The Business Interview: From hippy dropout to electricity boss without batting an eye. The founder of Ecotricity talks to Sarah Arnott
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Dale Vince spent 10 years living in a trailer on a hill outside Stroud. Now he runs an energy company worth an estimated £100m and bats away takeover offers at an average rate of one a month.
It is not as much of a leap as it might appear. Mr Vince's "crazy plan" might be to become the seventh utility – an upstart rival to the so-called Big Six such as EDF and E.ON. But he remains a highly unusual energy boss by any measure. At a superficial level, he is the only one with long hair and jewellery, who dresses in torn jeans and a leather jacket. His views on the UK energy market are equally unorthodox.
"I was a hippy dropout, but I had an epiphany when I saw my first windfarm in 1991," Mr Vince says. "I thought, either I can carry on by myself with the windmill on my van, or I can get into the big stuff."
He chose the big stuff and set up Ecotricity, an electricity company which ploughs its profits into building green infrastructure – 540 wind turbines so far – steadily driving up the proportion of green energy in its fuel mix. "We turn brown to green," Mr Vince explains. "We don't mind harnessing conventional energy sources, so long as we are using the revenues to build an alternative."
The approach is working. Sixteen years after the company started, it has 46,000 customers and is adding around 1,500 each month. The electricity started out 10 per cent green, this year it will hit 55 per cent. And the charges are comparable with the Big Six's standard tariffs.
Now Ecotricity is moving into gas. It already has 8,000 customers on its green gas tariff, and the income is building Britain's first anaerobic digestion plant turning food waste into gas for heating and cooking – a scheme that will be up and running in 12 months. "In our first year, green gas from a sugar beet factory in Holland was 1.4 per cent of our supply," Mr Vince says. "It might not be much but it's still the greenest gas supply in Britain, and next year we expect to double it."
Mr Vince has serious ambitions. "The crazy plan to become the Big Seventh is not just a crazy plan – we're really doing it," he says. "Ten years from now I'd like to see one million customers."
Last October, Ecotricity launched Britain's first "ecobond", marketed directly to its customers, to help fund the expansion. It was an "awesome success" with enough offers to raise nearly double the £10m Mr Vince was looking for and an average investment of £5,500 (although one customer – by far the biggest single investor – put up £500,000).
Part of the philosophy behind the bond was a protest at the big banks "ripping people off" by paying 2 per cent to savers but lending to companies at 6 or 7 per cent. "We wanted to cut out the middle man," Mr Vince says. "When we started, we wanted to cut out the middle man who wouldn't give us a good price for our electricity, and now we're doing the same with the financial sector."
The bond will run for a minimum of four years – with a biannual interest payment of 7.5 per cent – and act as a financial turbo-thruster for Ecotricity's plans. By providing the deposit for the company's wind farm schemes, the bond will cut its reliance on expensive mezzanine debt. And because the money can be leveraged, the original £10m will fund £40m-worth of investments. "It gives us the chance to increase the rate we build," Mr Vince says. "The first ecobond probably puts us five years ahead of where we would be."
That's just the beginning. After such a success, the company is now working on a second, larger ecobond, which it hopes to launch by the end of the summer. "The next one will be huge and I wouldn't be surprised if in years to come we are raising £50m or £100m at a time, once we establish a track record," Mr Vince says.
Britain's green energy market is making slower progress. Ecotricity's bond is helping to fund a 1 megawatt (MW) solar panel facility alongside an existing windfarm in Lincolnshire, creating one of the first hybrid parks in the world. But there is a big, black Government-shaped cloud hanging over the scheme, catapulting the softly spoken Mr Vince to the forefront of the ructions convulsing Britain's fledgling solar power industry.
The initial findings of a shock review of the feed-in tariff scheme for solar power was announced earlier this month, slashing the subsidies paid to schemes of 50 kilowatts and above and, according to Mr Vince, instantly "killing off" any commercial appetite to invest in big solar by slashing revenues by 75 per cent.
The changes certainly "shred" Ecotricity's plans. They also ensure that the British solar power – currently at 100MW compared with Germany's 17,000MW – remains a niche, non-commercial market. "We were going to build lots of big solar parks and that goes out of the window now," Mr Vince says. "While the carbon price floor pumps billions into nuclear and clean coal, solar will remain a side show with just a token subsidy for individual households."
Even the Lincolnshire scheme now faces a tricky future as delays securing a grid connection threaten to push it over the 1 August deadline. "I don't really want to think about what will happen then," acknowledges Mr Vince, who has pumped £2.5m into the scheme and will be lobbying the Government hard that it should be subject to the existing tariffs.
Along with a large swath of the solar industry, Mr Vince takes issue with the Government's reasons for the changes, including both the assumption that large projects are squeezing out domestic plans and the claim that the changes reflect a drop in the price of solar panels.
He also lambasts the Government's "dishonesty" in putting forward arguments with such clear holes in them. "They should just come out and say that they are worried about food supplies or the use of land or whatever it is, but they shouldn't say that big solar kills small, because that's just dishonest."
Even the public cuts agenda argues the other way. "Big solar is 50 per cent cheaper than small," Mr Vince says. "The Government says value for money is important, but when it comes to renewable energy they are opting for something that costs half as much again."
There is some sadness, but little rancour, in his tone. "This is what happens in Britain," he says with a shrug. "Ultimately we don't really care what the Government does, we just get on and do the job."
In doing its job, Ecotricity is attracting increasing attention from potential buyers. And despite making clear that he has no desire to sell, Mr Vince is still continually fending off approaches from buyers, these days mostly from City financiers. But he is uncompromisingly "not interested", whatever the price. "If I had £100m, I'd only go out and start a green electricity company so what would be the point?"
Dale Vince: Power broker
* Dale Vince dropped out of school at 15 and became a traveller.
* He set up Ecotricity in 1997 after an "epiphany" that his single windmill had huge potential.
* Mr Vince is a green petrolhead, launching the Nemesis – an electric Lotus that goes from 0 to 60 mph in four seconds – last year.
* He is putting a wind-powered bike into this year's TT race and also plans a wind-powered supercar to challenge the world land speed record.
* He is a major shareholder of Forest Green Rovers and is learning ballet to improve his own playing skills.
* He lives – in a house – outside Stroud with his wife and children.
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Obama and energy
I filled the gas tank this morning, after letting it get uncharacteristically low, and was a tad surprised to look up and see that it came to $48. That's a helluva lot in the good old US of A. It was $3.99 per gallon and is usually somewhere in the vicinity of $2.79 or so.
Before we go any further, some quick math(s). Your petrol, I gather, is running about £1.40 or so? And that, Americans, is per litre. There are roughly four litres to the gallon, and £1.40 is roughly $2.25, so the way I reckon it you Brits are paying about $10 a gallon, maybe $9.50, or more than twice what we're now paying. And it's Americans who are in deep shock about gas prices.
I thought: good. Let's have it. Let it go up more and more. We have to change our piggy habits, and that's the only thing that'll do it, really.
Today, Obama announced his new energy goals, to make America oil independent by 2020. This makes him the eighth president to make such a declaration, going back to Nixon, and of course it's not going to happen for him any more than it happened for any of the rest of them.
There appear to be some decent things in Obama's plan, including a bigger commitment to renewables. But nothing's free of course. That phrase "commitment to renewables" means, say, tax credits for homeowners and businesses, and those tax credits deplete the general treasury and have to be made up somewhere. I'm all for it.
I was just sitting with our tax guy, and he was explaining the credit systems for solar panels and geothermal heating retrofitted into an older home like ours. They're fairly generous, actually, but a) the credit is not all federal, some of it is from the state of Maryland, which is a pretty liberal state and thus ahead of many other states on things like this, and b) even as decent as the credit is, you have to be upper-middle-class for sure even to consider shelling out the upfront costs. I would love for the credits to be three times the size they are, but Republicans would never go for it, since they think all this is fishy anyway and real Muricans burn as much erl as they damn well please.
I wish Obama had the cojones (and I don't really blame him because what I want would be political suicide) to make the simple and straightforward proposal of a big gasoline tax. I'm for $6/gallon gas in this country. I know the hardships it would cause. But habits would change in a damn hurry, I can tell you that much. People feel it at the pump for some reason in a way they don't feel it in home heating bills or any other form.
And think of all that tax revenue to play with, to give away to poor people and foreigners!
Before we go any further, some quick math(s). Your petrol, I gather, is running about £1.40 or so? And that, Americans, is per litre. There are roughly four litres to the gallon, and £1.40 is roughly $2.25, so the way I reckon it you Brits are paying about $10 a gallon, maybe $9.50, or more than twice what we're now paying. And it's Americans who are in deep shock about gas prices.
I thought: good. Let's have it. Let it go up more and more. We have to change our piggy habits, and that's the only thing that'll do it, really.
Today, Obama announced his new energy goals, to make America oil independent by 2020. This makes him the eighth president to make such a declaration, going back to Nixon, and of course it's not going to happen for him any more than it happened for any of the rest of them.
There appear to be some decent things in Obama's plan, including a bigger commitment to renewables. But nothing's free of course. That phrase "commitment to renewables" means, say, tax credits for homeowners and businesses, and those tax credits deplete the general treasury and have to be made up somewhere. I'm all for it.
I was just sitting with our tax guy, and he was explaining the credit systems for solar panels and geothermal heating retrofitted into an older home like ours. They're fairly generous, actually, but a) the credit is not all federal, some of it is from the state of Maryland, which is a pretty liberal state and thus ahead of many other states on things like this, and b) even as decent as the credit is, you have to be upper-middle-class for sure even to consider shelling out the upfront costs. I would love for the credits to be three times the size they are, but Republicans would never go for it, since they think all this is fishy anyway and real Muricans burn as much erl as they damn well please.
I wish Obama had the cojones (and I don't really blame him because what I want would be political suicide) to make the simple and straightforward proposal of a big gasoline tax. I'm for $6/gallon gas in this country. I know the hardships it would cause. But habits would change in a damn hurry, I can tell you that much. People feel it at the pump for some reason in a way they don't feel it in home heating bills or any other form.
And think of all that tax revenue to play with, to give away to poor people and foreigners!
Spain's financial crisis claims another victim: the solar power industry
The Spanish government has slashed its solar power subsidies
Tim Webb in Madrid guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 March 2011 18.37 BST
Spain had one of the world's most ambitious – and generous – plans to boost the amount of electricity it generates from the sun. That dream, for the solar industry at least, has turned sour. Just days before Christmas, the government slashed the level of subsidies that all new and existing photovoltaic (pv) solar projects will receive. But even the powerful utility companies, who opposed the solar industry, are now warning that the fallout could be long-lasting and reach far beyond the energy sector.
The row has pitted the renewable lobby against Spain's three biggest utilities – Iberdrola, Endesa and Gas Natural – which have been urging the government to take action to stem the wave of subsidised renewable projects being built, particularly solar ones.
Carlos Salle, Iberdrola's director for regulation, told the Guardian that divisions between the renewable lobby and the rest of the energy industry are even deeper in Spain than elsewhere as a result. "We have more controversy here in Spain with renewables against non-renewables … this is an aspect of our system – it provokes problems."
Another Madrid-based businessman, from one of Spain's leading companies, was franker, likening relations, only half-jokingly, as a "war". The Asociación de la Industria Fotovoltaica (Asif), Spain's solar industry body, accuses politicians of telling lies, exaggerating the costs of generating electricity using solar pv to justify the cut in subsidies.
It is more than just bragging rights between rival generators at stake. The solar pv industry alone received subsidies last year of €2.6bn (£2.28bn), a sum neither the country – nor the utilities – can afford. The utilities have paid out €20bn to subsidise solar and wind projects, and are still waiting for the government to pay them back.
Credit rating agencies threatened to downgrade the companies if something was not done to address the "tariff deficit". Salle recalled: "The situation was horrible a year ago – €20bn for three companies was an amount comparable to an entire budget for some countries."
The utilities also complain that their coal and gas plants, which the government wanted them to build a decade ago after several black-outs, are losing money because they are now only needed for half the time. But the Spanish regulator forces the firms to keep them on standby for times when the wind stops blowing or at night when solar does not generate.
Asif argues that solar projects, which last summer provided a maximum of 4% of the country's electricity, have been sacrificed to keep profits from dirty coal and gas plants high. The solar industry had enjoyed phenomenal growth due to a subsidy regime which, even Asif admits, was too generous. Companies were able to cut costs too quickly – 70% since the original subsidies were introduced in 2004. Investors poured in and about two-thirds of the current capacity was installed in 2008 alone, before a planned tariff cut came into force the following year.
This has left Spain with 10 times the amount of solar pv capacity the government had planned for by 2010 – and a much bigger bill than it had envisioned.
Javier Anta, Asif's president, said that the industry will challenge the cut in the courts, but admitted that this would take years, by which time many solar project owners could have gone to the wall. He added that some investors will not back new projects because they fear the tariff could be cut again retrospectively. "There are some people who say this is not a one-off. They do not trust the government," he said.
This is one point on which both the renewable lobby and the power industry agree: by taking the unprecedented step of retrospectively cutting subsidies promised to projects which have already been built, the government risks scaring off investors of all kinds.
Salle says that "even if we recognise that the situation is better than a month or a year ago, the problem is [a lack of] confidence. The uncertainty and [risk] premium does not apply only to that sector [solar pv] but to the whole industry and the rest of the country in some cases. Everyone appreciates the relevance of having regulation which does not make any retroactive decisions because you will have to attract new people [to invest]. The new people will say 'hey, in the history of this country and this sector these people who have been new in the past and have invested, the government has changed the rules'."
Reflecting change
Abengoa, a Spanish engineering firm celebrating its 70th year, is pushing ahead with solar-thermal projects. Unlike the schemes involving reflectors heating a salt water mixture running through pipes, Abengoa has developed towers of pipes that look like mini skyscrapers. It employs 23,000 workers in its solar unit, which had a turnover of more than €3bn (£2.6bn).
The firm has conducted sustainability audits of its business for several years and says projects that can't meet sustainability criteria are modified or abandoned. Controversially, it has championed the refining of biofuels, something anti-poverty campaigners have cited as denying food sources to poor people in the developing world.
Carlos Bousoño, director of corporate social responsibility, said the debate had moved on after technology allowed for seeds and fruit to be separated from plants before processing. He said only the stalk and waste material was used in second generation biofuels fermentation, allowing corn, soya or other foodstuff to be saved for making food.
Tim Webb in Madrid guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 March 2011 18.37 BST
Spain had one of the world's most ambitious – and generous – plans to boost the amount of electricity it generates from the sun. That dream, for the solar industry at least, has turned sour. Just days before Christmas, the government slashed the level of subsidies that all new and existing photovoltaic (pv) solar projects will receive. But even the powerful utility companies, who opposed the solar industry, are now warning that the fallout could be long-lasting and reach far beyond the energy sector.
The row has pitted the renewable lobby against Spain's three biggest utilities – Iberdrola, Endesa and Gas Natural – which have been urging the government to take action to stem the wave of subsidised renewable projects being built, particularly solar ones.
Carlos Salle, Iberdrola's director for regulation, told the Guardian that divisions between the renewable lobby and the rest of the energy industry are even deeper in Spain than elsewhere as a result. "We have more controversy here in Spain with renewables against non-renewables … this is an aspect of our system – it provokes problems."
Another Madrid-based businessman, from one of Spain's leading companies, was franker, likening relations, only half-jokingly, as a "war". The Asociación de la Industria Fotovoltaica (Asif), Spain's solar industry body, accuses politicians of telling lies, exaggerating the costs of generating electricity using solar pv to justify the cut in subsidies.
It is more than just bragging rights between rival generators at stake. The solar pv industry alone received subsidies last year of €2.6bn (£2.28bn), a sum neither the country – nor the utilities – can afford. The utilities have paid out €20bn to subsidise solar and wind projects, and are still waiting for the government to pay them back.
Credit rating agencies threatened to downgrade the companies if something was not done to address the "tariff deficit". Salle recalled: "The situation was horrible a year ago – €20bn for three companies was an amount comparable to an entire budget for some countries."
The utilities also complain that their coal and gas plants, which the government wanted them to build a decade ago after several black-outs, are losing money because they are now only needed for half the time. But the Spanish regulator forces the firms to keep them on standby for times when the wind stops blowing or at night when solar does not generate.
Asif argues that solar projects, which last summer provided a maximum of 4% of the country's electricity, have been sacrificed to keep profits from dirty coal and gas plants high. The solar industry had enjoyed phenomenal growth due to a subsidy regime which, even Asif admits, was too generous. Companies were able to cut costs too quickly – 70% since the original subsidies were introduced in 2004. Investors poured in and about two-thirds of the current capacity was installed in 2008 alone, before a planned tariff cut came into force the following year.
This has left Spain with 10 times the amount of solar pv capacity the government had planned for by 2010 – and a much bigger bill than it had envisioned.
Javier Anta, Asif's president, said that the industry will challenge the cut in the courts, but admitted that this would take years, by which time many solar project owners could have gone to the wall. He added that some investors will not back new projects because they fear the tariff could be cut again retrospectively. "There are some people who say this is not a one-off. They do not trust the government," he said.
This is one point on which both the renewable lobby and the power industry agree: by taking the unprecedented step of retrospectively cutting subsidies promised to projects which have already been built, the government risks scaring off investors of all kinds.
Salle says that "even if we recognise that the situation is better than a month or a year ago, the problem is [a lack of] confidence. The uncertainty and [risk] premium does not apply only to that sector [solar pv] but to the whole industry and the rest of the country in some cases. Everyone appreciates the relevance of having regulation which does not make any retroactive decisions because you will have to attract new people [to invest]. The new people will say 'hey, in the history of this country and this sector these people who have been new in the past and have invested, the government has changed the rules'."
Reflecting change
Abengoa, a Spanish engineering firm celebrating its 70th year, is pushing ahead with solar-thermal projects. Unlike the schemes involving reflectors heating a salt water mixture running through pipes, Abengoa has developed towers of pipes that look like mini skyscrapers. It employs 23,000 workers in its solar unit, which had a turnover of more than €3bn (£2.6bn).
The firm has conducted sustainability audits of its business for several years and says projects that can't meet sustainability criteria are modified or abandoned. Controversially, it has championed the refining of biofuels, something anti-poverty campaigners have cited as denying food sources to poor people in the developing world.
Carlos Bousoño, director of corporate social responsibility, said the debate had moved on after technology allowed for seeds and fruit to be separated from plants before processing. He said only the stalk and waste material was used in second generation biofuels fermentation, allowing corn, soya or other foodstuff to be saved for making food.
Tesla sues Top Gear over 'faked' electric car race
Car-maker to sue BBC for libel and malicious falsehood as faked race continues to be shown uncorrected on repeats and DVD
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 March 2011 11.43 BST
Electric sports car maker Tesla Motors is sueing the BBC's Top Gear TV programme for allegedly faking a scene showing the company's Roadster car running out of electricity and slowing to a halt in a race.
The legal move is the culmination of a row that has rumbled on between the show and Telsa since the episode was first broadcast in 2008. Specialist libel law firm Carter-Ruck issued the writ on behalf of the firm on Tuesday at the high court because the scene was still being shown onworldwide repeats and was available on DVD, and the BBC had failed to correct it. The firm expects to recover not more than £100,000 in damages.
In the race with a petrol-powered Lotus Elise, the £87,000 electric car was shown having to stop for a recharge. But the car never ran out of electricity.
Tesla said after the race aired that neither of the two Roadsters that it loaned Jeremy Clarkson's team had gone below 20% of charge.
Earlier in the same episode, Clarkson had praised the Tesla: "I cannot believe this – that's biblically quick. This car is electric, literally. The top speed may only be 125mph but there's so much torque it does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. Not bad from a motor the size of a watermelon and which has only one moving part."
Tesla is sueing the show for libel and malicious falsehood, and says the show misrepresented the car's true range – claiming 55 miles rather than 211 – and that claims a second Roadster on loan had broken brakes was untrue.
In a statement, the California-based company, whose first cars were based on British-made Lotuses, said: "Tesla simply wants Top Gear to stop rebroadcasting this malicious episode and to correct the record, but they've repeatedly ignored Tesla's requests."
A Top Gear spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that we have received notification that Tesla have issued proceedings against the BBC. The BBC stands by the programme and will be vigorously defending this claim"
On Monday Tesla, which plans to introduce a cheaper "Model S" car next year, said the 1,500 Roadsters it had sold since 2008 had collectively saved over 2,404 tonnes of CO2 emissions. Top Gear magazine, which is separate from the TV show, has also been critical of previous electric cars, and in 2007 released shocking images of a G-Wiz crash-tested at 40mph.
But analysts have predicted 2011 will be a "breakthrough" year for the vehicles, which became eligible a £5,000 government grant in January. Last week, the first few hundred Nissan Leafs, the UK's first mass-produced electric car, were delivered to customers. Unlike the Tesla Roadster, the Leaf is limited to around 110 miles and 90mph. A new generation of around 10 different electric and plug-in hybrid cars are expected in the UK by the end of 2012.
Separately on Wednesday, green group WWF released a report warning that the UK will needs millions of electric vehiclesto meet its carbon targets. Around 1.7m will be needed by 2020 and 6.4m by 2030, it said, in an echo of calls by government watchdog the Committee on Climate Change for a similar number to meet the target of cutting greenhouse gases emissions 80% by 2050.
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 March 2011 11.43 BST
Electric sports car maker Tesla Motors is sueing the BBC's Top Gear TV programme for allegedly faking a scene showing the company's Roadster car running out of electricity and slowing to a halt in a race.
The legal move is the culmination of a row that has rumbled on between the show and Telsa since the episode was first broadcast in 2008. Specialist libel law firm Carter-Ruck issued the writ on behalf of the firm on Tuesday at the high court because the scene was still being shown onworldwide repeats and was available on DVD, and the BBC had failed to correct it. The firm expects to recover not more than £100,000 in damages.
In the race with a petrol-powered Lotus Elise, the £87,000 electric car was shown having to stop for a recharge. But the car never ran out of electricity.
Tesla said after the race aired that neither of the two Roadsters that it loaned Jeremy Clarkson's team had gone below 20% of charge.
Earlier in the same episode, Clarkson had praised the Tesla: "I cannot believe this – that's biblically quick. This car is electric, literally. The top speed may only be 125mph but there's so much torque it does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. Not bad from a motor the size of a watermelon and which has only one moving part."
Tesla is sueing the show for libel and malicious falsehood, and says the show misrepresented the car's true range – claiming 55 miles rather than 211 – and that claims a second Roadster on loan had broken brakes was untrue.
In a statement, the California-based company, whose first cars were based on British-made Lotuses, said: "Tesla simply wants Top Gear to stop rebroadcasting this malicious episode and to correct the record, but they've repeatedly ignored Tesla's requests."
A Top Gear spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that we have received notification that Tesla have issued proceedings against the BBC. The BBC stands by the programme and will be vigorously defending this claim"
On Monday Tesla, which plans to introduce a cheaper "Model S" car next year, said the 1,500 Roadsters it had sold since 2008 had collectively saved over 2,404 tonnes of CO2 emissions. Top Gear magazine, which is separate from the TV show, has also been critical of previous electric cars, and in 2007 released shocking images of a G-Wiz crash-tested at 40mph.
But analysts have predicted 2011 will be a "breakthrough" year for the vehicles, which became eligible a £5,000 government grant in January. Last week, the first few hundred Nissan Leafs, the UK's first mass-produced electric car, were delivered to customers. Unlike the Tesla Roadster, the Leaf is limited to around 110 miles and 90mph. A new generation of around 10 different electric and plug-in hybrid cars are expected in the UK by the end of 2012.
Separately on Wednesday, green group WWF released a report warning that the UK will needs millions of electric vehiclesto meet its carbon targets. Around 1.7m will be needed by 2020 and 6.4m by 2030, it said, in an echo of calls by government watchdog the Committee on Climate Change for a similar number to meet the target of cutting greenhouse gases emissions 80% by 2050.
Smart meters predicted to save UK households £23 a year by 2020
Cost-saving potential set out in government plan for national roll-out of energy-saving technology
Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 March 2011 11.28 BST
Smart meters, which monitor energy use in real-time, will save households £7.3bn over the next two decades, the government said on Wednesday as it set out its strategy for the roll-out of the energy-saving technology.
The roll-out – the most comprehensive yet planned in any country – will require 53m smart meters to be installed in 30m homes and businesses, starting in 2014 and finishing in 2019. Households are likely to save £23 on their annual energy bills by 2020, the government has estimated, up from its previous estimate of £14 in savings.
But these figures were disputed by the consumer group Which? and by smart metering industry experts.
Jessica Driscoll, senior advocate at Which?, said: "It's too difficult to say that people will save a certain amount of money. The savings depend on people making changes to the way they use energy, and that is very hard to do. Smart meters are just one way of helping people make those changes."
She said Which? had not yet made an estimates of the cost or savings from the technology because there was not yet enough information to make a reliable estimate.
She said it was more important to reassure consumers that smart meters would bring a variety of benefits, than to try to persuade them of the potential cost savings based on estimates.
Some industry experts privately agreed that it was too soon to make such exact estimates of the cost savings that could be realised by the roll-out.
Smart meters benefit consumers by showing their energy use in real-time. This means people can respond quickly, for instance by turning off unnecessary lights or appliances, to save money.
The technology also benefits energy suppliers, as it eliminates the need for meter readers to visit properties and allow for more accurate billing, and better data on energy demand patterns.
Future generations of smart meters are likely to offer even greater advantages, for instance by allowing utilities better to manage demand within consumers' homes, by switching appliances such as washing machines on when demand is lower, or turning down fridges when demand peaks. This could save billions through more efficient management of the electricity grid, but these capabilities are unlikely to be introduced for several years at the earliest.
But these capabilities also bring potential problems, according to Driscoll, such as what happens to the valuable consumer data that the meters collect how utilities will ensure that people can retain control over their own energy use.
Some companies might try to use the opportunity of installing smart meters to sell souped-up versions with more features, or to sell additional services, such as internet or telephones. "Once they're in your home, they might try to 'upsell', which is something we are worried about," Driscoll warned.
She added: "People do not trust energy companies. They need to work very hard to ensure that this rollout is going to be a big benefit to British people."
Chris Huhne, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, stressed the potential benefits of the plan, which is one of the most visible aspects of the government's low-carbon strategy, as the meters will be in every home. He said: "Smart meters are a key part of giving us all more control over how we use energy at home and at work, helping us to cut out waste and save money. In combination with our plans to reform the electricity market and introduce the green deal [project to insulate homes], the roll-out of smart meters will help us keep the lights on while reducing emissions and getting the best possible deal for the consumer."
From now until 2014, the government plans to work with industry and consumer groups to lay the groundwork for the roll-out, including setting specifications for the kinds of smart meters to be used. Today's announcement is expected to kick off a frenzy of activity among smart meter technology companies, utilities and communications businesses as they jockey for position in pressing for the adoption of their competing ideas on how smart meters should work.
During this phase, companies are expected to build and test trial systems, get customer feedback and demonstrate how they can ensure energy savings. Consumers are likely to be invited to take place in trials. The government will also set up a Data and Communications Company, intended to provide data and communications services for the smart metering system nationwide.
In the following stage, from 2014 to 2019, the mass roll-out will take place.
Charles Hendry, energy minister, said: "Smart meters will enable us to modernise the electricity system over the coming years and create the smart grids we will need to bring new low carbon energy sources online, and handle much higher demand for electricity as we progressively electrify transport and heating."
Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 March 2011 11.28 BST
Smart meters, which monitor energy use in real-time, will save households £7.3bn over the next two decades, the government said on Wednesday as it set out its strategy for the roll-out of the energy-saving technology.
The roll-out – the most comprehensive yet planned in any country – will require 53m smart meters to be installed in 30m homes and businesses, starting in 2014 and finishing in 2019. Households are likely to save £23 on their annual energy bills by 2020, the government has estimated, up from its previous estimate of £14 in savings.
But these figures were disputed by the consumer group Which? and by smart metering industry experts.
Jessica Driscoll, senior advocate at Which?, said: "It's too difficult to say that people will save a certain amount of money. The savings depend on people making changes to the way they use energy, and that is very hard to do. Smart meters are just one way of helping people make those changes."
She said Which? had not yet made an estimates of the cost or savings from the technology because there was not yet enough information to make a reliable estimate.
She said it was more important to reassure consumers that smart meters would bring a variety of benefits, than to try to persuade them of the potential cost savings based on estimates.
Some industry experts privately agreed that it was too soon to make such exact estimates of the cost savings that could be realised by the roll-out.
Smart meters benefit consumers by showing their energy use in real-time. This means people can respond quickly, for instance by turning off unnecessary lights or appliances, to save money.
The technology also benefits energy suppliers, as it eliminates the need for meter readers to visit properties and allow for more accurate billing, and better data on energy demand patterns.
Future generations of smart meters are likely to offer even greater advantages, for instance by allowing utilities better to manage demand within consumers' homes, by switching appliances such as washing machines on when demand is lower, or turning down fridges when demand peaks. This could save billions through more efficient management of the electricity grid, but these capabilities are unlikely to be introduced for several years at the earliest.
But these capabilities also bring potential problems, according to Driscoll, such as what happens to the valuable consumer data that the meters collect how utilities will ensure that people can retain control over their own energy use.
Some companies might try to use the opportunity of installing smart meters to sell souped-up versions with more features, or to sell additional services, such as internet or telephones. "Once they're in your home, they might try to 'upsell', which is something we are worried about," Driscoll warned.
She added: "People do not trust energy companies. They need to work very hard to ensure that this rollout is going to be a big benefit to British people."
Chris Huhne, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, stressed the potential benefits of the plan, which is one of the most visible aspects of the government's low-carbon strategy, as the meters will be in every home. He said: "Smart meters are a key part of giving us all more control over how we use energy at home and at work, helping us to cut out waste and save money. In combination with our plans to reform the electricity market and introduce the green deal [project to insulate homes], the roll-out of smart meters will help us keep the lights on while reducing emissions and getting the best possible deal for the consumer."
From now until 2014, the government plans to work with industry and consumer groups to lay the groundwork for the roll-out, including setting specifications for the kinds of smart meters to be used. Today's announcement is expected to kick off a frenzy of activity among smart meter technology companies, utilities and communications businesses as they jockey for position in pressing for the adoption of their competing ideas on how smart meters should work.
During this phase, companies are expected to build and test trial systems, get customer feedback and demonstrate how they can ensure energy savings. Consumers are likely to be invited to take place in trials. The government will also set up a Data and Communications Company, intended to provide data and communications services for the smart metering system nationwide.
In the following stage, from 2014 to 2019, the mass roll-out will take place.
Charles Hendry, energy minister, said: "Smart meters will enable us to modernise the electricity system over the coming years and create the smart grids we will need to bring new low carbon energy sources online, and handle much higher demand for electricity as we progressively electrify transport and heating."
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
UK slips down global green investment rankings
Britain falls from third to 13th place in league table of countries investing in alternative energy and clean technology
• Budget 2011: The new, green economy falls to the old politics
Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent The Guardian, Tuesday 29 March 2011
The UK is rapidly losing the race to be the global powerhouse of the green economy, while other countries streak ahead in low-carbon technology investment and development, according to rankings published on Tuesday.
Last year, the UK slumped from being third in the world in terms of investment in green growth, to only 13th place, , according to a report by the respected US Pew Environment Group.
This means the UK now ranks well behind developing countries such as Brazil, in sixth place, India in 10th place and China in first place.
Investment in alternative energy and clean technology reached $11bn (£7bn) in the UK in 2009, but plummeted to only $3.3bn (£2bn) last year - a decline of 70%. This compares with $2.3bn (£1.45bn) investment in Mexico last year, $4bn (£2.5bn) in France and $14bn (£8.7bn) in Italy. Top of the league is China, with $54bn (£34bn), Germany with $41.2bn (£25.7bn) and the US, with $34bn (£21bn) of investment last year.
The news comes ahead of a crucial cabinet discussion of the UK's climate change targets beyond 2020. There are still deep divisions between the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which is calling for tough targets to stimulate green growth, and the Treasury and the Department of Business, which argue that the current economic situation calls for less stringent targets in 10 years' time.
Ministers must decide whether to adopt recommendations made by the Committee on Climate Change, the statutory body that is charged with advising the government on how to meet long-term climate change targets. The committee said last year the UK should aim to cut emissions by 60% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels. A decision should be taken soon on whether to follow that advice, if ministers are to enact the new target into law this autumn, as the Climate Change Act requires.
The Pew report blamed the UK's fall down the ranking on "a sharp decline in offshore wind energy investments and uncertainty surrounding [government] policy".
Phyllis Cuttino, director of Pew's clean energy programme, said: "National policy matters - investment follows policy. We've seen that again and again."
Overall, global clean technology investment reached a record $243bn (£152bn) last year. Cuttino said it was a landmark, as this was the first year in which investment in renewable energy overtook nuclear power.
"This was a big year," she said. "Now it's about keeping up that momentum."
But there was disappointment that the UK had not performed better. Meg Hillier, shadow energy and climate spokeswoman, said: "If we do not move fast we will slip back even further, and companies will shut up shop here or go abroad."
Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace, added: "The Conservatives came to power promising to end dithering on energy decisions but instead investors face a continuing atmosphere of uncertainty. With long delays in setting up the green investment bank, further dilly-dallying over when it will be able to function as a proper bank, and a green leal [project to insulate homes] with no sense of direction, we've had a year of delays and broken promises. In the mean time green investment elsewhere has surged ahead so we're losing jobs and industries to other countries. Unless [David] Cameron gives a direct instruction to his Treasury to stop sabotaging his ambitions for the low-carbon economy, British businesses will continue to lose out."
Ahead of the Cabinet discussion, a group of 10 major UK companies including Unilever, Kingfisher, Tesco, Thames Water, EDF Energy and Shell, brought together by the Prince of Wales' corporate leaders group on climate change, have written to the prime minister, urging him to take a stand.
"This target is only credible if there are the right policies and milestones in place to ensure we take adequate action to achieve it between now and 2050. We therefore support the Committee on Climate Change's call for steady progress towards that goal along a clear trajectory, and would welcome the adoption of a strong fourth carbon budget consistent with a 2030 milestone of at least 60% reductions, and with the proposals in the EU's 2050 low-carbon roadmap."
They also called for more international action on greenhouse gas emissions from sectors such as aviation and shipping.
• Budget 2011: The new, green economy falls to the old politics
Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent The Guardian, Tuesday 29 March 2011
The UK is rapidly losing the race to be the global powerhouse of the green economy, while other countries streak ahead in low-carbon technology investment and development, according to rankings published on Tuesday.
Last year, the UK slumped from being third in the world in terms of investment in green growth, to only 13th place, , according to a report by the respected US Pew Environment Group.
This means the UK now ranks well behind developing countries such as Brazil, in sixth place, India in 10th place and China in first place.
Investment in alternative energy and clean technology reached $11bn (£7bn) in the UK in 2009, but plummeted to only $3.3bn (£2bn) last year - a decline of 70%. This compares with $2.3bn (£1.45bn) investment in Mexico last year, $4bn (£2.5bn) in France and $14bn (£8.7bn) in Italy. Top of the league is China, with $54bn (£34bn), Germany with $41.2bn (£25.7bn) and the US, with $34bn (£21bn) of investment last year.
The news comes ahead of a crucial cabinet discussion of the UK's climate change targets beyond 2020. There are still deep divisions between the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which is calling for tough targets to stimulate green growth, and the Treasury and the Department of Business, which argue that the current economic situation calls for less stringent targets in 10 years' time.
Ministers must decide whether to adopt recommendations made by the Committee on Climate Change, the statutory body that is charged with advising the government on how to meet long-term climate change targets. The committee said last year the UK should aim to cut emissions by 60% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels. A decision should be taken soon on whether to follow that advice, if ministers are to enact the new target into law this autumn, as the Climate Change Act requires.
The Pew report blamed the UK's fall down the ranking on "a sharp decline in offshore wind energy investments and uncertainty surrounding [government] policy".
Phyllis Cuttino, director of Pew's clean energy programme, said: "National policy matters - investment follows policy. We've seen that again and again."
Overall, global clean technology investment reached a record $243bn (£152bn) last year. Cuttino said it was a landmark, as this was the first year in which investment in renewable energy overtook nuclear power.
"This was a big year," she said. "Now it's about keeping up that momentum."
But there was disappointment that the UK had not performed better. Meg Hillier, shadow energy and climate spokeswoman, said: "If we do not move fast we will slip back even further, and companies will shut up shop here or go abroad."
Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace, added: "The Conservatives came to power promising to end dithering on energy decisions but instead investors face a continuing atmosphere of uncertainty. With long delays in setting up the green investment bank, further dilly-dallying over when it will be able to function as a proper bank, and a green leal [project to insulate homes] with no sense of direction, we've had a year of delays and broken promises. In the mean time green investment elsewhere has surged ahead so we're losing jobs and industries to other countries. Unless [David] Cameron gives a direct instruction to his Treasury to stop sabotaging his ambitions for the low-carbon economy, British businesses will continue to lose out."
Ahead of the Cabinet discussion, a group of 10 major UK companies including Unilever, Kingfisher, Tesco, Thames Water, EDF Energy and Shell, brought together by the Prince of Wales' corporate leaders group on climate change, have written to the prime minister, urging him to take a stand.
"This target is only credible if there are the right policies and milestones in place to ensure we take adequate action to achieve it between now and 2050. We therefore support the Committee on Climate Change's call for steady progress towards that goal along a clear trajectory, and would welcome the adoption of a strong fourth carbon budget consistent with a 2030 milestone of at least 60% reductions, and with the proposals in the EU's 2050 low-carbon roadmap."
They also called for more international action on greenhouse gas emissions from sectors such as aviation and shipping.
Nuclear is the safest form of power, says top UK scientist
Sir David King says nuclear power is a 'massive economic opportunity' and should be pursued despite incidents in Japan
Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 March 2011 15.57 BST
Stepping on to a transatlantic flight will expose a person to more radiation than walking around the Fukushima nuclear power station in Japan – even in its current state of near-meltdown – according to the UK government's former chief scientist.
Sir David King mounted a robust defence of nuclear power on Wednesday as renewed fears over its dangers buffeted the industry. He said it was the safest form of electricity generation, and that the recovery of most of Japan's nuclear fleet after the worst earthquake in living memory showed that safety systems were working.
"An earthquake of 9.0 [magnitude] hit Japan, and all 16 nuclear plants that felt the earthquake were switched off within two minutes," he said. "Every one of them acted as they were meant to, including Fukushima. Water cooling was initiated, as designed."
He pointed out that the 14-metre tsunami which hit Fukushima was "an extremely unlikely event" that overwhelmed defences designed for a tsunami of more than 2m. When this happened, the battery systems stepped in to pump cooling water round the plant for nine and a half hours, he said. All this was evidence of safety systems kicking in correctly.
"As far as we know, not one person has died from radiation," he added. "Let me put that in context - in the same week, 30 coal miners died. Generating electricity from coal is far more dangerous."
He asked: "Is there safer power than nuclear energy historically? No. Even hydroelectricity has caused more fatalities."
Nuclear power represented a "massive economic opportunity" for the UK, Sir David said, and one that should be kept on track despite the incidents in Japan.
Sir David said the lessons from the Japanese incident would help to improve safety further. "We should be looking carefully at the lessons we have learned from this tsunami and how to manage the risks. On the whole, [the Japanese nuclear industry] responded well."
The problems in Japan "could never have been a Chernobyl - that could not have happened," he said. The mass evacuations that have taken place were a good precaution, but people were not in danger, he said.
Airline passengers unwittingly expose themselves to a dose of radiation when they fly, but it is harmless as it is in such small quantities.
Sir David also said he did not believe the assertion by Connie Hedegaard, Europe's climate change commissioner, that electricity generation from offshore wind was cheaper than nuclear power. "My own view is that nuclear is going to prove to be very competitive," he said.
But he said that in the race to decarbonise electricity production, countries should pursue all available non-fossil fuel options, including all forms of renewable energy.
Sir David was speaking at the launch of a new report from the Smith School of Enterprise, part of Oxford University, which showed that the UK should reform its nuclear industry in order to recycle spent fuel waste into new usable fuel for the new generation of reactors the coalition government is pressing for.
Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 March 2011 15.57 BST
Stepping on to a transatlantic flight will expose a person to more radiation than walking around the Fukushima nuclear power station in Japan – even in its current state of near-meltdown – according to the UK government's former chief scientist.
Sir David King mounted a robust defence of nuclear power on Wednesday as renewed fears over its dangers buffeted the industry. He said it was the safest form of electricity generation, and that the recovery of most of Japan's nuclear fleet after the worst earthquake in living memory showed that safety systems were working.
"An earthquake of 9.0 [magnitude] hit Japan, and all 16 nuclear plants that felt the earthquake were switched off within two minutes," he said. "Every one of them acted as they were meant to, including Fukushima. Water cooling was initiated, as designed."
He pointed out that the 14-metre tsunami which hit Fukushima was "an extremely unlikely event" that overwhelmed defences designed for a tsunami of more than 2m. When this happened, the battery systems stepped in to pump cooling water round the plant for nine and a half hours, he said. All this was evidence of safety systems kicking in correctly.
"As far as we know, not one person has died from radiation," he added. "Let me put that in context - in the same week, 30 coal miners died. Generating electricity from coal is far more dangerous."
He asked: "Is there safer power than nuclear energy historically? No. Even hydroelectricity has caused more fatalities."
Nuclear power represented a "massive economic opportunity" for the UK, Sir David said, and one that should be kept on track despite the incidents in Japan.
Sir David said the lessons from the Japanese incident would help to improve safety further. "We should be looking carefully at the lessons we have learned from this tsunami and how to manage the risks. On the whole, [the Japanese nuclear industry] responded well."
The problems in Japan "could never have been a Chernobyl - that could not have happened," he said. The mass evacuations that have taken place were a good precaution, but people were not in danger, he said.
Airline passengers unwittingly expose themselves to a dose of radiation when they fly, but it is harmless as it is in such small quantities.
Sir David also said he did not believe the assertion by Connie Hedegaard, Europe's climate change commissioner, that electricity generation from offshore wind was cheaper than nuclear power. "My own view is that nuclear is going to prove to be very competitive," he said.
But he said that in the race to decarbonise electricity production, countries should pursue all available non-fossil fuel options, including all forms of renewable energy.
Sir David was speaking at the launch of a new report from the Smith School of Enterprise, part of Oxford University, which showed that the UK should reform its nuclear industry in order to recycle spent fuel waste into new usable fuel for the new generation of reactors the coalition government is pressing for.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Standard batteries key to electric cars
The Guardian, Monday 28 March 2011
Many of us would welcome electric cars which closely match the practicality of those propelled by petrol engines (A new Leaf, 26 March). But the greatest impediment is the lack of international standards on the battery system. The limited milage currently available, coupled with the lengthy recharging time, means some initiative is required to overcome these shortcomings.
It is straightforward to drive in to a service station and refill the fuel tank, regardless of tank capacity or fuel consumption. If you were able to pull into a service station and replace the battery pack, then electric cars would be viewed differently. Imagine a service station of the future: you are running low on charge, but your sat nav will guide you to the nearest service station. Your battery pack is swapped for a fully charged one; you are billed for the charge – as the pack is effectively a service replacement – less any remaining charge in the old pack; you continue on your way. It could be as easy as that, if you had a standardised system. It could also be very cheap, the service station re-charges the batteries and bills you for the cost plus.
There are enormous benefits to standardising battery packs: engineers know where to locate them; the interconnections are defined; the unit cost will drop dramatically as the volume increases; technological progress is not tied to the vehicle, it just gives you more performance; automatic removal, replacement and charging systems can be developed. You wouldn't necessarily have to buy the battery – currently a major cost factor in such vehicles. So if this government is serious about reducing CO2, it should propose an international battery format.
Richard Snape
Minehead, West Somerset
Many of us would welcome electric cars which closely match the practicality of those propelled by petrol engines (A new Leaf, 26 March). But the greatest impediment is the lack of international standards on the battery system. The limited milage currently available, coupled with the lengthy recharging time, means some initiative is required to overcome these shortcomings.
It is straightforward to drive in to a service station and refill the fuel tank, regardless of tank capacity or fuel consumption. If you were able to pull into a service station and replace the battery pack, then electric cars would be viewed differently. Imagine a service station of the future: you are running low on charge, but your sat nav will guide you to the nearest service station. Your battery pack is swapped for a fully charged one; you are billed for the charge – as the pack is effectively a service replacement – less any remaining charge in the old pack; you continue on your way. It could be as easy as that, if you had a standardised system. It could also be very cheap, the service station re-charges the batteries and bills you for the cost plus.
There are enormous benefits to standardising battery packs: engineers know where to locate them; the interconnections are defined; the unit cost will drop dramatically as the volume increases; technological progress is not tied to the vehicle, it just gives you more performance; automatic removal, replacement and charging systems can be developed. You wouldn't necessarily have to buy the battery – currently a major cost factor in such vehicles. So if this government is serious about reducing CO2, it should propose an international battery format.
Richard Snape
Minehead, West Somerset
Friday, 25 March 2011
Nissan Leaf charges into UK car showrooms
High hopes for green motoring as UK's first mass-produced electric vehicle hits dealerships
• Testdriving the Nissan Leaf
Fiona Harvey and Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 March 2011 13.46 GMT
Their sometimes clunky designs, short range between recharges and super-car price tags have put many drivers off buying an electric car. But that could soon change with the launch of the UK's first mass-produced electric vehicle.
The Nissan Leaf, an all-electric family car with the performance of a Ford Focus but a fraction of the greenhouse gas emissions, is delivered to UK dealerships today.
More than 600 fans of greener driving have been waiting since last September to get their hands on the Leaf, one of only a handful of electric vehicles available in the UK.
Mark Goodier, the Smooth Radio DJ, is one of the first. "The great thing about electric cars is that the fuel distribution is already in place," he said. "We all have mains electricity at home. We have it at work and councils are already working on how to install thousands of charging points at the roadside. You can see why electric vehicles make such sense, particularly in towns and cities."
At £30,990, the Leaf is at the expensive end of the family car budget, but drivers can claim a £5,000 government grant towards the cost. They are also exempt from road tax and congestion charges, and if it is used as a company car, it is not taxed as a benefit-in-kind and the employer pays no national insurance contributions on it.
A full charge will last for about 110 miles, Nissan calculates, and cost about £2 in electricity. That compares with about £12 for 110 miles for a petrol-driven car of a similar size. Even with George Osborne's budget give-away to "Ford Focus families", in the form of a 1p cut to fuel duty announced on Wednesday, switching to an electric car is likely to save the average driver more than £1,500 a year.
Ministers are hoping that the wider availability of electric cars will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport, which will be essential to meeting climate change targets. They also hope to spark investment in a new manufacturing industry. While the Leafs being driven out of dealerships this week were built in Japan, from 2013 they will be built at the Nissan plant in Sunderland.
Other electric cars available in the UK include the Mitsubishi i-MiEV, the Smart Fortwo electric drive, the Peugeot iOn and Citroen C-Zero, but some are limited to leasing deals at present. More are scheduled to follow, including the Chevrolet Volt and Tata Vista.
But the electric "revolution" in driving has got off to a slow start. Only 55 electric cars were sold in the UK in 2009, though that was before the government's new grants took effect. The government's climate advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, says the country needs 1.7m of them on the roads by 2020 to help meet the country's tough carbon targets.
This year is not likely to prove a breakthrough, despite the new cars reaching garages, according to Andrew Close, European manager for powertrain forecasts at IHS Global Insight. "It might be the first year people notice electric cars driving around – normal people rather than G-Wiz owners," he said.
"But 2011 will not see any breakthrough in volume [of cars on the road], though it will be a considerable jump from before. 2011 is way too early, £5,000 or not – the vehicles are expensive, constrained in supply and there are still too many good [conventional car] alternatives."
Fans of greener cars are happy with their expanded choice, though. Richard Todd, a silicon chip designer from St Albans, used to drive a Toyota Prius, a hybrid half-electric and half-petrol car. "As an engineer I have always wanted an electric car – I've just had to wait for the battery technology to arrive," he said. "Hybrids are good but the driving experience of an all-electric vehicle is way beyond this."
A comprehensive charging network is currently under development in the UK, and Nissan's network of EV dealers – currently 26 sites nationwide – will be equipped with a quick charger, which will charge the battery from zero to 80% capacity in under 30 minutes. Across the UK there are programmes under way to install around 9,000 charge points by 2013.
• Testdriving the Nissan Leaf
Fiona Harvey and Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 March 2011 13.46 GMT
Their sometimes clunky designs, short range between recharges and super-car price tags have put many drivers off buying an electric car. But that could soon change with the launch of the UK's first mass-produced electric vehicle.
The Nissan Leaf, an all-electric family car with the performance of a Ford Focus but a fraction of the greenhouse gas emissions, is delivered to UK dealerships today.
More than 600 fans of greener driving have been waiting since last September to get their hands on the Leaf, one of only a handful of electric vehicles available in the UK.
Mark Goodier, the Smooth Radio DJ, is one of the first. "The great thing about electric cars is that the fuel distribution is already in place," he said. "We all have mains electricity at home. We have it at work and councils are already working on how to install thousands of charging points at the roadside. You can see why electric vehicles make such sense, particularly in towns and cities."
At £30,990, the Leaf is at the expensive end of the family car budget, but drivers can claim a £5,000 government grant towards the cost. They are also exempt from road tax and congestion charges, and if it is used as a company car, it is not taxed as a benefit-in-kind and the employer pays no national insurance contributions on it.
A full charge will last for about 110 miles, Nissan calculates, and cost about £2 in electricity. That compares with about £12 for 110 miles for a petrol-driven car of a similar size. Even with George Osborne's budget give-away to "Ford Focus families", in the form of a 1p cut to fuel duty announced on Wednesday, switching to an electric car is likely to save the average driver more than £1,500 a year.
Ministers are hoping that the wider availability of electric cars will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport, which will be essential to meeting climate change targets. They also hope to spark investment in a new manufacturing industry. While the Leafs being driven out of dealerships this week were built in Japan, from 2013 they will be built at the Nissan plant in Sunderland.
Other electric cars available in the UK include the Mitsubishi i-MiEV, the Smart Fortwo electric drive, the Peugeot iOn and Citroen C-Zero, but some are limited to leasing deals at present. More are scheduled to follow, including the Chevrolet Volt and Tata Vista.
But the electric "revolution" in driving has got off to a slow start. Only 55 electric cars were sold in the UK in 2009, though that was before the government's new grants took effect. The government's climate advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, says the country needs 1.7m of them on the roads by 2020 to help meet the country's tough carbon targets.
This year is not likely to prove a breakthrough, despite the new cars reaching garages, according to Andrew Close, European manager for powertrain forecasts at IHS Global Insight. "It might be the first year people notice electric cars driving around – normal people rather than G-Wiz owners," he said.
"But 2011 will not see any breakthrough in volume [of cars on the road], though it will be a considerable jump from before. 2011 is way too early, £5,000 or not – the vehicles are expensive, constrained in supply and there are still too many good [conventional car] alternatives."
Fans of greener cars are happy with their expanded choice, though. Richard Todd, a silicon chip designer from St Albans, used to drive a Toyota Prius, a hybrid half-electric and half-petrol car. "As an engineer I have always wanted an electric car – I've just had to wait for the battery technology to arrive," he said. "Hybrids are good but the driving experience of an all-electric vehicle is way beyond this."
A comprehensive charging network is currently under development in the UK, and Nissan's network of EV dealers – currently 26 sites nationwide – will be equipped with a quick charger, which will charge the battery from zero to 80% capacity in under 30 minutes. Across the UK there are programmes under way to install around 9,000 charge points by 2013.
Why don't governments push for more hydrogen cars?
The much-heralded 'hydrogen economy' never appears to get out of first gear. Are our politicians failing us by not pushing harder for hydrogen-powered cars?
Leo Hickman guardian.co.uk, Thursday 24 March 2011 10.27 GMT
Why don't governments push for more use of hydrogen-powered vehicles?
Ashraf Abdo, via Facebook
We seem to have been talking about the "hydrogen economy" for well over a decade now, but, like so many other saviour technologies, its arrival never seems to get any closer.
Yes, there have been the showcasing examples of the Honda FCX Clarity and the CUTE (Clean Urban Transport for Europe) bus trials in London. But without the infrastructure to produce and distribute hydrogen as a fuel, these vehicles are little more than curios.
It is significant, too, that talk of hydrogen seems to have dampened down in the US. After President Bush announced in 2003 that hydrogen-powered cars would be at heart of how America weaned itself off oil, the Obama administration has pulled back from promoting the technology with energy secretary Steven Chu stating in 2009 that support for research programmes would be curtailed because the government was "moving away from funding vehicular hydrogen fuel cells to technologies with more immediate promise".
Are our governments making a mistake by not investing much further in hydrogen? Or are there too many problems with the technology to see it becoming a genuine rival to oil as a transportation fuel?
This column is an experiment in crowd-sourcing a reader's question, so please let us know your views and experiences below (as opposed to emailing them) and I will join in with some of my own thoughts and reactions as the debate progresses. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate too.
• Please send your own environment question to ask.leo.and.lucy@guardian.co.uk.
Or, alternatively, message me on Twitter @LeoHickman
Leo Hickman guardian.co.uk, Thursday 24 March 2011 10.27 GMT
Why don't governments push for more use of hydrogen-powered vehicles?
Ashraf Abdo, via Facebook
We seem to have been talking about the "hydrogen economy" for well over a decade now, but, like so many other saviour technologies, its arrival never seems to get any closer.
Yes, there have been the showcasing examples of the Honda FCX Clarity and the CUTE (Clean Urban Transport for Europe) bus trials in London. But without the infrastructure to produce and distribute hydrogen as a fuel, these vehicles are little more than curios.
It is significant, too, that talk of hydrogen seems to have dampened down in the US. After President Bush announced in 2003 that hydrogen-powered cars would be at heart of how America weaned itself off oil, the Obama administration has pulled back from promoting the technology with energy secretary Steven Chu stating in 2009 that support for research programmes would be curtailed because the government was "moving away from funding vehicular hydrogen fuel cells to technologies with more immediate promise".
Are our governments making a mistake by not investing much further in hydrogen? Or are there too many problems with the technology to see it becoming a genuine rival to oil as a transportation fuel?
This column is an experiment in crowd-sourcing a reader's question, so please let us know your views and experiences below (as opposed to emailing them) and I will join in with some of my own thoughts and reactions as the debate progresses. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate too.
• Please send your own environment question to ask.leo.and.lucy@guardian.co.uk.
Or, alternatively, message me on Twitter @LeoHickman
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Budget: Green bank and carbon levy not enough to tackle climate change
Plans set out in the budget make a mockery of promises to be 'the greenest government ever' while putting up fuel bills, environmental groups have complained.
George Osborne, the Chancellor, set the Carbon Floor Price at £16 per tonne from 2013, rising to £30 by 2020.
The levy is paid by energy companies to discourage carbon intensive power stations like coal or oil and encourage investment in wind and nuclear.
However it will ultimately be paid by the consumer, adding £120 to bills every year over the next eight years, according to analysts, in the latest green tax on fuel.
Dr Doug Parr, Policy director of Greenpeace, said the levy will benefit low carbon technology like nuclear instead of boosting renewables like wind and solar.
“The carbon floor price will put up bills, deliver a windfall profit for existing nuclear power stations and yet it won’t drive investment into clean energy and improved efficiency. It’s not so much a green tax as a stealth tax and it’s exactly the sort of measure that gives green levies a bad name,” he said.
Overall environmentalists were unhappy with Mr Osborne’s budget, although investors welcomed plans to boost funding for renewable projects.
The Green Investment Bank, which is key to providing money for big renewable energy projects, will get £3 billion in public funding. This will enable the bank to raise a further £15 billion of private sector investment during the life of this Parliament
However it will not be able to borrow until 2015, subject to overall targets on debt reduction being met.
Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, insisted both the Carbon Floor Price and the Green Investment Bank are significant signals that the Government is taking green growth seriously and will be providing funding in the long term.
But Andy Atkins, Executive Direct of Friends of the Earth, said the bank needs borrowing powers immediately in order to raise much more money for urgent projects.
"The Green Investment Bank should have been a vehicle to drive the UK's economic recovery, but by delaying the bank's borrowing powers the Treasury has sneaked round the back of the motor and siphoned off the fuel – just as the rest of Government is firing up the ignition," he said.
"In the global race to develop green industry, the Treasury seems determined to make the UK lose."
There was also disappointment at plans to water down plans to make all homes carbon neutral by 2016. In an effort to cut red tape “zero carbon” homes will not include the electricity used for plug-in appliances.
Green transport campaigners said the fall in fuel duty leaves motorists vulnerable to oil price rises in the long term because it fails to encourage investment in electric cars.
Wildlife groups are disappointed that the Government has refused to tax peat compost, which is blamed for destroying habitat and driving climate change.
Countryside campaigners are concerned that changes to the planning rules will make England “like Legoland” within 10 years by making development easier.
George Osborne, the Chancellor, set the Carbon Floor Price at £16 per tonne from 2013, rising to £30 by 2020.
The levy is paid by energy companies to discourage carbon intensive power stations like coal or oil and encourage investment in wind and nuclear.
However it will ultimately be paid by the consumer, adding £120 to bills every year over the next eight years, according to analysts, in the latest green tax on fuel.
Dr Doug Parr, Policy director of Greenpeace, said the levy will benefit low carbon technology like nuclear instead of boosting renewables like wind and solar.
“The carbon floor price will put up bills, deliver a windfall profit for existing nuclear power stations and yet it won’t drive investment into clean energy and improved efficiency. It’s not so much a green tax as a stealth tax and it’s exactly the sort of measure that gives green levies a bad name,” he said.
Overall environmentalists were unhappy with Mr Osborne’s budget, although investors welcomed plans to boost funding for renewable projects.
The Green Investment Bank, which is key to providing money for big renewable energy projects, will get £3 billion in public funding. This will enable the bank to raise a further £15 billion of private sector investment during the life of this Parliament
However it will not be able to borrow until 2015, subject to overall targets on debt reduction being met.
Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, insisted both the Carbon Floor Price and the Green Investment Bank are significant signals that the Government is taking green growth seriously and will be providing funding in the long term.
But Andy Atkins, Executive Direct of Friends of the Earth, said the bank needs borrowing powers immediately in order to raise much more money for urgent projects.
"The Green Investment Bank should have been a vehicle to drive the UK's economic recovery, but by delaying the bank's borrowing powers the Treasury has sneaked round the back of the motor and siphoned off the fuel – just as the rest of Government is firing up the ignition," he said.
"In the global race to develop green industry, the Treasury seems determined to make the UK lose."
There was also disappointment at plans to water down plans to make all homes carbon neutral by 2016. In an effort to cut red tape “zero carbon” homes will not include the electricity used for plug-in appliances.
Green transport campaigners said the fall in fuel duty leaves motorists vulnerable to oil price rises in the long term because it fails to encourage investment in electric cars.
Wildlife groups are disappointed that the Government has refused to tax peat compost, which is blamed for destroying habitat and driving climate change.
Countryside campaigners are concerned that changes to the planning rules will make England “like Legoland” within 10 years by making development easier.
Budget 2011: Carbon tax brings higher electricity bills – and nuclear windfalls
Nuclear and renewable energy companies will reap benefits as tax on coal and gas emissions is passed on to consumers
The carbon tax introduced in the 2011 budget will mean higher bills for electricity consumers and increased profits for nuclear companies. Photograph: Pa Photo/PA
Nuclear and renewable energy companies will scoop huge windfall profits after the government announced plans to raise £3.2bn by 2016 from a new carbon tax funded by higher electricity bills.
The chancellor announced a guaranteed minimum or "floor" price for carbon under Europe's emissions trading scheme of £16 a tonne in 2013, rising to £30 by 2020. If the market price of carbon slumps, the Treasury's tax will increase to make up the difference. The UK is the first country in the world to introduce such a mechanism to guarantee a price for carbon.
The level of the tax was higher than many energy experts expected. Charity National Energy Action called on the government to use some of the Treasury proceeds to fund the insulation of the poorest households' homes .
Critics said that the tax was geared more at raising revenue for the Treasury than achieving its stated aim of incentivising companies to build low-carbon forms of generation.
Coal and gas plants will start paying the tax in 2013, based on how much carbon they emit. They will be allowed to pass on the cost to consumers in higher bills. Existing nuclear reactors and renewable producers will pay next to nothing because their emissions are low, but they will still profit from higher electricity prices.
Ben Caldecott, head of UK and EU policy at specialist investment house Climate Change Capital, said that although the carbon floor price would benefit investors in low-carbon generation, it did not give certainty because the level could be changed in future budgets. To give investors real certainty, he said, the level of tax should be guaranteed by long-term contracts.
"To highlight why low carbon investors might find it hard to trust this new tax based mechanism, just look at what else was announced today – scrapping the planned rise under the fuel duty escalator. The same could happen to planned rises in the carbon tax that sets the carbon price floor."
The consultancy Redpoint had calculated that under the government's most likely carbon tax plan, electricity costs would rise by almost 10% by 2016, putting up to 110,000 more households in fuel poverty – defined as a household spending more than a tenth of its disposable income on utility bills. Redpoint had also calculated that this plan would result in an estimated £1.3bn of windfall profits for the UK's remaining reactors, mostly owned by EDF Energy, by 2020.But experts said the government's more aggressive tax will result in higher costs sooner, bigger windfall profits and more households in fuel poverty.
George Osborne also confirmed that the government would not introduce a new levy on electricity bills to fund coal and gas plants testing new carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to prevent emissions going into the atmosphere. He said that they would be funded by taxation instead.
The carbon tax introduced in the 2011 budget will mean higher bills for electricity consumers and increased profits for nuclear companies. Photograph: Pa Photo/PA
Nuclear and renewable energy companies will scoop huge windfall profits after the government announced plans to raise £3.2bn by 2016 from a new carbon tax funded by higher electricity bills.
The chancellor announced a guaranteed minimum or "floor" price for carbon under Europe's emissions trading scheme of £16 a tonne in 2013, rising to £30 by 2020. If the market price of carbon slumps, the Treasury's tax will increase to make up the difference. The UK is the first country in the world to introduce such a mechanism to guarantee a price for carbon.
The level of the tax was higher than many energy experts expected. Charity National Energy Action called on the government to use some of the Treasury proceeds to fund the insulation of the poorest households' homes .
Critics said that the tax was geared more at raising revenue for the Treasury than achieving its stated aim of incentivising companies to build low-carbon forms of generation.
Coal and gas plants will start paying the tax in 2013, based on how much carbon they emit. They will be allowed to pass on the cost to consumers in higher bills. Existing nuclear reactors and renewable producers will pay next to nothing because their emissions are low, but they will still profit from higher electricity prices.
Ben Caldecott, head of UK and EU policy at specialist investment house Climate Change Capital, said that although the carbon floor price would benefit investors in low-carbon generation, it did not give certainty because the level could be changed in future budgets. To give investors real certainty, he said, the level of tax should be guaranteed by long-term contracts.
"To highlight why low carbon investors might find it hard to trust this new tax based mechanism, just look at what else was announced today – scrapping the planned rise under the fuel duty escalator. The same could happen to planned rises in the carbon tax that sets the carbon price floor."
The consultancy Redpoint had calculated that under the government's most likely carbon tax plan, electricity costs would rise by almost 10% by 2016, putting up to 110,000 more households in fuel poverty – defined as a household spending more than a tenth of its disposable income on utility bills. Redpoint had also calculated that this plan would result in an estimated £1.3bn of windfall profits for the UK's remaining reactors, mostly owned by EDF Energy, by 2020.But experts said the government's more aggressive tax will result in higher costs sooner, bigger windfall profits and more households in fuel poverty.
George Osborne also confirmed that the government would not introduce a new levy on electricity bills to fund coal and gas plants testing new carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to prevent emissions going into the atmosphere. He said that they would be funded by taxation instead.
Budget 2011: George Osborne's plans are a disaster for the environment
An incentive to consume more petrol, relaxed planning rules and a weak green bank add up to a black budget for the environment
• Green bank is the government's biggest budget test
The "greenest government ever" has delivered the blackest budget in living memory. It provides a roaring incentive to use more oil, just as we might be heading towards an oil crisis. It has given the green light to the aviation industry to keep expanding, despite the government's promise to limit its impact. It has made a mockery of green investment. Perhaps most disturbingly, it has ripped up the social contract which has prevailed in this country since 1947, which ensured that developers, through the planning laws, were accountable to the people.
Let's begin with that last item, because everything about it is extraordinary. The first question is what on earth it is doing in a budget statement? The budget is supposed to concern the government's finances, where's the connection to planning legislation? The likely explanation is that the government has decided this is the best place to bury bad news; it is sneaking it through while we're distracted by the fiscal measures.
It describes the policy as "introduc[ing] a new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is 'yes'". Notice the slip up? It starts off as "sustainable development", creating the impression that Osborne is talking about solar panels and bird hides. Seven words later, you realise he means everything. It is, in other words, the opposite of sustainable. So much for the promise by the communities secretary, Eric Pickles, of more local control over development; this presents yet another barrier to communities trying to prevent Tesco from trashing their towns.
Osborne has abolished the fuel duty escalator, cut fuel tax for vehicles, frozen air passenger duty rates and dismissed – on the untested assumption that it would contravene international law – a tax on planes that would have discouraged airlines from running them half-empty. These measures send the clearest possible signal that he has no intention of reforming our planet-trashing, resource-guzzling transport systems, before they run into the wall of peak oil and climate change. This is populism of the crudest kind, which might delight the Mail and the Sun, but shows that, for all his talk of tough choices and difficult decisions, the chancellor is a chicken.
Talking of which, he has bumped the date when the Green Investment Bank will start borrowing to the start of financial year 2015-2016, which happens to be the end of this government's term in office (if it doesn't come sooner). In other words, Osborne will not, unless he remains chancellor beyond that point, take responsibility for a measure that will contribute to the national debt, but prefers to pass it on to his successors.
Decisive action on greening the economy is deferred yet again.
This budget is perverse, regressive, destructive, cowardly. It's a charter for corporations, which gives two fingers to the public interest. It demonstrates what many of us had suspected but had hoped was not true: that the government was lying when it promised to protect the environment.
www.monbiot.com
• Green bank is the government's biggest budget test
The "greenest government ever" has delivered the blackest budget in living memory. It provides a roaring incentive to use more oil, just as we might be heading towards an oil crisis. It has given the green light to the aviation industry to keep expanding, despite the government's promise to limit its impact. It has made a mockery of green investment. Perhaps most disturbingly, it has ripped up the social contract which has prevailed in this country since 1947, which ensured that developers, through the planning laws, were accountable to the people.
Let's begin with that last item, because everything about it is extraordinary. The first question is what on earth it is doing in a budget statement? The budget is supposed to concern the government's finances, where's the connection to planning legislation? The likely explanation is that the government has decided this is the best place to bury bad news; it is sneaking it through while we're distracted by the fiscal measures.
It describes the policy as "introduc[ing] a new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is 'yes'". Notice the slip up? It starts off as "sustainable development", creating the impression that Osborne is talking about solar panels and bird hides. Seven words later, you realise he means everything. It is, in other words, the opposite of sustainable. So much for the promise by the communities secretary, Eric Pickles, of more local control over development; this presents yet another barrier to communities trying to prevent Tesco from trashing their towns.
Osborne has abolished the fuel duty escalator, cut fuel tax for vehicles, frozen air passenger duty rates and dismissed – on the untested assumption that it would contravene international law – a tax on planes that would have discouraged airlines from running them half-empty. These measures send the clearest possible signal that he has no intention of reforming our planet-trashing, resource-guzzling transport systems, before they run into the wall of peak oil and climate change. This is populism of the crudest kind, which might delight the Mail and the Sun, but shows that, for all his talk of tough choices and difficult decisions, the chancellor is a chicken.
Talking of which, he has bumped the date when the Green Investment Bank will start borrowing to the start of financial year 2015-2016, which happens to be the end of this government's term in office (if it doesn't come sooner). In other words, Osborne will not, unless he remains chancellor beyond that point, take responsibility for a measure that will contribute to the national debt, but prefers to pass it on to his successors.
Decisive action on greening the economy is deferred yet again.
This budget is perverse, regressive, destructive, cowardly. It's a charter for corporations, which gives two fingers to the public interest. It demonstrates what many of us had suspected but had hoped was not true: that the government was lying when it promised to protect the environment.
www.monbiot.com
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Jatropha biofuel 'produces six times greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuels'
Plantation of a shrub once hailed as the great new hope for biofuels will result in up to six times the greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuels, according to a new report.
Jatropha has been planted across Asia in countries under pressure from the West to reduce emissions from the destruction of rainforests, car exhausts and energy production from coal-burning power plants.
But the study for the anti-poverty agency ActionAid and the RSPB of a proposed 50,000 hectare jatropha plantation development in the Dakatcha woodlands of Kenya, near Malindi, found that emissions in producing the biofuel would be 2.5 to six times higher than the fossil fuel equivalents. The woodland hosts globally endangered bird life.
The research examined the whole "life-cycle" of the jatropha production, primarily the clearance of woodland and scrubland, planting, harvesting, refining and transportation of the bio-diesel destined for heating and electricity production in Europe.
"Biofuels are far from the miracle climate cure they were thought to be," said Tim Rice, ActionAid's biofuel expert. "Like most other biofuels, jatropha could actually end up increasing carbon emissions."
Demand for biofuels is soaring around the globe, especially in developed countries where they are subsidised because they hold out the prospect of lower emissions. New EU targets under the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) requires 10 per cent of transport to be powered by renewable by 2020, almost entirely from biofuels.
The growing demand for biofuels led many Asian countries to plan vast plantations of jatropha, which grows on land unsuitable for food production, to feed the imminent gold rush and counter their own green house gas emissions.
Indonesia aimed to have 1.5 million hectares of land under jatropha crops by last year, while India planned 1.18 million hectares, though falling oil prices and growing question marks about it sustainability saw those targets scaled back.
Jatropha has been planted across Asia in countries under pressure from the West to reduce emissions from the destruction of rainforests, car exhausts and energy production from coal-burning power plants.
But the study for the anti-poverty agency ActionAid and the RSPB of a proposed 50,000 hectare jatropha plantation development in the Dakatcha woodlands of Kenya, near Malindi, found that emissions in producing the biofuel would be 2.5 to six times higher than the fossil fuel equivalents. The woodland hosts globally endangered bird life.
The research examined the whole "life-cycle" of the jatropha production, primarily the clearance of woodland and scrubland, planting, harvesting, refining and transportation of the bio-diesel destined for heating and electricity production in Europe.
"Biofuels are far from the miracle climate cure they were thought to be," said Tim Rice, ActionAid's biofuel expert. "Like most other biofuels, jatropha could actually end up increasing carbon emissions."
Demand for biofuels is soaring around the globe, especially in developed countries where they are subsidised because they hold out the prospect of lower emissions. New EU targets under the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) requires 10 per cent of transport to be powered by renewable by 2020, almost entirely from biofuels.
The growing demand for biofuels led many Asian countries to plan vast plantations of jatropha, which grows on land unsuitable for food production, to feed the imminent gold rush and counter their own green house gas emissions.
Indonesia aimed to have 1.5 million hectares of land under jatropha crops by last year, while India planned 1.18 million hectares, though falling oil prices and growing question marks about it sustainability saw those targets scaled back.
Budget 2011: Osborne poised to ditch CCS levy
FT reports suggest budget will scrap plans for carbon capture levy in favour of electricity market reforms
Business Green guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 March 2011 16.28 GMT
Chancellor George Osborne is tomorrow expected to confirm that plans for a new levy on energy bills that should help fund three carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects will be ditched.
According to reports in the Financial Times citing industry and government sources, ministers have now concluded that the government's proposed electricity market reforms and plans to place a floor price on carbon emissions will provide energy companies with sufficient incentive to develop CCS plants without the need for a specific levy.
As part of last autumn's spending review, the coalition had announced that it would fund at least three further plants through either direct government grants or a levy on energy bills designed to raise up to £3bn, in addition to providing £1bn of funding to the UK's first CCS demonstration project.
However, the Financial Times reported that a levy has been ruled out in response to ongoing concerns about rising energy bills at a time when household budgets are being squeezed.
Ministers now appear to be putting all their faith in the ongoing electricity market reform proposals as the main mechanism for driving investment in low-carbon energy technologies.
Osborne is also expected to use the budget to provide further details on how the Treasury will impose a carbon floor price on energy generators, which will be designed to make carbon-intensive energy more expensive and incentivise energy firms to invest in renewables, nuclear power and CCS.
Sources told the Financial Times that the government could also use the money raised by the Treasury through the carbon floor price to help fund future CCS projects.
However, energy firms remain deeply concerned that unless the floor price is set at the right level, generators will only be incentivised to invest in one or two forms of established low-carbon energy, such as nuclear and onshore wind farms, while more costly emerging technologies such as CCS and marine energy will be sidelined.
The government is attempting to alleviate these concerns through complementary proposals, such as an emissions performance standard for new power plants that would effectively ban new coal-fired power plants built without CCS.
But many within the emerging CCS industry doubt energy firms will invest in untested carbon capture technology without some form of direct financial support from government.
Speculation is also mounting that Osborne could use the budget to confirm that the one remaining project in the running for the government's £1bn CCS demonstration project, Scottish Power's Longannet plant in Scotland, will be awarded the funding.
Business Green guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 March 2011 16.28 GMT
Chancellor George Osborne is tomorrow expected to confirm that plans for a new levy on energy bills that should help fund three carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects will be ditched.
According to reports in the Financial Times citing industry and government sources, ministers have now concluded that the government's proposed electricity market reforms and plans to place a floor price on carbon emissions will provide energy companies with sufficient incentive to develop CCS plants without the need for a specific levy.
As part of last autumn's spending review, the coalition had announced that it would fund at least three further plants through either direct government grants or a levy on energy bills designed to raise up to £3bn, in addition to providing £1bn of funding to the UK's first CCS demonstration project.
However, the Financial Times reported that a levy has been ruled out in response to ongoing concerns about rising energy bills at a time when household budgets are being squeezed.
Ministers now appear to be putting all their faith in the ongoing electricity market reform proposals as the main mechanism for driving investment in low-carbon energy technologies.
Osborne is also expected to use the budget to provide further details on how the Treasury will impose a carbon floor price on energy generators, which will be designed to make carbon-intensive energy more expensive and incentivise energy firms to invest in renewables, nuclear power and CCS.
Sources told the Financial Times that the government could also use the money raised by the Treasury through the carbon floor price to help fund future CCS projects.
However, energy firms remain deeply concerned that unless the floor price is set at the right level, generators will only be incentivised to invest in one or two forms of established low-carbon energy, such as nuclear and onshore wind farms, while more costly emerging technologies such as CCS and marine energy will be sidelined.
The government is attempting to alleviate these concerns through complementary proposals, such as an emissions performance standard for new power plants that would effectively ban new coal-fired power plants built without CCS.
But many within the emerging CCS industry doubt energy firms will invest in untested carbon capture technology without some form of direct financial support from government.
Speculation is also mounting that Osborne could use the budget to confirm that the one remaining project in the running for the government's £1bn CCS demonstration project, Scottish Power's Longannet plant in Scotland, will be awarded the funding.
Budget 2011: The key green announcements to watch for
It's make or break time for some of the coalition's biggest environmental policies including the totemic green investment bank. Plus: a possible windfall for nuclear power
"If I become chancellor, the Treasury will become a green ally, not a foe." Those were the brave words spoken by George Osborne in opposition, before he'd met the stony-faced officials. Now he has to deliver.
The budget on Wednesday is the make-or-break moment for some of the coalition's flagship green policies, specifically the green investment bank (GIB). The prime minister appears bullish, with David Cameron repeating his promise to be the "greenest government ever" twice on Monday, in support of Climate Week and WWF's Earth Hour, backed up by Greg Barker doing the same on this site.
But the reality is shaping up to be rather different, according to those I have spoken to and the advance briefing to the press. On the GIB, fuel duty, air passenger duty and the carbon floor price - a tax on highly polluting activities - the likely result seems more brown than green.
Green investment bank: This is the big one and the coalition has nowhere to hide. The GIB is intended to play a central role in driving the huge investment - £370bn by 2025, say some – needed in low carbon infrastructure in order to make the UK's economy green and sustainable.
The GIB was a Conservative and LibDem manifesto pledge, and a coalition pledge. MPs on the environment audit committee made plain that only an independent bank that can borrow and issue bonds would be equal to the scale of the challenge. But Treasury officials have put up a fierce fight, not wanting to cede its control over government borrowing and adamant that allowing GIB borrowing is impossible, as it would add to the national debt. (The latter is an infuriating quirk of accountancy rules - GIB borrowing would not increase the UK's deficit – all money going out would be balanced by money coming in – but would count towards the national debt.)
So the question is will Cameron, Clegg and Osborne face down the Treasury? The latest prediction is that the GIB will be able to borrow – good – but not till 2015 – bad. That stinks of a compromise that allows ministers to keep their word in letter but not in spirit. To re-use Chris Huhne's analogy – "ducks quack, and banks borrow as well as lend" – this fudge would mean the GIB could quack, but not fly.
Air passenger duty: Greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are rising fast and make up the biggest part of the total carbon footprint of many in the developed world. The only green aviation policy is to make the price of flying match its impact – aviation fuel is untaxed, for example. But this government, like the last, will not put environmental principles above popular politics, saying in effect to voters "times are hard, you need a cheap holiday". Having abandoned a very sensible proposal to switch a per-passenger to a per-plane tax, discouraging empty flights, the government is now set to abandon a planned rise in the passenger tax.
Fuel duty: This is the most widely signposted of all the budget measures and has a fiscal impact that dwarfs all the other green measures: the government will not impose the planned fuel duty rise, giving up £540m a year. Again, this is understandable politically: a vast number of people use their cars to get to work and rising fuels prices hit them hard and fast. But without measures to address the root of the problem – oil dependency, as articulated by Chris Huhne – this is a retrograde environmental step. What measures you ask? How about reversing the cuts to public transport or the faster deployment of electric cars?
Carbon capture and storage demonstrations: The story of CCS in the UK is a sorry one to date. The nation has a unique combination of expertise (oil, gas, coal) and geography (empty North Sea reservoirs) and yet has dithered and dallied for years on making the crucial initial investment to get the technology from the experimental to the commercial stage.
The coalition impressively found £1bn of real cash to fund the first demonstration, but still hasn't announce the winner of the competition (which has only one remaining contender). But the bigger question is whether the further three demonstrations promised by the government will get the funding as planned via a levy on energy customers bills? The problem for ministers is that there are already significant levies on bills – will they want to add more? The budget should give the answer.
Carbon floor price: This, in theory, is a good thing. A transparent tax on activities that release CO2, putting a price on the damage the pollution causes and making clean alternatives relatively cheaper. But the consultation has a price that's too low to make any difference at one end and at the other end a price that, once passed from energy companies on to consumers, threatens to drive up those suffering fuel poverty.
There is another pitfall too: the carbon floor price could deliver billions in windfall profits to the operators of existing nuclear power stations in the UK, which generate low carbon electricity. The green solution is a medium to high price linked to measures to address fuel poverty, to prevent huge nuclear windfalls and to make clear how the revenue raised would be used to increase energy security and sustainability.
Green deal, planning, CRC: Other things to watch out for in the budget include changes to Decc's Green Deal. As it stands only the cheaper energy efficiency measures – eg cavity wall insulation – will pass the green deal's "golden rule", in which the cost savings in home energy bills must be more than the loan repayments. Some have mooted linking take up with a cut in stamp duty.
Further "simplification" of the carbon reduction commitment (CRC) is expected, which the government "simplified" at the last budget by turning it from a potential incentive into a tax. Planning issues are also worth keeping an eye on - will the desire for growth mean Osborne hacks back planning regulations, even though greens say this approach doesn't work?
Let me know what you think of the above, and what I have missed, now and on Wednesday. I'll be live tweeting (@dpcarrington) and blogging via the Guardian's budget live blog. Our Green-o-meter is starting to twitch .
"If I become chancellor, the Treasury will become a green ally, not a foe." Those were the brave words spoken by George Osborne in opposition, before he'd met the stony-faced officials. Now he has to deliver.
The budget on Wednesday is the make-or-break moment for some of the coalition's flagship green policies, specifically the green investment bank (GIB). The prime minister appears bullish, with David Cameron repeating his promise to be the "greenest government ever" twice on Monday, in support of Climate Week and WWF's Earth Hour, backed up by Greg Barker doing the same on this site.
But the reality is shaping up to be rather different, according to those I have spoken to and the advance briefing to the press. On the GIB, fuel duty, air passenger duty and the carbon floor price - a tax on highly polluting activities - the likely result seems more brown than green.
Green investment bank: This is the big one and the coalition has nowhere to hide. The GIB is intended to play a central role in driving the huge investment - £370bn by 2025, say some – needed in low carbon infrastructure in order to make the UK's economy green and sustainable.
The GIB was a Conservative and LibDem manifesto pledge, and a coalition pledge. MPs on the environment audit committee made plain that only an independent bank that can borrow and issue bonds would be equal to the scale of the challenge. But Treasury officials have put up a fierce fight, not wanting to cede its control over government borrowing and adamant that allowing GIB borrowing is impossible, as it would add to the national debt. (The latter is an infuriating quirk of accountancy rules - GIB borrowing would not increase the UK's deficit – all money going out would be balanced by money coming in – but would count towards the national debt.)
So the question is will Cameron, Clegg and Osborne face down the Treasury? The latest prediction is that the GIB will be able to borrow – good – but not till 2015 – bad. That stinks of a compromise that allows ministers to keep their word in letter but not in spirit. To re-use Chris Huhne's analogy – "ducks quack, and banks borrow as well as lend" – this fudge would mean the GIB could quack, but not fly.
Air passenger duty: Greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are rising fast and make up the biggest part of the total carbon footprint of many in the developed world. The only green aviation policy is to make the price of flying match its impact – aviation fuel is untaxed, for example. But this government, like the last, will not put environmental principles above popular politics, saying in effect to voters "times are hard, you need a cheap holiday". Having abandoned a very sensible proposal to switch a per-passenger to a per-plane tax, discouraging empty flights, the government is now set to abandon a planned rise in the passenger tax.
Fuel duty: This is the most widely signposted of all the budget measures and has a fiscal impact that dwarfs all the other green measures: the government will not impose the planned fuel duty rise, giving up £540m a year. Again, this is understandable politically: a vast number of people use their cars to get to work and rising fuels prices hit them hard and fast. But without measures to address the root of the problem – oil dependency, as articulated by Chris Huhne – this is a retrograde environmental step. What measures you ask? How about reversing the cuts to public transport or the faster deployment of electric cars?
Carbon capture and storage demonstrations: The story of CCS in the UK is a sorry one to date. The nation has a unique combination of expertise (oil, gas, coal) and geography (empty North Sea reservoirs) and yet has dithered and dallied for years on making the crucial initial investment to get the technology from the experimental to the commercial stage.
The coalition impressively found £1bn of real cash to fund the first demonstration, but still hasn't announce the winner of the competition (which has only one remaining contender). But the bigger question is whether the further three demonstrations promised by the government will get the funding as planned via a levy on energy customers bills? The problem for ministers is that there are already significant levies on bills – will they want to add more? The budget should give the answer.
Carbon floor price: This, in theory, is a good thing. A transparent tax on activities that release CO2, putting a price on the damage the pollution causes and making clean alternatives relatively cheaper. But the consultation has a price that's too low to make any difference at one end and at the other end a price that, once passed from energy companies on to consumers, threatens to drive up those suffering fuel poverty.
There is another pitfall too: the carbon floor price could deliver billions in windfall profits to the operators of existing nuclear power stations in the UK, which generate low carbon electricity. The green solution is a medium to high price linked to measures to address fuel poverty, to prevent huge nuclear windfalls and to make clear how the revenue raised would be used to increase energy security and sustainability.
Green deal, planning, CRC: Other things to watch out for in the budget include changes to Decc's Green Deal. As it stands only the cheaper energy efficiency measures – eg cavity wall insulation – will pass the green deal's "golden rule", in which the cost savings in home energy bills must be more than the loan repayments. Some have mooted linking take up with a cut in stamp duty.
Further "simplification" of the carbon reduction commitment (CRC) is expected, which the government "simplified" at the last budget by turning it from a potential incentive into a tax. Planning issues are also worth keeping an eye on - will the desire for growth mean Osborne hacks back planning regulations, even though greens say this approach doesn't work?
Let me know what you think of the above, and what I have missed, now and on Wednesday. I'll be live tweeting (@dpcarrington) and blogging via the Guardian's budget live blog. Our Green-o-meter is starting to twitch .
An open letter to Greg Barker, butcher of the feed-in tariff
Greg – it is not too late to spare your blushes. Work with us and let's fix this case study in how not to amend policy
Huw Irranca-Davies
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 March 2011 14.44 GMT
The shambolic handling of the solar power review by government has sadly demonstrated a shocking level of ministerial incompetence. Caught red-handed in the act of sabotaging the fledgling feed-in-tariffs that pay people for producing solar energy, climate minister Greg Barker has thrashed around wildly for someone to blame it on. "It was them, guv'nor!" he says, pointing a shaking finger at the previous government, or poor economic modelling (ie the civil servants), or the nasty capitalist solar park developers.
The minister justifies his shock treatment of the sector by "put[ting] a stop to the threat of larger scale solar soaking up the cash". Yet he hasn't only stopped what he initially fingered as the villains in the piece (the very large solar parks on greenfield sites). He hasn't just stopped larger industrial installations on supermarkets or huge industrial buildings. He has also jeopardised medium-sized installations above 50 kw – including many schools, hospitals, churches and community facilities – which would have dramatically scaled up the jobs in manufacturing and installation and servicing, and helped reduce carbon emissions.
There is an unedifying arrogance to this so-called "greenest government ever" which is beginning to worry the wider renewables sector. Rather than try and fix a problem by working with and consulting with the solar sector and with the green groups who supported the feed-in tariff, the government has provided a case-study in how not to amend policy:
• First, put uncertainty into the market by signalling an earlier than expected review of a sector that is only just beginning to bloom. Later, justify that uncertainty by background briefing from a former Cameron aide, who explains it was a deliberate ruse to take steam out of the sector, adding insult to injury. This isn't Machiavellian politics … it's Captain Mainwaring.
• Secondly, in discussions with industry during the autumn, signal to them that the adjustments would be carefully considered to deal with the identified problem: suggest that the megawatt capacity may be reduced, maybe to as low as 2MW, or even 1 MW; that greenfield sites may be completely ruled out. But stress that you're going to be careful not to cut the legs off the scheme.
• Lastly, cut the legs off the scheme. Shock everyone by going way beyond what you've indicated to them in private meetings, destroying their belief in anything you say, and in so doing destroying your credibility with renewables investors and green organisations. And yes minister, the ripples from this fiasco go beyond the solar sector, as the renewables sector and the related investment community are a small and intimately connected bunch.
To top it all, then tell everyone how they can trust this government with future reviews of the feed-in-tariffs (as the laughter begins) and the Renewable Heat Incentive (laughter rises); that the Green Investment Bank is safe in their hands (now deafening laughter); and that investors can trust this government to provide a stable platform for renewables investment in the UK (stop there, you're killing me!).
So we now have until May to persuade ministers to start listening to people like Ray Noble of the Renewable Energy Association who have said: "It's an absolute disaster … no new projects will start after this [the review changes] comes into effect," adding "this industry has been strangled at birth". Or Barbara Hammon, chair of West Oxford Community Renewables – the very sort of social enterprise the government says it wants to support – who complains: "This government came in saying they are all about the 'big society', but this is big government writ large." Or Andrew Lee of Sharp Solar, who employs 1,100 in manufacturing in Wrexham, who describes this as: "Terrible news for the renewable energy sector – the steep rise in job creation will stop and morale within the industry will drop as a result of this remarkable U-turn." Or Friends of the Earth, or the Solar Trade Association, or the Micropower Council … I could go on. The voices are legion, and very angry because of this shameful betrayal.
So, minister, a helpful word from the opposition benches. From someone who recently wrote to you offering help in extricating yourself from this mess. Work with us and green groups and the solar sector to get this right by May. Your temporary embarrassment can be eased by swallowing some humble pie, and listening to wise counsel. More importantly, we can rescue the situation and put confidence back in the renewables sector overall, grow our green jobs again, and hit our carbon reduction targets.
PS. Minister, by the way, talking about uncertainty: already I'm hearing murmurings of discontent over your decision to delay the domestic tariff on the Renewable Heat Incentive. This looks like a worrying pattern ... another coalition day, another coalition delay?
• Huw Irranca-Davies is the shadow energy minister
Huw Irranca-Davies
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 March 2011 14.44 GMT
The shambolic handling of the solar power review by government has sadly demonstrated a shocking level of ministerial incompetence. Caught red-handed in the act of sabotaging the fledgling feed-in-tariffs that pay people for producing solar energy, climate minister Greg Barker has thrashed around wildly for someone to blame it on. "It was them, guv'nor!" he says, pointing a shaking finger at the previous government, or poor economic modelling (ie the civil servants), or the nasty capitalist solar park developers.
The minister justifies his shock treatment of the sector by "put[ting] a stop to the threat of larger scale solar soaking up the cash". Yet he hasn't only stopped what he initially fingered as the villains in the piece (the very large solar parks on greenfield sites). He hasn't just stopped larger industrial installations on supermarkets or huge industrial buildings. He has also jeopardised medium-sized installations above 50 kw – including many schools, hospitals, churches and community facilities – which would have dramatically scaled up the jobs in manufacturing and installation and servicing, and helped reduce carbon emissions.
There is an unedifying arrogance to this so-called "greenest government ever" which is beginning to worry the wider renewables sector. Rather than try and fix a problem by working with and consulting with the solar sector and with the green groups who supported the feed-in tariff, the government has provided a case-study in how not to amend policy:
• First, put uncertainty into the market by signalling an earlier than expected review of a sector that is only just beginning to bloom. Later, justify that uncertainty by background briefing from a former Cameron aide, who explains it was a deliberate ruse to take steam out of the sector, adding insult to injury. This isn't Machiavellian politics … it's Captain Mainwaring.
• Secondly, in discussions with industry during the autumn, signal to them that the adjustments would be carefully considered to deal with the identified problem: suggest that the megawatt capacity may be reduced, maybe to as low as 2MW, or even 1 MW; that greenfield sites may be completely ruled out. But stress that you're going to be careful not to cut the legs off the scheme.
• Lastly, cut the legs off the scheme. Shock everyone by going way beyond what you've indicated to them in private meetings, destroying their belief in anything you say, and in so doing destroying your credibility with renewables investors and green organisations. And yes minister, the ripples from this fiasco go beyond the solar sector, as the renewables sector and the related investment community are a small and intimately connected bunch.
To top it all, then tell everyone how they can trust this government with future reviews of the feed-in-tariffs (as the laughter begins) and the Renewable Heat Incentive (laughter rises); that the Green Investment Bank is safe in their hands (now deafening laughter); and that investors can trust this government to provide a stable platform for renewables investment in the UK (stop there, you're killing me!).
So we now have until May to persuade ministers to start listening to people like Ray Noble of the Renewable Energy Association who have said: "It's an absolute disaster … no new projects will start after this [the review changes] comes into effect," adding "this industry has been strangled at birth". Or Barbara Hammon, chair of West Oxford Community Renewables – the very sort of social enterprise the government says it wants to support – who complains: "This government came in saying they are all about the 'big society', but this is big government writ large." Or Andrew Lee of Sharp Solar, who employs 1,100 in manufacturing in Wrexham, who describes this as: "Terrible news for the renewable energy sector – the steep rise in job creation will stop and morale within the industry will drop as a result of this remarkable U-turn." Or Friends of the Earth, or the Solar Trade Association, or the Micropower Council … I could go on. The voices are legion, and very angry because of this shameful betrayal.
So, minister, a helpful word from the opposition benches. From someone who recently wrote to you offering help in extricating yourself from this mess. Work with us and green groups and the solar sector to get this right by May. Your temporary embarrassment can be eased by swallowing some humble pie, and listening to wise counsel. More importantly, we can rescue the situation and put confidence back in the renewables sector overall, grow our green jobs again, and hit our carbon reduction targets.
PS. Minister, by the way, talking about uncertainty: already I'm hearing murmurings of discontent over your decision to delay the domestic tariff on the Renewable Heat Incentive. This looks like a worrying pattern ... another coalition day, another coalition delay?
• Huw Irranca-Davies is the shadow energy minister
Monday, 21 March 2011
World's largest tidal turbine project in Sound of Islay
The world's largest tidal stream energy development will be built off the west coast of Scotland.
ScottishPower Renewables' £40 million tidal array will harness the power of the Sound of Islay and generate enough electricity for more than 5,000 homes, more than double the number of homes on Islay.
The 10 megawatt (MW) facility will further develop emerging tidal energy technology, and provide economic and community benefits to Islay and Jura.
The Scottish Government said it will cement Scotland's position as a global leader in marine energy.
Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth John Swinney, who determined the application as it is in Energy Minister Jim Mather's Argyll & Bute constituency, said: ''With around a quarter of Europe's potential tidal energy resource and a tenth of the wave capacity, Scotland's seas have unrivalled potential to generate green energy, create new, low carbon jobs, and bring billions of pounds of investment to Scotland.
''This development - the largest tidal array in the world - does just that and will be a milestone in the global development of tidal energy.''
Mr Swinney said the Scottish Power Renewables array will work in harmony with the environment and use the power of the tides in the Sound of Islay to generate enough green energy to power double the number of homes on Islay.
He added: ''There is simply nothing like it consented anywhere else in the world.
''Developers must also work with host communities to provide local benefits.
''I am pleased that ScottishPower Renewables will work with the Islay Energy Trust to maximise social and economic opportunities, for instance using local marine contractors during installation or creating new local jobs in the onshore construction phase.
''And the wider Scottish supply chain is set to benefit, with Scottish businesses set to benefit from four million pounds worth of contracts in making the turbines to be used in the development, including manufacture of a test prototype at BiFab in Arnish.
''The Scottish Government has the right incentives for commercial marine energy generation.
''With the highest support levels in the UK for wave and tidal energy, our £10 million Saltire Prize - Scotland's energy challenge to the world to inspire innovation in marine energy - and our low carbon investment project, Scotland is one of the most attractive markets in the world for investment in marine renewables.
''We will continue to work with our enterprise agencies and with other partners to develop to our full potential and cement Scotland's position as a global leader in marine energy.''
ScottishPower Renewables' £40 million tidal array will harness the power of the Sound of Islay and generate enough electricity for more than 5,000 homes, more than double the number of homes on Islay.
The 10 megawatt (MW) facility will further develop emerging tidal energy technology, and provide economic and community benefits to Islay and Jura.
The Scottish Government said it will cement Scotland's position as a global leader in marine energy.
Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth John Swinney, who determined the application as it is in Energy Minister Jim Mather's Argyll & Bute constituency, said: ''With around a quarter of Europe's potential tidal energy resource and a tenth of the wave capacity, Scotland's seas have unrivalled potential to generate green energy, create new, low carbon jobs, and bring billions of pounds of investment to Scotland.
''This development - the largest tidal array in the world - does just that and will be a milestone in the global development of tidal energy.''
Mr Swinney said the Scottish Power Renewables array will work in harmony with the environment and use the power of the tides in the Sound of Islay to generate enough green energy to power double the number of homes on Islay.
He added: ''There is simply nothing like it consented anywhere else in the world.
''Developers must also work with host communities to provide local benefits.
''I am pleased that ScottishPower Renewables will work with the Islay Energy Trust to maximise social and economic opportunities, for instance using local marine contractors during installation or creating new local jobs in the onshore construction phase.
''And the wider Scottish supply chain is set to benefit, with Scottish businesses set to benefit from four million pounds worth of contracts in making the turbines to be used in the development, including manufacture of a test prototype at BiFab in Arnish.
''The Scottish Government has the right incentives for commercial marine energy generation.
''With the highest support levels in the UK for wave and tidal energy, our £10 million Saltire Prize - Scotland's energy challenge to the world to inspire innovation in marine energy - and our low carbon investment project, Scotland is one of the most attractive markets in the world for investment in marine renewables.
''We will continue to work with our enterprise agencies and with other partners to develop to our full potential and cement Scotland's position as a global leader in marine energy.''
Chris Huhne: Nuclear power may become less attractive option for UK
Chris Huhne says he still backs government's 'three-pronged' energy approach but Fukushima could make nuclear unviable
Toby Helm guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 March 2011 19.45 GMT
Britain may back away from the use of nuclear energy because of safety fears and a potential rise in costs after the Fukushima disaster, says Chris Huhne, the energy secretary.
In an interview with the Observer, Huhne insisted that he would not "rush to judgment" until the implications of the disaster were known and a report into the safety of UK nuclear plants by the chief nuclear officer, Dr Mike Weightman, was complete. The interim findings are due in May.
"I am not ruling out nuclear now," said Huhne. But he said events in Japan could have profound long-term implications for UK policy, which is based on a three-pronged "portfolio" approach: a commitment to nuclear energy; the development of more renewable energy, such as wind and sea power; and new carbon-capture technology to mitigate the damaging environmental effects of fossil fuel-fired power plants and industrial facilities.
Huhne, a Liberal Democrat, said that Britain was in a very different position from Japan, which was vulnerable to strong earthquakes and tsunamis. The UK also used different types of reactors. But he conceded that the Japanese disaster was likely to make it more difficult for private investors to raise capital to build the eight new reactors planned by the government. "There are a lot of issues outside of the realm of nuclear safety, which we will have to assess. One is what the economics of nuclear power post-Fukushima will be, if there is an increase in the cost in capital to nuclear operators."
He said that after the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster in the US 32 years ago, it became more difficult to raise money for nuclear investment. "After Three Mile Island in 1979, nuclear operators found it very hard to finance new projects.
Huhne said he remained wedded to the "portfolio" approach, but added that nuclear energy's future, as part of the mix, had become more uncertain as leaders of other nations, including the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, openly questioned its future. "Globally, this undoubtedly casts a shadow over the renaissance of the nuclear industry. That is blindingly obvious," he said.
Any move away from nuclear – while certain to be welcomed by many Lib Dems – would alarm many in the Tory party. Tim Yeo, the Conservative chair of the environment and climate change select committee, said any such shift would be a huge mistake. "If Britain abandons or significantly delays its programme of building new nuclear power stations, there are three inevitable consequences. First, electricity prices will rise. Second, Britain will not be able to meet its carbon emission reduction targets. And third, the risk that the lights will go out will significantly increase.
"This is because other forms of low-carbon energy, such as solar or offshore wind, are more expensive than nuclear. Solar and wind are not reliable generators of electricity – on cloudy, still days they produce nothing. So they have to be backed up by reliable sources of power. If nuclear is not used, that means more gas or coal, both of which have far higher carbon emissions."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change has carried out its own projections, which show the UK could – with a massive extra commitment to renewable energy and successful use of carbon capture on a grand scale – meet its target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050 without nuclear energy.
Huhne said: "We can do the 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 without new nuclear, but it will require a big effort on carbon capture and storage and renewables."
However, Yeo said: "Nuclear currently provides almost one-fifth of our electricity. Nearly all our existing nuclear power stations will shut by 2020. Demand for electricity will rise steadily from now on as cars, vans, etc start to use electricity and the heating of buildings relies more on electricity. It is very likely that without new nuclear power stations we will simply not build enough other forms of reliable electricity generation in time to replace the contribution nuclear currently makes."
Huhne has asked Weightman to draw up a report into the safety of UK nuclear plants, assessing their resistance to the kind of natural disasters that could hit this country, including flooding and storms. But ministers acknowledge that, even if plants are declared safe, the public perception of nuclear power has been undermined. The cost of meeting new safety conditions and insuring plants, as well as satisfying evacuation requirements in the event of a disaster, could make new reactors economically unviable.
Huhne said ministers needed to show flexibility as untried and untested technology succeeded or failed along the way. "The whole point about a portfolio is that over time – a 20-year view – some of those sources [of energy] will turn out to be much more economic and attractive than others," he said.
After the anti-nuclear Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories last May, Huhne forged a deal under which plans for a new generation of nuclear would go ahead, but without public subsidy. He said at the time that the Lib Dems' preference for meeting the country's energy needs was still to make greater use of renewable energy, such as wind and sea power.
The deal marked a departure for Huhne from his stance in opposition. In 2007 he said: "Nuclear is a tried, tested and failed technology and the government must stop putting time, effort and subsidies into this outdated industry."
Toby Helm guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 March 2011 19.45 GMT
Britain may back away from the use of nuclear energy because of safety fears and a potential rise in costs after the Fukushima disaster, says Chris Huhne, the energy secretary.
In an interview with the Observer, Huhne insisted that he would not "rush to judgment" until the implications of the disaster were known and a report into the safety of UK nuclear plants by the chief nuclear officer, Dr Mike Weightman, was complete. The interim findings are due in May.
"I am not ruling out nuclear now," said Huhne. But he said events in Japan could have profound long-term implications for UK policy, which is based on a three-pronged "portfolio" approach: a commitment to nuclear energy; the development of more renewable energy, such as wind and sea power; and new carbon-capture technology to mitigate the damaging environmental effects of fossil fuel-fired power plants and industrial facilities.
Huhne, a Liberal Democrat, said that Britain was in a very different position from Japan, which was vulnerable to strong earthquakes and tsunamis. The UK also used different types of reactors. But he conceded that the Japanese disaster was likely to make it more difficult for private investors to raise capital to build the eight new reactors planned by the government. "There are a lot of issues outside of the realm of nuclear safety, which we will have to assess. One is what the economics of nuclear power post-Fukushima will be, if there is an increase in the cost in capital to nuclear operators."
He said that after the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster in the US 32 years ago, it became more difficult to raise money for nuclear investment. "After Three Mile Island in 1979, nuclear operators found it very hard to finance new projects.
Huhne said he remained wedded to the "portfolio" approach, but added that nuclear energy's future, as part of the mix, had become more uncertain as leaders of other nations, including the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, openly questioned its future. "Globally, this undoubtedly casts a shadow over the renaissance of the nuclear industry. That is blindingly obvious," he said.
Any move away from nuclear – while certain to be welcomed by many Lib Dems – would alarm many in the Tory party. Tim Yeo, the Conservative chair of the environment and climate change select committee, said any such shift would be a huge mistake. "If Britain abandons or significantly delays its programme of building new nuclear power stations, there are three inevitable consequences. First, electricity prices will rise. Second, Britain will not be able to meet its carbon emission reduction targets. And third, the risk that the lights will go out will significantly increase.
"This is because other forms of low-carbon energy, such as solar or offshore wind, are more expensive than nuclear. Solar and wind are not reliable generators of electricity – on cloudy, still days they produce nothing. So they have to be backed up by reliable sources of power. If nuclear is not used, that means more gas or coal, both of which have far higher carbon emissions."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change has carried out its own projections, which show the UK could – with a massive extra commitment to renewable energy and successful use of carbon capture on a grand scale – meet its target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050 without nuclear energy.
Huhne said: "We can do the 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 without new nuclear, but it will require a big effort on carbon capture and storage and renewables."
However, Yeo said: "Nuclear currently provides almost one-fifth of our electricity. Nearly all our existing nuclear power stations will shut by 2020. Demand for electricity will rise steadily from now on as cars, vans, etc start to use electricity and the heating of buildings relies more on electricity. It is very likely that without new nuclear power stations we will simply not build enough other forms of reliable electricity generation in time to replace the contribution nuclear currently makes."
Huhne has asked Weightman to draw up a report into the safety of UK nuclear plants, assessing their resistance to the kind of natural disasters that could hit this country, including flooding and storms. But ministers acknowledge that, even if plants are declared safe, the public perception of nuclear power has been undermined. The cost of meeting new safety conditions and insuring plants, as well as satisfying evacuation requirements in the event of a disaster, could make new reactors economically unviable.
Huhne said ministers needed to show flexibility as untried and untested technology succeeded or failed along the way. "The whole point about a portfolio is that over time – a 20-year view – some of those sources [of energy] will turn out to be much more economic and attractive than others," he said.
After the anti-nuclear Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories last May, Huhne forged a deal under which plans for a new generation of nuclear would go ahead, but without public subsidy. He said at the time that the Lib Dems' preference for meeting the country's energy needs was still to make greater use of renewable energy, such as wind and sea power.
The deal marked a departure for Huhne from his stance in opposition. In 2007 he said: "Nuclear is a tried, tested and failed technology and the government must stop putting time, effort and subsidies into this outdated industry."
European emissions trading: the cap that does not fit
Markets that trade carbon pollution permits are meant to cut emissions. So why did the carbon dioxide vented in 2010 under Europe's scheme go up?
An update on the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and just how loose the cap on emissions is now, following the economic crash …
The latest analysis from Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that last year, carbon emissions from the energy, steel, concrete and manufacturing facilities in the ETS rose by an estimated 1.8%. Yes, rose, not fell.
I think carbon trading schemes are necessary as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit climate change. But to work, the cap on emissions has to be tight enough. The reason emissions rose in 2010 compared with 2009 was that emissions had fallen hard from 2008-2009 (11%) and 2007-2008 (5%). So there was room last year for emissions to grow, as the economy recovered a little, without hitting the cap.
As it stands, Sandbag's Damien Morris tells me that no country in the EU will have to cut its carbon until at least 2015. Sandbag's analysis shows that the entire 2008-2012 ETS period (phase two) is likely result in no carbon being cut, at all. On the contrary, some spare pollution permits will probably be carried over into the next phase.
I agree with the UK's energy secretary, Chris Huhne, that Europe has to increase its ambition, to a continent-wide 30%. Some may argue that allowing businesses to make use of the looseness of the carbon cap as they recover from the recession makes perfect sense. But that is only the case if you believe that high-carbon businesses have a long-term future.
If you think a low-carbon future is inevitable, then banking the carbon cuts caused by the recession and thereby redirecting investment to develop sustainable activities, such as renewable energy, is the only sane choice. If not, I'm sure China will be very happy to sell us the technology when we realise we need it, rather than vice versa.
Footnote: If you want to post comments below like "the ETS is corrupt and broken – time to cash in", or "quick, fill your boots before they close down this scam!", then feel free. The ETS has been appallingly badly run. But for the sake of clarity, do please say whether you think carbon emissions need to be reduced at all. If you do, please say what your alternative to the ETS is. I am away for much of tomorrow, but will dive into the comments later.
An update on the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and just how loose the cap on emissions is now, following the economic crash …
The latest analysis from Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that last year, carbon emissions from the energy, steel, concrete and manufacturing facilities in the ETS rose by an estimated 1.8%. Yes, rose, not fell.
I think carbon trading schemes are necessary as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit climate change. But to work, the cap on emissions has to be tight enough. The reason emissions rose in 2010 compared with 2009 was that emissions had fallen hard from 2008-2009 (11%) and 2007-2008 (5%). So there was room last year for emissions to grow, as the economy recovered a little, without hitting the cap.
As it stands, Sandbag's Damien Morris tells me that no country in the EU will have to cut its carbon until at least 2015. Sandbag's analysis shows that the entire 2008-2012 ETS period (phase two) is likely result in no carbon being cut, at all. On the contrary, some spare pollution permits will probably be carried over into the next phase.
I agree with the UK's energy secretary, Chris Huhne, that Europe has to increase its ambition, to a continent-wide 30%. Some may argue that allowing businesses to make use of the looseness of the carbon cap as they recover from the recession makes perfect sense. But that is only the case if you believe that high-carbon businesses have a long-term future.
If you think a low-carbon future is inevitable, then banking the carbon cuts caused by the recession and thereby redirecting investment to develop sustainable activities, such as renewable energy, is the only sane choice. If not, I'm sure China will be very happy to sell us the technology when we realise we need it, rather than vice versa.
Footnote: If you want to post comments below like "the ETS is corrupt and broken – time to cash in", or "quick, fill your boots before they close down this scam!", then feel free. The ETS has been appallingly badly run. But for the sake of clarity, do please say whether you think carbon emissions need to be reduced at all. If you do, please say what your alternative to the ETS is. I am away for much of tomorrow, but will dive into the comments later.
Solar feed-in tariff U-turn marks another betrayal by the 'greenest government ever'
No renewables company or investor will easily trust this government again
Jeremy Leggett guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 March 2011 16.32 GMT
In numerous conversations with ministers since the comprehensive spending review, I was assured that any review of the UK's solar photovoltaic (PV) feed-in tariffs before April 2012 would not happen unless installations exceeded a certain published level and would exclude urban solar PV, tackling only the green field solar farms. The government has not only betrayed those assurances, but today proposes feed-in tariff rates that will ensure the UK PV industry stalls.
More than 40 countries have chosen to build their renewable energy industries via a feed-in tariff: a levy on energy bills that reduces over time, on particular dates flagged to the market well in advance, as costs fall in the industry created by the tariff. The details of the UK's "ambush" review of solar are arcane, but the core problem is that at the rates the government proposes for every installation above a mere 50 kilowatts, those once considering solar roofs will be put off en masse.
Property developers and companies whose premises have large roofs will take a quick look at the diminished returns and say no. Many of the energy co-operatives being set up around the country will no longer be able to persuade enough citizens to go ahead. Solar investment funds being set up will hand money back to investors – they had already started to do so even once the risk of today's announcement had become clear a few weeks ago.
In announcing this sabotage, ministers make a mockery of their own supposed core objectives: local empowerment within a "big society"; massive job creation – via a green industrial revolution – to counter austerity-related job losses; desire to be the greenest government ever; tackling global warming, and so on. Rather than putting them on track to fulfil their rhetoric, the proposed tariffs add to the growing evidence that this will be not the greenest but the meanest government ever.
The total cost of the PV tariff to date has been less than 1p a month on domestic bills and the total feed-in tariff spend is running way below the government's projections. Meanwhile thousands of new green jobs had been created, and the Treasury had already begun benefiting from the increased tax and national insurance income. All of that has been debilitated at a stroke.
No renewables company or investor can easily trust this government again after this U-turn by ministers. They were so quick in opposition to call for a more ambitious feed-in tariff. They were so ready with empty promises in the early months of their term of office. How can they expect us ever to trust them again now?
Moreover, they do all this at the time of both the Fukishima nuclear disaster and profound instability in the Middle East. The inevitable slowing in plans for a UK nuclear renaissance and the potential end of an affordable oil supply mean that the UK needs fast-growing domestic renewable energy industries more than ever. In setting us back at such a time, I believe the government is now guilty of a betrayal of the UK's national security interests.
• Jeremy Leggett is the founder and chairman of Solarcentury
Jeremy Leggett guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 March 2011 16.32 GMT
In numerous conversations with ministers since the comprehensive spending review, I was assured that any review of the UK's solar photovoltaic (PV) feed-in tariffs before April 2012 would not happen unless installations exceeded a certain published level and would exclude urban solar PV, tackling only the green field solar farms. The government has not only betrayed those assurances, but today proposes feed-in tariff rates that will ensure the UK PV industry stalls.
More than 40 countries have chosen to build their renewable energy industries via a feed-in tariff: a levy on energy bills that reduces over time, on particular dates flagged to the market well in advance, as costs fall in the industry created by the tariff. The details of the UK's "ambush" review of solar are arcane, but the core problem is that at the rates the government proposes for every installation above a mere 50 kilowatts, those once considering solar roofs will be put off en masse.
Property developers and companies whose premises have large roofs will take a quick look at the diminished returns and say no. Many of the energy co-operatives being set up around the country will no longer be able to persuade enough citizens to go ahead. Solar investment funds being set up will hand money back to investors – they had already started to do so even once the risk of today's announcement had become clear a few weeks ago.
In announcing this sabotage, ministers make a mockery of their own supposed core objectives: local empowerment within a "big society"; massive job creation – via a green industrial revolution – to counter austerity-related job losses; desire to be the greenest government ever; tackling global warming, and so on. Rather than putting them on track to fulfil their rhetoric, the proposed tariffs add to the growing evidence that this will be not the greenest but the meanest government ever.
The total cost of the PV tariff to date has been less than 1p a month on domestic bills and the total feed-in tariff spend is running way below the government's projections. Meanwhile thousands of new green jobs had been created, and the Treasury had already begun benefiting from the increased tax and national insurance income. All of that has been debilitated at a stroke.
No renewables company or investor can easily trust this government again after this U-turn by ministers. They were so quick in opposition to call for a more ambitious feed-in tariff. They were so ready with empty promises in the early months of their term of office. How can they expect us ever to trust them again now?
Moreover, they do all this at the time of both the Fukishima nuclear disaster and profound instability in the Middle East. The inevitable slowing in plans for a UK nuclear renaissance and the potential end of an affordable oil supply mean that the UK needs fast-growing domestic renewable energy industries more than ever. In setting us back at such a time, I believe the government is now guilty of a betrayal of the UK's national security interests.
• Jeremy Leggett is the founder and chairman of Solarcentury
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Lightbulb takes design of the year top prize
PA
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
A sculpted low-energy lightbulb by a British designer scooped an international design prize today.
Samuel Wilkinson and product design company Hulger fought off competition from more than 90 entries for the title of Brit Insurance design of the year 2011.
The Plumen 001 energy-saving bulb was picked as the judges' overall favourite from seven category winners after its stylish, innovative appearance impressed the panel.
Jury chairman Stephen Bayley is due to present the award at a ceremony later today at the Design Museum in London.
Praising the winning entry, he said: "The Plumen lightbulb is a good example of the ordinary thing done extraordinarily well, bringing a small measure of delight to an everyday product."
The bulb uses 80% less energy and lasts eight times longer than an incandescent one.
Deyan Sudjic, director of the Design Museum, labelled it a worthy winner that was both "beautiful and smart".
He said: "It's a bulb that doesn't need a shade and so goes a long way to make up for the loss of the Edison original."
Panel member Will Self said: "If you'll forgive the pun, they are definitely a light leading the way... We felt these bulbs were neat, appealing and covetable in the right, affordable way."
The winning and shortlisted designs will be on show at the Brit Insurance Designs of the Year exhibition at the Design Museum until August 7.
Obama's Energy Policy Faces Pressure
White House Resists Calls From Democrats for a Review of Nuclear-Plant Safety; Official Cites Rigorous Regulations.
By JONATHAN WEISMAN And STEPHEN POWER
WASHINGTON—Japan's nuclear disaster is putting new pressure on President Barack Obama's energy strategy, which has relied on calls to expand nuclear power to win support for a broader effort to promote alternatives to coal and oil.
On Tuesday, the White House resisted calls from Democratic congressional leaders for a special review of U.S. nuclear-plant safety in the wake of the Japanese nuclear crisis—a move similar to one ordered by German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) on Tuesday called for reviews of U.S. nuclear-plant safety. Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a key Obama ally on environmental issues, demanded information on seismic safety features, including power plants' abilities to sustain cooling functions during a total power blackout, the situation that has crippled reactors in Japan.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday to discuss the Japanese nuclear crisis with Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko.
White House officials held their ground on Mr. Obama's pro-nuclear energy strategy. Mr. Obama requested the NRC do a "lessons learned" study of the Japanese disaster and to incorporate the findings into the agency's safety reviews.
But, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, "He doesn't have to order a review because they're constantly going on."
Energy Secretary Steven Chu, testifying before a congressional panel Tuesday, said "the United States has rigorous safety regulations in place to ensure that our nuclear power is generated safely and responsibly" and played down fears that dangerous levels of radiation from Japan could reach U.S. shores. Such concerns have led to runs on stocks of potassium iodide pills, which are used to ward off radiation poisoning.
"There's really no concern in terms of the health effects on American shores," Mr. Chu said. "I think they really shouldn't be doing those things, quite frankly. But it's a free country."
The Japanese nuclear crisis is the latest setback for Mr. Obama's energy strategy, the only piece of his original five-part domestic agenda that hasn't become law.
Mr. Obama has tried to stake out a middle ground on energy between environmentalists whose top priority is attacking climate change and conservatives who chanted "Drill, Baby, Drill" during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Mr. Obama embraced certain Republican priorities, such as using federally backed loans to revive the U.S. nuclear-power industry and expanding offshore oil drilling.
In return, the president hoped to win bipartisan support for expanded renewable-energy programs and limits on the emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
But so far, a combination of political setbacks and unforeseen disasters have derailed Mr. Obama's plans.
Mr. Obama shelved his plan to expand offshore drilling after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill last summer. Republican leaders have rejected climate-change legislation, and are pushing instead bills to prevent Mr. Obama from using regulatory agencies to enforce greenhouse-gas limits.
The administration's proposals to support nuclear power haven't spared it from Republican criticism that its energy policy tilts too heavily against coal and oil—the fuels that still power most of the U.S. economy. They cite the slow pace of issuing new oil-drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico since last summer's oil spill.
On Tuesday, the State Department said it will require an additional environmental review of a proposed 1,700-mile TransCanada Corp. pipeline that would bring up to 1.1 million barrels a day of crude oil from Canada's oil-sands region to Gulf Coast refineries. The requirement could delay the project, which has drawn fire from environmental groups critical of oil-sands development.
Now, the Japanese disaster is reinvigorating liberal objections to nuclear power.
Eben Burnham-Snyder, a Markey spokesman, said the disaster will only raise the cost of financing new nuclear plants and require more federal subsidies, something even Republicans will balk at.
"We don't need nuclear," he said.
White House spokesman Nicholas Shapiro distinguished between the Deepwater Horizon spill, which pointed up regulatory gaps and prompted a drilling moratorium, and nuclear power, which has its own independent regulatory agency tasked to constantly police the safety of plants in its jurisdiction.
He said incident response plans already exist to deal with radiation leaks from nuclear-power plants, accidents involving nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons production plants and laboratories, or attacks using nuclear devices or "dirty bombs" designed to disperse radiation.
Per Peterson, chairman of the nuclear-engineering department at the University of California, Berkeley, said the events that have caused the accident now challenging one of Japan's nuclear plants are unlikely to befall the U.S. for several reasons.
While the U.S. does have some nuclear plants in earthquake zones—as in the case of California—they are near "slip-strike" fault lines that lack the potential to cause very large tsunamis as the Japanese "thrust fault" has, he said.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Dr. Peterson said, the government required nuclear-plant owners to ensure that their facilities could accommodate portable diesel pumps to provide electricity to the facilities.
—Corey Boles contributed to this article.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
By JONATHAN WEISMAN And STEPHEN POWER
WASHINGTON—Japan's nuclear disaster is putting new pressure on President Barack Obama's energy strategy, which has relied on calls to expand nuclear power to win support for a broader effort to promote alternatives to coal and oil.
On Tuesday, the White House resisted calls from Democratic congressional leaders for a special review of U.S. nuclear-plant safety in the wake of the Japanese nuclear crisis—a move similar to one ordered by German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) on Tuesday called for reviews of U.S. nuclear-plant safety. Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a key Obama ally on environmental issues, demanded information on seismic safety features, including power plants' abilities to sustain cooling functions during a total power blackout, the situation that has crippled reactors in Japan.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday to discuss the Japanese nuclear crisis with Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko.
White House officials held their ground on Mr. Obama's pro-nuclear energy strategy. Mr. Obama requested the NRC do a "lessons learned" study of the Japanese disaster and to incorporate the findings into the agency's safety reviews.
But, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, "He doesn't have to order a review because they're constantly going on."
Energy Secretary Steven Chu, testifying before a congressional panel Tuesday, said "the United States has rigorous safety regulations in place to ensure that our nuclear power is generated safely and responsibly" and played down fears that dangerous levels of radiation from Japan could reach U.S. shores. Such concerns have led to runs on stocks of potassium iodide pills, which are used to ward off radiation poisoning.
"There's really no concern in terms of the health effects on American shores," Mr. Chu said. "I think they really shouldn't be doing those things, quite frankly. But it's a free country."
The Japanese nuclear crisis is the latest setback for Mr. Obama's energy strategy, the only piece of his original five-part domestic agenda that hasn't become law.
Mr. Obama has tried to stake out a middle ground on energy between environmentalists whose top priority is attacking climate change and conservatives who chanted "Drill, Baby, Drill" during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Mr. Obama embraced certain Republican priorities, such as using federally backed loans to revive the U.S. nuclear-power industry and expanding offshore oil drilling.
In return, the president hoped to win bipartisan support for expanded renewable-energy programs and limits on the emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
But so far, a combination of political setbacks and unforeseen disasters have derailed Mr. Obama's plans.
Mr. Obama shelved his plan to expand offshore drilling after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill last summer. Republican leaders have rejected climate-change legislation, and are pushing instead bills to prevent Mr. Obama from using regulatory agencies to enforce greenhouse-gas limits.
The administration's proposals to support nuclear power haven't spared it from Republican criticism that its energy policy tilts too heavily against coal and oil—the fuels that still power most of the U.S. economy. They cite the slow pace of issuing new oil-drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico since last summer's oil spill.
On Tuesday, the State Department said it will require an additional environmental review of a proposed 1,700-mile TransCanada Corp. pipeline that would bring up to 1.1 million barrels a day of crude oil from Canada's oil-sands region to Gulf Coast refineries. The requirement could delay the project, which has drawn fire from environmental groups critical of oil-sands development.
Now, the Japanese disaster is reinvigorating liberal objections to nuclear power.
Eben Burnham-Snyder, a Markey spokesman, said the disaster will only raise the cost of financing new nuclear plants and require more federal subsidies, something even Republicans will balk at.
"We don't need nuclear," he said.
White House spokesman Nicholas Shapiro distinguished between the Deepwater Horizon spill, which pointed up regulatory gaps and prompted a drilling moratorium, and nuclear power, which has its own independent regulatory agency tasked to constantly police the safety of plants in its jurisdiction.
He said incident response plans already exist to deal with radiation leaks from nuclear-power plants, accidents involving nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons production plants and laboratories, or attacks using nuclear devices or "dirty bombs" designed to disperse radiation.
Per Peterson, chairman of the nuclear-engineering department at the University of California, Berkeley, said the events that have caused the accident now challenging one of Japan's nuclear plants are unlikely to befall the U.S. for several reasons.
While the U.S. does have some nuclear plants in earthquake zones—as in the case of California—they are near "slip-strike" fault lines that lack the potential to cause very large tsunamis as the Japanese "thrust fault" has, he said.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Dr. Peterson said, the government required nuclear-plant owners to ensure that their facilities could accommodate portable diesel pumps to provide electricity to the facilities.
—Corey Boles contributed to this article.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
Japan nuclear crisis puts industry revival in doubt
Disaster described as a colossal setback for industry at a time when climate change is sparking a renaissance
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington, Fiona Harvey and John Vidal guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 March 2011 20.43 GMT
Events in Japan could kill the last chances of revival for an American nuclear industry struggling to emerge from the shadow of its own disaster at Three Mile Island, experts have predicted.
Renewed fears about the technology may also snuff out a nuclear renaissance worldwide that had been sparked by fears over climate change and a need for low-carbon energy.
"This is going to be a Three Mile Island moment – maybe not a Chernobyl moment, but a Three Mile Island moment that is going to give people pause for at least several years," said Alan Madian, an energy analyst at the Brattle consulting group. "There is no question that the public is going to be rightfully concerned."
So far, the White House and Republicans are united in saying it would be premature to rethink plans for the first expansion of nuclear power in America since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.
In Europe, a meeting of EU energy ministers in Brussels on Tuesday agreed a series of "stress tests" for European nuclear facilities in response to the Japanese alert to check they could withstand a variety of different shocks, from earthquakes to terrorist attacks.
However, even as the crisis in Japan unfolds, investors appear already to be turning away from the technology.
"Shares in renewable energy industries yesterday rose while most other energy stocks fell," said Clare Brook, fund manager of leading green investment group WHEB, in London. "This tragedy comes on top of the oil price rise, the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and unrest in the Middle East, all of which has made renewables more attractive. We would expect investment in renewables, especially solar, to increase. Nuclear has become politically unacceptable."
The revival of nuclear energy had come partly on the back of fears about climate change and a need for reliable low-carbon energy sources. That revival may now be in doubt, but leading environmentalists who have backed the technology as a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels said the accident should not slow new nuclear investment.
The scientist James Lovelock said: "There is a monstrous myth about nuclear power. I would make a strong guess that of the tens of thousands of people killed in Japan, none of them will be from nuclear power."
He said people were unreasonably prejudiced against nuclear power. "It is very safe," he said.
Mark Lynas, another environmental campaigner who has espoused nuclear power as a way to limit climate change, was pessimistic about how nuclear power would be perceived after the Japanese experience.
"It's too early to make a final diagnosis of what is happening in Japan, but what is obvious is that this will be a colossal setback for the nuclear industry at just the moment at which climate change is sparking a real renaissance," he said.
In Europe a new caution towards nuclear power was led by Germany, which said seven reactors that went into operation before 1980 would be offline for three months while Europe's biggest economy reconsiders its plans to extend the life of its atomic power plants.
The European Union's energy commissioner called for a reassessment of what role nuclear power should have in the future. "We have to ask ourselves: can we in Europe, within time, secure our energy needs without nuclear power plants?" Günther Oettinger told ARD television in Germany.
He invited non-EU countries to join the initiative, including Switzerland, which announced on Monday that it was halting plans for new reactors.
Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, accused other European governments of "rushing to judgments" over the safety of nuclear power and took a public swipe at "continental politicians" hours after the German announcement.
Nevertheless, he insisted he was right to order a UK safety review amid warnings from MPs it could hit investment in a planned new generation of domestic nuclear power stations.
Elsewhere, a commitment to a nuclear future was affirmed by the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who said he had no plans to suspend a deal with Russia's Rosatom agency for the construction of Turkey's first nuclear power plant.
Dismissing questions on possible dangers, Erdogan said all investments had high risks.
"In that case, let's not bring gas canisters to our homes, let's not install natural gas, let's not stream crude oil through our country," he said.
Russia also signed a deal with Belarus to build a nuclear power station there. Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin said the facility would be safer than that threatened by meltdown in Japan.
In the US, political proponents of nuclear power also remained steadfast.
Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican who has called for building 100 reactors in the next 20 years, called on America to cling fast to the nuclear dream.
"We don't abandon highway systems because bridges and overpasses collapse during earthquakes," he said in a speech to the Senate. "The 1.6 million of us who fly daily would not stop flying after a tragic plane crash. We would find out what happened and do our best to make it safe."
One pro-nuclear congressman, Devin Nunes, a California Republican who has called for 200 new reactors by 2040, went so far as to suggest that the crisis in Japan demonstrated the safety of nuclear power.
"The facts, as we know them today, are not an indictment of nuclear energy safety," he said. "Quite the reverse is true. The survival of the 40-year-old containment systems under such extreme conditions helps to prove the safety and durability of nuclear power." In reality, America's nuclear industry has been in a state of suspended animation since Three Mile Island.
The economics of energy production in the US - which has cheap fossil fuels and has resisted putting a price on carbon - have made it difficult to plot a comeback Now industry's efforts to extend the life of a generation of ageing reactors - once thought a sure thing - could be in doubt. Some of those reactors, such as the Vermont Yankee, have a history of safety lapses and face growing local opposition.
Nuclear regulators gave the plant an additional 20 years to run on Thursday - just a day before the quake. The plant has the same containment design as the failed reactors in Japan. Now Vermont's governor, Peter Shumlin, says he will push to close the plant on schedule in 2012.
"We act as if they can be run beyond their design life, when the engineering is primitive compared to what one would build today,'' he told reporters. "I think the tragedy in Japan should awaken a re-examination of our irrational exuberance about running our aging plants beyond their design life."
The Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the Japanese power company and other industry interests, had also been fighting hard to convince the public that reactors could help get America off imported oil.
According to Opensecrets.org, which examines the influence of money in politics, the NEI has more than 20 lobbyists on staff. It has spent more than $6 million trying to influence Congress in the last three years.
Individual power companies have also expanded their lobbying spending. Southern Company, which has a project to build two new reactors in Georgia, has spent $10 million a year on lobbying since 2004.But - so far at least - the industry has little to show for its efforts. Aside from Southern Company's two reactors - which have yet to get final approval from regulators - there are only two other new nuclear reactors in the works, in South Carolina in 2020.
Another project, in Maryland, is in peril after a French company EDF pulled out.
"A nuclear bubble is what I've been calling it," said Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "It was dead in the water even before the events of the last week and of course it's worse off now."
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington, Fiona Harvey and John Vidal guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 March 2011 20.43 GMT
Events in Japan could kill the last chances of revival for an American nuclear industry struggling to emerge from the shadow of its own disaster at Three Mile Island, experts have predicted.
Renewed fears about the technology may also snuff out a nuclear renaissance worldwide that had been sparked by fears over climate change and a need for low-carbon energy.
"This is going to be a Three Mile Island moment – maybe not a Chernobyl moment, but a Three Mile Island moment that is going to give people pause for at least several years," said Alan Madian, an energy analyst at the Brattle consulting group. "There is no question that the public is going to be rightfully concerned."
So far, the White House and Republicans are united in saying it would be premature to rethink plans for the first expansion of nuclear power in America since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.
In Europe, a meeting of EU energy ministers in Brussels on Tuesday agreed a series of "stress tests" for European nuclear facilities in response to the Japanese alert to check they could withstand a variety of different shocks, from earthquakes to terrorist attacks.
However, even as the crisis in Japan unfolds, investors appear already to be turning away from the technology.
"Shares in renewable energy industries yesterday rose while most other energy stocks fell," said Clare Brook, fund manager of leading green investment group WHEB, in London. "This tragedy comes on top of the oil price rise, the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and unrest in the Middle East, all of which has made renewables more attractive. We would expect investment in renewables, especially solar, to increase. Nuclear has become politically unacceptable."
The revival of nuclear energy had come partly on the back of fears about climate change and a need for reliable low-carbon energy sources. That revival may now be in doubt, but leading environmentalists who have backed the technology as a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels said the accident should not slow new nuclear investment.
The scientist James Lovelock said: "There is a monstrous myth about nuclear power. I would make a strong guess that of the tens of thousands of people killed in Japan, none of them will be from nuclear power."
He said people were unreasonably prejudiced against nuclear power. "It is very safe," he said.
Mark Lynas, another environmental campaigner who has espoused nuclear power as a way to limit climate change, was pessimistic about how nuclear power would be perceived after the Japanese experience.
"It's too early to make a final diagnosis of what is happening in Japan, but what is obvious is that this will be a colossal setback for the nuclear industry at just the moment at which climate change is sparking a real renaissance," he said.
In Europe a new caution towards nuclear power was led by Germany, which said seven reactors that went into operation before 1980 would be offline for three months while Europe's biggest economy reconsiders its plans to extend the life of its atomic power plants.
The European Union's energy commissioner called for a reassessment of what role nuclear power should have in the future. "We have to ask ourselves: can we in Europe, within time, secure our energy needs without nuclear power plants?" Günther Oettinger told ARD television in Germany.
He invited non-EU countries to join the initiative, including Switzerland, which announced on Monday that it was halting plans for new reactors.
Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, accused other European governments of "rushing to judgments" over the safety of nuclear power and took a public swipe at "continental politicians" hours after the German announcement.
Nevertheless, he insisted he was right to order a UK safety review amid warnings from MPs it could hit investment in a planned new generation of domestic nuclear power stations.
Elsewhere, a commitment to a nuclear future was affirmed by the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who said he had no plans to suspend a deal with Russia's Rosatom agency for the construction of Turkey's first nuclear power plant.
Dismissing questions on possible dangers, Erdogan said all investments had high risks.
"In that case, let's not bring gas canisters to our homes, let's not install natural gas, let's not stream crude oil through our country," he said.
Russia also signed a deal with Belarus to build a nuclear power station there. Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin said the facility would be safer than that threatened by meltdown in Japan.
In the US, political proponents of nuclear power also remained steadfast.
Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican who has called for building 100 reactors in the next 20 years, called on America to cling fast to the nuclear dream.
"We don't abandon highway systems because bridges and overpasses collapse during earthquakes," he said in a speech to the Senate. "The 1.6 million of us who fly daily would not stop flying after a tragic plane crash. We would find out what happened and do our best to make it safe."
One pro-nuclear congressman, Devin Nunes, a California Republican who has called for 200 new reactors by 2040, went so far as to suggest that the crisis in Japan demonstrated the safety of nuclear power.
"The facts, as we know them today, are not an indictment of nuclear energy safety," he said. "Quite the reverse is true. The survival of the 40-year-old containment systems under such extreme conditions helps to prove the safety and durability of nuclear power." In reality, America's nuclear industry has been in a state of suspended animation since Three Mile Island.
The economics of energy production in the US - which has cheap fossil fuels and has resisted putting a price on carbon - have made it difficult to plot a comeback Now industry's efforts to extend the life of a generation of ageing reactors - once thought a sure thing - could be in doubt. Some of those reactors, such as the Vermont Yankee, have a history of safety lapses and face growing local opposition.
Nuclear regulators gave the plant an additional 20 years to run on Thursday - just a day before the quake. The plant has the same containment design as the failed reactors in Japan. Now Vermont's governor, Peter Shumlin, says he will push to close the plant on schedule in 2012.
"We act as if they can be run beyond their design life, when the engineering is primitive compared to what one would build today,'' he told reporters. "I think the tragedy in Japan should awaken a re-examination of our irrational exuberance about running our aging plants beyond their design life."
The Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the Japanese power company and other industry interests, had also been fighting hard to convince the public that reactors could help get America off imported oil.
According to Opensecrets.org, which examines the influence of money in politics, the NEI has more than 20 lobbyists on staff. It has spent more than $6 million trying to influence Congress in the last three years.
Individual power companies have also expanded their lobbying spending. Southern Company, which has a project to build two new reactors in Georgia, has spent $10 million a year on lobbying since 2004.But - so far at least - the industry has little to show for its efforts. Aside from Southern Company's two reactors - which have yet to get final approval from regulators - there are only two other new nuclear reactors in the works, in South Carolina in 2020.
Another project, in Maryland, is in peril after a French company EDF pulled out.
"A nuclear bubble is what I've been calling it," said Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "It was dead in the water even before the events of the last week and of course it's worse off now."
Monday, 14 March 2011
Germany's future is Green
The German Green party has moved beyond the Birkenstock generation to prove itself on the biggest stage
Cem Özdemir guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 March 2011 22.00 GMT
'It's not that easy being green," Kermit the frog once sang. Conservatives have tradition, social democrats the welfare state and liberals boundless individualism. But the Greens have little to offer besides dialogue, strain and responsibility. So what is going on in Germany? In 2009's national elections, the Greens reached an all-time high with 10.7%, and are currently getting ratings of between 15% and 25% in the polls. This minority coalition partner is now competing for top spot in such completely different states as Berlin, the traditionally leftist (and bankrupt) capital in the north-east, and the conservative economic powerhouse Baden-Württemberg in the south-west.
The threat of nuclear disaster in Japan has moved the issue of nuclear power right back to the top of the agenda. Even Angela Merkel has admitted that the calamity of Fukishima Daiichi is "a turning point for the world". Her government's nuclear record is damning: it decided to delay a nuclear energy phaseout negotiated by the Greens, in order to line the pockets of the big four energy suppliers. We are opposing this "phaseout of the phaseout" because it is written on our birth certificate that we are against nuclear energy.
But the Greens' success is the result of a wider shift in the German mentality. The country has begun to shed its fear of change: gone is the belief that in the end the Deutsche mark, Helmut Kohl and the church do it best. Confidence in political parties and democratic institutions is diminishing, and turnout at elections, though high in comparison to other democracies, is shrinking.
This does not mean people are ignorant. On the contrary, they want to get involved. They demand direct participation, especially when it comes to huge infrastructure projects such as Stuttgart 21, the city's old railway station going underground at a cost of €8bn. People give the Greens credit for bottom-up politics, transparency and an immunity to cronyism, and research shows the party has won over many non-voters.
Under the technocratic rule of Chancellor Merkel, the conservative CDU has failed to become a modern, urban, more female party. The Greens have capitalised, attracting voters who would probably not have supported the "Birkenstock Greens" of 20 years ago. Where the Greens have learned to balance ideals and pragmatism, Merkel's CDU has neglected its own values and failed to offer the country direction. Merkel may be the queen of small steps – but the Green party is the princess of the future.
The Greens have also profited from the disastrous strategy of the Social Democrats to cling to the "third way politics" beloved of Gerhard Schröder. Millions of voters have deserted the party, with the young and progressive coming over to the Greens or none. We have also benefited from demographic change: as well as young voters, we can now draw on an older voter base, as the over-70s turn their backs on other parties.
Time is on the side of the green movement. Environmental awareness is growing. Green has become a conscious lifestyle choice – eating organic food, using public transport, buying energy from renewables, consuming from small shops, ethical banking in ethical banks.
Last year, the German Greens celebrated their 30th birthday. It is worth reminding people of the extent to which the party has influenced public opinion in those three decades. Founded above all as an anti-nuclear party, the Greens have helped to generate a new consensus about gender balance, party democracy, renewable energy, genetically modified food, consumer rights and new family models.
But the Greens have also changed. Starting as a heterogeneous bunch of idealistic non-parliamentarians, they have become a solid parliamentary force and a responsible partner in government coalitions.
In the past, surveys show, people liked the Greens but didn't vote for them because they feared the party wouldn't have the brain and muscle to run the country. This perception has changed over the last few years. The key to understanding our growth is Nicholas Stern's simple rationale: getting green will be costly, but not getting green will cause a collapse.
The German Greens realised early on that the economy is both the problem and the solution – and therefore can get green and grow. Stern, who led the UN review on the economics of climate change, the Nobel prizewinning economist Paul Krugman and others have made it clear that you must get green to grow – hence the German Greens' call for a "Green New Deal" to transform the financial sector, economy, labour market and sustainability.
"Green is the new red, white and blue," the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in 2007. The movement's values are relevant to everyone. Smaller Green parties, like America's, can find this overwhelming. Here in Germany, however, the Greens are prepared to take on bigger responsibilities.
Cem Özdemir guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 March 2011 22.00 GMT
'It's not that easy being green," Kermit the frog once sang. Conservatives have tradition, social democrats the welfare state and liberals boundless individualism. But the Greens have little to offer besides dialogue, strain and responsibility. So what is going on in Germany? In 2009's national elections, the Greens reached an all-time high with 10.7%, and are currently getting ratings of between 15% and 25% in the polls. This minority coalition partner is now competing for top spot in such completely different states as Berlin, the traditionally leftist (and bankrupt) capital in the north-east, and the conservative economic powerhouse Baden-Württemberg in the south-west.
The threat of nuclear disaster in Japan has moved the issue of nuclear power right back to the top of the agenda. Even Angela Merkel has admitted that the calamity of Fukishima Daiichi is "a turning point for the world". Her government's nuclear record is damning: it decided to delay a nuclear energy phaseout negotiated by the Greens, in order to line the pockets of the big four energy suppliers. We are opposing this "phaseout of the phaseout" because it is written on our birth certificate that we are against nuclear energy.
But the Greens' success is the result of a wider shift in the German mentality. The country has begun to shed its fear of change: gone is the belief that in the end the Deutsche mark, Helmut Kohl and the church do it best. Confidence in political parties and democratic institutions is diminishing, and turnout at elections, though high in comparison to other democracies, is shrinking.
This does not mean people are ignorant. On the contrary, they want to get involved. They demand direct participation, especially when it comes to huge infrastructure projects such as Stuttgart 21, the city's old railway station going underground at a cost of €8bn. People give the Greens credit for bottom-up politics, transparency and an immunity to cronyism, and research shows the party has won over many non-voters.
Under the technocratic rule of Chancellor Merkel, the conservative CDU has failed to become a modern, urban, more female party. The Greens have capitalised, attracting voters who would probably not have supported the "Birkenstock Greens" of 20 years ago. Where the Greens have learned to balance ideals and pragmatism, Merkel's CDU has neglected its own values and failed to offer the country direction. Merkel may be the queen of small steps – but the Green party is the princess of the future.
The Greens have also profited from the disastrous strategy of the Social Democrats to cling to the "third way politics" beloved of Gerhard Schröder. Millions of voters have deserted the party, with the young and progressive coming over to the Greens or none. We have also benefited from demographic change: as well as young voters, we can now draw on an older voter base, as the over-70s turn their backs on other parties.
Time is on the side of the green movement. Environmental awareness is growing. Green has become a conscious lifestyle choice – eating organic food, using public transport, buying energy from renewables, consuming from small shops, ethical banking in ethical banks.
Last year, the German Greens celebrated their 30th birthday. It is worth reminding people of the extent to which the party has influenced public opinion in those three decades. Founded above all as an anti-nuclear party, the Greens have helped to generate a new consensus about gender balance, party democracy, renewable energy, genetically modified food, consumer rights and new family models.
But the Greens have also changed. Starting as a heterogeneous bunch of idealistic non-parliamentarians, they have become a solid parliamentary force and a responsible partner in government coalitions.
In the past, surveys show, people liked the Greens but didn't vote for them because they feared the party wouldn't have the brain and muscle to run the country. This perception has changed over the last few years. The key to understanding our growth is Nicholas Stern's simple rationale: getting green will be costly, but not getting green will cause a collapse.
The German Greens realised early on that the economy is both the problem and the solution – and therefore can get green and grow. Stern, who led the UN review on the economics of climate change, the Nobel prizewinning economist Paul Krugman and others have made it clear that you must get green to grow – hence the German Greens' call for a "Green New Deal" to transform the financial sector, economy, labour market and sustainability.
"Green is the new red, white and blue," the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in 2007. The movement's values are relevant to everyone. Smaller Green parties, like America's, can find this overwhelming. Here in Germany, however, the Greens are prepared to take on bigger responsibilities.