AFP
Saturday, 30 April 2011
South Korea's largest business group Samsung signed an initial deal Wednesday to invest $7.04 billion in a state project to build a green energy complex on reclaimed wetland.
Samsung signed a memorandum of understanding with the government to spend 7.6 trillion won ($7.04 billion) on the construction of eco-friendly production facilities from 2021, the prime minister's office said.
The government will provide full administrative support plus a plot at the reclaimed Saemangeum wetland area on the west coast, about 200 kilometres (125 miles) south of Seoul.
Samsung said its green-energy development would have a wind-power generator, a production base for solar batteries, a research institute and houses for about 20,000 workers.
It said the investment was in line with its announcement last year to spend about 23 trillion won on new growth engines such as health care and green energy over the coming decade.
Samsung's investment is expected to speed up the massive government project to turn the reclaimed area into an eco-friendly town with industrial, tourism and agricultural facilities as well as science and research institutes.
The reclamation included the building of a 33.9 kilometre (20 mile) sea dike, which was completed in 2006.
Last August OCI, South Korea's leading maker of polysilicon used in solar panel cells, announced a plan to invest some 10 trillion won in the area by 2020.
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Now is not the time for energy-starved India to increase nuclear dependency
Soaring costs and safety doubts post-Fukushima mean India is unwise to plan a doubling of its nuclear plants
Jaswant Singh guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 April 2011 14.30 BST
Japan's nuclear disaster has fuelled fear and uncertainty among all of the world's producers of nuclear power. For India, an energy-starved country with big nuclear plans, much is at stake.
The wider fear over nuclear power has two main causes. Firstly, although it ranks as a "clean" source of energy, it is accompanied by the terrible shadow of nuclear war and Japan's last reckoning with nuclear catastrophe 65 years ago at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Secondly, the secrecy that attends all things nuclear has left people not knowing enough to feel confident.
The additional fear inspired by the Fukushima disaster will be reflected in soaring costs for nuclear power worldwide, largely owing to demands for improved safety and insurance. Indeed, nuclear plants are prone to a form of panic transference: should a reactor of one design go wrong, all reactors of that type will be shut down instantly around the world.
In India, the dilemma is this: it has 20 nuclear plants in operation, with an additional 23 on order. With the country desperately short of power, and requiring energy to grow, concerned citizens are asking if nuclear is still the answer for India.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has cautiously announced a "special safety review" of all plants. "Not enough," say about 50 eminent Indians, who at the end of March demanded a review of the country's entire nuclear power policy for "appropriateness, safety, costs, and public acceptance". The group also called for an "independent, transparent safety audit" of all nuclear facilities to be undertaken with the "involvement of civil society organisations and experts outside the department of atomic energy". Until then, they demanded a moratorium on all nuclear activity and a revocation of recent clearances. This is as explicit as opposition can get.
How have other countries reacted? France, a global leader in nuclear power, initially avoided most of the global anti-nuclear concerns. But now it too is promising to upgrade its safety procedures, including a reassessment of the potential effects of natural disasters on nuclear plant operations, conceding that the occurrence of more than one natural disaster simultaneously had not been considered previously.
China, which has 77 nuclear reactors at various stages of construction, planning, and discussion, has said that it will embark on a wide-ranging review, but Russia has announced that it will go ahead with its programme.
The US has just two under construction on its own territory, despite being the principal exporter of reactors. Meanwhile Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Portugal are strongly anti-nuclear, and Switzerland has stopped all nuclear power projects.
All of this will lead to cost evaluation and escalation. According to a study conducted by former Indian government minister Arun Shourie, the price of uranium could rise to $140 per pound, close to its record high.
A change of much greater consequence concerns the price of reactors. Pre-Fukushima, a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), The Future of Nuclear Power, 2003, as well as a study by researchers at the University of Chicago, established that nuclear energy was 50-100% more expensive than energy from coal or gas. The report by India's Working Group on Power says the cost of energy production from the country's coal-based plants is about one-third lower than nuclear power, with gas 50% cheaper.
Energy security and public safety should be of equal importance in determining future policy on nuclear power. Indeed, experts like CMA Nayar have said that the Fukushima accident "could have happened even if there was no tsunami". Nayar suggests that it has long been known that the reactor's design contained basic flaws, though only the Japanese authorities can verify this.
So, what is to be done? Clean energy at a time of global warming is obviously necessary. But so is the safety and security of humans, animals and plants. India has set itself on a path of doubling its nuclear power output. This is deeply troubling, for India's nuclear supplies almost entirely dependent on imports from manufacturers who refuse liability for any malfunction. So how should India's energy demands be met?
At a minimum, a thorough re-examination and full public debate must precede the construction of any new nuclear plant. Preferably, the entire policy is reassessed, and dependence on nuclear reduced. With nuclear safety suddenly becoming a global imperative, the costs are simply too high to do otherwise.
• Jaswant Singh, a former Indian finance minister, foreign minister, and defence minister, is the author of Jinnah: India – Partition – Independence.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011
Jaswant Singh guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 April 2011 14.30 BST
Japan's nuclear disaster has fuelled fear and uncertainty among all of the world's producers of nuclear power. For India, an energy-starved country with big nuclear plans, much is at stake.
The wider fear over nuclear power has two main causes. Firstly, although it ranks as a "clean" source of energy, it is accompanied by the terrible shadow of nuclear war and Japan's last reckoning with nuclear catastrophe 65 years ago at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Secondly, the secrecy that attends all things nuclear has left people not knowing enough to feel confident.
The additional fear inspired by the Fukushima disaster will be reflected in soaring costs for nuclear power worldwide, largely owing to demands for improved safety and insurance. Indeed, nuclear plants are prone to a form of panic transference: should a reactor of one design go wrong, all reactors of that type will be shut down instantly around the world.
In India, the dilemma is this: it has 20 nuclear plants in operation, with an additional 23 on order. With the country desperately short of power, and requiring energy to grow, concerned citizens are asking if nuclear is still the answer for India.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has cautiously announced a "special safety review" of all plants. "Not enough," say about 50 eminent Indians, who at the end of March demanded a review of the country's entire nuclear power policy for "appropriateness, safety, costs, and public acceptance". The group also called for an "independent, transparent safety audit" of all nuclear facilities to be undertaken with the "involvement of civil society organisations and experts outside the department of atomic energy". Until then, they demanded a moratorium on all nuclear activity and a revocation of recent clearances. This is as explicit as opposition can get.
How have other countries reacted? France, a global leader in nuclear power, initially avoided most of the global anti-nuclear concerns. But now it too is promising to upgrade its safety procedures, including a reassessment of the potential effects of natural disasters on nuclear plant operations, conceding that the occurrence of more than one natural disaster simultaneously had not been considered previously.
China, which has 77 nuclear reactors at various stages of construction, planning, and discussion, has said that it will embark on a wide-ranging review, but Russia has announced that it will go ahead with its programme.
The US has just two under construction on its own territory, despite being the principal exporter of reactors. Meanwhile Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Portugal are strongly anti-nuclear, and Switzerland has stopped all nuclear power projects.
All of this will lead to cost evaluation and escalation. According to a study conducted by former Indian government minister Arun Shourie, the price of uranium could rise to $140 per pound, close to its record high.
A change of much greater consequence concerns the price of reactors. Pre-Fukushima, a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), The Future of Nuclear Power, 2003, as well as a study by researchers at the University of Chicago, established that nuclear energy was 50-100% more expensive than energy from coal or gas. The report by India's Working Group on Power says the cost of energy production from the country's coal-based plants is about one-third lower than nuclear power, with gas 50% cheaper.
Energy security and public safety should be of equal importance in determining future policy on nuclear power. Indeed, experts like CMA Nayar have said that the Fukushima accident "could have happened even if there was no tsunami". Nayar suggests that it has long been known that the reactor's design contained basic flaws, though only the Japanese authorities can verify this.
So, what is to be done? Clean energy at a time of global warming is obviously necessary. But so is the safety and security of humans, animals and plants. India has set itself on a path of doubling its nuclear power output. This is deeply troubling, for India's nuclear supplies almost entirely dependent on imports from manufacturers who refuse liability for any malfunction. So how should India's energy demands be met?
At a minimum, a thorough re-examination and full public debate must precede the construction of any new nuclear plant. Preferably, the entire policy is reassessed, and dependence on nuclear reduced. With nuclear safety suddenly becoming a global imperative, the costs are simply too high to do otherwise.
• Jaswant Singh, a former Indian finance minister, foreign minister, and defence minister, is the author of Jinnah: India – Partition – Independence.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011
Total invests £800m in US solar power firm
French oil company is to buy 60% of SunPower Corporation, the second biggest solar panel manufacturer in America
Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 April 2011 16.37
Total, one of the world's largest oil companies, is to make a $1.38bn (£800m) investment in solar power reversing a trend that has seen Shell and BP cut back their involvement in green energy.
France's biggest company is to purchase 60% of SunPower Corporation, the second biggest solar panel manufacturer in America, and use it as a new springboard into a renewable sector struggling for competitive edge.
Shares in SunPower surged 40% after it revealed a "friendly tender offer" from an oil company that had been expected to put major new investment into nuclear rather than solar or wind, at least until the Japanese earthquake raised new questions about the safety of atomic power.
"The world future energy balance will be the result of a long-term transition in which renewable energies will take their place alongside conventional resources," said Philippe Boisseau, president of Total's gas and power division.
Total has been raking in enormous profits from oil at $120 a barrel – but is said to see renewables energy as a useful hedge. High crude prices make alternative power sources more attractive but the solar industry has also been hit in places such as Britain, Germany and Spain which have started to cut their public subsidies as part of wider plans to reduce debt levels.
Total is not an entire newcomer to renewables. It has held a half share in two solar firms since the early 1980's – Photovoltech and Tenesol. In November Total unveiled plans to build a solar panel manufacturing plant in the Moselle region of France with annual capacity of 220,000 solar panels a year. The oil company will now inject $1bn into SunPower over the next five years allowing the US solar business to "accelerate our power plant and development business," according to its chief executive Tom Werner. SunPower has been hit by mounting competition from lower cost Chinese panel makers but still claims to design, manufacture and deliver the highest efficiency solar products in the industry.
BP and Shell made major forays into renewables but have backed off in recent years. BP shut down its stand alone Alternative Energy head office while Shell sold off a major part of its photovoltaic module production to SolarWorld of Germany in 2006 and then disposed of its solar rural business in the developing world.
Total had been investing in nuclear having acquired an 8.33% interest, in the consortium commissioned to develop the European pressurized reactor project in Penly, France, with EDF and GDF Suez.
The Fukushima plant accident – coupled with the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident – has spread a pall of negativity over nuclear energy business.
Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 April 2011 16.37
Total, one of the world's largest oil companies, is to make a $1.38bn (£800m) investment in solar power reversing a trend that has seen Shell and BP cut back their involvement in green energy.
France's biggest company is to purchase 60% of SunPower Corporation, the second biggest solar panel manufacturer in America, and use it as a new springboard into a renewable sector struggling for competitive edge.
Shares in SunPower surged 40% after it revealed a "friendly tender offer" from an oil company that had been expected to put major new investment into nuclear rather than solar or wind, at least until the Japanese earthquake raised new questions about the safety of atomic power.
"The world future energy balance will be the result of a long-term transition in which renewable energies will take their place alongside conventional resources," said Philippe Boisseau, president of Total's gas and power division.
Total has been raking in enormous profits from oil at $120 a barrel – but is said to see renewables energy as a useful hedge. High crude prices make alternative power sources more attractive but the solar industry has also been hit in places such as Britain, Germany and Spain which have started to cut their public subsidies as part of wider plans to reduce debt levels.
Total is not an entire newcomer to renewables. It has held a half share in two solar firms since the early 1980's – Photovoltech and Tenesol. In November Total unveiled plans to build a solar panel manufacturing plant in the Moselle region of France with annual capacity of 220,000 solar panels a year. The oil company will now inject $1bn into SunPower over the next five years allowing the US solar business to "accelerate our power plant and development business," according to its chief executive Tom Werner. SunPower has been hit by mounting competition from lower cost Chinese panel makers but still claims to design, manufacture and deliver the highest efficiency solar products in the industry.
BP and Shell made major forays into renewables but have backed off in recent years. BP shut down its stand alone Alternative Energy head office while Shell sold off a major part of its photovoltaic module production to SolarWorld of Germany in 2006 and then disposed of its solar rural business in the developing world.
Total had been investing in nuclear having acquired an 8.33% interest, in the consortium commissioned to develop the European pressurized reactor project in Penly, France, with EDF and GDF Suez.
The Fukushima plant accident – coupled with the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident – has spread a pall of negativity over nuclear energy business.
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Electric motorsport: will 'boost buttons' spark electric cars into life?
With their instant torque, all-electric races could generate more excitement than petrol-powered processions. But will that accelerate the roll out of electric cars onto roads?
Instant torque: two words that should be all that's needed to engage petrolheads in the idea of all-electric motor racing, I reckon. If not how about "boost button", which dumps extra power into the tyres to speed past a rival.
The new EV Cup announced its inaugural series of races on Wednesday, starting on 6 August at Silverstone in the UK and ending five races later at the California Speedway on 16 December. As far as I can tell it's the first major electric car motor racing series.
I'll confess I am not a motor racing fan - which is why I'll need your comments below - and for two familiar reasons. First, Formula One races are too frequently boring processions won by the best engineers not the best driver, and second, Formula One is an environmental catastrophe, a global circus worshipping the extravagant burning of fossil fuels.
You may or may not care about carbon emissions - we've had that discussion - but it seems to me that electric cars could make better race cars. First, as EV Cup race director Grahame Butterworth explains to me, there are no gears so the power goes straight into the wheels when you put your foot down, making them very zippy.
Next, the boost button he expects will be in the Westfield IRacer, the racecar for one of the EV Cup races, will be used tactically and enable overtaking. Also, the cars will not be reliant on downforce like F1 cars, meaning they will not lose power when they hit the slipstream of the car in front. And all 10 cars in the race will be the same, meaning it's all down to the driver.
Butterworth says the IRacer's will cost £50,000 each, contain two electric motors, weigh 600kg and have a top speed of 100mph - "and get there very quickly". He acknowledges that there are still a fairly limited number of electric cars around - another race in the EV Cup series features the Think city car, or the "noddy car", as Butterworth calls it. He adds that with software and suspension tweaks, the Think corners well and will make for entertaining racing.
The wider question is whether racing can drive on electric car development. Former Formula One world champion Damon Hill is a supporter of the EV Cup. "Racing electric vehicles should convince the wider public of their potential. Racing was initially used to develop and prove a new product called the motor car. I see no reason why electric vehicle development will not benefit in the same way."
Ben Collins, formerly known as The Stig on BBC television's Top Gear, says: "Motorsport still offers the purest research and development platform to deliver the true potential of electric power and dynamic energy recovery; perhaps to a level that will shame the carbon combustion engine the way rubber tyres did the wooden cartwheel."
Talking of Top Gear, their race between a Tesla Roadster electric supercar and a Lotus Elise did not end happily - Tesla are suing. But Butterworth thinks petrolheads will be won round.
"Once we have cars fast enough to whet the appetite and with sufficient distance, I think plenty of people will be impressed," he said. "I remember Jeremy Clarkson knocking GPS navigation years ago when it was not very reliable. I bet he uses it all the time now."
Instant torque: two words that should be all that's needed to engage petrolheads in the idea of all-electric motor racing, I reckon. If not how about "boost button", which dumps extra power into the tyres to speed past a rival.
The new EV Cup announced its inaugural series of races on Wednesday, starting on 6 August at Silverstone in the UK and ending five races later at the California Speedway on 16 December. As far as I can tell it's the first major electric car motor racing series.
I'll confess I am not a motor racing fan - which is why I'll need your comments below - and for two familiar reasons. First, Formula One races are too frequently boring processions won by the best engineers not the best driver, and second, Formula One is an environmental catastrophe, a global circus worshipping the extravagant burning of fossil fuels.
You may or may not care about carbon emissions - we've had that discussion - but it seems to me that electric cars could make better race cars. First, as EV Cup race director Grahame Butterworth explains to me, there are no gears so the power goes straight into the wheels when you put your foot down, making them very zippy.
Next, the boost button he expects will be in the Westfield IRacer, the racecar for one of the EV Cup races, will be used tactically and enable overtaking. Also, the cars will not be reliant on downforce like F1 cars, meaning they will not lose power when they hit the slipstream of the car in front. And all 10 cars in the race will be the same, meaning it's all down to the driver.
Butterworth says the IRacer's will cost £50,000 each, contain two electric motors, weigh 600kg and have a top speed of 100mph - "and get there very quickly". He acknowledges that there are still a fairly limited number of electric cars around - another race in the EV Cup series features the Think city car, or the "noddy car", as Butterworth calls it. He adds that with software and suspension tweaks, the Think corners well and will make for entertaining racing.
The wider question is whether racing can drive on electric car development. Former Formula One world champion Damon Hill is a supporter of the EV Cup. "Racing electric vehicles should convince the wider public of their potential. Racing was initially used to develop and prove a new product called the motor car. I see no reason why electric vehicle development will not benefit in the same way."
Ben Collins, formerly known as The Stig on BBC television's Top Gear, says: "Motorsport still offers the purest research and development platform to deliver the true potential of electric power and dynamic energy recovery; perhaps to a level that will shame the carbon combustion engine the way rubber tyres did the wooden cartwheel."
Talking of Top Gear, their race between a Tesla Roadster electric supercar and a Lotus Elise did not end happily - Tesla are suing. But Butterworth thinks petrolheads will be won round.
"Once we have cars fast enough to whet the appetite and with sufficient distance, I think plenty of people will be impressed," he said. "I remember Jeremy Clarkson knocking GPS navigation years ago when it was not very reliable. I bet he uses it all the time now."
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Solar textiles bring light to remote villages
SciDev.net: The Portable Light Project is using solar cells in clothes to bring clean electricity to the billions of people without power
Henrique Kugler for SciDev.net guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 April 2011 15.09 BST
The Portable Light Project, a non-profit initiative led by Kennedy & Violich Architecture and Global Solar Energy, in the United States, inserts tiny solar cells into shirts, woven items and bags produced by remote communities in developing countries. The project aims to integrate clean energy and lighting with indigenous textile production. This helps local communities adopt the new technology and add value to it through their own work.
The project provides kits — containing a thin, two watt solar film, rechargeable battery, USB port, and an LED light — and training on how to weave them into garments.
Integration with the textiles allows the batteries and devices such as mobile phones to be charged on the move, as people go about their daily work, and LED lights enable communities to work and study after dark.
"You simply put it [the textile with solar cells] out in the sun for about three hours. It harvests the sunlight and turns it into electricity. Then you can use it for up to seven hours," Sheila Kennedy, the Boston-based architect who leads the project, told SciDev.Net.
Pilot projects are underway in Brazil, Kenya, Haiti, Nicaragua, Madagascar, Mexico and South Africa, in collaboration with local non-governmental organisations (NGOs). For example, in the Sierra Madre mountains of Mexico the nomadic Huichol people charge solar lanterns during the day and use them to light their houses at night, which allows them to engage in artisanal cottage industries and later sell their products in towns.
The Nicaraguan NGO Paso Pacifico helps the project provide electricity to two villages. "Now children can study in the evening and women can carry out household work safely," Sarah Otterstrom, Paso Pacifico's director, told SciDev.Net.
Otterstrom said people in the village no longer need to buy diesel or batteries to light their houses. "Now they are asking for more lights," she added.
Kennedy said they have half the carbon footprint of normal solar cells during production, and are smaller, lighter and more resilient.
Although there is still no economic model for mass production to meet global electricity needs for remote communities, the estimated price of US$16 per item can be paid off in a year via microloans, according to Kennedy.
Brazilian sociologist Paulo Martins, who studies the social impacts of nanotechnology, told SciDev.Net that integrating textiles with solar energy is a global trend. "We need to keep it available at affordable costs to the ones who really need it," he said.
This is a good example of targeting science to local needs, he added. "[In Brazil] we invest huge amounts of money in technologies that can make our country a major player in global markets … But we constantly forget to develop science in a way that suits our true social needs."
Frederik Krebs of the Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy in Denmark, who designed a low-cost, plastic solar lamp for Africa, expressed caution. "All our studies indicate that a high degree of ruggedness is needed before it [portable solar lights] can help people in developing regions," he said. In his opinion, such garments are "simply not wearable enough yet."
However, Harish Hande, head of India's SELCO Solar — a social enterprise taking sustainable power to households and businesses that tested Portable Lights garments — praised their portability, flexibility and light quality. But he said while it can help power off-grid communities it is not a complete solution in itself.
Henrique Kugler for SciDev.net guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 April 2011 15.09 BST
The Portable Light Project, a non-profit initiative led by Kennedy & Violich Architecture and Global Solar Energy, in the United States, inserts tiny solar cells into shirts, woven items and bags produced by remote communities in developing countries. The project aims to integrate clean energy and lighting with indigenous textile production. This helps local communities adopt the new technology and add value to it through their own work.
The project provides kits — containing a thin, two watt solar film, rechargeable battery, USB port, and an LED light — and training on how to weave them into garments.
Integration with the textiles allows the batteries and devices such as mobile phones to be charged on the move, as people go about their daily work, and LED lights enable communities to work and study after dark.
"You simply put it [the textile with solar cells] out in the sun for about three hours. It harvests the sunlight and turns it into electricity. Then you can use it for up to seven hours," Sheila Kennedy, the Boston-based architect who leads the project, told SciDev.Net.
Pilot projects are underway in Brazil, Kenya, Haiti, Nicaragua, Madagascar, Mexico and South Africa, in collaboration with local non-governmental organisations (NGOs). For example, in the Sierra Madre mountains of Mexico the nomadic Huichol people charge solar lanterns during the day and use them to light their houses at night, which allows them to engage in artisanal cottage industries and later sell their products in towns.
The Nicaraguan NGO Paso Pacifico helps the project provide electricity to two villages. "Now children can study in the evening and women can carry out household work safely," Sarah Otterstrom, Paso Pacifico's director, told SciDev.Net.
Otterstrom said people in the village no longer need to buy diesel or batteries to light their houses. "Now they are asking for more lights," she added.
Kennedy said they have half the carbon footprint of normal solar cells during production, and are smaller, lighter and more resilient.
Although there is still no economic model for mass production to meet global electricity needs for remote communities, the estimated price of US$16 per item can be paid off in a year via microloans, according to Kennedy.
Brazilian sociologist Paulo Martins, who studies the social impacts of nanotechnology, told SciDev.Net that integrating textiles with solar energy is a global trend. "We need to keep it available at affordable costs to the ones who really need it," he said.
This is a good example of targeting science to local needs, he added. "[In Brazil] we invest huge amounts of money in technologies that can make our country a major player in global markets … But we constantly forget to develop science in a way that suits our true social needs."
Frederik Krebs of the Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy in Denmark, who designed a low-cost, plastic solar lamp for Africa, expressed caution. "All our studies indicate that a high degree of ruggedness is needed before it [portable solar lights] can help people in developing regions," he said. In his opinion, such garments are "simply not wearable enough yet."
However, Harish Hande, head of India's SELCO Solar — a social enterprise taking sustainable power to households and businesses that tested Portable Lights garments — praised their portability, flexibility and light quality. But he said while it can help power off-grid communities it is not a complete solution in itself.
Sunday, 24 April 2011
CBI calls for end to delays on renewable energy
CBI is urging the government to set out guidelines that gives companies the confidence to invest in green energy projects
Simon Bowers The Guardian, Tuesday 26 April 2011
Business leaders are to accuse ministers of failing to lay the groundwork fast enough for the raft of urgently needed low-carbon energy projects that are vital if Britain is to plug the widening gap between its energy requirements and its fast dwindling sources of power.
The CBI employers' group is urging the government to set out long-term, business-friendly guidelines that will give companies the confidence to invest in green energy infrastructure projects.
About a third of the UK's energy supply is scheduled to dry up over the next 10 years and the government has pledged to fill the gap in large part with low-carbon energy sources. By 2020 the UK is legally committed to lowering CO2 emissions by 34% from 1990 levels.
Katja Hall, chief policy director for the CBI, said: "We need the government to set a clear direction of travel and to stick to it. Businesses want to get on with building new low-carbon infrastructure, but there is still too much policy uncertainty."
The employers' body said that its members had become fed up with a plethora of headline-grabbing initiatives from Westminster in recent years – including the carbon reduction commitment and "feed-in tariffs" – which were radically altered after their introduction.
The CBI's intervention puts it on an increasingly long list of campaign groups voicing their frustrations at the slow progress being made in low-carbon investment planning. Over the weekend, a string of influential energy industry figures told the Guardian that they had become disillusioned with coalition claims to be the "greenest government ever".
Among them were Penny Shepherd, chief executive of UKSIF, Britain's leading organisation representing financiers specialising in green investments; Mark Shorrock, founder of the renewables investor Low Carbon Group; and Jonathon Porritt of the now-defunct Sustainable Development Commission.
In a CBI-commissioned report on low-carbon infrastructure, the management consultancy group Accenture highlighted opportunities for ministers to regain the initiative. Among them was the imminent reform of the electricity market, where CBI members feel that ministers must strike the right balance between driving investment in low-carbon infrastructure and encouraging competition in the industry. The report also calls for swift action on the government's green investment bank; action to push important projects through the planning process; and a clear and workable "green deal" to encourage energy efficiency.
The CBI noted that during the recession the UK spent $3.7bn on a "green stimulus package", compared with $6bn and $13bn in France and Germany respectively.
Separately, the Environmental Investment Organisation has published its "carbon rankings", in which the British insurance company Aviva leads a list of Europe's 300 largest companies in terms of low greenhouse gas emissions.
Simon Bowers The Guardian, Tuesday 26 April 2011
Business leaders are to accuse ministers of failing to lay the groundwork fast enough for the raft of urgently needed low-carbon energy projects that are vital if Britain is to plug the widening gap between its energy requirements and its fast dwindling sources of power.
The CBI employers' group is urging the government to set out long-term, business-friendly guidelines that will give companies the confidence to invest in green energy infrastructure projects.
About a third of the UK's energy supply is scheduled to dry up over the next 10 years and the government has pledged to fill the gap in large part with low-carbon energy sources. By 2020 the UK is legally committed to lowering CO2 emissions by 34% from 1990 levels.
Katja Hall, chief policy director for the CBI, said: "We need the government to set a clear direction of travel and to stick to it. Businesses want to get on with building new low-carbon infrastructure, but there is still too much policy uncertainty."
The employers' body said that its members had become fed up with a plethora of headline-grabbing initiatives from Westminster in recent years – including the carbon reduction commitment and "feed-in tariffs" – which were radically altered after their introduction.
The CBI's intervention puts it on an increasingly long list of campaign groups voicing their frustrations at the slow progress being made in low-carbon investment planning. Over the weekend, a string of influential energy industry figures told the Guardian that they had become disillusioned with coalition claims to be the "greenest government ever".
Among them were Penny Shepherd, chief executive of UKSIF, Britain's leading organisation representing financiers specialising in green investments; Mark Shorrock, founder of the renewables investor Low Carbon Group; and Jonathon Porritt of the now-defunct Sustainable Development Commission.
In a CBI-commissioned report on low-carbon infrastructure, the management consultancy group Accenture highlighted opportunities for ministers to regain the initiative. Among them was the imminent reform of the electricity market, where CBI members feel that ministers must strike the right balance between driving investment in low-carbon infrastructure and encouraging competition in the industry. The report also calls for swift action on the government's green investment bank; action to push important projects through the planning process; and a clear and workable "green deal" to encourage energy efficiency.
The CBI noted that during the recession the UK spent $3.7bn on a "green stimulus package", compared with $6bn and $13bn in France and Germany respectively.
Separately, the Environmental Investment Organisation has published its "carbon rankings", in which the British insurance company Aviva leads a list of Europe's 300 largest companies in terms of low greenhouse gas emissions.
Friday, 22 April 2011
Heating oil phase-out part of NYC clean-air plan
NEW YORK — The city will phase out the use of polluting heavy oils to heat buildings and will begin building solar power plants on capped landfills, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Thursday in his first update to a 4-year-old environmental plan that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2030.
Under the plan, the phase-out of heavy oils from the city's boilers would start right away and be completed by the 2030 deadline. It would reduce the presence of airborne fine particulate matter, which the city says is killing 3,000 residents each year and forcing 6,000 to seek emergency asthma treatment.
The update to PlaNYC, first released by the mayor on Earth Day 2007, was missing one measure that had been a key talking point four years earlier. Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan to charge motorists driving in the busiest parts of Manhattan during peak hours — defeated in 2008 by state legislators — was replaced by other programs.
The ban on the dirtiest heating oils will match or surpass the air quality improvements that had been expected as part of the never-realized traffic fee, said Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Cas Holloway.
Bloomberg said the traffic problem needs to be confronted.
"The problems of not enough mass transit and too much congestion on our roads and too many pollutants spewed out by combustion engines still persist, and we still have to do something about it," he said.
Overall, the nation's largest city has "achieved or mostly achieved" almost two-thirds of the plan's 2009 milestones — a statistic that city officials say they're pleased about even though budget shortfalls mean that some projects have been delayed.
Since the plan's launch, rezoning efforts have helped make 87 percent of new development accessible by public transportation. An additional 250,000 people — up to 74 percent of the city's more than 8 million residents — live within a 10-minute walk of a park.
And more than 30 percent of the city's 13,000 yellow cabs are now green vehicles.
One of the main goals of the plan — to reduce city greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent from their 2005 levels — appeared well under way, with the city reporting a drop of 13 percent. But Holloway warned that due to weather and other factors that change each year, it would be inaccurate to say the city had nearly reached the halfway point.
Some advocates said they were disappointed that some pieces of the original plan had fallen by the wayside. Geoffrey Croft, president of the group NYC Park Advocates, said that at least five parks that had been included in the original plan had seen their funding sliced significantly — sometimes by more than 90 percent.
Under the revised plan, the use of the heaviest oil for heating buildings, known as No. 6, will end by 2015. A lighter heating oil, No. 4, would be eliminated by 2030. They would be replaced in part by natural gas and low-sulfur oil, the city said.
The change is aimed at the 1 percent of city buildings that produce 86 percent of the city's building-based soot pollution. The mayor's office said the city would seek to encourage property owners to make the change right away, by working with energy companies to increase the distribution of natural gas and by making it easier for landlords to get permits for boiler conversions.
The city also plans to use $37 million in federal stimulus funds to start a loan program to help property owners pay for energy-efficiency upgrades. The New York City Energy Efficiency Corporation would partner with the commercial lending industry and philanthropic organizations.
Bloomberg said the city also will explore public-private partnerships for renewable energy projects such as building solar power plants on top of larger areas of the city's capped landfills. If built large enough, the structures to be placed at Staten Island's former Fresh Kills Landfill and two other sites could produce up to 50 megawatts at full capacity, Holloway said. One megawatt is enough electricity to serve 800 to 1,000 homes.
In addition, the revised plan includes new initiatives to open farmer's markets at local community gardens and to give tax abatements to people growing food on city roofs. The city also is increasing its recycling goal and piloting projects to convert waste into energy.
The final measure is especially important in a densely populated city where trash often has been trucked away with a sizable carbon cost, said Steven Cohen, a sustainability management professor at Columbia University, who spoke glowingly of the city's progress on environmental issues over the last four years.
"It's been a landmark for New York City," Cohen said of the plan. "It really demonstrates the mayor's understanding that the environment is not a frill but an essential part of the economic development of the city."
The mayor also released some new details of a previously announced program that will invite residents to join forces online to suggest ways to green the city while also connecting them to environmental projects and organizations. The Change by Us program will ask residents how the city could improve energy efficiency, air quality and community composting efforts.
—Copyright 2011 Associated Press
Under the plan, the phase-out of heavy oils from the city's boilers would start right away and be completed by the 2030 deadline. It would reduce the presence of airborne fine particulate matter, which the city says is killing 3,000 residents each year and forcing 6,000 to seek emergency asthma treatment.
The update to PlaNYC, first released by the mayor on Earth Day 2007, was missing one measure that had been a key talking point four years earlier. Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan to charge motorists driving in the busiest parts of Manhattan during peak hours — defeated in 2008 by state legislators — was replaced by other programs.
The ban on the dirtiest heating oils will match or surpass the air quality improvements that had been expected as part of the never-realized traffic fee, said Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Cas Holloway.
Bloomberg said the traffic problem needs to be confronted.
"The problems of not enough mass transit and too much congestion on our roads and too many pollutants spewed out by combustion engines still persist, and we still have to do something about it," he said.
Overall, the nation's largest city has "achieved or mostly achieved" almost two-thirds of the plan's 2009 milestones — a statistic that city officials say they're pleased about even though budget shortfalls mean that some projects have been delayed.
Since the plan's launch, rezoning efforts have helped make 87 percent of new development accessible by public transportation. An additional 250,000 people — up to 74 percent of the city's more than 8 million residents — live within a 10-minute walk of a park.
And more than 30 percent of the city's 13,000 yellow cabs are now green vehicles.
One of the main goals of the plan — to reduce city greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent from their 2005 levels — appeared well under way, with the city reporting a drop of 13 percent. But Holloway warned that due to weather and other factors that change each year, it would be inaccurate to say the city had nearly reached the halfway point.
Some advocates said they were disappointed that some pieces of the original plan had fallen by the wayside. Geoffrey Croft, president of the group NYC Park Advocates, said that at least five parks that had been included in the original plan had seen their funding sliced significantly — sometimes by more than 90 percent.
Under the revised plan, the use of the heaviest oil for heating buildings, known as No. 6, will end by 2015. A lighter heating oil, No. 4, would be eliminated by 2030. They would be replaced in part by natural gas and low-sulfur oil, the city said.
The change is aimed at the 1 percent of city buildings that produce 86 percent of the city's building-based soot pollution. The mayor's office said the city would seek to encourage property owners to make the change right away, by working with energy companies to increase the distribution of natural gas and by making it easier for landlords to get permits for boiler conversions.
The city also plans to use $37 million in federal stimulus funds to start a loan program to help property owners pay for energy-efficiency upgrades. The New York City Energy Efficiency Corporation would partner with the commercial lending industry and philanthropic organizations.
Bloomberg said the city also will explore public-private partnerships for renewable energy projects such as building solar power plants on top of larger areas of the city's capped landfills. If built large enough, the structures to be placed at Staten Island's former Fresh Kills Landfill and two other sites could produce up to 50 megawatts at full capacity, Holloway said. One megawatt is enough electricity to serve 800 to 1,000 homes.
In addition, the revised plan includes new initiatives to open farmer's markets at local community gardens and to give tax abatements to people growing food on city roofs. The city also is increasing its recycling goal and piloting projects to convert waste into energy.
The final measure is especially important in a densely populated city where trash often has been trucked away with a sizable carbon cost, said Steven Cohen, a sustainability management professor at Columbia University, who spoke glowingly of the city's progress on environmental issues over the last four years.
"It's been a landmark for New York City," Cohen said of the plan. "It really demonstrates the mayor's understanding that the environment is not a frill but an essential part of the economic development of the city."
The mayor also released some new details of a previously announced program that will invite residents to join forces online to suggest ways to green the city while also connecting them to environmental projects and organizations. The Change by Us program will ask residents how the city could improve energy efficiency, air quality and community composting efforts.
—Copyright 2011 Associated Press
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Fossil fuel firms use 'biased' study in massive gas lobbying push
Industry urging governments and business to reject renewables in favour of 'green' shale gas
• Is shale gas as green as the companies say?
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 April 2011 17.24 BST
Senior executives in the fossil fuel industry have launched an all-out assault on renewable energy, lobbying governments and business groups to reject wind and solar power in favour of gas, in a move that could choke the fledgling green energy industry.
Multinational companies including Shell, GDF Suez and Statoil are promoting gas as an alternative "green" fuel. These companies are among dozens around the world investing in new technologies to exploit shale gas, a controversial form of the fuel that has rejuvenated the gas industry because it is plentiful in supply and newly accessible due to technical advances in gas extraction known as "fracking".
The expansion of shale gas holds out the promise of a glut in gas that is driving down prices and creating a bonanza for the fossil fuel industry. Burning gas in power stations releases about half the carbon emissions of coal, allowing gas companies to claim it is a "green" source of fuel.
Central to the lobbying effort is a report claiming that the EU could meet its 2050 carbon targets €900bn more cheaply by using gas than by investing in renewables. But the Guardian has established that the analysis is based on a previous report that came to the opposite conclusion – that renewables should play a much larger role. The report being pushed by the fossil fuel industry has been disowned by its original authors who referred to it as "biased" in favour of gas.
For the last two months, company lobbyists have been besieging government officials in Europe, the US and elsewhere to push the report. Their efforts are being boosted through alliances with energy-intensive industries, which are joining in the pressure on government in the hope of securing cheap energy.
As the problems with the Fukushima plant in Japan have cast a pall over nuclear power, gas companies sense the chance to brand themselves as the main "green" source of energy. James Smith, outgoing UK chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, one of the leaders in the lobbying effort, said switching to gas would offer the world "a breathing space" in the battle against climate change.
This view was challenged by Prof David Mackay, chief scientific adviser to the UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change. He told the Guardian: "You can't reach the [climate] targets like this - there is no way that switching to gas would solve the problem. I don't think it's really credible that gas is the only future."
The lobbying effort by fossil fuel companies has been intense. At a high level meeting on Wednesday, the president of the European parliament hosted a lunch for the gas industry with VIP guests including the EU's energy chief, Günther Oettinger.
It is the latest in a long round of meetings in recent months between gas lobbyists and senior officials in Brussels, including other EU commissioners and prominent MEPs, as part of the industry's charm offensive. Oettinger alone has held at least two other major meetings with gas representatives this year.
At most of these meetings, and at many other formal and informal meetings to discuss EU energy and climate change, officials have been presented with a report commissioned by the European Gas Advocacy Forum (EGAF), an industry lobbying group, based in part on an analysis by consultancy firm McKinsey and called Making the Green Journey Work. This report appears to show the EU could meet its 2050 climate targets €900bn more cheaply using gas than by investing in renewables. A copy of the report has also been presented to the office of José Manuel Barroso, the EU president, who has taken a close interest in EU gas supply with visits to the Ukraine, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan this year.
Apart from coming to different conclusions about renewable energy, the report also relies on questionable assumptions about the future price of technology to capture and store carbon.
The team at the European Climate Foundation that produced the original report described the EGAF version as "biased to one preferential outcome in support of gas advocacy". They warn that adopting its conclusions would reduce energy security and expose the European economy to the volatile gas price.
A spokesperson for McKinsey said: "It is our long-standing policy not to discuss our clients or the work we do for them."
David Rimmer, Shell's general managed for global gas said, "Shell sees renewables as a major part of the future energy mix but this analysis has shown that increased reliance on gas in the near term saves money and jobs, delivers on climate targets and allows new technologies to be improved before large scale deployment."
Further doubt has been thrown on the industry's claims by a newly released academic study from Cornell University which found that generating electricity from shale gas – because of the difficulty in extracting it from rocks – produces at least as much carbon dioxide as coal-fired power, and perhaps more.
Jenny Banks, climate and energy policy officer at WWF-UK, called on the British government to halt shale gas exploration. "It would be ridiculous to encourage shale gas when in reality its greenhouse gas footprint could be as bad as or worse than coal. We need to reject this source of gas, and have a clear plan to move away from our dependency on fossil fuels and harness the full potential of renewable technologies."
Some in the gas industry are careful to argue that its fuel is complementary to renewables, as it can be relatively easily turned on and off to provide flexible back-up power when the wind is not blowing.
This argument is accepted by Oettinger, who insists that both gas and renewable energy will be needed for flexible low-carbon power generation, and some other senior figures. Nobuo Tanaka, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, said: "Gas is potentially a game changer. But it is complementary to renewables, as it can be turned on and off quickly. It could be baseload power and we could turn off coal."
But renewable energy generators are wary, as they fear that cash-strapped governments will ease off on subsidies for clean power, in favour of licensing gas-fired power stations.
A new gas-fired power station would be expected to have a useful life of about 25 to 40 years. So although switching from coal to gas would help countries meet their short term emissions targets, in the longer term they would be left with fleets of redundant, high-emitting fossil fuel power stations – unless they were fitted with expensive technology to capture and store the carbon dioxide underground. However, this technology is still unproven and it is likely to be decades before it can be widely used. The economics of the technology are highly uncertain, and renewable companies argue that the assumptions used by EGAF to show that the fossil fuel is cheaper than renewables do not stand up to scrutiny.
Shale gas is controversial because it requires large amounts of water to release it from rocks, and the use of potentially dangerous chemicals that could leach into the water supply. Numerous cases in the US, which has led the way in releasing gas from shale rocks using fracking technology, have shown evidence of contamination and dangerous leaks of methane.
Prof Robert Howarth, lead author of the Cornell study, said: "My strong belief is that shale gas has been promoted far beyond the objective evidence of what it can and cannot do. It is time to step back, and objectively analyse whether this is a reasonable energy technology for our future. It is also time to analyse how environmental issues associated with the technology might be reduced, and at what cost."
• Is shale gas as green as the companies say?
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 April 2011 17.24 BST
Senior executives in the fossil fuel industry have launched an all-out assault on renewable energy, lobbying governments and business groups to reject wind and solar power in favour of gas, in a move that could choke the fledgling green energy industry.
Multinational companies including Shell, GDF Suez and Statoil are promoting gas as an alternative "green" fuel. These companies are among dozens around the world investing in new technologies to exploit shale gas, a controversial form of the fuel that has rejuvenated the gas industry because it is plentiful in supply and newly accessible due to technical advances in gas extraction known as "fracking".
The expansion of shale gas holds out the promise of a glut in gas that is driving down prices and creating a bonanza for the fossil fuel industry. Burning gas in power stations releases about half the carbon emissions of coal, allowing gas companies to claim it is a "green" source of fuel.
Central to the lobbying effort is a report claiming that the EU could meet its 2050 carbon targets €900bn more cheaply by using gas than by investing in renewables. But the Guardian has established that the analysis is based on a previous report that came to the opposite conclusion – that renewables should play a much larger role. The report being pushed by the fossil fuel industry has been disowned by its original authors who referred to it as "biased" in favour of gas.
For the last two months, company lobbyists have been besieging government officials in Europe, the US and elsewhere to push the report. Their efforts are being boosted through alliances with energy-intensive industries, which are joining in the pressure on government in the hope of securing cheap energy.
As the problems with the Fukushima plant in Japan have cast a pall over nuclear power, gas companies sense the chance to brand themselves as the main "green" source of energy. James Smith, outgoing UK chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, one of the leaders in the lobbying effort, said switching to gas would offer the world "a breathing space" in the battle against climate change.
This view was challenged by Prof David Mackay, chief scientific adviser to the UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change. He told the Guardian: "You can't reach the [climate] targets like this - there is no way that switching to gas would solve the problem. I don't think it's really credible that gas is the only future."
The lobbying effort by fossil fuel companies has been intense. At a high level meeting on Wednesday, the president of the European parliament hosted a lunch for the gas industry with VIP guests including the EU's energy chief, Günther Oettinger.
It is the latest in a long round of meetings in recent months between gas lobbyists and senior officials in Brussels, including other EU commissioners and prominent MEPs, as part of the industry's charm offensive. Oettinger alone has held at least two other major meetings with gas representatives this year.
At most of these meetings, and at many other formal and informal meetings to discuss EU energy and climate change, officials have been presented with a report commissioned by the European Gas Advocacy Forum (EGAF), an industry lobbying group, based in part on an analysis by consultancy firm McKinsey and called Making the Green Journey Work. This report appears to show the EU could meet its 2050 climate targets €900bn more cheaply using gas than by investing in renewables. A copy of the report has also been presented to the office of José Manuel Barroso, the EU president, who has taken a close interest in EU gas supply with visits to the Ukraine, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan this year.
Apart from coming to different conclusions about renewable energy, the report also relies on questionable assumptions about the future price of technology to capture and store carbon.
The team at the European Climate Foundation that produced the original report described the EGAF version as "biased to one preferential outcome in support of gas advocacy". They warn that adopting its conclusions would reduce energy security and expose the European economy to the volatile gas price.
A spokesperson for McKinsey said: "It is our long-standing policy not to discuss our clients or the work we do for them."
David Rimmer, Shell's general managed for global gas said, "Shell sees renewables as a major part of the future energy mix but this analysis has shown that increased reliance on gas in the near term saves money and jobs, delivers on climate targets and allows new technologies to be improved before large scale deployment."
Further doubt has been thrown on the industry's claims by a newly released academic study from Cornell University which found that generating electricity from shale gas – because of the difficulty in extracting it from rocks – produces at least as much carbon dioxide as coal-fired power, and perhaps more.
Jenny Banks, climate and energy policy officer at WWF-UK, called on the British government to halt shale gas exploration. "It would be ridiculous to encourage shale gas when in reality its greenhouse gas footprint could be as bad as or worse than coal. We need to reject this source of gas, and have a clear plan to move away from our dependency on fossil fuels and harness the full potential of renewable technologies."
Some in the gas industry are careful to argue that its fuel is complementary to renewables, as it can be relatively easily turned on and off to provide flexible back-up power when the wind is not blowing.
This argument is accepted by Oettinger, who insists that both gas and renewable energy will be needed for flexible low-carbon power generation, and some other senior figures. Nobuo Tanaka, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, said: "Gas is potentially a game changer. But it is complementary to renewables, as it can be turned on and off quickly. It could be baseload power and we could turn off coal."
But renewable energy generators are wary, as they fear that cash-strapped governments will ease off on subsidies for clean power, in favour of licensing gas-fired power stations.
A new gas-fired power station would be expected to have a useful life of about 25 to 40 years. So although switching from coal to gas would help countries meet their short term emissions targets, in the longer term they would be left with fleets of redundant, high-emitting fossil fuel power stations – unless they were fitted with expensive technology to capture and store the carbon dioxide underground. However, this technology is still unproven and it is likely to be decades before it can be widely used. The economics of the technology are highly uncertain, and renewable companies argue that the assumptions used by EGAF to show that the fossil fuel is cheaper than renewables do not stand up to scrutiny.
Shale gas is controversial because it requires large amounts of water to release it from rocks, and the use of potentially dangerous chemicals that could leach into the water supply. Numerous cases in the US, which has led the way in releasing gas from shale rocks using fracking technology, have shown evidence of contamination and dangerous leaks of methane.
Prof Robert Howarth, lead author of the Cornell study, said: "My strong belief is that shale gas has been promoted far beyond the objective evidence of what it can and cannot do. It is time to step back, and objectively analyse whether this is a reasonable energy technology for our future. It is also time to analyse how environmental issues associated with the technology might be reduced, and at what cost."
'Gasland changed everything' – fracking firm battles to woo English villagers
Cuadrilla Resources has arrived in northern England to exploit the gas reserves, but it must win over the worried locals who have seen controversial US shale gas documentary, Gasland
Fiona Harvey in Singleton guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 April 2011 17.41 BST
It is also unnervingly quiet. On a bright spring morning, in the lane just a few yards from the gate, the silence is unbroken except by birdsong.
The entire site is lined with tough plastic several feet underground so that the surface rainwater cannot permeate. "Nothing can escape," says Mark Miller, chief executive of Cuadrilla Resources, the UK-based shale gas company that is hoping to exploit gas reserves in the north of England.
Within a few months, not even this will be visible. If gas is found, and the fracking process begins, then the drilling equipment will be moved to another site, the wellhead will be capped with extraction equipment about six feet in height, and a tall hedge will hide it from view. No one should know it is there.
Miller is here to speak to a group of local people invited to discuss their concerns about the site. He wants to show off the many safety features of the site, the lack of dust and noise, and most of all distance himself from the many recent horror stories from the US on shale gas "fracking" – short for hydraulic fracturing.
"Gasland [the US feature documentary about shale gas] really changed everything," says Paul Kelly, communications adviser to Cuadrilla. "Before that, shale gas was not seen as routinely controversial." The film showed terrifying examples of what can go wrong when shale gas drilling and fracking takes place – leaks of methane from under the ground, contamination of the water supply and the soil, the danger of explosions. Hundreds of people in the US are reported to have been affected by pollution, have had their health ruined, and lost their houses or jobs as a result of the problems there. Scenes that show residents able to set fire to their water supply because of methane contamination are the new face of shale gas exploration.
A couple of the locals mention that they have seen Gaslands and are concerned that the problems it demonstrates will be replicated here in Singleton, an English village so picturesque it has been made a conservation area. A quaint half-timbered old building, bearing the legend "Fire Engine", greets the visitor at the entrance, with quiet lanes and leafy gardens surrounding a mixture of cottages and converted barns, with a sprinkling of more modern housing. The drilling site is well within view of the houses, just a few hundred yards from the village church and primary school.
But Miller is quick to play down the experiences reported from the US. He goes into detail on the sorts of safety measures to be included, including three layers of pipe casing between the 3,000 feet drill shaft and the aquifer it passes through (which is saline, so not used for drinking water in any case), and a gas-sensing and shut-off system to prevent leaks.
Only three chemicals – a polyacrylamide lubricant that is commonly found in cosmetics; hydrochloric acid; and a biocide used to purify drinking water – will be used here, he pledges, unlike the hundreds that can be used in the US. In the course of its life, this site is likely to require about five Olympic swimming pools of water, about a quarter of which will be returned to the surface quickly, cleaned and recycled. The rest will seep up gradually – and safely - over about five or six decades, he says.
The equipment here is also superior to that used by what he calls the "bad apple companies" in the US whom Miller blames for poisoning the public image of shale gas. "It has added about 20% to our costs, but we wanted to be able to show people that we are doing this properly and responsibly," he says.
Something that did shake local people's faith in the plant was an earthquake on 1 April. The tremors were centred remarkably close to the village, and woke many people in the night with a bang.
Miller is unfazed, reassuring people that the minor degree of drilling at the site - where fracking has not started yet - could not have caused the quake. Most people seem satisfied with his explanation.
Cuadrilla has two operational drilling sites with permission for another four. If gas is found, it may expand to six to eight per square mile over the area it has licensed for exploration. The company is being closely watched by the government, green campaigners and other companies that want to exploit the UK's potential shale reserves, which are concentrated in the Lancashire region.
It is certainly the case that the company, which is UK-owned and headquartered (although Miller is American), is coming under much tighter regulation than prevails in many US states. The UK's Environment Agency is monitoring the chemicals used and the processes at every step, as is the local council. In the UK the underlying rocks belong to the queen, meaning the crown estate must get involved, too.
For the cash-strapped local council, Cuadrilla's development offers the chance of new jobs and a new source of income. The company employs about 70 people directly at present, but its activities also have a knock-on stimulus effect on the depressed local economy.
The villagers seem broadly impressed with Miller's explanations. "They offered us a lot of reassurance – I do feel happier about the safety side now," says Geoffrey Pilkington, a local property owner.
"To some degree, they have allayed my fears," adds John Ashcroft, who is retired. "And we have to be careful not to be hypocritical – we all have gas central heating."
In fact, the main concern among villagers appears to be not the safety but the development on what they thought was greenbelt land. "The first we knew was when it started going up," says Caroline Murphy, an artist and designer. "We live here because it's a beautiful village with beautiful countryside, and now it looks like an industrial estate has sprung up."
Others are concerned about house prices. "It's an eyesore," says Wendy Jones, who is moving to another village. She points to a nearby property for sale that she believes has fallen in price in recent months.
For a few, the site is viewed positively. Toni Wood, who works in the local pub, says: "I know some people are not happy, but I am not worried about it. But then, they have brought us a lot of business, so I suppose we see more of the benefits."
Fiona Harvey in Singleton guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 April 2011 17.41 BST
It is also unnervingly quiet. On a bright spring morning, in the lane just a few yards from the gate, the silence is unbroken except by birdsong.
The entire site is lined with tough plastic several feet underground so that the surface rainwater cannot permeate. "Nothing can escape," says Mark Miller, chief executive of Cuadrilla Resources, the UK-based shale gas company that is hoping to exploit gas reserves in the north of England.
Within a few months, not even this will be visible. If gas is found, and the fracking process begins, then the drilling equipment will be moved to another site, the wellhead will be capped with extraction equipment about six feet in height, and a tall hedge will hide it from view. No one should know it is there.
Miller is here to speak to a group of local people invited to discuss their concerns about the site. He wants to show off the many safety features of the site, the lack of dust and noise, and most of all distance himself from the many recent horror stories from the US on shale gas "fracking" – short for hydraulic fracturing.
"Gasland [the US feature documentary about shale gas] really changed everything," says Paul Kelly, communications adviser to Cuadrilla. "Before that, shale gas was not seen as routinely controversial." The film showed terrifying examples of what can go wrong when shale gas drilling and fracking takes place – leaks of methane from under the ground, contamination of the water supply and the soil, the danger of explosions. Hundreds of people in the US are reported to have been affected by pollution, have had their health ruined, and lost their houses or jobs as a result of the problems there. Scenes that show residents able to set fire to their water supply because of methane contamination are the new face of shale gas exploration.
A couple of the locals mention that they have seen Gaslands and are concerned that the problems it demonstrates will be replicated here in Singleton, an English village so picturesque it has been made a conservation area. A quaint half-timbered old building, bearing the legend "Fire Engine", greets the visitor at the entrance, with quiet lanes and leafy gardens surrounding a mixture of cottages and converted barns, with a sprinkling of more modern housing. The drilling site is well within view of the houses, just a few hundred yards from the village church and primary school.
But Miller is quick to play down the experiences reported from the US. He goes into detail on the sorts of safety measures to be included, including three layers of pipe casing between the 3,000 feet drill shaft and the aquifer it passes through (which is saline, so not used for drinking water in any case), and a gas-sensing and shut-off system to prevent leaks.
Only three chemicals – a polyacrylamide lubricant that is commonly found in cosmetics; hydrochloric acid; and a biocide used to purify drinking water – will be used here, he pledges, unlike the hundreds that can be used in the US. In the course of its life, this site is likely to require about five Olympic swimming pools of water, about a quarter of which will be returned to the surface quickly, cleaned and recycled. The rest will seep up gradually – and safely - over about five or six decades, he says.
The equipment here is also superior to that used by what he calls the "bad apple companies" in the US whom Miller blames for poisoning the public image of shale gas. "It has added about 20% to our costs, but we wanted to be able to show people that we are doing this properly and responsibly," he says.
Something that did shake local people's faith in the plant was an earthquake on 1 April. The tremors were centred remarkably close to the village, and woke many people in the night with a bang.
Miller is unfazed, reassuring people that the minor degree of drilling at the site - where fracking has not started yet - could not have caused the quake. Most people seem satisfied with his explanation.
Cuadrilla has two operational drilling sites with permission for another four. If gas is found, it may expand to six to eight per square mile over the area it has licensed for exploration. The company is being closely watched by the government, green campaigners and other companies that want to exploit the UK's potential shale reserves, which are concentrated in the Lancashire region.
It is certainly the case that the company, which is UK-owned and headquartered (although Miller is American), is coming under much tighter regulation than prevails in many US states. The UK's Environment Agency is monitoring the chemicals used and the processes at every step, as is the local council. In the UK the underlying rocks belong to the queen, meaning the crown estate must get involved, too.
For the cash-strapped local council, Cuadrilla's development offers the chance of new jobs and a new source of income. The company employs about 70 people directly at present, but its activities also have a knock-on stimulus effect on the depressed local economy.
The villagers seem broadly impressed with Miller's explanations. "They offered us a lot of reassurance – I do feel happier about the safety side now," says Geoffrey Pilkington, a local property owner.
"To some degree, they have allayed my fears," adds John Ashcroft, who is retired. "And we have to be careful not to be hypocritical – we all have gas central heating."
In fact, the main concern among villagers appears to be not the safety but the development on what they thought was greenbelt land. "The first we knew was when it started going up," says Caroline Murphy, an artist and designer. "We live here because it's a beautiful village with beautiful countryside, and now it looks like an industrial estate has sprung up."
Others are concerned about house prices. "It's an eyesore," says Wendy Jones, who is moving to another village. She points to a nearby property for sale that she believes has fallen in price in recent months.
For a few, the site is viewed positively. Toni Wood, who works in the local pub, says: "I know some people are not happy, but I am not worried about it. But then, they have brought us a lot of business, so I suppose we see more of the benefits."
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Electric cars: night-time charging better - study
AFP
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Charging electric cars at night eases a smog problem caused by fossil-fuel plants which provide the power for these vehicles, researchers reported on Tuesday.
Plug-in cars are viewed as a key tool in the fight for a cleaner planet as they do not emit tailpipe pollution when they run on electricity.
But they contribute indirectly to pollution, as well as global warming, if their electricity comes from a power station that runs on coal, oil or gas.
In a study published in a British journal, scientists in the United States simulated the local impact from "plug-in hybrid electric vehicles," or PHEVs, which are cars that can switch from battery power to petrol.
Their computer model was based on predictions for 2018 of emissions of nitrogen oxides, the basic ingredient for ground-level ozone, in four major cities in Texas: Dallas/Forth Worth, Houston, Austin and San Antonio.
Power generation for this grid in 2009 was provided by gas (46 percent), coal (35 percent), nuclear (13 percent) and wind (4.5 percent).
The study compared likely pollution levels when 20 percent of mileage in the region was carried out either by PHEVs or by vehicles that were only petrol-powered.
Regardless of the scenario, ozone pollution improved when PHVs were used, because they did not emit nitrogen oxides.
As for when PHEVs should be recharged, the paper found it was smarter to plug in the vehicle at night.
Extra demand from fossil-fuel power stations at night did cause levels of nitrogen oxides to rise compared to the typically shorter recharging periods in daytime.
But much of the gas emitted at night time had dissipated by daybreak. This eased the smog problem by a small but detectable margin.
Ozone, a triple molecule of oxygen, is protective when it is in the stratosphere, because it filters ultraviolet rays that can cause skin cancer and DNA mutations in plants.
But at ground level, where it forms from a reaction between sunlight and nitrogen oxides from fossil fuels, ozone irritates the body's airways, becoming a hazard for people with cardiac or respiratory problems.
The finding will guide policies on how to encourage cleaner cars, say the authors.
"This further supports efforts to develop regulation to encourage night-time charging - an example would be variable electricity pricing," said Tammy Thompson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
"As more of the fleet switches over to PHEVs and larger demand is placed on the electricity grid, it will become more important that we design and implement policy that will encourage charging behaviours that are positive both for air quality and grid reliability."
The paper appears in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Charging electric cars at night eases a smog problem caused by fossil-fuel plants which provide the power for these vehicles, researchers reported on Tuesday.
Plug-in cars are viewed as a key tool in the fight for a cleaner planet as they do not emit tailpipe pollution when they run on electricity.
But they contribute indirectly to pollution, as well as global warming, if their electricity comes from a power station that runs on coal, oil or gas.
In a study published in a British journal, scientists in the United States simulated the local impact from "plug-in hybrid electric vehicles," or PHEVs, which are cars that can switch from battery power to petrol.
Their computer model was based on predictions for 2018 of emissions of nitrogen oxides, the basic ingredient for ground-level ozone, in four major cities in Texas: Dallas/Forth Worth, Houston, Austin and San Antonio.
Power generation for this grid in 2009 was provided by gas (46 percent), coal (35 percent), nuclear (13 percent) and wind (4.5 percent).
The study compared likely pollution levels when 20 percent of mileage in the region was carried out either by PHEVs or by vehicles that were only petrol-powered.
Regardless of the scenario, ozone pollution improved when PHVs were used, because they did not emit nitrogen oxides.
As for when PHEVs should be recharged, the paper found it was smarter to plug in the vehicle at night.
Extra demand from fossil-fuel power stations at night did cause levels of nitrogen oxides to rise compared to the typically shorter recharging periods in daytime.
But much of the gas emitted at night time had dissipated by daybreak. This eased the smog problem by a small but detectable margin.
Ozone, a triple molecule of oxygen, is protective when it is in the stratosphere, because it filters ultraviolet rays that can cause skin cancer and DNA mutations in plants.
But at ground level, where it forms from a reaction between sunlight and nitrogen oxides from fossil fuels, ozone irritates the body's airways, becoming a hazard for people with cardiac or respiratory problems.
The finding will guide policies on how to encourage cleaner cars, say the authors.
"This further supports efforts to develop regulation to encourage night-time charging - an example would be variable electricity pricing," said Tammy Thompson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
"As more of the fleet switches over to PHEVs and larger demand is placed on the electricity grid, it will become more important that we design and implement policy that will encourage charging behaviours that are positive both for air quality and grid reliability."
The paper appears in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
UK's first local power station rattles the bucket for investment
Project in Sussex will be generating electricity later this year if it can tempt local investors into hitting target of £300,000
Ben Bryant guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 April 2011 15.00 BST The UK's first renewable "community power station" will on Tuesday begin raising money to install solar panels housed on the roof of a local brewery. If its backers can raise enough money to get it off the ground, the project will begin generating electricity for the local area later in the year.
The planned 500 sq m installation in Lewes, near Brighton, will also use part of the revenue generated by the government's feed-in tariff scheme to fund community projects. But its future is in doubt because of a pending government review of the scheme.
The seven directors – all local residents – have managed to raise more than £150,000 of their £300,000 target and hope to acquire the remainder from local investors at the launch of a share issue on Tuesday.
Dirk Campbell, 65, a founding director of the Ouse Valley Energy Security Company (Ovesco), hopes the scheme will inspire others. He said: "We're doing this in order to create a model which will be exportable and replicable by people anywhere. The main focus of this is community ownership."
Ovesco will be run by its directors as a non-profit society for community benefit. Investors will receive a 4% rate of return on their outlay, profiting from the government's feed-in tariff scheme that pays for the generation of renewable electricity. Under these terms, the directors of the 98 kilowatt (kW) installation hope to repay investors over 20 years.
Harveys brewery hopes to host a solar panel on its roof. Photograph: Greenhouse PR The energy generated will be used by Harveys, the local brewery, which has leased its roof in exchange for free electricity, which will be used primarily to cool its beer, Sunshine Ale. Any surplus will be sold back to the grid, and the additional revenue will be used to fund community projects.
Without payment from the government's feed-in tariff scheme, which is currently under review, the project will not be financially sustainable. From 1 August, subsidies for schemes larger than 50kW will be slashed, meaning that Ovesco must install the panels within the next few months or face an unfeasibly low rate of return.
Campbell said: "We're completely dependent on the feed-in tariffs scheme to make it work, so in that sense it's not sustainable. The government might renege on their commitment."
Howard Johns, the managing director of Southern Solar, came up with the idea for Ovesco. He said: "We've finally got to a position where we've cracked a model that we think could work, and unfortunately the government have been meddling in the background."
He added: "The government have effectively trashed the feed-in tariff system."
Liz Mandeville, 65, another director of Ovesco, is investing more than £20,000 into the scheme with her partner because she believes "that climate change is the greatest single threat to human beings on the planet". She said: "We're both retired, we own this house, our children are all independent. We like Lewes. We don't like shopping, and we've got plenty of furniture – what better way for us to spend our money?"
Caroline Lucas, Green party leader and MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: "The government's reckless plan to review solar feed-in tariffs has created uncertainty in one of the few industries to have generated thousands of new green jobs. Proposals to slash financial support to solar projects over 50kW have further laid bare the shocking lack of ambition on solar energy.
"The feed-in tariff scheme is crucial to helping projects like the Lewes community-owned power station get off the ground – but thanks to the uncertainty brought about by the review, it will be difficult for renewables companies or investors to trust the government again."
Ben Bryant guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 April 2011 15.00 BST The UK's first renewable "community power station" will on Tuesday begin raising money to install solar panels housed on the roof of a local brewery. If its backers can raise enough money to get it off the ground, the project will begin generating electricity for the local area later in the year.
The planned 500 sq m installation in Lewes, near Brighton, will also use part of the revenue generated by the government's feed-in tariff scheme to fund community projects. But its future is in doubt because of a pending government review of the scheme.
The seven directors – all local residents – have managed to raise more than £150,000 of their £300,000 target and hope to acquire the remainder from local investors at the launch of a share issue on Tuesday.
Dirk Campbell, 65, a founding director of the Ouse Valley Energy Security Company (Ovesco), hopes the scheme will inspire others. He said: "We're doing this in order to create a model which will be exportable and replicable by people anywhere. The main focus of this is community ownership."
Ovesco will be run by its directors as a non-profit society for community benefit. Investors will receive a 4% rate of return on their outlay, profiting from the government's feed-in tariff scheme that pays for the generation of renewable electricity. Under these terms, the directors of the 98 kilowatt (kW) installation hope to repay investors over 20 years.
Harveys brewery hopes to host a solar panel on its roof. Photograph: Greenhouse PR The energy generated will be used by Harveys, the local brewery, which has leased its roof in exchange for free electricity, which will be used primarily to cool its beer, Sunshine Ale. Any surplus will be sold back to the grid, and the additional revenue will be used to fund community projects.
Without payment from the government's feed-in tariff scheme, which is currently under review, the project will not be financially sustainable. From 1 August, subsidies for schemes larger than 50kW will be slashed, meaning that Ovesco must install the panels within the next few months or face an unfeasibly low rate of return.
Campbell said: "We're completely dependent on the feed-in tariffs scheme to make it work, so in that sense it's not sustainable. The government might renege on their commitment."
Howard Johns, the managing director of Southern Solar, came up with the idea for Ovesco. He said: "We've finally got to a position where we've cracked a model that we think could work, and unfortunately the government have been meddling in the background."
He added: "The government have effectively trashed the feed-in tariff system."
Liz Mandeville, 65, another director of Ovesco, is investing more than £20,000 into the scheme with her partner because she believes "that climate change is the greatest single threat to human beings on the planet". She said: "We're both retired, we own this house, our children are all independent. We like Lewes. We don't like shopping, and we've got plenty of furniture – what better way for us to spend our money?"
Caroline Lucas, Green party leader and MP for Brighton Pavilion, said: "The government's reckless plan to review solar feed-in tariffs has created uncertainty in one of the few industries to have generated thousands of new green jobs. Proposals to slash financial support to solar projects over 50kW have further laid bare the shocking lack of ambition on solar energy.
"The feed-in tariff scheme is crucial to helping projects like the Lewes community-owned power station get off the ground – but thanks to the uncertainty brought about by the review, it will be difficult for renewables companies or investors to trust the government again."
Renewed energy for renewable energy
A new wave of activists is gearing up to combat the millions the US Chamber of Commerce invests in boosting fossil fuels
Amy Goodman guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 April 2011 02.23 BST
More than 10,000 people converged in Washington, DC, this past week to discuss, organise, mobilise and protest around the issue of climate change. While tax day Tea Party gatherings of a few hundred scattered around the country made the news, this massive gathering, Power Shift 2011, was largely ignored by the media. They met the week before Earth Day, around the first anniversary of the BP oil rig explosion and the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, while the Fukushima nuclear plant still spews radioactivity into the environment. Against such a calamitous backdrop, this renewed movement's power and passion ensure that it won't be ignored for long.
Rallying those attending to the work ahead, environmentalist, author and founder of 350.org Bill McKibben said:
"This city is as polluted as Beijing. But instead of coal smoke, it's polluted by money. Money warps our political life, it obscures our vision […] We know now what we need to do, and the first thing we need to do is build a movement. We will never have as much money as the oil companies, so we need a different currency to work in, we need bodies, we need creativity, we need spirit."
The organisers of Power Shift describe it as an intensive boot camp, training a new generation of activists to go back to their communities and build the movement that McKibben called for. Three areas are targeted by the organisers: Catalysing the Clean Energy Economy, Campus Climate Challenge 2.0 and Beyond Dirty Energy. The campaigns cross major sectors of US society. The move for a clean energy economy has been embraced by the AFL-CIO, seeing the potential for employment in construction of wind turbines, installation of solar panels and, one of the potentially greenest and oft-ignored sectors, retrofitting of existing buildings with energy efficiencies like better insulation and weatherproofing.
On Monday 18 April, tax day in the US, thousands held a "Make Big Polluters Pay" rally, targeting the fossil fuel and non-renewable energy industries. The demonstrators gathered in Lafayette Park, a traditional protest square wedged between the White House and the US Chamber of Commerce. As Bill McKibben said, the Chamber "spends more money lobbying than the next five lobbies combined …"
"It spent more money on politics last year than the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee combined, and 94% of that went to climate deniers."
The protests also targeted BP's offices, just after the BP shareholders' meeting was held last week in London. There, security officers blocked the entrance of a delegation of four fishermen and women from the Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast areas heavily damaged by last year's oil spill. Diane Wilson, a fourth-generation fisherwoman, was arrested for disturbing the peace. She said:
"That was pretty outrageous. They had disrupted our lives down there. But just appearing at the door of a BP general assembly, and we're disrupting the peace."
Many of those gathered at Power Shift 2011 were not yet born when the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear disasters happened. These young people, seeking sustainable, renewable futures, are now learning about what President Barack Obama calls the "nuclear renaissance". The Fukushima nuclear crisis has escalated in severity to the top rating of seven, on par with Chernobyl. Best estimates are that the radiation leaks will persist for months, with ongoing impacts on health and the environment impossible to forecast.
Will Obama proceed to deliver $80bn in loan guarantees to build more nuclear power plants in the United States? He claims he's against tax cuts for the rich, but what about public subsidies for oil, gas, coal and nuclear, among the richest industries on earth?
We recently built new studios from which to broadcast the Democracy Now! news hour on public television and radio around the United States. Ours is the greenest TV/radio/internet broadcast facility in the nation, receiving the top rating, LEED Platinum (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), from the US Green Building Council. The medium is the message. We all need to do our part in pursuit of sustainability.
• Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
© 2011 Amy Goodman; distributed by King Features Syndicate
Amy Goodman guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 April 2011 02.23 BST
More than 10,000 people converged in Washington, DC, this past week to discuss, organise, mobilise and protest around the issue of climate change. While tax day Tea Party gatherings of a few hundred scattered around the country made the news, this massive gathering, Power Shift 2011, was largely ignored by the media. They met the week before Earth Day, around the first anniversary of the BP oil rig explosion and the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, while the Fukushima nuclear plant still spews radioactivity into the environment. Against such a calamitous backdrop, this renewed movement's power and passion ensure that it won't be ignored for long.
Rallying those attending to the work ahead, environmentalist, author and founder of 350.org Bill McKibben said:
"This city is as polluted as Beijing. But instead of coal smoke, it's polluted by money. Money warps our political life, it obscures our vision […] We know now what we need to do, and the first thing we need to do is build a movement. We will never have as much money as the oil companies, so we need a different currency to work in, we need bodies, we need creativity, we need spirit."
The organisers of Power Shift describe it as an intensive boot camp, training a new generation of activists to go back to their communities and build the movement that McKibben called for. Three areas are targeted by the organisers: Catalysing the Clean Energy Economy, Campus Climate Challenge 2.0 and Beyond Dirty Energy. The campaigns cross major sectors of US society. The move for a clean energy economy has been embraced by the AFL-CIO, seeing the potential for employment in construction of wind turbines, installation of solar panels and, one of the potentially greenest and oft-ignored sectors, retrofitting of existing buildings with energy efficiencies like better insulation and weatherproofing.
On Monday 18 April, tax day in the US, thousands held a "Make Big Polluters Pay" rally, targeting the fossil fuel and non-renewable energy industries. The demonstrators gathered in Lafayette Park, a traditional protest square wedged between the White House and the US Chamber of Commerce. As Bill McKibben said, the Chamber "spends more money lobbying than the next five lobbies combined …"
"It spent more money on politics last year than the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee combined, and 94% of that went to climate deniers."
The protests also targeted BP's offices, just after the BP shareholders' meeting was held last week in London. There, security officers blocked the entrance of a delegation of four fishermen and women from the Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast areas heavily damaged by last year's oil spill. Diane Wilson, a fourth-generation fisherwoman, was arrested for disturbing the peace. She said:
"That was pretty outrageous. They had disrupted our lives down there. But just appearing at the door of a BP general assembly, and we're disrupting the peace."
Many of those gathered at Power Shift 2011 were not yet born when the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear disasters happened. These young people, seeking sustainable, renewable futures, are now learning about what President Barack Obama calls the "nuclear renaissance". The Fukushima nuclear crisis has escalated in severity to the top rating of seven, on par with Chernobyl. Best estimates are that the radiation leaks will persist for months, with ongoing impacts on health and the environment impossible to forecast.
Will Obama proceed to deliver $80bn in loan guarantees to build more nuclear power plants in the United States? He claims he's against tax cuts for the rich, but what about public subsidies for oil, gas, coal and nuclear, among the richest industries on earth?
We recently built new studios from which to broadcast the Democracy Now! news hour on public television and radio around the United States. Ours is the greenest TV/radio/internet broadcast facility in the nation, receiving the top rating, LEED Platinum (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), from the US Green Building Council. The medium is the message. We all need to do our part in pursuit of sustainability.
• Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
© 2011 Amy Goodman; distributed by King Features Syndicate
Solar companies take legal action over UK feed-in tariff cuts
High court to re-examine decision by Chris Huhne to fast-track review that scrapped subsidies for large-scale solar installations
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 April 2011 17.36 BST
A group of companies filed on Tuesday for a judicial review against Chris Huhne, secretary of state for energy and climate change, for his decision to review the feed-in tariffs (Fits) that top up revenues for renewable power.
Ministers said in February they would end subsidies to large-scale solar power installations from this summer to ensure all money available would go to domestic or small commercial installations.
But solar companies are furious that dozens of planned installations will now be scuppered, including schemes for solar panels on farms, schools and other public buildings, which they said would have boosted the UK's renewable power capabilities. Larger scale deployments are more cost-effective than putting panels on individual roofs, say solar campaigners.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) said: "We have been served with a judicial review in relation to the feed-in tariff review into large-scale solar, which we will consider. We support sustained growth in the solar industry and have proposed measures for consultation that will protect the Fits scheme for homes, small businesses and communities." We are consulting on proposals and would encourage those with an interest to respond. It added that solar photovoltaic schemes under 50 kilowatts are unaffected by the fast-track review.
The case is based on the argument that Decc had made it clear that the first review of Fits would not take place until 2012, with changes not implemented until April 2013. Then last November, it said a review could take place earlier, but that any changes would not come into force until next year. Setting such expectations and then betraying them was unreasonable, the solar companies argue. They say Decc failed to give sufficient reason for beginning a review earlier than expected.
There is no evidence of "excessive" deployment of large-scale solar power, according to the complainants.
Mark Shorrock, chief executive of Low Carbon Solar UK, one of the group taking the case to court, said: "Further to communicating our concerns through various meetings and letters [to ministers], we now feel that the only course of action left to us as a group is to seek a judicial review. We hope Chris Huhne will abandon this fast-track review of Fits and work with us to find a more appropriate solution."
He said the government's plans would hobble solar development in the UK. "In pulling back on a commitment to support solar energy, the government will cause the abandonment of hundreds of community scale schemes. The costs of not getting this right now include the creation of new jobs, a diversified income for farmers and landowners, reduced energy costs for businesses and the provision of more secure and reliable energy for the UK."
The group of solar companies includes Low Carbon Solar, MO3 Power, Alectron Investments and Element Power. Several individuals are also involved in their own right.
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 April 2011 17.36 BST
A group of companies filed on Tuesday for a judicial review against Chris Huhne, secretary of state for energy and climate change, for his decision to review the feed-in tariffs (Fits) that top up revenues for renewable power.
Ministers said in February they would end subsidies to large-scale solar power installations from this summer to ensure all money available would go to domestic or small commercial installations.
But solar companies are furious that dozens of planned installations will now be scuppered, including schemes for solar panels on farms, schools and other public buildings, which they said would have boosted the UK's renewable power capabilities. Larger scale deployments are more cost-effective than putting panels on individual roofs, say solar campaigners.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) said: "We have been served with a judicial review in relation to the feed-in tariff review into large-scale solar, which we will consider. We support sustained growth in the solar industry and have proposed measures for consultation that will protect the Fits scheme for homes, small businesses and communities." We are consulting on proposals and would encourage those with an interest to respond. It added that solar photovoltaic schemes under 50 kilowatts are unaffected by the fast-track review.
The case is based on the argument that Decc had made it clear that the first review of Fits would not take place until 2012, with changes not implemented until April 2013. Then last November, it said a review could take place earlier, but that any changes would not come into force until next year. Setting such expectations and then betraying them was unreasonable, the solar companies argue. They say Decc failed to give sufficient reason for beginning a review earlier than expected.
There is no evidence of "excessive" deployment of large-scale solar power, according to the complainants.
Mark Shorrock, chief executive of Low Carbon Solar UK, one of the group taking the case to court, said: "Further to communicating our concerns through various meetings and letters [to ministers], we now feel that the only course of action left to us as a group is to seek a judicial review. We hope Chris Huhne will abandon this fast-track review of Fits and work with us to find a more appropriate solution."
He said the government's plans would hobble solar development in the UK. "In pulling back on a commitment to support solar energy, the government will cause the abandonment of hundreds of community scale schemes. The costs of not getting this right now include the creation of new jobs, a diversified income for farmers and landowners, reduced energy costs for businesses and the provision of more secure and reliable energy for the UK."
The group of solar companies includes Low Carbon Solar, MO3 Power, Alectron Investments and Element Power. Several individuals are also involved in their own right.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Want to save fuel? Go fly a kite
AFP
Sunday, 17 April 2011
The blue-hulled vessel would slip by unnoticed on most seas if not for the white kite, high above her prow, towing her to what its creators hope will be a bright, wind-efficient future.
The enormous kite, which looks like a paraglider, works in tandem with the ship's engines, cutting back on fuel consumption, costs, and carbon footprint.
"Using kites you can harness more energy than with any other type of wind-powered equipment," said German inventor Stephan Wrage, whose company SkySails is looking for lift-off on the back of worldwide efforts to boost renewable energy.
The 160-square-metre (524-square-foot) kite, tethered to a yellow rope, can sail 500 metres into the skies where winds are both stronger and more stable, according to the 38-year-old Wrage.
The secret to the kite's efficiency lies in its speed and computer-controlled flight pattern.
The idea is for the kite to describe figures of eight, which increases airspeed, said Wrage, who has been working on the new technology for 10 years and who still enjoys flying kites on the beach for fun.
"If you double the airspeed you multiply the energy by four. That's the secret of the system," he added.
A new 320-square-metre kite, recently produced, "has a towing force of 32 tonnes which is more than what two engines on an A320 Airbus (aircraft) can produce. So we're not talking toys," he said.
The kite towing the 87-metre-long ship Theseus would produce a maximum of 16 tonnes of thrust in perfect wind conditions.
Retailing at half a million and one million euros (715,000 to 1.3 million dollars), the kites allow fuel savings of 15 to 25 percent depending on wind and shipping routes, said Wrage.
The strongly-built kites are best suited for slow moving ships, such as bulk carriers and tankers, which do not exceed 15 to 16 knots and which ply windy trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific routes, according to SkySail engineers.
Customers could recoup their money within two to six years, depending on bunker fuel prices, shipping routes, and types of carrier, they added.
-- Facing Headwinds --
------------
But the company, with funding of 47 million euros mostly from venture capital investors, has struggled to stay afloat.
"When I started SkySails, the oil price was at 21 dollars (a barrel) so everyone thought I was totally nuts. We were laughed at a lot," explained Wrage.
Then the economic downturn badly hit shipping.
To date, only five kites are in commercial use around the world.
"It has been a tough time for us," Wrage acknowledged.
But the economic recovery - along with rising oil prices - is fuelling new interest in this new "green" technology, not only from ship-owners, but from large trading companies eager to advertise efforts to reduce carbon footprints.
But not everyone in the shipping industry is convinced.
The system "isn't suitable for most fast-going container ships," said Max Johns, a spokesman for the Association of German Ship-owners.
"The system works but has proved difficult to use, with expensive kites being torn, and all this at a time when the industry is suffering a severe downturn," added Johns.
The kite, he suggested, will likely be just one of many systems introduced over the coming years to help slash fuel expenditure, which currently accounts for 60 percent of shipping costs.
Uwe Hollenbuch, an expert on resistance and propulsion at the Hamburg centre for ship research agreed, saying wind propulsion "won't play much of a role for now."
Ship-owners believe "they can achieve savings by using larger ships travelling more slowly" rather than banking on the right wind blowing, said Hollenbuch.
"I don't think we'll be going back to wind power," said Uwe Bruemmer, a sea captain now in charge of inspection at the German heavy lifting shipping company SAL, which operates a 16-strong fleet.
"We've looked at the kite, but it wouldn't be worth it," he added.
"To use this sail you need at least six to seven knots of tail wind and you only find this rarely, and only on certain routes," the captain said.
The sail could be used in regions where monsoons winds blow regularly "for example in the Indian Ocean or off the Somali coast where pirates are now active.
"But in such places we can't allow ourselves to go slower. You have to get through as fast as possible".
For now, "we are concentrating on reducing fuel consumption by reducing engine power to 90 or 80 percent", says Bruemmer, who is pinning his hopes on the development of gas-powered turbines.
Sunday, 17 April 2011
The blue-hulled vessel would slip by unnoticed on most seas if not for the white kite, high above her prow, towing her to what its creators hope will be a bright, wind-efficient future.
The enormous kite, which looks like a paraglider, works in tandem with the ship's engines, cutting back on fuel consumption, costs, and carbon footprint.
"Using kites you can harness more energy than with any other type of wind-powered equipment," said German inventor Stephan Wrage, whose company SkySails is looking for lift-off on the back of worldwide efforts to boost renewable energy.
The 160-square-metre (524-square-foot) kite, tethered to a yellow rope, can sail 500 metres into the skies where winds are both stronger and more stable, according to the 38-year-old Wrage.
The secret to the kite's efficiency lies in its speed and computer-controlled flight pattern.
The idea is for the kite to describe figures of eight, which increases airspeed, said Wrage, who has been working on the new technology for 10 years and who still enjoys flying kites on the beach for fun.
"If you double the airspeed you multiply the energy by four. That's the secret of the system," he added.
A new 320-square-metre kite, recently produced, "has a towing force of 32 tonnes which is more than what two engines on an A320 Airbus (aircraft) can produce. So we're not talking toys," he said.
The kite towing the 87-metre-long ship Theseus would produce a maximum of 16 tonnes of thrust in perfect wind conditions.
Retailing at half a million and one million euros (715,000 to 1.3 million dollars), the kites allow fuel savings of 15 to 25 percent depending on wind and shipping routes, said Wrage.
The strongly-built kites are best suited for slow moving ships, such as bulk carriers and tankers, which do not exceed 15 to 16 knots and which ply windy trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific routes, according to SkySail engineers.
Customers could recoup their money within two to six years, depending on bunker fuel prices, shipping routes, and types of carrier, they added.
-- Facing Headwinds --
------------
But the company, with funding of 47 million euros mostly from venture capital investors, has struggled to stay afloat.
"When I started SkySails, the oil price was at 21 dollars (a barrel) so everyone thought I was totally nuts. We were laughed at a lot," explained Wrage.
Then the economic downturn badly hit shipping.
To date, only five kites are in commercial use around the world.
"It has been a tough time for us," Wrage acknowledged.
But the economic recovery - along with rising oil prices - is fuelling new interest in this new "green" technology, not only from ship-owners, but from large trading companies eager to advertise efforts to reduce carbon footprints.
But not everyone in the shipping industry is convinced.
The system "isn't suitable for most fast-going container ships," said Max Johns, a spokesman for the Association of German Ship-owners.
"The system works but has proved difficult to use, with expensive kites being torn, and all this at a time when the industry is suffering a severe downturn," added Johns.
The kite, he suggested, will likely be just one of many systems introduced over the coming years to help slash fuel expenditure, which currently accounts for 60 percent of shipping costs.
Uwe Hollenbuch, an expert on resistance and propulsion at the Hamburg centre for ship research agreed, saying wind propulsion "won't play much of a role for now."
Ship-owners believe "they can achieve savings by using larger ships travelling more slowly" rather than banking on the right wind blowing, said Hollenbuch.
"I don't think we'll be going back to wind power," said Uwe Bruemmer, a sea captain now in charge of inspection at the German heavy lifting shipping company SAL, which operates a 16-strong fleet.
"We've looked at the kite, but it wouldn't be worth it," he added.
"To use this sail you need at least six to seven knots of tail wind and you only find this rarely, and only on certain routes," the captain said.
The sail could be used in regions where monsoons winds blow regularly "for example in the Indian Ocean or off the Somali coast where pirates are now active.
"But in such places we can't allow ourselves to go slower. You have to get through as fast as possible".
For now, "we are concentrating on reducing fuel consumption by reducing engine power to 90 or 80 percent", says Bruemmer, who is pinning his hopes on the development of gas-powered turbines.
New climate change case headed to Supreme Court
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration and environmental interests generally agree that global warming is a threat that must be dealt with.
But they're on opposite sides of a Supreme Court case over the ability of states and groups such as the Audubon Society that want to sue large electric utilities and force power plants in 20 states to cut their emissions.
The administration is siding with American Electric Power Co. and three other companies in urging the high court to throw out the lawsuit on grounds the Environmental Protection Agency, not a federal court, is the proper authority to make rules about climate change. The justices will hear arguments in the case Tuesday.
The court is taking up a climate change case for the second time in four years. In 2007, the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. By a 5-4 vote, the justices said the EPA has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under that landmark law. The same reasoning applies to power plants.
The administration says one reason to end the current suit is that the EPA is considering rules that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But the administration also acknowledges that it is not certain that limits will be imposed.
At the same time, Republicans in Congress are leading an effort to strip the EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gases.
The uncertainty about legislation and regulation is the best reason for allowing the case to proceed, said David Doniger, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which represents Audubon and other private groups dedicated to land conservation.
"This case was always the ultimate backstop," Doniger said, even as he noted that the council would prefer legislation or EPA regulation to court decisions. The suit would end if the EPA does set emission standards for greenhouse gases, he said.
The legal claims advanced by six states, New York City and the land trusts would be pressed only "if all else failed," he said.
When the suit was filed in 2004, it looked like the only way to force action on global warming. The Bush administration and the Republicans in charge of Congress doubted the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Federal courts long have been active in disputes over pollution. But those cases typically have involved a power plant or sewage treatment plant that was causing some identifiable harm to people, and property downwind or downstream of the polluting plant.
Global warming, by its very name, suggests a more complex problem. The power companies argue that any solution must be comprehensive. No court-ordered change alone would have any effect on climate change, the companies say.
"This is an issue that is of worldwide nature and causation. It's the result of hundreds of years of emissions all over the world," said Ed Comer, vice president and general counsel of the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group.
The other defendants in the suit are Cinergy Co., now part of Duke Energy Corp. of North Carolina; Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia; Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota; and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA is represented by the government and its views do not precisely align with those of other companies.
Eight states initially banded together to sue. They were California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. But in a sign of the enduring role of partisan politics in this issue, New Jersey and Wisconsin withdrew this year after Republican replaced Democrats in their governor's offices.
Another complication is that the administration and the companies may be on the same side at the Supreme Court, but the power industry is strongly opposing climate change regulation. The Southern Co. is a vocal supporter of GOP legislation to block the EPA from acting.
"It's two-faced for them (the companies) to come into court and say everything is well in hand because EPA is going to act," said Doniger, the NRDC lawyer.
Comer said the key point is that judges should not make environmental policy. "This has important implications for jobs. If you raise energy costs in the U.S., does that lead industry jobs to go elsewhere and if it does, do you get the same emissions, just from another country?" Comer said. "These judgments are properly made by elected officials."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was on the federal appeals court panel that heard the case, is not taking part in the Supreme Court's consideration of the issue.
The case is American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 10-174.
But they're on opposite sides of a Supreme Court case over the ability of states and groups such as the Audubon Society that want to sue large electric utilities and force power plants in 20 states to cut their emissions.
The administration is siding with American Electric Power Co. and three other companies in urging the high court to throw out the lawsuit on grounds the Environmental Protection Agency, not a federal court, is the proper authority to make rules about climate change. The justices will hear arguments in the case Tuesday.
The court is taking up a climate change case for the second time in four years. In 2007, the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. By a 5-4 vote, the justices said the EPA has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under that landmark law. The same reasoning applies to power plants.
The administration says one reason to end the current suit is that the EPA is considering rules that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But the administration also acknowledges that it is not certain that limits will be imposed.
At the same time, Republicans in Congress are leading an effort to strip the EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gases.
The uncertainty about legislation and regulation is the best reason for allowing the case to proceed, said David Doniger, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which represents Audubon and other private groups dedicated to land conservation.
"This case was always the ultimate backstop," Doniger said, even as he noted that the council would prefer legislation or EPA regulation to court decisions. The suit would end if the EPA does set emission standards for greenhouse gases, he said.
The legal claims advanced by six states, New York City and the land trusts would be pressed only "if all else failed," he said.
When the suit was filed in 2004, it looked like the only way to force action on global warming. The Bush administration and the Republicans in charge of Congress doubted the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Federal courts long have been active in disputes over pollution. But those cases typically have involved a power plant or sewage treatment plant that was causing some identifiable harm to people, and property downwind or downstream of the polluting plant.
Global warming, by its very name, suggests a more complex problem. The power companies argue that any solution must be comprehensive. No court-ordered change alone would have any effect on climate change, the companies say.
"This is an issue that is of worldwide nature and causation. It's the result of hundreds of years of emissions all over the world," said Ed Comer, vice president and general counsel of the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group.
The other defendants in the suit are Cinergy Co., now part of Duke Energy Corp. of North Carolina; Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia; Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota; and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA is represented by the government and its views do not precisely align with those of other companies.
Eight states initially banded together to sue. They were California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. But in a sign of the enduring role of partisan politics in this issue, New Jersey and Wisconsin withdrew this year after Republican replaced Democrats in their governor's offices.
Another complication is that the administration and the companies may be on the same side at the Supreme Court, but the power industry is strongly opposing climate change regulation. The Southern Co. is a vocal supporter of GOP legislation to block the EPA from acting.
"It's two-faced for them (the companies) to come into court and say everything is well in hand because EPA is going to act," said Doniger, the NRDC lawyer.
Comer said the key point is that judges should not make environmental policy. "This has important implications for jobs. If you raise energy costs in the U.S., does that lead industry jobs to go elsewhere and if it does, do you get the same emissions, just from another country?" Comer said. "These judgments are properly made by elected officials."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was on the federal appeals court panel that heard the case, is not taking part in the Supreme Court's consideration of the issue.
The case is American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 10-174.
China's low-carbon leadership headlines fail to capture the reality
There is no doubt that China is emerging as a major economic force, but some claims about technological leadership are premature
Jim Watson guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 April 2011 07.00 BST
It is now common to hear claims that China has "caught up" with the world's leading economies. Last month, the Pew Environment Group put China at the top of its clean energy investment rankings for 2010. Investment in China reached $54bn, with Germany in second place ($41bn) and the US in third ($34bn). In a similar vein, the Royal Society recently published data showing that China is set to overtake the US in academic publications by 2013 if current trends continue.
But what lies behind these headlines? Do these indicators show that China is really taking the lead so quickly in the clean technology race – or are such claims premature? Our recent research with Tsinghua University on low-carbon innovation in China has spent the past year examining this question. It has found a more mixed picture than the headlines suggest.
China's rapid rise is not in doubt. GDP has been increasing at around 10% a year for more than two decades. Alongside this, the environmental side effects of growth have caused significant concern. This has led to a series of targets for energy efficiency and the development of non-fossil energy sources. The energy intensity target for the 11th five-year plan aimed for a 20% reduction between 2006 and 2010. The target was just about met, but not without panic by provincial officials who implemented power cuts in some areas.
Targets for individual low-carbon technologies have repeatedly been revised upwards as development outstripped expectations. Wind power growth has caught particular attention - with capacity rising from 13 gigawatts (GW) in 2008 to 42GW in 2010 (equivalent to half the power plant capacity in the UK). China is the world's largest user of solar hot water systems, and its subsidies for alternative fuel vehicles are substantial. There are ambitious plans to increase nuclear power capacity from the current 10GW to 80GW by 2020. In the light of the Fukushima accident, this now seems unrealistic – and plans are on hold pending a review.
Discussions of technology deployment can only take us so far in understanding China's low-carbon position. With respect to technology development and manufacturing, the picture is more complex. In some technologies such as wind power, the headlines appear to be broadly right. Homegrown wind turbine manufacturers such as Goldwind and Sinovel are now amongst the world's top five, though questions remain about their ability to move into advanced offshore wind technologies. But wind power policy in China also has some weaknesses. According to the Worldwatch Institute, around one-third of China's wind power projects have trouble connecting to the grid. Developers have rushed to build new capacity, but with insufficient consideration of how their power would be distributed.
In other areas, our research found significant gaps. In electric vehicles, Chinese companies complain that they do not have independent capabilities in key technologies and systems. In coal-fired power, domestic manufacturers are rapidly increasing efficiency to international levels. Some independent innovation has been achieved, for example in technologies which produce synthetic gas from coal. But many technologies used in the most advanced plants are still licensed from firms in OECD countries. China's most efficient coal-fired power plant at Waigaoqiao was built using technology owned by two European firms.
China is also experimenting with carbon capture and storage technologies. These technologies are often seen as essential if carbon emissions from China are to be reduced over the long term. The recent Clean Energy Ministerial called for stronger international action to develop these technologies. However, the possibility that China might take the lead here seems unrealistic. In this power-hungry country, most utilities are put off by the 25% loss in efficiency required to power the carbon capture equipment.
China is emerging as a major economic force no doubt, but some claims about technological leadership are premature. They serve as useful warnings to governments and firms in the OECD that the technological gap is closing fast. But they do not adequately capture the current reality. They fail to make a distinction between the deployment of cleaner technologies such as wind power in China, and the extent to which this represents genuine technological leadership. They also fail to account for the vast differences between low-carbon technologies in China – in performance, capabilities and levels of investment.
• Jim Watson is a professor at the University of Sussex and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Jim Watson guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 April 2011 07.00 BST
It is now common to hear claims that China has "caught up" with the world's leading economies. Last month, the Pew Environment Group put China at the top of its clean energy investment rankings for 2010. Investment in China reached $54bn, with Germany in second place ($41bn) and the US in third ($34bn). In a similar vein, the Royal Society recently published data showing that China is set to overtake the US in academic publications by 2013 if current trends continue.
But what lies behind these headlines? Do these indicators show that China is really taking the lead so quickly in the clean technology race – or are such claims premature? Our recent research with Tsinghua University on low-carbon innovation in China has spent the past year examining this question. It has found a more mixed picture than the headlines suggest.
China's rapid rise is not in doubt. GDP has been increasing at around 10% a year for more than two decades. Alongside this, the environmental side effects of growth have caused significant concern. This has led to a series of targets for energy efficiency and the development of non-fossil energy sources. The energy intensity target for the 11th five-year plan aimed for a 20% reduction between 2006 and 2010. The target was just about met, but not without panic by provincial officials who implemented power cuts in some areas.
Targets for individual low-carbon technologies have repeatedly been revised upwards as development outstripped expectations. Wind power growth has caught particular attention - with capacity rising from 13 gigawatts (GW) in 2008 to 42GW in 2010 (equivalent to half the power plant capacity in the UK). China is the world's largest user of solar hot water systems, and its subsidies for alternative fuel vehicles are substantial. There are ambitious plans to increase nuclear power capacity from the current 10GW to 80GW by 2020. In the light of the Fukushima accident, this now seems unrealistic – and plans are on hold pending a review.
Discussions of technology deployment can only take us so far in understanding China's low-carbon position. With respect to technology development and manufacturing, the picture is more complex. In some technologies such as wind power, the headlines appear to be broadly right. Homegrown wind turbine manufacturers such as Goldwind and Sinovel are now amongst the world's top five, though questions remain about their ability to move into advanced offshore wind technologies. But wind power policy in China also has some weaknesses. According to the Worldwatch Institute, around one-third of China's wind power projects have trouble connecting to the grid. Developers have rushed to build new capacity, but with insufficient consideration of how their power would be distributed.
In other areas, our research found significant gaps. In electric vehicles, Chinese companies complain that they do not have independent capabilities in key technologies and systems. In coal-fired power, domestic manufacturers are rapidly increasing efficiency to international levels. Some independent innovation has been achieved, for example in technologies which produce synthetic gas from coal. But many technologies used in the most advanced plants are still licensed from firms in OECD countries. China's most efficient coal-fired power plant at Waigaoqiao was built using technology owned by two European firms.
China is also experimenting with carbon capture and storage technologies. These technologies are often seen as essential if carbon emissions from China are to be reduced over the long term. The recent Clean Energy Ministerial called for stronger international action to develop these technologies. However, the possibility that China might take the lead here seems unrealistic. In this power-hungry country, most utilities are put off by the 25% loss in efficiency required to power the carbon capture equipment.
China is emerging as a major economic force no doubt, but some claims about technological leadership are premature. They serve as useful warnings to governments and firms in the OECD that the technological gap is closing fast. But they do not adequately capture the current reality. They fail to make a distinction between the deployment of cleaner technologies such as wind power in China, and the extent to which this represents genuine technological leadership. They also fail to account for the vast differences between low-carbon technologies in China – in performance, capabilities and levels of investment.
• Jim Watson is a professor at the University of Sussex and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Running cars on biofuels can be 'unethical'
Green targets to run our cars on plants are in danger of driving slavery, world hunger and climate change, according to a damning new report into the ethics of biofuels.
The UK is currently signed up to European targets that dictate that by 2020, 10 per cent of transport fuels must come from biofuels like sugar cane, corn or palm oil.
But an independent study by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics said the target is already back-firing because the crops are taking land away from food production and therefore driving up food prices.
Production of cheap biofuels in developing countries is also driving slave labour and human rights abuses.
Worst of all biofuels are failing to bring down greenhouse gases, even though the policy was designed to fight climate change, because production is so energy intensive.
At the moment the UK gets 3 per cent of transport fuels from biofuels, but only a third is from certified ‘ethical sources’.
The Nuffield study said there must be a compulsory certification scheme for all biofuels imported into and sold in Europe in order to ensure that the 2020 target actually helps the planet rather than causing worse problems.
Professor Ottoline Leyser, of the University of Cambridge, said the targets would be ‘unethical’ if they are met without ensuring biofuels are produced in a sustainable way.
She suggested more biofuels should be produced in Britain from waste products, straw, ‘energy grass’ or willow. There should also be more research into ‘second generation’ biofuels, for example algae grown in tanks in the desert, that are better for the environment and do not take land away from food.
“Doing nothing is actually an immoral position. We need to address these issues urgently," she said.
The UK is currently signed up to European targets that dictate that by 2020, 10 per cent of transport fuels must come from biofuels like sugar cane, corn or palm oil.
But an independent study by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics said the target is already back-firing because the crops are taking land away from food production and therefore driving up food prices.
Production of cheap biofuels in developing countries is also driving slave labour and human rights abuses.
Worst of all biofuels are failing to bring down greenhouse gases, even though the policy was designed to fight climate change, because production is so energy intensive.
At the moment the UK gets 3 per cent of transport fuels from biofuels, but only a third is from certified ‘ethical sources’.
The Nuffield study said there must be a compulsory certification scheme for all biofuels imported into and sold in Europe in order to ensure that the 2020 target actually helps the planet rather than causing worse problems.
Professor Ottoline Leyser, of the University of Cambridge, said the targets would be ‘unethical’ if they are met without ensuring biofuels are produced in a sustainable way.
She suggested more biofuels should be produced in Britain from waste products, straw, ‘energy grass’ or willow. There should also be more research into ‘second generation’ biofuels, for example algae grown in tanks in the desert, that are better for the environment and do not take land away from food.
“Doing nothing is actually an immoral position. We need to address these issues urgently," she said.
Google invests $168 million in solar power plant
AFP
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Google said Monday it has invested $168 million to help complete the construction of one of the world's biggest solar energy power plants in California's Mojave Desert.
The plant, which is being developed by BrightSource Energy, will generate 392 gross megawatts (MW) of clean solar energy when it is completed in 2013, enough to supply power to 85,000 homes a year.
"That's the equivalent of taking more than 90,000 cars off the road over the lifetime of the plant, projected to be more than 25 years," Google's director of green business operations Rick Needham said in a blog post.
"The investment makes business sense and will help ensure that one of the world's largest solar energy projects is completed," Needham said.
The US Department of Energy said meanwhile that it has finalized $1.6 billion in loan guarantees to support the Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System.
"Today's announcement is creating over 1,000 jobs in California while laying the foundation for thousands more clean energy jobs across the country in the future," US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.
"Through the loan program we are supporting some of the largest, most innovative clean energy projects in the world, and those investments are helping us to out-compete and out-innovate our global competitors to win the future," Chu said.
President Barack Obama's administration has been encouraging companies to invest in green growth, calling it a new source of jobs and fearing that other nations - led by China - are stealing the march.
The Ivanpah project uses mirrors called heliostats to focus the rays of the sun onto a solar receiver on top of a tower. Steam generated by the solar receiver spins a turbine and generator to make electricity.
The Ivanpah Power Tower will be 450 feet (137 meters) tall when it is completed and will use more than 173,000 dual-mirror heliostats.
The project is being built by US engineering giant Bechtel and construction began in October 2010.
The Mountain View, California-based Google said the BrightSource investment brings the company's total investment in clean energy projects to $250 million.
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Google said Monday it has invested $168 million to help complete the construction of one of the world's biggest solar energy power plants in California's Mojave Desert.
The plant, which is being developed by BrightSource Energy, will generate 392 gross megawatts (MW) of clean solar energy when it is completed in 2013, enough to supply power to 85,000 homes a year.
"That's the equivalent of taking more than 90,000 cars off the road over the lifetime of the plant, projected to be more than 25 years," Google's director of green business operations Rick Needham said in a blog post.
"The investment makes business sense and will help ensure that one of the world's largest solar energy projects is completed," Needham said.
The US Department of Energy said meanwhile that it has finalized $1.6 billion in loan guarantees to support the Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System.
"Today's announcement is creating over 1,000 jobs in California while laying the foundation for thousands more clean energy jobs across the country in the future," US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.
"Through the loan program we are supporting some of the largest, most innovative clean energy projects in the world, and those investments are helping us to out-compete and out-innovate our global competitors to win the future," Chu said.
President Barack Obama's administration has been encouraging companies to invest in green growth, calling it a new source of jobs and fearing that other nations - led by China - are stealing the march.
The Ivanpah project uses mirrors called heliostats to focus the rays of the sun onto a solar receiver on top of a tower. Steam generated by the solar receiver spins a turbine and generator to make electricity.
The Ivanpah Power Tower will be 450 feet (137 meters) tall when it is completed and will use more than 173,000 dual-mirror heliostats.
The project is being built by US engineering giant Bechtel and construction began in October 2010.
The Mountain View, California-based Google said the BrightSource investment brings the company's total investment in clean energy projects to $250 million.
Study: Some Natural Gas Threatens Climate More Than Coal
By TENNILLE TRACY
WASHINGTON—Extracting natural gas from shale formations using hydraulic fracturing generates more greenhouse-gas emissions than burning coal, according to a new study that drew immediate attacks from oil and gas interests already facing pressure from lawmakers and regulators worried about the environmental effects of shale-gas development.
The study, conducted by professors at Cornell University, found that natural gas obtained from shale formations using a process known as "hydraulic fracturing" releases large amounts of methane. When methane emissions are taken into account, natural gas from these shale formations produces more greenhouse gases than coal and coal-fired electricity generation over a 20-year time horizon, the study said.
Until now, Democrats on Capitol Hill and some environmental groups have looked to natural gas as a "bridge fuel" that could help the country make the transition from carbon-heavy fossil fuels such as coal to cleaner sources of energy.
"That is what people have tended to focus on in the past," said Robert Howarth, one of the authors of the report and a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell. "I did not expect the methane number to be as big as it is."
The American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing the oil and gas industry, said the study relied on "weak" data regarding methane leaks and didn't take into account the efficiency of natural gas when used for power generation.
"The data is pretty weak for the shale gas emissions," said Russell Jones, senior economic adviser at the American Petroleum Institute. "The basis for those precise numbers is not very precise."
The study complicates the politics of natural gas at a time when the Obama administration and members of Congress say they want to encourage natural gas production as a way to replace coal and oil in electricity generation and transportation.
Last month, President Barack Obama directed Energy Secretary Steven Chu to find ways to improve the safety of natural-gas production, and praised natural gas as a domestically produced fuel source that could reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil and reduce carbon pollution.
U.S. Senate lawmakers, meanwhile, are in the process of developing a nationwide clean-energy standard after Mr. Obama said he wanted the country to generate 80% of electricity from clean-energy sources by 2035.
The Cornell study "certainly suggests that, if you're going to include natural gas in such a system, you have to get better data and account for these emissions," said Dan Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center.
The new study attempts to measure the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions released during the production and use of the fuels. It found that, when natural gas is being produced, up to 8% of the methane in it escapes into the atmosphere over the lifetime of a well. Much of the methane leaks during the fracturing process, when companies fracture open the rock formations to increase the flow of natural gas.
The study also raised additional questions about the process of hydraulic fracturing, which has been criticized for its potential effects on drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently conducting a study to determine whether the process contaminates water supplies.
The Cornell study is expected to be published this week. Dow Jones Newswires obtained an advanced copy. The report's contents were first reported by The Hill.
Write to Tennille Tracy at tennille.tracy@dowjones.com
WASHINGTON—Extracting natural gas from shale formations using hydraulic fracturing generates more greenhouse-gas emissions than burning coal, according to a new study that drew immediate attacks from oil and gas interests already facing pressure from lawmakers and regulators worried about the environmental effects of shale-gas development.
The study, conducted by professors at Cornell University, found that natural gas obtained from shale formations using a process known as "hydraulic fracturing" releases large amounts of methane. When methane emissions are taken into account, natural gas from these shale formations produces more greenhouse gases than coal and coal-fired electricity generation over a 20-year time horizon, the study said.
Until now, Democrats on Capitol Hill and some environmental groups have looked to natural gas as a "bridge fuel" that could help the country make the transition from carbon-heavy fossil fuels such as coal to cleaner sources of energy.
"That is what people have tended to focus on in the past," said Robert Howarth, one of the authors of the report and a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell. "I did not expect the methane number to be as big as it is."
The American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing the oil and gas industry, said the study relied on "weak" data regarding methane leaks and didn't take into account the efficiency of natural gas when used for power generation.
"The data is pretty weak for the shale gas emissions," said Russell Jones, senior economic adviser at the American Petroleum Institute. "The basis for those precise numbers is not very precise."
The study complicates the politics of natural gas at a time when the Obama administration and members of Congress say they want to encourage natural gas production as a way to replace coal and oil in electricity generation and transportation.
Last month, President Barack Obama directed Energy Secretary Steven Chu to find ways to improve the safety of natural-gas production, and praised natural gas as a domestically produced fuel source that could reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil and reduce carbon pollution.
U.S. Senate lawmakers, meanwhile, are in the process of developing a nationwide clean-energy standard after Mr. Obama said he wanted the country to generate 80% of electricity from clean-energy sources by 2035.
The Cornell study "certainly suggests that, if you're going to include natural gas in such a system, you have to get better data and account for these emissions," said Dan Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center.
The new study attempts to measure the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions released during the production and use of the fuels. It found that, when natural gas is being produced, up to 8% of the methane in it escapes into the atmosphere over the lifetime of a well. Much of the methane leaks during the fracturing process, when companies fracture open the rock formations to increase the flow of natural gas.
The study also raised additional questions about the process of hydraulic fracturing, which has been criticized for its potential effects on drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently conducting a study to determine whether the process contaminates water supplies.
The Cornell study is expected to be published this week. Dow Jones Newswires obtained an advanced copy. The report's contents were first reported by The Hill.
Write to Tennille Tracy at tennille.tracy@dowjones.com
It is short-sighted to focus only on the negatives of smart metering
To ignore the wider potential of smart meters is to deny a technology that could be genuinely transformational
Steve Cunningham
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011 15.11
Broadly speaking, Vidal highlights three areas of concern: that the smart meter roll-out will ultimately be ineffective in changing behaviour, will disproportionately penalise those at the margins of society, and will open the way for unscrupulous practices.
The argument that smart metering won't actually have any effect is perhaps the most important. As the article notes, there is uncertainty surrounding the reductions smart meters will deliver, particularly when deployed en masse. While the government's assumption is of savings between 2-3%, Landis+Gyr's experience is that deployments that have focused on encouraging energy budgeting have delivered usage reductions of 10-15%, even with relatively unsophisticated capabilities. At that rate, the savings across the UK – both in pure cash and energy generation terms – are well worth fighting for.
Vidal's concern that smart metering will disproportionately penalise the vulnerable is absolutely understandable, but also fails to recognise the progress that has already been made. The government has paid great attention to ensuring that the cost of serving these sections of society will be no different to those of the wider population. This is in stark contrast to the current situation and will be a very significant improvement for those individuals who need help the most.
He writes: "In the name of saving energy and emissions they [energy companies installing smart meters] have indicated that they plan to charge more at peak times and less at night or times of low use." But this is not bad – it is common sense and represents the only viable means of managing the integration of intermittent power sources such as wind and solar. The current system, where people have no ability to accurately track (and thus control) their energy spend cannot be a better solution.
The feedback that we are receiving from consumers both in the UK and globally is that they value the detail that smart meters give them and want to use that information in order to reduce their bills and get more for their money – just as we do today with supermarket loyalty cards. But this does not mean that utilities will be able to make use of detailed consumption data without the consumer's involvement or agreement, as Vidal fears. The latest government response suggests that the standard meter reading frequency will be monthly and that additional data will be generated only with the customer's agreement. Compare that to the real-time information available to every bank through debit and credit card transactions and it's clear that smart meters create no additional risk.
Of course, all of this is simply to focus on the negatives. There are plenty of important benefits. For the consumer, smart metering will spell the end of estimated billing and will underpin the mass deployment of both electric vehicles and microgeneration technologies. For the industry, it will allow the integration of renewable energies such as offshore wind, solar and marine. Perhaps more significantly, smart metering represents one of the best devices we have for driving consumer engagement. Much of the current carbon reduction agenda is at a corporate or governmental level, smart metering is one of the few programmes that allows individuals to really play their part.
Just as with other major consumer engagement projects – decimalisation, the internet, chip and PIN – there have been – and will continue to be – teething problems. But to focus on these and ignore the wider potential is to deny a technology that could be genuinely transformational in its impact on the UK's emerging green economy and, indeed, society as a whole.
• Steve Cunningham is the chief executive of Landis+Gyr UK & Ireland
Steve Cunningham
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011 15.11
Broadly speaking, Vidal highlights three areas of concern: that the smart meter roll-out will ultimately be ineffective in changing behaviour, will disproportionately penalise those at the margins of society, and will open the way for unscrupulous practices.
The argument that smart metering won't actually have any effect is perhaps the most important. As the article notes, there is uncertainty surrounding the reductions smart meters will deliver, particularly when deployed en masse. While the government's assumption is of savings between 2-3%, Landis+Gyr's experience is that deployments that have focused on encouraging energy budgeting have delivered usage reductions of 10-15%, even with relatively unsophisticated capabilities. At that rate, the savings across the UK – both in pure cash and energy generation terms – are well worth fighting for.
Vidal's concern that smart metering will disproportionately penalise the vulnerable is absolutely understandable, but also fails to recognise the progress that has already been made. The government has paid great attention to ensuring that the cost of serving these sections of society will be no different to those of the wider population. This is in stark contrast to the current situation and will be a very significant improvement for those individuals who need help the most.
He writes: "In the name of saving energy and emissions they [energy companies installing smart meters] have indicated that they plan to charge more at peak times and less at night or times of low use." But this is not bad – it is common sense and represents the only viable means of managing the integration of intermittent power sources such as wind and solar. The current system, where people have no ability to accurately track (and thus control) their energy spend cannot be a better solution.
The feedback that we are receiving from consumers both in the UK and globally is that they value the detail that smart meters give them and want to use that information in order to reduce their bills and get more for their money – just as we do today with supermarket loyalty cards. But this does not mean that utilities will be able to make use of detailed consumption data without the consumer's involvement or agreement, as Vidal fears. The latest government response suggests that the standard meter reading frequency will be monthly and that additional data will be generated only with the customer's agreement. Compare that to the real-time information available to every bank through debit and credit card transactions and it's clear that smart meters create no additional risk.
Of course, all of this is simply to focus on the negatives. There are plenty of important benefits. For the consumer, smart metering will spell the end of estimated billing and will underpin the mass deployment of both electric vehicles and microgeneration technologies. For the industry, it will allow the integration of renewable energies such as offshore wind, solar and marine. Perhaps more significantly, smart metering represents one of the best devices we have for driving consumer engagement. Much of the current carbon reduction agenda is at a corporate or governmental level, smart metering is one of the few programmes that allows individuals to really play their part.
Just as with other major consumer engagement projects – decimalisation, the internet, chip and PIN – there have been – and will continue to be – teething problems. But to focus on these and ignore the wider potential is to deny a technology that could be genuinely transformational in its impact on the UK's emerging green economy and, indeed, society as a whole.
• Steve Cunningham is the chief executive of Landis+Gyr UK & Ireland
Fuel tax proposal to push up diesel prices across Europe
European Commission plans minimum tax on fuel for member states – but UK prices would not be affected
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011 17.22 BST
Under the proposals, a new tax based on the carbon content of fuels would apply across member states, at a minimum of €20 per tonne of carbon dioxide. This is likely to affect diesel more than petrol, because at present most countries tax diesel more lightly, which makes it on average 10% cheaper at the pump even though it is 10% more expensive to produce.
"It is about ensuring that the way we tax things is providing the right incentives, and at least not providing the wrong incentives," said Connie Hedegaard, European commissioner for climate change. "It will encourage energy efficiency."
The minimum price for diesel would increase by €2.3 cents per litre per year from 2013 until 2023 under the plans.
However the price rise would not occur in those member states whose fuel taxes are higher than the proposed minimum. In the UK, for instance, the Treasury said that fuel prices would not rise if the plans took effect, because the UK's fuel tax rates exceed the minimum rates. Despite this, the government is fighting the commission on the issue, on the principle that member states should be free to set their own carbon taxes.
A HM Treasury spokesman said: "Member states should have the flexibility to decide on the measures that will best help them meet their greenhouse gas emissions targets."
Hedegaard acknowledged that the proposals – which must be approved by member states and the EU's parliament – would face stiff opposition. "No one believes this is going to be a walk-over to get through," she said. "But there are very strong arguments for doing this."
The proposals would also require a minimum tax rate for heating fuels based on their energy content. This is controversial because poorer households spend a large proportion of their income on heating. But the commission said it would allow member states to set their own exemptions on home heating, to avoid damaging social effects.
The Treasury was unable to tell the Guardian on Wednesday whether the proposals would have an effect on UK gas prices.
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011 17.22 BST
Under the proposals, a new tax based on the carbon content of fuels would apply across member states, at a minimum of €20 per tonne of carbon dioxide. This is likely to affect diesel more than petrol, because at present most countries tax diesel more lightly, which makes it on average 10% cheaper at the pump even though it is 10% more expensive to produce.
"It is about ensuring that the way we tax things is providing the right incentives, and at least not providing the wrong incentives," said Connie Hedegaard, European commissioner for climate change. "It will encourage energy efficiency."
The minimum price for diesel would increase by €2.3 cents per litre per year from 2013 until 2023 under the plans.
However the price rise would not occur in those member states whose fuel taxes are higher than the proposed minimum. In the UK, for instance, the Treasury said that fuel prices would not rise if the plans took effect, because the UK's fuel tax rates exceed the minimum rates. Despite this, the government is fighting the commission on the issue, on the principle that member states should be free to set their own carbon taxes.
A HM Treasury spokesman said: "Member states should have the flexibility to decide on the measures that will best help them meet their greenhouse gas emissions targets."
Hedegaard acknowledged that the proposals – which must be approved by member states and the EU's parliament – would face stiff opposition. "No one believes this is going to be a walk-over to get through," she said. "But there are very strong arguments for doing this."
The proposals would also require a minimum tax rate for heating fuels based on their energy content. This is controversial because poorer households spend a large proportion of their income on heating. But the commission said it would allow member states to set their own exemptions on home heating, to avoid damaging social effects.
The Treasury was unable to tell the Guardian on Wednesday whether the proposals would have an effect on UK gas prices.
Shale gas is not a credible 'new green message'
The oil industry is failing to paint the whole picture when praising the green credentials of this controversial technology
Chris Shearlock
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011 12.09 BST
It's confusing as to how shale gas extraction offers the oil industry "a new green message", as it was suggested last week in an interview with Shell's outgoing chairman. Look a little closer at shale gas and it comes with all the type of problems we're coming to expect from extracting unconventional hydrocarbons. Now that we've got much of the easy stuff out of the ground, it's all getting a bit more complicated, leading to the use of new technologies to get to previously inaccessible reserves, and in so doing, creating new environmental problems we hadn't previously envisaged. Tar sands developments in Alberta, Canada, are the obvious case in point.
With shale gas, the technology involved is called hydraulic fracturing – "fracking" for short. This involves blasting a solution of water, sand and various chemicals into the shale bed, two to three kilometres below ground, to fracture the rock and mobilise the gas. In order to get to the shale formation, operations have to drill through the aquifer, creating the potential for contamination; either from chemicals used in the process or those that are activated during fracking.
In the US, where the industry is more developed, accusations of groundwater contamination abound. If you want to see some examples, take a look at the Oscar-nominated documentary Gasland which the Co-operative helped distribute earlier this year if you want to see some examples. In response, the US Environmental Protection Agency is undertaking a review of fracking operations. We've suggested to government that the UK takes heed of this and imposes a moratorium on development, at least until this research is completed.
But surely shale gas is good news at the global level, if it will displace much more polluting coal? Indeed, this might happen if we had a legally binding global cap on emissions (the sort of thing we were meant to have agreed on at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, but didn't). Unfortunately, in the energy-hungry world that we live in, there's just as much chance that the likes of India and China will simply burn shale gas in addition to their coal reserves as they quite fairly pursue economic development. If you don't believe me, have a look at the situation in the US where the massive expansion in shale gas is simply helping to meet the energy demands of a growing economy that doesn't have a carbon cap and is failing to displace coal.
Research undertaken by the Tyndall Centre (and funded by the Co-operative) suggests that burning the world's shale gas reserves would increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations by up to 11 parts per million (ppm).That's hardly conducive to stablising greenhouse gases - current levels of CO2 are around 392ppm and 350 is the level considered to be "safe" by many experts.
Even if this could be mitigated by capturing the emissions from shale gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS) – a very big if – there's another problem with the green credentials of shale gas. Other emissions from the extraction process, such as methane, could actually mean its carbon footprint is more like that of coal, and these wider emissions can't be dealt with through CCS. According to research to be published this week by Cornell University in the US: "Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas [in terms of climate impact] is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon, and is comparable over 100 years."
Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't diversification into renewable energy be a more credible "new green message" for the oil industry?
• Chris Shearlock is the sustainable development manager at the Co-operative Group
Chris Shearlock
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 April 2011 12.09 BST
It's confusing as to how shale gas extraction offers the oil industry "a new green message", as it was suggested last week in an interview with Shell's outgoing chairman. Look a little closer at shale gas and it comes with all the type of problems we're coming to expect from extracting unconventional hydrocarbons. Now that we've got much of the easy stuff out of the ground, it's all getting a bit more complicated, leading to the use of new technologies to get to previously inaccessible reserves, and in so doing, creating new environmental problems we hadn't previously envisaged. Tar sands developments in Alberta, Canada, are the obvious case in point.
With shale gas, the technology involved is called hydraulic fracturing – "fracking" for short. This involves blasting a solution of water, sand and various chemicals into the shale bed, two to three kilometres below ground, to fracture the rock and mobilise the gas. In order to get to the shale formation, operations have to drill through the aquifer, creating the potential for contamination; either from chemicals used in the process or those that are activated during fracking.
In the US, where the industry is more developed, accusations of groundwater contamination abound. If you want to see some examples, take a look at the Oscar-nominated documentary Gasland which the Co-operative helped distribute earlier this year if you want to see some examples. In response, the US Environmental Protection Agency is undertaking a review of fracking operations. We've suggested to government that the UK takes heed of this and imposes a moratorium on development, at least until this research is completed.
But surely shale gas is good news at the global level, if it will displace much more polluting coal? Indeed, this might happen if we had a legally binding global cap on emissions (the sort of thing we were meant to have agreed on at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, but didn't). Unfortunately, in the energy-hungry world that we live in, there's just as much chance that the likes of India and China will simply burn shale gas in addition to their coal reserves as they quite fairly pursue economic development. If you don't believe me, have a look at the situation in the US where the massive expansion in shale gas is simply helping to meet the energy demands of a growing economy that doesn't have a carbon cap and is failing to displace coal.
Research undertaken by the Tyndall Centre (and funded by the Co-operative) suggests that burning the world's shale gas reserves would increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations by up to 11 parts per million (ppm).That's hardly conducive to stablising greenhouse gases - current levels of CO2 are around 392ppm and 350 is the level considered to be "safe" by many experts.
Even if this could be mitigated by capturing the emissions from shale gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS) – a very big if – there's another problem with the green credentials of shale gas. Other emissions from the extraction process, such as methane, could actually mean its carbon footprint is more like that of coal, and these wider emissions can't be dealt with through CCS. According to research to be published this week by Cornell University in the US: "Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas [in terms of climate impact] is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon, and is comparable over 100 years."
Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't diversification into renewable energy be a more credible "new green message" for the oil industry?
• Chris Shearlock is the sustainable development manager at the Co-operative Group
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
BritNed power cable boosts hopes for European supergrid
Electricity link between UK and the Netherlands seen as key step in connecting renewable energy to a European power grid
Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 April 2011 13.32 BST
It stretches 260km under the North Sea, contains 23,000 tonnes of copper and lead, and may represent the first step towards a renewable energy revolution based on a European electricity "supergrid". The £500m BritNed cable, which has just entered operation, is the first direct current electricity link from the UK to another country in 25 years.
The high voltage cable, a joint venture between the UK National Grid and the Dutch grid operator TenneT, has a capacity of 1,000MW, the equivalent of a nuclear power station. It runs from the Isle of Grain in Kent to Maasvlakte, near Rotterdam, in the Netherlands.
High voltage DC (HVDC) cables allow electricity to be transmitted over much greater distances than existing alternating current lines, which start losing power after 80km. A network of HVDC cables across Europe is seen as the key to "weather-proofing" the large scale use of renewable energy, some forms of which are intermittent and have to be balanced in real time with generation elsewhere.
"Our investment in this interconnector means that we are joining a much wider European electricity market," said Nick Winser, executive director of National Grid. "This ability we now have to move power across national borders means we can use the full potential of renewable energy from wind – making it easier to import when wind is not available and export when there is a surplus." In the short term, linking the UK and European grids boosts the UK's energy security and helps stabilise wholesale energy prices.
Chris Huhne, secretary of state for energy and climate change, said: "Renewables win as it means surplus wind power can be easily shared [and] consumers win as a single European market puts pressure on prices."
"This is a major step," said Louise Hutchins, head of UK energy campaigns at Greenpeace. "It sends a signal to renewable manufacturers that we're a step closer to unlocking the potential of one the world's main renewable power houses – the North Sea."
BritNed auctions the cable's transmission capacity on the open market and all 1,000MW was bought from the first hour of operation on 31 March. Since the start, electricity has flowed from the Netherlands to the UK most of the time. The project took about five years to complete and will be officially opened on 12 May.
The idea of a European supergrid gained momentum in December with the signing of an agreement by all 10 nations bordering the North Sea to, for example, co-ordinate the deployment of new HVDC cables. The North Sea offshore grid initiative, backed by the UK prime minister, David Cameron, aims to link renewable energy generation across the North Sea, including wind power from the UK, solar power in Germany and hydropower in Scandinavia, maximising the use of renewable energy.
Wilfried Breuer, head of power transmission solutions at Siemens, which manufactured and built the AC-DC conversion stations at each end of the BritNed powerline, said: "The supergrid will be built, but gradually. It's not one investment like a highway. It will develop over 10-15 years, leg by leg."
In the UK, the biggest driving force for new HVDC lines will be the 30GW of offshore windpower capacity planned for deployment before 2020. By comparison, the current total UK capacity from coal, gas, nuclear and other sources is 85GW. "HVDC lines are a commercially driven market. Excess wind power is an asset and you want to be able to sell that," said Breuer.
Another 10GW of HVDC lines are planned by 2020 including links from the UK to Norway, Belgium and France. The latter is the only nation with an existing HVDC link to the UK, a 2,000MW cable that has been in operation for 25 years. The HVDC line most likely to open next runs from north Wales to Dublin, Ireland, which is due to complete in 2012.
The most ambitious HVDC cable under consideration would give the UK access to the vast geothermal energy of Iceland, which is not intermittent. Last month energy minister Charles Hendry said discussions on the legal and regulatory issues posed by such a cable had taken place with the Icelandic government and would continue. However, the distance between Reykjavik and Glasgow is more than 1,300km: the longest existing subsea HVDC cable is 580km, linking Norway and the Netherlands.
Within the UK, National Grid is developing plans for two cables, dubbed "the bootstraps", which will connect Scotland and England on both the east and west coasts. The west coast cable is further ahead in planning and will run under the sea from Ayrshire to Connah's Quay, near Chester. Scotland has the best wind power resource in Europe, according to trade body RenewableUK.
Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 April 2011 13.32 BST
It stretches 260km under the North Sea, contains 23,000 tonnes of copper and lead, and may represent the first step towards a renewable energy revolution based on a European electricity "supergrid". The £500m BritNed cable, which has just entered operation, is the first direct current electricity link from the UK to another country in 25 years.
The high voltage cable, a joint venture between the UK National Grid and the Dutch grid operator TenneT, has a capacity of 1,000MW, the equivalent of a nuclear power station. It runs from the Isle of Grain in Kent to Maasvlakte, near Rotterdam, in the Netherlands.
High voltage DC (HVDC) cables allow electricity to be transmitted over much greater distances than existing alternating current lines, which start losing power after 80km. A network of HVDC cables across Europe is seen as the key to "weather-proofing" the large scale use of renewable energy, some forms of which are intermittent and have to be balanced in real time with generation elsewhere.
"Our investment in this interconnector means that we are joining a much wider European electricity market," said Nick Winser, executive director of National Grid. "This ability we now have to move power across national borders means we can use the full potential of renewable energy from wind – making it easier to import when wind is not available and export when there is a surplus." In the short term, linking the UK and European grids boosts the UK's energy security and helps stabilise wholesale energy prices.
Chris Huhne, secretary of state for energy and climate change, said: "Renewables win as it means surplus wind power can be easily shared [and] consumers win as a single European market puts pressure on prices."
"This is a major step," said Louise Hutchins, head of UK energy campaigns at Greenpeace. "It sends a signal to renewable manufacturers that we're a step closer to unlocking the potential of one the world's main renewable power houses – the North Sea."
BritNed auctions the cable's transmission capacity on the open market and all 1,000MW was bought from the first hour of operation on 31 March. Since the start, electricity has flowed from the Netherlands to the UK most of the time. The project took about five years to complete and will be officially opened on 12 May.
The idea of a European supergrid gained momentum in December with the signing of an agreement by all 10 nations bordering the North Sea to, for example, co-ordinate the deployment of new HVDC cables. The North Sea offshore grid initiative, backed by the UK prime minister, David Cameron, aims to link renewable energy generation across the North Sea, including wind power from the UK, solar power in Germany and hydropower in Scandinavia, maximising the use of renewable energy.
Wilfried Breuer, head of power transmission solutions at Siemens, which manufactured and built the AC-DC conversion stations at each end of the BritNed powerline, said: "The supergrid will be built, but gradually. It's not one investment like a highway. It will develop over 10-15 years, leg by leg."
In the UK, the biggest driving force for new HVDC lines will be the 30GW of offshore windpower capacity planned for deployment before 2020. By comparison, the current total UK capacity from coal, gas, nuclear and other sources is 85GW. "HVDC lines are a commercially driven market. Excess wind power is an asset and you want to be able to sell that," said Breuer.
Another 10GW of HVDC lines are planned by 2020 including links from the UK to Norway, Belgium and France. The latter is the only nation with an existing HVDC link to the UK, a 2,000MW cable that has been in operation for 25 years. The HVDC line most likely to open next runs from north Wales to Dublin, Ireland, which is due to complete in 2012.
The most ambitious HVDC cable under consideration would give the UK access to the vast geothermal energy of Iceland, which is not intermittent. Last month energy minister Charles Hendry said discussions on the legal and regulatory issues posed by such a cable had taken place with the Icelandic government and would continue. However, the distance between Reykjavik and Glasgow is more than 1,300km: the longest existing subsea HVDC cable is 580km, linking Norway and the Netherlands.
Within the UK, National Grid is developing plans for two cables, dubbed "the bootstraps", which will connect Scotland and England on both the east and west coasts. The west coast cable is further ahead in planning and will run under the sea from Ayrshire to Connah's Quay, near Chester. Scotland has the best wind power resource in Europe, according to trade body RenewableUK.
Monday, 11 April 2011
Google in German solar investment
AFP
Saturday, 9 April 2011
Google Thursday announced a multi-million-euro (dollar) investment in a solar power plant outside Berlin in what the US Internet giant said was its first clean energy project investment in Europe.
Google said it would plough 3.5 million euros ($5.0 million) into one of Germany's biggest solar plants, located in Brandenburg, the state surrounding Berlin.
"Until the early 1990s, the site was used as a training ground by the Russian military. We're glad it has found a new use," the firm said in a posting on its European Public Policy Blog.
Google said the plant should provide power for 5,000 homes in the area. The investment still needs official approval. It has also invested in wind power projects in the United States.
The announcement came as the German government wrestles with its future nuclear energy policy in the midst of the nuclear catastrophe in Japan.
In the wake of the crisis, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a three-month moratorium on an earlier pledge to extend the lifetime of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors and temporarily switched off seven pending safety checks.
The sooner Germany can be rid of nuclear power, the better, she said, vowing to accelerate progress towards cleaner forms of energy such as solar power.
Saturday, 9 April 2011
Google Thursday announced a multi-million-euro (dollar) investment in a solar power plant outside Berlin in what the US Internet giant said was its first clean energy project investment in Europe.
Google said it would plough 3.5 million euros ($5.0 million) into one of Germany's biggest solar plants, located in Brandenburg, the state surrounding Berlin.
"Until the early 1990s, the site was used as a training ground by the Russian military. We're glad it has found a new use," the firm said in a posting on its European Public Policy Blog.
Google said the plant should provide power for 5,000 homes in the area. The investment still needs official approval. It has also invested in wind power projects in the United States.
The announcement came as the German government wrestles with its future nuclear energy policy in the midst of the nuclear catastrophe in Japan.
In the wake of the crisis, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a three-month moratorium on an earlier pledge to extend the lifetime of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors and temporarily switched off seven pending safety checks.
The sooner Germany can be rid of nuclear power, the better, she said, vowing to accelerate progress towards cleaner forms of energy such as solar power.
Whitehall pulls plug on solar panel scheme
By Sarah Arnott
Monday, 11 April 2011
Plans for a Government-wide solar power scheme have been put on ice following last month's controversial cuts to the solar subsidy scheme.
At a Cabinet Office-sponsored meeting in November, Whitehall departments and other public sector bodies were briefed by industry experts on the opportunities of the feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme for solar-panel installations on public buildings such as hospitals, barracks, and council buildings.
But preparatory work by the Government's procurement office, Buying Solutions, was pulled shortly after the announcement of a fast-track review of the FIT, according to industry sources.
Buying Solutions stresses that the solar power workshop was part of the organisation's ongoing work looking at power supply initiatives and that although some public bodies interested in participating in the scheme were identified at the initial meeting, it was made very clear that all discussions were purely exploratory.
"No procurement was commissioned and therefore nothing has been cancelled," a spokeswoman for Buying Solutions said.
But industry sources say the level of interest at the meeting suggested several megawatts-worth of potential schemes, sufficient to achieve significant price reductions if bought jointly through the central procurement agency.
"The total economic equation would have saved the country money and also created jobs in the solar industry," said one insider.
The solar power industry is in uproar after the Government announced proposals to slash the FIT for all but the smallest domestic installations.
Monday, 11 April 2011
Plans for a Government-wide solar power scheme have been put on ice following last month's controversial cuts to the solar subsidy scheme.
At a Cabinet Office-sponsored meeting in November, Whitehall departments and other public sector bodies were briefed by industry experts on the opportunities of the feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme for solar-panel installations on public buildings such as hospitals, barracks, and council buildings.
But preparatory work by the Government's procurement office, Buying Solutions, was pulled shortly after the announcement of a fast-track review of the FIT, according to industry sources.
Buying Solutions stresses that the solar power workshop was part of the organisation's ongoing work looking at power supply initiatives and that although some public bodies interested in participating in the scheme were identified at the initial meeting, it was made very clear that all discussions were purely exploratory.
"No procurement was commissioned and therefore nothing has been cancelled," a spokeswoman for Buying Solutions said.
But industry sources say the level of interest at the meeting suggested several megawatts-worth of potential schemes, sufficient to achieve significant price reductions if bought jointly through the central procurement agency.
"The total economic equation would have saved the country money and also created jobs in the solar industry," said one insider.
The solar power industry is in uproar after the Government announced proposals to slash the FIT for all but the smallest domestic installations.
Food for Thought
Should governments be focusing more on feeding their people than fueling their cars?
Text By DAVID ELLIOT
Alistair Wood used to know exactly where his crops would end up. For the last 30 years on his 8,000 acre arable farm in Northern Kenya he's only found one market at harvest: The local population or their animals. Now his wheat and corn could just as easily be sold onto the world's biofuels market to satisfy the growing demand for energy.
Either way, he'll still get a better price for his grain than 10 years ago. Then he was struggling to cover his costs with the returns offered by a world global market saturated with the subsidized output of farmers from as far afield as the Midwest plains of the U.S., the fens of Lincolnshire in the U.K. and the giant paddocks of Western Australia. The reduction in farm subsidies in all these regions is undoubtedly helping Mr. Wood compete. But more developed economies such as China and India have caused a surge in demand for grain, as the newly affluent acquire a taste for meat and beer. But how much of an effect has a thirst for renewable energy had on the grain price and in turn global food prices?
From 2006 to 2008 commodity markets across the board soared to record highs. Although prices have since subsided, they still remain at least double the level at the turn of the century or in many cases, more. To take Mr. Wood's crops as an example, corn is currently trading above $7 per bushel (€5) on the Chicago Board of Trade, compared to just above $2/bushel ten years ago. CBOT wheat trades around $8.00/bushel against $2.75 in 2001. Both can be used to produce bioethanol, but not as easily as sugar, a commodity which has seen the most meteoric rise of all, to around 30 cents per pound from 9c/lb on the Intercontinental Exchange during the same period.
The World Bank blames biofuels for the rally, not just in grain, but across the commodity spectrum. "Large increases in biofuels production in the U.S. and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in the global food price," World Bank economist Don Mitchell said in 2008. The ramp up in biofuel production can be attributed in part to attempts to slow the rate of climate change, but gains for the crude oil market also have a big impact on the demand side.
With the price of a barrel of West Texas Crude now back over $100 a barrel, big volume oil users will obviously be keen to find cheaper alternatives in the years ahead.
With commodity markets already hovering just below all-time highs, the obvious expectation is that more grain and other food products will be channelled away from the food chain to biofuel production and that the next few years will see another jump in prices for food commodities. That is before you take into account an expected jump in demand for food from developing countries. In February, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization's Food Price Index rose for the eighth consecutive month by 2.2%. Its highest level since the index began in 1990.
"(Food) prices are projected to increase over the next decade and to continue to be at levels, on average, above those of the past decade," the FAO said in a report on the global food market in early March.
In terms of global food security, that's a worrying future, particularly for developing countries already struggling to feed themselves. It is more worrying when you consider that in some cases producing biofuels causes a comparable level of damage to the ecosystem as fossil fuels.
"It is now generally accepted that producing ethanol from corn using current technology is not sustainable, and that it also increases environmental degradation," says Michael Doran, a chartered environmentalist and head of Action Renewables in Northern Ireland.
"Considering that one of the main drivers in the U.S. for the production of bioethanol was to provide energy security, it is now doubtful whether this is attainable, given the relativity high quantity of fossil fuel required to produce the ethanol."
Mr. Doran calculates that producing 10 liters of bioethanol consumes the energy equivalent of around seven liters of traditional gasoline and any greenhouse gas emissions reductions are negligible.
Given corn is one of the more inefficient sources of biofuel, it's obvious that efficiencies of the system are not the primary drivers of the switch to using corn for fuel from food. Rather, it seems to be as a result of political imperative, according to Mr Doran.
"In January 2008, [then U.S. President] George W. Bush called for 120 billion liters of renewable fuels to be produced within the U.S. by 2022 – enough to replace 15% of all the fuel consumed in American cars and trucks," he says. After a number of tweaks, that figure has now been upped to 163 billion liters a year by 2022 under the Renewable Fuels Standard mandate.
The Obama administration has certainly thrown its weight behind the biofuel movement. "Advancing biomass and biofuel production holds the potential to create green jobs," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last year. "Facilities that produce renewable fuel from biomass have to be designed, built and operated."
On a global basis, ambitious targets such as that of the U.S. mean a drastic change in land use. "(Under planned biofuel targets) land use allocation between forest, pasture and crops, would be significantly altered, and leads to considerable forest and pasture destruction in several countries," the World Bank's report on The Impacts of Biofuel Targets on Land-Use Change and Food Supply said recently.
It was environmental concerns such as this – ironically the very reason biofuels became popular in the first place – that led the European Union to shelve its plans to ensure that 10% of the region's vehicle fuel came from biofuels by 2020.
Ex U.S. President Bill Clinton has also questioned his own country's focus on biofuel production.
"Although it is important for the U.S. to produce biofuels," President Clinton said at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual Agricultural Outlook Forum in February, "we don't want to do it at the expense of food riots." Despite the fact the appetite for biofuels is driving up food prices, the search for alternative forms of energy shows no signs of slowing, despite food price inflation.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration says global biofuel production in 2009 reached 1.6 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, a figure which is expected to expand by a factor of three by 2020. But while targets for many offer an indication of future production, as with all economic processes, demand will more than likely be the deciding factor, according to Michael Doran.
"It's simple, future biofuel demand and production will be dependent on the price of oil. If the oil market heads higher, biofuel production will increase as will food prices."
Mr. Elliot is a writer based in Northern Ireland. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.
Text By DAVID ELLIOT
Alistair Wood used to know exactly where his crops would end up. For the last 30 years on his 8,000 acre arable farm in Northern Kenya he's only found one market at harvest: The local population or their animals. Now his wheat and corn could just as easily be sold onto the world's biofuels market to satisfy the growing demand for energy.
Either way, he'll still get a better price for his grain than 10 years ago. Then he was struggling to cover his costs with the returns offered by a world global market saturated with the subsidized output of farmers from as far afield as the Midwest plains of the U.S., the fens of Lincolnshire in the U.K. and the giant paddocks of Western Australia. The reduction in farm subsidies in all these regions is undoubtedly helping Mr. Wood compete. But more developed economies such as China and India have caused a surge in demand for grain, as the newly affluent acquire a taste for meat and beer. But how much of an effect has a thirst for renewable energy had on the grain price and in turn global food prices?
From 2006 to 2008 commodity markets across the board soared to record highs. Although prices have since subsided, they still remain at least double the level at the turn of the century or in many cases, more. To take Mr. Wood's crops as an example, corn is currently trading above $7 per bushel (€5) on the Chicago Board of Trade, compared to just above $2/bushel ten years ago. CBOT wheat trades around $8.00/bushel against $2.75 in 2001. Both can be used to produce bioethanol, but not as easily as sugar, a commodity which has seen the most meteoric rise of all, to around 30 cents per pound from 9c/lb on the Intercontinental Exchange during the same period.
The World Bank blames biofuels for the rally, not just in grain, but across the commodity spectrum. "Large increases in biofuels production in the U.S. and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in the global food price," World Bank economist Don Mitchell said in 2008. The ramp up in biofuel production can be attributed in part to attempts to slow the rate of climate change, but gains for the crude oil market also have a big impact on the demand side.
With the price of a barrel of West Texas Crude now back over $100 a barrel, big volume oil users will obviously be keen to find cheaper alternatives in the years ahead.
With commodity markets already hovering just below all-time highs, the obvious expectation is that more grain and other food products will be channelled away from the food chain to biofuel production and that the next few years will see another jump in prices for food commodities. That is before you take into account an expected jump in demand for food from developing countries. In February, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization's Food Price Index rose for the eighth consecutive month by 2.2%. Its highest level since the index began in 1990.
"(Food) prices are projected to increase over the next decade and to continue to be at levels, on average, above those of the past decade," the FAO said in a report on the global food market in early March.
In terms of global food security, that's a worrying future, particularly for developing countries already struggling to feed themselves. It is more worrying when you consider that in some cases producing biofuels causes a comparable level of damage to the ecosystem as fossil fuels.
"It is now generally accepted that producing ethanol from corn using current technology is not sustainable, and that it also increases environmental degradation," says Michael Doran, a chartered environmentalist and head of Action Renewables in Northern Ireland.
"Considering that one of the main drivers in the U.S. for the production of bioethanol was to provide energy security, it is now doubtful whether this is attainable, given the relativity high quantity of fossil fuel required to produce the ethanol."
Mr. Doran calculates that producing 10 liters of bioethanol consumes the energy equivalent of around seven liters of traditional gasoline and any greenhouse gas emissions reductions are negligible.
Given corn is one of the more inefficient sources of biofuel, it's obvious that efficiencies of the system are not the primary drivers of the switch to using corn for fuel from food. Rather, it seems to be as a result of political imperative, according to Mr Doran.
"In January 2008, [then U.S. President] George W. Bush called for 120 billion liters of renewable fuels to be produced within the U.S. by 2022 – enough to replace 15% of all the fuel consumed in American cars and trucks," he says. After a number of tweaks, that figure has now been upped to 163 billion liters a year by 2022 under the Renewable Fuels Standard mandate.
The Obama administration has certainly thrown its weight behind the biofuel movement. "Advancing biomass and biofuel production holds the potential to create green jobs," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last year. "Facilities that produce renewable fuel from biomass have to be designed, built and operated."
On a global basis, ambitious targets such as that of the U.S. mean a drastic change in land use. "(Under planned biofuel targets) land use allocation between forest, pasture and crops, would be significantly altered, and leads to considerable forest and pasture destruction in several countries," the World Bank's report on The Impacts of Biofuel Targets on Land-Use Change and Food Supply said recently.
It was environmental concerns such as this – ironically the very reason biofuels became popular in the first place – that led the European Union to shelve its plans to ensure that 10% of the region's vehicle fuel came from biofuels by 2020.
Ex U.S. President Bill Clinton has also questioned his own country's focus on biofuel production.
"Although it is important for the U.S. to produce biofuels," President Clinton said at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual Agricultural Outlook Forum in February, "we don't want to do it at the expense of food riots." Despite the fact the appetite for biofuels is driving up food prices, the search for alternative forms of energy shows no signs of slowing, despite food price inflation.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration says global biofuel production in 2009 reached 1.6 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, a figure which is expected to expand by a factor of three by 2020. But while targets for many offer an indication of future production, as with all economic processes, demand will more than likely be the deciding factor, according to Michael Doran.
"It's simple, future biofuel demand and production will be dependent on the price of oil. If the oil market heads higher, biofuel production will increase as will food prices."
Mr. Elliot is a writer based in Northern Ireland. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.