Solar power capacity has risen more than 18-fold since last year as homeowners and businesses rush to take advantage of feed-in tariffs
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 July 2011 15.37 BST
Despite gloomy skies over much of the country this summer, Britain has experienced a sunshine boom - solar power capacity has risen by more than 18-fold since last year as homeowners and businesses rush to take advantage of subsidies.
From April to June this year, nearly 34 megawatts (MW) of new solar generating capacity was added to the UK grid - the biggest amount ever in a single quarter, bringing the UK's total capacity to nearly 122MW. This represented more than 14,500 new installations in the last quarter alone, compared with the UK's total capacity of only 2,700 solar panel systems in use by the end of March 2010, according to newly released figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
The government's new feed-in tariffs (Fits) have fuelled the boom, making photovoltaic panels an attractive investment as owners receive a steady income stream for the power they produce, as well as being able to use it to offset their energy bills.
However, the boom is in danger of faltering in the coming months as changes to the feed-in tariffs begin to bite. Larger solar farms or parks face sharp reductions in the subsidies available, after ministers decided to restrict most of the funding to smaller installations, such as households and small businesses.
The changes - coming into effect from 1 August - mean that large installations, of more than 50 kilowatt (kW) capacity - enough to cover a large field, around 20 houses or a typical school - will lose the higher rate of subsidy and be eligible only for a lower tariff that some developers say is not enough to make them economically viable. Projects completed before Monday will continue to qualify for the higher rate, at least until the next review, giving companies a massive incentive to build as quickly as possible.
Solar experts say that developers hoping to build larger installations have rushed to install their systems before the cut-off date next Monday. Octopus Investments said it had funded the installation of 11 large-scale solar power sites throughout England ahead of the deadline, through its partner Lightsource Renewable Energy, which has installed about 118,000 solar panels that should deliver about 26 gigawatt hours of energy each year - enough to power 7,400 homes. All the sites qualify for the Fit at the original rates. Paul Latham of Octopus said: "When the deadline for Fits qualification was brought forward, it posed some significant challenges and there was a lot of gloom amongst funders and developers. Our approach was to look at what could be built within the timescale to qualify for the scheme."
Installers have had to speed up working: EOS Energy managed to installed a £3m 1.15MW solar farm - one of the biggest in the south-west - for Hendra holiday park near Newquay in just seven weeks, to beat the deadline.
Gehrlicher Solar connected up its project near Plymouth. The Langage Solar Park, developed with Carlton Power, is even bigger, at 5MW.
Some companies have managed to gain a temporary reprieve, of sorts. A loophole in the regulations means that installations of more than 50kW connected before 1 August - which are eligible for the higher tariff - can be added to for up to a year afterwards, with the additional arrays also be eligible for the higher tariff, at least until the regulations can be amended. This has led to a rush of developers striving to complete as many 50kW projects as possible by next week, with a view to adding more panels at greater leisure after the Monday deadline.
However, companies are reluctant to own up to this to avoid the wrath of ministers, who have been trying to close the loophole.
The deadline has also spurred the development of medium-sized projects - bigger than house roofs but less than the cut-off point. In Cornwall, the charity Community Energy Plus on Thursday announced a £20m fund to help more than 300 local organisations - including schools, charities, community buildings and farms - to install solar panels. The charity estimates that eligible buildings could save up to £7,000 a year on their energy bills if they use all of the energy generated, or an income of £2,400 a year for exporting it to the National Grid.
Neil Farrington of Community Energy Plus said: "We've developed this scheme in response to the challenge that many non-commercial organisations face when looking to get their own renewable energy projects off the ground. Many lack the upfront investment to buy a system outright but are also wary of the limitations of 'rent a roof' offers."
Moreover, feed-in tariffs are not the only factor driving the UK's boom - the price of solar panels has plummeted, making the investment more attractive, and installations costs are also down. HSBC calculates that the cost of solar cells - the key component in panels - has fallen by about 70% since September 2008.
This downward trend could mean that the high rates of solar panel installation of the last few months continue well beyond the mini-boom created by the changes to the Fit regulations.
Friday, 29 July 2011
Thursday, 28 July 2011
UK sails ahead in offshore wind power generation
Britain has built more offshore windfarms than any country in the world, says the European Wind Energy Association
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 July 2011 10.45 BST
The UK has sailed ahead in offshore wind power generation in the past six months, building more offshore windfarms than any other country in the world, and accounting for almost all of the turbines erected in European waters this year.
Of only 108 offshore turbines built around Europe's coastline from January to June, a whopping 101 were built around the UK, with only six built in Germany, and a single one in Norway, according to estimates published on Wednesday by the trade body European Wind Energy Association (EWEA).
Chris Huhne, energy and climate change secretary, told the Guardian the figures showed how fast the UK was moving in renewable power. "The UK is the undisputed home of offshore wind energy. Our natural resource and competitive advantage mean we have the biggest market in the world. We're blowing away the competition," he said. "It's part of the low-carbon revolution that's under way in the UK, bringing jobs and growth in new industries and building us a future less exposed to volatile global energy prices."
Wind energy is now one of the most important construction sectors in Europe, as most of the rest of the construction industry suffered badly during the recession. Offshore wind is seen as particularly important as the turbines can be bigger and wind speeds tend to be higher so energy can be generated more efficiently, and because in many countries the best onshore wind spots have already been taken or wind developers face opposition in erecting turbines.
However, there is still a time lag between the construction of offshore turbines and their connection to the electricity grid, as over the first six months of the year only about two thirds of the number of turbines built in the UK were actually connected to the grid. In the UK, 68 turbines were connected over the period compared with the 32 turbines, the vast majority of them built before the beginning of this year, that were connected to the German grid over the same period.
Owing to the difference between the number of turbines built and the number connected, the UK showed less progress than it should have in adding new generating capacity to the grid: 245 megawatts (MW) added so far this year, against 103MW for Germany because of the number of previously stranded turbines now wired up.
But the scale of the UK's ambitions is also apparent from EWEA's research: the turbines built this year represent only a fraction of the numbers planned for windfarms that have already begun, and the UK's plans far outstrip those of other countries. When the windfarms begun or added to this year are completed, they will be able to provide about 2,240MW of generating capacity in the UK. By contrast, when the German farms are complete their capacity will be only about one-fifth of the size as much, at 450MW.
These numbers also do not capture windfarms that are planned but are still not under construction, of which there are many more in the UK. Across Europe, as of 30 June 2011, there were 1,247 offshore wind turbines fully grid connected with a total capacity of 3,294 MW in 49 windfarms spread over nine countries. Although seven more turbines were erected in the first six months of 2010 than in the same period this year, the turbines tended to be bigger and more powerful, so the amount of generating capacity installed was greater this year.
Christian Kjaer, chief executive of EWEA, said progress had been made on offshore wind in the first half of the year but warned about the financial problems still facing the sector. "While we see several positive trends for the European offshore wind power sector we are not home and dry yet," he said. "We are coming out of the financial crisis but are still facing a potential worsening of the general economic crisis. The number of banks lending for offshore windfarms is steadily growing, although there is a continued need for attracting an increasing number of large institutional investors to offshore wind projects - presently the largest construction undertakings going on in Europe."
EWEA found that more banks were now interested in financing offshore windfarms - more than 20 are now involved - and said it was "positive" that the European Investment Bank continues to provide funds, and that the UK government is to make offshore wind a priority for the planned "green investment bank", to be set up next year with about £3bn.
Offshore wind technology is also progressing - the single turbine erected in Norway was a prototype floating turbine, that if successful could allow turbines to be placed in deeper water than is possible at present, opening up new areas for exploitation, and allowing turbines to be moved around if necessary.
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 July 2011 10.45 BST
The UK has sailed ahead in offshore wind power generation in the past six months, building more offshore windfarms than any other country in the world, and accounting for almost all of the turbines erected in European waters this year.
Of only 108 offshore turbines built around Europe's coastline from January to June, a whopping 101 were built around the UK, with only six built in Germany, and a single one in Norway, according to estimates published on Wednesday by the trade body European Wind Energy Association (EWEA).
Chris Huhne, energy and climate change secretary, told the Guardian the figures showed how fast the UK was moving in renewable power. "The UK is the undisputed home of offshore wind energy. Our natural resource and competitive advantage mean we have the biggest market in the world. We're blowing away the competition," he said. "It's part of the low-carbon revolution that's under way in the UK, bringing jobs and growth in new industries and building us a future less exposed to volatile global energy prices."
Wind energy is now one of the most important construction sectors in Europe, as most of the rest of the construction industry suffered badly during the recession. Offshore wind is seen as particularly important as the turbines can be bigger and wind speeds tend to be higher so energy can be generated more efficiently, and because in many countries the best onshore wind spots have already been taken or wind developers face opposition in erecting turbines.
However, there is still a time lag between the construction of offshore turbines and their connection to the electricity grid, as over the first six months of the year only about two thirds of the number of turbines built in the UK were actually connected to the grid. In the UK, 68 turbines were connected over the period compared with the 32 turbines, the vast majority of them built before the beginning of this year, that were connected to the German grid over the same period.
Owing to the difference between the number of turbines built and the number connected, the UK showed less progress than it should have in adding new generating capacity to the grid: 245 megawatts (MW) added so far this year, against 103MW for Germany because of the number of previously stranded turbines now wired up.
But the scale of the UK's ambitions is also apparent from EWEA's research: the turbines built this year represent only a fraction of the numbers planned for windfarms that have already begun, and the UK's plans far outstrip those of other countries. When the windfarms begun or added to this year are completed, they will be able to provide about 2,240MW of generating capacity in the UK. By contrast, when the German farms are complete their capacity will be only about one-fifth of the size as much, at 450MW.
These numbers also do not capture windfarms that are planned but are still not under construction, of which there are many more in the UK. Across Europe, as of 30 June 2011, there were 1,247 offshore wind turbines fully grid connected with a total capacity of 3,294 MW in 49 windfarms spread over nine countries. Although seven more turbines were erected in the first six months of 2010 than in the same period this year, the turbines tended to be bigger and more powerful, so the amount of generating capacity installed was greater this year.
Christian Kjaer, chief executive of EWEA, said progress had been made on offshore wind in the first half of the year but warned about the financial problems still facing the sector. "While we see several positive trends for the European offshore wind power sector we are not home and dry yet," he said. "We are coming out of the financial crisis but are still facing a potential worsening of the general economic crisis. The number of banks lending for offshore windfarms is steadily growing, although there is a continued need for attracting an increasing number of large institutional investors to offshore wind projects - presently the largest construction undertakings going on in Europe."
EWEA found that more banks were now interested in financing offshore windfarms - more than 20 are now involved - and said it was "positive" that the European Investment Bank continues to provide funds, and that the UK government is to make offshore wind a priority for the planned "green investment bank", to be set up next year with about £3bn.
Offshore wind technology is also progressing - the single turbine erected in Norway was a prototype floating turbine, that if successful could allow turbines to be placed in deeper water than is possible at present, opening up new areas for exploitation, and allowing turbines to be moved around if necessary.
Tequila gives new biofuel crops a shot
Study finds ethanol derived from agave plants could provide a substitute for petrol and be grown without displacing food crops
Damian Carrington
The Guardian, Thursday 28 July 2011
The desert plants used to distil tequila could cut emissions from transport by providing an important new biofuel crop, according to new research.
"Agave has a huge advantage, as it can grow in marginal or desert land, not on arable land," and therefore would not displace food crops, said Oliver Inderwildi, at the University of Oxford.
Much of the ethanol used as a substitute for petrol is currently produced from corn, especially in the US, and has been criticised for driving up grain prices to record levels. A recent inquiry found that laws mandating the addition of biofuels to petrol and diesel had backfired badly and were unethical because biofuel production often violated human rights and damaged the environment.
But the new study found that agave-derived ethanol could produce good yields on hot, dry land and with relatively little environmental impact. The agave plant, large rosettes of fleshy leaves, produces high levels of sugar and the scientists modeled a hypothetical facility in the tequila state of Jalisco in Mexico which converts the sugars to alcohol for use as a fuel.
Inderwildi said the research, published in the journal Energy and Environmental Science, is the first comprehensive life-cycle analysis of the energy and greenhouse gas balance for agave-derived ethanol. The team found the production of agave-ethanol led to the net emission of 35g of carbon dioxide for each megajoule of energy, far lower than the 85g/MJ estimated for corn ethanol. In comparison, burning petrol emits about 100g/MJ and some estimates of corn ethanol suggest it is worse than petrol.
The ethanol made from sugar cane in Brazil scores even better than agave, at just 20g/MJ, but Inderwildi said its success is difficult to replicate outside Brazil because of the nation's unique combination of water, fertile soil, space and low-carbon hydroelectricity for drying the crops.
The study considered every part of the production cycle, from fertiliser use, drying and even machinery lubricants, as well as the electricity generated by burning the crop residue.
Andrew Smith, a plant scientist at the University of Oxford and a member of the research team, added: "The characteristics of the agave suit it well to bioenergy production, but also reveal its potential as a crop that is adaptable to future climate change. In a world where arable land and water resources are increasingly scarce, these are key attributes in the food versus fuel argument, which is likely to intensify given the expected large-scale growth in biofuel production."
Agave biofuel trials are already taking place, in Australia for example. But some experts experts think abandoned agave plantations in Mexico and Africa could be reclaimed for biofuel. These agave plantations were used to produce the fibre sisal, used in rope and dartboards, but fell into disuse as it was replaced by plastics.
But Inderwildi, head of low-carbon motility at Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, warns that while biofuels can play a crucial role in cutting emissions from vehicles, more action will be needed to tackle global warming. "Biofuels will not be enough without changes on the demand side too, as we don't have enough land for both fuels and food," he said, suggesting more fuel efficient engines and electric cars would both be key. "We are not going to fuel the entire US car fleet, for example, on biofuels."
He thinks biofuel from grasses and agricultural waste - cellulosic sources - can also play a role, but that reductions in the energy used to break down the tough cellulose are needed.
"The only game changer I see is algae, as you can get a lot of fuel in a desert environment," he said, noting Exxon Mobil's large investment in algal biofuels and biology pioneer Craig Venter's aim to bioengineer more productive algae. "It will be at least a decade before it will be at large scale, but with all that brain power working with that amount of money, I am pretty optimistic."
Damian Carrington
The Guardian, Thursday 28 July 2011
The desert plants used to distil tequila could cut emissions from transport by providing an important new biofuel crop, according to new research.
"Agave has a huge advantage, as it can grow in marginal or desert land, not on arable land," and therefore would not displace food crops, said Oliver Inderwildi, at the University of Oxford.
Much of the ethanol used as a substitute for petrol is currently produced from corn, especially in the US, and has been criticised for driving up grain prices to record levels. A recent inquiry found that laws mandating the addition of biofuels to petrol and diesel had backfired badly and were unethical because biofuel production often violated human rights and damaged the environment.
But the new study found that agave-derived ethanol could produce good yields on hot, dry land and with relatively little environmental impact. The agave plant, large rosettes of fleshy leaves, produces high levels of sugar and the scientists modeled a hypothetical facility in the tequila state of Jalisco in Mexico which converts the sugars to alcohol for use as a fuel.
Inderwildi said the research, published in the journal Energy and Environmental Science, is the first comprehensive life-cycle analysis of the energy and greenhouse gas balance for agave-derived ethanol. The team found the production of agave-ethanol led to the net emission of 35g of carbon dioxide for each megajoule of energy, far lower than the 85g/MJ estimated for corn ethanol. In comparison, burning petrol emits about 100g/MJ and some estimates of corn ethanol suggest it is worse than petrol.
The ethanol made from sugar cane in Brazil scores even better than agave, at just 20g/MJ, but Inderwildi said its success is difficult to replicate outside Brazil because of the nation's unique combination of water, fertile soil, space and low-carbon hydroelectricity for drying the crops.
The study considered every part of the production cycle, from fertiliser use, drying and even machinery lubricants, as well as the electricity generated by burning the crop residue.
Andrew Smith, a plant scientist at the University of Oxford and a member of the research team, added: "The characteristics of the agave suit it well to bioenergy production, but also reveal its potential as a crop that is adaptable to future climate change. In a world where arable land and water resources are increasingly scarce, these are key attributes in the food versus fuel argument, which is likely to intensify given the expected large-scale growth in biofuel production."
Agave biofuel trials are already taking place, in Australia for example. But some experts experts think abandoned agave plantations in Mexico and Africa could be reclaimed for biofuel. These agave plantations were used to produce the fibre sisal, used in rope and dartboards, but fell into disuse as it was replaced by plastics.
But Inderwildi, head of low-carbon motility at Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, warns that while biofuels can play a crucial role in cutting emissions from vehicles, more action will be needed to tackle global warming. "Biofuels will not be enough without changes on the demand side too, as we don't have enough land for both fuels and food," he said, suggesting more fuel efficient engines and electric cars would both be key. "We are not going to fuel the entire US car fleet, for example, on biofuels."
He thinks biofuel from grasses and agricultural waste - cellulosic sources - can also play a role, but that reductions in the energy used to break down the tough cellulose are needed.
"The only game changer I see is algae, as you can get a lot of fuel in a desert environment," he said, noting Exxon Mobil's large investment in algal biofuels and biology pioneer Craig Venter's aim to bioengineer more productive algae. "It will be at least a decade before it will be at large scale, but with all that brain power working with that amount of money, I am pretty optimistic."
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Why the UK must choose renewables over nuclear: an answer to Monbiot
Monbiot is fixed in a contrarian crusade to undermine the solar industry and his controversialist instincts have blinded him
• George Monbiot: Why must UK have to choose between nuclear and renewable energy?
Why must the UK choose between nuclear and renewable energy? That was the question George Monbiot asked recently in a blog that challenged me to answer four questions. Here is a concise version of my answers: the full version of my answers will be posted on my website.
What has the Committee on Climate Change got wrong?
A lot. The principal source for the committee's estimates would appear to be Decc's own figures prepared for them by Mott MacDonald in June 2010. The assumptions on which this analysis is based are heroic, to put it mildly.
As pointed out by Andrew Broadbent (of CES Social and Economic Research), these figures have been challenged by a wide range of very different cost projections. Broadbent quotes the authoritative World Nuclear Status report which suggests that nuclear costs would be much higher, and that it is certainly not "the most cost-effective" low-carbon technology.
"Because of implicit and explicit guarantees, the private cost element of nuclear is uncertain and continues to escalate ... and the public subsidy portion is generally missing entirely, so that nuclear cannot be properly compared to alternatives, nor can the potentially enormous cost to taxpayers be properly vetted."
MacDonald produced a new report in May 2011 which pretty much contradicts its own 2010 report. As Broadbent points out:
"Its most important conclusion is that the relative costs of different energy-generating technologies actually depend on which technology is given priority by policy makers. The report says: 'It is possible to find cases where offshore wind, CCS and nuclear are each lower cost than the other two.'"
"This means that if renewables are deployed extensively, they may well be cheaper than nuclear. Why the committee came to airbrush this vital conclusion, and choose not to point out that government itself has the responsibility for deciding whether to make renewable energy the most cost-effective option, can only be guessed at."
This is not the place to go into the voluminous literature on hidden subsidies on nuclear power, but the committee makes only passing reference to perhaps the most egregious distortion: the indirect subsidy in the form of insurance liability.
In view of this, it is highly ironic that Vincent de Rivaz, CEO of EDF can regularly be heard calling for a "level playing field" for different energy sources, knowing full well that every other electricity supplier carries its own third-party liability costs.
Does Monbiot – or anyone, for that matter, on the Committee on Climate Change – actually understand the scale of this subsidy? Recent research by Versicherungsforen Leipzig GmbH (summary in English), a company that specialises in actuarial calculations, shows that full insurance against nuclear disasters would increase the price of nuclear electricity by a range of values - €0.14 per kilowatt hours (kWh) up to €2.36 per kWh – depending on assumptions made.
By the time you factor in all the hidden subsidies, the Committee on Climate Change's figure of £96 per megawatt hours has no more validity than any other competing estimate, and it is entirely disingenuous of the committee to put it in the public domain without making clear just how spurious the figure really is.
The Committee on Climate Change should really know better – as should Monbiot.
Predictably, investors know better. Which is why no reactor ever has been, or ever will be, built without massive public subsidy – a point readily conceded by most industry representatives.
Finally, the committee's estimate also makes no allowance for additional, post-Fukushima cost increases. Every energy economist I know acknowledges unreservedly that the cost of nuclear will continue to go up even as the cost of solar PV continues to come down. The World Nuclear Status report from Schneider, Froggatt & Thomas concludes: "Despite the disproportionately lower support historically, some analysts consider solar photovoltaic energy to be competitive with nuclear new-build projects under current real-term prices. ".
Monbiot has been unsighted on the costs of PV for a long time, . I hope he has now had a chance to read the Ernst & Young Outlook on the UK solar PV industry which points to grid parity for PV here in the UK without any subsidy by 2020? It will happen well before that in Germany as a direct consequence of the far-sighted decisions they took many years ago.
Germany plans to generate 50% of its daytime electricity from solar by 2020 – with installed capacity of 52 gigawatts (GW). Despite the fact that solar PV has the potential to meet more than 30% of the UK's day-time electricity by 2040, our target for 2020 is just 2.7GW – not much more than the 2GW that Germany installed in June 2010 alone.
It's still not too late for the UK. But Monbiot has become a big part of the problem. His inability (or unwillingness) to track solar cost trends has fixed him in a weird contrarian crusade to undermine the solar industry.
Can nuclear and renewables not co-exist?
For me, there are four main reasons why co-existence has become a foolish pipedream.
1) The lobbying position of the nuclear industry itself
Until the middle of 2009, the nuclear industry's public position was a "both/and" position – with room for both renewables and nuclear. Since then, however, nuclear industry leaders have become increasingly vocal in arguing that if the UK government persists with its target of generating 15% of energy from renewables by 2020 (which means at least 35% of our electricity from renewables), then the nuclear industry will suffer very severely.
Both EDF and E-ON are on the record in making this case with growing stridency. And I'm sure Monbiot's sources inside Decc will have told him in no uncertain terms that what these companies say in public is a pale shadow of the virulently anti-renewables lobbying that they're doing behind the scenes. How else could EDF hope to recoup the £12bn it's already laid out to purchase nuclear sites here in the UK?
2) Financial opportunity costs
Nuclear power is the most capital-intensive of all supply options. With estimates ranging from £4bn to £5.5bn for a new nuclear reactor, there is a clear risk that other options will be frozen out by this level of capital commitment.
There will also be significant opportunity costs regarding energy efficiency – as well as renewables. Every billion that goes back to the nuclear industry is a billion that isn't going into retro-fitting our hopelessly inefficient housing stock – and simultaneously sorting out the continuing scandal of extraordinarily high levels of fuel poverty here in the UK.
Sometimes Monbiot is naive. Does he really think a "both/and" world is available when the Treasury is imposing a ruthless cap both on direct payments from tax revenues and on levies taken from consumer bills?
3) Political opportunity costs
The Sustainable Development Commission's 2006 report commented specifically on this:
"Were it to be decided to proceed with a new reactor programme, there is no doubt that this decision would command a substantial slice of political leadership. Political attention would shift, and in all likelihood undermine efforts to pursue a strategy based on energy efficiency, renewables and more CHP."
The electricity market reforms announced recently provide ample evidence to that effect. Our entire electricity market system is now being rigged to provide a wholly unjustifiable continuing subsidy to the nuclear industry, while doing a lot less than is required to promote renewables and absolutely nothing to put efficiency at the heart of that reform process.
4) Constraints in upgrading the grid
More and more industry specialists are concerned about what is sometimes called a "system clash" between a generation system based predominantly on a small number of nuclear reactors and large-scale gas or coal-fired power stations, and a system based on multiple renewable generators and more distributed local area networks. Greenpeace's report (The Battle of the Grids) eloquently highlights just how problematic this already is in Europe, where it has become commonplace in a number of countries to switch off wind turbines during periods of plentiful electricity supply in order to give priority to nuclear and coal-fired plant.
The high-capital costs and the nature of nuclear reactors means you need to run them all the time for both economic and engineering reasons. If there are 16 GW of new nuclear, as the government proposes, preference will clearly be given to purchasing from this source.
In conclusion, Monbiot should know better than to take the nuclear industry's "both/and" rhetoric at face value. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if he reads his own words as carefully as others do: "Power corrupts; nuclear power corrupts absolutely … nuclear operators worldwide have been repeatedly exposed as a bunch of arm-twisting, corner-cutting scumbags." That's powerful posturing. It's as if he's trying to cover up his own embarrassment at ending up as a pawn of the nuclear industry by being ruder about them (on a personal basis) than any anti-nuclear activist would think of being. I hope that strategy works for him; it certainly doesn't for me.
Are renewables always better?
I believe the answer to that question, today, is a clear "yes". I cannot guess what the situation might be in the future, and I've always supported the continuation of research into new nuclear technologies. It is indeed conceivable that at some stage in the future new reactor designs could prove to be so superior that we would be mad not to take advantage of such breakthroughs in the supply mix. We should continue to keep that door open.
However, I've heard so many promises of "better things to come" from the nuclear industry over the past 40 years that I attach very little significance to the current wave of similar promises.
Right now (and for at least the next decade I would argue) proven renewable technologies offer a much more secure supply-side strategy.
Monbiot knows as well as I do that 100% renewables (and geothermal) is where we need to get to eventually – so why not seek to get there just as soon as possible without yet another disastrous foray into today's nuclear cul-de-sac?
There are two other reasons for always favouring renewables over nuclear. It seems to me to be all-but-inevitable that there will be attempts at a terrorist attack on some nuclear facility somewhere in the world at some stage over the next decade. Secondly, and very briefly, we have to address the issue of proliferation. As Tom Burke has put it: "Atoms cannot be made to work for peace without making them available for war".
If you are to exclude nuclear entirely, what should the mix of electricity generation in this country be?
As Monbiot is aware, there are a growing number of voices arguing that we can indeed provide almost all the energy we need from renewable resources. The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (adopted by 194 governments on 9th May 2011) shows how we could get up to 80% of the energy we need from renewable energy sources.
So my "vision" of a sustainable energy future for the UK is relatively simple. I believe a 100% renewable supply strategy for the UK is feasible by 2050 at the latest, assuming only that we succeed in reducing total energy consumption in the UK by at least 40% by 2030 through a wholly different approach to energy efficiency than any government has ever demonstrated before.
Andrew Warren, chief executive of the Association for Conservation of Energy, continues to highlight the contrast between the UK, which is anticipating a doubling in electricity demand, and Germany, which has a target to reduce total consumption by at least 30% – in an economy that is already much more energy efficient than ours.
But I readily acknowledge that this combination of renewables and efficiency will take some time to deliver. There will need to be some "generating bridge" to get us to that 2050 point. For me, this comes down to a straight choice between his "least worst option", namely nuclear, and my "least worst option", gas plus carbon capture and storage (CCS). Both nuclear and CCS are hugely expensive, and CCS is still unproven at scale. But we're almost certainly going to need CCS anyway (installed even on biomass plants) given the speed at which greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere. And at least gas is relatively cheap, relatively easily available, and relatively easy to build. Gas-powered stations built over the next five to 10 years could be economically retired from 2035 onwards.
In conclusion, I've answered Monbiot's four questions, even though they're not necessarily the most important questions. I've not even touched on those issues that matter most to the many people that remain hostile to or sceptical about nuclear power: radiation risk, radioactive waste management, fuel supply and manufacture, decommissioning, coastal siting, water availability, flooding and so on.
And nor have I raised any of the ethical issues associated with our generation opting for another round of nuclear. A proportion both of the risks and of the costs associated with this industry will fall on citizens who were not party to these decisions. For me, there is no way that this can possibly pass the "intergenerational justice" test.
I've come to the conclusion that Monbiot's controversialist instincts have blinded him, in this instance, to the inadequacy of his research, the untrustworthiness of his sources and the potentially damaging consequences of his bizarre pro-nuclear advocacy. Monbiot has caused many in the nuclear industry (and in government) to delight in his "Damascene conversion", an unexpected turn of events that they are already ruthlessly exploiting. All this might be seen as an acceptable price to pay if he had a solid case to make – which he transparently does not.
• George Monbiot: Why must UK have to choose between nuclear and renewable energy?
Why must the UK choose between nuclear and renewable energy? That was the question George Monbiot asked recently in a blog that challenged me to answer four questions. Here is a concise version of my answers: the full version of my answers will be posted on my website.
What has the Committee on Climate Change got wrong?
A lot. The principal source for the committee's estimates would appear to be Decc's own figures prepared for them by Mott MacDonald in June 2010. The assumptions on which this analysis is based are heroic, to put it mildly.
As pointed out by Andrew Broadbent (of CES Social and Economic Research), these figures have been challenged by a wide range of very different cost projections. Broadbent quotes the authoritative World Nuclear Status report which suggests that nuclear costs would be much higher, and that it is certainly not "the most cost-effective" low-carbon technology.
"Because of implicit and explicit guarantees, the private cost element of nuclear is uncertain and continues to escalate ... and the public subsidy portion is generally missing entirely, so that nuclear cannot be properly compared to alternatives, nor can the potentially enormous cost to taxpayers be properly vetted."
MacDonald produced a new report in May 2011 which pretty much contradicts its own 2010 report. As Broadbent points out:
"Its most important conclusion is that the relative costs of different energy-generating technologies actually depend on which technology is given priority by policy makers. The report says: 'It is possible to find cases where offshore wind, CCS and nuclear are each lower cost than the other two.'"
"This means that if renewables are deployed extensively, they may well be cheaper than nuclear. Why the committee came to airbrush this vital conclusion, and choose not to point out that government itself has the responsibility for deciding whether to make renewable energy the most cost-effective option, can only be guessed at."
This is not the place to go into the voluminous literature on hidden subsidies on nuclear power, but the committee makes only passing reference to perhaps the most egregious distortion: the indirect subsidy in the form of insurance liability.
In view of this, it is highly ironic that Vincent de Rivaz, CEO of EDF can regularly be heard calling for a "level playing field" for different energy sources, knowing full well that every other electricity supplier carries its own third-party liability costs.
Does Monbiot – or anyone, for that matter, on the Committee on Climate Change – actually understand the scale of this subsidy? Recent research by Versicherungsforen Leipzig GmbH (summary in English), a company that specialises in actuarial calculations, shows that full insurance against nuclear disasters would increase the price of nuclear electricity by a range of values - €0.14 per kilowatt hours (kWh) up to €2.36 per kWh – depending on assumptions made.
By the time you factor in all the hidden subsidies, the Committee on Climate Change's figure of £96 per megawatt hours has no more validity than any other competing estimate, and it is entirely disingenuous of the committee to put it in the public domain without making clear just how spurious the figure really is.
The Committee on Climate Change should really know better – as should Monbiot.
Predictably, investors know better. Which is why no reactor ever has been, or ever will be, built without massive public subsidy – a point readily conceded by most industry representatives.
Finally, the committee's estimate also makes no allowance for additional, post-Fukushima cost increases. Every energy economist I know acknowledges unreservedly that the cost of nuclear will continue to go up even as the cost of solar PV continues to come down. The World Nuclear Status report from Schneider, Froggatt & Thomas concludes: "Despite the disproportionately lower support historically, some analysts consider solar photovoltaic energy to be competitive with nuclear new-build projects under current real-term prices. ".
Monbiot has been unsighted on the costs of PV for a long time, . I hope he has now had a chance to read the Ernst & Young Outlook on the UK solar PV industry which points to grid parity for PV here in the UK without any subsidy by 2020? It will happen well before that in Germany as a direct consequence of the far-sighted decisions they took many years ago.
Germany plans to generate 50% of its daytime electricity from solar by 2020 – with installed capacity of 52 gigawatts (GW). Despite the fact that solar PV has the potential to meet more than 30% of the UK's day-time electricity by 2040, our target for 2020 is just 2.7GW – not much more than the 2GW that Germany installed in June 2010 alone.
It's still not too late for the UK. But Monbiot has become a big part of the problem. His inability (or unwillingness) to track solar cost trends has fixed him in a weird contrarian crusade to undermine the solar industry.
Can nuclear and renewables not co-exist?
For me, there are four main reasons why co-existence has become a foolish pipedream.
1) The lobbying position of the nuclear industry itself
Until the middle of 2009, the nuclear industry's public position was a "both/and" position – with room for both renewables and nuclear. Since then, however, nuclear industry leaders have become increasingly vocal in arguing that if the UK government persists with its target of generating 15% of energy from renewables by 2020 (which means at least 35% of our electricity from renewables), then the nuclear industry will suffer very severely.
Both EDF and E-ON are on the record in making this case with growing stridency. And I'm sure Monbiot's sources inside Decc will have told him in no uncertain terms that what these companies say in public is a pale shadow of the virulently anti-renewables lobbying that they're doing behind the scenes. How else could EDF hope to recoup the £12bn it's already laid out to purchase nuclear sites here in the UK?
2) Financial opportunity costs
Nuclear power is the most capital-intensive of all supply options. With estimates ranging from £4bn to £5.5bn for a new nuclear reactor, there is a clear risk that other options will be frozen out by this level of capital commitment.
There will also be significant opportunity costs regarding energy efficiency – as well as renewables. Every billion that goes back to the nuclear industry is a billion that isn't going into retro-fitting our hopelessly inefficient housing stock – and simultaneously sorting out the continuing scandal of extraordinarily high levels of fuel poverty here in the UK.
Sometimes Monbiot is naive. Does he really think a "both/and" world is available when the Treasury is imposing a ruthless cap both on direct payments from tax revenues and on levies taken from consumer bills?
3) Political opportunity costs
The Sustainable Development Commission's 2006 report commented specifically on this:
"Were it to be decided to proceed with a new reactor programme, there is no doubt that this decision would command a substantial slice of political leadership. Political attention would shift, and in all likelihood undermine efforts to pursue a strategy based on energy efficiency, renewables and more CHP."
The electricity market reforms announced recently provide ample evidence to that effect. Our entire electricity market system is now being rigged to provide a wholly unjustifiable continuing subsidy to the nuclear industry, while doing a lot less than is required to promote renewables and absolutely nothing to put efficiency at the heart of that reform process.
4) Constraints in upgrading the grid
More and more industry specialists are concerned about what is sometimes called a "system clash" between a generation system based predominantly on a small number of nuclear reactors and large-scale gas or coal-fired power stations, and a system based on multiple renewable generators and more distributed local area networks. Greenpeace's report (The Battle of the Grids) eloquently highlights just how problematic this already is in Europe, where it has become commonplace in a number of countries to switch off wind turbines during periods of plentiful electricity supply in order to give priority to nuclear and coal-fired plant.
The high-capital costs and the nature of nuclear reactors means you need to run them all the time for both economic and engineering reasons. If there are 16 GW of new nuclear, as the government proposes, preference will clearly be given to purchasing from this source.
In conclusion, Monbiot should know better than to take the nuclear industry's "both/and" rhetoric at face value. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if he reads his own words as carefully as others do: "Power corrupts; nuclear power corrupts absolutely … nuclear operators worldwide have been repeatedly exposed as a bunch of arm-twisting, corner-cutting scumbags." That's powerful posturing. It's as if he's trying to cover up his own embarrassment at ending up as a pawn of the nuclear industry by being ruder about them (on a personal basis) than any anti-nuclear activist would think of being. I hope that strategy works for him; it certainly doesn't for me.
Are renewables always better?
I believe the answer to that question, today, is a clear "yes". I cannot guess what the situation might be in the future, and I've always supported the continuation of research into new nuclear technologies. It is indeed conceivable that at some stage in the future new reactor designs could prove to be so superior that we would be mad not to take advantage of such breakthroughs in the supply mix. We should continue to keep that door open.
However, I've heard so many promises of "better things to come" from the nuclear industry over the past 40 years that I attach very little significance to the current wave of similar promises.
Right now (and for at least the next decade I would argue) proven renewable technologies offer a much more secure supply-side strategy.
Monbiot knows as well as I do that 100% renewables (and geothermal) is where we need to get to eventually – so why not seek to get there just as soon as possible without yet another disastrous foray into today's nuclear cul-de-sac?
There are two other reasons for always favouring renewables over nuclear. It seems to me to be all-but-inevitable that there will be attempts at a terrorist attack on some nuclear facility somewhere in the world at some stage over the next decade. Secondly, and very briefly, we have to address the issue of proliferation. As Tom Burke has put it: "Atoms cannot be made to work for peace without making them available for war".
If you are to exclude nuclear entirely, what should the mix of electricity generation in this country be?
As Monbiot is aware, there are a growing number of voices arguing that we can indeed provide almost all the energy we need from renewable resources. The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (adopted by 194 governments on 9th May 2011) shows how we could get up to 80% of the energy we need from renewable energy sources.
So my "vision" of a sustainable energy future for the UK is relatively simple. I believe a 100% renewable supply strategy for the UK is feasible by 2050 at the latest, assuming only that we succeed in reducing total energy consumption in the UK by at least 40% by 2030 through a wholly different approach to energy efficiency than any government has ever demonstrated before.
Andrew Warren, chief executive of the Association for Conservation of Energy, continues to highlight the contrast between the UK, which is anticipating a doubling in electricity demand, and Germany, which has a target to reduce total consumption by at least 30% – in an economy that is already much more energy efficient than ours.
But I readily acknowledge that this combination of renewables and efficiency will take some time to deliver. There will need to be some "generating bridge" to get us to that 2050 point. For me, this comes down to a straight choice between his "least worst option", namely nuclear, and my "least worst option", gas plus carbon capture and storage (CCS). Both nuclear and CCS are hugely expensive, and CCS is still unproven at scale. But we're almost certainly going to need CCS anyway (installed even on biomass plants) given the speed at which greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere. And at least gas is relatively cheap, relatively easily available, and relatively easy to build. Gas-powered stations built over the next five to 10 years could be economically retired from 2035 onwards.
In conclusion, I've answered Monbiot's four questions, even though they're not necessarily the most important questions. I've not even touched on those issues that matter most to the many people that remain hostile to or sceptical about nuclear power: radiation risk, radioactive waste management, fuel supply and manufacture, decommissioning, coastal siting, water availability, flooding and so on.
And nor have I raised any of the ethical issues associated with our generation opting for another round of nuclear. A proportion both of the risks and of the costs associated with this industry will fall on citizens who were not party to these decisions. For me, there is no way that this can possibly pass the "intergenerational justice" test.
I've come to the conclusion that Monbiot's controversialist instincts have blinded him, in this instance, to the inadequacy of his research, the untrustworthiness of his sources and the potentially damaging consequences of his bizarre pro-nuclear advocacy. Monbiot has caused many in the nuclear industry (and in government) to delight in his "Damascene conversion", an unexpected turn of events that they are already ruthlessly exploiting. All this might be seen as an acceptable price to pay if he had a solid case to make – which he transparently does not.
Our electric highway will kickstart Britain's green car revolution
A motorway charging network for electric cars will break the uptake impasse and remove fears overs 'range anxiety'
Dale Vince
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 July 2011 07.00 BST
Today we launched the world's first national charging network for electric cars. That may sound a bit grand, for something quite wonderfully simple - a series of charging posts installed by Ecotricity at motorway services up and down the country. Charging stations, for electric cars, that are easy to access and free to use. Enabling Britain's electric car drivers to drive the length and breadth of the country, with all the convenience of simply pulling into a motorway service station to top up.
Why are we building this? There are after all only some 2,000 electric cars on the road today. In fact that's a big part of the reason – a lack of demand.
It's often said that one of the reasons more people don't buy electric cars is because of a lack of charging facilities – while the reason more charging facilities aren't built is said to be because not enough people are buying electric cars – classic chicken and egg stuff. We're hoping to break that impasse.
Another barrier to take-up is "range anxiety" – the fear of running out of juice when travelling any kind of serious distance.
So this is where our network comes in - we're hoping it'll help kickstart Britain's electric car revolution.
We chose the motorway network for good reason. The big focus to date, with charging posts, has been town and city centres – I think this is actually where they are needed the least. Car use statistics point to this.
The average car in Britain travels around 20 miles a day, a distance that most modern electric cars can sustain for almost a week without needing to charge. And most car owners have access to off-street parking (70% apparently) – and therefore are able to charge at home, at night. Most cars won't need to charge, most days. It's the longer journeys where charging is needed most.
We've chosen where the power for this network comes from carefully too. Our points will be wind-powered – and in doing this we're making a serious point. Britain needs to switch to electric cars as fast as we possibly can – but that alone is not enough. Where the electricity comes from is vitally important. Electric cars need to be running on renewable energy sources, the power of the wind and the sun – only then does their full zero-emission driving potential become realised.
And can we do that as a nation? Can all of us drive wind-powered electric cars? The statistics say yes.
There are around 28m cars on the roads of Britain, driving 150bn miles a year, burning around 20m tonnes of oil and producing 70m tonnes of CO2 (12% of our total emissions). Incredible numbers – but we could power all of that with just 10,000 of today's wind turbines and 5,000 of tomorrow's (they double in size every few years).
Can the grid take it? It would require an increase in electricity delivered through the grid of about 12%, far less than most people think. And for context, prior to the credit crunch, grid-delivered electricity grew by around 3% a year (so we're talking just four years' normal growth to power all the UK's cars). And most charging will take place at night, at times of low demand. The grid can easily cope, in fact if Britain switched to electric vehicles the grid would operate more efficiently.
And consider this. One of the truly revolutionary aspects of electric cars is that we can all be our own oil companies – we can make our own electricity – and power our own cars. A typical five kilowatt rooftop solar system, for example, could provide some 5,000 miles of driving a year – pollution (and fuel duty) free.
Given this, perhaps in due course, the "anxiety" around electric cars will pass from motorists to the oil companies.
• Dale Vince is the founder of green energy company Ecotricity
Dale Vince
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 July 2011 07.00 BST
Today we launched the world's first national charging network for electric cars. That may sound a bit grand, for something quite wonderfully simple - a series of charging posts installed by Ecotricity at motorway services up and down the country. Charging stations, for electric cars, that are easy to access and free to use. Enabling Britain's electric car drivers to drive the length and breadth of the country, with all the convenience of simply pulling into a motorway service station to top up.
Why are we building this? There are after all only some 2,000 electric cars on the road today. In fact that's a big part of the reason – a lack of demand.
It's often said that one of the reasons more people don't buy electric cars is because of a lack of charging facilities – while the reason more charging facilities aren't built is said to be because not enough people are buying electric cars – classic chicken and egg stuff. We're hoping to break that impasse.
Another barrier to take-up is "range anxiety" – the fear of running out of juice when travelling any kind of serious distance.
So this is where our network comes in - we're hoping it'll help kickstart Britain's electric car revolution.
We chose the motorway network for good reason. The big focus to date, with charging posts, has been town and city centres – I think this is actually where they are needed the least. Car use statistics point to this.
The average car in Britain travels around 20 miles a day, a distance that most modern electric cars can sustain for almost a week without needing to charge. And most car owners have access to off-street parking (70% apparently) – and therefore are able to charge at home, at night. Most cars won't need to charge, most days. It's the longer journeys where charging is needed most.
We've chosen where the power for this network comes from carefully too. Our points will be wind-powered – and in doing this we're making a serious point. Britain needs to switch to electric cars as fast as we possibly can – but that alone is not enough. Where the electricity comes from is vitally important. Electric cars need to be running on renewable energy sources, the power of the wind and the sun – only then does their full zero-emission driving potential become realised.
And can we do that as a nation? Can all of us drive wind-powered electric cars? The statistics say yes.
There are around 28m cars on the roads of Britain, driving 150bn miles a year, burning around 20m tonnes of oil and producing 70m tonnes of CO2 (12% of our total emissions). Incredible numbers – but we could power all of that with just 10,000 of today's wind turbines and 5,000 of tomorrow's (they double in size every few years).
Can the grid take it? It would require an increase in electricity delivered through the grid of about 12%, far less than most people think. And for context, prior to the credit crunch, grid-delivered electricity grew by around 3% a year (so we're talking just four years' normal growth to power all the UK's cars). And most charging will take place at night, at times of low demand. The grid can easily cope, in fact if Britain switched to electric vehicles the grid would operate more efficiently.
And consider this. One of the truly revolutionary aspects of electric cars is that we can all be our own oil companies – we can make our own electricity – and power our own cars. A typical five kilowatt rooftop solar system, for example, could provide some 5,000 miles of driving a year – pollution (and fuel duty) free.
Given this, perhaps in due course, the "anxiety" around electric cars will pass from motorists to the oil companies.
• Dale Vince is the founder of green energy company Ecotricity
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Solar panels help cool buildings, says study
Relaxnews
Monday, 25 July 2011
As well as providing a source of alternative energy, roof-mounted solar panels could also have the extra benefit of cooling the house or workplace on which they are fitted says a new report.
The findings come as part of a study conducted by Jan Kleissal and his team at the UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering in America due to be printed in an upcoming issue of the journal Solar Energy.
The study, the first peer-reviewed one of its kind, used thermal imaging to monitor the temperature of buildings. The researchers found that during daylight hours the ceiling of a building with solar panels was five degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 degrees Celsius) cooler than the ceiling of an equivalent building without solar panels.
The team found that the cooling effect of the solar panels impacted the building's total energy costs and amounted to a 38 percent reduction in "annual cooling load" - the rate at which heat is removed from a conditioned space and the amount required to maintain a constant temperature.
The research team also found that the solar panels had insulating benefits - enabling the building to retain heat during the nighttime.
A summary of the article is available to read on ScienceDirect and can be purchased in full from the same site.
The latest innovations in solar technology were recently exhibited at the 20th Intersolar event, June 8-11, and at the Greenbuild Expo, June 29-30 in the UK. One of the major themes at both events was solar thermal technology or solar heating systems.
Later in the year, solar technology will also be exhibited at Solar Power International in the United States, October 17-20. In addition to showcasing the latest solar technologies, the event, which is expected to attract over 24,000 visitors, will host a series of seminars and workshops.
Solar Power International: https://www.solarpowerinternational.com
Report - Effects of solar photovoltaic panels on heat roof transfer: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X11002131
Monday, 25 July 2011
As well as providing a source of alternative energy, roof-mounted solar panels could also have the extra benefit of cooling the house or workplace on which they are fitted says a new report.
The findings come as part of a study conducted by Jan Kleissal and his team at the UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering in America due to be printed in an upcoming issue of the journal Solar Energy.
The study, the first peer-reviewed one of its kind, used thermal imaging to monitor the temperature of buildings. The researchers found that during daylight hours the ceiling of a building with solar panels was five degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 degrees Celsius) cooler than the ceiling of an equivalent building without solar panels.
The team found that the cooling effect of the solar panels impacted the building's total energy costs and amounted to a 38 percent reduction in "annual cooling load" - the rate at which heat is removed from a conditioned space and the amount required to maintain a constant temperature.
The research team also found that the solar panels had insulating benefits - enabling the building to retain heat during the nighttime.
A summary of the article is available to read on ScienceDirect and can be purchased in full from the same site.
The latest innovations in solar technology were recently exhibited at the 20th Intersolar event, June 8-11, and at the Greenbuild Expo, June 29-30 in the UK. One of the major themes at both events was solar thermal technology or solar heating systems.
Later in the year, solar technology will also be exhibited at Solar Power International in the United States, October 17-20. In addition to showcasing the latest solar technologies, the event, which is expected to attract over 24,000 visitors, will host a series of seminars and workshops.
Solar Power International: https://www.solarpowerinternational.com
Report - Effects of solar photovoltaic panels on heat roof transfer: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X11002131
Electric car sales fell by half in second quarter
Figures show just 215 electric cars were bought between April and June compared to 465 in the first three months of 2011
Will Nichols for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 July 2011 14.35 BST
The government and industry remain convinced electric cars will see an upswing in demand, despite a dramatic fall in the number of the grants issued during the second quarter of the year to those motorists purchasing electric vehicles (EV).
According to figures published by research charity the RAC Foundation late last week, the second quarter of the year saw just 215 cars bought under the government's EV grant scheme, which knocks £5,000 of the price of a new electric car.
This contrasts with 465 taken up in the first three months of the year, and takes the total of cars bought under the scheme to 680, leaving the UK's electric fleet still struggling to top 2,500 vehicles.
The low uptake means just £3.4m of the £43m put aside by the government until the end of March 2012 has been spent.
Estimates vary, but the WWF and the Committee on Climate Change say at least 1.7 million electric cars need to be on the UK's streets by 2020, and 6.6 million a decade later, if the country is to meet its climate change targets.
"The figures show the mountain we have to climb if the national car fleet of 28 million vehicles is to turn truly green," Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said in a statement. "Even with the grants, electric cars are still much more expensive than similar-sized petrol and diesel models."
However, a spokesman for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) told BusinessGreen the numbers were misleading as most car sales showed a decline after March, when 20 per cent of new car registrations are made.
He said it was "still early days" for the industry as a number of models, such as the Nissan Leaf, only came on to the market part of the way through the year.
"No one in industry is worrying as it is still such an early stage," he said, adding that the expansion of charging infrastructure and the release of new models next year should result in an increase in sales.
Experts point to the establishment of supporting infrastructure as crucial to expanding the market beyond early adopters. The Department for Transport (DfT) released a strategy aimed at encouraging householders and workplaces to install points earlier this month, while last week Chargemaster announced plans to install 4,000 points across 100 UK locations.
A DfT spokeswoman echoed the SMMT view, predicting an upswing in purchases next year.
"Relative to the number of electric cars registered in previous years, the numbers bought over the last six months represent a step change," she said. "We expect uptake to increase as more vehicles come to market... and [the] Chargemaster [announcement] is a clear sign of the private sector getting the bit between its teeth to support this new market as well."
Will Nichols for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 July 2011 14.35 BST
The government and industry remain convinced electric cars will see an upswing in demand, despite a dramatic fall in the number of the grants issued during the second quarter of the year to those motorists purchasing electric vehicles (EV).
According to figures published by research charity the RAC Foundation late last week, the second quarter of the year saw just 215 cars bought under the government's EV grant scheme, which knocks £5,000 of the price of a new electric car.
This contrasts with 465 taken up in the first three months of the year, and takes the total of cars bought under the scheme to 680, leaving the UK's electric fleet still struggling to top 2,500 vehicles.
The low uptake means just £3.4m of the £43m put aside by the government until the end of March 2012 has been spent.
Estimates vary, but the WWF and the Committee on Climate Change say at least 1.7 million electric cars need to be on the UK's streets by 2020, and 6.6 million a decade later, if the country is to meet its climate change targets.
"The figures show the mountain we have to climb if the national car fleet of 28 million vehicles is to turn truly green," Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said in a statement. "Even with the grants, electric cars are still much more expensive than similar-sized petrol and diesel models."
However, a spokesman for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) told BusinessGreen the numbers were misleading as most car sales showed a decline after March, when 20 per cent of new car registrations are made.
He said it was "still early days" for the industry as a number of models, such as the Nissan Leaf, only came on to the market part of the way through the year.
"No one in industry is worrying as it is still such an early stage," he said, adding that the expansion of charging infrastructure and the release of new models next year should result in an increase in sales.
Experts point to the establishment of supporting infrastructure as crucial to expanding the market beyond early adopters. The Department for Transport (DfT) released a strategy aimed at encouraging householders and workplaces to install points earlier this month, while last week Chargemaster announced plans to install 4,000 points across 100 UK locations.
A DfT spokeswoman echoed the SMMT view, predicting an upswing in purchases next year.
"Relative to the number of electric cars registered in previous years, the numbers bought over the last six months represent a step change," she said. "We expect uptake to increase as more vehicles come to market... and [the] Chargemaster [announcement] is a clear sign of the private sector getting the bit between its teeth to support this new market as well."
Carbon capture and utilisation could make economic sense
Many countries are investing in techniques of utilising CO2 for manufacturing processes – but UK is getting left behind
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 July 2011 11.41 BST
Passing carbon dioxide through slag left over from steel-making turns the waste product into a strong material that can be used for construction. Pumped into greenhouses, it provides a growing boost for crops. Put into tanks of algae, it can be used to make biofuels. Waste carbon dioxide can even be cleaned up to "food grade" and injected into fizzy drinks.
But these processes are rare – instead, carbon dioxide from power generation is normally simply vented into the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. When the gas is needed for an industrial process, it is manufactured from scratch.
Peter Styring, a professor at the University of Sheffield, wants to change this situation. He believes that carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) could be one of the best ways of combating climate change, by turning carbon dioxide from a waste gas into an integral part of industrial processes.
"There are real possibilities here that we are still only at the beginning of exploring," he said. "Some of the technology we need has already been developed, some is at an early stage, and in some cases we need to develop new chemistry."
There are a few examples of the development of processes to use CO2 like this. The US is spending $1bn on CCU research, including a project at Sandia Laboratories to make synthetic diesel from carbon dioxide, and the German government is putting €118m into a project with Bayer called the Dream production plan. In Australia, work is under way to manufacture cement using the carbon dioxide from power plants, and in several places around the world, algae is being cultivated that would absorb the gas and could itself then be used to make biofuels.
But in the UK, by contrast, the government is pouring at least £1bn into carbon capture and storage technology – where the carbon from power stations is liquefied and stored in depleted oilfields under the North Sea – but nothing into recycling carbon dioxide.
Styring is confident that many of the potential uses for carbon dioxide could make economic sense, with the right investment. In a report he co-authored, entitled Carbon Capture and Utilisation in the Green Economy, published by the Centre for Low Carbon Futures, he points to a case study by Newcastle University. There, a group of researchers have developed a new class of catalysts for the conversion of CO2 into commercially important cyclic carbonates, which can be used as electrolytes for lithium ion batteries; additives for petrol, diesel and aviation fuel; solvents; and in the production of polycarbonates and polyurethanes, and other commercial chemical processes.
The group calculated that a plant operating this system could have a payback time of less than 2 years and generate profits of more £1.4bn over 15 years, if the resulting carbonates were sold at current market prices.
Many of the processes envisaged for CCU require some energy input – but the report's authors note that this could be provided by renewable energy, especially when wind or solar plants are producing energy at times of low demand. In this way, producing fuels from CO2 could effectively be a way of storing renewable energy in another form.
However, the costs are still high for many of the potential applications of waste CO2 – about 10 times too expensive in the case of algae, for example. Much more investment is needed to bring down the costs, and putting a sizeable price on carbon dioxide emissions would also help.
Styring said: "The UK government needs to invest in R&D for carbon capture and utilisation and investors need to be made aware of the potential benefits of the technology so that barriers can be brought down. Our report shows that all CCU options could be relevant to the UK and given its business-oriented academic community, the UK could benefit from the commercialisation of the technologies involved."
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 July 2011 11.41 BST
Passing carbon dioxide through slag left over from steel-making turns the waste product into a strong material that can be used for construction. Pumped into greenhouses, it provides a growing boost for crops. Put into tanks of algae, it can be used to make biofuels. Waste carbon dioxide can even be cleaned up to "food grade" and injected into fizzy drinks.
But these processes are rare – instead, carbon dioxide from power generation is normally simply vented into the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. When the gas is needed for an industrial process, it is manufactured from scratch.
Peter Styring, a professor at the University of Sheffield, wants to change this situation. He believes that carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) could be one of the best ways of combating climate change, by turning carbon dioxide from a waste gas into an integral part of industrial processes.
"There are real possibilities here that we are still only at the beginning of exploring," he said. "Some of the technology we need has already been developed, some is at an early stage, and in some cases we need to develop new chemistry."
There are a few examples of the development of processes to use CO2 like this. The US is spending $1bn on CCU research, including a project at Sandia Laboratories to make synthetic diesel from carbon dioxide, and the German government is putting €118m into a project with Bayer called the Dream production plan. In Australia, work is under way to manufacture cement using the carbon dioxide from power plants, and in several places around the world, algae is being cultivated that would absorb the gas and could itself then be used to make biofuels.
But in the UK, by contrast, the government is pouring at least £1bn into carbon capture and storage technology – where the carbon from power stations is liquefied and stored in depleted oilfields under the North Sea – but nothing into recycling carbon dioxide.
Styring is confident that many of the potential uses for carbon dioxide could make economic sense, with the right investment. In a report he co-authored, entitled Carbon Capture and Utilisation in the Green Economy, published by the Centre for Low Carbon Futures, he points to a case study by Newcastle University. There, a group of researchers have developed a new class of catalysts for the conversion of CO2 into commercially important cyclic carbonates, which can be used as electrolytes for lithium ion batteries; additives for petrol, diesel and aviation fuel; solvents; and in the production of polycarbonates and polyurethanes, and other commercial chemical processes.
The group calculated that a plant operating this system could have a payback time of less than 2 years and generate profits of more £1.4bn over 15 years, if the resulting carbonates were sold at current market prices.
Many of the processes envisaged for CCU require some energy input – but the report's authors note that this could be provided by renewable energy, especially when wind or solar plants are producing energy at times of low demand. In this way, producing fuels from CO2 could effectively be a way of storing renewable energy in another form.
However, the costs are still high for many of the potential applications of waste CO2 – about 10 times too expensive in the case of algae, for example. Much more investment is needed to bring down the costs, and putting a sizeable price on carbon dioxide emissions would also help.
Styring said: "The UK government needs to invest in R&D for carbon capture and utilisation and investors need to be made aware of the potential benefits of the technology so that barriers can be brought down. Our report shows that all CCU options could be relevant to the UK and given its business-oriented academic community, the UK could benefit from the commercialisation of the technologies involved."
Monday, 25 July 2011
Why installing solar power looks increasingly attractive for homeowners
Falling costs plus generous feed-in tariffs mean return is higher than ever – but payback will fall in April
Miles Brignall
guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 July 2011 23.02 BST
Are you a homeowner with some spare cash? A 20%-25% collapse in the price of rooftop solar power units in recent months has turned the government's feed-in tariff scheme into one of the most lucrative financial propositions for households with the right sort of property.
The scheme was introduced in April 2010, when the Labour government introduced generous feed-in tariffs to encourage households to install solar photovoltaic systems. Back then, anyone spending, say, £13,000 up front to fit a 2.5kWp system to their home was paid 41.3p per kilowatt hour (kWh) generated – enough to earn them a typical annual income of £900 a year in payments, on top of a £140-a-year saving in reduced electricity bills.
It was described as a good investment because payments for each unit of electricity generated were guaranteed for 25 years, paid tax-free, and set to rise each year in line with inflation.
If you were planning to stay in your home and had a suitable roof (unshaded, at a pitch of about 40 degrees, and facing between south-east and south-west), the main question was how big a system to install – assuming you could raise the installation costs. The bigger the system, the greater the financial return.
However, you shouldn't worry if you put off doing anything because it has emerged this week that waiting has worked in your favour.
Solar experts say that as a result of the installation costs coming down, the investment value of the scheme has become even better. These lower installation costs, an inflation-linked increase to the feed-in tariff payments and the prospect of rising electricity prices all mean the guaranteed returns are now above 10% a year, depending on how you calculate it. And if you install before next April – when new payment tariffs look set to come into force – you are guaranteed the tariffs for the next 25 years at the old rate.
Gabriel Wondrausch, who set up Exeter-based PV installer Sun Gift Solar, says the cost of systems has come down dramatically in 18 months. "We've been supplying PV systems for almost five years now and the prices have been on an almost continuous downward path," he says. "A year ago we were selling a large 4kWp system for around £16,000. Today that same one is costing less than £13,000." (Two years ago the cost would have been closer to £20,000.)
Wondrausch says the volume of sales has been a major factor in UK prices coming down, as has the reduction of feed-in tariffs in Germany, Europe's biggest PV market. The panel manufacturers, it seems, price their panels according to the returns consumers can expect, and have been lowering prices as a result.
Solarcentury, one of the UK's biggest solar companies, confirms the view that prices are falling. And even British Gas has reduced the price of its PV systems. A spokesman says business efficiencies and efficiencies in the supply chain mean costs have fallen by about 20% since June last year. "A typical 2.5kWp system cost around £13,383 last year," he says. "Today it would cost around £10,450. We also need to consider that panel efficiency has increased – panels are 10% more efficient than they were."
Wondrausch points out that the generous tariffs won't be around for ever. In September the government is expected to unveil a new – significantly less generous – scheme for those installing PV systems after April 2012, suggesting that if you want to do it, now is the time to act.
Originally, it was thought the payments for new installations would be cut by 9% from their current level of 43.3p per kWh generated.
Solarcentury says the industry is currently awaiting publication of the government's proposals for tariff cuts. "There is no doubt that the proposed cut for new installations from April 2012 will be higher than the planned 9%," it predicts.
Meanwhile, if you are thinking of installing a system be prepared to spend some time researching the company you are using to carry out the work.
Cathy Debenham, who runs website YouGen.co.uk, says there is growing evidence of dubious sales tactics in the solar PV market. She recently came across one company that claimed you could make money by installing a panel on a north-facing roof, which is nonsense. The consumer group Which? warned that some claims made by firms selling solar PV could not be substantiated. Its advice is that consumers should be wary of any company that offers a quote without visiting the home to carry out a proper survey, or one that makes grandiose claims about the income you will receive.
Debenham's site is a good starting point if you're looking for information, or for a good installer who comes with recommendations from other users. The Energy Saving Trust site has lots of information too.
One thing to ask your chosen installer is which panels they plan to use. Wondrausch, who was one of the first to install PV panels in the UK five years ago, says the panels vary significantly in the electricity they produce – by as much as 12.5%.
Miles Brignall
guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 July 2011 23.02 BST
Are you a homeowner with some spare cash? A 20%-25% collapse in the price of rooftop solar power units in recent months has turned the government's feed-in tariff scheme into one of the most lucrative financial propositions for households with the right sort of property.
The scheme was introduced in April 2010, when the Labour government introduced generous feed-in tariffs to encourage households to install solar photovoltaic systems. Back then, anyone spending, say, £13,000 up front to fit a 2.5kWp system to their home was paid 41.3p per kilowatt hour (kWh) generated – enough to earn them a typical annual income of £900 a year in payments, on top of a £140-a-year saving in reduced electricity bills.
It was described as a good investment because payments for each unit of electricity generated were guaranteed for 25 years, paid tax-free, and set to rise each year in line with inflation.
If you were planning to stay in your home and had a suitable roof (unshaded, at a pitch of about 40 degrees, and facing between south-east and south-west), the main question was how big a system to install – assuming you could raise the installation costs. The bigger the system, the greater the financial return.
However, you shouldn't worry if you put off doing anything because it has emerged this week that waiting has worked in your favour.
Solar experts say that as a result of the installation costs coming down, the investment value of the scheme has become even better. These lower installation costs, an inflation-linked increase to the feed-in tariff payments and the prospect of rising electricity prices all mean the guaranteed returns are now above 10% a year, depending on how you calculate it. And if you install before next April – when new payment tariffs look set to come into force – you are guaranteed the tariffs for the next 25 years at the old rate.
Gabriel Wondrausch, who set up Exeter-based PV installer Sun Gift Solar, says the cost of systems has come down dramatically in 18 months. "We've been supplying PV systems for almost five years now and the prices have been on an almost continuous downward path," he says. "A year ago we were selling a large 4kWp system for around £16,000. Today that same one is costing less than £13,000." (Two years ago the cost would have been closer to £20,000.)
Wondrausch says the volume of sales has been a major factor in UK prices coming down, as has the reduction of feed-in tariffs in Germany, Europe's biggest PV market. The panel manufacturers, it seems, price their panels according to the returns consumers can expect, and have been lowering prices as a result.
Solarcentury, one of the UK's biggest solar companies, confirms the view that prices are falling. And even British Gas has reduced the price of its PV systems. A spokesman says business efficiencies and efficiencies in the supply chain mean costs have fallen by about 20% since June last year. "A typical 2.5kWp system cost around £13,383 last year," he says. "Today it would cost around £10,450. We also need to consider that panel efficiency has increased – panels are 10% more efficient than they were."
Wondrausch points out that the generous tariffs won't be around for ever. In September the government is expected to unveil a new – significantly less generous – scheme for those installing PV systems after April 2012, suggesting that if you want to do it, now is the time to act.
Originally, it was thought the payments for new installations would be cut by 9% from their current level of 43.3p per kWh generated.
Solarcentury says the industry is currently awaiting publication of the government's proposals for tariff cuts. "There is no doubt that the proposed cut for new installations from April 2012 will be higher than the planned 9%," it predicts.
Meanwhile, if you are thinking of installing a system be prepared to spend some time researching the company you are using to carry out the work.
Cathy Debenham, who runs website YouGen.co.uk, says there is growing evidence of dubious sales tactics in the solar PV market. She recently came across one company that claimed you could make money by installing a panel on a north-facing roof, which is nonsense. The consumer group Which? warned that some claims made by firms selling solar PV could not be substantiated. Its advice is that consumers should be wary of any company that offers a quote without visiting the home to carry out a proper survey, or one that makes grandiose claims about the income you will receive.
Debenham's site is a good starting point if you're looking for information, or for a good installer who comes with recommendations from other users. The Energy Saving Trust site has lots of information too.
One thing to ask your chosen installer is which panels they plan to use. Wondrausch, who was one of the first to install PV panels in the UK five years ago, says the panels vary significantly in the electricity they produce – by as much as 12.5%.
City presses Centrica to cancel plans for building nuclear power plants
• Delays at prototype in Normandy raise concern in City
• MPs aim to curb doorstep sales by energy companies
Terry Macalister
The Guardian, Monday 25 July 2011
Centrica is being urged by the City to withdraw from a £4bn commitment to build new nuclear power stations in partnership with Electricité de France (EDF) amid soaring costs and delays at a prototype reactor at Flamanville in France.
The call comes days before the company will reignite the row over high domestic energy prices by reporting six-monthly operating profits at its British Gas Residential Energy division of £300m even before its latest price rises.
Meanwhile, a House of Commons report out on Monday demands that energy companies found guilty of mis-selling their products on the doorstep and elsewhere should pay compensation.
Centrica should "not touch with a barge pole" the new nuclear build (NNB) joint venture with EDF to build four new plants in Britain, argues Lakis Athanasiou, utilities analyst with Evolution Securities.
"Centrica is a minority holder in a technology in which it has no institutional understanding, and where, as emphasised by Flamanville, construction risk is notorious. Centrica should not progress new nuclear further, particularly if [the] government is unwilling to take construction risk," he says.
The Evolution view reinforces concerns expressed by other investment specialists such as Citigroup, which has previously questioned the economics of building new nuclear plants. It is a blow to EDF and the government, which are both keen to see ageing power stations replaced from a source that used to provide almost a quarter of Britain's electricity.
EDF, mainly owned by the French state and the operator of dozens of atomic plants in its home territory, revealed last week that the cost of constructing the new power station in Normandy had almost doubled since its original budget. The building work has been hit by problems including accidents and the need for changes in the plant's construction after the explosion at the Fukushima plant in Japan, which was hit by the tsunami in March. It is now running four years behind schedule.
Vincent de Rivaz, the chief executive of EDF in Britain, has admitted the schedule for opening new plants in the UK by 2018 is slipping but denies this is a delay. He says the company is just a "taking stock".
The nuclear industry has a poor record of cost-overruns, once tracked in a study by Paul Brown, a visiting fellow at Cambridge university, and published under the title Voodoo Economics.
Evolution Securities expects Centrica to show a slight dip in overall group operating profits to about £1.3bn, with its residential business showing profits down by almost half from £585m. Athanasiou says that without the 18% and 16% rises in gas and electricity prices announced recently, the company would have seen British Gas Residential Energy fall into a small loss.
But that will do little to assuage consumer groups, who have been calling for widespread competition investigations into the actions of the big six power suppliers, which include British Gas, Scottish and Southern Energy and EDF.
The energy and climate change select committee will unveil a report on Monday calling for widespread action by the regulator, Ofgem, to ensure abuses are curbed. The committee is concerned that customers may be pressured into switching supplier on the doorstep when confronted with an array of complex tariffs and a hard sell. Figures from Ofgem suggest that up to 40% of consumers who switch do not end up with a better deal.
Tim Yeo, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee, said on Sunday: "There is mounting concern in parliament about the doorstep selling techniques of large energy companies. If it turns out that consumers are being persuaded to switch contracts when it's not in their best interests, by salespeople keen to earn commission, then it would only be right for the energy companies to cough up compensation."
Richard Lloyd, executive director at the consumer group Which?, said: "People should be guaranteed the rate they sign up to and the right to get out of mis-sold tariffs. Where things do go wrong, they should get compensation or the difference back."
Corporate results this week will reveal that the motorist's loss is the oil industry's gain as energy groups BP and Royal Dutch Shell prepare to report significant profits. Shell is expected to record a 43% surge in second-quarter profits to $6.7bn (£4bn) on Thursday, while on Tuesday BP is forecast to record a profit of $5.7bn for the three months to June. BP's figures for the same period last year were blighted by the Deepwater Horizon disaster which forced the group into a $17bn loss. Both groups have benefited from an oil price that has averaged more than $100 a barrel over the quarter, lifting petrol prices about 16% higher than last year. Last week a litre of unleaded petrol cost an average 135.8p. A spokesman for the AA said: "Drivers will find it difficult to reconcile their predicament, with pump prices becoming unaffordable, with the big profits that oil companies are making."
BP, mainstay of the FTSE 100 index, can at least argue that pension funds gain from its higher share price. BP stock has risen more than 50% since the Deepwater nadir. Airline passengers have had more shelter from the effect of high oil prices thanks to cut-throat competition between airlines. Nonetheless, fares have risen by about 5% in Europe this year, with business class passengers, deemed less sensitive to price hikes, on the receiving end of double-digit increases.
• MPs aim to curb doorstep sales by energy companies
Terry Macalister
The Guardian, Monday 25 July 2011
Centrica is being urged by the City to withdraw from a £4bn commitment to build new nuclear power stations in partnership with Electricité de France (EDF) amid soaring costs and delays at a prototype reactor at Flamanville in France.
The call comes days before the company will reignite the row over high domestic energy prices by reporting six-monthly operating profits at its British Gas Residential Energy division of £300m even before its latest price rises.
Meanwhile, a House of Commons report out on Monday demands that energy companies found guilty of mis-selling their products on the doorstep and elsewhere should pay compensation.
Centrica should "not touch with a barge pole" the new nuclear build (NNB) joint venture with EDF to build four new plants in Britain, argues Lakis Athanasiou, utilities analyst with Evolution Securities.
"Centrica is a minority holder in a technology in which it has no institutional understanding, and where, as emphasised by Flamanville, construction risk is notorious. Centrica should not progress new nuclear further, particularly if [the] government is unwilling to take construction risk," he says.
The Evolution view reinforces concerns expressed by other investment specialists such as Citigroup, which has previously questioned the economics of building new nuclear plants. It is a blow to EDF and the government, which are both keen to see ageing power stations replaced from a source that used to provide almost a quarter of Britain's electricity.
EDF, mainly owned by the French state and the operator of dozens of atomic plants in its home territory, revealed last week that the cost of constructing the new power station in Normandy had almost doubled since its original budget. The building work has been hit by problems including accidents and the need for changes in the plant's construction after the explosion at the Fukushima plant in Japan, which was hit by the tsunami in March. It is now running four years behind schedule.
Vincent de Rivaz, the chief executive of EDF in Britain, has admitted the schedule for opening new plants in the UK by 2018 is slipping but denies this is a delay. He says the company is just a "taking stock".
The nuclear industry has a poor record of cost-overruns, once tracked in a study by Paul Brown, a visiting fellow at Cambridge university, and published under the title Voodoo Economics.
Evolution Securities expects Centrica to show a slight dip in overall group operating profits to about £1.3bn, with its residential business showing profits down by almost half from £585m. Athanasiou says that without the 18% and 16% rises in gas and electricity prices announced recently, the company would have seen British Gas Residential Energy fall into a small loss.
But that will do little to assuage consumer groups, who have been calling for widespread competition investigations into the actions of the big six power suppliers, which include British Gas, Scottish and Southern Energy and EDF.
The energy and climate change select committee will unveil a report on Monday calling for widespread action by the regulator, Ofgem, to ensure abuses are curbed. The committee is concerned that customers may be pressured into switching supplier on the doorstep when confronted with an array of complex tariffs and a hard sell. Figures from Ofgem suggest that up to 40% of consumers who switch do not end up with a better deal.
Tim Yeo, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee, said on Sunday: "There is mounting concern in parliament about the doorstep selling techniques of large energy companies. If it turns out that consumers are being persuaded to switch contracts when it's not in their best interests, by salespeople keen to earn commission, then it would only be right for the energy companies to cough up compensation."
Richard Lloyd, executive director at the consumer group Which?, said: "People should be guaranteed the rate they sign up to and the right to get out of mis-sold tariffs. Where things do go wrong, they should get compensation or the difference back."
Corporate results this week will reveal that the motorist's loss is the oil industry's gain as energy groups BP and Royal Dutch Shell prepare to report significant profits. Shell is expected to record a 43% surge in second-quarter profits to $6.7bn (£4bn) on Thursday, while on Tuesday BP is forecast to record a profit of $5.7bn for the three months to June. BP's figures for the same period last year were blighted by the Deepwater Horizon disaster which forced the group into a $17bn loss. Both groups have benefited from an oil price that has averaged more than $100 a barrel over the quarter, lifting petrol prices about 16% higher than last year. Last week a litre of unleaded petrol cost an average 135.8p. A spokesman for the AA said: "Drivers will find it difficult to reconcile their predicament, with pump prices becoming unaffordable, with the big profits that oil companies are making."
BP, mainstay of the FTSE 100 index, can at least argue that pension funds gain from its higher share price. BP stock has risen more than 50% since the Deepwater nadir. Airline passengers have had more shelter from the effect of high oil prices thanks to cut-throat competition between airlines. Nonetheless, fares have risen by about 5% in Europe this year, with business class passengers, deemed less sensitive to price hikes, on the receiving end of double-digit increases.
Michael Bloomberg got New Yorkers to quit smoking. Can he shut down coal?
The New York mayor is using a $50m gift to the Sierra Club to make the case against coal on public health grounds
He got New Yorkers to stop smoking and give up trans fats. Now maybe he can convince Americans to see coal as a danger to public health – at least Michael Bloomberg says that is the idea behind his $50m (£31m) gift to the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign.
What it's not about is making an argument based on climate change.
"If you don't survive today, you are not going to be around for tomorrow," he told me on Thursday, soon after announcing the gift from his philanthropic foundation.
"I don't think there is any question that we are doing damage to the global environment but that gets you into an argument that is not necessary, and that the public has trouble thinking about," he said.
Bloomberg has proven his commitment to environmental causes. As mayor, he has championed bike lanes and green retrofits of office towers. As a philanthropist, he pledged $20m (£12.5m) earlier this year to help the C40 global mayors group which is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 40 cities around the world.
But like other leaders on the environment since the rise of the Tea Party he is strategically avoiding mention of climate change. In Bloomberg's case, he argues distant threats are not great motivators.
The effects of air pollution from coal burning plants are evident now, and they are simpler to explain. Soot particles trigger asthma attacks and cause breathing problems; mercury can cause neurological defects, the mayor said.
"This is not science saying what is going to happen years from now as the oceans rise and the planet warms," he said. "This is: this year we are going to kill another 13,000 Americans."
So what are the chances of actually meeting the Bloomberg and Sierra Club goal of shutting down about 30% of America's coal plants?
Pretty good, actually.
It's worth remembering, nine years on, that Bloomberg's push to ban smoking in bars was controversial at the time.
"When we passed the smoking ban in New York City I was told that nobody from England or Ireland was ever going to come to be a tourist in New York again, and that everybody would leave New York to eat and drink, and that it would be a disaster for the food and drink industry," Bloomberg said. "But the truth of the matter is, every country in Western Europe followed our lead."
His anti-smoking effort also proved effective, bringing down smoking rates in New York even as they stayed stubbornly steady in the rest of the country.
About one in five (21.6%) of New Yorkers were smokers when the ban went into effect in 2002. The figure fell to 15.8% in 2009 and the city is hoping its combination of smoking laws, high cigarette taxes, nicotine patch giveaways will bring that number down to 12% or about one in eight New Yorkers by 2012.
Now here is the base line for coal.
Coal still supplies nearly half of America's electricity. The latest forecast from the Energy Information Administration suggest it will continue to supply 43% of electricity even in 2035.
But - new construction of coal plants is at a standstill. More than 150 planned coal power plants have been abandoned or blocked in the last decade, according to the Sierra Club.
About 10% of the 600 or so existing coal plants are scheduled to be retired, and the Environmental Protection Agency is finally rolling out new regulations that will force coal plants to install new, cleaner burning technologies, or shut down.
Which is where Bloomberg and the Sierra Club come in. Bloomberg hopes the scale of his gift, and the high-visibility launch of the campaign on a boat in the Potomac, will set the same example as New York did in changing minds on coal.
He is not trying to get the White House or Congress to act. In choosing the Sierra Club, the largest membership-based environmental group in the US, Bloomberg put his money on grassroots organising.
The campaign will use the courts to enforce existing environmental regulations, and hopefully shut down the oldest and dirtiest plants.
They will also push state governments to adopt renewable energy standards that require power companies to generate a portion of their electricity from wind or solar.
And they will try to further mobilise public opinion against the destructive practice of mountaintop mining removal. Opposition to coal is growing.
Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute has been arguing for a number of years now that opposition to coal has reached critical mass.
"What began as a few local ripples of resistance quickly evolved into a national tidal wave of grassroots opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations," Brown writes. "Closing coal plants in the United States may be much easier than it appears."
Maybe, it just needs a mayor on a mission to push coal over the edge.
He got New Yorkers to stop smoking and give up trans fats. Now maybe he can convince Americans to see coal as a danger to public health – at least Michael Bloomberg says that is the idea behind his $50m (£31m) gift to the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign.
What it's not about is making an argument based on climate change.
"If you don't survive today, you are not going to be around for tomorrow," he told me on Thursday, soon after announcing the gift from his philanthropic foundation.
"I don't think there is any question that we are doing damage to the global environment but that gets you into an argument that is not necessary, and that the public has trouble thinking about," he said.
Bloomberg has proven his commitment to environmental causes. As mayor, he has championed bike lanes and green retrofits of office towers. As a philanthropist, he pledged $20m (£12.5m) earlier this year to help the C40 global mayors group which is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 40 cities around the world.
But like other leaders on the environment since the rise of the Tea Party he is strategically avoiding mention of climate change. In Bloomberg's case, he argues distant threats are not great motivators.
The effects of air pollution from coal burning plants are evident now, and they are simpler to explain. Soot particles trigger asthma attacks and cause breathing problems; mercury can cause neurological defects, the mayor said.
"This is not science saying what is going to happen years from now as the oceans rise and the planet warms," he said. "This is: this year we are going to kill another 13,000 Americans."
So what are the chances of actually meeting the Bloomberg and Sierra Club goal of shutting down about 30% of America's coal plants?
Pretty good, actually.
It's worth remembering, nine years on, that Bloomberg's push to ban smoking in bars was controversial at the time.
"When we passed the smoking ban in New York City I was told that nobody from England or Ireland was ever going to come to be a tourist in New York again, and that everybody would leave New York to eat and drink, and that it would be a disaster for the food and drink industry," Bloomberg said. "But the truth of the matter is, every country in Western Europe followed our lead."
His anti-smoking effort also proved effective, bringing down smoking rates in New York even as they stayed stubbornly steady in the rest of the country.
About one in five (21.6%) of New Yorkers were smokers when the ban went into effect in 2002. The figure fell to 15.8% in 2009 and the city is hoping its combination of smoking laws, high cigarette taxes, nicotine patch giveaways will bring that number down to 12% or about one in eight New Yorkers by 2012.
Now here is the base line for coal.
Coal still supplies nearly half of America's electricity. The latest forecast from the Energy Information Administration suggest it will continue to supply 43% of electricity even in 2035.
But - new construction of coal plants is at a standstill. More than 150 planned coal power plants have been abandoned or blocked in the last decade, according to the Sierra Club.
About 10% of the 600 or so existing coal plants are scheduled to be retired, and the Environmental Protection Agency is finally rolling out new regulations that will force coal plants to install new, cleaner burning technologies, or shut down.
Which is where Bloomberg and the Sierra Club come in. Bloomberg hopes the scale of his gift, and the high-visibility launch of the campaign on a boat in the Potomac, will set the same example as New York did in changing minds on coal.
He is not trying to get the White House or Congress to act. In choosing the Sierra Club, the largest membership-based environmental group in the US, Bloomberg put his money on grassroots organising.
The campaign will use the courts to enforce existing environmental regulations, and hopefully shut down the oldest and dirtiest plants.
They will also push state governments to adopt renewable energy standards that require power companies to generate a portion of their electricity from wind or solar.
And they will try to further mobilise public opinion against the destructive practice of mountaintop mining removal. Opposition to coal is growing.
Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute has been arguing for a number of years now that opposition to coal has reached critical mass.
"What began as a few local ripples of resistance quickly evolved into a national tidal wave of grassroots opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations," Brown writes. "Closing coal plants in the United States may be much easier than it appears."
Maybe, it just needs a mayor on a mission to push coal over the edge.
Friday, 22 July 2011
Japanese firm perfects fuel cell for homes of the future
Relaxnews
Friday, 22 July 2011
A Japanese company has perfected the technology that will store green energy in the homes of the immediate future and control where and when that power is provided to the building.
Other firms are working on similar storage and control systems for individual homes, but Japanese companies have redoubled their efforts in the wake of the massive earthquake and tsunami that devastated the northeast of the country in March and destroyed the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant.
Shorn of the energy produced at the facility, there is growing concern that major urban areas - primarily Tokyo - will experience blackouts when demand surpasses the amount that can be provided by other plants.
And with daytime temperatures that will rise above 30 degrees C as the summer begins to kick in, demand for power for air-conditioning units is already rising.
NEC Corporation has made a breakthrough with the launch of its household energy storage system, which is equipped with lithium-ion batteries and can simultaneously control electrical power throughout the home.
The first 100 units of this industry first will be made available to home construction companies and businesses from July 18, NEC said.
The system automatically controls power to the building by connecting to the distribution panel and enabling interactive coordination with the power supplied by a commercial energy company and the home's electrical devices, its solar power systems and other equipment.
"This interactivity enables the system to store power during nighttime hours, when power consumption is low, then to use the stored power during afternoon hours, when power consumption reaches its peak," NEC said.
"This reduces both the demand on power companies as well as household electricity charges.
"Recently, in consideration of the supply and demand conditions for electricity during summer in Japan, initiatives to shift the peak afternoon power consumption time and reduce the overall volume of power consumption are steadily advancing.
"Furthermore, households have become increasingly aware of the importance of access to electricity for essential needs in the event of an emergency or blackout, in addition to the necessity of power conservation," it said.
Panasonic Corp. is working on similar technology and operates a model home of the future in Tokyo where it showcases cutting-edge technology that will make homes in the future greener and more energy efficient.
The model home incorporates solar panels, pipes that carry hot water beneath the floor in the winter and cool water in the summer and reduced-energy lighting.
Until now, however, the largest obstacle to such systems being introduced on a large scale to homes has been the lack of a reliable storage system for the energy that is generated, a problem that NEC appears to have overcome.
How energy use by UK households has risen 18% in 40 years
More heating and appliances have driven up our household consumption of electricity and gas by 18% between 1970 and 2009, official figures show
Despite greener new build homes, and successive attempts by governments to make people insulate their households and turn down the thermometer, energy use by households has risen by nearly a fifth in the past 40 years. Domestic energy use is up from 37m tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) in 1970 to 44 mtoe in 2009, an increase of 18%.
Population growth and demographics are part of the story. Energy use per household has actually gone down slightly, while energy use per person has gone up, partly because of the rise in one-person households over the last few decades.
Another part of the cause, as the table below shows, is split evenly between our increased used of space heating and our increased appetite and use of appliances and lighting.
In 1970, few UK homes would have had a dishwasher and the array of computing and communications gadgets we use today, while the single pendant bulb in a room of old has, in many households, become a rack or set of recessed halogen spotlights. People also warmed their homes to a lower temperature 40 years ago - 14C in 1971 to 17C in 2008.
Interesting, the briefing from the Office of National Statistics accompanying this data notes that the overall rise comes despite a 32.7% rise in the number of households with loft insulation between 1976 and 2008, and double glazing up 31.2% between 1976 and 2007.
The government's flagship environment policy, the "green deal" to improve the energy efficiency of UK households, has never looked more necessary.
Despite greener new build homes, and successive attempts by governments to make people insulate their households and turn down the thermometer, energy use by households has risen by nearly a fifth in the past 40 years. Domestic energy use is up from 37m tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) in 1970 to 44 mtoe in 2009, an increase of 18%.
Population growth and demographics are part of the story. Energy use per household has actually gone down slightly, while energy use per person has gone up, partly because of the rise in one-person households over the last few decades.
Another part of the cause, as the table below shows, is split evenly between our increased used of space heating and our increased appetite and use of appliances and lighting.
In 1970, few UK homes would have had a dishwasher and the array of computing and communications gadgets we use today, while the single pendant bulb in a room of old has, in many households, become a rack or set of recessed halogen spotlights. People also warmed their homes to a lower temperature 40 years ago - 14C in 1971 to 17C in 2008.
Interesting, the briefing from the Office of National Statistics accompanying this data notes that the overall rise comes despite a 32.7% rise in the number of households with loft insulation between 1976 and 2008, and double glazing up 31.2% between 1976 and 2007.
The government's flagship environment policy, the "green deal" to improve the energy efficiency of UK households, has never looked more necessary.
Black-cab drivers encouraged to become green ambassadors
The Smarter Cab Drivers study has led London cabbies to cut fuel consumption by 12% in the first two weeks
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 11.38 BST
London cabbies are being given fancy silk purses, feedback "guest books" and a bleeper to stop them revving their engines too much in a move to turn them into green ambassadors to fight climate change.
The Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts (RSA) has helped establish an ambitious and unusual trial which has already encouraged taxi drivers to cut fuel consumption by 12% in the first two weeks.
The silk purses are meant to remind cabbies to drive "smoothly" while the guest books are to assess their driving style and trigger debate with passengers about the advantages to the purse and planet by saving fuel, says the RSA.
The "spring-o-meter" is a dashboard-mounted device that wobbles, and sounds a beep if the cabbie brakes too harshly or accelerates too aggressively, according to Jamie Young, a Royal Society researcher on the project.
"We chose cabbies on purpose because they are stereoyped by critics as cynical and set in their ways and so are a relatively difficult group to influence and who tend to think the high cost of fuel just comes with the job," he said.
"But they are also informal opinion formers because they come in contact with a large number of people so they can influence others ... We are keen to extend these trials outwards and yes, 'white-van man' could come next," Young added.
The RSA, which is undertaking the Smarter Cab Drivers study along with oil company Shell, says it expects savings of 15% by the time the nationwide study of taxi drivers is wound up in another two weeks.
If continued over the course of a year, taxi drivers could each be in line to save £600 a year, or the equivalent of 200kg of carbon, in the case of a new diesel car, the Royal Society claims.
Young says there could be a huge impact on Britain's overall C02 emissions if all the country's drivers could be encouraged to take the relatively simple step of driving differently.
"We're pleased to see our Smarter Cab Drivers doing so well as they they bid to improve their driving behaviour, and we hope that this campaign can show everyone how quickly you can become a smarter, more fuel-efficient driver - and save money in the process," he said.
The silk purses and other specially-designed "nudges" are considered more effective that just endless verbal or written messages to slow down and drive more carefully.
The RSA and Shell have talked at length to taxi drivers about what motivates them. One typical response from an unnamed cabby was this: "We all know how to drive fuel-efficiently ... I would happily drive along the Broadway at 40mph so long as cabs didn't overtake me at 60mph so that I'm 20 places back in the queue at the airport."
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 11.38 BST
London cabbies are being given fancy silk purses, feedback "guest books" and a bleeper to stop them revving their engines too much in a move to turn them into green ambassadors to fight climate change.
The Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts (RSA) has helped establish an ambitious and unusual trial which has already encouraged taxi drivers to cut fuel consumption by 12% in the first two weeks.
The silk purses are meant to remind cabbies to drive "smoothly" while the guest books are to assess their driving style and trigger debate with passengers about the advantages to the purse and planet by saving fuel, says the RSA.
The "spring-o-meter" is a dashboard-mounted device that wobbles, and sounds a beep if the cabbie brakes too harshly or accelerates too aggressively, according to Jamie Young, a Royal Society researcher on the project.
"We chose cabbies on purpose because they are stereoyped by critics as cynical and set in their ways and so are a relatively difficult group to influence and who tend to think the high cost of fuel just comes with the job," he said.
"But they are also informal opinion formers because they come in contact with a large number of people so they can influence others ... We are keen to extend these trials outwards and yes, 'white-van man' could come next," Young added.
The RSA, which is undertaking the Smarter Cab Drivers study along with oil company Shell, says it expects savings of 15% by the time the nationwide study of taxi drivers is wound up in another two weeks.
If continued over the course of a year, taxi drivers could each be in line to save £600 a year, or the equivalent of 200kg of carbon, in the case of a new diesel car, the Royal Society claims.
Young says there could be a huge impact on Britain's overall C02 emissions if all the country's drivers could be encouraged to take the relatively simple step of driving differently.
"We're pleased to see our Smarter Cab Drivers doing so well as they they bid to improve their driving behaviour, and we hope that this campaign can show everyone how quickly you can become a smarter, more fuel-efficient driver - and save money in the process," he said.
The silk purses and other specially-designed "nudges" are considered more effective that just endless verbal or written messages to slow down and drive more carefully.
The RSA and Shell have talked at length to taxi drivers about what motivates them. One typical response from an unnamed cabby was this: "We all know how to drive fuel-efficiently ... I would happily drive along the Broadway at 40mph so long as cabs didn't overtake me at 60mph so that I'm 20 places back in the queue at the airport."
Michael Bloomberg gives $50m to Sierra Club's anti-coal campaign
Organisation says donation by New York's environmentally friendly mayor is a 'game changer' for its Beyond Coal initiative
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 16.05 BST
The environmentally friendly New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, made his largest ever gift to the green cause on Thursday, giving $50m(£31m) to a campaign to shut down America's coal-burning power plants.
The sheer scale of the gift, to the Sierra Club, promises to transform the organisation's Beyond Coal campaign.
But it still falls short of the sums the Koch family has dispensed to defend oil and coal interests. According to Greenpeace, the billionaire oil brothers have donated $55m to the climate change scepticism cause.
America gets nearly half of its electricity from coal. The campaign aims to cut production by 30% by 2020, through shutting down the oldest and dirtiest plants and stopping the highly destructive process of mountain-top mining.
The Sierra Club claims to have already stopped the construction of more than 150 new plants.
With Bloomberg on side, it can put more coal plants in its sights.
The donation will account for one-third of the campaign's $150m budget over the next four years.
The Sierra Club called it a game changer, enabling the organisation to double its staff to 200, and to expand the anti-coal campaign from 15 to 46 states.
New campaign posters, with pictures of children as "filters" for coal pollution, went up throughout Washington Metro stations this week.
Since the collapse of efforts to get a climate change law through Congress, a number of US environmental organisations, such as Sierra Club and Greenpeace, have devoted more resources to the fight against coal.
The Sierra Club realised it needed more resources, however. Given Bloomberg's track record as New York mayor, where he has pushed to green the city's taxi fleet, the organisation decided to approach his charitable foundation for support.
For Bloomberg, the anti-coal campaign is a chance to step in where Congress has failed to act.
He said in a statement: "If we are going to get serious about reducing our carbon footprint in the United States, we have to get serious about coal. Ending coal power production is the right thing to do, because while it may seem to be an inexpensive energy source the impact on our environment and the impact on public health is significant."
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 16.05 BST
The environmentally friendly New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, made his largest ever gift to the green cause on Thursday, giving $50m(£31m) to a campaign to shut down America's coal-burning power plants.
The sheer scale of the gift, to the Sierra Club, promises to transform the organisation's Beyond Coal campaign.
But it still falls short of the sums the Koch family has dispensed to defend oil and coal interests. According to Greenpeace, the billionaire oil brothers have donated $55m to the climate change scepticism cause.
America gets nearly half of its electricity from coal. The campaign aims to cut production by 30% by 2020, through shutting down the oldest and dirtiest plants and stopping the highly destructive process of mountain-top mining.
The Sierra Club claims to have already stopped the construction of more than 150 new plants.
With Bloomberg on side, it can put more coal plants in its sights.
The donation will account for one-third of the campaign's $150m budget over the next four years.
The Sierra Club called it a game changer, enabling the organisation to double its staff to 200, and to expand the anti-coal campaign from 15 to 46 states.
New campaign posters, with pictures of children as "filters" for coal pollution, went up throughout Washington Metro stations this week.
Since the collapse of efforts to get a climate change law through Congress, a number of US environmental organisations, such as Sierra Club and Greenpeace, have devoted more resources to the fight against coal.
The Sierra Club realised it needed more resources, however. Given Bloomberg's track record as New York mayor, where he has pushed to green the city's taxi fleet, the organisation decided to approach his charitable foundation for support.
For Bloomberg, the anti-coal campaign is a chance to step in where Congress has failed to act.
He said in a statement: "If we are going to get serious about reducing our carbon footprint in the United States, we have to get serious about coal. Ending coal power production is the right thing to do, because while it may seem to be an inexpensive energy source the impact on our environment and the impact on public health is significant."
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Smart street-lighting provides roundabout solution
LED lights adjust to darkness in Somerset town of Keynsham aim to reduce carbon emissions and save money
Steven Morris
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 July 2011 17.59 BST
A council in south-west England has installed what it claims to be the first smart street-lighting system on a busy roundabout.
More than 70 LED lights have been installed at the junction between Bath and Bristol. Their brightness automatically adjusts depending on how dark it is but also takes into account the number of vehicles on the road at any given time.
Bath and North East Somerset council believes it is one of the first times such a system has been put into place on such a busy road. It claims the lights will reduce carbon emissions and save £4,500 a year, although there is a initial outlay of £36,000.
The Hicks Gate roundabout at Keynsham used to be illuminated by a dull yellow sodium light at night but, under the 71 LED lights, the area can become almost as bright as daylight.
Councillor Roger Symonds, cabinet member for transport, said "We understand that this is one of the first instances in the country of this type of technology being used on a major traffic route. The lights will automatically adjust brightness levels according to the time of day and also the number of vehicles on the route at different times of night.
"The end result is that Bath and North East Somerset council saves money on behalf of local taxpayers, cuts our carbon footprint and makes the route even safer because the lights illuminate the carriage much more clearly for drivers and cyclists."
The council said it and other local authorities have used LED lights in residential roads and to light footpaths, but it believes it is leading the way in setting up such a system, with the additional smart features, on a busy road.
Kelvin Packer, the council's service manager for highways and parking, said: "Depending on the outcome of this trial, there is the possibility of extending this lighting and associated benefits to other areas of the district."
Steven Morris
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 July 2011 17.59 BST
A council in south-west England has installed what it claims to be the first smart street-lighting system on a busy roundabout.
More than 70 LED lights have been installed at the junction between Bath and Bristol. Their brightness automatically adjusts depending on how dark it is but also takes into account the number of vehicles on the road at any given time.
Bath and North East Somerset council believes it is one of the first times such a system has been put into place on such a busy road. It claims the lights will reduce carbon emissions and save £4,500 a year, although there is a initial outlay of £36,000.
The Hicks Gate roundabout at Keynsham used to be illuminated by a dull yellow sodium light at night but, under the 71 LED lights, the area can become almost as bright as daylight.
Councillor Roger Symonds, cabinet member for transport, said "We understand that this is one of the first instances in the country of this type of technology being used on a major traffic route. The lights will automatically adjust brightness levels according to the time of day and also the number of vehicles on the route at different times of night.
"The end result is that Bath and North East Somerset council saves money on behalf of local taxpayers, cuts our carbon footprint and makes the route even safer because the lights illuminate the carriage much more clearly for drivers and cyclists."
The council said it and other local authorities have used LED lights in residential roads and to light footpaths, but it believes it is leading the way in setting up such a system, with the additional smart features, on a busy road.
Kelvin Packer, the council's service manager for highways and parking, said: "Depending on the outcome of this trial, there is the possibility of extending this lighting and associated benefits to other areas of the district."
The chicken and egg challenge facing electric cars
Does the electric car revolution depend on public charging points? That's the question being asked as a new recharging network is set to open
What came first, the electric car or the charging post? That's the chicken and egg question that people have been asking for years and - with most electric car batteries limited to roughly 100 mile ranges - have generally answered with the latter.
Fortunately, charging points are cropping up all over the place, from supermarkets and NCP car parks to roadsides. This Wednesday, electric car charging firm Chargemaster said that it would open a private network of 4,000 total points across 100 cities, dubbed 'POLAR', by the end of 2012. London's public network increased to 400 points last month, and will eventually be increased to 1,300 by 2013.
But despite this slow but steady progress, car-makers are increasingly back-pedalling on the importance of charging points. Most of the major electric car makers I've spoken to recently have been at pains to emphasise they don't think public charging points are important for electric car take-up. Early adopting electric car owners, they argue, will charge overnight and plan their journeys so that the spectre of 'range anxiety' - running out of charge - won't be a problem.
The motoring industry is even cannily repackaging electric cars as second cars, rather than replacements for combustion engine ones. "The majority of charges will be done overnight," said Paul Everitt, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, who recently told the Guardian he assumes that, for many, an electric vehicle will be a second car. "Much of the infrastructure isn't about fulfilling demand – it's about creating reassurance."
This new approach is an admission that even moderately comprehensive charging coverage is still a long way off - and companies like Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Renault have electric models they need to flog now and in the coming months.
For example, the 1,300 points in London are down from an earlier Boris Johnson promise of 7,500, and even more significantly the government made a major U-turn in June on its coalition agreement plans for a national charging network. Justifying its decision to axe the planned network, the DfT said people don't want or need them. The charging points would be "under-utilised and uneconomic", it claimed, adding its research said the majority of owners would charge overnight at home. That's the opposite of what drivers and car-makers have been saying for years.
The reason for canning the charging network is simple: saving government money. Even with private-public partnerships, the cost of the points is not insiginificant - manufacturer Elektromotive tells me a typical kerbside charging point costs between £4,000-5000 to install. Elektromotive's polling, as you might expect, also contradicts the government research: two thirds of people say kerbside charging points would make them more likely to buy an electric car.
The government's decision also ignores the fact that electric cars make the most sense - both in terms of journey types and air pollution - in cities. And, aside from the most affluent and suburban city dwellers, most drivers in cities need kerbside charging points to avoid trailing wires over pavements.
Sure, battery technology is coming along and may one day make public charging points redundant. The Tesla Model S coming to the UK next year will have a range of 160 miles or more, depending on the version you buy. But it'll cost north of £40,000.
Even with new models arriving and predictions of a breakthrough year in 2011, electric car sales are also going slowly in the UK. With just a few hundred cars sold this year, and less than a thousand charging points nationwide, it seems clear we're going to need both more chickens and more eggs.
What came first, the electric car or the charging post? That's the chicken and egg question that people have been asking for years and - with most electric car batteries limited to roughly 100 mile ranges - have generally answered with the latter.
Fortunately, charging points are cropping up all over the place, from supermarkets and NCP car parks to roadsides. This Wednesday, electric car charging firm Chargemaster said that it would open a private network of 4,000 total points across 100 cities, dubbed 'POLAR', by the end of 2012. London's public network increased to 400 points last month, and will eventually be increased to 1,300 by 2013.
But despite this slow but steady progress, car-makers are increasingly back-pedalling on the importance of charging points. Most of the major electric car makers I've spoken to recently have been at pains to emphasise they don't think public charging points are important for electric car take-up. Early adopting electric car owners, they argue, will charge overnight and plan their journeys so that the spectre of 'range anxiety' - running out of charge - won't be a problem.
The motoring industry is even cannily repackaging electric cars as second cars, rather than replacements for combustion engine ones. "The majority of charges will be done overnight," said Paul Everitt, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, who recently told the Guardian he assumes that, for many, an electric vehicle will be a second car. "Much of the infrastructure isn't about fulfilling demand – it's about creating reassurance."
This new approach is an admission that even moderately comprehensive charging coverage is still a long way off - and companies like Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Renault have electric models they need to flog now and in the coming months.
For example, the 1,300 points in London are down from an earlier Boris Johnson promise of 7,500, and even more significantly the government made a major U-turn in June on its coalition agreement plans for a national charging network. Justifying its decision to axe the planned network, the DfT said people don't want or need them. The charging points would be "under-utilised and uneconomic", it claimed, adding its research said the majority of owners would charge overnight at home. That's the opposite of what drivers and car-makers have been saying for years.
The reason for canning the charging network is simple: saving government money. Even with private-public partnerships, the cost of the points is not insiginificant - manufacturer Elektromotive tells me a typical kerbside charging point costs between £4,000-5000 to install. Elektromotive's polling, as you might expect, also contradicts the government research: two thirds of people say kerbside charging points would make them more likely to buy an electric car.
The government's decision also ignores the fact that electric cars make the most sense - both in terms of journey types and air pollution - in cities. And, aside from the most affluent and suburban city dwellers, most drivers in cities need kerbside charging points to avoid trailing wires over pavements.
Sure, battery technology is coming along and may one day make public charging points redundant. The Tesla Model S coming to the UK next year will have a range of 160 miles or more, depending on the version you buy. But it'll cost north of £40,000.
Even with new models arriving and predictions of a breakthrough year in 2011, electric car sales are also going slowly in the UK. With just a few hundred cars sold this year, and less than a thousand charging points nationwide, it seems clear we're going to need both more chickens and more eggs.
Renewable energy heating grants available for UK households
Homeowners will soon be able to apply for government vouchers as part of a £15m scheme to provide funding for 25,000 homes
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 06.00 BST
Households will be able to apply for substantial grants towards the cost of renewable heating systems, worth up to £1,250 for the biggest installations, starting from August 1.
Biomass boilers burning wood pellets, solar thermal panels for hot water heating, and both air and ground source heat pumps can all be installed with the grants, taking the form of government vouchers. The £15m scheme is part of the ministers' renewable heat support plans, and will provide funding for up to 25,000 households.
The households to be targeted are the 4m in England, Wales and Scotland not already heated by mains gas, and who therefore tend to use heating oil or electric fires to heat their homes, both of which tend to be more expensive and can lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions. However, Northern Ireland – where 70% of households use heating oil – is not included in the plans.
The grants will be set at £1,250 for a ground source heat pump; £950 for a biomass boiler; £850 for an air source heat pump; and £300 for solar thermal water heaters. On average, this should work out at about 10% of the total cost of the equipment and installation.
Greg Barker, climate change minister, said: "We're making it more economical for people to go green by providing discounts on the cost of eco heaters. This should be great news for people who are reliant on expensive oil or electric heating as the premium payment scheme is really aimed at them. Getting money off an eco heater will not just cut carbon emissions, it will also help create a market in developing, selling and installing kit like solar thermal panels or heat pumps."
Applications must be made through the government-funded Energy Saving Trust, and only households that have already put in place basic energy efficiency measures will be eligible.
Landlords will also be encouraged to access the grants to improve their housing stock, with £3m of the £15m on offer set aside for them.
Philip Sellwood, chief executive of the Energy Saving Trust, said research undertaken by the organisation had shown people valued having renewable heating installed. He said: "When people have the kit in their homes they really see the benefit. The main barrier that prevents people from taking the plunge is the up-front capital cost. This is a great start in overcoming this obstacle."
Once households have installed the renewable heating equipment, they may also receive further subsidy payments through the £860m renewable heat incentive when it is introduced next October, though this will depend on the detail of the scheme.
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 06.00 BST
Households will be able to apply for substantial grants towards the cost of renewable heating systems, worth up to £1,250 for the biggest installations, starting from August 1.
Biomass boilers burning wood pellets, solar thermal panels for hot water heating, and both air and ground source heat pumps can all be installed with the grants, taking the form of government vouchers. The £15m scheme is part of the ministers' renewable heat support plans, and will provide funding for up to 25,000 households.
The households to be targeted are the 4m in England, Wales and Scotland not already heated by mains gas, and who therefore tend to use heating oil or electric fires to heat their homes, both of which tend to be more expensive and can lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions. However, Northern Ireland – where 70% of households use heating oil – is not included in the plans.
The grants will be set at £1,250 for a ground source heat pump; £950 for a biomass boiler; £850 for an air source heat pump; and £300 for solar thermal water heaters. On average, this should work out at about 10% of the total cost of the equipment and installation.
Greg Barker, climate change minister, said: "We're making it more economical for people to go green by providing discounts on the cost of eco heaters. This should be great news for people who are reliant on expensive oil or electric heating as the premium payment scheme is really aimed at them. Getting money off an eco heater will not just cut carbon emissions, it will also help create a market in developing, selling and installing kit like solar thermal panels or heat pumps."
Applications must be made through the government-funded Energy Saving Trust, and only households that have already put in place basic energy efficiency measures will be eligible.
Landlords will also be encouraged to access the grants to improve their housing stock, with £3m of the £15m on offer set aside for them.
Philip Sellwood, chief executive of the Energy Saving Trust, said research undertaken by the organisation had shown people valued having renewable heating installed. He said: "When people have the kit in their homes they really see the benefit. The main barrier that prevents people from taking the plunge is the up-front capital cost. This is a great start in overcoming this obstacle."
Once households have installed the renewable heating equipment, they may also receive further subsidy payments through the £860m renewable heat incentive when it is introduced next October, though this will depend on the detail of the scheme.
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Which? report highlights money-saving eco products 'you should avoid'
Consumer group identifies 10 products, including a voltage optimisation device and an eco shower head, that it thinks might not be the best ways to save money
Rebecca Smithers, consumer affairs correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 July 2011 07.15 BST
With energy prices on the rise consumers may well be tempted by dozens of so-called eco products which claim to slash their energy, heating or water bills.
But an investigation by Which? magazine has identified 10 products which the consumer group claims might not offer worthwhile savings, including one they say could actually increase your energy use.
Some of the products went to the Which? laboratory for testing, while others went to a user panel for assessment. During the tests researchers found that one product actually did the opposite of what it claimed to do.
The investigation, 10 Eco Products You Don't Need, is published in the August issue of Which? later this week. By avoiding the products, it says, consumers will avoid wasting up to £535.
The most expensive product is a £300 VPhase voltage optimisation device, which claims to cut about 10% from your annual electricity bill by dropping the voltage in your home to 220V. Which? said it was "pricey and will take a long time to pay for itself".
Another voltage optimisation device, the Ecotek Energy Wizard, plugs into any socket in the home and also claims to cut up to 10% off your electricity bill (a saving of £60 on average). Which? said it was not worth spending £25 on it as: "Our lab test showed it didn't reduce the power used, and actually increased it when it was linked to a plasma TV, a hi-fi or an energy-saving light bulb."
The Mira Eco Shower Head, which costs £35, was another product highlighted by Which?. One user who didn't have high water pressure found that the water-saving shower head only provided a disappointing trickle of water. Which? said there were cheaper ways to save water, including spending less time in the shower and manually reducing the flow of the shower by not using it at the maximum setting.
An £8 window insulation kit from Stormguard, which claims to help reduce heat loss and provide "an economical alternative to double glazing" in the form of a transparent film was also on the list.
It said: "Our lab test found that the film made minimal difference … The film may need to be re-stretched periodically (with a hairdryer) which can be inconvenient. It can easily tear and you would have to buy a new pack if it did."
Which? also offered some alternatives. For example, it said the most cost-effective way to save heat was to stop it escaping in the first place by installing effective loft and wall insulation, which can even be installed free if you are in a priority group.
Vphase disputed the findings and defended its green claims. Head of marketing Matthew Cody said: "We can fully substantiate all our claims. The technology itself is proven to work and commercial versions are in use throughout the UK, used by companies such as Tesco, Asda, the NHS and DECC. The VPhase device is a domestic version of this technology, based on exactly the same principles."
Which? energy expert Syvia Baron said: "For the product to truly make a difference in terms of carbon savings, it will need to save more carbon when in use than it consumes during its production and disposal. And this is quite complicated to work out.
"As a general rule, if you buy an eco product and don't use it much, it is likely that you will have contributed to more carbon being burned than saved."
The 10 Eco Products Which? says consumers don't need
1. Freeloader Classic £40
2. Vphase Voltage Optimisation Device £300
3 + 4. Disposable Battery Chargers – Battery Wizard Deluxe and Battery Charger for Alkaline Disposable Batteries £30-£35
5. Ecotek Energy Wizard £25
6. Treegreen Energyegg £40
7. Standby Saver £17
8. Mira Eco Shower Head £35
9. Nordic Galant Shower Head £40
10. Window Insulation Kit £8
Rebecca Smithers, consumer affairs correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 July 2011 07.15 BST
With energy prices on the rise consumers may well be tempted by dozens of so-called eco products which claim to slash their energy, heating or water bills.
But an investigation by Which? magazine has identified 10 products which the consumer group claims might not offer worthwhile savings, including one they say could actually increase your energy use.
Some of the products went to the Which? laboratory for testing, while others went to a user panel for assessment. During the tests researchers found that one product actually did the opposite of what it claimed to do.
The investigation, 10 Eco Products You Don't Need, is published in the August issue of Which? later this week. By avoiding the products, it says, consumers will avoid wasting up to £535.
The most expensive product is a £300 VPhase voltage optimisation device, which claims to cut about 10% from your annual electricity bill by dropping the voltage in your home to 220V. Which? said it was "pricey and will take a long time to pay for itself".
Another voltage optimisation device, the Ecotek Energy Wizard, plugs into any socket in the home and also claims to cut up to 10% off your electricity bill (a saving of £60 on average). Which? said it was not worth spending £25 on it as: "Our lab test showed it didn't reduce the power used, and actually increased it when it was linked to a plasma TV, a hi-fi or an energy-saving light bulb."
The Mira Eco Shower Head, which costs £35, was another product highlighted by Which?. One user who didn't have high water pressure found that the water-saving shower head only provided a disappointing trickle of water. Which? said there were cheaper ways to save water, including spending less time in the shower and manually reducing the flow of the shower by not using it at the maximum setting.
An £8 window insulation kit from Stormguard, which claims to help reduce heat loss and provide "an economical alternative to double glazing" in the form of a transparent film was also on the list.
It said: "Our lab test found that the film made minimal difference … The film may need to be re-stretched periodically (with a hairdryer) which can be inconvenient. It can easily tear and you would have to buy a new pack if it did."
Which? also offered some alternatives. For example, it said the most cost-effective way to save heat was to stop it escaping in the first place by installing effective loft and wall insulation, which can even be installed free if you are in a priority group.
Vphase disputed the findings and defended its green claims. Head of marketing Matthew Cody said: "We can fully substantiate all our claims. The technology itself is proven to work and commercial versions are in use throughout the UK, used by companies such as Tesco, Asda, the NHS and DECC. The VPhase device is a domestic version of this technology, based on exactly the same principles."
Which? energy expert Syvia Baron said: "For the product to truly make a difference in terms of carbon savings, it will need to save more carbon when in use than it consumes during its production and disposal. And this is quite complicated to work out.
"As a general rule, if you buy an eco product and don't use it much, it is likely that you will have contributed to more carbon being burned than saved."
The 10 Eco Products Which? says consumers don't need
1. Freeloader Classic £40
2. Vphase Voltage Optimisation Device £300
3 + 4. Disposable Battery Chargers – Battery Wizard Deluxe and Battery Charger for Alkaline Disposable Batteries £30-£35
5. Ecotek Energy Wizard £25
6. Treegreen Energyegg £40
7. Standby Saver £17
8. Mira Eco Shower Head £35
9. Nordic Galant Shower Head £40
10. Window Insulation Kit £8
Biofuel demand in US driving higher food prices, says report
Government support for ethanol has led to an increase in corn production and a steep rise in soybean imports
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 July 2011 19.23 BST
Demand for biofuels in the US is driving this year's high food prices, a report has said. It predicts that food prices are unlikely to fall back down for another two years.
The report, produced by Purdue University economists for the Farm Foundation policy organisation, said US government support for ethanol, including subsidies, had fuelled strong demand for corn over the last five years.
A dramatic rise in Chinese imports of soybeans was also putting pressure on prices and supply, the report said.
Since 2005, a growing number of US farmers have switched to corn and soybeans from other crops. Farmers in other countries have also switched to corn but, the report said, the demand kept growing.
"In 2005, we were using about 16m acres [6.4m hectares] to supply all of the ethanol in the United States and Chinese soybean imports," Wallace Tyner, one of the authors said. It took 18.6m hectares (46.5m acres) last year, just to satisfy that demand.
The US department of agriculture reported earlier this month that US ethanol refiners were for the first time consuming more corn than livestock and poultry farmers.
It took 27% of last year's corn crop to meet the demand for corn ethanol. Only about 10% went to make ethanol in 2005, Tyner said.
The Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University has estimated that 40% of the US corn crop now goes to make ethanol. But Tyner said the cobs and husks of corn used to make ethanol would go on to be used for animal feed.
The other driver of rising food prices was China, which has been building up its soybean reserves since the last big global food price rises of 2008.
But the report focused strongly on a US government mandate for ethanol production and $6bn (£3.7bn) in annual subsidies for ethanol refineries. Others have also been putting the corn ethanol industry in the spotlight.
In an interview with the Financial Times, General Mills, which produces Cheerios cereal, Häagen-Dazs ice-cream and other major brands, also blamed ethanol subsidies for driving up food prices. Ken Powell the company's chief executive said the price of corn and oats was up by 30 to 40% over last year.
"We're driving up food prices unnecessarily," Ken Powell, chief executive of General Mills, said in the interview. "If corn prices go up, wheat goes up. It's all linked."
Even if US ethanol production plateaus, as the report predicts, food prices are unlikely to recede – at least within the next year – because global soybean and corn crops are now in relatively tight supply.
The authors warned there just was not enough cropland available to shift to corn and soybeans.
"We don't think these prices are going to come down in a year," said Tyner. "It's going to take at least a couple of years to see a significant reduction in price."
The report warned that US corn and soybean stocks were also dangerously low, with the department of agriculture projecting supplies at about half typical levels.
"These are scary, scary numbers," said Christopher Hurt, another author. "The cupboard is absolutely bare. We just are going to get out of this, at least on the basis of crops for this year."
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 July 2011 19.23 BST
Demand for biofuels in the US is driving this year's high food prices, a report has said. It predicts that food prices are unlikely to fall back down for another two years.
The report, produced by Purdue University economists for the Farm Foundation policy organisation, said US government support for ethanol, including subsidies, had fuelled strong demand for corn over the last five years.
A dramatic rise in Chinese imports of soybeans was also putting pressure on prices and supply, the report said.
Since 2005, a growing number of US farmers have switched to corn and soybeans from other crops. Farmers in other countries have also switched to corn but, the report said, the demand kept growing.
"In 2005, we were using about 16m acres [6.4m hectares] to supply all of the ethanol in the United States and Chinese soybean imports," Wallace Tyner, one of the authors said. It took 18.6m hectares (46.5m acres) last year, just to satisfy that demand.
The US department of agriculture reported earlier this month that US ethanol refiners were for the first time consuming more corn than livestock and poultry farmers.
It took 27% of last year's corn crop to meet the demand for corn ethanol. Only about 10% went to make ethanol in 2005, Tyner said.
The Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University has estimated that 40% of the US corn crop now goes to make ethanol. But Tyner said the cobs and husks of corn used to make ethanol would go on to be used for animal feed.
The other driver of rising food prices was China, which has been building up its soybean reserves since the last big global food price rises of 2008.
But the report focused strongly on a US government mandate for ethanol production and $6bn (£3.7bn) in annual subsidies for ethanol refineries. Others have also been putting the corn ethanol industry in the spotlight.
In an interview with the Financial Times, General Mills, which produces Cheerios cereal, Häagen-Dazs ice-cream and other major brands, also blamed ethanol subsidies for driving up food prices. Ken Powell the company's chief executive said the price of corn and oats was up by 30 to 40% over last year.
"We're driving up food prices unnecessarily," Ken Powell, chief executive of General Mills, said in the interview. "If corn prices go up, wheat goes up. It's all linked."
Even if US ethanol production plateaus, as the report predicts, food prices are unlikely to recede – at least within the next year – because global soybean and corn crops are now in relatively tight supply.
The authors warned there just was not enough cropland available to shift to corn and soybeans.
"We don't think these prices are going to come down in a year," said Tyner. "It's going to take at least a couple of years to see a significant reduction in price."
The report warned that US corn and soybean stocks were also dangerously low, with the department of agriculture projecting supplies at about half typical levels.
"These are scary, scary numbers," said Christopher Hurt, another author. "The cupboard is absolutely bare. We just are going to get out of this, at least on the basis of crops for this year."
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
China plans carbon-trading pilot scheme
AFP
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
China will introduce a pilot scheme for carbon emissions trading and gradually develop a national market as the world's largest polluter seeks to reduce emissions and save energy, state media said.
China will promote the market's development through "punitive" electricity tariffs on power-intensive industries and other new policies, Xie Zhenhua, a top climate official, was quoted by Xinhua news agency as saying on Sunday.
The report gave no timetable or other specifics on how the system would work.
However, China has said previously it hoped to introduce a pilot scheme in a handful of major cities by 2013 and expand it nationally in 2015.
Faced with severe pollution, a predicted surge in urbanisation and a struggle to ensure adequate energy supplies to fuel its rapid growth, China has outlined plans to reduce carbon emissions in its latest five-year economic plan.
Carbon trading typically involves the setting of absolute limits on how much carbon dioxide emitters such as industrial enterprises can produce.
Once those are reached they can then purchase the unused emission allowances of other parties who have come in under their limits.
Environmental analysts have said China is keen to get a functioning carbon trading market up and running soon, especially with the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol looming in 2012.
China and other developing nations have not been bound by the protocol to reduce emissions of the gases blamed for global warming and climate change.
But it remains unclear what a future new protocol would call for with China under pressure to rein in emissions growth since it surpassed the United States as the world's largest greenhouse gas source in recent years.
As part of the carbon-trading push, China will promote development of green technologies and products through means such as preferential taxation policies, Xie, a vice minister with China's top economic planning agency, was quoted saying.
It also would "manage growth in energy-intensive industries", he said.
China has pledged to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent by the end of 2020 - essentially a pledge to slow emissions growth, but not a cut.
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
China will introduce a pilot scheme for carbon emissions trading and gradually develop a national market as the world's largest polluter seeks to reduce emissions and save energy, state media said.
China will promote the market's development through "punitive" electricity tariffs on power-intensive industries and other new policies, Xie Zhenhua, a top climate official, was quoted by Xinhua news agency as saying on Sunday.
The report gave no timetable or other specifics on how the system would work.
However, China has said previously it hoped to introduce a pilot scheme in a handful of major cities by 2013 and expand it nationally in 2015.
Faced with severe pollution, a predicted surge in urbanisation and a struggle to ensure adequate energy supplies to fuel its rapid growth, China has outlined plans to reduce carbon emissions in its latest five-year economic plan.
Carbon trading typically involves the setting of absolute limits on how much carbon dioxide emitters such as industrial enterprises can produce.
Once those are reached they can then purchase the unused emission allowances of other parties who have come in under their limits.
Environmental analysts have said China is keen to get a functioning carbon trading market up and running soon, especially with the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol looming in 2012.
China and other developing nations have not been bound by the protocol to reduce emissions of the gases blamed for global warming and climate change.
But it remains unclear what a future new protocol would call for with China under pressure to rein in emissions growth since it surpassed the United States as the world's largest greenhouse gas source in recent years.
As part of the carbon-trading push, China will promote development of green technologies and products through means such as preferential taxation policies, Xie, a vice minister with China's top economic planning agency, was quoted saying.
It also would "manage growth in energy-intensive industries", he said.
China has pledged to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent by the end of 2020 - essentially a pledge to slow emissions growth, but not a cut.
Labour could start a green industrial revolution
The coalition's proposed electricity market reform is radical, but Labour could go further with a green growth strategy
Michael Jacobs
guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 July 2011 15.00 BST
In the midst of Murdochgate, you'd have had to be wearing a pretty big anorak to have been excited by the government's proposals for reform of the electricity market. But this announcement has huge implications for how Britain tackles climate change, and even wider significance for the political battle over economic policy.
The problem the government needed to address was stark: how to get private-sector energy companies to invest £110bn over the next decade to replace a quarter of Britain's power stations, while cutting the nation's carbon emissions by a third, reducing dependence on imported gas and keeping energy bills low enough to prevent a consumer revolt.
It was a problem the last Labour government realised could only be addressed by fundamental reform; it's fallen to the coalition to implement it. And the results could not be more radical. The plans finally do away with the liberalised electricity market created by the Thatcher administration a quarter of a century ago.
The Tories believed that the private sector would provide, and competition would keep prices down. And for a while, in an over-supplied market, it worked. Energy prices fell and consumers and businesses enjoyed the benefits.
But that world is gone. Now, to ensure the lights are kept on, Britain's electricity industry needs a huge wave of new investment. And for reasons both of climate change and energy security, most of this has to be not in traditional fossil fuels, but in low-carbon technologies – renewables (onshore and offshore wind, biomass and solar), nuclear power and carbon capture and storage, along with major investments in transmission lines, smart grid technologies and energy efficiency to reduce demand.
The problem is that the current industry arrangements will simply not deliver this. So the government's white paper envisages a completely new kind of publicly shaped energy market. Private sector companies' investment will be guided by a series of government interventions: a minimum carbon price; contracts with energy suppliers for low-carbon energy; a regulation setting maximum emissions levels; a set of payments to ensure sufficient capacity; and a new energy efficiency obligation.
One energy company chief executive has complained that this will make him less like a businessman and more like an administrator of the government's energy plan. That's an exaggeration: the private sector will still be able to innovate to win market share and profits, and the government wants more competition to keep prices down. But Britain is definitely moving towards a much more interventionist, quasi-planned energy system.
That this should be introduced by a Tory-led government, which is elsewhere attacking and abolishing a whole series of economic regulations, is remarkable. It's a testament to the inescapable logic of tackling climate change: it cannot be done simply by minor market adjustments. Precisely for this reason, we can expect to see the plans criticised by the Tory right, whose climate scepticism is exceeded only by their attachment to free-market economic policy.
It's vital, therefore, that the coalition seeks Labour's support for its reforms. Labour has a difficult balancing act to play – rightly articulating consumers' concerns about rising prices, but broadly supportive of the new system. In fact, without Labour's agreement the reforms cannot work. Only if investors know the plans have cross-party backing, and will therefore be long term, will they provide the funds.
But Labour has a chance to go further. For the real prize is not just to install the new low-carbon energy systems, but also to make sure British-based firms become leaders in the technologies and services needed for them, so that the UK gets the maximum jobs and export benefit from the investment. In Labour's final year of office, its low-carbon industrial strategy began this process, notably in providing support for offshore wind turbine manufacturing. But there is much more to be done.
Internationally, "green growth" strategies of this kind are now gaining increasing traction, in economies as different as those of Germany, China and Korea. At a time when the British economy is desperately in search of new sources of growth, the potential for a green industrial revolution here too is huge. But this will require a much more active role for government. As Mariana Mazzucato shows in a new Demos pamphlet, almost all the technological revolutions that have spurred new waves of growth in the past have sprung from government activity. They require what she calls an "entrepreneurial state", willing to shape the technological and economic future.
An active industrial policy to stimulate green growth in this way looks like a step too far for a coalition wedded to orthodox economic theory. But it could be Labour's opportunity. Here lies the makings of an alternative economic strategy, focused on growth, skilled job creation and a revival of Britain's manufacturing sector.
Michael Jacobs
guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 July 2011 15.00 BST
In the midst of Murdochgate, you'd have had to be wearing a pretty big anorak to have been excited by the government's proposals for reform of the electricity market. But this announcement has huge implications for how Britain tackles climate change, and even wider significance for the political battle over economic policy.
The problem the government needed to address was stark: how to get private-sector energy companies to invest £110bn over the next decade to replace a quarter of Britain's power stations, while cutting the nation's carbon emissions by a third, reducing dependence on imported gas and keeping energy bills low enough to prevent a consumer revolt.
It was a problem the last Labour government realised could only be addressed by fundamental reform; it's fallen to the coalition to implement it. And the results could not be more radical. The plans finally do away with the liberalised electricity market created by the Thatcher administration a quarter of a century ago.
The Tories believed that the private sector would provide, and competition would keep prices down. And for a while, in an over-supplied market, it worked. Energy prices fell and consumers and businesses enjoyed the benefits.
But that world is gone. Now, to ensure the lights are kept on, Britain's electricity industry needs a huge wave of new investment. And for reasons both of climate change and energy security, most of this has to be not in traditional fossil fuels, but in low-carbon technologies – renewables (onshore and offshore wind, biomass and solar), nuclear power and carbon capture and storage, along with major investments in transmission lines, smart grid technologies and energy efficiency to reduce demand.
The problem is that the current industry arrangements will simply not deliver this. So the government's white paper envisages a completely new kind of publicly shaped energy market. Private sector companies' investment will be guided by a series of government interventions: a minimum carbon price; contracts with energy suppliers for low-carbon energy; a regulation setting maximum emissions levels; a set of payments to ensure sufficient capacity; and a new energy efficiency obligation.
One energy company chief executive has complained that this will make him less like a businessman and more like an administrator of the government's energy plan. That's an exaggeration: the private sector will still be able to innovate to win market share and profits, and the government wants more competition to keep prices down. But Britain is definitely moving towards a much more interventionist, quasi-planned energy system.
That this should be introduced by a Tory-led government, which is elsewhere attacking and abolishing a whole series of economic regulations, is remarkable. It's a testament to the inescapable logic of tackling climate change: it cannot be done simply by minor market adjustments. Precisely for this reason, we can expect to see the plans criticised by the Tory right, whose climate scepticism is exceeded only by their attachment to free-market economic policy.
It's vital, therefore, that the coalition seeks Labour's support for its reforms. Labour has a difficult balancing act to play – rightly articulating consumers' concerns about rising prices, but broadly supportive of the new system. In fact, without Labour's agreement the reforms cannot work. Only if investors know the plans have cross-party backing, and will therefore be long term, will they provide the funds.
But Labour has a chance to go further. For the real prize is not just to install the new low-carbon energy systems, but also to make sure British-based firms become leaders in the technologies and services needed for them, so that the UK gets the maximum jobs and export benefit from the investment. In Labour's final year of office, its low-carbon industrial strategy began this process, notably in providing support for offshore wind turbine manufacturing. But there is much more to be done.
Internationally, "green growth" strategies of this kind are now gaining increasing traction, in economies as different as those of Germany, China and Korea. At a time when the British economy is desperately in search of new sources of growth, the potential for a green industrial revolution here too is huge. But this will require a much more active role for government. As Mariana Mazzucato shows in a new Demos pamphlet, almost all the technological revolutions that have spurred new waves of growth in the past have sprung from government activity. They require what she calls an "entrepreneurial state", willing to shape the technological and economic future.
An active industrial policy to stimulate green growth in this way looks like a step too far for a coalition wedded to orthodox economic theory. But it could be Labour's opportunity. Here lies the makings of an alternative economic strategy, focused on growth, skilled job creation and a revival of Britain's manufacturing sector.
What's the best small-scale renewable heat energy system?
Price hikes mean it could be time to consider heat pumps, biomass boilers and solar hot water – if you can afford them
At a time of eye-watering energy price hikes, turning our homes into mini-power stations means we can cut bills and carbon emissions by generating a significant proportion of our heating and hot water needs ourselves.
To find out which renewable heat technology works best, the latest Ethical Consumer magazine Buyers' Guide looked at the three main options – ground source heat pumps, biomass boilers and solar hot water.
Ground source heat pumps work by tapping into the energy which is permanently present underground. A long, coiled fluid-filled pipe buried under your garden transfers this energy to a heat exchanger which then makes hot water for heating and for use around the house.
On the plus side, these systems can provide up to 80% of a household's hot water and heating needs. According to sustainable energy consultants CHB Sustainability they can typically save around £70 and 750kg of CO2 a year compared to an average condensing gas boiler.
On the down side, heat pumps cost from £9,000 to £17,000, plus burying the energy-collecting pipe in the back garden – if it's big enough – can be a massively disruptive project. We gave best buys on ethical and environmental grounds to Kensa and Master Therm.
The biggest carbon savings come from biomass boilers, which can slash annual household emissions by up to one tonne. Boilers cost around £11,000, are fridge-freezer sized and ideally have a hopper (store) attached to them allowing the feedstock to be automatically topped up.
The impressive carbon savings come from the fact that the boilers run on some form of wood, which have absorbed CO2 over their lifetime – either logs, wood chips or pellets made from compressed sawdust. Whilst CO2 is released from burning the wood, as long as new trees continue to grow in place of those used for fuel then the process is sustainable.
However there are concerns from groups such as BioFuel Watch, who claim that sustainable sources of wood are becoming increasingly difficult to find. The Biomass Energy Centre is a great source of information on this point.
Another downer is that unlike the other technologies we examined, biomass boilers could actually end up costing you £40 a year more to run compared to a typical condensing gas boiler.
Biomass boilers are also banned in Smoke Control Areas which include most urban locations. If you live outside these smoke-free zones then our Best Buys include Eco Angus and Froling.
The cheapest renewable technology we looked at are solar hot water systems, which on average cost around £4,800 to install. Households fitting this technology can expect to make modest carbon savings as well saving around £60 a year compared to a typical condensing gas boiler.
A solar collector the size of a velux window is fitted onto your roof which heats water, which in turn is fed into a hot water cylinder inside your house. Energy is saved as the warmed water only needs a small boost from a conventional boiler or immersion heater to make the water hotter.
As the cheapest and easiest technology to install, if you're looking to buy a renewable-heating system in our view the best option would be to choose a solar hot water system. Our Best Buys included: Filsol and Solartwin.
To encourage more of us to fit these renewable technologies, the government is about to launch the first round of its Renewable Heat Incentive any day now. The scheme's major caveat is that it's only open to those households which have already installed top-notch levels of insulation.
The first phase will consist of a one-off payment toward the cost of buying the kit while phase two, due to launch in October 2012, is expected to take the form of regular payments over 15 years or more for the use of the equipment.
• Simon Birch writes for Ethical Consumer Magazine
At a time of eye-watering energy price hikes, turning our homes into mini-power stations means we can cut bills and carbon emissions by generating a significant proportion of our heating and hot water needs ourselves.
To find out which renewable heat technology works best, the latest Ethical Consumer magazine Buyers' Guide looked at the three main options – ground source heat pumps, biomass boilers and solar hot water.
Ground source heat pumps work by tapping into the energy which is permanently present underground. A long, coiled fluid-filled pipe buried under your garden transfers this energy to a heat exchanger which then makes hot water for heating and for use around the house.
On the plus side, these systems can provide up to 80% of a household's hot water and heating needs. According to sustainable energy consultants CHB Sustainability they can typically save around £70 and 750kg of CO2 a year compared to an average condensing gas boiler.
On the down side, heat pumps cost from £9,000 to £17,000, plus burying the energy-collecting pipe in the back garden – if it's big enough – can be a massively disruptive project. We gave best buys on ethical and environmental grounds to Kensa and Master Therm.
The biggest carbon savings come from biomass boilers, which can slash annual household emissions by up to one tonne. Boilers cost around £11,000, are fridge-freezer sized and ideally have a hopper (store) attached to them allowing the feedstock to be automatically topped up.
The impressive carbon savings come from the fact that the boilers run on some form of wood, which have absorbed CO2 over their lifetime – either logs, wood chips or pellets made from compressed sawdust. Whilst CO2 is released from burning the wood, as long as new trees continue to grow in place of those used for fuel then the process is sustainable.
However there are concerns from groups such as BioFuel Watch, who claim that sustainable sources of wood are becoming increasingly difficult to find. The Biomass Energy Centre is a great source of information on this point.
Another downer is that unlike the other technologies we examined, biomass boilers could actually end up costing you £40 a year more to run compared to a typical condensing gas boiler.
Biomass boilers are also banned in Smoke Control Areas which include most urban locations. If you live outside these smoke-free zones then our Best Buys include Eco Angus and Froling.
The cheapest renewable technology we looked at are solar hot water systems, which on average cost around £4,800 to install. Households fitting this technology can expect to make modest carbon savings as well saving around £60 a year compared to a typical condensing gas boiler.
A solar collector the size of a velux window is fitted onto your roof which heats water, which in turn is fed into a hot water cylinder inside your house. Energy is saved as the warmed water only needs a small boost from a conventional boiler or immersion heater to make the water hotter.
As the cheapest and easiest technology to install, if you're looking to buy a renewable-heating system in our view the best option would be to choose a solar hot water system. Our Best Buys included: Filsol and Solartwin.
To encourage more of us to fit these renewable technologies, the government is about to launch the first round of its Renewable Heat Incentive any day now. The scheme's major caveat is that it's only open to those households which have already installed top-notch levels of insulation.
The first phase will consist of a one-off payment toward the cost of buying the kit while phase two, due to launch in October 2012, is expected to take the form of regular payments over 15 years or more for the use of the equipment.
• Simon Birch writes for Ethical Consumer Magazine
Monday, 18 July 2011
A research revolution to save the planet
If promises are kept, development finance is set to rise to $100bn. Shouldn't we be investing this money in developing clean technologies?
At a workshop on climate change and the media, held by the Asia Europe Foundation ahead of the annual Asia Europe summit, I was struck by an argument put forward by Shell. One of their senior officials presented the company's forecast of energy needs in 2050. According to Shell, there will be 2 billion more people on the planet by 2050 but, if everyone uses energy like theUS, it will be like having a planet of 72 billion people. Hopefully they won't, so according to Shell's guestimates, energy demand is likely to rise by about 64% in the developing world, and by 3% in the already industrialised world.
Overall, Shell reckons the world will need to be producing about twice as much energy in 2050 as we are today. But given climate constraints, this energy will have to be delivered with half as much CO2 pollution. How?
The main block to clean energy is making it affordable. With the technology we currently have, for the same unit of energy, coal costs $0.04, gas $0.08, wind $0.12 and solar a whopping $0.20.
The price of dirty energy has clearly got to go up. Coal provides 40% of the world's energy, today, but in the US 80% of CO2 from power generation is from coal. This has a lot to do with absurd subsidies that are literally paying people to ruin the planet.
Somehow the cost of renewable energy has got to come down. Shell wants us to be realistic about how fast renewable technologies can come on stream in a big way. Liquid Natural Gas technology was first developed in 1964 and it produces just 2% of world energy. Wind energy started in the 1970s and produces just 1% today. To get those percentages into double digits will take decades, at that rate of technological advance.
But while Shell's forecasting is certainly worth listening to, they get it wrong on technology. In decades past, investment in research and development to bring technologies forward has been a fraction of what was required. If we were to invest more, progress would be rapid. It is the difference between having 1,000 universities working on a problem instead of 100.
Deep K Datta-Ray, of the Times of India, says India's position on climate change had shifted dramatically in recent years. The continent has gone from being reticent about accepting responsibility to act - arguing that India's impact on global warming has been minimal, and it already faced with the problem of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty - to taking a strategic decision to become a climate change leader.
What prompted the change of heart? Simple. Forget the international wrangling over whose fault it is, it is in India's national interest to act, based on a basic cost-benefit analysis.
First, 70% of Indians depend in some way on agriculture. The smallest shift in the timing of the monsoon, or in the amount of rainfall, drastically affects agricultural yields.
Second, 300 million people live by the coast – a rise in sea levels matters.
Third, glaciers are retreating in the north of India, directly affecting the huge water needs the country has.
And fourth, there is a tension between the need to continue to extract raw materials for development and export, while at the same time protecting the greenest parts of India, where these materials are found.
With clean technology incorporated into the manufacturing base, the products required to lift millions of Indians from poverty could be made with much less carbon pollution.
The key is what India is doing about it. While China has become the world's manufacturing hub in recent years and India wants to become its research hub. Billions of dollars have already been set aside for research. The main focus of Indian civil servants at the Cancun summit was influencing the agreement's section on technology, because that is where it believes it has the most to offer, and the most to gain.
Crucially, India's ability to make significant changes rapidly is similar to that of China's. Some 70% of economic activity is carried out by the Indian state even after years of liberalisation, meaning that ideas formulated in the centre can be spread to different localities across the huge sub-continent to see what works. In contrast, President Obama is struggling to get even a minimal cut in US emissions of 2% to 3% on 1990 levels through Congress.
Pessimism about the speed with which humanity can develop clean energy is misplaced. Research is the missing factor in the predictions made by Shell and others. But it won't come cheap. While India and China (which has the world's largest solar power industry) continue to invest in research out of clear national self interest, and while pioneers in Europe and the US do the same, the international community should use its money smartly.
Climate finance is the new kid on the block in international development finance, set to rise to US$100bn by 2030 if promises are kept. That is almost as much as the entire aid budget. But so far almost none of it is allocated to research and development. Instead, complex schemes paying poor countries to produce less CO2 and helping them cope with a changing climate are being developed.
As a thought experiment, just imagine what would happen if all that money were invested in research instead of preparing for climatic crisis? Might an R&D revolution in clean technology actually save the planet?
At a workshop on climate change and the media, held by the Asia Europe Foundation ahead of the annual Asia Europe summit, I was struck by an argument put forward by Shell. One of their senior officials presented the company's forecast of energy needs in 2050. According to Shell, there will be 2 billion more people on the planet by 2050 but, if everyone uses energy like theUS, it will be like having a planet of 72 billion people. Hopefully they won't, so according to Shell's guestimates, energy demand is likely to rise by about 64% in the developing world, and by 3% in the already industrialised world.
Overall, Shell reckons the world will need to be producing about twice as much energy in 2050 as we are today. But given climate constraints, this energy will have to be delivered with half as much CO2 pollution. How?
The main block to clean energy is making it affordable. With the technology we currently have, for the same unit of energy, coal costs $0.04, gas $0.08, wind $0.12 and solar a whopping $0.20.
The price of dirty energy has clearly got to go up. Coal provides 40% of the world's energy, today, but in the US 80% of CO2 from power generation is from coal. This has a lot to do with absurd subsidies that are literally paying people to ruin the planet.
Somehow the cost of renewable energy has got to come down. Shell wants us to be realistic about how fast renewable technologies can come on stream in a big way. Liquid Natural Gas technology was first developed in 1964 and it produces just 2% of world energy. Wind energy started in the 1970s and produces just 1% today. To get those percentages into double digits will take decades, at that rate of technological advance.
But while Shell's forecasting is certainly worth listening to, they get it wrong on technology. In decades past, investment in research and development to bring technologies forward has been a fraction of what was required. If we were to invest more, progress would be rapid. It is the difference between having 1,000 universities working on a problem instead of 100.
Deep K Datta-Ray, of the Times of India, says India's position on climate change had shifted dramatically in recent years. The continent has gone from being reticent about accepting responsibility to act - arguing that India's impact on global warming has been minimal, and it already faced with the problem of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty - to taking a strategic decision to become a climate change leader.
What prompted the change of heart? Simple. Forget the international wrangling over whose fault it is, it is in India's national interest to act, based on a basic cost-benefit analysis.
First, 70% of Indians depend in some way on agriculture. The smallest shift in the timing of the monsoon, or in the amount of rainfall, drastically affects agricultural yields.
Second, 300 million people live by the coast – a rise in sea levels matters.
Third, glaciers are retreating in the north of India, directly affecting the huge water needs the country has.
And fourth, there is a tension between the need to continue to extract raw materials for development and export, while at the same time protecting the greenest parts of India, where these materials are found.
With clean technology incorporated into the manufacturing base, the products required to lift millions of Indians from poverty could be made with much less carbon pollution.
The key is what India is doing about it. While China has become the world's manufacturing hub in recent years and India wants to become its research hub. Billions of dollars have already been set aside for research. The main focus of Indian civil servants at the Cancun summit was influencing the agreement's section on technology, because that is where it believes it has the most to offer, and the most to gain.
Crucially, India's ability to make significant changes rapidly is similar to that of China's. Some 70% of economic activity is carried out by the Indian state even after years of liberalisation, meaning that ideas formulated in the centre can be spread to different localities across the huge sub-continent to see what works. In contrast, President Obama is struggling to get even a minimal cut in US emissions of 2% to 3% on 1990 levels through Congress.
Pessimism about the speed with which humanity can develop clean energy is misplaced. Research is the missing factor in the predictions made by Shell and others. But it won't come cheap. While India and China (which has the world's largest solar power industry) continue to invest in research out of clear national self interest, and while pioneers in Europe and the US do the same, the international community should use its money smartly.
Climate finance is the new kid on the block in international development finance, set to rise to US$100bn by 2030 if promises are kept. That is almost as much as the entire aid budget. But so far almost none of it is allocated to research and development. Instead, complex schemes paying poor countries to produce less CO2 and helping them cope with a changing climate are being developed.
As a thought experiment, just imagine what would happen if all that money were invested in research instead of preparing for climatic crisis? Might an R&D revolution in clean technology actually save the planet?