Dwindle, Finds Frost & Sullivan
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. July 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Prospects for the hydro, wave, and tidal power market look upbeat as countries are investing in renewable energy sources to augment energy security. It is estimated that the worldwide wave resources is 6,000 TWh/year, twice as much as global nuclear production and 700 TWh/year for tidal power. In other words, the market potential for the wave industry is about $1 trillion worldwide.
New analysis from Frost & Sullivan (http://www.technicalinsights.frost.com), Hydro, Wave, and Tidal Power--Market Penetration and Roadmapping, finds that ocean (wave and tidal) technology is much more reliable and predictable than other kinds of renewable energies, such as wind or solar. Coupled with vast worldwide resources (2,000 TWh to 4,000 TWh yearly), ocean energy may be the key to answer the world's escalating energy needs.
If you are interested in a virtual brochure for this study, please send an e-mail to Sarah Saatzer, Corporate Communications, at sarah.saatzer@frost.com, with your full name, company name, job title, telephone number, company e-mail address, company website, city, state and country.
"It is projected that commercialization of wave and tidal energy will take place in the next 5-10 years as the technology evolves and production costs decline," notes Technical Insights Research Associate Chin Wai Loon. "Wave and tidal energy are expected to be deployed on a commercial scale due to its large promising resource and high market potential; it is crucial for technology developers to push through into the commercialization phase."
The future of wave and tidal energy depends heavily on financial funding from public, private, and government entities. Deployment of wave and tidal technology will not be easily achievable due to large initial installation cost. The United Kingdom has provided 8 million pounds Sterling for the European Marine Energy Research Centre (EMEC). This research centre will serve as a testing facility for technology developers to create their devices.
In another example, the UK Government has set up 22 million pounds Sterling funding to offset the large capital cost during the installation stage. Marine Current Turbines is another instance, raising sufficient funding to commercialize its 5-MW SeaGen technology. According to Alvin Smith, CEO of Dartmouth Wave Energy Ltd, the current cost for wave energy is estimated to be 2 million pounds Sterling per MW.
Apart from this, the policies and regulations set by the government and the lack of awareness on the potential of wave and tidal resources are stalling market momentum. The extremely harsh weather conditions of the ocean require the technology to be very robust. Pelamis Wave Power has halted its 2.5 MW wave farm in Portugal indefinitely. The reason cited for this is water leakage, which has severely affected their buoyancy device. Apart from this, the company is short on funds due to the recent economic recession.
"To ensure productive outcomes in this space, participants must accelerate their R&D efforts, conduct more sea trials, and reduce overall material usage," says Chin. "Participants must secure more funding from public, private and government sectors by developing prototypes for demonstrations or trial purposes."
By securing ample financial assistance, large-scale devices can be developed to generate more electricity (MW range) instead of prototype scale (kW range). Case in point, Pelamis Wave Power has managed to secure 4.8 million pounds Sterling funding from the UK Government's Marine Renewable Proving Fund (MRPF).
Technology developers could collaborate with each other to accelerate the commercialization phase, while reducing the overall cost. Joint ventures between companies and governments will serve to boost future development in marine renewable energies. Seabased AB, one of the key participants in the wave industry, has collaborated with Fortum Kellaniem to develop the largest wave farm in Sweden, capable of generating 10 MW capacity. Collaborations will not only ratchet down costs, but also help to compete with other renewable technologies, such as solar, hydro, and wind.
Hydro, Wave, and Tidal Power--Market Penetration and Roadmapping, a part of the Technical Insights subscription, provides an in-depth analysis of market drivers and restraints, industry structure, and competitive environment besides dealing with the challenges and issues faced by market participants. Further, this research service includes detailed technology analysis and industry trends evaluated following extensive interviews with market participants.
Technical Insights is an international technology analysis business that produces a variety of technical news alerts, newsletters, and research services.
Friday, 2 July 2010
China starts building 1st carbon capture project
China, the world's second-biggest energy user, started construction of its first carbon dioxide capture and storage project in Ordos in Inner Mongolia to reduce emissions.
The project will cost 210 million yuan ($30.9 million) and will be able to hold 100,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, China National Petroleum Corp, the country's biggest oil producer and the plant's designer, said in a statement on its website today. The facility will start operations by the end of the year, it said.
China, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, pledged to reduce carbon dioxide it emits for each unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels. Carbon dioxide capture and storage, or CCS, is a process whereby CO2 is captured from gases produced by fossil fuel combustion, compressed, transported and injected into deep geologic formations for permanent storage, according to the International Energy Agency.
The plant's annual capacity will be expanded to 1 million tons and 3 million tons in two phases in the future, according to the statement, which didn't give a time frame.
The plant is built on the site of a coal-to-liquid project constructed by Shenhua Group Corp, the nation's largest coal producer, it said.
The project will cost 210 million yuan ($30.9 million) and will be able to hold 100,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, China National Petroleum Corp, the country's biggest oil producer and the plant's designer, said in a statement on its website today. The facility will start operations by the end of the year, it said.
China, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, pledged to reduce carbon dioxide it emits for each unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels. Carbon dioxide capture and storage, or CCS, is a process whereby CO2 is captured from gases produced by fossil fuel combustion, compressed, transported and injected into deep geologic formations for permanent storage, according to the International Energy Agency.
The plant's annual capacity will be expanded to 1 million tons and 3 million tons in two phases in the future, according to the statement, which didn't give a time frame.
The plant is built on the site of a coal-to-liquid project constructed by Shenhua Group Corp, the nation's largest coal producer, it said.
The age of ethanol
A dysfunctional system may become more so
Jul 1st 2010 | Chicago
Green gold.“AMERICA’S sensible fuel,” reads a TV advertisement, while a soothing melody plays in the background. Other ads tout a fuel that promotes peace and is economical, home-produced, clean and renewable. So what is this magic potion? Ethanol, of course. Growth Energy, a lobby group, is spending $2.5m on America’s first national television campaign for the stuff. “No beaches have been closed due to ethanol spills,” one ad notes. Growth Energy planned the campaign before the BP disaster, but the push could hardly be better timed.
After the oil spill Barack Obama declared that “the time to embrace a clean energy future is now.” Biofuels will be part of that future. However, most policymakers agree that the industry must move beyond corn ethanol, which is less efficient than the sugar-derived stuff and pushes food prices upwards. The new Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2), which took effect on July 1st, limits conventional ethanol to 15 billion gallons of the annual 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel that must be used for transport by 2022, and the administration has just announced extra funding for algae-based biofuels (see article). But with a viable new biofuel yet to emerge, lobbyists are still pushing to support the old one.
Corn ethanol should not be maligned, argues Tom Buis of Growth Energy. While next-generation biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, are struggling to come of age, corn ethanol is well-established. Between 2000 and 2008 it shot from 1% to 7% of America’s fuel supply. Regulators have given ethanol a few recent boosts. In February the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that ethanol emits 20% less greenhouse gas than petrol. In June the agriculture department noted that ethanol plants have become more efficient.
But the industry wants more. Production will soon hit the “blend wall”, when ethanol will meet 10% of fuel demand; the EPA allows blends of up to 10% ethanol (more might corrode engines). The industry wants the EPA to raise that cap to 15%, though in June the agency delayed a ruling.
In the meantime, ethanol’s advocates want to extend their existing perks and add others. A tariff on ethanol imports and a tax credit for blenders are due to expire in December—these should be renewed, lobbyists insist. The government should also require most new cars to be flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs), able to use blends of up to 85% ethanol. And petrol stations should be required to install pumps that blend petrol with ethanol.
Ethanol’s advocates say that such measures will bridge the gap between today’s biofuel and those of the future. FFVs and a higher blend limit, for example, would help grain ethanol expand but would also open the market for cellulosic fuel. In the meantime, corn ethanol continues to enjoy its subsidies. Between 2005 and 2009 the tax credit for blending petrol with ethanol cost $17 billion. This year it will cost some $5.4 billion. Surely the money could be better spent somewhere else.
Jul 1st 2010 | Chicago
Green gold.“AMERICA’S sensible fuel,” reads a TV advertisement, while a soothing melody plays in the background. Other ads tout a fuel that promotes peace and is economical, home-produced, clean and renewable. So what is this magic potion? Ethanol, of course. Growth Energy, a lobby group, is spending $2.5m on America’s first national television campaign for the stuff. “No beaches have been closed due to ethanol spills,” one ad notes. Growth Energy planned the campaign before the BP disaster, but the push could hardly be better timed.
After the oil spill Barack Obama declared that “the time to embrace a clean energy future is now.” Biofuels will be part of that future. However, most policymakers agree that the industry must move beyond corn ethanol, which is less efficient than the sugar-derived stuff and pushes food prices upwards. The new Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2), which took effect on July 1st, limits conventional ethanol to 15 billion gallons of the annual 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel that must be used for transport by 2022, and the administration has just announced extra funding for algae-based biofuels (see article). But with a viable new biofuel yet to emerge, lobbyists are still pushing to support the old one.
Corn ethanol should not be maligned, argues Tom Buis of Growth Energy. While next-generation biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, are struggling to come of age, corn ethanol is well-established. Between 2000 and 2008 it shot from 1% to 7% of America’s fuel supply. Regulators have given ethanol a few recent boosts. In February the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that ethanol emits 20% less greenhouse gas than petrol. In June the agriculture department noted that ethanol plants have become more efficient.
But the industry wants more. Production will soon hit the “blend wall”, when ethanol will meet 10% of fuel demand; the EPA allows blends of up to 10% ethanol (more might corrode engines). The industry wants the EPA to raise that cap to 15%, though in June the agency delayed a ruling.
In the meantime, ethanol’s advocates want to extend their existing perks and add others. A tariff on ethanol imports and a tax credit for blenders are due to expire in December—these should be renewed, lobbyists insist. The government should also require most new cars to be flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs), able to use blends of up to 85% ethanol. And petrol stations should be required to install pumps that blend petrol with ethanol.
Ethanol’s advocates say that such measures will bridge the gap between today’s biofuel and those of the future. FFVs and a higher blend limit, for example, would help grain ethanol expand but would also open the market for cellulosic fuel. In the meantime, corn ethanol continues to enjoy its subsidies. Between 2005 and 2009 the tax credit for blending petrol with ethanol cost $17 billion. This year it will cost some $5.4 billion. Surely the money could be better spent somewhere else.
New Study Predicts Yield for Biofuel Jatropha
July 1, 2010 An article in the current issue of Global Change Biology Bioenergy predicts the yield of the biofuel crop, Jatropha curcas L., for present and future climates.
Researchers related reproductive potential with the natural occurrence of Jatropha, with biogeographic modeling and ecological principles. This model allowed them to estimate yield response to climate factors and map worldwide productivity for present and future climates.
They used a novel fitness-based modeling approach because agroclimatic and physiological data on Jatropha is limited.
In their article, "Global mapping of Jatropha curcas yield based on response of fitness to present and future climate," Antonio Trabucco and colleagues point out that Jatropha grows in a wide range of climatic conditions, including tropical and subtropical areas with limited suitability for intensive cropping.
Jatropha requires higher annual precipitation to achieve significant biofuel production than previously thought. In addition, the study shows that climate changes over the next decade will lead to decreased yields in zones with reduced precipitation and increased yields in regions with reduced frost risks.
More information: “Global mapping of Jatropha curcas yield based on response of fitness to present and future climate”, Global Change Bioenergy, Wiley-Blackwell, June 2010, DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01049.x
Researchers related reproductive potential with the natural occurrence of Jatropha, with biogeographic modeling and ecological principles. This model allowed them to estimate yield response to climate factors and map worldwide productivity for present and future climates.
They used a novel fitness-based modeling approach because agroclimatic and physiological data on Jatropha is limited.
In their article, "Global mapping of Jatropha curcas yield based on response of fitness to present and future climate," Antonio Trabucco and colleagues point out that Jatropha grows in a wide range of climatic conditions, including tropical and subtropical areas with limited suitability for intensive cropping.
Jatropha requires higher annual precipitation to achieve significant biofuel production than previously thought. In addition, the study shows that climate changes over the next decade will lead to decreased yields in zones with reduced precipitation and increased yields in regions with reduced frost risks.
More information: “Global mapping of Jatropha curcas yield based on response of fitness to present and future climate”, Global Change Bioenergy, Wiley-Blackwell, June 2010, DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01049.x
The EU's response to global warming is a costly mistake
Europe's 20/20/20 policy will cost billions of pounds, but yield only tiny results, writes Bjorn Lomborg .
By Bjorn Lomborg
Published: 8:19AM BST 02 Jul 2010
European leaders have a lot to deal with. The financial crisis has prompted several national stimulus packages and a joint effort to keep Greece afloat, while the EU is in danger of being outstripped by other economies that are growing faster, producing more efficiently and at lower costs.
One bright spot is that politicians remain committed to responding to global warming. Unfortunately, their plans do not withstand scrutiny. New research shows that the EU's "20/20/20" policy, which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 (and ensure 20 per cent renewable energy), will cost hundreds of billions of euros but yield only tiny benefits. The UK alone will be hit to the tune of an annual 35 billion euros (£28 billion).
Man-made global warming will continue for 1,000 years whatever we do nowAs a cost-benefit analysis by the climate-change economist Richard Tol shows, any single regional carbon-reduction scheme will have a very small effect on emissions and temperature rises across the globe. That's not an argument against ever implementing one: but it means that it's crucial that the numbers stack up.
The EU recently stated that it would cost £39 billion a year to meet its emissions target. That figure is implausibly optimistic. Averaging out the best-regarded economic models shows that, even if politicians got their policies exactly right, the cost would come to at least £90 billion a year.
And Europe has not got it exactly right. Instead, it has made things worse, by introducing additional red tape, complication and constraints – in particular, that 20 per cent renewable-energy target. This is expensive because popular "green" energy sources such as wind and solar power cost more than replacing coal with gas. As a result, the real cost of EU policy is likely to be as much as £170 billion.
In his study for the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, Tol assessed the net economic benefits of this policy. Using the conventional estimate that one ton of carbon dioxide is likely to cause about $7 (£4.50) of damage, he found that the total benefit of the EU policy was just £5.7 billion. In other words, every euro spent is likely to generate just three cents' worth of benefits. My research shows that by the end of this century, the EU's approach will reduce temperature rises by approximately 0.05C – almost too small to measure.
The tragedy is that the EU could do much better for the world, and for itself. For far less than £8 billion a year the EU could halve the incidence of malaria, provide micronutrients (particularly vitamin A and zinc) to 80 per cent of the world's undernourished children and prevent a million deaths from TB.
EU leaders should not abandon the fight against climate change. But instead of wasting vast sums on a pointless policy, they should invest in developing green-energy alternatives. The reason it costs so much to reduce carbon emissions is that the green alternatives aren't close to being ready to replace oil and other fossil fuels. Change this, by investing in R& D, and the global impasse over climate change disappears. If we had affordable green-energy sources, everyone – including China and India – would buy them, and long-term emissions would drop significantly.
What Europe must not do is continue to barrel down a path that makes no economic sense. Yet it seems committed to its reckless course. The European Commission wants to toughen the carbon-reduction target to 30 per cent below 1990 levels – which Tol calculates would cost roughly £370 billion a year, twice as much as the existing plans. The effect, over the next 90 years, would be to reduce temperatures by an additional one-hundredth of a degree.
Expensive, poorly conceived carbon-emission plans such as the EU's will cause major economic damage and political strife, while doing little to slow global warming. Europe must change course.
Bjorn Lomborg is the author of 'Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming' (Marshall Cavendish).
By Bjorn Lomborg
Published: 8:19AM BST 02 Jul 2010
European leaders have a lot to deal with. The financial crisis has prompted several national stimulus packages and a joint effort to keep Greece afloat, while the EU is in danger of being outstripped by other economies that are growing faster, producing more efficiently and at lower costs.
One bright spot is that politicians remain committed to responding to global warming. Unfortunately, their plans do not withstand scrutiny. New research shows that the EU's "20/20/20" policy, which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 (and ensure 20 per cent renewable energy), will cost hundreds of billions of euros but yield only tiny benefits. The UK alone will be hit to the tune of an annual 35 billion euros (£28 billion).
Man-made global warming will continue for 1,000 years whatever we do nowAs a cost-benefit analysis by the climate-change economist Richard Tol shows, any single regional carbon-reduction scheme will have a very small effect on emissions and temperature rises across the globe. That's not an argument against ever implementing one: but it means that it's crucial that the numbers stack up.
The EU recently stated that it would cost £39 billion a year to meet its emissions target. That figure is implausibly optimistic. Averaging out the best-regarded economic models shows that, even if politicians got their policies exactly right, the cost would come to at least £90 billion a year.
And Europe has not got it exactly right. Instead, it has made things worse, by introducing additional red tape, complication and constraints – in particular, that 20 per cent renewable-energy target. This is expensive because popular "green" energy sources such as wind and solar power cost more than replacing coal with gas. As a result, the real cost of EU policy is likely to be as much as £170 billion.
In his study for the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, Tol assessed the net economic benefits of this policy. Using the conventional estimate that one ton of carbon dioxide is likely to cause about $7 (£4.50) of damage, he found that the total benefit of the EU policy was just £5.7 billion. In other words, every euro spent is likely to generate just three cents' worth of benefits. My research shows that by the end of this century, the EU's approach will reduce temperature rises by approximately 0.05C – almost too small to measure.
The tragedy is that the EU could do much better for the world, and for itself. For far less than £8 billion a year the EU could halve the incidence of malaria, provide micronutrients (particularly vitamin A and zinc) to 80 per cent of the world's undernourished children and prevent a million deaths from TB.
EU leaders should not abandon the fight against climate change. But instead of wasting vast sums on a pointless policy, they should invest in developing green-energy alternatives. The reason it costs so much to reduce carbon emissions is that the green alternatives aren't close to being ready to replace oil and other fossil fuels. Change this, by investing in R& D, and the global impasse over climate change disappears. If we had affordable green-energy sources, everyone – including China and India – would buy them, and long-term emissions would drop significantly.
What Europe must not do is continue to barrel down a path that makes no economic sense. Yet it seems committed to its reckless course. The European Commission wants to toughen the carbon-reduction target to 30 per cent below 1990 levels – which Tol calculates would cost roughly £370 billion a year, twice as much as the existing plans. The effect, over the next 90 years, would be to reduce temperatures by an additional one-hundredth of a degree.
Expensive, poorly conceived carbon-emission plans such as the EU's will cause major economic damage and political strife, while doing little to slow global warming. Europe must change course.
Bjorn Lomborg is the author of 'Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming' (Marshall Cavendish).
UK government blocking green car take-up, say electric vehicle makers
Vince Cable fails to confirm green car subsidy status as climate advisers say electric vehicles are key to hitting carbon targets
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 July 2010 13.01 BST
Electric carmakers warned the government that it was jeopardising the switch to green cars that experts believe is vital to meet the UK's climate change targets.
The warning came after the business secretary, Vince Cable, failed to confirm the fate of the former Labour government's pledge to subsidise new electric cars by up to £5,000. On the same day, the government's climate change advisers said such vehicles were one of four key areas of focus for the UK to hit legally binding carbon budgets.
In a letter to be sent to Cable and the transport secretary, Philip Hammond, Citroën, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot and Renault write that "without the incentives, the UK will become a significantly less attractive market".
It says: "As businesses, we will target the markets that provide the best environment for selling our vehicles. The emergency budget made no specific reference to supporting low-carbon vehicle incentives and has therefore left our businesses uncertain of the government's position."
The companies, which all plan to launch mass-market electric cars in the UK next year, said the vehicles were of "critical importance" to the growth of new green jobs. The climate and energy secretary, Chris Huhne, has said such posts are central to government job-creation plans.
Cutting the grant would hit Nissan's electric Leaf, which from 2013 will be built at the company's Sunderland plant, where about 4,000 people employed. The "plug-in car grant" was due to come into effect on 1 January 2011.
Cable refused to confirm whether the incentive scheme would be delayed, reduced or cancelled. "We are looking at that. It is not a simple decision," he told the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
In response to the letter, the Department for Transport said: "We are committed to supporting new transport technologies to help make our transport system greener and more sustainable. Electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles are currently supported through the taxation system." It declined to comment on a timescale for the announcement.
Mitsubishi's electric car – on which Peugeot and Citroën are basing their electric designs – missed out on a prestigious green car award today. Toyota, whose Prius hybrid is already the world's best-selling green car, beat off Mitsubishi's i-MiEV to win an environmental accolade for its newest hybrid.
The Auris, which is the first mass-produced full hybrid to be built in Europe, was voted the best green car of the year – just four days after the first production model rolled off the line in Burnaston, Derbyshire. Beating a shortlist of nine fuel-efficient rivals, the small family car won the What Green Car of the Year award after being praised by judges for carbon emissions 10% lower than its two closest competitors, minimal impact on local air pollution and a smooth driving experience. Toyota also won the award last year with its third-generation Prius.
Runners-up in the awards included the Seat Leon 1.6 CR TDI 105PS Ecomotive, singled out as an affordable diesel car that is likely to be congestion charge-exempt after the London mayor, Boris Johnson, implements new emissions rules this year. Judges also commended the powerful yet efficient BMW 3 Series 320d and a low-emission Citroën DS3 1.6HDi, which was judged to have a chic design that could win over potential Mini buyers.
Sian Berry, one of the judges and a former Green party candidate for London mayor and founder of the sustainable transport group We Are Futureproof, said: "These are the greenest 'normal' cars available in the UK. It's very important that people buy greener cars – if we're going to have cars, we have to be shifting ones that are cleaner as quickly as possible. In the past, car manufacturers dragged their heels and lobbied governments ... and emissions were going up. Now they're shooting down because of legislation, the recession and because the manufacturers are competing with one another on efficiency."
The What Green Car awards are now in their third year and claim to be the most scientifically based awards, taking into account in-depth emissions data, including the amount of energy required to build the car.
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 July 2010 13.01 BST
Electric carmakers warned the government that it was jeopardising the switch to green cars that experts believe is vital to meet the UK's climate change targets.
The warning came after the business secretary, Vince Cable, failed to confirm the fate of the former Labour government's pledge to subsidise new electric cars by up to £5,000. On the same day, the government's climate change advisers said such vehicles were one of four key areas of focus for the UK to hit legally binding carbon budgets.
In a letter to be sent to Cable and the transport secretary, Philip Hammond, Citroën, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot and Renault write that "without the incentives, the UK will become a significantly less attractive market".
It says: "As businesses, we will target the markets that provide the best environment for selling our vehicles. The emergency budget made no specific reference to supporting low-carbon vehicle incentives and has therefore left our businesses uncertain of the government's position."
The companies, which all plan to launch mass-market electric cars in the UK next year, said the vehicles were of "critical importance" to the growth of new green jobs. The climate and energy secretary, Chris Huhne, has said such posts are central to government job-creation plans.
Cutting the grant would hit Nissan's electric Leaf, which from 2013 will be built at the company's Sunderland plant, where about 4,000 people employed. The "plug-in car grant" was due to come into effect on 1 January 2011.
Cable refused to confirm whether the incentive scheme would be delayed, reduced or cancelled. "We are looking at that. It is not a simple decision," he told the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
In response to the letter, the Department for Transport said: "We are committed to supporting new transport technologies to help make our transport system greener and more sustainable. Electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles are currently supported through the taxation system." It declined to comment on a timescale for the announcement.
Mitsubishi's electric car – on which Peugeot and Citroën are basing their electric designs – missed out on a prestigious green car award today. Toyota, whose Prius hybrid is already the world's best-selling green car, beat off Mitsubishi's i-MiEV to win an environmental accolade for its newest hybrid.
The Auris, which is the first mass-produced full hybrid to be built in Europe, was voted the best green car of the year – just four days after the first production model rolled off the line in Burnaston, Derbyshire. Beating a shortlist of nine fuel-efficient rivals, the small family car won the What Green Car of the Year award after being praised by judges for carbon emissions 10% lower than its two closest competitors, minimal impact on local air pollution and a smooth driving experience. Toyota also won the award last year with its third-generation Prius.
Runners-up in the awards included the Seat Leon 1.6 CR TDI 105PS Ecomotive, singled out as an affordable diesel car that is likely to be congestion charge-exempt after the London mayor, Boris Johnson, implements new emissions rules this year. Judges also commended the powerful yet efficient BMW 3 Series 320d and a low-emission Citroën DS3 1.6HDi, which was judged to have a chic design that could win over potential Mini buyers.
Sian Berry, one of the judges and a former Green party candidate for London mayor and founder of the sustainable transport group We Are Futureproof, said: "These are the greenest 'normal' cars available in the UK. It's very important that people buy greener cars – if we're going to have cars, we have to be shifting ones that are cleaner as quickly as possible. In the past, car manufacturers dragged their heels and lobbied governments ... and emissions were going up. Now they're shooting down because of legislation, the recession and because the manufacturers are competing with one another on efficiency."
The What Green Car awards are now in their third year and claim to be the most scientifically based awards, taking into account in-depth emissions data, including the amount of energy required to build the car.
Network Rail study to assess impact of climate change
Thousands of miles of railway track to be examined for ability to withstand storms, flooding and heatwaves
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 July 2010 18.53 BST
Potential safety threats to thousands of miles of railway from extreme storms, floods and heatwaves as the impact of climate change worsens are being investigated by railway engineers and meteorologists.
A study by Network Rail will look at exposed coastal tracks, embankments and thousands of bridges to see whether they can withstand the increase in extreme weather events that climatologists have predicted over coming decades.
The UK-wide investigation will cost £750,000 but railway executives believe that implementing its expected recommendations could save the industry £1bn over the next 30 years by improving safety and preventing emergencies.
The climate change adaptation programme, commissioned by the rail industry safety board (RSSB) follows the intense storm that flooded the south coast line bordering the sea at Dawlish in Devon in 2004, and a series of problems with buckled rails during heatwaves.
At Dawlish, the waves breached a sea wall designed to withstand a severe "one in a hundred years" storm. An official investigation predicted that by 2080 these very severe storms could occur as often as once every 14 years, with the incidence of waves breaking over the sea wall increasing by at least 6,000% by then, raising serious doubts about the line's future.
John Dora, Network Rail's principal engineer for climate change, said the review was designed to identify "what we can do in the long term to make the rail network more robust".
The project will look at 150 miles of vulnerable coastal lines. It will study the risk of flooding and landslides for about 9,000 miles of cuttings and embankments alongside lines, and the ability of 4,500 bridges that span rivers and estuaries to withstand floods.
Network Rail engineers believe as many as 10% of those bridges may need strengthening. Much of the rail network is Victorian, and tracks were laid alongside rivers and coasts, and built through cuttings and on earthworks, because early locomotives needed the lowest gradients possible.
The potential threat was underlined by last November's Cumbrian floods, when six road bridges around Cockermouth collapsed – in one case, killing a policeman. Last month, 60 train passengers narrowly escaped serious injury after a rock fall derailed a train near Oban, in Scotland.
More intense and frequent heatwaves increase the threat of lines buckling, leading to cancellations and disrupting maintenance schedules, while high winds can affect overhead power lines. Storms also increase the risks of debris blowing on to tracks or damaging power lines.
Industry executives say climate change and rising fuel prices will present the rail network with a paradox: passenger numbers and services are expected to increase sharply as travellers switch from using cars and short-haul flights. Yet, at the same time, the risks of climate-related disruptions are expected to increase.
Network Rail stresses that the UK's rail system is already robust, and has been "future-proofed" to cope with current weather conditions. After an earlier programme to investigate flood risks, the company is spending £160m on improving drainage systems and has been fitting higher-standard rails able to cope with warmer temperatures.
The new review will involve designing modelling tools with the Met Office to predict what severe weather events might take place and which lines are most at risk. New flood maps will be produced using laser-based technology.
Dora said Network Rail had been re-examining all its embankments and slopes since 2000, adding that it was difficult to predict how much the extra remedial work might cost until the review was completed. The final report is expected in February or March next year.
"Erosion around the coast is a problem, sea level rise is a problem and increased storminess with waves crashing over the coast can be a problem. With many things like that there are technical, engineering solutions that can be put in place which can mitigate against them," he said.
"The railway is very good at learning from history and very good at prioritising, and with the technology out there just now in research, and looking at innovation, I personally see the railway becoming very smart at targeting its activity at these high-risk areas."
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 July 2010 18.53 BST
Potential safety threats to thousands of miles of railway from extreme storms, floods and heatwaves as the impact of climate change worsens are being investigated by railway engineers and meteorologists.
A study by Network Rail will look at exposed coastal tracks, embankments and thousands of bridges to see whether they can withstand the increase in extreme weather events that climatologists have predicted over coming decades.
The UK-wide investigation will cost £750,000 but railway executives believe that implementing its expected recommendations could save the industry £1bn over the next 30 years by improving safety and preventing emergencies.
The climate change adaptation programme, commissioned by the rail industry safety board (RSSB) follows the intense storm that flooded the south coast line bordering the sea at Dawlish in Devon in 2004, and a series of problems with buckled rails during heatwaves.
At Dawlish, the waves breached a sea wall designed to withstand a severe "one in a hundred years" storm. An official investigation predicted that by 2080 these very severe storms could occur as often as once every 14 years, with the incidence of waves breaking over the sea wall increasing by at least 6,000% by then, raising serious doubts about the line's future.
John Dora, Network Rail's principal engineer for climate change, said the review was designed to identify "what we can do in the long term to make the rail network more robust".
The project will look at 150 miles of vulnerable coastal lines. It will study the risk of flooding and landslides for about 9,000 miles of cuttings and embankments alongside lines, and the ability of 4,500 bridges that span rivers and estuaries to withstand floods.
Network Rail engineers believe as many as 10% of those bridges may need strengthening. Much of the rail network is Victorian, and tracks were laid alongside rivers and coasts, and built through cuttings and on earthworks, because early locomotives needed the lowest gradients possible.
The potential threat was underlined by last November's Cumbrian floods, when six road bridges around Cockermouth collapsed – in one case, killing a policeman. Last month, 60 train passengers narrowly escaped serious injury after a rock fall derailed a train near Oban, in Scotland.
More intense and frequent heatwaves increase the threat of lines buckling, leading to cancellations and disrupting maintenance schedules, while high winds can affect overhead power lines. Storms also increase the risks of debris blowing on to tracks or damaging power lines.
Industry executives say climate change and rising fuel prices will present the rail network with a paradox: passenger numbers and services are expected to increase sharply as travellers switch from using cars and short-haul flights. Yet, at the same time, the risks of climate-related disruptions are expected to increase.
Network Rail stresses that the UK's rail system is already robust, and has been "future-proofed" to cope with current weather conditions. After an earlier programme to investigate flood risks, the company is spending £160m on improving drainage systems and has been fitting higher-standard rails able to cope with warmer temperatures.
The new review will involve designing modelling tools with the Met Office to predict what severe weather events might take place and which lines are most at risk. New flood maps will be produced using laser-based technology.
Dora said Network Rail had been re-examining all its embankments and slopes since 2000, adding that it was difficult to predict how much the extra remedial work might cost until the review was completed. The final report is expected in February or March next year.
"Erosion around the coast is a problem, sea level rise is a problem and increased storminess with waves crashing over the coast can be a problem. With many things like that there are technical, engineering solutions that can be put in place which can mitigate against them," he said.
"The railway is very good at learning from history and very good at prioritising, and with the technology out there just now in research, and looking at innovation, I personally see the railway becoming very smart at targeting its activity at these high-risk areas."
Global carbon emissions steady for first time since 1992
Drop in rich countries' emissions caused by recession in 2009 was nullified by steep increases from China and India
John Vidal, environment editor guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 July 2010 16.02 BST
Greenhouse gas emissions from rich countries fell a record 7% in 2009 because of the recession, but the cut was entirely nullified by steep increases from fast-growing China and India, according to one of Europe's leading scientific research groups.
Overall, this meant annual global climate emissions remained steady for the first time since 1992, says the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency which drew on energy-use data from the US government, the EU, BP energy data, the cement industry, and elsewhere.
But the Dutch government-funded agency, which in 2007 was the first to correctly identify that China had overtaken the US as the world's greatest greenhouse gas polluter, warned that the figures did not mean that rich countries had cleaned up their act.
"A large part of production capacity has been suspended, but this could be re-employed as soon as the economy improves. It is likely that a recovering economy would cause emission levels in industrialised countries to go up. Nevertheless, the economic downturn has meant that these countries can meet their reduction obligations with more ease," said NEAA spokeswoman Anneke Oosterhuis.
"Another consequence of this downturn is that some industrialised countries may need to purchase fewer emission rights from reduction projects in developing countries, which, in turn, means that there will be less money available for emission reductions in those developing countries," said Oosterhuis.
The figures will come as a relief to the world's rich countries which – the US aside – are legally committed to reducing emissions by a collective 5.2% on 1990 figures by 2012. As it stands, says the Dutch agency, they are now 10% below 1990 levels, well below the Kyoto target level.
The research also shows that China and India's average CO2 emissions per inhabitant are still well below those in industrialised countries. In India the emissions are now 1.4 tonnes per person and in China 6 tonnes, compared with 10 tonnes per person in the Netherlands and 17 tonnes in the United States.
China's 9% growth in emissions came despite its doubling of wind and solar energy capacity for the fifth year in a row.
The report highlights the rapid growth in global emissions in the past 40 years. They are now 25% higher than in 2000, almost 40% more than in 1990, and double 1970's figure of 15.5bn tonnes. The big growth in Chinese and Indian emissions has been relatively recent. China has doubled its emissions in nine years, and India's have risen by 50% in that time.
But the recession has not hit all industrial countries uniformly. Russia (-11%) and Japan (-9%) have contracted their energy use the most, but the US – which is by far the most profligate power user in the world – reduced its emissions by nearly 500m tonnes in 2009. Other developing countries changed little in 2009. Emissions rose in Iran, Indonesia and South Korea but fell in Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Taiwan.
2009 was a good year for renewable energy. Global wind power capacity grew by nearly one third, with nearly one third of all new installations in China. Total solar electricity installed in 2009 was 46% up on 2008. China now leads the world in large-scale hydropower with 19% of global production, well ahead of Brazil and the USA with a 12% share each.
The new figures supplement those of the International energy agency (IEA) which predicted in November 2009 that global CO2 emissions would decrease by 2.6% in 2009. At that stage it was unclear how China and India would ride out the recession.
John Vidal, environment editor guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 July 2010 16.02 BST
Greenhouse gas emissions from rich countries fell a record 7% in 2009 because of the recession, but the cut was entirely nullified by steep increases from fast-growing China and India, according to one of Europe's leading scientific research groups.
Overall, this meant annual global climate emissions remained steady for the first time since 1992, says the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency which drew on energy-use data from the US government, the EU, BP energy data, the cement industry, and elsewhere.
But the Dutch government-funded agency, which in 2007 was the first to correctly identify that China had overtaken the US as the world's greatest greenhouse gas polluter, warned that the figures did not mean that rich countries had cleaned up their act.
"A large part of production capacity has been suspended, but this could be re-employed as soon as the economy improves. It is likely that a recovering economy would cause emission levels in industrialised countries to go up. Nevertheless, the economic downturn has meant that these countries can meet their reduction obligations with more ease," said NEAA spokeswoman Anneke Oosterhuis.
"Another consequence of this downturn is that some industrialised countries may need to purchase fewer emission rights from reduction projects in developing countries, which, in turn, means that there will be less money available for emission reductions in those developing countries," said Oosterhuis.
The figures will come as a relief to the world's rich countries which – the US aside – are legally committed to reducing emissions by a collective 5.2% on 1990 figures by 2012. As it stands, says the Dutch agency, they are now 10% below 1990 levels, well below the Kyoto target level.
The research also shows that China and India's average CO2 emissions per inhabitant are still well below those in industrialised countries. In India the emissions are now 1.4 tonnes per person and in China 6 tonnes, compared with 10 tonnes per person in the Netherlands and 17 tonnes in the United States.
China's 9% growth in emissions came despite its doubling of wind and solar energy capacity for the fifth year in a row.
The report highlights the rapid growth in global emissions in the past 40 years. They are now 25% higher than in 2000, almost 40% more than in 1990, and double 1970's figure of 15.5bn tonnes. The big growth in Chinese and Indian emissions has been relatively recent. China has doubled its emissions in nine years, and India's have risen by 50% in that time.
But the recession has not hit all industrial countries uniformly. Russia (-11%) and Japan (-9%) have contracted their energy use the most, but the US – which is by far the most profligate power user in the world – reduced its emissions by nearly 500m tonnes in 2009. Other developing countries changed little in 2009. Emissions rose in Iran, Indonesia and South Korea but fell in Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Taiwan.
2009 was a good year for renewable energy. Global wind power capacity grew by nearly one third, with nearly one third of all new installations in China. Total solar electricity installed in 2009 was 46% up on 2008. China now leads the world in large-scale hydropower with 19% of global production, well ahead of Brazil and the USA with a 12% share each.
The new figures supplement those of the International energy agency (IEA) which predicted in November 2009 that global CO2 emissions would decrease by 2.6% in 2009. At that stage it was unclear how China and India would ride out the recession.