By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Up to 14 million families will be able to apply for up to £10,000 each to pay for energy-efficiency improvements on their properties, ministers will announce today. The money – which will be paid back in energy savings over 20 years – is almost double the previous figure of £6,500 outlined when the scheme was launched.
Under the proposal, which forms part of the Government's Energy Bill, homeowners and landlords will be able to apply for the money to pay for new boilers, insulation and central-heating systems.
Ministers claim it will be biggest home-improvement programme in Britain since the Second World War. It is the cornerstone of the Government's attempts to reduce household emissions by 30 per cent by 2020.
The work will be initially funded and carried out by Government-accredited providers and will be paid back through reduced-energy costs – while the bills paid by households will remain the same. The cost of repayments will stay with the property, rather than the individual.
The extra funding is designed to benefit larger and harder-to-insulate properties which would not have been eligible for funding before. The the Government is also expected to announce shortly that double glazing will be included in the energy-efficiency measures available. This is to address concerns that if all the energy savings provided by the scheme were "invisible", such as insulation, the take-up might be low.
Ministers believe that if they can offer visible home improvements the number of people applying for cash will increase significantly. "We want people to think of this as home improvements, and part of the idea of that is to make the changes visible," a Government source said. "While insulation is vital, we are also hoping to offer higher-profile improvements to people – which they can see with their own eyes."
The Energy Bill will create powers allowing any tenant asking for reasonable energy-efficiency improvements to receive them from 2015 onwards. It will also allow local councils to insist that landlords improve the worst-performing homes. There will be a £2bn central-government fund to pay for improvements in homes which are not eligible for the scheme because the cost of the improvements would outweigh the savings made.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said up to 100,000 jobs could be created by 2015 and that everyone doing the work would be trained properly. A similar scheme in Australia was scrapped earlier this year after it emerged that 160,000 homes were fitted with sub-standard insulation and 80,000 faced safety risks from the work.
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
How Angela Merkel became Germany's unlikely green energy champion
Yale Environment 360: Fukushima has seen German chancellor Angela Merkel embark on the world's most ambitious plan to power an industrial economy on renewable sources of energy
• Renewable energy can power the world, says IPCC
Christian Schwägerl for Yale Environment 360 guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 May 2011 14.15 BST
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is anything but a left-wing greenie. The party she leads, the Christian Democratic Union, is the political equivalent of the Republicans in the US. Her coalition government is decidedly pro-business. Often described as Europe's most powerful politician, Merkel's top priority is job creation and economic growth.
Yet if the chancellor succeeds with her new energy policy, she will become the first leader to transform an industrialized nation from nuclear and fossil fuel energy to renewable power.
In mid-March, Merkel stunned the German public and other governments by announcing an accelerated phasing out of all 17 German nuclear reactors as an immediate reaction to the Fukushima disaster in Japan. The chancellor now says she wants to slash the use of coal, speed up approvals for renewable energy investments, and reduce CO2 emissions drastically. That means that the 81 million Germans living between the North Sea and the Alps are supposed to cover their huge energy needs from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass within a few decades. Indeed, by 2030 green electricity could be the dominant source of power for German factories and households.
"We want to end the use of nuclear energy and reach the age of renewable energy as fast as possible," Merkel said.
After the chancellor's surprising announcement, opposition parties from the left decried it as a political stunt, an act of opportunism, and even panic, ahead of key regional elections in Southern Germany. But after these elections were lost by her party, Merkel soldiered on. In the past weeks, government officials have already offered details of the "energy turn," as Merkel calls the change.
The numbers that circulate in Berlin's government district at the moment are staggering. Merkel's administration plans to shut down the nuclear reactors — which in recent years reliably provided up to a quarter of Germany's huge needs as baseload electricity — by 2022 at the latest. It wants to double the share of renewable energy to 35 percent of consumption in 2020, 50 percent in 2030, 65 percent in 2040, and more than 80 percent in 2050. At the same time, the chancellor vows to cut CO2 emissions (compared to 1990 levels) by 40 percent in 2020, by 55 percent in 2030, and by more than 80 percent in 2050.
That makes Germany the world's most important laboratory of "green growth." No other country belonging to the G20 club of economic powers has a comparable agenda. In the U.S., President Obama is expanding state-backed loan guarantees for the nuclear industry to build more reactors, and Republicans are blocking measures to reduce CO2 emissions. Germany is Europe's largest economy. Making such a country a renewable powerhouse would transform it into the undisputed mecca for everyone on the planet concerned with the environment and green-tech business.
But why would Merkel have Germany do what other big nations deem too risky and too expensive? Is she prepared to sacrifice Germany's economic viability, which stems from manufacturing and technology export to a great extent?
Clearly, Angela Merkel has reacted to the Fukushima disaster completely differently from Barack Obama and other world leaders. In the past, Merkel too has been pro-nuclear. She was convinced that nuclear power was safe and clean, and that the Chernobyl accident was a result of Soviet inefficiency, not of the technology itself. Only last year, she fought to extend the operation time of Germany's reactors by 12 years on average, against fierce opposition from the left and environmental groups.
In my view, the key to the chancellor's radical turnaround lies deep in her past. In the 1980s, well before she became a politician, Merkel worked in the former East Germany as a researcher in quantum chemistry, examining the probability of events in the subatomic domain. Her years of research instilled in her the conviction that she has a very good sense of how likely events are, not only in physics but also in politics. Opponents of nuclear energy were "bad at assessing risks," she told me in the 1990s.
Then came the March disaster at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant, which made the chancellor realize that she had been terribly wrong about the probability of a nuclear catastrophe in a highly advanced nation. Merkel's scientific sense of probability and rationality was shaken to the core. If this was possible, she reasoned, something similar might happen in Germany — not a tsunami, of course, but something equally unexpected. In her view, the field trial of nuclear energy had failed. As a self-described rationalist, she felt compelled to act.
"It's over," she told one of her advisers immediately after watching on TV as the roof of a Fukushima reactor blew off. "Fukushima has forever changed the way we define risk in Germany."
Merkel's conservative environment minister, Norbert Röttgen, recently echoed this line of thinking when he said that the Fukushima disaster "has swapped a mathematical definition of nuclear energy's residual risk with a terrible real-life experience." He added: "We can no longer put forward the argument of a tiny risk of ten to the power of minus seven, as we have seen that it can get real in a high-tech society like Japan."
The new course is a huge challenge in terms of cost and feasibility. Of the current 82 gigawatts of peak demand, about half comes from coal, 23 percent from nuclear, 10 percent from natural gas, and 17 percent from renewables. That means three quarters of Germany's electricity sources will have to be replaced by green technology within just a few decades, if the nuclear phase-out and the CO2 goals are to be accomplished.
Germany is in a good starting position, though. Since the 1990s, the Renewable Energy Sources Act has paved the way for billions of Euros flowing to consumers and investors for green power projects. The law guarantees that each kilowatt hour of green electricity is fed into the grid and bought at a favorable statutory rate by operators. The rate varies between green energy sources, but is considerably higher than normal electricity prices. It is guaranteed for a 20-year period. This makes investment in renewable energy projects very attractive; witness Google recently pumping money into a German solar park.
As a result, the share of renewable electricity in Germany has jumped from 5 percent in the 1990s to 17 percent today. Traveling through the country, it is easy to see signs of this change. In the north, wind farms are now characteristic of many regions, particularly along the coastlines of the North and Baltic seas. In the south, which is richer in sunlight, photovoltaic cells cover the roofs of whole villages. The bright yellow of rapeseed is prevalent in many regions, as the plant is widely used for producing biodiesel. More and more farms are equipped with big tanks holding "biomethane" derived from maize or agricultural residues.
Merkel's big hope for her "energy turn" is offshore wind energy. After a sluggish start, several new commercial projects are under construction. On May 2, Merkel proudly pressed a button at a ceremony on the Baltic Sea coast, setting in motion 21 huge offshore wind turbines 16 kilometers away at sea. Taken together, they can provide 50,000 households with renewable energy.
"Baltic 1" is Germany's first commercial offshore windpark. The turbines have been constructed by Siemens, a company that until recently earned most of its money in the energy sector by building nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants. The wind farm is run by EnBW, a German utility that has so far produced most of its electricity with nuclear power plants. Nothing could symbolize the new policy better than this offshore wind farm.
Merkel's big bet is that environmental technology will be one of Germany's most important sources of income. Already, the country's share in the green-tech world market is 16 percent, which means billions of Euros in business. Renewable energy has generated 300,000 'green collar' new jobs in the past decade, Röttgen says. Big companies like Siemens and Bosch are determined to become "green multinationals." Thousands of small- and medium-sized technology companies see green technology as an important part of their business and investment strategy.
Experts agree that the transition will be costly and carry economic risks. Already, consumers in Germany pay about 5 U.S. cents per kilowatt hour as a surcharge to finance the feed-in tariffs, which enable homeowners of wind turbines or geothermal installations to sell renewably generated electricity back to the grid at favorable rates. For an average family of four, this amounts to 220 U.S. dollars per year. And with investment needs in the hundreds of billions of Euros, consumers can expect a growing surcharge on their monthly bill. This will surely test Germans' willingness to support Merkel's plan.
But Röttgen, the environmental minister, points out that mass deployment of renewable energy technology will drive down costs. "When more people consume oil and coal, the price will go up, but when more people consume renewable energy, the price of it will go down", he says. Röttgen argues that instead of sending billions of Euros to Russia and other sources of imported energy, Germany will now be able "to give that money to our green-tech engineers and local craftsmen." Still, keeping the cost of the transition low and stopping energy-intensive companies from relocating to Romania or China will be very difficult.
In addition to the challenge of huge costs, a complete overhaul of the energy infrastructure is necessary. It is not enough to install wind turbines and solar panels. A new grid is needed, as are ways to store green electricity. As wind and sunshine are highly variable, electricity will increasingly flow intermittently. Power will have to flow from offshore wind farms in the north of the country over many hundred kilometers to the industrial centers in the west and the south.
Experts estimate that more than 4,000 kilometers of new "eco-electricity highways" are necessary to connect renewable power plants to consumers and avoid power outages. Storing green electricity when the wind is blowing strongly or when there is ample sunlight is an unsolved challenge.
But even if all technological problems are solved, it is not easy to roll them out nationwide. Many Germans don't like the sight of wind turbines, which are called "asparagus." New hydro plants and some wind power installations face fierce opposition. So do those "eco-electricity highways," which still look like ordinary power lines to their neighbors. Local residents have yet to be convinced that they have to sacrifice undisturbed horizons for the greater good.
To the surprise of many, supplying an industrial nation with renewable energy also raises environmental concerns. The construction of offshore wind parks has been found to harm the ears of the harbor porpoise, a small whale species that is protected by law in Europe. Toxicologists are worried about dangerous level of cadmium, a heavy metal, in photovoltaic cells that might poison firefighters and create disposal problems in the future. And environmentalists are worried that the expansion of cornfields will dry out peaty soils, leading to greenhouse gas emissions, and be harmful for biological diversity. Germany would also have to rely more on natural gas, a fossil fuel, in the intermediate term if nuclear power will be phased out.
Despite the many problems and pitfalls, the chancellor's new course is already attracting admiration from abroad. William Reilly, the former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said on a recent visit to Germany that he was impressed by Merkel's energy turn and the example it sets for the rest of the industrialized world. "It was breathtaking to see this huge change by a conservative government," he told me for a report in Der Spiegel magazine after meeting German politicians, NGOs, and business representatives.
The Japanese are certainly watching. While Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan yesterday reiterated his support for nuclear power, officials in the Japanese embassy in Berlin already wonder aloud how their government will justify sticking with nuclear energy when a country like Germany is taking bold steps to thrive without.
• Renewable energy can power the world, says IPCC
Christian Schwägerl for Yale Environment 360 guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 May 2011 14.15 BST
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is anything but a left-wing greenie. The party she leads, the Christian Democratic Union, is the political equivalent of the Republicans in the US. Her coalition government is decidedly pro-business. Often described as Europe's most powerful politician, Merkel's top priority is job creation and economic growth.
Yet if the chancellor succeeds with her new energy policy, she will become the first leader to transform an industrialized nation from nuclear and fossil fuel energy to renewable power.
In mid-March, Merkel stunned the German public and other governments by announcing an accelerated phasing out of all 17 German nuclear reactors as an immediate reaction to the Fukushima disaster in Japan. The chancellor now says she wants to slash the use of coal, speed up approvals for renewable energy investments, and reduce CO2 emissions drastically. That means that the 81 million Germans living between the North Sea and the Alps are supposed to cover their huge energy needs from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass within a few decades. Indeed, by 2030 green electricity could be the dominant source of power for German factories and households.
"We want to end the use of nuclear energy and reach the age of renewable energy as fast as possible," Merkel said.
After the chancellor's surprising announcement, opposition parties from the left decried it as a political stunt, an act of opportunism, and even panic, ahead of key regional elections in Southern Germany. But after these elections were lost by her party, Merkel soldiered on. In the past weeks, government officials have already offered details of the "energy turn," as Merkel calls the change.
The numbers that circulate in Berlin's government district at the moment are staggering. Merkel's administration plans to shut down the nuclear reactors — which in recent years reliably provided up to a quarter of Germany's huge needs as baseload electricity — by 2022 at the latest. It wants to double the share of renewable energy to 35 percent of consumption in 2020, 50 percent in 2030, 65 percent in 2040, and more than 80 percent in 2050. At the same time, the chancellor vows to cut CO2 emissions (compared to 1990 levels) by 40 percent in 2020, by 55 percent in 2030, and by more than 80 percent in 2050.
That makes Germany the world's most important laboratory of "green growth." No other country belonging to the G20 club of economic powers has a comparable agenda. In the U.S., President Obama is expanding state-backed loan guarantees for the nuclear industry to build more reactors, and Republicans are blocking measures to reduce CO2 emissions. Germany is Europe's largest economy. Making such a country a renewable powerhouse would transform it into the undisputed mecca for everyone on the planet concerned with the environment and green-tech business.
But why would Merkel have Germany do what other big nations deem too risky and too expensive? Is she prepared to sacrifice Germany's economic viability, which stems from manufacturing and technology export to a great extent?
Clearly, Angela Merkel has reacted to the Fukushima disaster completely differently from Barack Obama and other world leaders. In the past, Merkel too has been pro-nuclear. She was convinced that nuclear power was safe and clean, and that the Chernobyl accident was a result of Soviet inefficiency, not of the technology itself. Only last year, she fought to extend the operation time of Germany's reactors by 12 years on average, against fierce opposition from the left and environmental groups.
In my view, the key to the chancellor's radical turnaround lies deep in her past. In the 1980s, well before she became a politician, Merkel worked in the former East Germany as a researcher in quantum chemistry, examining the probability of events in the subatomic domain. Her years of research instilled in her the conviction that she has a very good sense of how likely events are, not only in physics but also in politics. Opponents of nuclear energy were "bad at assessing risks," she told me in the 1990s.
Then came the March disaster at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant, which made the chancellor realize that she had been terribly wrong about the probability of a nuclear catastrophe in a highly advanced nation. Merkel's scientific sense of probability and rationality was shaken to the core. If this was possible, she reasoned, something similar might happen in Germany — not a tsunami, of course, but something equally unexpected. In her view, the field trial of nuclear energy had failed. As a self-described rationalist, she felt compelled to act.
"It's over," she told one of her advisers immediately after watching on TV as the roof of a Fukushima reactor blew off. "Fukushima has forever changed the way we define risk in Germany."
Merkel's conservative environment minister, Norbert Röttgen, recently echoed this line of thinking when he said that the Fukushima disaster "has swapped a mathematical definition of nuclear energy's residual risk with a terrible real-life experience." He added: "We can no longer put forward the argument of a tiny risk of ten to the power of minus seven, as we have seen that it can get real in a high-tech society like Japan."
The new course is a huge challenge in terms of cost and feasibility. Of the current 82 gigawatts of peak demand, about half comes from coal, 23 percent from nuclear, 10 percent from natural gas, and 17 percent from renewables. That means three quarters of Germany's electricity sources will have to be replaced by green technology within just a few decades, if the nuclear phase-out and the CO2 goals are to be accomplished.
Germany is in a good starting position, though. Since the 1990s, the Renewable Energy Sources Act has paved the way for billions of Euros flowing to consumers and investors for green power projects. The law guarantees that each kilowatt hour of green electricity is fed into the grid and bought at a favorable statutory rate by operators. The rate varies between green energy sources, but is considerably higher than normal electricity prices. It is guaranteed for a 20-year period. This makes investment in renewable energy projects very attractive; witness Google recently pumping money into a German solar park.
As a result, the share of renewable electricity in Germany has jumped from 5 percent in the 1990s to 17 percent today. Traveling through the country, it is easy to see signs of this change. In the north, wind farms are now characteristic of many regions, particularly along the coastlines of the North and Baltic seas. In the south, which is richer in sunlight, photovoltaic cells cover the roofs of whole villages. The bright yellow of rapeseed is prevalent in many regions, as the plant is widely used for producing biodiesel. More and more farms are equipped with big tanks holding "biomethane" derived from maize or agricultural residues.
Merkel's big hope for her "energy turn" is offshore wind energy. After a sluggish start, several new commercial projects are under construction. On May 2, Merkel proudly pressed a button at a ceremony on the Baltic Sea coast, setting in motion 21 huge offshore wind turbines 16 kilometers away at sea. Taken together, they can provide 50,000 households with renewable energy.
"Baltic 1" is Germany's first commercial offshore windpark. The turbines have been constructed by Siemens, a company that until recently earned most of its money in the energy sector by building nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants. The wind farm is run by EnBW, a German utility that has so far produced most of its electricity with nuclear power plants. Nothing could symbolize the new policy better than this offshore wind farm.
Merkel's big bet is that environmental technology will be one of Germany's most important sources of income. Already, the country's share in the green-tech world market is 16 percent, which means billions of Euros in business. Renewable energy has generated 300,000 'green collar' new jobs in the past decade, Röttgen says. Big companies like Siemens and Bosch are determined to become "green multinationals." Thousands of small- and medium-sized technology companies see green technology as an important part of their business and investment strategy.
Experts agree that the transition will be costly and carry economic risks. Already, consumers in Germany pay about 5 U.S. cents per kilowatt hour as a surcharge to finance the feed-in tariffs, which enable homeowners of wind turbines or geothermal installations to sell renewably generated electricity back to the grid at favorable rates. For an average family of four, this amounts to 220 U.S. dollars per year. And with investment needs in the hundreds of billions of Euros, consumers can expect a growing surcharge on their monthly bill. This will surely test Germans' willingness to support Merkel's plan.
But Röttgen, the environmental minister, points out that mass deployment of renewable energy technology will drive down costs. "When more people consume oil and coal, the price will go up, but when more people consume renewable energy, the price of it will go down", he says. Röttgen argues that instead of sending billions of Euros to Russia and other sources of imported energy, Germany will now be able "to give that money to our green-tech engineers and local craftsmen." Still, keeping the cost of the transition low and stopping energy-intensive companies from relocating to Romania or China will be very difficult.
In addition to the challenge of huge costs, a complete overhaul of the energy infrastructure is necessary. It is not enough to install wind turbines and solar panels. A new grid is needed, as are ways to store green electricity. As wind and sunshine are highly variable, electricity will increasingly flow intermittently. Power will have to flow from offshore wind farms in the north of the country over many hundred kilometers to the industrial centers in the west and the south.
Experts estimate that more than 4,000 kilometers of new "eco-electricity highways" are necessary to connect renewable power plants to consumers and avoid power outages. Storing green electricity when the wind is blowing strongly or when there is ample sunlight is an unsolved challenge.
But even if all technological problems are solved, it is not easy to roll them out nationwide. Many Germans don't like the sight of wind turbines, which are called "asparagus." New hydro plants and some wind power installations face fierce opposition. So do those "eco-electricity highways," which still look like ordinary power lines to their neighbors. Local residents have yet to be convinced that they have to sacrifice undisturbed horizons for the greater good.
To the surprise of many, supplying an industrial nation with renewable energy also raises environmental concerns. The construction of offshore wind parks has been found to harm the ears of the harbor porpoise, a small whale species that is protected by law in Europe. Toxicologists are worried about dangerous level of cadmium, a heavy metal, in photovoltaic cells that might poison firefighters and create disposal problems in the future. And environmentalists are worried that the expansion of cornfields will dry out peaty soils, leading to greenhouse gas emissions, and be harmful for biological diversity. Germany would also have to rely more on natural gas, a fossil fuel, in the intermediate term if nuclear power will be phased out.
Despite the many problems and pitfalls, the chancellor's new course is already attracting admiration from abroad. William Reilly, the former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said on a recent visit to Germany that he was impressed by Merkel's energy turn and the example it sets for the rest of the industrialized world. "It was breathtaking to see this huge change by a conservative government," he told me for a report in Der Spiegel magazine after meeting German politicians, NGOs, and business representatives.
The Japanese are certainly watching. While Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan yesterday reiterated his support for nuclear power, officials in the Japanese embassy in Berlin already wonder aloud how their government will justify sticking with nuclear energy when a country like Germany is taking bold steps to thrive without.
For electric cars, it's about charging rather than subsidies
Britain should invest in a network of charge points to encourage the uptake of these vehicles
Anthony Thomson The Guardian, Tuesday 10 May 2011
The ongoing debate about electric cars, which typically focuses on their range, cost and practicality, is heating up again thanks to the news that, of an expected 8,600, only 534 people have signed up for the government's electric car subsidy. As you say: "The government's hoped-for electric car revolution ... is getting off to a slow start" (Electric car scheme lacks spark, 29 April).
Your article correctly points out that the cost of a typical electric car is offset by the fact that they "pay no vehicle excise duty, have cheaper insurance premiums, are exempt from London's congestion charge and can be charged for free at some public car parks".
It's the last part of this statement that needs a fanfare. You can indeed charge your electric car at locations beyond your front drive. Often frustratingly for the electric vehicle (EV) industry, the arguments about electric cars for domestic use rarely look at how owners can be supported with the right infrastructure.
Developments in charging technology have made it quicker and more efficient for drivers to charge both parked and moving cars. As a geographically small country, the UK has closely connected towns and cities and, as a result, relatively few charge points are needed to reach most of the population.
The range of an electric car can be significantly increased by providing quick "top-up" charging points. This is better for an electric car's battery too, as its lifespan is lengthened by regular top-ups, rather than deep cycling. As the battery contributes heavily towards the average EV's overall cost, protecting a buyer's investment is perhaps more crucial than paying part of the upfront purchase price.
The online comments underneath the original article clearly show that EV range is a big issue for potential buyers. Tackling this with what we call "opportunistic charging" – giving drivers the chance of quick boost charges during their journeys – is reassuring but also practical. With wireless charging, drivers don't even need to get out the car and plug in a cable, so a trip to the station to pick up a friend could include a 10-minute charge in the station's waiting bay.
In future, motorways lined with charging pads could create "e-ways", which allow EVs to pick up charge on the move. There is already an embryonic version of this in practice – in Italy some electric buses are charged at each stop in short bursts. From this to a wider infrastructure supporting domestic vehicles is possible. As the article points out, "there is likely to be a sales surge as more of the nine cars that qualify for the grant come on to the market in the coming months", yet this extra choice for consumers has not been translated into a rush for subsidies. No matter how good the model, without the infrastructure to support regular, practical use, drivers will fail to see how an electric car can be a seamless part of their daily lives.
But if the UK uses its natural advantages to best effect, its infrastructure – not subsidies alone – may be the answer industry and buyers alike need.
Anthony Thomson The Guardian, Tuesday 10 May 2011
The ongoing debate about electric cars, which typically focuses on their range, cost and practicality, is heating up again thanks to the news that, of an expected 8,600, only 534 people have signed up for the government's electric car subsidy. As you say: "The government's hoped-for electric car revolution ... is getting off to a slow start" (Electric car scheme lacks spark, 29 April).
Your article correctly points out that the cost of a typical electric car is offset by the fact that they "pay no vehicle excise duty, have cheaper insurance premiums, are exempt from London's congestion charge and can be charged for free at some public car parks".
It's the last part of this statement that needs a fanfare. You can indeed charge your electric car at locations beyond your front drive. Often frustratingly for the electric vehicle (EV) industry, the arguments about electric cars for domestic use rarely look at how owners can be supported with the right infrastructure.
Developments in charging technology have made it quicker and more efficient for drivers to charge both parked and moving cars. As a geographically small country, the UK has closely connected towns and cities and, as a result, relatively few charge points are needed to reach most of the population.
The range of an electric car can be significantly increased by providing quick "top-up" charging points. This is better for an electric car's battery too, as its lifespan is lengthened by regular top-ups, rather than deep cycling. As the battery contributes heavily towards the average EV's overall cost, protecting a buyer's investment is perhaps more crucial than paying part of the upfront purchase price.
The online comments underneath the original article clearly show that EV range is a big issue for potential buyers. Tackling this with what we call "opportunistic charging" – giving drivers the chance of quick boost charges during their journeys – is reassuring but also practical. With wireless charging, drivers don't even need to get out the car and plug in a cable, so a trip to the station to pick up a friend could include a 10-minute charge in the station's waiting bay.
In future, motorways lined with charging pads could create "e-ways", which allow EVs to pick up charge on the move. There is already an embryonic version of this in practice – in Italy some electric buses are charged at each stop in short bursts. From this to a wider infrastructure supporting domestic vehicles is possible. As the article points out, "there is likely to be a sales surge as more of the nine cars that qualify for the grant come on to the market in the coming months", yet this extra choice for consumers has not been translated into a rush for subsidies. No matter how good the model, without the infrastructure to support regular, practical use, drivers will fail to see how an electric car can be a seamless part of their daily lives.
But if the UK uses its natural advantages to best effect, its infrastructure – not subsidies alone – may be the answer industry and buyers alike need.
Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study
UN's climate change science body says renewables supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand
Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 May 2011 11.13 BST A solar power plant in the Mojave desert. Photograph: AP
Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades - but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, said that if the full range of renewable technologies were deployed, the world could keep greenhouse gas concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, the level scientists have predicted will be the limit of safety beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.
Investing in renewables to the extent needed would cost only about 1% of global GDP annually, said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC.
Renewable energy is already growing fast – of the 300 gigawatts of new electricity generation capacity added globally between 2008 and 2009, about 140GW came from renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, according to the report.
The investment that will be needed to meet the greenhouse gas emissions targets demanded by scientists is likely to amount to about $5trn in the next decade, rising to $7trn from 2021 to 2030.
Ramon Pichs, co-chair of one of the key IPCC working groups, said: "The report shows that it is not the availability of [renewable] resources but the public policies that will either expand or constrain renewable energy development over the coming decades. Developing countries have an important stake in the future – this is where most of the 1.4 billion people without access to electricity live yet also where some of the best conditions exist for renewable energy deployment."
Sven Teske, renewable energy director at Greenpeace International, and a lead author of the report, said: "This is an invitation to governments to initiate a radical overhaul of their policies and place renewable energy centre stage. On the run up to the next major climate conference, COP17 in South Africa in December, the onus is clearly on governments to step up to the mark."
He added: "The IPCC report shows overwhelming scientific evidence that renewable energy can also meet the growing demand of developing countries, where over 2 billion people lack access to basic energy services and can do so at a more cost-competitive and faster rate than conventional energy sources. Governments have to kick start the energy revolution by implementing renewable energy laws across the globe."
The 1,000-page Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) marks the first time the IPCC has examined low-carbon energy in depth, and the first interim report since the body's comprehensive 2007 review of the science of climate change.
Although the authors are optimistic about the future of renewable energy, they note that many forms of the technology are still more expensive than fossil fuels, and find that the production of renewable energy will have to increase by as much as 20 times in order to avoid dangerous levels of global warming. Renewables will play a greater role than either nuclear or carbon capture and storage by 2050, the scientists predict.
Investing in renewables can also help poor countries to develop, particularly where large numbers of people lack access to an electricity grid.
About 13% of the world's energy came from renewable sources in 2008, a proportion likely to have risen as countries have built up their capacity since then, with China leading the investment surge, particularly in wind energy. But by far the greatest source of renewable energy used globally at present is burning biomass (about 10% of the total global energy supply), which is problematic because it can cause deforestation, leads to deposits of soot that accelerate global warming, and cooking fires cause indoor air pollution that harms health.
There was disappointment for enthusiasts of marine energy, however, as the report found that wave and tidal power were "unlikely to significantly contribute to global energy supply before 2020". Wind power, by contrast, met about 2% of global electricity demand in 2009, and could increase to more than 20% by 2050.
As with all IPCC reports, the summary for policymakers – the synopsis of the report that will be presented to governments and is likely to impact renewable energy policy – had to be agreed line by line and word by word unanimously by all countries. This was done at Monday's meeting in Abu Dhabi. This makes the process lengthy, but means that afterwards no government or scientist represented can say that they disagree with the finished findings, which the IPCC sees as a key strength of its operations.
The launch of the report is streamed on the IPCC web site.
Monday, 9 May 2011
EEF calls for rethink on renewable power
By David Prosser, Business Editor
Monday, 9 May 2011
Manufacturers will today call on the Government to reconsider targets for the growth of renewable energy, following a new report that claims it may be too expensive.
The EEF manufacturers' organisation said warnings that renewable energy would remain more costly than the alternatives for many years to come should prompt ministers to consider other opportunities.
Otherwise, the EEF added, energy users in Britain, including consumers, would be forced to pay higher bills than necessary, while businesses would be put at a competitive disadvantage to international rivals.
The EEF was responding to a report from the Committee on Climate Change, the independent body set up to provide the Government with impartial advice on carbon budgets – as well as to monitor the progress Britain is making towards achieving its climate change targets.
The report said that in 20 years time, a decade after Britain is set to achieve ambitious targets for power from renewable sources, most of these technologies would still be more costly than low-carbon alternatives such as nuclear.
The EEF said the findings should lead to a review of the policy – and ultimately a shift towards an approach that includes more nuclear power, though such a move will be hard for the Goverment to promote in light of the recent problems at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.
The organsation also urged the Government to consider planning for greater use of carbon capture and storage technology which aims to provide cleaner forms of existing power generation, as well as putting a much greater emphasis on energy efficiency.
Steve Radley, the EEF's director of policy, said: "Renewables must play a growing role in our energy mix and we need the right policies to ensure that this happens.
"But we need to ask if the 2020 renewable energy target is leading us down the wrong path."
Monday, 9 May 2011
Manufacturers will today call on the Government to reconsider targets for the growth of renewable energy, following a new report that claims it may be too expensive.
The EEF manufacturers' organisation said warnings that renewable energy would remain more costly than the alternatives for many years to come should prompt ministers to consider other opportunities.
Otherwise, the EEF added, energy users in Britain, including consumers, would be forced to pay higher bills than necessary, while businesses would be put at a competitive disadvantage to international rivals.
The EEF was responding to a report from the Committee on Climate Change, the independent body set up to provide the Government with impartial advice on carbon budgets – as well as to monitor the progress Britain is making towards achieving its climate change targets.
The report said that in 20 years time, a decade after Britain is set to achieve ambitious targets for power from renewable sources, most of these technologies would still be more costly than low-carbon alternatives such as nuclear.
The EEF said the findings should lead to a review of the policy – and ultimately a shift towards an approach that includes more nuclear power, though such a move will be hard for the Goverment to promote in light of the recent problems at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.
The organsation also urged the Government to consider planning for greater use of carbon capture and storage technology which aims to provide cleaner forms of existing power generation, as well as putting a much greater emphasis on energy efficiency.
Steve Radley, the EEF's director of policy, said: "Renewables must play a growing role in our energy mix and we need the right policies to ensure that this happens.
"But we need to ask if the 2020 renewable energy target is leading us down the wrong path."
Solar industry pins hopes on U-turn as feed-in tariff consultation ends
BusinessGreen: Controversial consultation closes today with industry experts warning proposed cuts represent 'disaster' for UK solar sector
James Murray for BusinessGreen guardian.co.uk, Friday 6 May 2011 10.18 BST The consultation on the government's proposed cuts to feed-in tariff incentives for solar projects with 50kW capacity draws to a close today, with industry figures warning that the sector faces "disaster" if the coalition adopts its current proposals.
The consultation documents, which were launched in March, propose deep cuts to feed-in tariff incentives of between 40 and 70 per cent for all solar photovoltaic (PV) installations with over 50kW capacity.
A spokeswoman for DECC confirmed that the consultation exercises had resulted in 370 responses as of yesterday.
Some solar firms focused on small scale domestic panels have supported the government's argument that cuts to the feed-in tariffs available to larger installations are necessary to protect the level of incentives available to households.
But many developers and industry trade groups have submitted responses to the consultation warning that the scale of the cuts will result in a halt to all solar installations with over 50kW capacity.
They have also warned that the way in which the cuts have been proposed ahead of the original schedule for reviewing feed-in tariffs has severely undermined investor confidence in the renewables sector.
Howard Johns, chairman of the Solar Trade Association, said the industry continued to hope that ministers would "see some sense" and drop proposals for deep cuts to incentives that would represent a "disaster for solar in the UK".
His comments were echoed by Leonnie Greene of the Renewbale Energy Association, who said the trade body would continue to "lobby hard" for less swingeing cuts to incentives.
"Our view is that the overall ambition is much too low and the government clearly does not understand the strategic importance of solar," she said.
"We are going back to a scenario where a few wealthy green home owners can install solar, when we want to be widening access to solar, particularly through community scale projects."
Industry insiders have expressed some optimism that the government could rethink the scale of the cuts it is proposing for mid-sized solar installations, particularly after research from building giant Kingspan revealed that, under the proposed feed-in tariff rates, no solar installations with over 50kW capacity would meet the government's stated target of delivering rates of return of between five and eight per cent for investors.
"There have been some very interesting meetings between government officials and the building industry," said one industry insider. "They are making their case very forcefully and taking it beyond DECC to other departments. That is having an impact."
However, Johns expressed scepticism that ministers will agree to significant changes to the proposed cuts, noting that "they seemed to enter into this consultation with a very clear result in mind - which is one of the reasons they are now facing legal action".
A group of 11 solar firms last month filed for a judicial review into the coalition's decision to launch the fast track review of feed-in tariffs, arguing that the government had failed to adhere to its own stated processes for changing the incentives. DECC was given 21 days to respond to the legal action and a response is expected in the coming days.
The results of the legal action could still affect whether the government can proceed with plans to finalise the feed-in tariff cuts and bring them into effect from the start of August.
The DECC spokeswoman said the department would now consider all of the consultation responses it has received and decide on how to move forward in due course.
James Murray for BusinessGreen guardian.co.uk, Friday 6 May 2011 10.18 BST The consultation on the government's proposed cuts to feed-in tariff incentives for solar projects with 50kW capacity draws to a close today, with industry figures warning that the sector faces "disaster" if the coalition adopts its current proposals.
The consultation documents, which were launched in March, propose deep cuts to feed-in tariff incentives of between 40 and 70 per cent for all solar photovoltaic (PV) installations with over 50kW capacity.
A spokeswoman for DECC confirmed that the consultation exercises had resulted in 370 responses as of yesterday.
Some solar firms focused on small scale domestic panels have supported the government's argument that cuts to the feed-in tariffs available to larger installations are necessary to protect the level of incentives available to households.
But many developers and industry trade groups have submitted responses to the consultation warning that the scale of the cuts will result in a halt to all solar installations with over 50kW capacity.
They have also warned that the way in which the cuts have been proposed ahead of the original schedule for reviewing feed-in tariffs has severely undermined investor confidence in the renewables sector.
Howard Johns, chairman of the Solar Trade Association, said the industry continued to hope that ministers would "see some sense" and drop proposals for deep cuts to incentives that would represent a "disaster for solar in the UK".
His comments were echoed by Leonnie Greene of the Renewbale Energy Association, who said the trade body would continue to "lobby hard" for less swingeing cuts to incentives.
"Our view is that the overall ambition is much too low and the government clearly does not understand the strategic importance of solar," she said.
"We are going back to a scenario where a few wealthy green home owners can install solar, when we want to be widening access to solar, particularly through community scale projects."
Industry insiders have expressed some optimism that the government could rethink the scale of the cuts it is proposing for mid-sized solar installations, particularly after research from building giant Kingspan revealed that, under the proposed feed-in tariff rates, no solar installations with over 50kW capacity would meet the government's stated target of delivering rates of return of between five and eight per cent for investors.
"There have been some very interesting meetings between government officials and the building industry," said one industry insider. "They are making their case very forcefully and taking it beyond DECC to other departments. That is having an impact."
However, Johns expressed scepticism that ministers will agree to significant changes to the proposed cuts, noting that "they seemed to enter into this consultation with a very clear result in mind - which is one of the reasons they are now facing legal action".
A group of 11 solar firms last month filed for a judicial review into the coalition's decision to launch the fast track review of feed-in tariffs, arguing that the government had failed to adhere to its own stated processes for changing the incentives. DECC was given 21 days to respond to the legal action and a response is expected in the coming days.
The results of the legal action could still affect whether the government can proceed with plans to finalise the feed-in tariff cuts and bring them into effect from the start of August.
The DECC spokeswoman said the department would now consider all of the consultation responses it has received and decide on how to move forward in due course.
Electric success has left our petrol car idle in the driveway
As range, charging availability and performance have improved, our family is now on its third electric vehicle
Like many families, we have always had two cars: one for long journeys and another for commuting, shopping and school runs.
With the ever increasing cost of petrol, it made sense to find an alternative. So five years ago we bought a G-Wiz. Small, slow and very basic, the car made a certain amount of sense in town. It was small enough to park anywhere and nippy enough to make buzzing around the streets a lot of fun. It was never going to be big enough to be a main family car, but it did what it needed to do well enough. For anything involving the whole family, we simply took the other car.
In late 2009, we had the opportunity to upgrade to a pre-launch version of the Mitsubishi i MiEV electric car. Big enough to take the whole family, travel further afield and fast enough to tackle motorways with ease, the Mitsubishi could genuinely be used as a main family car, relegating our petrol car to second place.
It was an instant hit: the kids adored it and it was fast, practical and fun to drive. Because it was so driver-friendly and cheap to run, it rapidly became the car of choice for almost every journey we made.
We kept hold of the G-Wiz when we took on the Mitsubishi. It meant our petrol car hardly travelled anywhere at all.
Meanwhile, the Mitsubishi became the cool car on the block. Neighbours wanted lifts, friends of our children wanted rides. Everyone was impressed by the lack of noise, the performance and the smoothness. Thanks to its instant performance, the car could out-accelerate most other cars in day-to-day driving. When people had a short demonstration run and could see how user-friendly and competent it was, many of them were convinced that electric cars could be a genuine replacement for petrol power.
We travelled an average of 22.5 miles a day and our most regular route was to the next village and back for the school run – a round trip of six miles. According to the Department of Transport, our car use was fairly typical. The average car journey is 6.5 miles and the average daily use is between 22-24 miles per day, while 93% of all journeys are less than 25 miles: ideal for an electric car.
We charged the car up each night using off-peak electricity. Each morning, the car was ready to go. The total electricity cost in our first year was a mere £80.
Of course, it was not perfect. The range of the car varied depending on the type of driving and ambient temperature. At the time, Mitsubishi stated a range of up to 80 miles (the latest production version has a range of up to 92 miles). That range could be achieved when driving in a city. But driving on a motorway, the range dropped to around 55 miles. Driving in the cold with the heater on, the range could drop to around 40 miles.
Public charging points started cropping up in more cities. It became possible to travel further afield and recharge the car while it was parked. From my base near Coventry I could drive to Birmingham, Stoke-on-Trent, Leamington Spa, Oxford, Milton Keynes and Leicester, knowing that I could charge my car up while it was parked.
Our lease on the Mitsubishi came to an end after one year. We replaced it with a brand new Tata Indica Vista EV. Built by Indian car maker Tata from a brand new factory in the UK, the Indica Vista EV provides us with more space, greater comfort and a longer range.
Meanwhile, our petrol car still sits idle with very little use. I suspect we may be ditching it completely in the not too distant future.
• Michael Boxwell is the author of The 2011 Electric Car Guide, published by Greenstream Publishing
Like many families, we have always had two cars: one for long journeys and another for commuting, shopping and school runs.
With the ever increasing cost of petrol, it made sense to find an alternative. So five years ago we bought a G-Wiz. Small, slow and very basic, the car made a certain amount of sense in town. It was small enough to park anywhere and nippy enough to make buzzing around the streets a lot of fun. It was never going to be big enough to be a main family car, but it did what it needed to do well enough. For anything involving the whole family, we simply took the other car.
In late 2009, we had the opportunity to upgrade to a pre-launch version of the Mitsubishi i MiEV electric car. Big enough to take the whole family, travel further afield and fast enough to tackle motorways with ease, the Mitsubishi could genuinely be used as a main family car, relegating our petrol car to second place.
It was an instant hit: the kids adored it and it was fast, practical and fun to drive. Because it was so driver-friendly and cheap to run, it rapidly became the car of choice for almost every journey we made.
We kept hold of the G-Wiz when we took on the Mitsubishi. It meant our petrol car hardly travelled anywhere at all.
Meanwhile, the Mitsubishi became the cool car on the block. Neighbours wanted lifts, friends of our children wanted rides. Everyone was impressed by the lack of noise, the performance and the smoothness. Thanks to its instant performance, the car could out-accelerate most other cars in day-to-day driving. When people had a short demonstration run and could see how user-friendly and competent it was, many of them were convinced that electric cars could be a genuine replacement for petrol power.
We travelled an average of 22.5 miles a day and our most regular route was to the next village and back for the school run – a round trip of six miles. According to the Department of Transport, our car use was fairly typical. The average car journey is 6.5 miles and the average daily use is between 22-24 miles per day, while 93% of all journeys are less than 25 miles: ideal for an electric car.
We charged the car up each night using off-peak electricity. Each morning, the car was ready to go. The total electricity cost in our first year was a mere £80.
Of course, it was not perfect. The range of the car varied depending on the type of driving and ambient temperature. At the time, Mitsubishi stated a range of up to 80 miles (the latest production version has a range of up to 92 miles). That range could be achieved when driving in a city. But driving on a motorway, the range dropped to around 55 miles. Driving in the cold with the heater on, the range could drop to around 40 miles.
Public charging points started cropping up in more cities. It became possible to travel further afield and recharge the car while it was parked. From my base near Coventry I could drive to Birmingham, Stoke-on-Trent, Leamington Spa, Oxford, Milton Keynes and Leicester, knowing that I could charge my car up while it was parked.
Our lease on the Mitsubishi came to an end after one year. We replaced it with a brand new Tata Indica Vista EV. Built by Indian car maker Tata from a brand new factory in the UK, the Indica Vista EV provides us with more space, greater comfort and a longer range.
Meanwhile, our petrol car still sits idle with very little use. I suspect we may be ditching it completely in the not too distant future.
• Michael Boxwell is the author of The 2011 Electric Car Guide, published by Greenstream Publishing
Friday, 6 May 2011
Environmental regulations grease wheels for another US utility merger
5 May 2011
If regulators give the green light to a proposed merger of US utilities Exelon and Constellation Energy, the combined company will be in a better position to finance the continued transition to cleaner energy sources, which in the US goes beyond renewables to include natural gas and clean coal.
Utilities are pursuing potential consolidations in the face of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that will force them to consider closing or retrofitting coal-fired units, a capital-intensive effort. The Exelon-Constellation Energy proposed merger comes just months after Duke Energy and Progress Energy announced plans to form a super-utility to replace their aging coal fleet.
“I think this represents a trend that will continue in the utility industry,” said Clinton Vince, Washington-based chairman of the energy-transport-infrastructure practice at law firm SNR Denton. “I think scale matters in this day and age.”
The market capitalisation of a combined Exelon and Constellation Energy would be around $34 billion, with an enterprise value of $52 billion. Constellation’s shareholders will receive 0.930 shares of Exelon common stock in exchange for each share of Constellation common stock. Based on Exelon’s closing share price on 27 April, the value would be $38.59 per share, or $7.9 billion in total equity value.
The total power generating capacity of the combined company would be 34.4GW, with 55% derived from nuclear generation, 24% from natural gas, 13% from oil and coal facilities, and 8% from renewables and hydro.
“It maintains our focus on clean energy,” said Exelon chairman and CEO John Rowe. “We see value in clean fleets. This transaction adds more clean generation to the mix.”
Media reports have speculated that the proposed merger would revive Constellation Energy’s abandoned plans to build a nuclear unit at its Calvert Cliffs facility in Maryland. “That is simply not the case,” Rowe said. “At today’s gas prices, you can’t build a new nuclear plant in a competitive marketplace.”
Divestment and ratepayer rewards offered to satisfy regulators
The companies anticipate finalising the merger in early 2012, if they secure approval from shareholders and regulators. Several state and federal regulators must give the deal the green light, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Maryland Public Service Commission.
“There’s nothing that leaps out as a huge problem from their filing,” Vince at SNR Denton said.
The companies believe they will be required to divest three Constellation generating stations located in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland territory, the only market where there is a material generation overlap. The stations include baseload coal-fired generation units plus associated gas and oil units, and have a total capacity of 2,648MW.
“This is a modest portion of our combined expected 2012 generation,” said Constellation chairman, president and CEO Mayo Shattuck, who will become executive chairman of the combined company while Exelon president and COO Christopher Crane becomes president. Rowe plans to retire.
The companies have also committed to directly invest more than $250 million in Maryland, including providing a $100 credit to each customer of utility Baltimore Gas & Electricity (BGE), $5 million for a state programme to assist low-income customers, $10 million in annual charitable giving for 10 years and a pledge not to cut BGE jobs for at least two years.
“Usually state regulators want to see some benefits shared with the ratepayers,” Vince said. “It looks like the merging partners have already begun to address that so the question is will the state regulators think that’s generous enough.”
The companies seem determined to avoid the fate of Constellation Energy’s proposed acquisition by FPL Group, which collapsed in 2006 amid concerns about skyrocketing local electricity rates, a key focus for state regulators.
“It’s almost like a 50-50 type track record” for utility mergers, said Paul Fremont, managing director of investment bank Jefferies.
Gloria Gonzalez
If regulators give the green light to a proposed merger of US utilities Exelon and Constellation Energy, the combined company will be in a better position to finance the continued transition to cleaner energy sources, which in the US goes beyond renewables to include natural gas and clean coal.
Utilities are pursuing potential consolidations in the face of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that will force them to consider closing or retrofitting coal-fired units, a capital-intensive effort. The Exelon-Constellation Energy proposed merger comes just months after Duke Energy and Progress Energy announced plans to form a super-utility to replace their aging coal fleet.
“I think this represents a trend that will continue in the utility industry,” said Clinton Vince, Washington-based chairman of the energy-transport-infrastructure practice at law firm SNR Denton. “I think scale matters in this day and age.”
The market capitalisation of a combined Exelon and Constellation Energy would be around $34 billion, with an enterprise value of $52 billion. Constellation’s shareholders will receive 0.930 shares of Exelon common stock in exchange for each share of Constellation common stock. Based on Exelon’s closing share price on 27 April, the value would be $38.59 per share, or $7.9 billion in total equity value.
The total power generating capacity of the combined company would be 34.4GW, with 55% derived from nuclear generation, 24% from natural gas, 13% from oil and coal facilities, and 8% from renewables and hydro.
“It maintains our focus on clean energy,” said Exelon chairman and CEO John Rowe. “We see value in clean fleets. This transaction adds more clean generation to the mix.”
Media reports have speculated that the proposed merger would revive Constellation Energy’s abandoned plans to build a nuclear unit at its Calvert Cliffs facility in Maryland. “That is simply not the case,” Rowe said. “At today’s gas prices, you can’t build a new nuclear plant in a competitive marketplace.”
Divestment and ratepayer rewards offered to satisfy regulators
The companies anticipate finalising the merger in early 2012, if they secure approval from shareholders and regulators. Several state and federal regulators must give the deal the green light, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Maryland Public Service Commission.
“There’s nothing that leaps out as a huge problem from their filing,” Vince at SNR Denton said.
The companies believe they will be required to divest three Constellation generating stations located in the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland territory, the only market where there is a material generation overlap. The stations include baseload coal-fired generation units plus associated gas and oil units, and have a total capacity of 2,648MW.
“This is a modest portion of our combined expected 2012 generation,” said Constellation chairman, president and CEO Mayo Shattuck, who will become executive chairman of the combined company while Exelon president and COO Christopher Crane becomes president. Rowe plans to retire.
The companies have also committed to directly invest more than $250 million in Maryland, including providing a $100 credit to each customer of utility Baltimore Gas & Electricity (BGE), $5 million for a state programme to assist low-income customers, $10 million in annual charitable giving for 10 years and a pledge not to cut BGE jobs for at least two years.
“Usually state regulators want to see some benefits shared with the ratepayers,” Vince said. “It looks like the merging partners have already begun to address that so the question is will the state regulators think that’s generous enough.”
The companies seem determined to avoid the fate of Constellation Energy’s proposed acquisition by FPL Group, which collapsed in 2006 amid concerns about skyrocketing local electricity rates, a key focus for state regulators.
“It’s almost like a 50-50 type track record” for utility mergers, said Paul Fremont, managing director of investment bank Jefferies.
Gloria Gonzalez
Revival of Green Bank plan in the US?
5 May 2011
A ‘Green Bank’ would provide more flexibility and financing tools than popular US policies such as the loan guarantee and Treasury grant programmes, financing experts said.
Senate energy and natural resources committee chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) and ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) may revive plans to set up such a bank – known as the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) – to help clean energy projects access low-cost capital. So far, CEDA has failed to gain traction despite bipartisan support.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said CEDA would need about $9.6 billion in start-up capital and legislators must find a way to offset the entire amount, Murkowski said.
“An offset will not only help CEDA become a reality, it will help us hold the line on new spending and ensure we do not make our deficit any worse,” she said. “But despite the high initial costs … I believe CEDA is a smarter way for the federal government to promote clean energy technologies.”
Congress took a major step toward addressing the persistent inability of clean energy projects to obtain financing by creating the Department of Energy’s (DOE) loan guarantee programme in 2005, but it has been “less than perfect” in terms of its implementation, Murkowski argued.
Independent observers have been impressed with the recent progress and professional skills of the DOE team, but remain concerned about the multi-agency review process and the uncertainty of the yearly budgeting cycle, said Dan Reicher, executive director of the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy & Finance at Stanford University.
“Commercialising energy technology requires a new, more effective approach and that approach is CEDA,” he said. “Congress needs to enact CEDA this year.”
CEDA would have the flexibility to administer different types of credit instruments such as loan guarantees, insurance products and clean energy backed-bonds to accelerate private sector investment, Reicher said.
Green Bank cheaper than other policies in the long run?
CEDA would only need a one-time appropriation, becoming a self-sustaining entity based on “profit participation” mechanisms that would allow it take a financial stake in the projects it backs.
“This, in my view, is fiscally responsible,” said Kassia Yanosek, a founding principal of energy investment and advisory firm Tana Energy Capital.
In comparison, the Section 1603 Treasury grant programme is uncapped and will cost about $10 billion through the end of 2011.
While CEDA would be established as an agency within DOE, it would have a separate administrator and a board of directors, a similarly independent structure to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which “will provide a nimbleness which has eluded DOE’s loan guarantee programmes”, Yanosek added.
CEDA would make compliance with a national Clean Energy Standard, which the committee is considering and US President Barack Obama supports, much more affordable, by expanding the use of innovative technologies and driving down costs, Reicher said.
“That’s why I am, to be honest, frustrated with the Obama administration not stepping up in support of CEDA as a complement to the clean energy standard which it is strongly supporting and advocating,” he added.
Even the US Chamber of Commerce, known for its anti-government policies, supports passage of CEDA.
“I must be clear, the label ‘clean energy’ is not reserved solely for renewables, but must be accurately applied to any and all new technologies and processes that reduce environmental impact, whether it be clean coal, advanced biofuels, natural gas vehicles or natural gas transportation fuel, advanced nuclear or energy storage,” said Christopher Guith, vice-president for policy at the Institute for 21st Century Energy, an affiliate of the US Chamber.
Gloria Gonzalez
A ‘Green Bank’ would provide more flexibility and financing tools than popular US policies such as the loan guarantee and Treasury grant programmes, financing experts said.
Senate energy and natural resources committee chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) and ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) may revive plans to set up such a bank – known as the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) – to help clean energy projects access low-cost capital. So far, CEDA has failed to gain traction despite bipartisan support.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said CEDA would need about $9.6 billion in start-up capital and legislators must find a way to offset the entire amount, Murkowski said.
“An offset will not only help CEDA become a reality, it will help us hold the line on new spending and ensure we do not make our deficit any worse,” she said. “But despite the high initial costs … I believe CEDA is a smarter way for the federal government to promote clean energy technologies.”
Congress took a major step toward addressing the persistent inability of clean energy projects to obtain financing by creating the Department of Energy’s (DOE) loan guarantee programme in 2005, but it has been “less than perfect” in terms of its implementation, Murkowski argued.
Independent observers have been impressed with the recent progress and professional skills of the DOE team, but remain concerned about the multi-agency review process and the uncertainty of the yearly budgeting cycle, said Dan Reicher, executive director of the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy & Finance at Stanford University.
“Commercialising energy technology requires a new, more effective approach and that approach is CEDA,” he said. “Congress needs to enact CEDA this year.”
CEDA would have the flexibility to administer different types of credit instruments such as loan guarantees, insurance products and clean energy backed-bonds to accelerate private sector investment, Reicher said.
Green Bank cheaper than other policies in the long run?
CEDA would only need a one-time appropriation, becoming a self-sustaining entity based on “profit participation” mechanisms that would allow it take a financial stake in the projects it backs.
“This, in my view, is fiscally responsible,” said Kassia Yanosek, a founding principal of energy investment and advisory firm Tana Energy Capital.
In comparison, the Section 1603 Treasury grant programme is uncapped and will cost about $10 billion through the end of 2011.
While CEDA would be established as an agency within DOE, it would have a separate administrator and a board of directors, a similarly independent structure to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which “will provide a nimbleness which has eluded DOE’s loan guarantee programmes”, Yanosek added.
CEDA would make compliance with a national Clean Energy Standard, which the committee is considering and US President Barack Obama supports, much more affordable, by expanding the use of innovative technologies and driving down costs, Reicher said.
“That’s why I am, to be honest, frustrated with the Obama administration not stepping up in support of CEDA as a complement to the clean energy standard which it is strongly supporting and advocating,” he added.
Even the US Chamber of Commerce, known for its anti-government policies, supports passage of CEDA.
“I must be clear, the label ‘clean energy’ is not reserved solely for renewables, but must be accurately applied to any and all new technologies and processes that reduce environmental impact, whether it be clean coal, advanced biofuels, natural gas vehicles or natural gas transportation fuel, advanced nuclear or energy storage,” said Christopher Guith, vice-president for policy at the Institute for 21st Century Energy, an affiliate of the US Chamber.
Gloria Gonzalez
Solar firms struggle in tough first quarter
5 May 2011
Solar manufacturers have started reporting first quarter results, with policy uncertainty among the factors lowering profits and leading to a gloomy outlook for the next three months.
First Solar manufacturing plant in Perrysburg, Ohio
First Solar’s share price trades as low as $124.70 on Nasdaq yesterday, after it announced net quarterly profits of $115 million, down from $172 million in the first quarter of 2010. The share price was down more than 6% from yesterday’s close of $134.66.
The firm dampened its expectations for the second quarter, but still expects to hit its earnings target for 2011, of $9.23-9.75 per share.
Adam Krop, New York-based senior solar analyst at Ardour Capital, told Environmental Finance that he is confident the 2011 expectations can be met – although there is more risk for investors given the firm’s performance in the first three months of the year.
“They have a strong North American 2.4GW pipeline that they’re executing on,” he noted, as well as looking to additional markets such as India and Australia.
“There’s more risk there, sure,” he added. “I’m still confident.”
Yesterday also saw rival solar manufacturer REC report a NOK 84 million ($15.8 million) loss in the first three months of the year, compared to a NOK 1.1 billion profit in the previous quarter, blaming “reduced sales volumes of all products”.
Revenues dropped from NOK 4.9 billlion in the last four months of 2010 to NOK 4.1 billion in the first three months of 2011. However, 2011 started much stronger for REC than 2010, when the manufacturer reported revenues of NKr 2.4 billion.
Uncertainty over subsidies for solar projects in Italy impacted on REC’s performance, the firm said, as well as pressure to reduce solar module prices towards the end of the three-month period.
Watch out for Chinese solar results - analyst
Thomas Maslin, associate director for solar research at IHS Emerging Energy Research, said: “The solar market is still heavily reliant on subsidies so it’s at the whim of political will.”
Last week, Dutch manufacturer Evergreen Solar released a limited amount of preliminary information on its first quarter performance, reporting sales of around 18MW of capacity, priced at $1.86 per watt. This is a drop on the last three months of 2010, when Evergreen sold 47MW at an average of $1.90 per watt.
“While the first quarter has historically been slow for the industry, the sluggish demand has unexpectedly continued early into the second quarter,” said Evergreen president and CEO Michael El-Hillow. “This longer than expected slowdown, combined with the continued worldwide capacity expansion, has contributed to a significant increase in solar panel inventory throughout the distribution channel.”
First quarter results from a handful of China-based solar manufacturers will supply more information about the sector, he noted, because Chinese firms supply around 60-70% of the market.
Firms such as First Solar and SunPower offer more differentiated technology, he said. “How they’re competing with the Chinese is a really interesting dynamic to watch,” Maslin added.
Jess McCabe
Solar manufacturers have started reporting first quarter results, with policy uncertainty among the factors lowering profits and leading to a gloomy outlook for the next three months.
First Solar manufacturing plant in Perrysburg, Ohio
First Solar’s share price trades as low as $124.70 on Nasdaq yesterday, after it announced net quarterly profits of $115 million, down from $172 million in the first quarter of 2010. The share price was down more than 6% from yesterday’s close of $134.66.
The firm dampened its expectations for the second quarter, but still expects to hit its earnings target for 2011, of $9.23-9.75 per share.
Adam Krop, New York-based senior solar analyst at Ardour Capital, told Environmental Finance that he is confident the 2011 expectations can be met – although there is more risk for investors given the firm’s performance in the first three months of the year.
“They have a strong North American 2.4GW pipeline that they’re executing on,” he noted, as well as looking to additional markets such as India and Australia.
“There’s more risk there, sure,” he added. “I’m still confident.”
Yesterday also saw rival solar manufacturer REC report a NOK 84 million ($15.8 million) loss in the first three months of the year, compared to a NOK 1.1 billion profit in the previous quarter, blaming “reduced sales volumes of all products”.
Revenues dropped from NOK 4.9 billlion in the last four months of 2010 to NOK 4.1 billion in the first three months of 2011. However, 2011 started much stronger for REC than 2010, when the manufacturer reported revenues of NKr 2.4 billion.
Uncertainty over subsidies for solar projects in Italy impacted on REC’s performance, the firm said, as well as pressure to reduce solar module prices towards the end of the three-month period.
Watch out for Chinese solar results - analyst
Thomas Maslin, associate director for solar research at IHS Emerging Energy Research, said: “The solar market is still heavily reliant on subsidies so it’s at the whim of political will.”
Last week, Dutch manufacturer Evergreen Solar released a limited amount of preliminary information on its first quarter performance, reporting sales of around 18MW of capacity, priced at $1.86 per watt. This is a drop on the last three months of 2010, when Evergreen sold 47MW at an average of $1.90 per watt.
“While the first quarter has historically been slow for the industry, the sluggish demand has unexpectedly continued early into the second quarter,” said Evergreen president and CEO Michael El-Hillow. “This longer than expected slowdown, combined with the continued worldwide capacity expansion, has contributed to a significant increase in solar panel inventory throughout the distribution channel.”
First quarter results from a handful of China-based solar manufacturers will supply more information about the sector, he noted, because Chinese firms supply around 60-70% of the market.
Firms such as First Solar and SunPower offer more differentiated technology, he said. “How they’re competing with the Chinese is a really interesting dynamic to watch,” Maslin added.
Jess McCabe
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Why is the UK backing biomass power?
Energy created from burning organic matter could increase emissions and decimate forests - and questions remain over sustainability and security of supply
They are part of the No Southampton Biomass campaign which, from its inception just a few months ago, has grown into a well-organised, well-informed protest group of almost 900 followers, with a professional-looking website and a Facebook group.
The campaigners are concerned about the potential effect on air quality in a city that is already failing to meet EU pollution targets. There are also worries about the visual impact of such a huge building that would include a 100-metre chimney built just 125m from the nearest houses.
Southampton is not an isolated campaign. As companies seek to take advantage of the government's generous renewables obligation certificate subsidies, plans to build new biomass plants – or convert existing fossil fuel-fired plants – are surfacing all over the country. Plans were approved in March to convert RWE npower's Tilbury B coal-fired power station to burn wood (PDF).
Such projects are generating a great deal of opposition; there are active protests against Forth Energy's plans in Leith, Dundee and Grangemouth, against Prenergy's plans for a 350MW plant in in Port Talbot, Peel Energy's plans in Trafford, and Bishop's Castle in Shropshire, to name but a few. While protesters are worried about the effects of these developments on their local communities their concerns cannot just be put down to "nimbyism". They say the whole concept of power generated from biomass on this scale is flawed.
Campaign group Biofuelwatch says one of the main problems of power generated from biomass (biological material from living, or recently living organisms such as wood) is that it is not carbon-neutral. Some research suggests that burning wood immediately releases more greenhouse gases than fossil fuel-related emissions, and takes many decades – even centuries in some scenarios – for the carbon emissions to be "offset" by new biomass growth. This, critics points out, is far too long if the UK is to meet its target of reducing emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.
Campaigners also say the scale of demand for fuel, mostly in the form of wood pellets, is unsustainable on at least two fronts. First, the claim that switching to biomass can ensure security of energy supply for the UK looks dubious. The Tilbury plant alone will burn more than 7m tonnes of wood pellets per year – compared with 9m tonnes burned in the entire European Union in 2010.
According to Almuth Ernsting, one of Biofuelwatch's co-directors, the UK will need 50m-70m tonnes of biomass a year to keep these new power stations running. The UK only produces between 8m and 10m tonnes, so the rest will have to be imported, which is why many of the new plants are being planned in ports.
But it is not just the UK that is planning to increase biomass-generated power; large numbers of plants are planned in Europe and North America, meaning increasing competition for fuel.
The government, however, insists the UK is not just reliant on wood for biomass. A Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) spokesman says the UK "produces substantial amounts of waste that cannot be recycled or reused but which is suitable for energy production. Similarly, there are many agricultural residues which have no other use, such as husks, kernels and so on from food production".
However, an official report for Decc (pdf) admits that there is considerable uncertainty about supply. The study concluded the potential biomass supply in the UK between 2010 and 2030 will depend on many market conditions, including price and competition.
The second issue resulting from such a surge in demand is the devastating effect it could have on the world's forests. There are already reports of concessions being granted for the destruction of rainforests to establish tree plantations for wood chips and wood pellets, as a result of the growing global market in biomass.
Ernsting highlights one study which predicts that as a result of increased demand there could be no natural forests left by 2065.
She also points out that as well as destroying the planet's ability to control emissions, such deforestation would have a huge impact on biodiversity and forest-dependent people.
The power companies, however, say they will source wood from "sustainable forests". Helius Energy, the company planning the Southampton plant, promises that it will not use feedstock or fuel sourced from protected areas, areas where biodiversity is shown to be vulnerable or at risk, primary forest, areas or plantations which threaten protected or endangered species or areas where high quality agricultural land has been displaced.
And last month the government introduced sustainability criteria for the use of solid biomass to generate electricit. That stipulates a minimum greenhouse gas emissions saving of 60% compared with fossil fuel assessed across a lifecycle that considers the emissions associated with cultivation, processing and transport of the biomass, together with general restrictions on the use of materials from land important on carbon or biodiversity grounds.
But critics are sceptical. Can sustainability and security of supply really be guaranteed?
They are part of the No Southampton Biomass campaign which, from its inception just a few months ago, has grown into a well-organised, well-informed protest group of almost 900 followers, with a professional-looking website and a Facebook group.
The campaigners are concerned about the potential effect on air quality in a city that is already failing to meet EU pollution targets. There are also worries about the visual impact of such a huge building that would include a 100-metre chimney built just 125m from the nearest houses.
Southampton is not an isolated campaign. As companies seek to take advantage of the government's generous renewables obligation certificate subsidies, plans to build new biomass plants – or convert existing fossil fuel-fired plants – are surfacing all over the country. Plans were approved in March to convert RWE npower's Tilbury B coal-fired power station to burn wood (PDF).
Such projects are generating a great deal of opposition; there are active protests against Forth Energy's plans in Leith, Dundee and Grangemouth, against Prenergy's plans for a 350MW plant in in Port Talbot, Peel Energy's plans in Trafford, and Bishop's Castle in Shropshire, to name but a few. While protesters are worried about the effects of these developments on their local communities their concerns cannot just be put down to "nimbyism". They say the whole concept of power generated from biomass on this scale is flawed.
Campaign group Biofuelwatch says one of the main problems of power generated from biomass (biological material from living, or recently living organisms such as wood) is that it is not carbon-neutral. Some research suggests that burning wood immediately releases more greenhouse gases than fossil fuel-related emissions, and takes many decades – even centuries in some scenarios – for the carbon emissions to be "offset" by new biomass growth. This, critics points out, is far too long if the UK is to meet its target of reducing emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.
Campaigners also say the scale of demand for fuel, mostly in the form of wood pellets, is unsustainable on at least two fronts. First, the claim that switching to biomass can ensure security of energy supply for the UK looks dubious. The Tilbury plant alone will burn more than 7m tonnes of wood pellets per year – compared with 9m tonnes burned in the entire European Union in 2010.
According to Almuth Ernsting, one of Biofuelwatch's co-directors, the UK will need 50m-70m tonnes of biomass a year to keep these new power stations running. The UK only produces between 8m and 10m tonnes, so the rest will have to be imported, which is why many of the new plants are being planned in ports.
But it is not just the UK that is planning to increase biomass-generated power; large numbers of plants are planned in Europe and North America, meaning increasing competition for fuel.
The government, however, insists the UK is not just reliant on wood for biomass. A Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) spokesman says the UK "produces substantial amounts of waste that cannot be recycled or reused but which is suitable for energy production. Similarly, there are many agricultural residues which have no other use, such as husks, kernels and so on from food production".
However, an official report for Decc (pdf) admits that there is considerable uncertainty about supply. The study concluded the potential biomass supply in the UK between 2010 and 2030 will depend on many market conditions, including price and competition.
The second issue resulting from such a surge in demand is the devastating effect it could have on the world's forests. There are already reports of concessions being granted for the destruction of rainforests to establish tree plantations for wood chips and wood pellets, as a result of the growing global market in biomass.
Ernsting highlights one study which predicts that as a result of increased demand there could be no natural forests left by 2065.
She also points out that as well as destroying the planet's ability to control emissions, such deforestation would have a huge impact on biodiversity and forest-dependent people.
The power companies, however, say they will source wood from "sustainable forests". Helius Energy, the company planning the Southampton plant, promises that it will not use feedstock or fuel sourced from protected areas, areas where biodiversity is shown to be vulnerable or at risk, primary forest, areas or plantations which threaten protected or endangered species or areas where high quality agricultural land has been displaced.
And last month the government introduced sustainability criteria for the use of solid biomass to generate electricit. That stipulates a minimum greenhouse gas emissions saving of 60% compared with fossil fuel assessed across a lifecycle that considers the emissions associated with cultivation, processing and transport of the biomass, together with general restrictions on the use of materials from land important on carbon or biodiversity grounds.
But critics are sceptical. Can sustainability and security of supply really be guaranteed?
Scotland toasts new whisky-powered bioenergy plant
Up to 9,000 homes to be powered with energy produced by burning waste matter from the whisky-making process
Kirsty Scott guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 May 2011 16.24 BST
Contracts have recently been awarded for the construction of a biomass combined heat and power plant at Rothes in Speyside that by 2013 will use the by-products of the whisky-making process for energy production.
Vast amounts of "draff", the spent grains used in the distilling process, and pot ale, a residue from the copper stills, are produced by the whisky industry each year and are usually transported off-site. The Rothes project, a joint venture between Helius Energy and the Combination of Rothes Distillers (CoRD) will burn the draff with woodchips to generate enough electricity to supply 9,000 homes. It will be supplied by Aalborg Energie Technick, a danish engineering company. The pot ale will be made into a concentrated organic fertiliser and an animal feed for use by local farmers.
Environmentalists have expressed concern that some of the wood used in the process may not be locally sourced, but say the 7.2MW project – the equivalent output of two large wind turbines - is a good scale and a valuable addition to Scotland's renewables industry. Green energy has been a key issue in the run-up to Thursday's Holyrood elections. The SNP leader, Alex Salmond, has pledged to produce 100% of Scotland's electricity through renewable energy by 2020, a claim dismissed as "fantasy" by Labour.
The £50m Rothes project is the latest bioenergy venture from the Scotch whisky industry, but it is believed to be the first to provide electricity for public use. A bioenergy plant at Scotland's largest distillery in Fife is close to completion. The project by Diageo will provide 98% of the thermal steam and 80% of the electrical power used at the Cameronbridge distillery. And last year, scientists at Napier University announced they had developed a method of producing biofuel from the by-products of the whisky distilling process which could power cars and even aircraft. The new fuel, they said, could be available at petrol pumps within a few years.
Of Scotland's 100 whisky distilleries, 50 are based in Speyside, and Frank Burns, general manager of CoRD, said it was an ideal location for the new bioenergy plant which will be built on an existing industrial site.
"It is very well supported in the local community. Up here in Rothes and in Speyside in general we have a lot of strong links," he said. "We had zero objections at the planning stage and we have done a lot of work within the community on the progress of the project."
Waste products from around 16 of the area's 50 distilleries will be used at the site, including well-known brands such as Glenlivet, Chivas Regal, Macallan, and Famous Grouse. None will come from further than 25 miles away.
Burns acknowledged, however, that some of the wood for the process may not be locally sourced. "Some of it will be local and some of it will be shipped in," he said. "It is down to the supplier. They may source it locally." Most of the fuel, he added, will be comprised of the draff.
Sam Gardner, climate policy officer for WWF Scotland, said:
"From the information we have, the project looks to be a very welcome addition to Scotland's renewable industry. It is using waste products from our whisky industry which is eminently sensible thing to do, and is producing heat both for whisky production and for the local community. We would want to see assurances, however, that the biomass was sustainably sourced."
Kirsty Scott guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 May 2011 16.24 BST
Contracts have recently been awarded for the construction of a biomass combined heat and power plant at Rothes in Speyside that by 2013 will use the by-products of the whisky-making process for energy production.
Vast amounts of "draff", the spent grains used in the distilling process, and pot ale, a residue from the copper stills, are produced by the whisky industry each year and are usually transported off-site. The Rothes project, a joint venture between Helius Energy and the Combination of Rothes Distillers (CoRD) will burn the draff with woodchips to generate enough electricity to supply 9,000 homes. It will be supplied by Aalborg Energie Technick, a danish engineering company. The pot ale will be made into a concentrated organic fertiliser and an animal feed for use by local farmers.
Environmentalists have expressed concern that some of the wood used in the process may not be locally sourced, but say the 7.2MW project – the equivalent output of two large wind turbines - is a good scale and a valuable addition to Scotland's renewables industry. Green energy has been a key issue in the run-up to Thursday's Holyrood elections. The SNP leader, Alex Salmond, has pledged to produce 100% of Scotland's electricity through renewable energy by 2020, a claim dismissed as "fantasy" by Labour.
The £50m Rothes project is the latest bioenergy venture from the Scotch whisky industry, but it is believed to be the first to provide electricity for public use. A bioenergy plant at Scotland's largest distillery in Fife is close to completion. The project by Diageo will provide 98% of the thermal steam and 80% of the electrical power used at the Cameronbridge distillery. And last year, scientists at Napier University announced they had developed a method of producing biofuel from the by-products of the whisky distilling process which could power cars and even aircraft. The new fuel, they said, could be available at petrol pumps within a few years.
Of Scotland's 100 whisky distilleries, 50 are based in Speyside, and Frank Burns, general manager of CoRD, said it was an ideal location for the new bioenergy plant which will be built on an existing industrial site.
"It is very well supported in the local community. Up here in Rothes and in Speyside in general we have a lot of strong links," he said. "We had zero objections at the planning stage and we have done a lot of work within the community on the progress of the project."
Waste products from around 16 of the area's 50 distilleries will be used at the site, including well-known brands such as Glenlivet, Chivas Regal, Macallan, and Famous Grouse. None will come from further than 25 miles away.
Burns acknowledged, however, that some of the wood for the process may not be locally sourced. "Some of it will be local and some of it will be shipped in," he said. "It is down to the supplier. They may source it locally." Most of the fuel, he added, will be comprised of the draff.
Sam Gardner, climate policy officer for WWF Scotland, said:
"From the information we have, the project looks to be a very welcome addition to Scotland's renewable industry. It is using waste products from our whisky industry which is eminently sensible thing to do, and is producing heat both for whisky production and for the local community. We would want to see assurances, however, that the biomass was sustainably sourced."
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Turning Green Into Gold
By NIGEL KENDALL
Making business green was once seen as a burden. It was what company's that wished to be seen as ethical did. It cost money and stood in the way of increasing a firm's margins. Today, the situation could not be more different. Rich Green, Nokia's chief technology officer, puts it in simple terms. "Green is neither a threat, nor an opportunity. It is an obligation."
Case Study: Sony Ericsson's Green Heart
In a business environment of shrinking margins and spiralling material and energy costs, it is perhaps unexpected that one of the world's leading mobile phone manufacturers should petition the European Parliament to ban the use of hazardous substances in consumer electronics.
Yet this is precisely what Sony Ericsson has done. "We believe the electronics industry has a responsibility to move proactively to find substitutes to replace brominated flame retardants and PVC and are therefore calling on EU legislators to show leadership on this issue by voting to tighten the RoHS directive," says company spokeswoman Holly Rossetti.
The Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2008 (known as RoHS) lay down strict limits for manufacturers on the use of hazardous materials such as lead, PVC, mercury and cadmium.
Over the past 10 years, Sony Ericsson has championed what it calls a "full lifecycle approach", measuring the environmental impact of the phone from conception through to production and retirement. Although all Sony Ericsson phones exceed current European criteria, the company has also developed a range of phones called GreenHeart, which acts as a showcase for innovations that are now starting to filter through to the wider product range, including some of the Xperia Android phones.
GreenHeart phones feature waterborne paint, recycled plastic and optimized packaging. Instruction booklets are included on the phone as a digital file, rather than as printed paper, and the smaller boxes that result not only save on packaging but on transportation costs, since more of them can fit into a shipping container.
The company estimates that by replacing the standard manual in one million phones, it has saved 350 tonnes of paper, the equivalent of 13,000 trees and 75,000 cubic meters of water. Ultimately, says the company, the aim is "not about making one standard phone green. It is about making green phones standard."
It acknowledges, however, that in a market where rapid turnover is the norm, consumer awareness of green issues still lags behind the technology.
However, if it is an obligation, then, says Tim Watkins, vice president of Huawei Western Europe, the growing need for energy-efficient products is a real opportunity to innovate while helping client companies save on operating costs.
"Many mobile operators around the world are now having to reassess their 20-year-old infrastructure and plan for the future," he says. "Modern technology is a lot less power-hungry than it was. The green agenda is making us more competitive and giving the customers we sell to a real benefit, because they have a green agenda they can talk about."
Dirk van den Berg, president of Delft University of Technology, points to the fact that emerging markets are seizing the opportunities that green pressures provide. "The emerging markets, China in particular, will take a lead role. The twelfth five-year plan puts a lot of emphasis on green technologies. In the case of China regulatory provisions combined with massive investment in green technologies will certainly produce a boost in these sectors. China is already the third biggest wind turbine manufacturer in the world and also the solar energy sector is quite substantial," he says. "In Europe the picture is mixed. The European climate change system is driving a new technological market for smart, clean energy in the EU. However, a regulations induced backlash can be feared in the nuclear area as a response to the recent events in Japan." Cisco used the changing regulatory environment to create new opportunities. "We created what we call the Network Building Mediator, which allows companies to understand every energy device that takes energy off the grid in their location," says Chris Dedicoat, president of European markets at Cisco. "Leading companies like Shell are now implementing this across their business." In that inelegant phrase, the company also eats its own dogfood. Thanks to the system, Mr. Dedicoat says: "I now know exactly what electricity is being used. I can monitor it, then we can look at options. You cannot put a figure on savings until you have the information. That old adage, 'If you can't measure, you can't manage.' There's a lot of truth in that. The other aspect is to get the mindset across the company. We reduced air travel by 45%. Huge savings. Then, we decided to provide carbon reports to individual departments in the same way that you provide financial reports. That way, you start to establish a mindset and mindshare across the company. It's through those things that you achieve change, not from having one tree-hugger in a department."
One of the main problems facing companies in the information and communication technology sector is the lack of clear guidelines and transparency in environmental claims. Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, acknowledges the problem. "A main priority for 'green' ICT is to ensure transparency concerning such figures," she says. "Specifically, in our Digital Agenda for Europe we have asked the ICT sector to develop a common measurement methodology for its greenhouse gas emissions and its energy consumption. Our approach to cutting carbon emissions while maintaining growth is to improve energy efficiency. ICT has the potential to play a central and critical role in helping us improve energy efficiency and thus reduce emissions across the economy. But as a first step to achieving this, we need transparency to understand what works efficiently today, what does not and where ICT can help. Otherwise we risk making the wrong investments."
All very well, says Mr Dedicoat, but "from an economic perspective, Europe has to stop talking about how good it is about supplying green energy in the future and asking practically what it's going to do today. The European Commission should look at sustainability when buying for itself. In Europe or any European country, procurement by the government is a key component of any industry".
"Rather than spending months in internal meetings, all they should do is come up with simplistic approaches that could be gleaned from the work of the MacArthur Foundation and lead by example," Mr. Dedicoat says. "In this, Europe has a chance to lead the world in understanding the whole product lifecycle, and to make money by exporting the expertise to the rest of the world. It's not about making more windmills than anyone else. It's about showing the world that we can make truly sustainable goods. I think government has got to make people understand that the age when we would bury things at taxpayers' expense has got to come to an end. I think people don't really understand that there's more gold in a tonne of IT scrap than in a tonne of ore. All precious metals, among other materials, should be recycled or recyclable."
Making business green was once seen as a burden. It was what company's that wished to be seen as ethical did. It cost money and stood in the way of increasing a firm's margins. Today, the situation could not be more different. Rich Green, Nokia's chief technology officer, puts it in simple terms. "Green is neither a threat, nor an opportunity. It is an obligation."
Case Study: Sony Ericsson's Green Heart
In a business environment of shrinking margins and spiralling material and energy costs, it is perhaps unexpected that one of the world's leading mobile phone manufacturers should petition the European Parliament to ban the use of hazardous substances in consumer electronics.
Yet this is precisely what Sony Ericsson has done. "We believe the electronics industry has a responsibility to move proactively to find substitutes to replace brominated flame retardants and PVC and are therefore calling on EU legislators to show leadership on this issue by voting to tighten the RoHS directive," says company spokeswoman Holly Rossetti.
The Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2008 (known as RoHS) lay down strict limits for manufacturers on the use of hazardous materials such as lead, PVC, mercury and cadmium.
Over the past 10 years, Sony Ericsson has championed what it calls a "full lifecycle approach", measuring the environmental impact of the phone from conception through to production and retirement. Although all Sony Ericsson phones exceed current European criteria, the company has also developed a range of phones called GreenHeart, which acts as a showcase for innovations that are now starting to filter through to the wider product range, including some of the Xperia Android phones.
GreenHeart phones feature waterborne paint, recycled plastic and optimized packaging. Instruction booklets are included on the phone as a digital file, rather than as printed paper, and the smaller boxes that result not only save on packaging but on transportation costs, since more of them can fit into a shipping container.
The company estimates that by replacing the standard manual in one million phones, it has saved 350 tonnes of paper, the equivalent of 13,000 trees and 75,000 cubic meters of water. Ultimately, says the company, the aim is "not about making one standard phone green. It is about making green phones standard."
It acknowledges, however, that in a market where rapid turnover is the norm, consumer awareness of green issues still lags behind the technology.
However, if it is an obligation, then, says Tim Watkins, vice president of Huawei Western Europe, the growing need for energy-efficient products is a real opportunity to innovate while helping client companies save on operating costs.
"Many mobile operators around the world are now having to reassess their 20-year-old infrastructure and plan for the future," he says. "Modern technology is a lot less power-hungry than it was. The green agenda is making us more competitive and giving the customers we sell to a real benefit, because they have a green agenda they can talk about."
Dirk van den Berg, president of Delft University of Technology, points to the fact that emerging markets are seizing the opportunities that green pressures provide. "The emerging markets, China in particular, will take a lead role. The twelfth five-year plan puts a lot of emphasis on green technologies. In the case of China regulatory provisions combined with massive investment in green technologies will certainly produce a boost in these sectors. China is already the third biggest wind turbine manufacturer in the world and also the solar energy sector is quite substantial," he says. "In Europe the picture is mixed. The European climate change system is driving a new technological market for smart, clean energy in the EU. However, a regulations induced backlash can be feared in the nuclear area as a response to the recent events in Japan." Cisco used the changing regulatory environment to create new opportunities. "We created what we call the Network Building Mediator, which allows companies to understand every energy device that takes energy off the grid in their location," says Chris Dedicoat, president of European markets at Cisco. "Leading companies like Shell are now implementing this across their business." In that inelegant phrase, the company also eats its own dogfood. Thanks to the system, Mr. Dedicoat says: "I now know exactly what electricity is being used. I can monitor it, then we can look at options. You cannot put a figure on savings until you have the information. That old adage, 'If you can't measure, you can't manage.' There's a lot of truth in that. The other aspect is to get the mindset across the company. We reduced air travel by 45%. Huge savings. Then, we decided to provide carbon reports to individual departments in the same way that you provide financial reports. That way, you start to establish a mindset and mindshare across the company. It's through those things that you achieve change, not from having one tree-hugger in a department."
One of the main problems facing companies in the information and communication technology sector is the lack of clear guidelines and transparency in environmental claims. Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, acknowledges the problem. "A main priority for 'green' ICT is to ensure transparency concerning such figures," she says. "Specifically, in our Digital Agenda for Europe we have asked the ICT sector to develop a common measurement methodology for its greenhouse gas emissions and its energy consumption. Our approach to cutting carbon emissions while maintaining growth is to improve energy efficiency. ICT has the potential to play a central and critical role in helping us improve energy efficiency and thus reduce emissions across the economy. But as a first step to achieving this, we need transparency to understand what works efficiently today, what does not and where ICT can help. Otherwise we risk making the wrong investments."
All very well, says Mr Dedicoat, but "from an economic perspective, Europe has to stop talking about how good it is about supplying green energy in the future and asking practically what it's going to do today. The European Commission should look at sustainability when buying for itself. In Europe or any European country, procurement by the government is a key component of any industry".
"Rather than spending months in internal meetings, all they should do is come up with simplistic approaches that could be gleaned from the work of the MacArthur Foundation and lead by example," Mr. Dedicoat says. "In this, Europe has a chance to lead the world in understanding the whole product lifecycle, and to make money by exporting the expertise to the rest of the world. It's not about making more windmills than anyone else. It's about showing the world that we can make truly sustainable goods. I think government has got to make people understand that the age when we would bury things at taxpayers' expense has got to come to an end. I think people don't really understand that there's more gold in a tonne of IT scrap than in a tonne of ore. All precious metals, among other materials, should be recycled or recyclable."
'The recession is a big challenge to electric cars' - film-maker Chris Paine
Mother Jones: Chris Paine, director of Who Killed the Electric Car?, on the electric vehicle comeback, greenwash and China
Kiera Butler for Mother Jones guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 May 2011 12.24 BST
Back in 2006, the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? revealed how various industry players—including petroleum companies and car manufacturers themselves—conspired to sabotage the launch of the first electric vehicles. But shortly after the film was released, its director, Chris Paine, began to hear rumblings of an electric car comeback. "I started an email correspondence with GM," recalls Paine. "I said, 'we thought you had a great car and we were upset that you killed it. But if you're going to do it right, I'm going to tell the story, since it's not often that companies change their minds on big decisions like that.'" Sure enough, a few years later the next wave of electric cars have hit the market—and Paine's sequel, Revenge of the Electric Car, tells the story of what happened. I spoke to Paine shortly after his film's Earth Day premiere.
Mother Jones: What's changed since Who Killed the Electric Car?
Chris Paine: There was a lot of blowback after the first programs were killed. Consumers were saying, 'If we have to have cars, why are only bad cars available? Why do we have to rely on the Middle East?' So the right and the left came around—afor security reasons and environmental reasons—and then the car industry itself, which realized no one was buying cars when gas hit $4 a gallon in 2008. And here we are in 2011, with gas prices going nowhere but up, and there is a serious international consensus that you have to have higher miles-per-gallon cars.
MJ: Are oil companies still trying to interfere with electric cars?
CP: I'm sure the gasoline companies would still love to keep their 100 percent monopoly on transportation fuel. But what's changed since then is the fact that almost all the refineries in the US are at 100 percent production right now. They can't even keep up with demands for gasoline. So the last thing they want is to be caught driving up prices while at the same time they are publicly coming down, like they did last time on electric cars. So I think they're staying out of the way this time. I don't know what's happening behind the scenes, but they're not running ads against electric cars or claiming they're unsafe like they did last time.
MJ: Can electric cars save Detroit?
CP: I think electric cars can help save Detroit. They reflect good decision-making, and there has been bad decision making in the auto industry for so long, in my view. In the course of filming Revenge of the Electric Car I became a little more sympathetic to the car industry in terms the way it impacts the global economy. Not just in Detroit in the obvious ways, but the workers in this industry all around the world. Also, lots of things that progressives like, like the show The West Wing, were largely supported by car advertising. This stuff went away when Detroit started to go under.
MJ: But what about batteries? Aren't people still nervous that electric cars can't go far enough?
CP: I like to take folks back to the turn of the century when people said 'gas cars can never replace horses because you can feed horses at your house, you get along with them, they're nice.' Well the same thing is true today. Obviously the horse can still do things that the gas car can never do, and the gas car will always be able to do things the electric car can't do. But they have really different uses and advantages.
MJ: Sure electric cars are greener than gas cars in states that use lots of renewable energy. But what about in coal states?
CP: There are studies that show that EVs still result in overall savings on energy and emissions, even in coal states. Plus, what oil companies don't want you to know is that refineries use a huge amount of electricity in refining gasoline. And that's usually not even figured into reports about gas cars' overall energy use.
MJ: How much of the electric cars push is just car companies greenwashing?
CP: In the case of all the carmakers, there's a certain amount of greenwash. Take Toyota: They were pushing the Prius while they were meanwhile marketing the hell out of the Sequoia and other models with terrible gas mileage. And they were using the Prius to trade off on their emissions standards. All these guys use the environmental car to greenwash the rest of the label. But the reality is that this is actually where we should be going. And if these cars gain traction, they'll start making money on them. And instead of making their margins on the SUVs, they'll start making those margins on electric cars, and that will become their bread and butter.
MJ: Do you think China will beat the US in the race to develop the best electric car technology?
CP: I think China is set up to surpass the US on the even more critical industry of green power. Thomas Friedman says it's not red China anymore, it's green China. And not because they care about the environment necessarily, but because they want to dominate this industry where they see everything going to once they hit peak oil. They hope we waste a lot of time arguing about whether global warming is man-made or not, because every day we waste time they get another day ahead with windmills and solar panels and electric cars and charging infrastructure. Our electric cars are still better. They're much better than China's BYD. I think the US has an arguable advantage right now in this area and I hope we can keep it.
MJ: Of the electric cars currently on the market, which do you think is the best?
CP: Really they're all for different purposes. I bought one of each of these cars at full market price. My girlfriend primarily drives the Leaf. It's a high-riding car—makes you feel like you're almost in a mini SUV. It's much roomier than I expected. I traded my Prius in to get a Volt. I was most skeptical of the Volt, and I've probably also been the most impressed by it. When the doors shut you feel like you're in a submarine. It's very well insulated.
MJ: What are the biggest challenges for electric cars?
CP: We're still in the midst of a recession. There are not a ton of people buying cars—cars are expensive. So people usually go for the cheapest car they can get. And if the price of gasoline falls again, it makes the savings that you get with an electric car harder to realize. Low gas prices could really delay this. The other thing that could delay it is people not wanting to take a chance on changing what they think of as a car. Resistance to change is always the biggest obstacle.
MJ: What's your next project?
CP: We just launched it—it's called CounterSpill. We're taking on the biggest non-renewable energy disasters in the world and keeping them on the front page rather than buried in the news cycle or the corporate spin cycle. Oil companies earned a permanent enemy in me when they messed with the electric car the first time around, and I think they continue to do a disservice in making it seem like fossil fuels are cheaper than they really are in terms of total cost. We want to point out that solar, for example—which has typically been thought of as so expensive—is cheap when compared with, for example, the cost of cleaning up the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the Gulf.
Kiera Butler for Mother Jones guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 May 2011 12.24 BST
Back in 2006, the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? revealed how various industry players—including petroleum companies and car manufacturers themselves—conspired to sabotage the launch of the first electric vehicles. But shortly after the film was released, its director, Chris Paine, began to hear rumblings of an electric car comeback. "I started an email correspondence with GM," recalls Paine. "I said, 'we thought you had a great car and we were upset that you killed it. But if you're going to do it right, I'm going to tell the story, since it's not often that companies change their minds on big decisions like that.'" Sure enough, a few years later the next wave of electric cars have hit the market—and Paine's sequel, Revenge of the Electric Car, tells the story of what happened. I spoke to Paine shortly after his film's Earth Day premiere.
Mother Jones: What's changed since Who Killed the Electric Car?
Chris Paine: There was a lot of blowback after the first programs were killed. Consumers were saying, 'If we have to have cars, why are only bad cars available? Why do we have to rely on the Middle East?' So the right and the left came around—afor security reasons and environmental reasons—and then the car industry itself, which realized no one was buying cars when gas hit $4 a gallon in 2008. And here we are in 2011, with gas prices going nowhere but up, and there is a serious international consensus that you have to have higher miles-per-gallon cars.
MJ: Are oil companies still trying to interfere with electric cars?
CP: I'm sure the gasoline companies would still love to keep their 100 percent monopoly on transportation fuel. But what's changed since then is the fact that almost all the refineries in the US are at 100 percent production right now. They can't even keep up with demands for gasoline. So the last thing they want is to be caught driving up prices while at the same time they are publicly coming down, like they did last time on electric cars. So I think they're staying out of the way this time. I don't know what's happening behind the scenes, but they're not running ads against electric cars or claiming they're unsafe like they did last time.
MJ: Can electric cars save Detroit?
CP: I think electric cars can help save Detroit. They reflect good decision-making, and there has been bad decision making in the auto industry for so long, in my view. In the course of filming Revenge of the Electric Car I became a little more sympathetic to the car industry in terms the way it impacts the global economy. Not just in Detroit in the obvious ways, but the workers in this industry all around the world. Also, lots of things that progressives like, like the show The West Wing, were largely supported by car advertising. This stuff went away when Detroit started to go under.
MJ: But what about batteries? Aren't people still nervous that electric cars can't go far enough?
CP: I like to take folks back to the turn of the century when people said 'gas cars can never replace horses because you can feed horses at your house, you get along with them, they're nice.' Well the same thing is true today. Obviously the horse can still do things that the gas car can never do, and the gas car will always be able to do things the electric car can't do. But they have really different uses and advantages.
MJ: Sure electric cars are greener than gas cars in states that use lots of renewable energy. But what about in coal states?
CP: There are studies that show that EVs still result in overall savings on energy and emissions, even in coal states. Plus, what oil companies don't want you to know is that refineries use a huge amount of electricity in refining gasoline. And that's usually not even figured into reports about gas cars' overall energy use.
MJ: How much of the electric cars push is just car companies greenwashing?
CP: In the case of all the carmakers, there's a certain amount of greenwash. Take Toyota: They were pushing the Prius while they were meanwhile marketing the hell out of the Sequoia and other models with terrible gas mileage. And they were using the Prius to trade off on their emissions standards. All these guys use the environmental car to greenwash the rest of the label. But the reality is that this is actually where we should be going. And if these cars gain traction, they'll start making money on them. And instead of making their margins on the SUVs, they'll start making those margins on electric cars, and that will become their bread and butter.
MJ: Do you think China will beat the US in the race to develop the best electric car technology?
CP: I think China is set up to surpass the US on the even more critical industry of green power. Thomas Friedman says it's not red China anymore, it's green China. And not because they care about the environment necessarily, but because they want to dominate this industry where they see everything going to once they hit peak oil. They hope we waste a lot of time arguing about whether global warming is man-made or not, because every day we waste time they get another day ahead with windmills and solar panels and electric cars and charging infrastructure. Our electric cars are still better. They're much better than China's BYD. I think the US has an arguable advantage right now in this area and I hope we can keep it.
MJ: Of the electric cars currently on the market, which do you think is the best?
CP: Really they're all for different purposes. I bought one of each of these cars at full market price. My girlfriend primarily drives the Leaf. It's a high-riding car—makes you feel like you're almost in a mini SUV. It's much roomier than I expected. I traded my Prius in to get a Volt. I was most skeptical of the Volt, and I've probably also been the most impressed by it. When the doors shut you feel like you're in a submarine. It's very well insulated.
MJ: What are the biggest challenges for electric cars?
CP: We're still in the midst of a recession. There are not a ton of people buying cars—cars are expensive. So people usually go for the cheapest car they can get. And if the price of gasoline falls again, it makes the savings that you get with an electric car harder to realize. Low gas prices could really delay this. The other thing that could delay it is people not wanting to take a chance on changing what they think of as a car. Resistance to change is always the biggest obstacle.
MJ: What's your next project?
CP: We just launched it—it's called CounterSpill. We're taking on the biggest non-renewable energy disasters in the world and keeping them on the front page rather than buried in the news cycle or the corporate spin cycle. Oil companies earned a permanent enemy in me when they messed with the electric car the first time around, and I think they continue to do a disservice in making it seem like fossil fuels are cheaper than they really are in terms of total cost. We want to point out that solar, for example—which has typically been thought of as so expensive—is cheap when compared with, for example, the cost of cleaning up the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the Gulf.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
David Prosser: The Government needs to firm up its energy policy to support solar
Outlook: To get a solar industry with critical mass, restricting meaningful incentives to families who put a solar panel on their roof just isn't going to cut it
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
There is certainly no accusing the Government of inconsistency on energy policy. Having spent much of the previous year encouraging oil and gas companies to return to parts of the North Sea previously considered uneconomic – with hints there might be some financial incentives for doing so – the Chancellor slapped a whacking great tax rise on their production in last month's Budget. Similarly, after talking loudly and proudly about its desire to see the expansion of Britain's renewable energy sector, the Coalition is about to take an axe to its support for the most successful initiative in this area.
The consultation period over planned changes to the solar feed-in tariff system ends on Friday. But while Chris Huhne's Department of Energy and Climate Change has promised to listen to feedback on its proposals, the position of both sides of the debate has been very clear from day one.
Mr Huhne's argument is that the subsidies paid to individuals and companies that produce enough solar power to feed some of it back into the grid were aimed at households and the smallest of commercial concerns, rather than big business. It is thus proposing that the subsidy for installations producing 50kW to 150kW should be almost halved, from 32.9p/kWh to 19p. Installations producing more than 150kW will see even bigger cuts.
One sees his point. While ordinary folk putting the odd solar panel on the roof might need a bit of support to make their investment pay, ought large commercial enterprises not to be able to stand on their own two feet?
Still, the solar lobby's position is entrenched too. It is that the Government has reneged on a promise not to review feed-in tariffs before 2012 (and not to make any changes until 2013). Investments have been made on that basis which may no longer make financial sense given the subsidies now on offer.
There are two issues at stake here. The broader point is that when governments ask private sector energy companies to make long-term investments – in renewables or fossil fuels – on the understanding that the relevant tax regimes will be supportive for a time, if they go back on the commitment, they should not be surprised when people say they are not prepared to continue investing.
Second, if one wants to build a solar industry with critical mass in this country, restricting meaningful incentives to families who put a solar panel on their home's roof just isn't going to cut it. We need the larger commercial enterprises that Mr Huhne no longer seems prepared to support.
Last week, Total, the French company, made an £800m bet on the solar industry, buying 60 per cent of SunPower Corporation, the second-biggest solar panel manufacturer in America. It's not difficult to see why: at a moment when the climate change agenda is finally becoming all-important – and, post-Japan, amid fears that nuclear power may not, after all, be the answer – solar has never looked more attractive. Time to reconsider Mr Huhne.
Making a compelling case for equities
Fidelity Investments published a tongue-in-cheek note last week pointing out the similarities, economically speaking, between the royal wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the 1981 wedding of Prince William's parents. Just like today, Fidelity pointed out, Charles and Diana got married at a time of great economic upheaval, amid an outlook that did not offer promise.
Fidelity, which makes its money investing savers' money in stocks, said that despite the widescale pessimism, equities went on a long bull run after that wedding. Might it do so again, the fund manager wondered self-interestedly?
It does not always do to be cynical. For all the pessimism about the state of our economy, there are some compelling reasons to make the case for equities. Above all, the stock market remains good value, by historical standards, compared to other asset classes – like booming commodities, for example, or bonds. Over time, that suggests a catch-up to come – in the shorter term, it means generous yields.
Also, many companies are performing much more strongly than one might expect given the economic headlines. Away from the consumer-facing sectors, on which people understandably focus, earnings are improving fast. Moreover, many companies, having paid down debt in the wake of the credit crunch, are sitting on cash. This is one reason why the M&A cycle is back on an upswing.
Then, while western economies are not bouncing back from recession as strongly as they have in the past, they are almost all growing once again. In other words, whisper it quietly, but as the stock market in Britain reopens today, and most people return to work, Fidelity might just be on to something.
Interest rate reprieve won't last forever
A final thought for the return to work. The consensus is that the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee will not raise rates when its May meeting concludes on Thursday. But even if that view proves correct, do not be complacent: sooner or later, the Bank will begin tightening monetary policy.
Indeed, the UK is increasingly isolated in sticking with record low interest rates (though the US provides us with some cover). Russia, for example, is raising its rates this very day, while the eurozone has already had one increase in the cost of borrowing. Across Asia, emerging and emerged economies are much further down the track.
None of which is to say the Bank's policy is mistaken – far from it. Just that anyone with a mortgage should see this latest reprieve, assuming it proves to be so, as a further opportunity to position their finances for rate rises to come. The opportunity will not be extended forever.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
There is certainly no accusing the Government of inconsistency on energy policy. Having spent much of the previous year encouraging oil and gas companies to return to parts of the North Sea previously considered uneconomic – with hints there might be some financial incentives for doing so – the Chancellor slapped a whacking great tax rise on their production in last month's Budget. Similarly, after talking loudly and proudly about its desire to see the expansion of Britain's renewable energy sector, the Coalition is about to take an axe to its support for the most successful initiative in this area.
The consultation period over planned changes to the solar feed-in tariff system ends on Friday. But while Chris Huhne's Department of Energy and Climate Change has promised to listen to feedback on its proposals, the position of both sides of the debate has been very clear from day one.
Mr Huhne's argument is that the subsidies paid to individuals and companies that produce enough solar power to feed some of it back into the grid were aimed at households and the smallest of commercial concerns, rather than big business. It is thus proposing that the subsidy for installations producing 50kW to 150kW should be almost halved, from 32.9p/kWh to 19p. Installations producing more than 150kW will see even bigger cuts.
One sees his point. While ordinary folk putting the odd solar panel on the roof might need a bit of support to make their investment pay, ought large commercial enterprises not to be able to stand on their own two feet?
Still, the solar lobby's position is entrenched too. It is that the Government has reneged on a promise not to review feed-in tariffs before 2012 (and not to make any changes until 2013). Investments have been made on that basis which may no longer make financial sense given the subsidies now on offer.
There are two issues at stake here. The broader point is that when governments ask private sector energy companies to make long-term investments – in renewables or fossil fuels – on the understanding that the relevant tax regimes will be supportive for a time, if they go back on the commitment, they should not be surprised when people say they are not prepared to continue investing.
Second, if one wants to build a solar industry with critical mass in this country, restricting meaningful incentives to families who put a solar panel on their home's roof just isn't going to cut it. We need the larger commercial enterprises that Mr Huhne no longer seems prepared to support.
Last week, Total, the French company, made an £800m bet on the solar industry, buying 60 per cent of SunPower Corporation, the second-biggest solar panel manufacturer in America. It's not difficult to see why: at a moment when the climate change agenda is finally becoming all-important – and, post-Japan, amid fears that nuclear power may not, after all, be the answer – solar has never looked more attractive. Time to reconsider Mr Huhne.
Making a compelling case for equities
Fidelity Investments published a tongue-in-cheek note last week pointing out the similarities, economically speaking, between the royal wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the 1981 wedding of Prince William's parents. Just like today, Fidelity pointed out, Charles and Diana got married at a time of great economic upheaval, amid an outlook that did not offer promise.
Fidelity, which makes its money investing savers' money in stocks, said that despite the widescale pessimism, equities went on a long bull run after that wedding. Might it do so again, the fund manager wondered self-interestedly?
It does not always do to be cynical. For all the pessimism about the state of our economy, there are some compelling reasons to make the case for equities. Above all, the stock market remains good value, by historical standards, compared to other asset classes – like booming commodities, for example, or bonds. Over time, that suggests a catch-up to come – in the shorter term, it means generous yields.
Also, many companies are performing much more strongly than one might expect given the economic headlines. Away from the consumer-facing sectors, on which people understandably focus, earnings are improving fast. Moreover, many companies, having paid down debt in the wake of the credit crunch, are sitting on cash. This is one reason why the M&A cycle is back on an upswing.
Then, while western economies are not bouncing back from recession as strongly as they have in the past, they are almost all growing once again. In other words, whisper it quietly, but as the stock market in Britain reopens today, and most people return to work, Fidelity might just be on to something.
Interest rate reprieve won't last forever
A final thought for the return to work. The consensus is that the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee will not raise rates when its May meeting concludes on Thursday. But even if that view proves correct, do not be complacent: sooner or later, the Bank will begin tightening monetary policy.
Indeed, the UK is increasingly isolated in sticking with record low interest rates (though the US provides us with some cover). Russia, for example, is raising its rates this very day, while the eurozone has already had one increase in the cost of borrowing. Across Asia, emerging and emerged economies are much further down the track.
None of which is to say the Bank's policy is mistaken – far from it. Just that anyone with a mortgage should see this latest reprieve, assuming it proves to be so, as a further opportunity to position their finances for rate rises to come. The opportunity will not be extended forever.
Latest renewable tech exhibited in Italy and China
Relaxnews
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Two major green technology events - Solarexpo in Italy and AsiaSolar in China - are taking place over the coming week. The events will host the latest renewable energy technologies ranging from solar panels to electric vehicles.
The first of these two exhibits, Solarexpo, takes place in Verona, Italy May 4-6. Now in its 12th year, the exhibition is expected to attract upwards of 69,000 professionals from throughout the renewable energy industry. The exhibition showcases a range of renewable energy technologies including biomass, hydro and of course solar power sources as well as alternatively fuelled vehicles and green project development services.
Highlights of this year's show include the first edition of E:Move, a special event dedicated to the latest innovative electric and hybrid vehicle designs.
For those unable to attend, Solarexpo can be followed online via Facebook (http://on.fb.me/ldZBIV ); Twitter (@Solarexpo); and YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/solarexpo ). More information can also be found via the official website at www.solarexpo.com
Shortly after Solarexpo begins AsiaSolar takes place on the other side of the world in China.
Now in its sixth year, AsiaSolar is an exhibition of solar technology geared towards industry professionals from around the world; this year the event is held May 5-7 in Shanghai.
AsiaSolar combines the latest consumer-relevant solar products, such as garden lighting, with industry-only relevant technologies such as solar cell manufacturing equipment. In 2010 the event attracted over 21,000 visitors from over 40 countries; these visitor numbers are expected to increase by around 30 percent this year.
AsiaSolar can be followed via the official website at: http://www.asiasolar.cc/en/. The website contains a TQ messenger service which either allows visitors to the site to chat directly with an AsiaSolar operative or, outside of working hours, visitors can leave a message stating their enquiry which will be answered at a later time.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Two major green technology events - Solarexpo in Italy and AsiaSolar in China - are taking place over the coming week. The events will host the latest renewable energy technologies ranging from solar panels to electric vehicles.
The first of these two exhibits, Solarexpo, takes place in Verona, Italy May 4-6. Now in its 12th year, the exhibition is expected to attract upwards of 69,000 professionals from throughout the renewable energy industry. The exhibition showcases a range of renewable energy technologies including biomass, hydro and of course solar power sources as well as alternatively fuelled vehicles and green project development services.
Highlights of this year's show include the first edition of E:Move, a special event dedicated to the latest innovative electric and hybrid vehicle designs.
For those unable to attend, Solarexpo can be followed online via Facebook (http://on.fb.me/ldZBIV ); Twitter (@Solarexpo); and YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/solarexpo ). More information can also be found via the official website at www.solarexpo.com
Shortly after Solarexpo begins AsiaSolar takes place on the other side of the world in China.
Now in its sixth year, AsiaSolar is an exhibition of solar technology geared towards industry professionals from around the world; this year the event is held May 5-7 in Shanghai.
AsiaSolar combines the latest consumer-relevant solar products, such as garden lighting, with industry-only relevant technologies such as solar cell manufacturing equipment. In 2010 the event attracted over 21,000 visitors from over 40 countries; these visitor numbers are expected to increase by around 30 percent this year.
AsiaSolar can be followed via the official website at: http://www.asiasolar.cc/en/. The website contains a TQ messenger service which either allows visitors to the site to chat directly with an AsiaSolar operative or, outside of working hours, visitors can leave a message stating their enquiry which will be answered at a later time.
UK marine energy sector 'could be worth £76bn and support 68,000 jobs'
Forecast by government thinktank the Carbon Trust comes weeks after ministers scrap £42m subsidy programme
Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 May 2011 19.45 BST A government thinktank has predicted that the British marine energy sector could be worth £76bn to the economy and support 68,000 jobs by 2050.
The analysis, released this week by the Carbon Trust, comes only weeks after coalition ministers ended the industry's subsidy programme.
Britain could capture almost a quarter of the global wave and tidal power market if it builds on its existing lead, the trust forecast. The majority of the jobs would be a result of the growing export markets in countries such as Chile, Korea and the US as well as Atlantic-facing European states which benefit from powerful waves or tidal currents. The study, the most in-depth of its kind, found that total marine energy capacity could be 27.5 gigawatts in the UK by 2050, enough to supply more than a fifth of current electricity demand.
But the Carbon Trust says new wave and tidal technologies need to be accelerate at a time when the government's £42m marine renewable deployment fund has been eliminated and the most ambitious marine project – the 10-mile long Severn Barrage – has been given the thumbs down by the energy secretary, Chris Huhne.
However, some smaller schemes have been given the go-ahead, such as one in the Sound of Islay between Islay and Jura in western Scotland. Britain is still said to be home to about 35 of the world's 120-130 wave energy and tidal stream device developers. "Marine energy could be a major 'made in Britain' success," said Benj Sykes, director of innovations at the Carbon Trust. "By cementing our early mover advantage, the UK could develop a significant export market, generate thousands of jobs and meet our own demand for clean, home-grown electricity."
Sykes added: "To maintain our world-leading position, we must continue to drive innovation within the industry and turn our competitive advantage in constructing and operating marine technology into sustained green growth."
Innovative British companies such as Pelamis, Aquamarine Power and Marine Current Turbines are among those active in UK waters. Almost half of Europe's wave resources and more than a quarter of its tidal energy resources are to be found off the British coastline.
Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 May 2011 19.45 BST A government thinktank has predicted that the British marine energy sector could be worth £76bn to the economy and support 68,000 jobs by 2050.
The analysis, released this week by the Carbon Trust, comes only weeks after coalition ministers ended the industry's subsidy programme.
Britain could capture almost a quarter of the global wave and tidal power market if it builds on its existing lead, the trust forecast. The majority of the jobs would be a result of the growing export markets in countries such as Chile, Korea and the US as well as Atlantic-facing European states which benefit from powerful waves or tidal currents. The study, the most in-depth of its kind, found that total marine energy capacity could be 27.5 gigawatts in the UK by 2050, enough to supply more than a fifth of current electricity demand.
But the Carbon Trust says new wave and tidal technologies need to be accelerate at a time when the government's £42m marine renewable deployment fund has been eliminated and the most ambitious marine project – the 10-mile long Severn Barrage – has been given the thumbs down by the energy secretary, Chris Huhne.
However, some smaller schemes have been given the go-ahead, such as one in the Sound of Islay between Islay and Jura in western Scotland. Britain is still said to be home to about 35 of the world's 120-130 wave energy and tidal stream device developers. "Marine energy could be a major 'made in Britain' success," said Benj Sykes, director of innovations at the Carbon Trust. "By cementing our early mover advantage, the UK could develop a significant export market, generate thousands of jobs and meet our own demand for clean, home-grown electricity."
Sykes added: "To maintain our world-leading position, we must continue to drive innovation within the industry and turn our competitive advantage in constructing and operating marine technology into sustained green growth."
Innovative British companies such as Pelamis, Aquamarine Power and Marine Current Turbines are among those active in UK waters. Almost half of Europe's wave resources and more than a quarter of its tidal energy resources are to be found off the British coastline.
Connie Hedegaard seeks renewable energy targets for 2030
EU climate chief opens discussion about extending the targets and expresses concern at gas industry's lobbying
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 May 2011 21.26 BST The EU's climate chief is seeking to extend the bloc's renewable energy targets, in a move apparently designed to protect the green energy sector from an intensifying attack by the gas industry.
This is the first time the European commission has raised the issue of mandatory targets beyond 2020, when the current commitment – to generate 20% of energy from renewable sources – expires.
An extension would boost the renewable energy industry in the face of lobbying efforts by the gas industry, which is trying to rebrand gas as a cheaper "green" alternative to renewables.
In its attempts to push this line, the gas industry has held a series of high-level meetings with senior figures in the European commission and the European parliament, as well as with the governments of member states.
Connie Hedegaard, the climate change commissioner in Brussels, is concerned at the lobbying, and is determined to maintain Europe's lead in developing renewable energy and clean technology. "We should be looking to avoid a lock-in to fossil fuels," she said. "We should be discussing a renewable energy target for 2030. We need to have ambitious targets. It would be one way to send a long-term price signal for renewable energy – that renewable energy is not just going to stop growing after 2020."
In an interview with the Guardian, Hedegaard declined to put a clear figure on what the renewable energy target should be beyond 2020. But others have suggested that it could be cost-effective to opt for a target of 40% by 2030.
The push to extend the target is likely to be resisted by some member states who fought hard against the 2020 targets when they were unveiled in early 2007. Poland is known to be concerned that its heavy reliance on coal should not attract penalties, and Italy has a history of opposing climate targets.An official in the department of Günther Oettinger, the EU commissioner for energy, said no targets were yet needed beyond 2020. He is also against raising the current emissions-cutting target from 20% by 2020 to 30%, as some member states – including the UK, France and Germany – have proposed.
A spokesman for José Manuel Barroso said the European commission president was following the arguments closely, but had no view on the matter of new targets.
In its "Roadmap to 2050", the commission estimated that the share of low-carbon technologies – comprising renewables, nuclear power, and carbon capture and storage – in the electricity mix would have to rise to 75% or 80% by 2030.
The gas industry's lobbying push has been inspired by the rapid expansion of shale gas, a controversial form of the fuel that is extracted from dense shale rock. Industry estimates suggest there may be enough of this and other so-called "unconventional" forms of gas, which are newly accessible because of advances in a technique known as hydraulic fracturing - "fracking" – to power the globe for two centuries.
Lobbyists have circulated a report by the European Gas Advocacy Forum, co-authored by the consultancy McKinsey, that appears to show Europe could meet its 2050 greenhouse gas targets and save €900bn by opting for gas rather than renewable energy generation.
However, the assertions of the gas industry are now in doubt. The EGAF report was adapted from a previous study that contradicts this claim, concluding that Europe should opt for more renewable power in order to meet its emissions targets and improve its energy security. The EGAF report has now been disowned by the original study's co-authors, the European Climate Foundation.
A separate study from Cornell University also found that, because of the difficulties involved in its production, using shale gas for electricity generation produces as much carbon dioxide as coal, if not more.
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 May 2011 21.26 BST The EU's climate chief is seeking to extend the bloc's renewable energy targets, in a move apparently designed to protect the green energy sector from an intensifying attack by the gas industry.
This is the first time the European commission has raised the issue of mandatory targets beyond 2020, when the current commitment – to generate 20% of energy from renewable sources – expires.
An extension would boost the renewable energy industry in the face of lobbying efforts by the gas industry, which is trying to rebrand gas as a cheaper "green" alternative to renewables.
In its attempts to push this line, the gas industry has held a series of high-level meetings with senior figures in the European commission and the European parliament, as well as with the governments of member states.
Connie Hedegaard, the climate change commissioner in Brussels, is concerned at the lobbying, and is determined to maintain Europe's lead in developing renewable energy and clean technology. "We should be looking to avoid a lock-in to fossil fuels," she said. "We should be discussing a renewable energy target for 2030. We need to have ambitious targets. It would be one way to send a long-term price signal for renewable energy – that renewable energy is not just going to stop growing after 2020."
In an interview with the Guardian, Hedegaard declined to put a clear figure on what the renewable energy target should be beyond 2020. But others have suggested that it could be cost-effective to opt for a target of 40% by 2030.
The push to extend the target is likely to be resisted by some member states who fought hard against the 2020 targets when they were unveiled in early 2007. Poland is known to be concerned that its heavy reliance on coal should not attract penalties, and Italy has a history of opposing climate targets.An official in the department of Günther Oettinger, the EU commissioner for energy, said no targets were yet needed beyond 2020. He is also against raising the current emissions-cutting target from 20% by 2020 to 30%, as some member states – including the UK, France and Germany – have proposed.
A spokesman for José Manuel Barroso said the European commission president was following the arguments closely, but had no view on the matter of new targets.
In its "Roadmap to 2050", the commission estimated that the share of low-carbon technologies – comprising renewables, nuclear power, and carbon capture and storage – in the electricity mix would have to rise to 75% or 80% by 2030.
The gas industry's lobbying push has been inspired by the rapid expansion of shale gas, a controversial form of the fuel that is extracted from dense shale rock. Industry estimates suggest there may be enough of this and other so-called "unconventional" forms of gas, which are newly accessible because of advances in a technique known as hydraulic fracturing - "fracking" – to power the globe for two centuries.
Lobbyists have circulated a report by the European Gas Advocacy Forum, co-authored by the consultancy McKinsey, that appears to show Europe could meet its 2050 greenhouse gas targets and save €900bn by opting for gas rather than renewable energy generation.
However, the assertions of the gas industry are now in doubt. The EGAF report was adapted from a previous study that contradicts this claim, concluding that Europe should opt for more renewable power in order to meet its emissions targets and improve its energy security. The EGAF report has now been disowned by the original study's co-authors, the European Climate Foundation.
A separate study from Cornell University also found that, because of the difficulties involved in its production, using shale gas for electricity generation produces as much carbon dioxide as coal, if not more.