Thursday, 18 November 2010
Which countries are spending the most on the proposed environmentally friendly, low cost energy system known as the smart grid?
The smart grid is essentially an intelligent energy distribution system which communicates with household appliances to ensure a more efficient and cost effective distribution of electricity. Last week, energy company GE released details of a study into smart grid spending carried out by Zpryme Research and Consulting.
The study revealed that the top country in terms of US dollars invested into smart grid technology was China, which as of 2010, had invested $7.32 billion, roughly 5.4 billion euros. Second on the list was the United States with $7.09 billion, then Japan ($849 million), South Korea ($824 million), Spain ($807 million), Germany ($397 million), Australia ($360 million), United Kingdom ($290 million), France ($265 million) and finally Brazil with an investment totaling $204 million.
A number of surveys have shown that consumer opinion is divided over smart grid technology. However, despite any consumer misgiving, the European Union predicts an 80 percent roll-out of smart meters by 2020 and many household goods manufacturers including GE, Whirlpool Indesit have announced the development of smart grid-connected appliances. Indesit even began trialing 300 intelligent refrigerators throughout Britain and France in September of this year. The refrigerators are able to connect with the smart grid wireless network Zigbee and the company claims this will considerably reduce energy costs.
A report into the smart grid is available for free from the US Department of Energy at: http://cleantech.com/research/upload/2010-US-Smart-Grid-Vendor-Ecosystem-Report.pdf
A definition of the smart grid is available from the European Technology Platform for the Electricity Networks at: http://www.smartgrids.eu/?q=node/163
Thursday, 18 November 2010
EPA Says 2010 Fuel Economy Ekes Up
By JOSEPH B. WHITE
WASHINGTON—The projected fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. during the 2010 model year inched up to 22.5 miles per gallon from 22.4 mpg the year before, the Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday.
The preliminary data indicate that the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. will increase for the sixth straight year, albeit to a level still well below the 35.5 miles per gallon goal the Obama administration has set for 2016. The administration has begun work on more aggressive fuel economy standards for 2025, proposing an approach that could push the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard to as high as 62 miles per gallon.
The EPA's latest estimate of light vehicle fuel economy indicates that stable gasoline prices lured some consumers toward less efficient models, resulting in a slower pace of overall fuel efficiency improvement. The average fuel economy of vehicles sold in the 2009 model year increased by 1.4 miles per gallon from the 2008 model year to 22.4 mpg. That jump reflected in part the consumer shift toward smaller vehicles in reaction to surging gasoline prices during the summer and fall of 2008. The final 2010 model year value could be adjusted up or down from the 22.5 mpg, the EPA said.
The 2010 model year mileage estimate translates to average carbon dioxide emissions of 395 grams per mile, down from 397 grams per mile for the 2009 model year. By 2016, the average car or light truck is supposed to emit 240 grams of CO2 per mile.
Write to Joseph B. White at joseph.white@wsj.com
WASHINGTON—The projected fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. during the 2010 model year inched up to 22.5 miles per gallon from 22.4 mpg the year before, the Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday.
The preliminary data indicate that the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. will increase for the sixth straight year, albeit to a level still well below the 35.5 miles per gallon goal the Obama administration has set for 2016. The administration has begun work on more aggressive fuel economy standards for 2025, proposing an approach that could push the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard to as high as 62 miles per gallon.
The EPA's latest estimate of light vehicle fuel economy indicates that stable gasoline prices lured some consumers toward less efficient models, resulting in a slower pace of overall fuel efficiency improvement. The average fuel economy of vehicles sold in the 2009 model year increased by 1.4 miles per gallon from the 2008 model year to 22.4 mpg. That jump reflected in part the consumer shift toward smaller vehicles in reaction to surging gasoline prices during the summer and fall of 2008. The final 2010 model year value could be adjusted up or down from the 22.5 mpg, the EPA said.
The 2010 model year mileage estimate translates to average carbon dioxide emissions of 395 grams per mile, down from 397 grams per mile for the 2009 model year. By 2016, the average car or light truck is supposed to emit 240 grams of CO2 per mile.
Write to Joseph B. White at joseph.white@wsj.com
'Green stealth tax' carbon reduction scheme delayed
Delay of CRC programme follows announcement that Treasury would keep revenues raised
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 17 November 2010 16.53 GMT
The government today announced it would delay the implementation of a scheme to encourage businesses and organisations to save energy, after controversially changing the programme last month into what critics described as a "green stealth tax".
In last month's comprehensive spending review the Treasury said it would be keeping revenues raised from the carbon reduction commitment (CRC) scheme, instead of recycling the money back to organisations taking part.
Large public and private sector organisations which use more than a certain amount of energy each year, including hospitals and London Fire Brigade, had to register by 30 September for the scheme, which will force them to buy credits for their emissions.
At the end of each year, the money raised from the sale of credits was due to be returned to participants, with those which had done most to cut their emissions being rewarded with extra cash and those which had done least being penalised.
Today Chris Huhne, energy and climate change secretary, said the decision to keep the money from the scheme, which will reach £1bn a year by 2014/2015, had been a difficult one, made in the context of pressure on public spending. The government has promised to simplify the programme and Huhne pledged to listen to organisations taking part to make it work better.
He told a climate change conference at the Confederation of British Industry that the government will delay the implementation of the scheme, so that the first sale of permits to cover energy use will not take place next year, but in 2012. The sale would be for energy already used, not predictions by companies of how much they might use in the coming year. Participants will not have to register for the second phase of the scheme – due to start in April 2011 – until 2013.
Huhne told the CBI that the principle of the scheme was sound, but the implementation fell short. "We share many of your concerns about the CRC. That is why we have made a commitment to simplify it," he told delegates. "The decision not to proceed with revenue recycling was a difficult one, taken against a background of unprecedented pressure on the public finances.
"We had to focus on getting the best value for money – and sending a clearer price signal to participants.
"Given a blank slate, we would do things a little differently. But for now, you have my assurance that we will engage with all of our stakeholders to make the scheme work better – for you, and for us."
Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, said: "The announcement that there will be a consultation and that phase two will be delayed mark the start of winning back those businesses angered by the decision to remove the cash-back incentive.
"However, much more needs to be done. It is critical that the CRC becomes an effective tool for encouraging energy efficiency, and not just another tax."
Lambert told the CBI conference those who worried that green taxes would become another stealth tax had their fears "amply confirmed" by the way the CRC had been converted without consultation into another revenue source for the Treasury.
And he said the pace of progress in shifting to a low carbon economy in the past few years had been disappointing.
He said the UK's nuclear programme was a year behind where people hoped it would be, consumer behaviour had not shifted, and little progress had been made on building gas storage capacity. He warned that inaction on climate change would mean the UK lost out to emerging economies such as China in the race to develop new green products and services.
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 17 November 2010 16.53 GMT
The government today announced it would delay the implementation of a scheme to encourage businesses and organisations to save energy, after controversially changing the programme last month into what critics described as a "green stealth tax".
In last month's comprehensive spending review the Treasury said it would be keeping revenues raised from the carbon reduction commitment (CRC) scheme, instead of recycling the money back to organisations taking part.
Large public and private sector organisations which use more than a certain amount of energy each year, including hospitals and London Fire Brigade, had to register by 30 September for the scheme, which will force them to buy credits for their emissions.
At the end of each year, the money raised from the sale of credits was due to be returned to participants, with those which had done most to cut their emissions being rewarded with extra cash and those which had done least being penalised.
Today Chris Huhne, energy and climate change secretary, said the decision to keep the money from the scheme, which will reach £1bn a year by 2014/2015, had been a difficult one, made in the context of pressure on public spending. The government has promised to simplify the programme and Huhne pledged to listen to organisations taking part to make it work better.
He told a climate change conference at the Confederation of British Industry that the government will delay the implementation of the scheme, so that the first sale of permits to cover energy use will not take place next year, but in 2012. The sale would be for energy already used, not predictions by companies of how much they might use in the coming year. Participants will not have to register for the second phase of the scheme – due to start in April 2011 – until 2013.
Huhne told the CBI that the principle of the scheme was sound, but the implementation fell short. "We share many of your concerns about the CRC. That is why we have made a commitment to simplify it," he told delegates. "The decision not to proceed with revenue recycling was a difficult one, taken against a background of unprecedented pressure on the public finances.
"We had to focus on getting the best value for money – and sending a clearer price signal to participants.
"Given a blank slate, we would do things a little differently. But for now, you have my assurance that we will engage with all of our stakeholders to make the scheme work better – for you, and for us."
Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, said: "The announcement that there will be a consultation and that phase two will be delayed mark the start of winning back those businesses angered by the decision to remove the cash-back incentive.
"However, much more needs to be done. It is critical that the CRC becomes an effective tool for encouraging energy efficiency, and not just another tax."
Lambert told the CBI conference those who worried that green taxes would become another stealth tax had their fears "amply confirmed" by the way the CRC had been converted without consultation into another revenue source for the Treasury.
And he said the pace of progress in shifting to a low carbon economy in the past few years had been disappointing.
He said the UK's nuclear programme was a year behind where people hoped it would be, consumer behaviour had not shifted, and little progress had been made on building gas storage capacity. He warned that inaction on climate change would mean the UK lost out to emerging economies such as China in the race to develop new green products and services.