COLUMBIA, Md., May 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Renewable fuels provider New Generation Biofuels Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: NGBF) ("NGBF" or the "Company") today announced they have filed a patent application on their new glycerin-based biofuel.
"We are excited to add this technology to our intellectual property portfolio," said Cary J. Claiborne, CEO and President of NGBF. "This new technological development allows us to use glycerin as a primary feedstock to formulate our highly stable new biofuel which complements our existing products and will be an additional offering we have for the markets we serve."
"This new patent pending technology offers another effective biofuel solution for our customers' environmental and performance challenges," added Chief Technology Officer Dr. Andrea Festuccia. "It is formulated, as are our other technologies, to reduce emissions while providing physical product properties that are desirable for many of our customers' needs. The low viscosity and temperature characteristics such as an extremely low pour point should be very attractive for many of the markets we serve. In addition, converting from existing liquid fuels to our technology should require little if any modifications to existing fuel combustion systems."
"As a biofuel technology company we have a very aggressive and focused research and development program led by Dr. Festuccia that addresses a number of important and differentiating areas," stated Mr. Claiborne. "From our wide array of approved feedstocks addressing security of supply and cost issues to new patent pending products such as this new glycerin-based biofuel technology, Andrea and his team provide technology that creates unique solutions for our customers. Our R&D programs make a difference."
About New Generation Biofuels Holdings, Inc.
New Generation Biofuels develops renewable fuels technology and is a renewable fuels provider. New Generation Biofuels also holds an exclusive license for North America, Central America and the Caribbean to commercialize proprietary technology to manufacture alternative biofuels from plant oils and animal fats that it markets as a new class of biofuel for power generation, commercial and industrial heating and marine use. The Company believes that its proprietary biofuel can provide a lower cost, renewable alternative energy source with significantly lower emissions than traditional fuels. New Generation Biofuels' business model calls for establishing direct sales from manufacturing plants that it may purchase or build and sublicensing its technology to qualified licensees.
Forward Looking Statements
This news release contains forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements concern our operations, prospects, plans, economic performance and financial condition and are based largely on our current beliefs and expectations. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to be materially different from any future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements The risks and uncertainties related to our business include all the risks attendant a development stage business in the volatile energy industry, including, without limitation, the risks set forth under the caption "Risk Factors" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, and in subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Media Contact: Bryan McPhee ph: (410) 652-1159 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (410) 652-1159 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
bkmcphee@newgenerationbiofuels.com
Sunday, 30 May 2010
The Water Cost of Carbon Capture
Coal power's carbon savior could double its water woes
Photo: Volker Hartmann/AFP/Getty Images
BY Samuel K. Moore // June 2010
Despite all the talk of moving to greener energy sources, coal will be with us for the foreseeable future. It’s just too cheap and plentiful. But if we’re really serious about cutting carbon dioxide emissions, coal plants everywhere will need to substantially reduce the billions of metric tons of CO2 they annually emit into the atmosphere. The big hope is that in the next few years the plants will begin capturing and storing a large portion of that CO2 deep underground, in the oceans, or in mineral form.
But the technology needed to capture carbon has a huge downside: It could nearly double the amount of water a plant uses for every kilowatt of electricity it delivers—easily erasing any gains from techniques aimed at conserving water.
"This technology was not developed in a water-constrained environment," says Jared Ciferno, technology manager for the existing plants program of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). "The bottom line is that [carbon] capture takes energy, and that translates to additional water use."
Just how much water is pretty shocking. By 2030, the addition of carbon-capture technology would boost water consumption in the U.S. electricity sector by 80 percent, or about 7500 megaliters per day, according to research at NETL, which is operated by the U.S. Department of Energy. For plants in water-stressed areas, that’s a deal breaker. "It is not likely that there is enough water supply available to any of our plants to allow for double the water use," says John Coggins, manager of resource planning at Salt River Project, a water and energy utility in Arizona.
The 80 percent figure assumes that the electricity generation lost to powering the carbon-capture system is made up for by adding more water-cooled coal-fired power. In other words, for a 550-megawatt plant to both capture its carbon and still deliver 550 MW of electricity, it would need to add more than 125 MW of additional generating capability to cover the energy used in capture. If you don’t make up for the lost generation, or make it up in some way that requires no water and emits no carbon—with a wind farm, say—the additional water consumption is more like 40 to 50 percent, according to NETL’s Ciferno.
That’s still a lot of water. For coal power plants, the state-of-the-art carbon-capture technology is known as amine-based wet scrubbing [see "Catching Carbon," above]. It’s basically the technology that puts the fizz in your Fanta. First, the plant’s flue gas is scrubbed of sulfurous nasties; what’s left is a mixture of nitrogen, water vapor, and CO2. An amine solution then reacts with the CO2, yielding a gas stream of mostly nitrogen, which goes out the smokestack, and a CO2-rich amine solution. The solution is heated to strip the CO2 from the amines. The CO2 is then cooled and compressed for storage, and the amines cycle back to pick up more CO2.
Why does this process demand so much water? It’s all about the cooling. The power plant’s cooling tower carries heat away by evaporating water. Cooling the amines for CO2 absorption—which generates heat in itself—leads to an additional load on the cooling tower, causing more water to be lost. And compressing the CO2 to the supercritical conditions needed for storage requires cooling, too. (A less-water-intensive process would be used for integrated gasification combined cycle and oxyfuel plants, but the former technology is used in only a slim minority of generators, and the latter is not yet in operation [see "Restoring Coal’s Sheen," IEEE Spectrum, January 2008].)
To really reduce CO2 emissions, says Ciferno, less thirsty forms of carbon capture will have to be developed. His lab is now focused on reducing the amount of energy involved, betting that this will take care of carbon capture’s water woes, too. With a budget of about US $50 million per year and 40 projects, NETL has perhaps the biggest R&D program in this area. The goal is commercial-scale technology by 2020 that can capture 90 percent of a coal plant’s CO2 while increasing the cost of generating electricity at that plant by less than 35 percent.
Industrial firms already have several pilot projects capturing small streams of CO2 at plants in Europe and the United States. However, none have yet been scaled up to the size that would make a noticeable difference in a plant’s water consumption. France’s Alstom Power, for one, uses chilled ammonia instead of amines, which the technology company says should be more energy and water efficient. Alstom tested the process last year with a 20-MW pilot plant at American Electric Power’s New Haven, W.Va., generating station. AEP now plans to use it to capture carbon from 235 MW of the New Haven plant’s 1300-MW capacity, starting in 2015.
Germany’s Siemens Energy has also developed an alternative technology, which relies on amino-acid salts instead of amines. Amino-acid salts pick up more carbon than amines do, so you need to pump and cool less material, says Tony DoVale, president of Siemens Environmental Systems and Services. So far the process has been demonstrated to capture carbon while leaching only 9 percent of a plant’s power, compared to amine technology’s typical 20 percent. That "would ultimately imply half the cooling load," says DoVale.
Of course, unless plant operators are compelled to capture carbon, these energy and water costs won’t be borne at all. "Why would you put on a piece of equipment that puts 10 percent of a plant’s output away if you didn’t have to?" says DoVale.
This article originally appeared in print as "The Carbon Capture Conundrum."
Photo: Volker Hartmann/AFP/Getty Images
BY Samuel K. Moore // June 2010
Despite all the talk of moving to greener energy sources, coal will be with us for the foreseeable future. It’s just too cheap and plentiful. But if we’re really serious about cutting carbon dioxide emissions, coal plants everywhere will need to substantially reduce the billions of metric tons of CO2 they annually emit into the atmosphere. The big hope is that in the next few years the plants will begin capturing and storing a large portion of that CO2 deep underground, in the oceans, or in mineral form.
But the technology needed to capture carbon has a huge downside: It could nearly double the amount of water a plant uses for every kilowatt of electricity it delivers—easily erasing any gains from techniques aimed at conserving water.
"This technology was not developed in a water-constrained environment," says Jared Ciferno, technology manager for the existing plants program of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). "The bottom line is that [carbon] capture takes energy, and that translates to additional water use."
Just how much water is pretty shocking. By 2030, the addition of carbon-capture technology would boost water consumption in the U.S. electricity sector by 80 percent, or about 7500 megaliters per day, according to research at NETL, which is operated by the U.S. Department of Energy. For plants in water-stressed areas, that’s a deal breaker. "It is not likely that there is enough water supply available to any of our plants to allow for double the water use," says John Coggins, manager of resource planning at Salt River Project, a water and energy utility in Arizona.
The 80 percent figure assumes that the electricity generation lost to powering the carbon-capture system is made up for by adding more water-cooled coal-fired power. In other words, for a 550-megawatt plant to both capture its carbon and still deliver 550 MW of electricity, it would need to add more than 125 MW of additional generating capability to cover the energy used in capture. If you don’t make up for the lost generation, or make it up in some way that requires no water and emits no carbon—with a wind farm, say—the additional water consumption is more like 40 to 50 percent, according to NETL’s Ciferno.
That’s still a lot of water. For coal power plants, the state-of-the-art carbon-capture technology is known as amine-based wet scrubbing [see "Catching Carbon," above]. It’s basically the technology that puts the fizz in your Fanta. First, the plant’s flue gas is scrubbed of sulfurous nasties; what’s left is a mixture of nitrogen, water vapor, and CO2. An amine solution then reacts with the CO2, yielding a gas stream of mostly nitrogen, which goes out the smokestack, and a CO2-rich amine solution. The solution is heated to strip the CO2 from the amines. The CO2 is then cooled and compressed for storage, and the amines cycle back to pick up more CO2.
Why does this process demand so much water? It’s all about the cooling. The power plant’s cooling tower carries heat away by evaporating water. Cooling the amines for CO2 absorption—which generates heat in itself—leads to an additional load on the cooling tower, causing more water to be lost. And compressing the CO2 to the supercritical conditions needed for storage requires cooling, too. (A less-water-intensive process would be used for integrated gasification combined cycle and oxyfuel plants, but the former technology is used in only a slim minority of generators, and the latter is not yet in operation [see "Restoring Coal’s Sheen," IEEE Spectrum, January 2008].)
To really reduce CO2 emissions, says Ciferno, less thirsty forms of carbon capture will have to be developed. His lab is now focused on reducing the amount of energy involved, betting that this will take care of carbon capture’s water woes, too. With a budget of about US $50 million per year and 40 projects, NETL has perhaps the biggest R&D program in this area. The goal is commercial-scale technology by 2020 that can capture 90 percent of a coal plant’s CO2 while increasing the cost of generating electricity at that plant by less than 35 percent.
Industrial firms already have several pilot projects capturing small streams of CO2 at plants in Europe and the United States. However, none have yet been scaled up to the size that would make a noticeable difference in a plant’s water consumption. France’s Alstom Power, for one, uses chilled ammonia instead of amines, which the technology company says should be more energy and water efficient. Alstom tested the process last year with a 20-MW pilot plant at American Electric Power’s New Haven, W.Va., generating station. AEP now plans to use it to capture carbon from 235 MW of the New Haven plant’s 1300-MW capacity, starting in 2015.
Germany’s Siemens Energy has also developed an alternative technology, which relies on amino-acid salts instead of amines. Amino-acid salts pick up more carbon than amines do, so you need to pump and cool less material, says Tony DoVale, president of Siemens Environmental Systems and Services. So far the process has been demonstrated to capture carbon while leaching only 9 percent of a plant’s power, compared to amine technology’s typical 20 percent. That "would ultimately imply half the cooling load," says DoVale.
Of course, unless plant operators are compelled to capture carbon, these energy and water costs won’t be borne at all. "Why would you put on a piece of equipment that puts 10 percent of a plant’s output away if you didn’t have to?" says DoVale.
This article originally appeared in print as "The Carbon Capture Conundrum."
Frustrated EU carbon traders play waiting game
Fri May 28, 2010 12:06pm EDTCOLOGNE Germany (Reuters) - Major changes proposed to the European Union's emissions market could dramatically alter the landscape for traders, who are increasingly frustrated by regulatory uncertainty and political stalemate.
Gulf Oil Spill
A deeper 2020 EU greenhouse gas reduction commitment, qualitative and quantitative restrictions on carbon offset eligibility and details on carbon permit auctioning in the scheme's third phase are among the decisions expected to be made this year by the 27-nation bloc's executive.
But policymakers at this week's annual Carbon Expo conference in Cologne were tight-lipped, and the uncertainty caused gloom among traders.
"Obviously the mood would be better with more regulatory certainty," Emmanuel Fages, carbon analyst at Societe Generale/orbeo, told Reuters on the sidelines of the conference.
"Firms for whom carbon is a core activity remain resilient but they are experiencing a difficult context post-Copenhagen."
The market's momentum has already been stalled by failed U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen last year, delays to a U.S. climate bill and scandals including tax fraud and permit theft that rattled the $118 billion EU scheme in 2009.
Carbon prices have also dropped from 2008 highs due to lower European industrial output as a result of the global downturn.
Despite the uncertain investment climate, organizers said attendance at the conference was strong again this year at around 3,000 people.
DECISIONS, DECISIONS
The EU Commission said on Wednesday it would consider deepening its 2020 target to 30 percent below 1990 levels, from a 20 percent currently, if other nations adopt deep cuts themselves.
A decision will likely be made before this year's U.N. climate talks in Mexico. If approved, it would mean the EU carbon permit supply would be slashed, and that could push prices up to between 30-50 euros, from around 15 euros now.
The move, expected to cost around 81 billion euros ($99.2 billion) annually by 2020, could have grave implications for EU industry, especially the top emitting power generators which get most of their emissions permits for free.
In the scheme's third phase (2013-2020), most utilities will be required to buy their permits at auction, but details about the auctions or the total number of permits on offer have also not yet been decided, meaning utilities that forward sell power are limited from hedging their positions with Phase 3 credits.
"The one positive thing about auctioning should serve to lift the gloom because the market is going to get bigger," said Louis Redshaw, head of carbon markets at Barclays Capital.
INVESTMENTS SLOWING
More uncertainty surrounds the future of the Clean Development Mechanism, one of the carbon finance schemes under the Kyoto Protocol climate pact.
With Kyoto's first leg expiring in 2012 and no successor pact yet in place, the fate of the CDM and the carbon offsets, called Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs), it generates through clean energy project investment is in question.
"Investments are certainly slowing as a consequence. We don't necessarily know what types of CERs we can use, but there are plenty of clues," Redshaw said.
The EU has already committed to allowing a set quota of CERs, which serve as a cheaper alternative for participants to buying EU carbon permits, into its trading scheme through 2020.
But leaked EU documents show the Commission is considering several different proposals that could further shrink investment in the CDM, which fell to $2.7 billion in value last year from $6.5 billion in 2008, according to the World Bank.
One idea was to restrict CERs from certain types of projects from being used for compliance in the EU, for example from large, lucrative industrial gas cutting projects. A more recent one is to introduce a multiplier rate for using some CERs, for example two industrial gas credits would be equal to one renewable energy CER or one CER from a least developed country.
Traders say both are unrealistic and unfair, arguing that all tonnes of displaced CO2 are identical, whether they come from investing in cutting a chemical plant's emissions or from building a wind farm.
"The whole thing was sold to the European Parliament as being to do with CER quality issues, but now it seems to revolve around profitability," said Miles Austin of lobby group Carbon Markets and Investors Association.
AMERICAN BOOST
U.S. climate legislation is one area outside the EU where, if progress were made, traders said could provide a boost to the stalled development of a global carbon market.
Two U.S. Senators unveiled their American Power Act earlier this month, which was quickly backed by President Barack Obama and aims to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
The bill, similar to legislation passed in the House of Representatives last June, faces looming deadlines with mid-term elections set for November, and fierce opposition from Republicans and some Democrats.
"There's a mixed bag of views on the likelihood of U.S. cap and trade," Redshaw said. "We are relatively bullish, but 'relative' doesn't mean a great deal."
(Additional reporting by Nina Chestney; Editing by William Hardy)
Gulf Oil Spill
A deeper 2020 EU greenhouse gas reduction commitment, qualitative and quantitative restrictions on carbon offset eligibility and details on carbon permit auctioning in the scheme's third phase are among the decisions expected to be made this year by the 27-nation bloc's executive.
But policymakers at this week's annual Carbon Expo conference in Cologne were tight-lipped, and the uncertainty caused gloom among traders.
"Obviously the mood would be better with more regulatory certainty," Emmanuel Fages, carbon analyst at Societe Generale/orbeo, told Reuters on the sidelines of the conference.
"Firms for whom carbon is a core activity remain resilient but they are experiencing a difficult context post-Copenhagen."
The market's momentum has already been stalled by failed U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen last year, delays to a U.S. climate bill and scandals including tax fraud and permit theft that rattled the $118 billion EU scheme in 2009.
Carbon prices have also dropped from 2008 highs due to lower European industrial output as a result of the global downturn.
Despite the uncertain investment climate, organizers said attendance at the conference was strong again this year at around 3,000 people.
DECISIONS, DECISIONS
The EU Commission said on Wednesday it would consider deepening its 2020 target to 30 percent below 1990 levels, from a 20 percent currently, if other nations adopt deep cuts themselves.
A decision will likely be made before this year's U.N. climate talks in Mexico. If approved, it would mean the EU carbon permit supply would be slashed, and that could push prices up to between 30-50 euros, from around 15 euros now.
The move, expected to cost around 81 billion euros ($99.2 billion) annually by 2020, could have grave implications for EU industry, especially the top emitting power generators which get most of their emissions permits for free.
In the scheme's third phase (2013-2020), most utilities will be required to buy their permits at auction, but details about the auctions or the total number of permits on offer have also not yet been decided, meaning utilities that forward sell power are limited from hedging their positions with Phase 3 credits.
"The one positive thing about auctioning should serve to lift the gloom because the market is going to get bigger," said Louis Redshaw, head of carbon markets at Barclays Capital.
INVESTMENTS SLOWING
More uncertainty surrounds the future of the Clean Development Mechanism, one of the carbon finance schemes under the Kyoto Protocol climate pact.
With Kyoto's first leg expiring in 2012 and no successor pact yet in place, the fate of the CDM and the carbon offsets, called Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs), it generates through clean energy project investment is in question.
"Investments are certainly slowing as a consequence. We don't necessarily know what types of CERs we can use, but there are plenty of clues," Redshaw said.
The EU has already committed to allowing a set quota of CERs, which serve as a cheaper alternative for participants to buying EU carbon permits, into its trading scheme through 2020.
But leaked EU documents show the Commission is considering several different proposals that could further shrink investment in the CDM, which fell to $2.7 billion in value last year from $6.5 billion in 2008, according to the World Bank.
One idea was to restrict CERs from certain types of projects from being used for compliance in the EU, for example from large, lucrative industrial gas cutting projects. A more recent one is to introduce a multiplier rate for using some CERs, for example two industrial gas credits would be equal to one renewable energy CER or one CER from a least developed country.
Traders say both are unrealistic and unfair, arguing that all tonnes of displaced CO2 are identical, whether they come from investing in cutting a chemical plant's emissions or from building a wind farm.
"The whole thing was sold to the European Parliament as being to do with CER quality issues, but now it seems to revolve around profitability," said Miles Austin of lobby group Carbon Markets and Investors Association.
AMERICAN BOOST
U.S. climate legislation is one area outside the EU where, if progress were made, traders said could provide a boost to the stalled development of a global carbon market.
Two U.S. Senators unveiled their American Power Act earlier this month, which was quickly backed by President Barack Obama and aims to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
The bill, similar to legislation passed in the House of Representatives last June, faces looming deadlines with mid-term elections set for November, and fierce opposition from Republicans and some Democrats.
"There's a mixed bag of views on the likelihood of U.S. cap and trade," Redshaw said. "We are relatively bullish, but 'relative' doesn't mean a great deal."
(Additional reporting by Nina Chestney; Editing by William Hardy)
Indian electric car market changing
Published: May 28, 2010 at 4:35 PM
ArticlePhotosListenComments.Share NEW DELHI, May 28 (UPI) -- One of India's largest utility companies has bought a controlling stake of 55.2 percent in electric car maker Reva, the Financial Express reported Friday.
The purchase by Mahindra and Mahindra, represents an optimistic view of India's domestic automobile market, as domestic car ownership is less than 10 for every 1,000 citizens.
A senior official of apex auto body Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers Association, speaking off the record, said that there is currently a small domestic market for electric cars in India, observing: "Customers first look for value for money. As electric batteries are very expensive, costs of the vehicle also shoot up."
PricewaterhouseCoopers India automobile analyst Abdul Majeed was more optimistic, noting: "Just like we have petrol/diesel pumps across the country, charging stations also have to come up for electric vehicles. The current generation is a lot more sensitized about the environment than previous ones. In the years ahead, the electric form of vehicles will become a lot more popular. We are already seeing the trend globally."
ArticlePhotosListenComments.Share NEW DELHI, May 28 (UPI) -- One of India's largest utility companies has bought a controlling stake of 55.2 percent in electric car maker Reva, the Financial Express reported Friday.
The purchase by Mahindra and Mahindra, represents an optimistic view of India's domestic automobile market, as domestic car ownership is less than 10 for every 1,000 citizens.
A senior official of apex auto body Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers Association, speaking off the record, said that there is currently a small domestic market for electric cars in India, observing: "Customers first look for value for money. As electric batteries are very expensive, costs of the vehicle also shoot up."
PricewaterhouseCoopers India automobile analyst Abdul Majeed was more optimistic, noting: "Just like we have petrol/diesel pumps across the country, charging stations also have to come up for electric vehicles. The current generation is a lot more sensitized about the environment than previous ones. In the years ahead, the electric form of vehicles will become a lot more popular. We are already seeing the trend globally."
Britain to export fuel made from household waste
Britain is dumping its rubbish on other European countries as councils struggle to deal with the growing waste mountain.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 2:44PM BST 28 May 2010
The UK faces massive fines if landfill is not reduced over the next few years but recycling rates remain low.
In their search for new ways to dispose of household rubbish, councils are to export fuel pellets made from the contents of hundreds of thousands of bins to countries like Holland and Germany.
Snow Britain: 'Vast majority' of bin collections back in action
Landfill levy could lead to £50 rise in council tax after Budget
More households face fuel poverty, warn Government advisers
China risks protectionist bonfire over Rio Tinto arrestsBecause the European nations have been more sucessful in encouraging their citizens to recycle, they are faced with a shortage of material they can burn to power factories and heating systems.
The first export of 40,000 tonnes has been given the go-ahead by the Environment Agency and it is expected more shipments will follow.
Local authorities claim it is a cost-effective way to get rid of waste rather than paying landfill tax.
But environmentalists pointed out that councils are still paying for the waste to be exported and argued that it was bad for climate change and tax payers.
Officially it is illegal to export waste to other countries for dumping, though products like plastic and paper can be sent to countries like China for recycling.
Waste from industrial processes like wood chips is also sent abroad for burning and hazardous waste has turned up in other countries - although this was exported illegally.
The Waste firm Shanks is exporting 40,000 tonnes initially as part of a 25 year £47 million contract to get rid of waste for the East London Waste Authority(ELWA).
The Environment Agency said the shipment has been given the go-ahead because it is "refuse-derived fuel" or RDF that will go towards generating energy, rather than waste.
The 'RDF' is made up of the rubbish dumped in black bin bags around East London, including paper and plastic that could have been recycled. It will be used to power Amsterdam's district heating network.
Mark Ash, Operations Manager at ELA, insisted that as much waste as possible is collected for recycling and materials are also removed for re-use later on in the process.
While ELWA pay for the waste to be dealt with, he said the councils still have to pay a portion of landfill tax so any reduction in landfill is good for the taxpayer.
Wiltshire Council also have a contract that could see waste exported to Germany for burning.
But Dr Michael Warhurst of Friend of the Earth said sending rubbish to another country for burning in incinerators was a waste of money and fueling climate change.
He said burning plastic produced pollution and transporting the rubbish also increases greenhouse gases.
"It is one thing to export rubbish for recycling, it is another to just dump it in an incinerator in another country," he said.
"It is much better from a climate change or resource efficiency point of view to be taking more recycling. We should be recycling this material rather than just dumping it in an incinerator."
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 2:44PM BST 28 May 2010
The UK faces massive fines if landfill is not reduced over the next few years but recycling rates remain low.
In their search for new ways to dispose of household rubbish, councils are to export fuel pellets made from the contents of hundreds of thousands of bins to countries like Holland and Germany.
Snow Britain: 'Vast majority' of bin collections back in action
Landfill levy could lead to £50 rise in council tax after Budget
More households face fuel poverty, warn Government advisers
China risks protectionist bonfire over Rio Tinto arrestsBecause the European nations have been more sucessful in encouraging their citizens to recycle, they are faced with a shortage of material they can burn to power factories and heating systems.
The first export of 40,000 tonnes has been given the go-ahead by the Environment Agency and it is expected more shipments will follow.
Local authorities claim it is a cost-effective way to get rid of waste rather than paying landfill tax.
But environmentalists pointed out that councils are still paying for the waste to be exported and argued that it was bad for climate change and tax payers.
Officially it is illegal to export waste to other countries for dumping, though products like plastic and paper can be sent to countries like China for recycling.
Waste from industrial processes like wood chips is also sent abroad for burning and hazardous waste has turned up in other countries - although this was exported illegally.
The Waste firm Shanks is exporting 40,000 tonnes initially as part of a 25 year £47 million contract to get rid of waste for the East London Waste Authority(ELWA).
The Environment Agency said the shipment has been given the go-ahead because it is "refuse-derived fuel" or RDF that will go towards generating energy, rather than waste.
The 'RDF' is made up of the rubbish dumped in black bin bags around East London, including paper and plastic that could have been recycled. It will be used to power Amsterdam's district heating network.
Mark Ash, Operations Manager at ELA, insisted that as much waste as possible is collected for recycling and materials are also removed for re-use later on in the process.
While ELWA pay for the waste to be dealt with, he said the councils still have to pay a portion of landfill tax so any reduction in landfill is good for the taxpayer.
Wiltshire Council also have a contract that could see waste exported to Germany for burning.
But Dr Michael Warhurst of Friend of the Earth said sending rubbish to another country for burning in incinerators was a waste of money and fueling climate change.
He said burning plastic produced pollution and transporting the rubbish also increases greenhouse gases.
"It is one thing to export rubbish for recycling, it is another to just dump it in an incinerator in another country," he said.
"It is much better from a climate change or resource efficiency point of view to be taking more recycling. We should be recycling this material rather than just dumping it in an incinerator."
How green are Feed-in-Tariffs?
The Feed-in Tariff system promises to turn your house into an energy-generating hub. But does it deliver?
Lucy Siegle The Observer, Sunday 30 May 2010
In China it is illegal to be without a solar panel on a certain-sized home. It's the type of policy that works better in a totalitarian state, so here in Britain we are to be enticed to turn houses into energy-generating hubs courtesy of the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) system.
For every watt you generate you are paid a guaranteed sum – on a £12,500 photovoltaic (PV) solar panel system generating 2.5kW, this adds up to 41.3p per kWh generated. On top of that, you can export all unused energy back to the grid. Voilà – a house that generates power and income. Wall-mounted turbines in urban areas have been roundly rubbished as "eco bling" but still qualify under the FITs – be prepared for rigorous feasibility studies on wind speeds. You've got more chance in Orkney than Notting Hill.
It's not quite all systems go. Hydroelectric and anaerobic digestion also qualify, but the former only works if you happen to own the rights to a fast-flowing river nearby (with the requisite drop), and the latter if you keep livestock. For most of us, micro-generation means solar PV – so you need a south-facing, non-shaded roof. You also need a lot of cash for the initial outlay. Much-trumpeted loans by the previous government appear to have been put on ice, and George Monbiot suggests this is an indirect and expensive way of reducing a tiny amount of carbon emissions. Feed-in Tariffs will not save the planet.
Lucy Siegle The Observer, Sunday 30 May 2010
In China it is illegal to be without a solar panel on a certain-sized home. It's the type of policy that works better in a totalitarian state, so here in Britain we are to be enticed to turn houses into energy-generating hubs courtesy of the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) system.
For every watt you generate you are paid a guaranteed sum – on a £12,500 photovoltaic (PV) solar panel system generating 2.5kW, this adds up to 41.3p per kWh generated. On top of that, you can export all unused energy back to the grid. Voilà – a house that generates power and income. Wall-mounted turbines in urban areas have been roundly rubbished as "eco bling" but still qualify under the FITs – be prepared for rigorous feasibility studies on wind speeds. You've got more chance in Orkney than Notting Hill.
It's not quite all systems go. Hydroelectric and anaerobic digestion also qualify, but the former only works if you happen to own the rights to a fast-flowing river nearby (with the requisite drop), and the latter if you keep livestock. For most of us, micro-generation means solar PV – so you need a south-facing, non-shaded roof. You also need a lot of cash for the initial outlay. Much-trumpeted loans by the previous government appear to have been put on ice, and George Monbiot suggests this is an indirect and expensive way of reducing a tiny amount of carbon emissions. Feed-in Tariffs will not save the planet.
UK's first 'conservation credit' scheme launched
Sale of shares in £100m project to restore land at headwaters of Thames is first step in what could become a biobanking industry worth billions
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk, Friday 28 May 2010 12.06 BST
The first UK project allowing builders to buy "credits" in conservation schemes, to offset the damage they are doing elsewhere, has been launched.
Conservation credit – or biobanking – schemes have been trialled in the US, Australia and South Africa and experts believe the industry could become worth billions of pounds in Britain.
The initial step is the sale of shares in a £100m project to restore and reconnect fragmented wetlands, woodlands and grasslands around the headwaters of the river Thames in the west of England.
The shares are being sold by the Environment Bank, a company that helps deliver "mitigation and compensation schemes associated with planned development".
Although buying credits will be voluntary, the company said it expected developers would want to get involved. Investing in conservation would allow them to meet environmental standards attached to planning permission for development sites, without giving up as much land, and thus potential income.
The idea of conservation credits has received backing from the new prime minister, David Cameron, and it is expected to be supported by a report this summer for the UN on the costs and benefits of looking after ecosystems and biodiversity.
However, environment groups have a number of worries, including the possibility of developers paying for schemes which would have happened anyway. They also fear that public funds will be taken from conservation projects when private money is funnelled in and are concerned that the benefits of a specific conservation project should be at least equal to the loss of biodiversity on the development site.
Rob Gillespie, a town planner and the Environment Bank's managing director, said he and Professor David Hill, an ecologist and member of the government's wildlife and countryside agency Natural England, set up the company three years ago because they were dismayed by the poor quality of conservation work done as a result of current planning agreements, which are usually limited to small fragments of land.
"Nobody wants them, nobody wants to pay for them, they become loitering areas and, added together, they have no benefit," said Gillespie. "We started thinking this can't go on as it does: we have got to find a more credible way of balancing the impact of development with good-quality environmental mitigation ...
"Why not have conservation credits, landscape-scale, which deliver much more bangs for the bucks. Let the developers get on with what they are good at: they are not good at conservation."
He added: "We're not suggesting taking the brakes off the planning system. This is not a licence to trash."
The scheme in the west of England is the first launched by the company, which is working up a portfolio of other projects around the country, covering a variety of habitats. For the Thames scheme, the company is working with Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, and talking to other trusts in Gloucestershire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, as well as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust charity.
In response to the concern that public funding would dry up when private developers paid for schemes, Gillespie said there was already a risk that huge public spending cuts meant government money was likely to be axed anyway. "We may be stepping in to replace public sector finance," he said.
Developers of projects from housing to nuclear power stations or ports would be encouraged to invest in schemes in the same region as their business, so that local communities would be close to the benefits, said Gillespie.
He also said that the initiative was not intended to allow any relaxation in planning laws, such as proof that a development is needed and stronger protections for more important sites.
In the US, which is at the forefront of biobanking schemes, $3bn (£2.1bn) was raised for wetlands alone in 2008, said Hill.
When the Guardian first revealed the Conservative policy supporting biobanking last year, Hill said housebuilders had indicated they would be willing to pay about £5,000 per new home built if a scheme similar to the Tory proposals was up and running.
"Multiply that by 240,000 homes a year to be built: you suddenly realise the figures that could go into the natural environment go into the 100s of millions [of pounds]," he added.ends.
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk, Friday 28 May 2010 12.06 BST
The first UK project allowing builders to buy "credits" in conservation schemes, to offset the damage they are doing elsewhere, has been launched.
Conservation credit – or biobanking – schemes have been trialled in the US, Australia and South Africa and experts believe the industry could become worth billions of pounds in Britain.
The initial step is the sale of shares in a £100m project to restore and reconnect fragmented wetlands, woodlands and grasslands around the headwaters of the river Thames in the west of England.
The shares are being sold by the Environment Bank, a company that helps deliver "mitigation and compensation schemes associated with planned development".
Although buying credits will be voluntary, the company said it expected developers would want to get involved. Investing in conservation would allow them to meet environmental standards attached to planning permission for development sites, without giving up as much land, and thus potential income.
The idea of conservation credits has received backing from the new prime minister, David Cameron, and it is expected to be supported by a report this summer for the UN on the costs and benefits of looking after ecosystems and biodiversity.
However, environment groups have a number of worries, including the possibility of developers paying for schemes which would have happened anyway. They also fear that public funds will be taken from conservation projects when private money is funnelled in and are concerned that the benefits of a specific conservation project should be at least equal to the loss of biodiversity on the development site.
Rob Gillespie, a town planner and the Environment Bank's managing director, said he and Professor David Hill, an ecologist and member of the government's wildlife and countryside agency Natural England, set up the company three years ago because they were dismayed by the poor quality of conservation work done as a result of current planning agreements, which are usually limited to small fragments of land.
"Nobody wants them, nobody wants to pay for them, they become loitering areas and, added together, they have no benefit," said Gillespie. "We started thinking this can't go on as it does: we have got to find a more credible way of balancing the impact of development with good-quality environmental mitigation ...
"Why not have conservation credits, landscape-scale, which deliver much more bangs for the bucks. Let the developers get on with what they are good at: they are not good at conservation."
He added: "We're not suggesting taking the brakes off the planning system. This is not a licence to trash."
The scheme in the west of England is the first launched by the company, which is working up a portfolio of other projects around the country, covering a variety of habitats. For the Thames scheme, the company is working with Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, and talking to other trusts in Gloucestershire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, as well as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust charity.
In response to the concern that public funding would dry up when private developers paid for schemes, Gillespie said there was already a risk that huge public spending cuts meant government money was likely to be axed anyway. "We may be stepping in to replace public sector finance," he said.
Developers of projects from housing to nuclear power stations or ports would be encouraged to invest in schemes in the same region as their business, so that local communities would be close to the benefits, said Gillespie.
He also said that the initiative was not intended to allow any relaxation in planning laws, such as proof that a development is needed and stronger protections for more important sites.
In the US, which is at the forefront of biobanking schemes, $3bn (£2.1bn) was raised for wetlands alone in 2008, said Hill.
When the Guardian first revealed the Conservative policy supporting biobanking last year, Hill said housebuilders had indicated they would be willing to pay about £5,000 per new home built if a scheme similar to the Tory proposals was up and running.
"Multiply that by 240,000 homes a year to be built: you suddenly realise the figures that could go into the natural environment go into the 100s of millions [of pounds]," he added.ends.
Government's chief scientific adviser hits out at climate sceptics
Professor John Beddington dismisses 'unreasonable' comments from groups including Nigel Lawson's thinktank, as Royal Society responds to critics with new climate science guide
• UK Royal Society revives confusion as US concludes climate change certainty
James Randerson guardian.co.uk, Friday 28 May 2010 16.16 BST
The government's chief scientific adviser has hit out at climate sceptics who attack global warming science on spurious grounds.
The statements from Professor John Beddington appeared to be a veiled attack on the former Tory chancellor and arch climate sceptic Nigel Lawson.
Beddington said that he had met Lord Lawson to brief him about the science of global warming.
His comments came as the Royal Society announced that it would publish a new guide to climate science for the public following criticism of existing statements on the topic, reportedly from 43 of the society's 1,489 fellows.
"It has been suggested that the society holds the view that anyone challenging the consensus on climate change is malicious – this is ridiculous," said Professor Martin Rees, the society's president.
"Science is organised scepticism and the consensus must shift in light of the evidence.
"In the current environment we believe this new guide will be very timely. Lots of people are asking questions, indeed even within the fellowship of the society there are differing views."
In his first interview since the election, Beddington agreed that true scientific scepticism was healthy and must be encouraged but he criticised individuals and organisations that cherrypicked data for political ends.
"There is no doubt that there are organisations and individuals who will choose to characterise the science as being nonsensical on the basis of what are not reasonable criticisms," he said.
He highlighted the spurious argument that because the UK winter had been so cold, climate change science must be wrong.
Beddington said there was a difference between weather and climate. "The fact that we have had a very cold winter in Britain does not mean that the climate is not getting warmer," he said, adding that rejecting global warming on those grounds was wrong. "This is just not science. This is commentary," he said.
Lawson's thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has deployed similar arguments to downplay the significance of climate change.
Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who is the foundation's director, said in December last year: "We look out of the window and it's very cold, it doesn't seem to be warming."
Lawson has said that "global warming ... is not at the present time happening". Peiser has previously said the GWPF does not challenge climate science but concentrates on examining policy implications.
Beddington, who gave a public lecture on climate change at the University of York yesterday, was also highly critical of the mistakes made by the UN's climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which he called "fundamentally stupid statements".
Referring to the incorrect claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, he said: "Nobody in their right mind would see that as even a scientific statement. There's no uncertainty, there's no caveats." But he added that overall the IPCC report had a "remarkably small number of problems".
Beddington said that he had yet to have a formal meeting with David Cameron or Nick Clegg, but he said the coalition government faced a slew of scientific and engineering issues.
"Just about anywhere I look around the portfolio of government problems in any department, there are big issues of science and engineering including social science," he said.
He highlighted climate change, obesity, the volcanic ash cloud and vigilance to pandemic influenza as pressing problems for government to address.
He said he would advise Cameron to shield funding for scientific research from future spending cuts as far as possible.
"If you then think about how the UK as an economy is going to compete in the future, the underpinning of science and engineering having the best quality students, the best quality scientists and engineers is absolutely imperative."
When asked about the BP oil spill off the coast of Louisiana, Beddington said there would be lessons for the UK.
"I think we need to understand it," he said. "I think deep offshore [drilling] presents formidable engineering problems as you can see from the attempt to actually deal with it.
"I think that one will have to be asking questions about the appropriate levels of regulation that are operating in licensing deep offshore drilling in the North Sea."
• UK Royal Society revives confusion as US concludes climate change certainty
James Randerson guardian.co.uk, Friday 28 May 2010 16.16 BST
The government's chief scientific adviser has hit out at climate sceptics who attack global warming science on spurious grounds.
The statements from Professor John Beddington appeared to be a veiled attack on the former Tory chancellor and arch climate sceptic Nigel Lawson.
Beddington said that he had met Lord Lawson to brief him about the science of global warming.
His comments came as the Royal Society announced that it would publish a new guide to climate science for the public following criticism of existing statements on the topic, reportedly from 43 of the society's 1,489 fellows.
"It has been suggested that the society holds the view that anyone challenging the consensus on climate change is malicious – this is ridiculous," said Professor Martin Rees, the society's president.
"Science is organised scepticism and the consensus must shift in light of the evidence.
"In the current environment we believe this new guide will be very timely. Lots of people are asking questions, indeed even within the fellowship of the society there are differing views."
In his first interview since the election, Beddington agreed that true scientific scepticism was healthy and must be encouraged but he criticised individuals and organisations that cherrypicked data for political ends.
"There is no doubt that there are organisations and individuals who will choose to characterise the science as being nonsensical on the basis of what are not reasonable criticisms," he said.
He highlighted the spurious argument that because the UK winter had been so cold, climate change science must be wrong.
Beddington said there was a difference between weather and climate. "The fact that we have had a very cold winter in Britain does not mean that the climate is not getting warmer," he said, adding that rejecting global warming on those grounds was wrong. "This is just not science. This is commentary," he said.
Lawson's thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has deployed similar arguments to downplay the significance of climate change.
Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who is the foundation's director, said in December last year: "We look out of the window and it's very cold, it doesn't seem to be warming."
Lawson has said that "global warming ... is not at the present time happening". Peiser has previously said the GWPF does not challenge climate science but concentrates on examining policy implications.
Beddington, who gave a public lecture on climate change at the University of York yesterday, was also highly critical of the mistakes made by the UN's climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which he called "fundamentally stupid statements".
Referring to the incorrect claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, he said: "Nobody in their right mind would see that as even a scientific statement. There's no uncertainty, there's no caveats." But he added that overall the IPCC report had a "remarkably small number of problems".
Beddington said that he had yet to have a formal meeting with David Cameron or Nick Clegg, but he said the coalition government faced a slew of scientific and engineering issues.
"Just about anywhere I look around the portfolio of government problems in any department, there are big issues of science and engineering including social science," he said.
He highlighted climate change, obesity, the volcanic ash cloud and vigilance to pandemic influenza as pressing problems for government to address.
He said he would advise Cameron to shield funding for scientific research from future spending cuts as far as possible.
"If you then think about how the UK as an economy is going to compete in the future, the underpinning of science and engineering having the best quality students, the best quality scientists and engineers is absolutely imperative."
When asked about the BP oil spill off the coast of Louisiana, Beddington said there would be lessons for the UK.
"I think we need to understand it," he said. "I think deep offshore [drilling] presents formidable engineering problems as you can see from the attempt to actually deal with it.
"I think that one will have to be asking questions about the appropriate levels of regulation that are operating in licensing deep offshore drilling in the North Sea."