Scotland's biggest white elephant, an empty microchip factory in Gordon Brown's East Dunfermline constituency, may finally have found a future after it was acquired by the former chairman of Newcastle United.
Shepherd Offshore – a company controlled by Freddy Shepherd – has paid an undisclosed sum, thought to be tens of millions of pounds, to buy a Fife factory that Hyundai once earmarked for an advanced microchip factory that would have created thousands of jobs.
Mr Shepherd, caught boasting about "ripping off" supporters buying Newcastle United shirts during his time in football, plans to demolish part of the factory to create a manufacturing plant for the offshore renewable energy sector. In Tyneside, Shepherd Offshore is aiming to develop a manufacturing hub for the industry that will make products such as wind turbine blades.
The Fife plant cost £200m to build in the 1990s – with £20m spent by the taxpayer – but has been empty for 13 years. Hyundai scrapped plans to invest £3bn after the Asian economy faltered. Motorola, the telecoms group which subsequently bought the factory, also left it unused despite pledging to create one of Europe's biggest semiconductor plants.
Tony Martin of Fife Council said: "I am sure that everyone in Dunfermline will welcome the announcement."
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Green property: energy review
Sarah Lonsdale tests the latest 'eco’ products and sorts the fads from the finds. This week: Energy under Government review.
By Sarah Lonsdale 4:12PM BST 27 Oct 2010
So, what did the “greenest Government ever” do for home owners wanting to reduce their bills and carbon emissions in the Comprehensive Spending Review? Like many aspects of the review, it was a curate’s egg with some good and some bad news for home energy efficiency.
First the bad news: as Be Green warned earlier this month, the Warm Front grants are being phased out, meaning the elderly and those on low incomes will no longer have access to upfront cash to make energy-efficiency changes to their homes. This is a regressive – and self-defeating – step as the most vulnerable will end up in hospital being treated for pneumonia at a cost to the NHS of nearly £100 million a year.
“We are very disappointed and concerned that Warm Front is being phased out,” said Dave Timms, homes campaigner for Friends of the Earth. “Energy efficiency is the only long-term solution to fuel poverty. With a projected four million households struggling to pay their fuel bills it seems perverse and contradictory to remove this source of help.”
Based on a “Pay as You Save” system, it will allow home owners to “retrofit” their homes with loft, wall, floor and window insulation up to a cost of £6,500, and make huge savings on their bills, at no upfront cost to them. They will then pay back small amounts per month based on the savings they make on their bills.
The scheme is based on the “golden rule” that home owners will be saving money month on month even after their Green Deal payback has been deducted.
How will it work? Major companies – Marks & Spencer and B & Q have been mentioned – will take loans possibly from the proposed new Green Investment Bank and then subcontract work to building firms. Home owners will then pay back the money over a long period.
There are of course caveats. The Government has not made it clear how ambitious it is for the Green Deal. “If we really are talking about 14 million homes at £6,500 per property, then that’s £91 billion,” says John Alker of the Green Building Council. “That’s an astonishing sum. We need to see how it is going to be financed. If it’s through high-interest rates on the loans to home owners then it isn’t going to work.”
Colin Butfield, head of campaigns at the World Wildlife Fund, says added incentives such as council tax rebates may be needed to encourage households to take part. “If it does work, the Green Deal could be revolutionary. With the expectation of energy prices going through the roof in the next 15 years, the Green Deal will free up British families from a huge source of anxiety.”
Another caveat is that, according to a poll on micro generation users’ website YouGen, 84 per cent of respondents said they would rather their home improvements were carried out by a small local specialist than a faceless conglomerate. “Home owners want to feel the work on their home is being done by someone trustworthy, someone they can talk to if the work is not up to standard,” says Cathy Debenham, founder of YouGen. “There must be assurances that local specialists won’t be squeezed out, and that home owners have a choice over who they go to.”
The second big plus is the confirmation that the Feed In Tariff paid to home owners who generate green electricity with solar panels and wind turbines will not be slashed, contrary to rumours circulating just before the review. In addition, the RHI, the incentive which will be paid to home owners who generate renewable heat, also has Government commitment. There is, however, an “opt out” for the Government that the Feed In Tariff will be reviewed if too many people take it up and it therefore becomes too costly to run.
“My advice to home owners who want to get the best possible Feed In Tariff rate is to install now,” Debenham says. “I would advise caution for the RHI as we are still waiting for payback details. I’d advise home owners whose renewable heat installation depends on the heat incentive to wait until then before making a decision.”
Useful contacts: www.yougen.co.uk; www.ukgbc.org; www.foe.co.uk; www.wwf.org.uk
By Sarah Lonsdale 4:12PM BST 27 Oct 2010
So, what did the “greenest Government ever” do for home owners wanting to reduce their bills and carbon emissions in the Comprehensive Spending Review? Like many aspects of the review, it was a curate’s egg with some good and some bad news for home energy efficiency.
First the bad news: as Be Green warned earlier this month, the Warm Front grants are being phased out, meaning the elderly and those on low incomes will no longer have access to upfront cash to make energy-efficiency changes to their homes. This is a regressive – and self-defeating – step as the most vulnerable will end up in hospital being treated for pneumonia at a cost to the NHS of nearly £100 million a year.
“We are very disappointed and concerned that Warm Front is being phased out,” said Dave Timms, homes campaigner for Friends of the Earth. “Energy efficiency is the only long-term solution to fuel poverty. With a projected four million households struggling to pay their fuel bills it seems perverse and contradictory to remove this source of help.”
Based on a “Pay as You Save” system, it will allow home owners to “retrofit” their homes with loft, wall, floor and window insulation up to a cost of £6,500, and make huge savings on their bills, at no upfront cost to them. They will then pay back small amounts per month based on the savings they make on their bills.
The scheme is based on the “golden rule” that home owners will be saving money month on month even after their Green Deal payback has been deducted.
How will it work? Major companies – Marks & Spencer and B & Q have been mentioned – will take loans possibly from the proposed new Green Investment Bank and then subcontract work to building firms. Home owners will then pay back the money over a long period.
There are of course caveats. The Government has not made it clear how ambitious it is for the Green Deal. “If we really are talking about 14 million homes at £6,500 per property, then that’s £91 billion,” says John Alker of the Green Building Council. “That’s an astonishing sum. We need to see how it is going to be financed. If it’s through high-interest rates on the loans to home owners then it isn’t going to work.”
Colin Butfield, head of campaigns at the World Wildlife Fund, says added incentives such as council tax rebates may be needed to encourage households to take part. “If it does work, the Green Deal could be revolutionary. With the expectation of energy prices going through the roof in the next 15 years, the Green Deal will free up British families from a huge source of anxiety.”
Another caveat is that, according to a poll on micro generation users’ website YouGen, 84 per cent of respondents said they would rather their home improvements were carried out by a small local specialist than a faceless conglomerate. “Home owners want to feel the work on their home is being done by someone trustworthy, someone they can talk to if the work is not up to standard,” says Cathy Debenham, founder of YouGen. “There must be assurances that local specialists won’t be squeezed out, and that home owners have a choice over who they go to.”
The second big plus is the confirmation that the Feed In Tariff paid to home owners who generate green electricity with solar panels and wind turbines will not be slashed, contrary to rumours circulating just before the review. In addition, the RHI, the incentive which will be paid to home owners who generate renewable heat, also has Government commitment. There is, however, an “opt out” for the Government that the Feed In Tariff will be reviewed if too many people take it up and it therefore becomes too costly to run.
“My advice to home owners who want to get the best possible Feed In Tariff rate is to install now,” Debenham says. “I would advise caution for the RHI as we are still waiting for payback details. I’d advise home owners whose renewable heat installation depends on the heat incentive to wait until then before making a decision.”
Useful contacts: www.yougen.co.uk; www.ukgbc.org; www.foe.co.uk; www.wwf.org.uk
Save the world from climate change - by computer
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Computer gamers who like a challenge can now take on one of the toughest around: saving the entire planet, this time from climate change.
Billed as a strategy game with a social conscience, "Fate of the World" sees players try to protect the world's climate and resources while managing a growing population demanding more power, food and living space.
"'Fate of the World' is a scenario-based game where you run Earth for 200 years and you save it or potentially destroy it. The whole power is in your hands," said the game's British inventor Gobion Rowlands.
The player takes charge as head of the fictional Global Environment Organisation (GEO). They can impose policies such as banning logging in the Amazon rainforest, making all Europe's public transport run on electricity or slapping a one-child policy on the whole of Asia.
However, such power comes with grave consequences.
If, for example, you decide to bring down the birth rate to protect natural resources, the workforce could plunge and people could be forced to work until 80, triggering unrest against the GEO.
Gamers see the impact of their decisions: orangutans are saved from extinction, global temperatures drop by a degree; however, bad moves could see Europe battered by floods, or Africa ravaged by war.
"Even if they choose to destroy the world, they still learn more about the subject," said Rowlands, the 35-year-old head of video games developer Red Redemption, which employs 15 people at its base in Oxford, southern England.
The game was based on scientific, economic and demographic data from sources such as NASA, the United Nations and Oxford University.
"Fate of the World" was developed in partnership with academics working under Oxford University climate change expert Doctor Myles Allen.
The game "allows people to experience the decisions we are likely to confront and makes clear there are no easy answers", Allen said.
"Fate of the World" is a sequel to Red Redemption's 2007 "Climate Challenge" game produced by the BBC, which focused only on Europe.
Despite its straightforward graphics, the game has been welcomed by environmental and development groups, which were on board throughout the process.
"This game offers a new way of telling the climate change story and helps us to reach new audiences," said Ged Barker, the British digital campaigns leader for the Oxfam aid agency.
"Those who play the game will learn about climate change... without having to read lots of material that they might find boring."
The collaboration between Red Redemption, which is on its fifth computer game, and non-governmental organisations could go further. Rowlands is trying to negotiate a deal whereby a share of the profits go to their coffers.
A taster version is available to download now. The full version will cost 20 pounds (32.30 dollars, 23.60 euros) when it is released in February.
The French, Spanish and German versions come out in March.
Computer gamers who like a challenge can now take on one of the toughest around: saving the entire planet, this time from climate change.
Billed as a strategy game with a social conscience, "Fate of the World" sees players try to protect the world's climate and resources while managing a growing population demanding more power, food and living space.
"'Fate of the World' is a scenario-based game where you run Earth for 200 years and you save it or potentially destroy it. The whole power is in your hands," said the game's British inventor Gobion Rowlands.
The player takes charge as head of the fictional Global Environment Organisation (GEO). They can impose policies such as banning logging in the Amazon rainforest, making all Europe's public transport run on electricity or slapping a one-child policy on the whole of Asia.
However, such power comes with grave consequences.
If, for example, you decide to bring down the birth rate to protect natural resources, the workforce could plunge and people could be forced to work until 80, triggering unrest against the GEO.
Gamers see the impact of their decisions: orangutans are saved from extinction, global temperatures drop by a degree; however, bad moves could see Europe battered by floods, or Africa ravaged by war.
"Even if they choose to destroy the world, they still learn more about the subject," said Rowlands, the 35-year-old head of video games developer Red Redemption, which employs 15 people at its base in Oxford, southern England.
The game was based on scientific, economic and demographic data from sources such as NASA, the United Nations and Oxford University.
"Fate of the World" was developed in partnership with academics working under Oxford University climate change expert Doctor Myles Allen.
The game "allows people to experience the decisions we are likely to confront and makes clear there are no easy answers", Allen said.
"Fate of the World" is a sequel to Red Redemption's 2007 "Climate Challenge" game produced by the BBC, which focused only on Europe.
Despite its straightforward graphics, the game has been welcomed by environmental and development groups, which were on board throughout the process.
"This game offers a new way of telling the climate change story and helps us to reach new audiences," said Ged Barker, the British digital campaigns leader for the Oxfam aid agency.
"Those who play the game will learn about climate change... without having to read lots of material that they might find boring."
The collaboration between Red Redemption, which is on its fifth computer game, and non-governmental organisations could go further. Rowlands is trying to negotiate a deal whereby a share of the profits go to their coffers.
A taster version is available to download now. The full version will cost 20 pounds (32.30 dollars, 23.60 euros) when it is released in February.
The French, Spanish and German versions come out in March.
We Have Skin in the Game in Our Green Energy Projects
Your Nov. 11 editorial, "Wind Jammers at the White House," like the memo it reports, omits crucial points to inform a constructive debate about the federal renewable energy incentive program.
GE has "skin in the game." It invested hundreds of millions of dollars of its own money in this large project, alongside Caithness Energy, the project's developer. What the Department of Energy has provided GE, Caithness Energy and others involved in renewable energy, is a partial guarantee for loans to be provided by banks and bondholders. This loan guarantee program is helping to fund large multiyear projects—critical in an uncertain renewable energy and financing market—and it is helping to ensure sufficient liquidity to enable these projects to proceed and create jobs.
Our Shepherds Flat project, already under construction in Oregon, provides "upside" to taxpayers not only through those jobs but through tax revenue for local, state and federal jurisdictions during construction and operation. Such projects also provide environmental benefits, avoiding greenhouse-gas emissions and fossil-fuel depletion. They help national security by reducing our dependence on imported fuel and boost the U.S.'s competitive position.
In addition to their investments, GE and Caithness Energy have assumed considerable risk in the project, and we sought the DOE loan guarantee because the debt markets were thin and high-priced because of the financial-market meltdown. The DOE loan guarantee program ensured access to long-term, reasonably priced financing. We are pleased to have signed the loan guarantee commitment on Nov. 1 and are proceeding with the project.
The bottom line for us is that the government set up these incentive programs because of their benefits to the country. They set eligibility criteria. We met those criteria and were offered, and accepted, the loan guarantee. The project will reap benefits to the country that the editorial, and the memo, did not mention.
Andy Katell
GE Energy Financial Services
Stamford, Conn.
Unfortunately for American taxpayers, the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program is even worse than the Journal thinks. Running a bank is outside the DOE's core competencies to begin with, but a recent report by the Government Accountability Office suggests that the DOE is rash, too. According to the July report, the DOE issued half its conditional loan guarantees before full reviews had been conducted.
Perhaps this explains why the DOE's first loan guarantee is proving such a monumental bust. A year ago, California-based solar power manufacturer Solyndra received a $535 million loan backed by stimulus funds. In June, it pulled back on a planned public offering after a PricewaterhouseCooper's audit found that the company's finances "raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern." Last week, the company announced that it would shutter a plant and lay off 170 employees.
William Yeatman
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington
GE has "skin in the game." It invested hundreds of millions of dollars of its own money in this large project, alongside Caithness Energy, the project's developer. What the Department of Energy has provided GE, Caithness Energy and others involved in renewable energy, is a partial guarantee for loans to be provided by banks and bondholders. This loan guarantee program is helping to fund large multiyear projects—critical in an uncertain renewable energy and financing market—and it is helping to ensure sufficient liquidity to enable these projects to proceed and create jobs.
Our Shepherds Flat project, already under construction in Oregon, provides "upside" to taxpayers not only through those jobs but through tax revenue for local, state and federal jurisdictions during construction and operation. Such projects also provide environmental benefits, avoiding greenhouse-gas emissions and fossil-fuel depletion. They help national security by reducing our dependence on imported fuel and boost the U.S.'s competitive position.
In addition to their investments, GE and Caithness Energy have assumed considerable risk in the project, and we sought the DOE loan guarantee because the debt markets were thin and high-priced because of the financial-market meltdown. The DOE loan guarantee program ensured access to long-term, reasonably priced financing. We are pleased to have signed the loan guarantee commitment on Nov. 1 and are proceeding with the project.
The bottom line for us is that the government set up these incentive programs because of their benefits to the country. They set eligibility criteria. We met those criteria and were offered, and accepted, the loan guarantee. The project will reap benefits to the country that the editorial, and the memo, did not mention.
Andy Katell
GE Energy Financial Services
Stamford, Conn.
Unfortunately for American taxpayers, the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program is even worse than the Journal thinks. Running a bank is outside the DOE's core competencies to begin with, but a recent report by the Government Accountability Office suggests that the DOE is rash, too. According to the July report, the DOE issued half its conditional loan guarantees before full reviews had been conducted.
Perhaps this explains why the DOE's first loan guarantee is proving such a monumental bust. A year ago, California-based solar power manufacturer Solyndra received a $535 million loan backed by stimulus funds. In June, it pulled back on a planned public offering after a PricewaterhouseCooper's audit found that the company's finances "raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern." Last week, the company announced that it would shutter a plant and lay off 170 employees.
William Yeatman
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington