13 October 2010
Innovation is a crucial part of the UK's move to a low carbon economy, climate change minister Greg Barker has said.
His comments come as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) urged more small and large businesses to export low carbon goods worldwide.
According to BIS figures, the global market for energy saving products will increase to more than £4 trillion by the middle of the next decade.
Currently, the UK is the sixth largest market for low carbon goods and services, including manufacturing electric vehicle charging pods, but Mr Barker urged for more to be done in order to keep up with developing nations such as China and India.
"Government policy must be robust to provide investors with the certainty they need to ensure the best, innovative ideas have every opportunity to flourish," he added.
However, Ed Moss, spokesman for the Manufacturing Institute, noted the difficulty that smaller firms are finding in accessing "quick-fix finance" in the short-term, which could affect the government's plans to move the UK into a low carbon economy.
Thursday, 14 October 2010
GM confirms Volt is an electric car, not hybrid
By Anil Das | October 13, 2010 4:23 AM EDT
US carmaker General Motors Co. confirmed its soon-to-be launched low emission Chevrolet Volt is a proper electric car, refuting speculation that it is a hybrid car.
General Motors Toyota Automobile portals and various media organizations such as Edmunds.com, Motor Trend, Weird and Popular Mechanics have said Volt uses its gasoline engine to power an electric which helps turn the wheels during heavy acceleration, similar to how hybrid vehicles run.
However, GM said in its website that the car is an extended-range electric vehicle and not a hybrid like Toyota Motor Corp's Prius.
"The Chevrolet Volt is not a hybrid. It is a one-of-a-kind, all-electrically driven vehicle designed and engineered to operate in all climates," the company said in a statement.
In the wake of the debate generated over Volt, carmakers are now facing a new marketing challenge who have been trying to hard sell the concept of green technology and also lure customers into buying the car. General Motors and Nissan Motor Co. have both made claims about the fuel economy of their new electric car models and the driving range that not all consumers may attain as performance of these vehicles varies and depends on individual driving habits.
Chevrolet Volt electric car will cost $41,000 when it goes on sale in the US in November. It runs 40 miles on battery and its range can be extended up to 300 miles when the 1.4 liter gasoline engine generator kicks in.
GM's VERSION:
Automobile portals such as Popular Mechanics and Edmunds said they consider the Volt a plug-in hybrid, and not an electric vehicle that GM has touted for years. The Edmunds review of the car had the headline: "GM Lied: Chevy Volt is not a true EV."
Motor Trend, a leading automobile portal writes: "Voltec is remarkably similar to the drivetrain you'll find in a Toyota Prius or other hybrid. Like a hybrid, Voltec uses a single planetary gearset, an internal combustion engine and two electric motor/generators."
On the other hand, Nick Richards, a GM spokesman said the Volt always runs on electricity and has no mechanical link from the gasoline engine to the wheels.
"The car's four-cylinder gasoline engine powers a secondary electric motor, which turns the wheels," Tony Posawatz, the Volt's vehicle line director, was quoted as saying in an interview. "The car's gas engine doesn't directly power the wheels," he said.
This controversy comes in the wake of automaker's plans to start selling Volt and launch its initial public offering, an event some speculate will occur in November. The IPO will allow the U.S. government to begin offloading the 61 percent stake it had acquired.
US carmaker General Motors Co. confirmed its soon-to-be launched low emission Chevrolet Volt is a proper electric car, refuting speculation that it is a hybrid car.
General Motors Toyota Automobile portals and various media organizations such as Edmunds.com, Motor Trend, Weird and Popular Mechanics have said Volt uses its gasoline engine to power an electric which helps turn the wheels during heavy acceleration, similar to how hybrid vehicles run.
However, GM said in its website that the car is an extended-range electric vehicle and not a hybrid like Toyota Motor Corp's Prius.
"The Chevrolet Volt is not a hybrid. It is a one-of-a-kind, all-electrically driven vehicle designed and engineered to operate in all climates," the company said in a statement.
In the wake of the debate generated over Volt, carmakers are now facing a new marketing challenge who have been trying to hard sell the concept of green technology and also lure customers into buying the car. General Motors and Nissan Motor Co. have both made claims about the fuel economy of their new electric car models and the driving range that not all consumers may attain as performance of these vehicles varies and depends on individual driving habits.
Chevrolet Volt electric car will cost $41,000 when it goes on sale in the US in November. It runs 40 miles on battery and its range can be extended up to 300 miles when the 1.4 liter gasoline engine generator kicks in.
GM's VERSION:
Automobile portals such as Popular Mechanics and Edmunds said they consider the Volt a plug-in hybrid, and not an electric vehicle that GM has touted for years. The Edmunds review of the car had the headline: "GM Lied: Chevy Volt is not a true EV."
Motor Trend, a leading automobile portal writes: "Voltec is remarkably similar to the drivetrain you'll find in a Toyota Prius or other hybrid. Like a hybrid, Voltec uses a single planetary gearset, an internal combustion engine and two electric motor/generators."
On the other hand, Nick Richards, a GM spokesman said the Volt always runs on electricity and has no mechanical link from the gasoline engine to the wheels.
"The car's four-cylinder gasoline engine powers a secondary electric motor, which turns the wheels," Tony Posawatz, the Volt's vehicle line director, was quoted as saying in an interview. "The car's gas engine doesn't directly power the wheels," he said.
This controversy comes in the wake of automaker's plans to start selling Volt and launch its initial public offering, an event some speculate will occur in November. The IPO will allow the U.S. government to begin offloading the 61 percent stake it had acquired.
Britons use three times the planet's resources
People in Britain are consuming three times the resources than the planet can provide, according to a new study.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 2:36PM BST 13 Oct 2010
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) calculated the impact of each country by measuring the amount of carbon, water and other natural resources consumed by an average person in a year.
Overall people are using 50 per cent more than the planet can provide.
Three-quarters of consumers say broadband as essential as waterThe United Arab Emirates has the worst ecological footprint, using six planet’s worth of resources for each person. If everyone lived like a person in the US, the population would need 4.5 times the resources provided by one planet.
Canada, Australia and Ireland are also in the top ten.
However people in Africa use a fraction of the resources they are entitled to.
People in the UK consume almost three times as much of the planet’s resources than they should do, making it 31st in the table of ecological footprints.
The country has fallen down the league table from having the 15th biggest footprint in the last report two years ago, but WWF attributes this to an increase in other countries' impact rather than a reduction in the UK's use of resources.
Eating meat and dairy has more impact on the planet than a largely vegetarian diet and the report suggest that the world would use less resources if people in rich countries change their diet.
Jim Leape, Director General of WWF International, said if people continue to consume more than the planet can provide it will drive other species into extinction. Already global species are down 30 per cent and 60 per cent in the tropics since 1970.
"The report shows that continuing of the current consumption trends would lead us to the point of no return,” he said.
How many planet’s resources are used up by individuals in the top ten countries for consumption?
United Arab Emirates 6
Qatar 5.9
Denmark 4.6
Belgium 4.5
United States 4.5
Estonia 4.4
Canada 3.9
Australia 3.8
Kuwait 3.5
Ireland 3.5
* Britain 2.75
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 2:36PM BST 13 Oct 2010
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) calculated the impact of each country by measuring the amount of carbon, water and other natural resources consumed by an average person in a year.
Overall people are using 50 per cent more than the planet can provide.
Three-quarters of consumers say broadband as essential as waterThe United Arab Emirates has the worst ecological footprint, using six planet’s worth of resources for each person. If everyone lived like a person in the US, the population would need 4.5 times the resources provided by one planet.
Canada, Australia and Ireland are also in the top ten.
However people in Africa use a fraction of the resources they are entitled to.
People in the UK consume almost three times as much of the planet’s resources than they should do, making it 31st in the table of ecological footprints.
The country has fallen down the league table from having the 15th biggest footprint in the last report two years ago, but WWF attributes this to an increase in other countries' impact rather than a reduction in the UK's use of resources.
Eating meat and dairy has more impact on the planet than a largely vegetarian diet and the report suggest that the world would use less resources if people in rich countries change their diet.
Jim Leape, Director General of WWF International, said if people continue to consume more than the planet can provide it will drive other species into extinction. Already global species are down 30 per cent and 60 per cent in the tropics since 1970.
"The report shows that continuing of the current consumption trends would lead us to the point of no return,” he said.
How many planet’s resources are used up by individuals in the top ten countries for consumption?
United Arab Emirates 6
Qatar 5.9
Denmark 4.6
Belgium 4.5
United States 4.5
Estonia 4.4
Canada 3.9
Australia 3.8
Kuwait 3.5
Ireland 3.5
* Britain 2.75
Cut military R&D, not science funding
Science spending cuts should come mainly from the MoD's R&D budget, not research into health and environmental problems
Michael Atiyah and others guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 October 2010 00.01 BST
As senior scientists and engineers, we are deeply concerned that while the government is threatening to cut public funding for research and development as a whole, it appears to be committed to maintaining high levels of military-related R&D. Of particular concern is the fact that world-class research into health and global environmental problems is under threat, while the government continues to fund the multibillion pound research programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston.
Official statistics indicate that the total public spending on R&D is currently about £8bn. Of this, the Ministry of Defence spends over £2bn, more than 25% of the total. Much of this funding is used to support defence industry projects at a time when the industry is reaping bumper profits thanks to a massive increase in global military expenditure over the last decade. Our view is that current MoD R&D funding is not only disproportionate, it also includes expenditure on programmes that are of minimal benefit or counterproductive to the UK's security. For example, funds for the redevelopment of the AWE's research facilities "to ensure that the existing warhead can be maintained for as long as necessary, and to enable the development of a successor warhead should one be required" (quoting from the AWE's mission statement) will, we firmly believe, undermine progress towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.
Our view is that the UK's nuclear warheads should be taken off deployment and placed in secure land-based storage, and that the successor to the Trident system should be scrapped. The facilities at the AWE should be directed solely to monitoring and verification of arms control and disarmament agreements.
Overall, therefore, we believe that any cuts to public science spending should predominantly come from cuts to the MoD's R&D.
However, there are some areas of security-related R&D that should be expanded, including those which support monitoring of arms control agreements, non-violent conflict resolution, and tackling the roots of conflict and insecurity.
The overarching threats to international security arise from rising fuel and resource costs, the impacts of climate change and other environmental problems, and the widening gap between rich and poor. Nuclear weapons are of no help in dealing with these problems – indeed, they are likely to make matters far worse. On the other hand, a major shift of military R&D to civilian programmes of work will – if targeted carefully – help to tackle these international problems, improving the UK's security and also leading to greater job creation and a faster emergence from the current recession. As an example of the current imbalance in resources, we note that the current MoD R&D budget is more than 20 times larger than public funding for R&D on renewable energy.
We therefore urge ministers to shift their priorities so that science and technology can contribute to tackling the real threats to the UK's present and future security.
Signed:
Sir Michael Atiyah, Professor (Honorary) of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh
Keith Barnham, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London
Roy Butterfield, Professor (Emeritus) of Civil Engineering, University of Southampton
David Caplin, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London
Roland Clift, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Technology, University of Surrey
Anne-Christine Davis, Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge
David Elliott, Professor (Emeritus) of Technology Policy, The Open University
Christopher French, Professor of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London
Leon Freris, Professor (Visiting) of Renewable Energy Systems, Loughborough University
Jonathan Harwood, Professor (Emeritus) of History of Science & Technology, University of Manchester
Alastair Hay, Professor of Environmental Toxicology, University of Leeds
Robert Hinde, Professor (Emeritus) of Zoology, University of Cambridge
David Infield, Professor of Renewable Energy Technologies, University of Strathclyde
Tim Jackson, Professor of Sustainable Development, University of Surrey
Tom Kibble, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London
Sir Harold Kroto, Professor (Emeritus) of Chemistry, University of Sussex; Professor of Chemistry, Florida State University; Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1996)
Matthew Leach, Professor of Energy and Environmental Systems
Amyan Macfadyen, Professor (Emeritus) of Ecology and Environmental Science, University of Ulster
Aubrey Manning, Professor (Emeritus) of Natural History, University of Edinburgh
Stephen Morse, Professor of Systems Analysis for Sustainability
Eike Nagel, Professor of Clinical Cardiovascular Imaging, King's College London
Jenny Nelson, Professor of Physics, Imperial College London
John F Nye, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, University of Bristol
Lawrence Paulson, Professor of Computational Logic, University of Cambridge
Malcolm Povey, Professor of Food Physics, University of Leeds
William Powrie, Professor of Geotechnical Engineering
Norman Sheppard, Professor (Emeritus) of Chemistry, University of East Anglia
John Sloboda, Professor (Emeritus) of Psychology, Keele University
Peter F Smith, Professor of Sustainable Energy, University of Nottingham
Tim Valentine, Professor of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London
F J Vine, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Science, University of East Anglia
Alex Warleigh-Lack, Professor of Politics and International Relations, Brunel University
David Webb, Professor of Engineering, Leeds Metropolitan University
John Whitelegg, Professor (Visiting) of Sustainable Transport, Liverpool John Moores University; Professor (Visiting) of Sustainable Transport, York University
Tom Woolley, Professor of Architecture, Queens University Belfast (retired)
Peter Young, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Systems, Lancaster University
Michael Atiyah and others guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 October 2010 00.01 BST
As senior scientists and engineers, we are deeply concerned that while the government is threatening to cut public funding for research and development as a whole, it appears to be committed to maintaining high levels of military-related R&D. Of particular concern is the fact that world-class research into health and global environmental problems is under threat, while the government continues to fund the multibillion pound research programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston.
Official statistics indicate that the total public spending on R&D is currently about £8bn. Of this, the Ministry of Defence spends over £2bn, more than 25% of the total. Much of this funding is used to support defence industry projects at a time when the industry is reaping bumper profits thanks to a massive increase in global military expenditure over the last decade. Our view is that current MoD R&D funding is not only disproportionate, it also includes expenditure on programmes that are of minimal benefit or counterproductive to the UK's security. For example, funds for the redevelopment of the AWE's research facilities "to ensure that the existing warhead can be maintained for as long as necessary, and to enable the development of a successor warhead should one be required" (quoting from the AWE's mission statement) will, we firmly believe, undermine progress towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.
Our view is that the UK's nuclear warheads should be taken off deployment and placed in secure land-based storage, and that the successor to the Trident system should be scrapped. The facilities at the AWE should be directed solely to monitoring and verification of arms control and disarmament agreements.
Overall, therefore, we believe that any cuts to public science spending should predominantly come from cuts to the MoD's R&D.
However, there are some areas of security-related R&D that should be expanded, including those which support monitoring of arms control agreements, non-violent conflict resolution, and tackling the roots of conflict and insecurity.
The overarching threats to international security arise from rising fuel and resource costs, the impacts of climate change and other environmental problems, and the widening gap between rich and poor. Nuclear weapons are of no help in dealing with these problems – indeed, they are likely to make matters far worse. On the other hand, a major shift of military R&D to civilian programmes of work will – if targeted carefully – help to tackle these international problems, improving the UK's security and also leading to greater job creation and a faster emergence from the current recession. As an example of the current imbalance in resources, we note that the current MoD R&D budget is more than 20 times larger than public funding for R&D on renewable energy.
We therefore urge ministers to shift their priorities so that science and technology can contribute to tackling the real threats to the UK's present and future security.
Signed:
Sir Michael Atiyah, Professor (Honorary) of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh
Keith Barnham, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London
Roy Butterfield, Professor (Emeritus) of Civil Engineering, University of Southampton
David Caplin, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London
Roland Clift, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Technology, University of Surrey
Anne-Christine Davis, Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge
David Elliott, Professor (Emeritus) of Technology Policy, The Open University
Christopher French, Professor of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London
Leon Freris, Professor (Visiting) of Renewable Energy Systems, Loughborough University
Jonathan Harwood, Professor (Emeritus) of History of Science & Technology, University of Manchester
Alastair Hay, Professor of Environmental Toxicology, University of Leeds
Robert Hinde, Professor (Emeritus) of Zoology, University of Cambridge
David Infield, Professor of Renewable Energy Technologies, University of Strathclyde
Tim Jackson, Professor of Sustainable Development, University of Surrey
Tom Kibble, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London
Sir Harold Kroto, Professor (Emeritus) of Chemistry, University of Sussex; Professor of Chemistry, Florida State University; Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1996)
Matthew Leach, Professor of Energy and Environmental Systems
Amyan Macfadyen, Professor (Emeritus) of Ecology and Environmental Science, University of Ulster
Aubrey Manning, Professor (Emeritus) of Natural History, University of Edinburgh
Stephen Morse, Professor of Systems Analysis for Sustainability
Eike Nagel, Professor of Clinical Cardiovascular Imaging, King's College London
Jenny Nelson, Professor of Physics, Imperial College London
John F Nye, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, University of Bristol
Lawrence Paulson, Professor of Computational Logic, University of Cambridge
Malcolm Povey, Professor of Food Physics, University of Leeds
William Powrie, Professor of Geotechnical Engineering
Norman Sheppard, Professor (Emeritus) of Chemistry, University of East Anglia
John Sloboda, Professor (Emeritus) of Psychology, Keele University
Peter F Smith, Professor of Sustainable Energy, University of Nottingham
Tim Valentine, Professor of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London
F J Vine, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Science, University of East Anglia
Alex Warleigh-Lack, Professor of Politics and International Relations, Brunel University
David Webb, Professor of Engineering, Leeds Metropolitan University
John Whitelegg, Professor (Visiting) of Sustainable Transport, Liverpool John Moores University; Professor (Visiting) of Sustainable Transport, York University
Tom Woolley, Professor of Architecture, Queens University Belfast (retired)
Peter Young, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Systems, Lancaster University
Treasury locked in battle over green investment bank
Whitehall negotiations over scope and remit of the proposed bank become tense as decision is expected by Friday
Allegra Stratton, political correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 October 2010 18.13 BST
The Treasury is locked in battle with environmentalists across the government over the scope and remit of a proposed new bank on which the UK's transition to a low-carbon economy by 2025 could rest.
A green investment bank (GIB) is being pushed for to turn the £50-80bn of traditional project capital available into the much higher amounts funding experts say will be needed to pay for the low-carbon technologies the UK is expected to need. But Whitehall negotiations for its establishment have become tense and are said to have entered their last few days, with the decision expected by many to be made by Friday. Though no announcement will be made in the comprehensive spending review, government officials want some progress to be announced as part of a sequence of positive developments to manage the government's emergence from next Wednesday's heavy day of public spending cuts.
Officials and politicians in the department for energy and climate change as well as the business department and the cabinet office are fighting for the GIB to be a bank with the ability to raise bonds and given £4-6bn of upfront capital which experts say could see it able to raise at least £100bn. Its supporters also want it be established by legislation.
Instead the Treasury are said to want it to remain as a fund, kickstarted by £2bn, without the ability to raise bonds and not established by legislation.
The energy and climate change secretary, Chris Huhne, and the climate change minister, Greg Barker, have taken the lead in intense negotiations with the Treasury and have been backed up by the cabinet minister, Oliver Letwin, receiving some assistance from the business secretary, Vince Cable. But Cable's support is qualified – he would like the GIB to be a bank supporting general infrastructure projects, not just low-carbon infrastructure. Those close to the disagreement say they expect number 10 will eventually be called on to adjudicate the dispute.
Today a report by Ernst & Young supported those championing a green investment bank showing for the first time that only a fully capitalised bank would plug the UK's low-carbon funding cap.
They estimate the funding necessary for low-carbon technologies to be slightly down from the estimate made by a Tory-commissioned report in June when £550bn was called for to invest in power and gas infrastructure, renewable heat and gas technologies and energy efficiency measures. Today Ernst & Young said it would be about £450bn.
But with only £50-80bn of capital available from the traditional streams of project finance and infrastructure funds, Ernst & Young concluded the GIB would be essential to cover the shortfall.
The report found that offshore wind generation, carbon capture and storage and energy efficiency measures which suffer from a shortage of capital but could significantly lower the UK's emissions, would be funded by the GIB.
"A number of properly targeted financial products tailored to each sub-sector could mitigate these investment barriers more efficiently than on a single project by project basis. These structured products could be provided by a GIB," Ben Warren of Ernst & Young said.
The report said that the forthcoming spending review on 20 October is a good time to deliver a GIB which is backed by between £4-6bn of capital until 2015.
Allegra Stratton, political correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 October 2010 18.13 BST
The Treasury is locked in battle with environmentalists across the government over the scope and remit of a proposed new bank on which the UK's transition to a low-carbon economy by 2025 could rest.
A green investment bank (GIB) is being pushed for to turn the £50-80bn of traditional project capital available into the much higher amounts funding experts say will be needed to pay for the low-carbon technologies the UK is expected to need. But Whitehall negotiations for its establishment have become tense and are said to have entered their last few days, with the decision expected by many to be made by Friday. Though no announcement will be made in the comprehensive spending review, government officials want some progress to be announced as part of a sequence of positive developments to manage the government's emergence from next Wednesday's heavy day of public spending cuts.
Officials and politicians in the department for energy and climate change as well as the business department and the cabinet office are fighting for the GIB to be a bank with the ability to raise bonds and given £4-6bn of upfront capital which experts say could see it able to raise at least £100bn. Its supporters also want it be established by legislation.
Instead the Treasury are said to want it to remain as a fund, kickstarted by £2bn, without the ability to raise bonds and not established by legislation.
The energy and climate change secretary, Chris Huhne, and the climate change minister, Greg Barker, have taken the lead in intense negotiations with the Treasury and have been backed up by the cabinet minister, Oliver Letwin, receiving some assistance from the business secretary, Vince Cable. But Cable's support is qualified – he would like the GIB to be a bank supporting general infrastructure projects, not just low-carbon infrastructure. Those close to the disagreement say they expect number 10 will eventually be called on to adjudicate the dispute.
Today a report by Ernst & Young supported those championing a green investment bank showing for the first time that only a fully capitalised bank would plug the UK's low-carbon funding cap.
They estimate the funding necessary for low-carbon technologies to be slightly down from the estimate made by a Tory-commissioned report in June when £550bn was called for to invest in power and gas infrastructure, renewable heat and gas technologies and energy efficiency measures. Today Ernst & Young said it would be about £450bn.
But with only £50-80bn of capital available from the traditional streams of project finance and infrastructure funds, Ernst & Young concluded the GIB would be essential to cover the shortfall.
The report found that offshore wind generation, carbon capture and storage and energy efficiency measures which suffer from a shortage of capital but could significantly lower the UK's emissions, would be funded by the GIB.
"A number of properly targeted financial products tailored to each sub-sector could mitigate these investment barriers more efficiently than on a single project by project basis. These structured products could be provided by a GIB," Ben Warren of Ernst & Young said.
The report said that the forthcoming spending review on 20 October is a good time to deliver a GIB which is backed by between £4-6bn of capital until 2015.