at an industrial scale.Central to this work is the need to invest in knowledge development and sharing, and organization analysis. The GCCSI is developing a global knowledge exchange program to coordinate the effective and timely international collection and dissemination of knowledge on CCS technology and implementation.By analyzing information from a range of sources, including distilling lessons from existing and proposed CCS demonstration projects, the GCCSI seeks to further global knowledge and expertise in this field and to serve as an impartial and trusted advisor to governments and industry in sharing this knowhow.The GCCSI’s knowledge program will be a broad reaching and dynamic service, drawing on information provided by GCCSI’s 200+ membership, as well as information elicited by region-specific teams that will continue to grow over the next year. These "local" teams will keep in contact with stakeholders in their jurisdiction and closely monitor developments in their region.Governments around the world have so far committed an estimated US$16 billion for individual industrial-scale CCS projects. These projects are already yielding valuable new experience and lessons which GCCSI hopes to leverage. The GCCSI is negotiating the sharing of information from these and future projects with governments from the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, Norway and the European Economic Commission.This year, the GCCSI will provide targeted financial support for up to 10 CCS projects around the world to assist companies in targeting specific barriers to their CCS projects. In turn, the companies will help support the GCCSI’s knowledge development and sharing activities. For instance, some projects are examining industrial uses for CO2, as opposed to having the gas stored.Carbon capture and storage is not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, but it could play an integral role in limiting emissions in the decades ahead. Given the great barriers facing the commercial deployment of CCS, however, the industry is unlikely to fulfill its potential without a concerted effort to accelerate its development. The GCCSI is committed to achieving this goal and working with its members aspires to see CCS established as one of the new engines of the green economy.James D. Wolfensohn is chairman of Wolfensohn & Company LLC, a private investment firm and an advisor to corporations and governments. He also chairs the International Advisory Panel of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.The institute holds a members' meeting today and tomorrow in Pittsburgh that is bringing together over 200 members including governments, leading corporations, non-government bodies and research organizations to discuss new approaches to accelerating CCS. GCCSI VP Dale Seymour wrote about the importance of collaboration in the process in a recent post for GreenBiz.com.
A Bad Bet on Carbon
By ROBERT BRYCE
ON Wednesday, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman introduced their long-awaited Senate energy bill, which includes incentives of $2 billion per year for carbon capture and sequestration, the technology that removes carbon dioxide from the smokestack at power plants and forces it into underground storage. This significant allocation would come on top of the $2.4 billion for carbon capture projects that appeared in last year’s stimulus package.
That’s a lot of money for a technology whose adoption faces three potentially insurmountable hurdles: it greatly reduces the output of power plants; pipeline capacity to move the newly captured carbon dioxide is woefully insufficient; and the volume of waste material is staggering. Lawmakers should stop perpetuating the hope that the technology can help make huge cuts in the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions.
Let’s take the first problem. Capturing carbon dioxide from the flue gas of a coal-fired electric generation plant is an energy-intensive process. Analysts estimate that capturing the carbon dioxide cuts the output of a typical plant by as much as 28 percent.
Given that the global energy sector is already straining to meet booming demand for electricity, it’s hard to believe that the United States, or any other country that relies on coal-fired generation, will agree to reduce the output of its coal-fired plants by almost a third in order to attempt carbon capture and sequestration.
Here’s the second problem. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has estimated that up to 23,000 miles of new pipeline will be needed to carry the captured carbon dioxide to the still-undesignated underground sequestration sites. That doesn’t sound like much when you consider that America’s gas pipeline system sprawls over some 2.3 million miles. But those natural gas pipelines carry a valuable, marketable, useful commodity.
By contrast, carbon dioxide is a worthless waste product, so taxpayers would likely end up shouldering most of the cost. Yes, some of that waste gas could be used for enhanced oil recovery projects; flooding depleted oil reservoirs with carbon dioxide is a proven technology that can increase production and extend the life of existing oilfields. But the process would be useful in only a limited number of oilfields — probably less than 10 percent of the waste carbon dioxide captured from coal-fired power plants could actually be injected into American oilfields.
The third, and most vexing, problem has to do with scale. In 2009, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States totaled 5.4 billion tons. Let’s assume that policymakers want to use carbon capture to get rid of half of those emissions — say, 3 billion tons per year. That works out to about 8.2 million tons of carbon dioxide per day, which would have to be collected and compressed to about 1,000 pounds per square inch (that compressed volume of carbon dioxide would be roughly equivalent to the volume of daily global oil production).
In other words, we would need to find an underground location (or locations) able to swallow a volume equal to the contents of 41 oil supertankers each day, 365 days a year.
There will also be considerable public resistance to carbon dioxide pipelines and sequestration projects — local outcry has already stalled proposed carbon capture projects in Germany and Denmark. The fact is, few landowners are eager to have pipelines built across their property. And because of the possibility of deadly leaks, few people will to want to live near a pipeline or an underground storage cavern. This leads to the obvious question: which members of the House and Senate are going to volunteer their states to be dumping grounds for all that carbon dioxide?
For some, carbon capture and sequestration will remain the Holy Grail of carbon-reduction strategies. But before Congress throws yet more money at the procedure, lawmakers need to take a closer look at the issues that hamstring nearly every new energy-related technology: cost and scale.
Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is the author, most recently, of “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.”
ON Wednesday, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman introduced their long-awaited Senate energy bill, which includes incentives of $2 billion per year for carbon capture and sequestration, the technology that removes carbon dioxide from the smokestack at power plants and forces it into underground storage. This significant allocation would come on top of the $2.4 billion for carbon capture projects that appeared in last year’s stimulus package.
That’s a lot of money for a technology whose adoption faces three potentially insurmountable hurdles: it greatly reduces the output of power plants; pipeline capacity to move the newly captured carbon dioxide is woefully insufficient; and the volume of waste material is staggering. Lawmakers should stop perpetuating the hope that the technology can help make huge cuts in the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions.
Let’s take the first problem. Capturing carbon dioxide from the flue gas of a coal-fired electric generation plant is an energy-intensive process. Analysts estimate that capturing the carbon dioxide cuts the output of a typical plant by as much as 28 percent.
Given that the global energy sector is already straining to meet booming demand for electricity, it’s hard to believe that the United States, or any other country that relies on coal-fired generation, will agree to reduce the output of its coal-fired plants by almost a third in order to attempt carbon capture and sequestration.
Here’s the second problem. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has estimated that up to 23,000 miles of new pipeline will be needed to carry the captured carbon dioxide to the still-undesignated underground sequestration sites. That doesn’t sound like much when you consider that America’s gas pipeline system sprawls over some 2.3 million miles. But those natural gas pipelines carry a valuable, marketable, useful commodity.
By contrast, carbon dioxide is a worthless waste product, so taxpayers would likely end up shouldering most of the cost. Yes, some of that waste gas could be used for enhanced oil recovery projects; flooding depleted oil reservoirs with carbon dioxide is a proven technology that can increase production and extend the life of existing oilfields. But the process would be useful in only a limited number of oilfields — probably less than 10 percent of the waste carbon dioxide captured from coal-fired power plants could actually be injected into American oilfields.
The third, and most vexing, problem has to do with scale. In 2009, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States totaled 5.4 billion tons. Let’s assume that policymakers want to use carbon capture to get rid of half of those emissions — say, 3 billion tons per year. That works out to about 8.2 million tons of carbon dioxide per day, which would have to be collected and compressed to about 1,000 pounds per square inch (that compressed volume of carbon dioxide would be roughly equivalent to the volume of daily global oil production).
In other words, we would need to find an underground location (or locations) able to swallow a volume equal to the contents of 41 oil supertankers each day, 365 days a year.
There will also be considerable public resistance to carbon dioxide pipelines and sequestration projects — local outcry has already stalled proposed carbon capture projects in Germany and Denmark. The fact is, few landowners are eager to have pipelines built across their property. And because of the possibility of deadly leaks, few people will to want to live near a pipeline or an underground storage cavern. This leads to the obvious question: which members of the House and Senate are going to volunteer their states to be dumping grounds for all that carbon dioxide?
For some, carbon capture and sequestration will remain the Holy Grail of carbon-reduction strategies. But before Congress throws yet more money at the procedure, lawmakers need to take a closer look at the issues that hamstring nearly every new energy-related technology: cost and scale.
Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is the author, most recently, of “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.”
BSX Approves Listing of the Ordinary Shares of GHG Energy Corporation
Hamilton, Bermuda: 6th May, 2010 – The Listing Committee of the Bermuda Stock Exchange (BSX) announced the approval of the listing of the Ordinary Shares of GHG Energy Corporation, (GHG) (the ”Company”). The listing is effective from 28th April, 2010. .
The Company was incorporated in Delaware, USA on 1st February 2010.
GHG was incorporated specifically as a Special Purpose Acquisition Vehicle to specialise in investments in low or zero carbon renewable energy technologies and related projects. Climate change is already a multi-billion dollar commercial sector and the United Nations has estimated that it will grow to $1.48 trillion by 2020. The Company intends to take advantage of this market opportunity by establishing or acquiring climate change products and services, or entering into alliances to provide such products or services, in six alternative or renewable energy investment sectors: Bio-Energy; Aquatic Energy; Energy Storage; Energy Saving; Wind Energy and Solar Energy.
Mr. Neil Cockle, Chief Executive Officer GHG, said: “I am delighted that GHG is now listed on the BSX; the Company will benefit from the international prestige and enhanced profile afforded by its BSX listing. Together with the finance raised, this will help us to make the acquisitions and partnerships that are central to the delivery of our business strategy. The management team intends to leverage these benefits in order to grow the Company’s activities over the coming months and years for the benefit of all stakeholders.”
BCB Securities Limited sponsored the listing of the Ordinary Shares of the Company.
“We are extremely pleased to have the opportunity to sponsor GHG Energy Corporation and look forward to continuing our relationship with the company," stated Randy Morris of BCB Securities Limited.
The issue is being introduced for listing under the Restricted Marketing provisions of the Exchange and is for securities that are aimed at Qualified Investors, being individuals or institutions that invest either a minimum of $100,000 or otherwise meet one of the suitability tests defined by the Exchange.
“The BSX is delighted to welcome the Ordinary Shares of GHG Energy Corporation to listing”, said Mr. James S. McKirdy, Chief Compliance Officer of the BSX.
For further information on GHG, please visit http://www.ghg-energy.com or contact Suzanna Hammond or Stephanie Charteris on +44 (0)20 7630 6633 or email: suzanna@green-energy-group.com or stephanie@green-energy-group.com.
*********
For more information on the Bermuda Stock Exchange (BSX), contact Bruce McMartin at 1-441-292-7212 or bmcmartin@bsx.com. Information is also available at www.bsx.com on Bloomberg at BSX .
The BSX was founded in 1971 and is the world’s leading fully electronic offshore securities market. The BSX list equities, mutual funds and bonds, as well as depository receipts. The BSX is a full member of the World Federation of Exchanges (WFE) and an affiliate member of IOSCO. In addition, the BSX is recognized by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) as a Designated Offshore Securities Market under Regulation S, The Financial Services Authority in the UK as a Designated Investment Exchange, The Bermuda Monetary Authority as a Recognised Investment Exchange and an Approved Stock Exchange under Australia’s Foreign Investment Funds (FIF) taxation rules.
The Company was incorporated in Delaware, USA on 1st February 2010.
GHG was incorporated specifically as a Special Purpose Acquisition Vehicle to specialise in investments in low or zero carbon renewable energy technologies and related projects. Climate change is already a multi-billion dollar commercial sector and the United Nations has estimated that it will grow to $1.48 trillion by 2020. The Company intends to take advantage of this market opportunity by establishing or acquiring climate change products and services, or entering into alliances to provide such products or services, in six alternative or renewable energy investment sectors: Bio-Energy; Aquatic Energy; Energy Storage; Energy Saving; Wind Energy and Solar Energy.
Mr. Neil Cockle, Chief Executive Officer GHG, said: “I am delighted that GHG is now listed on the BSX; the Company will benefit from the international prestige and enhanced profile afforded by its BSX listing. Together with the finance raised, this will help us to make the acquisitions and partnerships that are central to the delivery of our business strategy. The management team intends to leverage these benefits in order to grow the Company’s activities over the coming months and years for the benefit of all stakeholders.”
BCB Securities Limited sponsored the listing of the Ordinary Shares of the Company.
“We are extremely pleased to have the opportunity to sponsor GHG Energy Corporation and look forward to continuing our relationship with the company," stated Randy Morris of BCB Securities Limited.
The issue is being introduced for listing under the Restricted Marketing provisions of the Exchange and is for securities that are aimed at Qualified Investors, being individuals or institutions that invest either a minimum of $100,000 or otherwise meet one of the suitability tests defined by the Exchange.
“The BSX is delighted to welcome the Ordinary Shares of GHG Energy Corporation to listing”, said Mr. James S. McKirdy, Chief Compliance Officer of the BSX.
For further information on GHG, please visit http://www.ghg-energy.com or contact Suzanna Hammond or Stephanie Charteris on +44 (0)20 7630 6633 or email: suzanna@green-energy-group.com or stephanie@green-energy-group.com.
*********
For more information on the Bermuda Stock Exchange (BSX), contact Bruce McMartin at 1-441-292-7212 or bmcmartin@bsx.com. Information is also available at www.bsx.com on Bloomberg at BSX .
The BSX was founded in 1971 and is the world’s leading fully electronic offshore securities market. The BSX list equities, mutual funds and bonds, as well as depository receipts. The BSX is a full member of the World Federation of Exchanges (WFE) and an affiliate member of IOSCO. In addition, the BSX is recognized by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) as a Designated Offshore Securities Market under Regulation S, The Financial Services Authority in the UK as a Designated Investment Exchange, The Bermuda Monetary Authority as a Recognised Investment Exchange and an Approved Stock Exchange under Australia’s Foreign Investment Funds (FIF) taxation rules.