Mark Piesing reports on Gates's bold plan to start a new atomic age
Friday, 30 September 2011
Move over Monty Burns, Bill Gates is coming. Not content with creating the software empire that we all love to hate today, the Microsoft billionaire is intent on turning the seemingly Simpsons-esque world of the established nuclear industry upside down as well, and in so doing, like any revolutionary, earning the enmity of those in his wake.
With a fellow Microsoft man, former chief technology officer Nathan Myrhold, Gates is betting that a small Silicon Valley-style startup called TerraPower just down the road from Microsoft HQ in Washington state can deliver a radical reactor design known as a travelling-wave reactor. If it works it could provide humanity with the same elusive – and some say impossible – cocktail of safe, limitless, cheap and carbon-free energy that fusion promises but never delivers.
This multimillion-dollar project isn't merely a case of West Coast dreaming. TerraPower has been working with more than 24 partners from around the world to develop a design for the reactor to meet its "aggressive timescale" to break ground on the prototype by 2015–16 and begin operations in 2020–21. As well as working with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the design, TerraPower has discussed a deal with the Russians to test equipment for the new reactor in their own experimental reactors, as well as Japan's Kobe Steel to develop its metal casing. Although TerraPower hasn't yet finalised a deal with a country to host the prototype, nuclear-friendly – cynics would suggest regulation-lite – countries such as China, Russia and India are in the frame.
For Gates and Myrhold the travelling-wave reactor "isn't a piece of kit they want to hawk around the world" but "a solution to a problem" for the whole world, according to TerraPower's chief executive John Gilleland, whose experience of the industry stretches from solar to fusion power. "Bill, Nathan and others were sitting around back in 2006 thinking about how to provide the kind of conditions in the world that... would help them have the biggest impact on people's lives. Out of that discussion came the idea of pushing further a design that had been first thought of back in 1958. New eras mean that you can look at some of the same technology and make it work – after all, governments have spent billions of dollars on nuclear research since then."
Scientists from around the world also saw the potential for this design and had regularly revisited the idea since its conception in the US back in the Fifties. The Dutch, Japanese and Ukrainians are among the most recent to be attracted by its promise of cheap, sustainable, zero-carbon electricity produced by using the nuclear waste from the current generation of reactors. Just the waste that already exists in the Paducah nuclear storage facility in Kentucky could power the entire US for more than 1,000 years – before you even get started on the years of waste still to be produced. It is also a reactor that will, in effect, refuel itself, coming with all the fuel it needs already in its core to last its lifetime of 30 or more years; by comparison, a conventional reactor requires fuel to be shipped in every 18 to 24 months and the radioactive waste to be taken away. As a result, there is no need to build the fuel-reprocessing facilities (not for the lifetime of the reactor, anyway) that often provide cover for attempts to build WMD.
The outside of the travelling-wave reactor will be similar to today's reactors, but the inside is radically different. A conventional nuclear reactor depends on enriched uranium to generate its heat and electricity, but the travelling-wave reactor uses only a small amount of highly enriched uranium (U-235) to kickstart fission and a slow-moving chain-wave reaction. Two parallel waves of fission then move about a centimetre a year, splitting uranium atoms of the spent nuclear fuel (reprocessed uranium) or unenriched uranium (depleted uranium, U-238) packed into the core, in a process that first creates plutonium-239 and then consumes it. This reaction should be much more efficient than a conventional reactor and, in theory, can be sustained for decades.
The struggle to produce a design that is more efficient and straightforward to build has led to a change in the reactor's shape. Out has gone the original distinctive cigarette shape that the waves would travel along and in has come a more conventional-looking spherical "standing-wave reactor", where the wave stays at the centre of the reactor and it is the fuel that then travels relative to it. As a result of this change, the fuel has to be shuffled more like a conventional reactor to ensure there is enough to keep the wave going, although still in a much more simplified way. Unlike a more traditional reactor where electricity is needed to pump water around the core to cool it and prevent the kind of meltdown seen at Fukishama earlier this year, the travelling-wave reactor has a number of passive safety features – such as the use of molten sodium as a coolant, which takes much longer to boil than water, or even just the lower temperature of the core itself that makes such an event much less likely to happen.
But TerraPower's technical director is the first to admit there are serious challenges standing in the way. After 40 years in the nuclear industry, Roger Reynold was persuaded to come out of retirement by the mission and vision of TerraPower. "People will be sceptical and think that if this is so possible, why wasn't it built before?" he says. "The real reason is: material – what materials can exist for 30 to 40 years in that environment? Even today nobody has tested steel to the kinds of limit we are contemplating. So the fundamental mission of the prototype is to collect real data. We intend to build in countries which are used to fast reactor technology so we can more quickly demonstrate that the process works."
However, Tom Blees, a pro-nuclear environmentalist, and others say the travelling-wave reactor gets undue attention from being Gates's baby. Blees, who is author of the critically acclaimed Prescription for the Planet and president of the Science Council for Global Initiatives as well as an advocate for an alternative design of reactors, says: "When I first heard about the travelling-wave reactor, it sounded like Bill and Nathan had been sitting around smoking something when they came up with this cool idea of a reactor that will never need to be refuelled as it will burn like a cigarette for 60 years. Now the problem is that such a slow steady burn is hard to achieve, as nuclear fission isn't like a cigarette, it's a kind of random process; so they keep having to modify it and in the end they are going to end with up with an integral fast reactor."
Ian Hoare-Lacey, director of communications for the industry group the World Nuclear Association, accepts that there is no one else he knows like Gates "who is putting their own money into reactor design", yet "we are not holding our breath for it".
Hoare-Lacey says "it sounds like a nice idea but it has considerable problems, such as extracting heat from the reactor and the size of the core". He says the "further away you move from pressure water reactors, the higher the barriers to regulatory approval are" and that "these kinds of design haven't been executed well in the past due to lack of adequate materials". But "better materials may help realise the potential of these back-of-the-envelope designs", he adds.
Similarly, Dr Doug Parr, chief scientist from Greenpeace UK, believes "a little bit of scepticism is worthwhile... and as far as I can see cost, waste, safety and proliferation are still big issues. You could argue that new reactors are safer, but it is actually impossible to know in the lab. A lot of nuclear waste is also a real mess. It is rarely pure, especially the older waste. So if you effectively accelerate the fission of some of the more problematic elements in a reactor you might have real problems".
In the end, for Gilleland, "it isn't a slam dunk that it is going to work" as it is a "high-stakes, high-reward" kind of project. The scepticism doesn't surprise him either. "The fission community is a is very conservative bunch of people who are often uneasy with things they haven't thought of themselves and can think too much in terms of what you can do right now, although scepticism is part of life and should be focused on something so radical," he says. "After all, if there was no scepticism towards us then we would be doing something wrong."
Friday, 30 September 2011
Renewable energy hits record high in UK
Second quarter of 2011 saw green generation contribute 9.6% per cent of the UK's electricity supply, a 50% rise on 2010
BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 September 2011 15.10 BST
Renewable electricity contributed an all time high of 9.6% of the UK's grid mix in the second quarter of this year, statistics released on Thursday by the Department of Energy and Climate Change have revealed.
The 7.86TWh (terawatt hours) contributed by green energy generators represented a 50% rise on the same time last year.
The surge in green energy was led by the wind energy sector, which saw output rise 120% year on year, and hydroelectricity where output rose 75% year on year.
Nuclear energy also saw a large rise, increasing by 38% to 17.44TWh, making up 21% of the UK's overall supply, its highest since 2006. The performance put nuclear on a par with coal, which recorded 18.14TWh of output, making up 22% of all electricity generated.
Gas still made up 44% of UK electricity supply, but this was well down on last year's 53%. Gas output fell 18.3% to 36.37TWh.
Total electricity supplied by all generators in the second quarter of 2011 was 1.7% lower than a year earlier, while final consumption of electricity fell by 1.6%.
The large increase in low carbon generation is partly the result of weather-related variations. For example, wind energy output was relatively low during the second quarter of 2010, while the mild spring will have contributed to the fall in overall energy use.
However, supporters of renewable energy will also point to a steady increase in capacity evidenced by the opening of new offshore wind farms and biomass power plants as one of the factors behind the sector's strong performance.
The statistics also confirm Scotland's leading role in renewable electricity. In 2010, the country had around 20% more renewables generating capacity than England, although generation south of the border was actually 45% higher owing to intensive use of biofuels.
Similarly, 2010 wind generation in Scotland was nearly one third more than in England, and almost five times greater than in Wales.
BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 September 2011 15.10 BST
Renewable electricity contributed an all time high of 9.6% of the UK's grid mix in the second quarter of this year, statistics released on Thursday by the Department of Energy and Climate Change have revealed.
The 7.86TWh (terawatt hours) contributed by green energy generators represented a 50% rise on the same time last year.
The surge in green energy was led by the wind energy sector, which saw output rise 120% year on year, and hydroelectricity where output rose 75% year on year.
Nuclear energy also saw a large rise, increasing by 38% to 17.44TWh, making up 21% of the UK's overall supply, its highest since 2006. The performance put nuclear on a par with coal, which recorded 18.14TWh of output, making up 22% of all electricity generated.
Gas still made up 44% of UK electricity supply, but this was well down on last year's 53%. Gas output fell 18.3% to 36.37TWh.
Total electricity supplied by all generators in the second quarter of 2011 was 1.7% lower than a year earlier, while final consumption of electricity fell by 1.6%.
The large increase in low carbon generation is partly the result of weather-related variations. For example, wind energy output was relatively low during the second quarter of 2010, while the mild spring will have contributed to the fall in overall energy use.
However, supporters of renewable energy will also point to a steady increase in capacity evidenced by the opening of new offshore wind farms and biomass power plants as one of the factors behind the sector's strong performance.
The statistics also confirm Scotland's leading role in renewable electricity. In 2010, the country had around 20% more renewables generating capacity than England, although generation south of the border was actually 45% higher owing to intensive use of biofuels.
Similarly, 2010 wind generation in Scotland was nearly one third more than in England, and almost five times greater than in Wales.
Thursday, 29 September 2011
Renewable Heat Incentive withdrawn by government hours before launch
Department of Energy cites objections from European commission as reason for withdrawal, and insists project has only been delayed, not abandoned
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 September 2011 15.27 BST
Confidence in the government's commitment to a green energy agenda was dealt another major blow on Friday when an £860m scheme to subsidise renewable heating systems was pulled at the last minute.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change insisted that its groundbreaking Renewable Heat Incentive was being delayed rather than abandoned, and blamed the European commission for failing to give it the immediate go-ahead. But the industry described the news as "desperately disappointing" and was angry that the final decision from DECC came just hours before the RHI was meant to come into force.
"The industry has been gearing up over the last six months to deliver on the government's ambitious plans for renewable heat," said Paul Thompson, head of policy at the Renewable Energy Association (REA). "This further adds to low confidence levels in the renewables industry as a whole, added to uncertainty around the feed-in tariffs, the renewables obligation and the renewable transport fuel obligation."
William Worsley, president of the Country Land and Business Association, said farmers and others would be out of pocket as a result of the DECC's decision.
"Many members have been gearing up to launch projects … while others have already taken the plunge and will face cash flow problems as a direct result of the commission's intervention," he said. "The announcement for RHI funding was made in the comprehensive spending review last October, so the UK government should have ironed out the wrinkles well in advance of the launch date."
DECC officials said that the European Commission's concern had been that the RHI's tariff for large biomass had been set too high, and argued that they had tried to find ways of keeping to the original timetable.
"We understand that the commission has given state aid approval for the RHI, subject to a reduction in the large biomass tariff, and we expect to receive written confirmation of this very soon," a statement from the department said. Changing the heat tariff from its current planned level of 2.7p per kilowatt hour would require the RHI regulations to be amended and submitted to parliament for approval.
"Once we have received written confirmation from the commission, we will make a further announcement about what this means for the large biomass tariff and the timing of the launch. We are committed to launching the scheme as soon as possible to minimise disruption to stakeholders," it added.
In March, the government announced the details of the RHI, saying it would "revolutionise" the way heat is generated and used. It boasted at the time it was the first financial support scheme for renewable heat of its kind in the world.
Department officials have told the industry that it hopes to be back up and running in around two months' time with a new subsidy scheme, but the REA said any postponement would cause significant disruption.
"As heat demand is seasonal, delaying until the end of November will mean many customers will either put off a decision until next winter or buy a new fossil fuel boiler now – locking them in to higher-carbon heat for years to come," explained Thompson.
The frustration is intensified by a series of other changes or delays involving the renewable heat and energy agenda, despite the government saying in the run-up to the elections that it would be the greenest yet. Ministers have failed to give a firm date on when a review of the renewable obligation subsidy regime would start, causing uncertainty in the biomass and other green business sectors. Solar companies were angry earlier this year when DECC unveiled plans to review the feed-in tariff next April.
There has also been speculation that the full launch of the government's Green Investment Bank could also be delayed as a result of EU state aid rules, according to the BusinessGreen website.
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Friday 30 September 2011 15.27 BST
Confidence in the government's commitment to a green energy agenda was dealt another major blow on Friday when an £860m scheme to subsidise renewable heating systems was pulled at the last minute.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change insisted that its groundbreaking Renewable Heat Incentive was being delayed rather than abandoned, and blamed the European commission for failing to give it the immediate go-ahead. But the industry described the news as "desperately disappointing" and was angry that the final decision from DECC came just hours before the RHI was meant to come into force.
"The industry has been gearing up over the last six months to deliver on the government's ambitious plans for renewable heat," said Paul Thompson, head of policy at the Renewable Energy Association (REA). "This further adds to low confidence levels in the renewables industry as a whole, added to uncertainty around the feed-in tariffs, the renewables obligation and the renewable transport fuel obligation."
William Worsley, president of the Country Land and Business Association, said farmers and others would be out of pocket as a result of the DECC's decision.
"Many members have been gearing up to launch projects … while others have already taken the plunge and will face cash flow problems as a direct result of the commission's intervention," he said. "The announcement for RHI funding was made in the comprehensive spending review last October, so the UK government should have ironed out the wrinkles well in advance of the launch date."
DECC officials said that the European Commission's concern had been that the RHI's tariff for large biomass had been set too high, and argued that they had tried to find ways of keeping to the original timetable.
"We understand that the commission has given state aid approval for the RHI, subject to a reduction in the large biomass tariff, and we expect to receive written confirmation of this very soon," a statement from the department said. Changing the heat tariff from its current planned level of 2.7p per kilowatt hour would require the RHI regulations to be amended and submitted to parliament for approval.
"Once we have received written confirmation from the commission, we will make a further announcement about what this means for the large biomass tariff and the timing of the launch. We are committed to launching the scheme as soon as possible to minimise disruption to stakeholders," it added.
In March, the government announced the details of the RHI, saying it would "revolutionise" the way heat is generated and used. It boasted at the time it was the first financial support scheme for renewable heat of its kind in the world.
Department officials have told the industry that it hopes to be back up and running in around two months' time with a new subsidy scheme, but the REA said any postponement would cause significant disruption.
"As heat demand is seasonal, delaying until the end of November will mean many customers will either put off a decision until next winter or buy a new fossil fuel boiler now – locking them in to higher-carbon heat for years to come," explained Thompson.
The frustration is intensified by a series of other changes or delays involving the renewable heat and energy agenda, despite the government saying in the run-up to the elections that it would be the greenest yet. Ministers have failed to give a firm date on when a review of the renewable obligation subsidy regime would start, causing uncertainty in the biomass and other green business sectors. Solar companies were angry earlier this year when DECC unveiled plans to review the feed-in tariff next April.
There has also been speculation that the full launch of the government's Green Investment Bank could also be delayed as a result of EU state aid rules, according to the BusinessGreen website.
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Wave and tidal power almost ready for mass consumption, says Alex Salmond
Latest wave and tide machines being tested in Scottish waters expected to become commercially viable by 2015
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 September 2011 15.43 BST
Wave and tidal power devices are close to producing electricity for mass consumption for the first time after a surge in investment, Alex Salmond has predicted.
The first minister said that the latest wave and tide machines being tested in Scottish waters were expected to become commercially viable by 2015 with several hundred megawatts of installed capacity, in a major breakthrough for the green energy industry.
Salmond's prediction came as it emerged that one developer, Aquamarine Power, which has one of the most advanced wave power machines being tested off Orkney, had won fresh investment of £7m in its latest design and pledges of another £18m by 2014.
Until now, the presumption was that wave and tidal power was still up to a decade away from full-scale production.
However, the first minister told a green energy investment conference in Edinburgh that: "In the next few years, the wave and tidal industry will move from demonstrator machines towards substantial commercial development."
Tidal and wave power was "the most exciting and powerful thing", he added as he opened the conference on Tuesday.
Salmond also announced a new £35m Scottish government fund to help up to seven companies find advanced designs for the next generation of ocean-based wind turbines for deep waters up to 20 miles offshore, with turbines three times larger than current designs.
"Scotland's potential as one of the green power houses for Europe is beyond question," he told conference delegates, who are due to be addressed on Wednesday by Al Gore. "We mustn't let transient but severe economic circumstances deter us from that goal."
Scotland, he said, had 25% of Europe's offshore wind and wave resource. Current offshore windfarms were simply "onshore wind turbines in a puddle", being sited just a mile off the coast. "We want these 20 miles offshore, where the wind really blows."
Wave and tidal energy is still expected to produce only a small fraction of the total renewable energy output. The Crown Estate and Marine Scotland have so far licensed only about 1,400mw of wave and tidal power for future development, compared with 7gw of onshore and offshore wind power already in production or development.
Scotland's current share of offshore renewable energy production is still relatively small. Salmond's strategy is based on rapidly increasing its stake and eventual overall share, to help hit his ambitious target to generate 100% of Scotland's electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
He believes Scottish wave and tidal energy firms could come to dominate the global industry. Aquamarine is also developing projects in Chilean waters, along the west coast of the US and Canada, and the west coast of Ireland.
Martin McAdam, Aquamarine's chief executive, said he believed his latest device, the 800kw Oyster wave machine, would be commercially viable by 2014. By the end of the decade, wave technology would be cheaper than offshore wind, he predicted.
"At the moment we're far too expensive [but] we will become more and more cost effective over time," he said. "As we move to 2020, we will get to a cost curve where we will be more competitive than wind."
Salmond's latest £35m offshore investment fund, the prototype offshore wind energy renewables support (Powers) fund, follows confirmation last week of a further £70m fund to develop green energy infrastructure. Industry and investment agency figures warn that up to £200bn is required by 2020 to realise the UK's full renewable energy potential.
The first minister conceded the industry overall still faces several significant barriers, including finding investors, protecting UK and Scottish government support through a levy on energy bills and making transmission charges on the National Grid much less expensive for Scottish power companies.
• This article was amended on 27 September to correct the name of Aquarmarine's chief executive, Martin McAdam. We originally called him Martin McEwan.
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 September 2011 15.43 BST
Wave and tidal power devices are close to producing electricity for mass consumption for the first time after a surge in investment, Alex Salmond has predicted.
The first minister said that the latest wave and tide machines being tested in Scottish waters were expected to become commercially viable by 2015 with several hundred megawatts of installed capacity, in a major breakthrough for the green energy industry.
Salmond's prediction came as it emerged that one developer, Aquamarine Power, which has one of the most advanced wave power machines being tested off Orkney, had won fresh investment of £7m in its latest design and pledges of another £18m by 2014.
Until now, the presumption was that wave and tidal power was still up to a decade away from full-scale production.
However, the first minister told a green energy investment conference in Edinburgh that: "In the next few years, the wave and tidal industry will move from demonstrator machines towards substantial commercial development."
Tidal and wave power was "the most exciting and powerful thing", he added as he opened the conference on Tuesday.
Salmond also announced a new £35m Scottish government fund to help up to seven companies find advanced designs for the next generation of ocean-based wind turbines for deep waters up to 20 miles offshore, with turbines three times larger than current designs.
"Scotland's potential as one of the green power houses for Europe is beyond question," he told conference delegates, who are due to be addressed on Wednesday by Al Gore. "We mustn't let transient but severe economic circumstances deter us from that goal."
Scotland, he said, had 25% of Europe's offshore wind and wave resource. Current offshore windfarms were simply "onshore wind turbines in a puddle", being sited just a mile off the coast. "We want these 20 miles offshore, where the wind really blows."
Wave and tidal energy is still expected to produce only a small fraction of the total renewable energy output. The Crown Estate and Marine Scotland have so far licensed only about 1,400mw of wave and tidal power for future development, compared with 7gw of onshore and offshore wind power already in production or development.
Scotland's current share of offshore renewable energy production is still relatively small. Salmond's strategy is based on rapidly increasing its stake and eventual overall share, to help hit his ambitious target to generate 100% of Scotland's electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
He believes Scottish wave and tidal energy firms could come to dominate the global industry. Aquamarine is also developing projects in Chilean waters, along the west coast of the US and Canada, and the west coast of Ireland.
Martin McAdam, Aquamarine's chief executive, said he believed his latest device, the 800kw Oyster wave machine, would be commercially viable by 2014. By the end of the decade, wave technology would be cheaper than offshore wind, he predicted.
"At the moment we're far too expensive [but] we will become more and more cost effective over time," he said. "As we move to 2020, we will get to a cost curve where we will be more competitive than wind."
Salmond's latest £35m offshore investment fund, the prototype offshore wind energy renewables support (Powers) fund, follows confirmation last week of a further £70m fund to develop green energy infrastructure. Industry and investment agency figures warn that up to £200bn is required by 2020 to realise the UK's full renewable energy potential.
The first minister conceded the industry overall still faces several significant barriers, including finding investors, protecting UK and Scottish government support through a levy on energy bills and making transmission charges on the National Grid much less expensive for Scottish power companies.
• This article was amended on 27 September to correct the name of Aquarmarine's chief executive, Martin McAdam. We originally called him Martin McEwan.
Labour warns big six energy companies their stranglehold will be broken
Shadow energy secretary Meg Hillier to tell Labour conference that soaring gas and electricity prices are 'national scandal'
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 September 2011 11.14 BST
The Labour party is to put the UK's big six energy companies "on notice", pledging that the next Labour government will break up their "stranglehold" of the market in order to tackle soaring bills.
Meg Hillier, shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change, will tell the Labour party conference in Liverpool that soaring gas and electricity prices are a "great national scandal".
Labour will pledge to break up the existing market which allows the major energy companies to both generate and sell energy to households, which the party argues fails to minimise prices and prevents new companies entering the market.
"We will also insist that the [big six] make their prices and their bills crystal clear so we can all see the true cost of our energy," Hillier will say. She will signal Labour's readiness to make major interventions in the market, saying: "They may be private companies, but they should deliver a public service."
The move to break up the existing "vertically integrated" market goes far beyond the measures being taken by the government, although the Liberal Democrat energy secretary, Chris Huhne, promised last week to force more transparency in billing.
"We are going to make sure that no one is being ripped off by the energy companies and at the moment they are," said Labour MP Barry Gardiner, who sits on the energy and climate change select committee. "The government promised electricity market reform, but it is not delivering. It is tinkering at the edges."
The Labour energy policies, trailed by leader Ed Miliband on the eve of the conference, would require all energy generators to pool their power, from which any company could buy it and sell it to customers. This would reduce utility bills for 80% of users, Labour claims. At the moment, the big six both generate and sell power, meaning the true cost of generation is hidden and the lowest prices are not guaranteed by the market.
Labour also argues that new generators, such as those selling renewable energy, have to sell their power to the big six, who supply 99% of the UK's homes. But new entrants struggle, Gardiner says, because they are paid less than the big six pay their own generating divisions. "They can't make a profit so they can't compete," said Gardiner.
Labour will also attack the way the big six bill for their services. "The energy companies are doing a fantastic job of confusion marketing," said Gardiner. "The only way to fix this is to stop the amazing multiplicity of tariffs."
Labour is not specifying a maximum number of tariffs, but Gardiner said: "Why any company should need more than, say, 10 to 12, tariffs is beyond me unless you want to confuse your customer."
Hillier will take the opportunity to attack Huhne, saying: "There's a winter fuel crisis coming down the track, and ministers seem helpless to prevent it. This government hasn't moved on since Edwina Currie told cold, poor people to put on an extra woolly jumper."
An energy industry source told the Guardian that such a major reform as introducing a pool would be a mistake at a time when the big energy companies were dealing with the uncertainty of the government's reforms to the energy market. He said the big six were being used as a "political football" at the moment but that the investment cycle was much longer than the electoral cycle and, while it was unwelcome, the companies would ride it out. He added that increased transparency in billing would also reveal the proportion of bills that went to green taxes, suggesting this would make consumers less willing to pay those taxes.
The government's proposed reforms to the UK's energy market will introduce a system of guaranteed payments for low carbon energy, a tax on carbon dioxide pollution and a limit to the greenhouse gas emissions that can be pumped out of power stations. These market interventions are the first significant moves since the UK's energy market was entirely liberalised in the 1980s and 1990s.
The UK has had one of the most free energy markets in the world, which supporters say kept prices low but critics say starved the industry of investment. Most observers now agree hundreds of billions of pounds in investment will be needed in coming decades to deliver an energy market which provides reliable low-carbon energy at least cost.
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 September 2011 11.14 BST
The Labour party is to put the UK's big six energy companies "on notice", pledging that the next Labour government will break up their "stranglehold" of the market in order to tackle soaring bills.
Meg Hillier, shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change, will tell the Labour party conference in Liverpool that soaring gas and electricity prices are a "great national scandal".
Labour will pledge to break up the existing market which allows the major energy companies to both generate and sell energy to households, which the party argues fails to minimise prices and prevents new companies entering the market.
"We will also insist that the [big six] make their prices and their bills crystal clear so we can all see the true cost of our energy," Hillier will say. She will signal Labour's readiness to make major interventions in the market, saying: "They may be private companies, but they should deliver a public service."
The move to break up the existing "vertically integrated" market goes far beyond the measures being taken by the government, although the Liberal Democrat energy secretary, Chris Huhne, promised last week to force more transparency in billing.
"We are going to make sure that no one is being ripped off by the energy companies and at the moment they are," said Labour MP Barry Gardiner, who sits on the energy and climate change select committee. "The government promised electricity market reform, but it is not delivering. It is tinkering at the edges."
The Labour energy policies, trailed by leader Ed Miliband on the eve of the conference, would require all energy generators to pool their power, from which any company could buy it and sell it to customers. This would reduce utility bills for 80% of users, Labour claims. At the moment, the big six both generate and sell power, meaning the true cost of generation is hidden and the lowest prices are not guaranteed by the market.
Labour also argues that new generators, such as those selling renewable energy, have to sell their power to the big six, who supply 99% of the UK's homes. But new entrants struggle, Gardiner says, because they are paid less than the big six pay their own generating divisions. "They can't make a profit so they can't compete," said Gardiner.
Labour will also attack the way the big six bill for their services. "The energy companies are doing a fantastic job of confusion marketing," said Gardiner. "The only way to fix this is to stop the amazing multiplicity of tariffs."
Labour is not specifying a maximum number of tariffs, but Gardiner said: "Why any company should need more than, say, 10 to 12, tariffs is beyond me unless you want to confuse your customer."
Hillier will take the opportunity to attack Huhne, saying: "There's a winter fuel crisis coming down the track, and ministers seem helpless to prevent it. This government hasn't moved on since Edwina Currie told cold, poor people to put on an extra woolly jumper."
An energy industry source told the Guardian that such a major reform as introducing a pool would be a mistake at a time when the big energy companies were dealing with the uncertainty of the government's reforms to the energy market. He said the big six were being used as a "political football" at the moment but that the investment cycle was much longer than the electoral cycle and, while it was unwelcome, the companies would ride it out. He added that increased transparency in billing would also reveal the proportion of bills that went to green taxes, suggesting this would make consumers less willing to pay those taxes.
The government's proposed reforms to the UK's energy market will introduce a system of guaranteed payments for low carbon energy, a tax on carbon dioxide pollution and a limit to the greenhouse gas emissions that can be pumped out of power stations. These market interventions are the first significant moves since the UK's energy market was entirely liberalised in the 1980s and 1990s.
The UK has had one of the most free energy markets in the world, which supporters say kept prices low but critics say starved the industry of investment. Most observers now agree hundreds of billions of pounds in investment will be needed in coming decades to deliver an energy market which provides reliable low-carbon energy at least cost.
Are green policies good or bad news for energy bills?
Green taxes aim to drive up the cost of fossil fuels and help fund investment in renewable alternatives - but they remain controversial
There seems to be so much confusion and controversy around at the moment about so-called green taxes. Just what is the truth? How much are they adding to our fuel bills? And what is the revenue raised being used for? Are green taxes on energy the best way to address climate change and energy insecurity in the years and decades ahead?
M Hamilton, by email
The rising cost of our energy bills is one of the UK's most heated political debates. Everyone has a view, it seems, but there indeed seems to be very little clarity about what constitutes the "truth" when it comes to correctly attributing the causes.
On the one hand, you have politicians blaming the "Big Six" energy suppliers for, if not colluding on prices, then at least having a "stranglehold" on the market. In contrast, you have other politicians blaming most of the price increases, not on rising wholesale fuel prices across the world, as some claim, but on "green taxes".
Ofgem, the UK's gas and electricity market regulator, stated in January (pdf) that "environmental costs" (described as "government programmes to save energy, reduce emissions and tackle climate change") added 4% and 10% to gas and electricity bills, respectively. But other groups have arrived at much higher percentages, attracting plenty of media coverage in doing so (even if some has since been corrected).
But what about the wider question raised by green taxes: should we as a country, via green taxes and subsidies, be investing now in technologies that help to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and better protect us from future global energy price volatilities? Or should we only concentrate on keeping fuel bills as low as possible today when the financial pressures we face are considerable and immediate?
And if we are to invest in renewable energy for the future, which are the best-bet technologies: wind (offshore vs onshore), tidal, wave, hydro, solar, nuclear, biomass, CCS (carbon capture and storage), or energy efficiency/saving measures? And what of supposedly reduced-carbon energy sources, such as shale gas? Are the current subsidise mechanisms and revenue-raising strategies even the best way to develop such technologies?
Much to discuss, but this column is an experiment in crowd-sourcing a reader's question, so please let us know your own thoughts below (as opposed to emailing them) and, if quoting figures to support your points, please provide a link to the source. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate, too.
• Please send your own environment question to ask.leo.and.lucy@guardian.co.uk.
Or, alternatively, message me on Twitter @LeoHickman
There seems to be so much confusion and controversy around at the moment about so-called green taxes. Just what is the truth? How much are they adding to our fuel bills? And what is the revenue raised being used for? Are green taxes on energy the best way to address climate change and energy insecurity in the years and decades ahead?
M Hamilton, by email
The rising cost of our energy bills is one of the UK's most heated political debates. Everyone has a view, it seems, but there indeed seems to be very little clarity about what constitutes the "truth" when it comes to correctly attributing the causes.
On the one hand, you have politicians blaming the "Big Six" energy suppliers for, if not colluding on prices, then at least having a "stranglehold" on the market. In contrast, you have other politicians blaming most of the price increases, not on rising wholesale fuel prices across the world, as some claim, but on "green taxes".
Ofgem, the UK's gas and electricity market regulator, stated in January (pdf) that "environmental costs" (described as "government programmes to save energy, reduce emissions and tackle climate change") added 4% and 10% to gas and electricity bills, respectively. But other groups have arrived at much higher percentages, attracting plenty of media coverage in doing so (even if some has since been corrected).
But what about the wider question raised by green taxes: should we as a country, via green taxes and subsidies, be investing now in technologies that help to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and better protect us from future global energy price volatilities? Or should we only concentrate on keeping fuel bills as low as possible today when the financial pressures we face are considerable and immediate?
And if we are to invest in renewable energy for the future, which are the best-bet technologies: wind (offshore vs onshore), tidal, wave, hydro, solar, nuclear, biomass, CCS (carbon capture and storage), or energy efficiency/saving measures? And what of supposedly reduced-carbon energy sources, such as shale gas? Are the current subsidise mechanisms and revenue-raising strategies even the best way to develop such technologies?
Much to discuss, but this column is an experiment in crowd-sourcing a reader's question, so please let us know your own thoughts below (as opposed to emailing them) and, if quoting figures to support your points, please provide a link to the source. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate, too.
• Please send your own environment question to ask.leo.and.lucy@guardian.co.uk.
Or, alternatively, message me on Twitter @LeoHickman
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
The feed-in tariff fast-track was wrong – now it's time to make amends
The government ignored 81% of respondents who disagreed with them during the fast-track review, and they can't afford to do that again
Huw Irranca-Davies
guardian.co.uk, Friday 23 September 2011 11.31 BST
Last week's committee debate on the fast-track review of large solar under the feed-in tariff (Fit) – payments for people generating their own green energy – is the end of a seven-month saga of government chaos, farce and false arguments. In place of the minister Greg Barker, who has led the fiasco, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) minister Charles Hendry was put up to front an impossible case defending the widely disparaged changes to the successful Fit scheme. His arguments were comprehensively defeated.
Labour members, SNP members, and even Liberal Democrat and the odd Conservative member on the committee rejected the arguments put forward by the minister.
But now we need to turn our attention to the comprehensive review of the feed-in tariff. For the companies in solar PV, micro-wind turbines, hydroelectric schemes, and combined heat and power installations, and for all other micro-generation technologies, the comprehensive review this autumn is perhaps the most important time for their industry since Labour first legislated for the Fit in the 2008 Energy Act.
Ministers need to act quickly to provide certainty to a fearful sector. The government announced the comprehensive review in February, but they are still yet to open the consultation, and campaigners fear that the review will take place and be implemented on 1 April 2012 over an extremely short timescale, without the support of industry, community groups and green NGOs.
I hope that isn't true, and that an announcement on the consultation will come from the government shortly. Hendry spoke in committee about how all the concerns everyone had expressed over the last seven months could be addressed in the comprehensive review; and we must hold the government to that. The government ignored 81% of respondents who disagreed with them during the fast-track review, and they can't afford to do that again.
The government will need to consider sliding tariff scales and caps on generation permitted in different bands. They will need to consider the case for microgeneration roof mounted, building-integrated, and uses brownfield and contaminated land
Giving "power to the people" has to stop being easy rhetoric, and become the reality for communities up and down the land.
For our part, Labour will seek to restore that cross-party consensus we had back in 2008 when first establishing the feed-in tariff. But ministers need to remember that consensus is a two-way process. I'll get the ball rolling this week when I will write to the secretary of state, Chris Huhne, requesting he meet with me and a delegation - or all - of the scores of groups who wrote to me and to all committee members with their justified concerns. We owe it to householders, communities, and British businesses to forge the way ahead, and to ensure that the sector can flourish again.
Ministers: you got the fast-track review wrong, but make sure you get the comprehensive review right.
• Huw Irranca-Davies MP is the shadow minister for energy
Huw Irranca-Davies
guardian.co.uk, Friday 23 September 2011 11.31 BST
Last week's committee debate on the fast-track review of large solar under the feed-in tariff (Fit) – payments for people generating their own green energy – is the end of a seven-month saga of government chaos, farce and false arguments. In place of the minister Greg Barker, who has led the fiasco, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) minister Charles Hendry was put up to front an impossible case defending the widely disparaged changes to the successful Fit scheme. His arguments were comprehensively defeated.
Labour members, SNP members, and even Liberal Democrat and the odd Conservative member on the committee rejected the arguments put forward by the minister.
But now we need to turn our attention to the comprehensive review of the feed-in tariff. For the companies in solar PV, micro-wind turbines, hydroelectric schemes, and combined heat and power installations, and for all other micro-generation technologies, the comprehensive review this autumn is perhaps the most important time for their industry since Labour first legislated for the Fit in the 2008 Energy Act.
Ministers need to act quickly to provide certainty to a fearful sector. The government announced the comprehensive review in February, but they are still yet to open the consultation, and campaigners fear that the review will take place and be implemented on 1 April 2012 over an extremely short timescale, without the support of industry, community groups and green NGOs.
I hope that isn't true, and that an announcement on the consultation will come from the government shortly. Hendry spoke in committee about how all the concerns everyone had expressed over the last seven months could be addressed in the comprehensive review; and we must hold the government to that. The government ignored 81% of respondents who disagreed with them during the fast-track review, and they can't afford to do that again.
The government will need to consider sliding tariff scales and caps on generation permitted in different bands. They will need to consider the case for microgeneration roof mounted, building-integrated, and uses brownfield and contaminated land
Giving "power to the people" has to stop being easy rhetoric, and become the reality for communities up and down the land.
For our part, Labour will seek to restore that cross-party consensus we had back in 2008 when first establishing the feed-in tariff. But ministers need to remember that consensus is a two-way process. I'll get the ball rolling this week when I will write to the secretary of state, Chris Huhne, requesting he meet with me and a delegation - or all - of the scores of groups who wrote to me and to all committee members with their justified concerns. We owe it to householders, communities, and British businesses to forge the way ahead, and to ensure that the sector can flourish again.
Ministers: you got the fast-track review wrong, but make sure you get the comprehensive review right.
• Huw Irranca-Davies MP is the shadow minister for energy
Thames Water turns to 'poo power' for renewable electricity generation
Company estimates that 16% of its electricity needs will be met in the current financial year by burning sewage flakes
Rebecca Smithers, consumer affairs correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 September 2011 17.17 BST
The sludge incinerator at the Crossness sewage works, south-east London, where the electricity will be generated. Photograph: Nic Hamilton/Alamy
They look like instant coffee granules, but they are in fact sewage flakes – a highly combustible new renewable form of fuel that burns like woodchip and is being used for the first time to generate electricity for Britain's largest water and sewerage company.
Thames Water has begun producing the flakes by drying sludge – the solids found in sewage – in a purpose-built machine at sewage works in Slough, Berkshire. In a not-so-green move, the company then takes the flakes by lorry to Crossness sewage works in Bexley, south-east London, where they are burnt off to generate electricity.
The company estimates that 16% of its electricity needs will be covered in the current financial year by so-called poo power – enough to run about 40,000 average family homes – from a total energy requirement of 1,300 gigawatt hours.
Until now, the sludge dryer had been used to reduce waste simply to get rid of it more conveniently. The dryer promises to reduce the firm's carbon emissions by more than 500 tonnes a year, as well as bringing up to £300,000 a year of operational cost benefits.
Rupert Kruger, Thames Water's head of innovation, said: "This is the first time in Britain that a waste dryer has been used to create ready-to-burn fuel from sewage sludge, rather than simply being used as a waste-reducer. This innovative approach demonstrates our clear intent to help move Britain towards becoming a low-carbon economy by unlocking every ounce of renewable energy potential from waste."
Five tonnes a day of sewage sludge – 20% of the solids left over from the treatment process at the Slough works – are being put through the new dryer, which works by heating the sludge to around 180C and driving off the water using enclosed heated rotating paddles. Because the sludge cake at Crossness is only about 25% dry, the process relies on non-renewable gas from the grid to keep the fire going in the sludge-powered generator.
A further 20 sewage works, including Slough, generate electricity by burning biomethane gas from sewage, a process know as combined heat and power.
Delay to green subsidies puts renewable energy investment in doubt
Government puts back Renewables Obligation Certificate reforms, leaving investors unable to commit to green projects
Fiona Harvey
guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 September 2011 17.59 BST
Investment in the UK's renewable energy infrastructure has been thrown into doubt as an urgent review into the subsidy regime has been delayed.
Renewable energy companies are concerned that the delay of Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC) reforms – promised this year by the government – will prompt a rethink of the investment plans. The review is crucial for investors as they are currently unable to make long-term business plans without knowing how much support they are likely to receive in future.
Chris Moore, director at biomass plant developer MGT Power, said the delay meant investors were not moving ahead with potential projects. He said: "This is a problem for renewable businesses, and it's very damaging for UK plc. All of renewable energy investment is effectively on hold until the government sorts out the review and its plans."
Gaynor Hartnell, chief executive of the Renewable Energy Association, said the trade body had been "inundated" with inquiries over when the review might take place.
Key to the review is how the subsidies will be "banded", whereby some forms of energy will receive greater support – which comes ultimately from consumer energy bills, rather than government coffers – than others. A new regime would also be expected to provide more targeted support for new technologies.
Last December, the government recognised the need for an urgent review when it brought forward the consultation by a year. Charles Hendry, energy minister, said then that a consultation on ROCs would be carried out over the summer, and that by autumn this year, new plans for the subsidies would be confirmed.
At the time, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) acknowledged: "Under the previous timetable, investors would not have known for certain what support they could have expected to receive until autumn 2012 at the earliest. The government was concerned this might delay early investment in certain technologies and hinder the UK's ability to meet our European Union energy target for 15% of energy to come from renewable sources by 2020."
In accelerating the review, the government said it would "give investors and developers greater certainty, and the confidence to help bring forward the scale of renewable development needed to deliver the EU target, and other important energy and climate change objectives".
This timetable is now impossible to stick to. The consultation will take 12 weeks, as is standard. However, even if the review were to begin immediately, it could not be completed before the end of this parliamentary term. Investors are concerned that this could be the start of a longer delay.
Most at risk are biomass projects, generating electricity from wood and waste byproducts. Several of these are on hold because at current rates of subsidy, they would be uneconomic, and companies are calling on the government to correct this problem. This summer Dorothy Thompson, chief executive of Drax, which was planning to burn more biomass than coal in its massive power station, told the Guardian these plans were in jeopardy because of the government's failure to clarify the subsidies.
DECC said an announcement would be made "shortly" but could provide no further details.
Ministers are thought to be wary of attracting attention to the level of subsidies for green electricity, after a spate of reports in sections of the media and on the right of the Tory party criticising renewable subsidies as a component in energy prices. Chris Huhne, environment secretary, argues that consumers are more at risk of rising costs from the volatility of the gas price, and that investing in renewables is the best way to prevent future rises.
Labour leader Ed Miliband blamed energy companies for higher bills this week, promising to curtail their powers.
When the new bands are decided, they will come into effect from 1 April 2013, and from 1 April
2014 for offshore wind technologies.
Fiona Harvey
guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 September 2011 17.59 BST
Investment in the UK's renewable energy infrastructure has been thrown into doubt as an urgent review into the subsidy regime has been delayed.
Renewable energy companies are concerned that the delay of Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC) reforms – promised this year by the government – will prompt a rethink of the investment plans. The review is crucial for investors as they are currently unable to make long-term business plans without knowing how much support they are likely to receive in future.
Chris Moore, director at biomass plant developer MGT Power, said the delay meant investors were not moving ahead with potential projects. He said: "This is a problem for renewable businesses, and it's very damaging for UK plc. All of renewable energy investment is effectively on hold until the government sorts out the review and its plans."
Gaynor Hartnell, chief executive of the Renewable Energy Association, said the trade body had been "inundated" with inquiries over when the review might take place.
Key to the review is how the subsidies will be "banded", whereby some forms of energy will receive greater support – which comes ultimately from consumer energy bills, rather than government coffers – than others. A new regime would also be expected to provide more targeted support for new technologies.
Last December, the government recognised the need for an urgent review when it brought forward the consultation by a year. Charles Hendry, energy minister, said then that a consultation on ROCs would be carried out over the summer, and that by autumn this year, new plans for the subsidies would be confirmed.
At the time, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) acknowledged: "Under the previous timetable, investors would not have known for certain what support they could have expected to receive until autumn 2012 at the earliest. The government was concerned this might delay early investment in certain technologies and hinder the UK's ability to meet our European Union energy target for 15% of energy to come from renewable sources by 2020."
In accelerating the review, the government said it would "give investors and developers greater certainty, and the confidence to help bring forward the scale of renewable development needed to deliver the EU target, and other important energy and climate change objectives".
This timetable is now impossible to stick to. The consultation will take 12 weeks, as is standard. However, even if the review were to begin immediately, it could not be completed before the end of this parliamentary term. Investors are concerned that this could be the start of a longer delay.
Most at risk are biomass projects, generating electricity from wood and waste byproducts. Several of these are on hold because at current rates of subsidy, they would be uneconomic, and companies are calling on the government to correct this problem. This summer Dorothy Thompson, chief executive of Drax, which was planning to burn more biomass than coal in its massive power station, told the Guardian these plans were in jeopardy because of the government's failure to clarify the subsidies.
DECC said an announcement would be made "shortly" but could provide no further details.
Ministers are thought to be wary of attracting attention to the level of subsidies for green electricity, after a spate of reports in sections of the media and on the right of the Tory party criticising renewable subsidies as a component in energy prices. Chris Huhne, environment secretary, argues that consumers are more at risk of rising costs from the volatility of the gas price, and that investing in renewables is the best way to prevent future rises.
Labour leader Ed Miliband blamed energy companies for higher bills this week, promising to curtail their powers.
When the new bands are decided, they will come into effect from 1 April 2013, and from 1 April
2014 for offshore wind technologies.
Why do we need low-carbon energy – and how much is currently produced?
This Q&A is part of the Guardian's ultimate climate change FAQ
• See all questions and answers
• Read about the project
guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 September 2011 10.40 BST
The Gemasolar 15 MW solar power tower plant that uses molten salt technologies for receiving and storing energy. Its 16-hour molten salt storage system can deliver power around the clock. It runs the equivalent of 6570 full hours out of 8769 total. Gemasolar is owned by Torresol Energy and has been completed in May 2011. Photograph: Markel Redondo/Greenpeace
The majority of the world's man-made carbon emissions are released by the burning fossil fuels to create electricity, heat or motion. This means that it will almost certainly be impossible to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations to sustainable levels unless large quantities of low-carbon energy can be brought on-stream to substitute for fossil fuels.
The two main sources of low-carbon energy are renewables – which includes categories such as solar, wind, hydro, biomass and marine energy – and nuclear. In terms of total primary energy supply (i.e. raw energy created), data for 2008 suggest that fossil fuels provided around 85%, nuclear contributed around 2% and renewables provided around 13%. The renewables contribution breaks down by technology as follows:
Biomass (wood, etc): 10.2%
Wind: 0.2%
Hydropower: 2.3%
Marine: 0.0002%
Geothermal: 0.1%
Solar: 0.1%
In terms of final energy consumption (i.e. the energy consumed by end-users), the contribution of low-carbon sources is slightly higher.That's because a large proportion of the energy produced from fossil fuels is wasted as heat during the conversion to electricity. One estimate for the year 2009 put the contribution of renewables to final energy consumption at 19% and nuclear at 2.9%.
Some renewable energy technologies – including solar and wind – are growing in total capacity very quickly. However, the proportion of total energy that comes from low-carbon sources in the coming years and decades will depend not just on the roll-out of renewables and nuclear, but also on total energy consumption, which without regulation at the global level could continue to grow, cancelling out the emissions savings of low-carbon sources.
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Ex-President Clinton: Green movement needs money
Associated Press
NEW YORK — Former President Bill Clinton said Tuesday that the success of the alternative energy movement is hampered by a lack of financing. His comments came as world leaders attending his annual philanthropic conference expressed fears about rising seas.
The ex-president's three-day Clinton Global Initiative for VIPs with deep pockets began Tuesday with a frank discussion about addressing global climate challenges, co-hosted by Mexican President Felipe Calderon and South African President Jacob Zuma.
There was a sense of frustration among the world leaders over the failure to create a legally binding world agreement on carbon emissions.
"We have seen much less progress than we hoped for," said Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.
Pointing to Germany's successful creation of solar energy jobs as a model for other nations to emulate, Clinton said the main issue with green energy is a lack of proper funding.
"This has to work economically," he said. "You have to come up with the money on the front end."
Clinton's talk of renewable energy financing comes as Republicans are criticizing the Obama administration for awarding billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for such projects, including a $528 million loan to a now-bankrupt California solar panel maker.
Fremont, Calif.-based Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month and laid off its 1,100 employees. It was the first renewable energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model.
Rising seas are a matter of life and death for small island nations, Zuma said.
"Not theoretical, not in the future, now," he said. "And they can't understand why we're failing to realize that."
Noting that the Kyoto Protocol on climate change is set to expire next year, Calderon said progress must be made toward establishing new rules at the United Nations convention on climate change in Durban, South Africa, in November.
Calderon said he is concerned that the world's economic problems are overshadowing the need for action on climate change.
"Last year we had the worst rains ever in Mexico, and this year we are living with the worst drought ever in Mexico," he said. "I know that the world has a lot of troubles, but we are still facing the most challenging problem for human kind in the future, and that is climate change."
Sheikh Hasina, prime minister of Bangladesh, said rising seas would submerge one-fifth of her country, displacing more than 30 million people. Clinton said the next countries most likely to be affected by climate change are places that are inland and hot — such as Mali, a landlocked nation in western Africa.
"A few years ago, after the south Asian tsunami, I spent a lot of time in the Maldives," Clinton said. "I think it's quite possible that the Maldives won't be here in 30 or 40 years."
Clinton said Caribbean nations are microcosms of the problems associated with combating climate change. Every Caribbean nation should be energy-independent, he said, by generating solar, wind and geothermal energy.
"But only Trinidad has natural gas," Clinton said. "Everybody else imports heavy oil to burn old-fashioned generators at high cost."
Other leaders who participated in Tuesday's panel included European Commission President Jose Barroso, Slovenian President Danilo Turk, Tillman Thomas, the prime minister of Grenada, and Cisse Mariam Kaidama Sidibe, the prime minister of Mali.
Last year's GCI conference generated nearly 300 new commitments valued at $6 billion to tackle major global issues from poverty and disease to climate change.
This year, the conference is happening during an especially rancorous debate in Washington over government spending. Earlier this month, President Barack Obama scrubbed a clean-air regulation that aimed to reduce health-threatening smog, yielding to bitterly protesting businesses and congressional Republicans who complained the rule would kill jobs in America's ailing economy.
"We've got to somehow involve the imagination of ordinary people," Clinton said. "They have to understand that this is not a burden, it's an opportunity."
Other panels on the first day of the conference touched on subjects ranging from women and jobs in technology fields to the challenges and opportunities facing the world's increasingly urbanized population living in a growing number of cities.
In a discussion on disaster preparedness, speakers emphasized the needs for preventative action such as improved building standards to mitigate the impact of hurricanes and earthquakes. They also spoke about how to best help when a disaster does occur, in terms of the public outpouring of donations and goodwill that usually follows.
It's important for people to realize what can really help, like cash donations, and what isn't as useful, like medications that end up not being usable or clothes that victims of disasters don't want or can't use, said Valerie Amos, Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator for the United Nations. When well-meaning people send things that aren't usable, aid agencies can waste precious time and money disposing of them.
"Let's really check what's needed and make sure we're helping rather than being part of the problem," she said.
___
Associated Press writer Deepti Hajela contributed to this report.
—Copyright 2011 Associated Press
NEW YORK — Former President Bill Clinton said Tuesday that the success of the alternative energy movement is hampered by a lack of financing. His comments came as world leaders attending his annual philanthropic conference expressed fears about rising seas.
The ex-president's three-day Clinton Global Initiative for VIPs with deep pockets began Tuesday with a frank discussion about addressing global climate challenges, co-hosted by Mexican President Felipe Calderon and South African President Jacob Zuma.
There was a sense of frustration among the world leaders over the failure to create a legally binding world agreement on carbon emissions.
"We have seen much less progress than we hoped for," said Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.
Pointing to Germany's successful creation of solar energy jobs as a model for other nations to emulate, Clinton said the main issue with green energy is a lack of proper funding.
"This has to work economically," he said. "You have to come up with the money on the front end."
Clinton's talk of renewable energy financing comes as Republicans are criticizing the Obama administration for awarding billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for such projects, including a $528 million loan to a now-bankrupt California solar panel maker.
Fremont, Calif.-based Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month and laid off its 1,100 employees. It was the first renewable energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model.
Rising seas are a matter of life and death for small island nations, Zuma said.
"Not theoretical, not in the future, now," he said. "And they can't understand why we're failing to realize that."
Noting that the Kyoto Protocol on climate change is set to expire next year, Calderon said progress must be made toward establishing new rules at the United Nations convention on climate change in Durban, South Africa, in November.
Calderon said he is concerned that the world's economic problems are overshadowing the need for action on climate change.
"Last year we had the worst rains ever in Mexico, and this year we are living with the worst drought ever in Mexico," he said. "I know that the world has a lot of troubles, but we are still facing the most challenging problem for human kind in the future, and that is climate change."
Sheikh Hasina, prime minister of Bangladesh, said rising seas would submerge one-fifth of her country, displacing more than 30 million people. Clinton said the next countries most likely to be affected by climate change are places that are inland and hot — such as Mali, a landlocked nation in western Africa.
"A few years ago, after the south Asian tsunami, I spent a lot of time in the Maldives," Clinton said. "I think it's quite possible that the Maldives won't be here in 30 or 40 years."
Clinton said Caribbean nations are microcosms of the problems associated with combating climate change. Every Caribbean nation should be energy-independent, he said, by generating solar, wind and geothermal energy.
"But only Trinidad has natural gas," Clinton said. "Everybody else imports heavy oil to burn old-fashioned generators at high cost."
Other leaders who participated in Tuesday's panel included European Commission President Jose Barroso, Slovenian President Danilo Turk, Tillman Thomas, the prime minister of Grenada, and Cisse Mariam Kaidama Sidibe, the prime minister of Mali.
Last year's GCI conference generated nearly 300 new commitments valued at $6 billion to tackle major global issues from poverty and disease to climate change.
This year, the conference is happening during an especially rancorous debate in Washington over government spending. Earlier this month, President Barack Obama scrubbed a clean-air regulation that aimed to reduce health-threatening smog, yielding to bitterly protesting businesses and congressional Republicans who complained the rule would kill jobs in America's ailing economy.
"We've got to somehow involve the imagination of ordinary people," Clinton said. "They have to understand that this is not a burden, it's an opportunity."
Other panels on the first day of the conference touched on subjects ranging from women and jobs in technology fields to the challenges and opportunities facing the world's increasingly urbanized population living in a growing number of cities.
In a discussion on disaster preparedness, speakers emphasized the needs for preventative action such as improved building standards to mitigate the impact of hurricanes and earthquakes. They also spoke about how to best help when a disaster does occur, in terms of the public outpouring of donations and goodwill that usually follows.
It's important for people to realize what can really help, like cash donations, and what isn't as useful, like medications that end up not being usable or clothes that victims of disasters don't want or can't use, said Valerie Amos, Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator for the United Nations. When well-meaning people send things that aren't usable, aid agencies can waste precious time and money disposing of them.
"Let's really check what's needed and make sure we're helping rather than being part of the problem," she said.
___
Associated Press writer Deepti Hajela contributed to this report.
—Copyright 2011 Associated Press
Carbon capture progress has lost momentum, says climate change agency
Meeting of senior ministers in Beijing hears that CCS is being left behind due to financial crisis and weakening political will
Jonathan Watts
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 22 September 2011 15.40 BST
The financial crisis and fading government support for climate action have seriously eroded global plans to capture and store carbon, the International Energy Agency warned on Thursday.
Sequestration – the disposal of greenhouse gases underground rather than into the atmosphere – was supposed to account for one-fifth of the world's emissions reductions under the agency's roadmap for keeping global temperature rise within two degrees celsius by the end of the century.
But delegates including the US energy secretary Steven Chu heard at a meeting, held in Beijing, that the global temperature is on course to rise by 3.5 degrees, due to poor progress on both carbon capture and storage, the acceptance of a carbon price and other carbon-cutting efforts.
IAE deputy executive director Richard Jones told the meeting, hosted by the Washington-based Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, that this would wreck havoc on human well-being. He added that time was running out to avoid this scenario because of slow progress on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).
"Every year that passes makes it more difficult," Jones said. "With current policies, CCS will have a hard time [being] deployed ... There is less of a global push for climate action, and tighter government finances."
According to the agency's figures, global energy demand has more than doubled in the past 40 years and even with the most favourable assumptions will grow another 35% by 2035, which will take carbon dioxide emissions above 35 gigatonnes per year.
Projects to capture and bury a major chunk of that are behind schedule and finding it harder to secure funds.
To reach the two degree goal, the agency estimates that there will have to be 1,500 CCS large-scale projects around the world by 2035. Until now, however, only 74 large scale projects have been announced and the trend is in the wrong direction.
"We're seeing a decline in new projects due to a softening global economy and an uncertain carbon price," said Brad Page, the head of the Australia-based Global CCS Institute.
Outside Europe, few countries have set a price for carbon. Australia's government is now trying to do just that, and is expected to set a level of about $23 per tonne of carbon.
This alone will not be enough. US energy secretary Steven Chu told the meeting that the price of carbon would have to be $80 a tonne for CCS to be economically viable with current technology.
But, he continued, the US has yet to even set a price, which makes it difficult for companies to invest and financial institutions to make loans to CCS projects.
"The US needs a price on carbon sooner rather than later," said Chu. "This is something where we are losing time. It is very important that we get moving."
The US has 24 CCS projects – more than any other country – but they are mostly for enhanced oil extraction, which is more economical but has a relatively limited capacity for carbon sequestration.
Delegates said other forms of CCS need more state support to get going, but cash-strapped governments are backing away from financial commitments. Industry representatives said the sector was plagued by delays, doubts and weak policy support.
"Too many projects have fallen by the wayside," said Jeff Chapman, chief executive officer of the CCS Association of the UK. The UK has set aside £1bn for a demo contract, but has yet to award it to the single remaining project still in the running to win a government competition for the funding. The coalition has also committed to building three more CCS plants, one of which will be a gas power station, but has not said where the funding will come from.
China has soared through the global economic crisis with double-digit economic growth, but it is cautious about taking the lead with expensive CCS technology. Adoption by the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter is crucial as China is expected to account for one-third of the global growth in emissions over the next 25 years.
According to the International Energy Agency's plan to keep carbon dioxide in the atmosphere under 445 parts per million, China should have 270 major CCS projects by 2035. So far it has six at the planning stage. Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission said carbon capture and storage was a "last resort" for China.
With little political and financial capital behind CCS, however, its prospects are diminishing. Delegates said commodities firms – who are profiting from the rise in energy prices – should step in.
"Time has been lost as a result of the financial crisis. No one can deny that," said Martin Ferguson, who called on mining companies to make a greater financial contribution to the development of CCS technology. "Coal companies must look at themselves as beneficiaries of the rise in the price of coal."
Jonathan Watts
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 22 September 2011 15.40 BST
The financial crisis and fading government support for climate action have seriously eroded global plans to capture and store carbon, the International Energy Agency warned on Thursday.
Sequestration – the disposal of greenhouse gases underground rather than into the atmosphere – was supposed to account for one-fifth of the world's emissions reductions under the agency's roadmap for keeping global temperature rise within two degrees celsius by the end of the century.
But delegates including the US energy secretary Steven Chu heard at a meeting, held in Beijing, that the global temperature is on course to rise by 3.5 degrees, due to poor progress on both carbon capture and storage, the acceptance of a carbon price and other carbon-cutting efforts.
IAE deputy executive director Richard Jones told the meeting, hosted by the Washington-based Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, that this would wreck havoc on human well-being. He added that time was running out to avoid this scenario because of slow progress on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).
"Every year that passes makes it more difficult," Jones said. "With current policies, CCS will have a hard time [being] deployed ... There is less of a global push for climate action, and tighter government finances."
According to the agency's figures, global energy demand has more than doubled in the past 40 years and even with the most favourable assumptions will grow another 35% by 2035, which will take carbon dioxide emissions above 35 gigatonnes per year.
Projects to capture and bury a major chunk of that are behind schedule and finding it harder to secure funds.
To reach the two degree goal, the agency estimates that there will have to be 1,500 CCS large-scale projects around the world by 2035. Until now, however, only 74 large scale projects have been announced and the trend is in the wrong direction.
"We're seeing a decline in new projects due to a softening global economy and an uncertain carbon price," said Brad Page, the head of the Australia-based Global CCS Institute.
Outside Europe, few countries have set a price for carbon. Australia's government is now trying to do just that, and is expected to set a level of about $23 per tonne of carbon.
This alone will not be enough. US energy secretary Steven Chu told the meeting that the price of carbon would have to be $80 a tonne for CCS to be economically viable with current technology.
But, he continued, the US has yet to even set a price, which makes it difficult for companies to invest and financial institutions to make loans to CCS projects.
"The US needs a price on carbon sooner rather than later," said Chu. "This is something where we are losing time. It is very important that we get moving."
The US has 24 CCS projects – more than any other country – but they are mostly for enhanced oil extraction, which is more economical but has a relatively limited capacity for carbon sequestration.
Delegates said other forms of CCS need more state support to get going, but cash-strapped governments are backing away from financial commitments. Industry representatives said the sector was plagued by delays, doubts and weak policy support.
"Too many projects have fallen by the wayside," said Jeff Chapman, chief executive officer of the CCS Association of the UK. The UK has set aside £1bn for a demo contract, but has yet to award it to the single remaining project still in the running to win a government competition for the funding. The coalition has also committed to building three more CCS plants, one of which will be a gas power station, but has not said where the funding will come from.
China has soared through the global economic crisis with double-digit economic growth, but it is cautious about taking the lead with expensive CCS technology. Adoption by the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter is crucial as China is expected to account for one-third of the global growth in emissions over the next 25 years.
According to the International Energy Agency's plan to keep carbon dioxide in the atmosphere under 445 parts per million, China should have 270 major CCS projects by 2035. So far it has six at the planning stage. Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the powerful National Development and Reform Commission said carbon capture and storage was a "last resort" for China.
With little political and financial capital behind CCS, however, its prospects are diminishing. Delegates said commodities firms – who are profiting from the rise in energy prices – should step in.
"Time has been lost as a result of the financial crisis. No one can deny that," said Martin Ferguson, who called on mining companies to make a greater financial contribution to the development of CCS technology. "Coal companies must look at themselves as beneficiaries of the rise in the price of coal."
Vast reserves of shale gas revealed in UK
Huge natural gas field in north-west England revealed, but environmentalists alarmed at controversial fracking method
• Interactive: How shale gas works
• Shale gas fracking – Q&A
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 September 2011 21.35 BST
The huge scale of a natural gas field discovered under the north-west of England has been revealed, potentially revolutionising the UK's energy outlook and creating thousands of jobs, but environmental groups are alarmed at the controversial method by which the gas is extracted.
Preliminary wells drilled around Blackpool have uncovered 200 trillion cubic feet of gas – equal to the kind of recoverable reserves of big energy exporting countries such as Venezuela, according to Cuadrilla Resources, a small energy company which has the former BP boss Lord Browne on its board. It said up to 800 more wells might be drilled in the region, creating 5,600 jobs and promising a repeat of the "shale gas revolution" that swept the US, sending local energy prices spinning downwards.
Even if only a relatively small fraction of gas could be exploited, it could trigger a rush of drilling in other parts of the UK at a time when Britain is running out of North Sea reserves.
But Cuadrilla's extravagant claims have alarmed environmentalists and unnerved supporters of wind power. Green groups are opposed to the hydraulic fracturing – "fracking" – process by which the gas is unlocked from shale rock, pointing out it remains banned in parts of the US and France over fears that water aquifers could be contaminated.
The process involves drilling a well then pumping in millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals under high pressure. The pressure fractures underground shale deposits and opens fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well. For each frack, 80-300 tonnes of chemicals may be used, critics claim.
The natural gas industry does not have to disclose the chemicals used, but scientists have identified volatile organic compounds such as toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and benzene, the latter of which is a strong carcinogen.
A 2010 US documentary film, Gasland, showed homeowners setting fire to the water coming out of their taps, such was the volume of methane contained in the water. The flames were said to be the result of nearby fracking operations contaminating the water supply, but the oil industry has denied this.
Mark Miller, chief executive of Cuadrilla, said he was enormously encouraged by the potential of the Lancashire region, which appeared to have the same potential as the best shale gas producing areas in Texas. He said it was not possible to say what the exact amount of recoverable reserves would be without further drilling and he admitted 200 trillion cubic feet was a very large number
"Typical extraction rates in the US on a well by well basis would be between 10% and 30% [of the reserves in place] but it all depends on the number of wells we drill," he added. About 400 wells could be expected as a conservative estimate, he said, with up to 800 in the licence area between Blackpool and Southport over the next 15 years.
Cuadrilla, which used the fracking process five times on the first well but has since stopped, said it was drawing up a plan to be handed over to Department of Energy and Climate Change shortly. "We won't carry forward [any further fracking] till DECC has seen the report and is happy about public safety," said Miller.
A video by Cuadrilla Resources explaining the fracking process
The shale gas finds are largely due to new technology being used to produce the wells, and oil companies are busy looking for new discoveries in places as far afield as Poland and China.
Shale gas represents a potential problem for governments trying to reduce CO2 emissions, as there are significant emissions when it is burned. However, it is also a potentially much cheaper alternative to wind and solar power, which both currently require public subsidies.
The environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth said it remained totally opposed to any more fracking until the safety and environmental impact was fully understood. "We are also worried that a new shale gas goldmine would take money away from renewables," said a spokeswoman.
The Co-operative, which is championing renewables in its new retail energy business, also expressed concerns about the upbeat statements coming out of Cuadrilla, which is partly owned by the Australian oil services group AJ Lucas.
"On the face of it, new natural gas finds appear to be good news, but the government must not be seduced by this without considering all the impacts of shale gas extraction," said Paul Monaghan, head of social goals at the Co-operative group.
Blackpool oil shale reserves. Photograph: guardian.co.uk
"That is why we are calling for a moratorium on any further exploitation of shale gas, which will allow the wider environmental concerns to be fully exposed and addressed."
• Interactive: How shale gas works
• Shale gas fracking – Q&A
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 September 2011 21.35 BST
The huge scale of a natural gas field discovered under the north-west of England has been revealed, potentially revolutionising the UK's energy outlook and creating thousands of jobs, but environmental groups are alarmed at the controversial method by which the gas is extracted.
Preliminary wells drilled around Blackpool have uncovered 200 trillion cubic feet of gas – equal to the kind of recoverable reserves of big energy exporting countries such as Venezuela, according to Cuadrilla Resources, a small energy company which has the former BP boss Lord Browne on its board. It said up to 800 more wells might be drilled in the region, creating 5,600 jobs and promising a repeat of the "shale gas revolution" that swept the US, sending local energy prices spinning downwards.
Even if only a relatively small fraction of gas could be exploited, it could trigger a rush of drilling in other parts of the UK at a time when Britain is running out of North Sea reserves.
But Cuadrilla's extravagant claims have alarmed environmentalists and unnerved supporters of wind power. Green groups are opposed to the hydraulic fracturing – "fracking" – process by which the gas is unlocked from shale rock, pointing out it remains banned in parts of the US and France over fears that water aquifers could be contaminated.
The process involves drilling a well then pumping in millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals under high pressure. The pressure fractures underground shale deposits and opens fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well. For each frack, 80-300 tonnes of chemicals may be used, critics claim.
The natural gas industry does not have to disclose the chemicals used, but scientists have identified volatile organic compounds such as toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and benzene, the latter of which is a strong carcinogen.
A 2010 US documentary film, Gasland, showed homeowners setting fire to the water coming out of their taps, such was the volume of methane contained in the water. The flames were said to be the result of nearby fracking operations contaminating the water supply, but the oil industry has denied this.
Mark Miller, chief executive of Cuadrilla, said he was enormously encouraged by the potential of the Lancashire region, which appeared to have the same potential as the best shale gas producing areas in Texas. He said it was not possible to say what the exact amount of recoverable reserves would be without further drilling and he admitted 200 trillion cubic feet was a very large number
"Typical extraction rates in the US on a well by well basis would be between 10% and 30% [of the reserves in place] but it all depends on the number of wells we drill," he added. About 400 wells could be expected as a conservative estimate, he said, with up to 800 in the licence area between Blackpool and Southport over the next 15 years.
Cuadrilla, which used the fracking process five times on the first well but has since stopped, said it was drawing up a plan to be handed over to Department of Energy and Climate Change shortly. "We won't carry forward [any further fracking] till DECC has seen the report and is happy about public safety," said Miller.
A video by Cuadrilla Resources explaining the fracking process
The shale gas finds are largely due to new technology being used to produce the wells, and oil companies are busy looking for new discoveries in places as far afield as Poland and China.
Shale gas represents a potential problem for governments trying to reduce CO2 emissions, as there are significant emissions when it is burned. However, it is also a potentially much cheaper alternative to wind and solar power, which both currently require public subsidies.
The environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth said it remained totally opposed to any more fracking until the safety and environmental impact was fully understood. "We are also worried that a new shale gas goldmine would take money away from renewables," said a spokeswoman.
The Co-operative, which is championing renewables in its new retail energy business, also expressed concerns about the upbeat statements coming out of Cuadrilla, which is partly owned by the Australian oil services group AJ Lucas.
"On the face of it, new natural gas finds appear to be good news, but the government must not be seduced by this without considering all the impacts of shale gas extraction," said Paul Monaghan, head of social goals at the Co-operative group.
Blackpool oil shale reserves. Photograph: guardian.co.uk
"That is why we are calling for a moratorium on any further exploitation of shale gas, which will allow the wider environmental concerns to be fully exposed and addressed."
Will hydrogen cars ever take off?
Hydrogen cars promise zero tailpipe emissions - but they first require an expensive network of refuelling points
It's something of a chicken-and-egg scenario. Which needs to come first: the hydrogen car, or the hydrogen refuelling point?
Honda believes the latter. This week it (with the help of BOC) unveiled the first open-access hydrogen refuelling facility in the UK at its factory in Swindon. And yet, to date, not one hydrogen-powered car – not even Honda's FCX Clarity - has ever been sold in the UK. All the vehicles we have seen so far have been demonstration models.
And here in lies one of the great challenges for advocates of hydrogen cars. To even get the technology to first base, you must first install an extensive network of refuelling points across the country, or at least across the major conurbations. At least electric vehicles can be charged via a conventional power socket should a public recharging point not be available or convenient.
The extensive cost of building such infrastructure can be estimated when you learn that this single facility at Swindon was built with a regeneration grant of £250,000 from the (soon-to-be-axed) South West England Regional Development Agency. (Professor Kevin Kendall, in the video above, states that "we can expect 30-40 such stations in England by 2015".)
And you can see from the underwhelming adoption of LPG-powered vehicles in the UK - despite their significantly lower fuel costs compared to petrol and diesel - the problems that can persist if you don't build a truly comprehensive network of refuelling points. The perception quickly builds that the technology is a hassle and not as convenient as "conventional" fuels, which, for many people, still over-rides financial considerations.
Electric vehicles are going through these birthing pangs right now as the race quickens to install as wide and diverse a network of recharging options as possible. Savvy innovations such as PlugSurfing, which utilises smart phones to let drivers locate and, crucially, share private charging points, should help to pick up the pace of adoption. But hydrogen vehicles seem to have the further handicap of being totally reliant on bespoke, dedicated refuelling points.
In the US, the Obama administration has gone noticeably cold on the idea of hydrogen cars. Earlier this year, Byron McCormick, the former director of General Motors' hydrogen fuel cell team, resigned from a federal hydrogen technology advisory committee due to government cuts in funding for hydrogen vehicles. "I just feel sad they'll be proven so very wrong by history," he said in his resignation email.
But which side of history do you think hydrogen cars will ultimately end up? Putting to one side the albeit important question of how you produce hydrogen as a fuel in a low-carbon manner, is it worth the epic investment required to install refuelling points across the country before any cars can be driven in earnest? And, if so, who should foot the bill?
It's something of a chicken-and-egg scenario. Which needs to come first: the hydrogen car, or the hydrogen refuelling point?
Honda believes the latter. This week it (with the help of BOC) unveiled the first open-access hydrogen refuelling facility in the UK at its factory in Swindon. And yet, to date, not one hydrogen-powered car – not even Honda's FCX Clarity - has ever been sold in the UK. All the vehicles we have seen so far have been demonstration models.
And here in lies one of the great challenges for advocates of hydrogen cars. To even get the technology to first base, you must first install an extensive network of refuelling points across the country, or at least across the major conurbations. At least electric vehicles can be charged via a conventional power socket should a public recharging point not be available or convenient.
The extensive cost of building such infrastructure can be estimated when you learn that this single facility at Swindon was built with a regeneration grant of £250,000 from the (soon-to-be-axed) South West England Regional Development Agency. (Professor Kevin Kendall, in the video above, states that "we can expect 30-40 such stations in England by 2015".)
And you can see from the underwhelming adoption of LPG-powered vehicles in the UK - despite their significantly lower fuel costs compared to petrol and diesel - the problems that can persist if you don't build a truly comprehensive network of refuelling points. The perception quickly builds that the technology is a hassle and not as convenient as "conventional" fuels, which, for many people, still over-rides financial considerations.
Electric vehicles are going through these birthing pangs right now as the race quickens to install as wide and diverse a network of recharging options as possible. Savvy innovations such as PlugSurfing, which utilises smart phones to let drivers locate and, crucially, share private charging points, should help to pick up the pace of adoption. But hydrogen vehicles seem to have the further handicap of being totally reliant on bespoke, dedicated refuelling points.
In the US, the Obama administration has gone noticeably cold on the idea of hydrogen cars. Earlier this year, Byron McCormick, the former director of General Motors' hydrogen fuel cell team, resigned from a federal hydrogen technology advisory committee due to government cuts in funding for hydrogen vehicles. "I just feel sad they'll be proven so very wrong by history," he said in his resignation email.
But which side of history do you think hydrogen cars will ultimately end up? Putting to one side the albeit important question of how you produce hydrogen as a fuel in a low-carbon manner, is it worth the epic investment required to install refuelling points across the country before any cars can be driven in earnest? And, if so, who should foot the bill?
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Supergrid needed to end UK's electricity isolation, say MPs
An offshore grid would cut the costs of wind power, reduce pylon building on land and pave the way for a European supergrid
More European integration? Not something the UK's Conservative-led coalition would warm to, you might think. But sitting between ambitious targets for offshore wind power and rising home energy bills, they may have to.
"The UK is virtually an electricity island," states a new report from MPs. They demand that the government ends its "laissez-faire approach to offshore transmission" by developing a coordinated power grid in the North Sea that could plug into a future European supergrid.
The supergrid is popular with greens as it would allow wind, solar and other low carbon power, needed to tackle climate change, to be delivered to where it was needed or could be stored. That overcomes issues of intermittency and cuts the need for costly standby power plants to fill any gaps.
It's popular with the MPs on the House of Commons' energy and climate change committee, who wrote the report, because it would help ensure the UK's "big gamble" on offshore wind pays off.
First, an offshore grid in UK waters would significantly cut the cost of connecting each new wind farm or marine energy project to the mainland. Second, such a grid would cut the impact of new transmission kit on land. "Offshore networks can deliver electricity where it's needed without adding to the advancing army of pylons that's marching its way across our countryside," said Tim Yeo MP, the committee chairman.
Third, said Yeo: "At the moment, we are paying some [wind] generators to switch off because we haven't got the wires to deliver the electricity. An offshore grid can relieve some of this pressure."
"We have vast offshore resources of renewable energy," he said. "In fact, we potentially have enough wind, wave and tidal energy to more than match our North Sea oil and gas production and transform the country from a net energy importer to a net energy exporter." There's potentially tens of thousands of jobs in it too, he said.
So, a UK offshore grid would help deliver low carbon, more secure energy at less cost than without it: the energy trilemma tackled. The government "must" move quickly on this, the MPs say, and given that Prime Minister David Cameron is already keen on the concept, maybe it will.
The report is much more cautious about a European supergrid: "We believe that the cost of creating a European supergrid will be very high indeed. We also recognise that reaching international agreement about the necessary regulatory and market frameworks will be extremely difficult."
Nonetheless, the report continues: "There is a strong case for working quickly to achieve much more interconnection and integration of offshore networks, the building blocks of a supergrid."
If you want to think really big and long term, imagine a supergrid that reaches north Africa and the vast sunny deserts there. A dream? Perhaps, although some serious players are working on it. And when did anything great start with anything else?
More European integration? Not something the UK's Conservative-led coalition would warm to, you might think. But sitting between ambitious targets for offshore wind power and rising home energy bills, they may have to.
"The UK is virtually an electricity island," states a new report from MPs. They demand that the government ends its "laissez-faire approach to offshore transmission" by developing a coordinated power grid in the North Sea that could plug into a future European supergrid.
The supergrid is popular with greens as it would allow wind, solar and other low carbon power, needed to tackle climate change, to be delivered to where it was needed or could be stored. That overcomes issues of intermittency and cuts the need for costly standby power plants to fill any gaps.
It's popular with the MPs on the House of Commons' energy and climate change committee, who wrote the report, because it would help ensure the UK's "big gamble" on offshore wind pays off.
First, an offshore grid in UK waters would significantly cut the cost of connecting each new wind farm or marine energy project to the mainland. Second, such a grid would cut the impact of new transmission kit on land. "Offshore networks can deliver electricity where it's needed without adding to the advancing army of pylons that's marching its way across our countryside," said Tim Yeo MP, the committee chairman.
Third, said Yeo: "At the moment, we are paying some [wind] generators to switch off because we haven't got the wires to deliver the electricity. An offshore grid can relieve some of this pressure."
"We have vast offshore resources of renewable energy," he said. "In fact, we potentially have enough wind, wave and tidal energy to more than match our North Sea oil and gas production and transform the country from a net energy importer to a net energy exporter." There's potentially tens of thousands of jobs in it too, he said.
So, a UK offshore grid would help deliver low carbon, more secure energy at less cost than without it: the energy trilemma tackled. The government "must" move quickly on this, the MPs say, and given that Prime Minister David Cameron is already keen on the concept, maybe it will.
The report is much more cautious about a European supergrid: "We believe that the cost of creating a European supergrid will be very high indeed. We also recognise that reaching international agreement about the necessary regulatory and market frameworks will be extremely difficult."
Nonetheless, the report continues: "There is a strong case for working quickly to achieve much more interconnection and integration of offshore networks, the building blocks of a supergrid."
If you want to think really big and long term, imagine a supergrid that reaches north Africa and the vast sunny deserts there. A dream? Perhaps, although some serious players are working on it. And when did anything great start with anything else?
Monday, 19 September 2011
Carmakers turn to green energy for assembly plants
AFP
Sunday, 18 September 2011
Wind turbines and solar panels are fast becoming familiar sights at car assembly plants as automakers slash carbon emissions not only of the models they produce, but along the whole production chain.
"There'd be little sense in cutting the CO2 emissions of our cars to zero if we're pumping out tonnes more of the gas to build them," said Christian Mohrdieck, director for fuel cell and battery drive development at Daimler.
"We have to take a look at the entire production chain."
Germany has opted to pull out of nuclear power and it seems to be its carmakers who are spearheading the drive into renewable sources of energy.
From 2013, BMW has decided to install wind turbines at its plant in Leipzig in eastern Germany to provide the power for the assembly of its electric and hybrid models, the i3 and the i8, being unveiled at this year's IAA motor show.
Volkswagen, Europe's biggest carmaker, recently announced a partnership with Austrian power generator Verbund to cover 10 percent of the electricity needs of its 12 German plants via hydro-electric power from 2013.
And according to a report in the Financial Times Deutschland last month, VW has earmarked billions of euros (dollars) for investment in renewables over the next two years and is set to announce the acquisition of a stake in a giant wind park in the North Sea soon.
French giant Renault boasts that has opened a "zero-carbon" factory at Tangiers, Morocco, powered by wind turbines while biomass generators provide steam and heating and manufacturing waste is recycled.
And in an investment that could prove attractive not only in image terms, but in financial terms, too, the auto giant is planning to equip its French sites with solar panels by 2012.
It is costly for Renault to buy "clean" electricity from French power supplier EdF, because the latter is legally obliged to buy solar energy from generators at a hefty premium to the market.
Nevertheless, automakers are not intending to move into electricity generation on a large scale themselves, but will simply "accompany" research and development in the new infrastructures associated with clean cars, said Renault's environment director Jean-Philippe Hermine.
All sides insist that governments should lead the way in finding solutions for storing power generated from renewable sources.
Unlike fossil-based energy sources or nuclear power, generating capacity for wind or solar energy cannot be phased up or down depending on fluctuations in demand, and so ways need to be found for storing it.
"Electricity consumption does not always coincide with the weather," said Daimler's Mohrdieck.
"Sometimes the only option will be to sell off surpluses of renewable energy cheaply or simply waste them," said Reinhard Otten, head of Audi's "e-gas" project.
This project aims to use wind-generated electricity to manufacture hydrogen by means of electrolysis. That hydrogen can then in turn be used to manufacture synthetic methane, which is chemically identical to natural gas and can power combustion engines.
Audi plans to start building engines powered by e-gas in 2013.
Sunday, 18 September 2011
Wind turbines and solar panels are fast becoming familiar sights at car assembly plants as automakers slash carbon emissions not only of the models they produce, but along the whole production chain.
"There'd be little sense in cutting the CO2 emissions of our cars to zero if we're pumping out tonnes more of the gas to build them," said Christian Mohrdieck, director for fuel cell and battery drive development at Daimler.
"We have to take a look at the entire production chain."
Germany has opted to pull out of nuclear power and it seems to be its carmakers who are spearheading the drive into renewable sources of energy.
From 2013, BMW has decided to install wind turbines at its plant in Leipzig in eastern Germany to provide the power for the assembly of its electric and hybrid models, the i3 and the i8, being unveiled at this year's IAA motor show.
Volkswagen, Europe's biggest carmaker, recently announced a partnership with Austrian power generator Verbund to cover 10 percent of the electricity needs of its 12 German plants via hydro-electric power from 2013.
And according to a report in the Financial Times Deutschland last month, VW has earmarked billions of euros (dollars) for investment in renewables over the next two years and is set to announce the acquisition of a stake in a giant wind park in the North Sea soon.
French giant Renault boasts that has opened a "zero-carbon" factory at Tangiers, Morocco, powered by wind turbines while biomass generators provide steam and heating and manufacturing waste is recycled.
And in an investment that could prove attractive not only in image terms, but in financial terms, too, the auto giant is planning to equip its French sites with solar panels by 2012.
It is costly for Renault to buy "clean" electricity from French power supplier EdF, because the latter is legally obliged to buy solar energy from generators at a hefty premium to the market.
Nevertheless, automakers are not intending to move into electricity generation on a large scale themselves, but will simply "accompany" research and development in the new infrastructures associated with clean cars, said Renault's environment director Jean-Philippe Hermine.
All sides insist that governments should lead the way in finding solutions for storing power generated from renewable sources.
Unlike fossil-based energy sources or nuclear power, generating capacity for wind or solar energy cannot be phased up or down depending on fluctuations in demand, and so ways need to be found for storing it.
"Electricity consumption does not always coincide with the weather," said Daimler's Mohrdieck.
"Sometimes the only option will be to sell off surpluses of renewable energy cheaply or simply waste them," said Reinhard Otten, head of Audi's "e-gas" project.
This project aims to use wind-generated electricity to manufacture hydrogen by means of electrolysis. That hydrogen can then in turn be used to manufacture synthetic methane, which is chemically identical to natural gas and can power combustion engines.
Audi plans to start building engines powered by e-gas in 2013.
Green light for biomass power plant
By Emily Beament
Friday, 16 September 2011
A biomass plant which will use renewable sources to generate enough electricity to power 300,000 homes was today given the go-ahead by the Government.
Construction of the power plant, which once operating will use biomass such as wood to generate renewable energy, in Anglesey is set to create up to 600 jobs, with around 100 full-time staff when operational.
The 299 megawatt biomass power station, which will produce enough electricity to power the equivalent of a quarter of the homes in Wales, will be built by Anglesey Aluminium Metal Renewables at Penrhos Works, Holyhead.
Electricity generated will be used by the smelting works or exported to the grid.
The power plant will rely on fuel from local sources and imported materials, with imports coming through the port at Holyhead.
Energy Minister Charles Hendry said: "We want a balanced energy portfolio and we want biomass to play a key role in this.
"Biomass power stations such as this one in Anglesey will provide us a reliable, secure, flexible and renewable source of power.
"I am especially pleased that the plant offers the prospect of so many high quality jobs in Anglesey."
Friday, 16 September 2011
A biomass plant which will use renewable sources to generate enough electricity to power 300,000 homes was today given the go-ahead by the Government.
Construction of the power plant, which once operating will use biomass such as wood to generate renewable energy, in Anglesey is set to create up to 600 jobs, with around 100 full-time staff when operational.
The 299 megawatt biomass power station, which will produce enough electricity to power the equivalent of a quarter of the homes in Wales, will be built by Anglesey Aluminium Metal Renewables at Penrhos Works, Holyhead.
Electricity generated will be used by the smelting works or exported to the grid.
The power plant will rely on fuel from local sources and imported materials, with imports coming through the port at Holyhead.
Energy Minister Charles Hendry said: "We want a balanced energy portfolio and we want biomass to play a key role in this.
"Biomass power stations such as this one in Anglesey will provide us a reliable, secure, flexible and renewable source of power.
"I am especially pleased that the plant offers the prospect of so many high quality jobs in Anglesey."
Reports of the death of solar power are greatly exaggerated
US solar company Solyndra's bankruptcy filing was a result of a drop in the cost of silicon, not scandal and impropriety
Adam Browning for Grist, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 September 2011 14.41 BST
The solar company Solyndra recently filed for bankruptcy, which media reports have depicted as the end of solar power in the U.S. This is like saying there is no future for the internet because Netscape went out of business.
The molar-grinding irony of it all is that Solyndra was the victim of a big success -- the price of solar power has fallen rapidly, making more expensive technologies like theirs uncompetitive, but more importantly, making solar power a real player in the U.S. energy economy.
Since October of 2008, the average price of solar modules has fallen from $4.20 per watt to around $1.20 to $1.50 per watt today. These are mind-boggling reductions. And these new prices are resulting in extraordinary market development. As of June, California utilities have signed over eight gigawatts of solar contracts ... half of which are below the price of new natural gas generation. That's right. Gigawatts of solar cheaper than the fossil fuel alternatives.
The media have been hinting at scandal and impropriety. While we have no idea about Solyndra's actions in securing the loan guarantee, we can say that their technology approach was squarely within mainstream thinking of the time. Solyndra was attempting to develop a photovoltaic (PV) technology that didn't use silicon, the dominant raw material for PV then and today. Take a look at this chart [PDF]. For years, silicon was manufactured primarily for semiconductors, and the solar industry essentially relied on excess material. In 2004, when Germany introduced robust incentives and the solar industry really started taking off, a shortage of silicon became a huge problem. There were seven plants in the world capable of manufacturing solar grade silicon, and as they had the scarcity in the value chain, they were able to command premium prices. The market price of silicon went through the roof. The main material for crystalline PV technology, which once cost $25 per kilogram (kg), soared to $450 per kg. Silicon manufacturers had the solar industry by the short hairs, and everyone looked for an alternative. Silicon was the single biggest obstacle to bringing down costs and bringing solar to scale, and everybody -- absolutely everybody -- was trying to figure out how to deal with it.
Solar manufacturers that had relied on silicon-based PV technology tried to develop new methods that didn't need silicon. For example, Sharp, which was once the world's largest PV manufacturer using crystalline silicon technology, made a significant capital investment in a thin-film product that was half as efficient ... but used about 1 percent of the silicon [PDF]. And venture-capital money poured into start-ups working on breakthrough new materials that addressed the silicon problem. Nanosolar, Miasole, HelioVolt, and, yes, Solyndra, all received hundreds of millions of dollars of private venture funds to commercialize CIGS technology -- an approach that did not rely on any silicon at all. Solyndra's premise was squarely within mainstream thinking.
So what happened? Silicon got cheap, and the manufacture of crystalline silicon panels got even cheaper. All the innovation, market pressures, and government investment worked. Analysis out on Friday from the DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab shows that the pre-incentive price of going solar in the U.S. dropped 17 percent last year, and another 11 percent in the first half of 2011 -- record reductions since they began tracking the data. Importantly, the Berkeley Lab report further indicates that federal and state market-building policies have been instrumental to those gains. What little policy support solar has received relative to its fossil counterparts is working as it should -- to build scale, bring down costs, and deliver strong economic returns on our nation's investment. And today the solar power industry is the fastest-growing industry in America.
The holy grail of those working in the field is to bring down costs. Solyndra had a reputed cost structure around $2 per watt. The fact that's no longer competitive is a sign that solar is succeeding, and delivering on its promise faster and better than the brightest minds and the big bucks ever imagined.
Adam Browning for Grist, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 September 2011 14.41 BST
The solar company Solyndra recently filed for bankruptcy, which media reports have depicted as the end of solar power in the U.S. This is like saying there is no future for the internet because Netscape went out of business.
The molar-grinding irony of it all is that Solyndra was the victim of a big success -- the price of solar power has fallen rapidly, making more expensive technologies like theirs uncompetitive, but more importantly, making solar power a real player in the U.S. energy economy.
Since October of 2008, the average price of solar modules has fallen from $4.20 per watt to around $1.20 to $1.50 per watt today. These are mind-boggling reductions. And these new prices are resulting in extraordinary market development. As of June, California utilities have signed over eight gigawatts of solar contracts ... half of which are below the price of new natural gas generation. That's right. Gigawatts of solar cheaper than the fossil fuel alternatives.
The media have been hinting at scandal and impropriety. While we have no idea about Solyndra's actions in securing the loan guarantee, we can say that their technology approach was squarely within mainstream thinking of the time. Solyndra was attempting to develop a photovoltaic (PV) technology that didn't use silicon, the dominant raw material for PV then and today. Take a look at this chart [PDF]. For years, silicon was manufactured primarily for semiconductors, and the solar industry essentially relied on excess material. In 2004, when Germany introduced robust incentives and the solar industry really started taking off, a shortage of silicon became a huge problem. There were seven plants in the world capable of manufacturing solar grade silicon, and as they had the scarcity in the value chain, they were able to command premium prices. The market price of silicon went through the roof. The main material for crystalline PV technology, which once cost $25 per kilogram (kg), soared to $450 per kg. Silicon manufacturers had the solar industry by the short hairs, and everyone looked for an alternative. Silicon was the single biggest obstacle to bringing down costs and bringing solar to scale, and everybody -- absolutely everybody -- was trying to figure out how to deal with it.
Solar manufacturers that had relied on silicon-based PV technology tried to develop new methods that didn't need silicon. For example, Sharp, which was once the world's largest PV manufacturer using crystalline silicon technology, made a significant capital investment in a thin-film product that was half as efficient ... but used about 1 percent of the silicon [PDF]. And venture-capital money poured into start-ups working on breakthrough new materials that addressed the silicon problem. Nanosolar, Miasole, HelioVolt, and, yes, Solyndra, all received hundreds of millions of dollars of private venture funds to commercialize CIGS technology -- an approach that did not rely on any silicon at all. Solyndra's premise was squarely within mainstream thinking.
So what happened? Silicon got cheap, and the manufacture of crystalline silicon panels got even cheaper. All the innovation, market pressures, and government investment worked. Analysis out on Friday from the DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab shows that the pre-incentive price of going solar in the U.S. dropped 17 percent last year, and another 11 percent in the first half of 2011 -- record reductions since they began tracking the data. Importantly, the Berkeley Lab report further indicates that federal and state market-building policies have been instrumental to those gains. What little policy support solar has received relative to its fossil counterparts is working as it should -- to build scale, bring down costs, and deliver strong economic returns on our nation's investment. And today the solar power industry is the fastest-growing industry in America.
The holy grail of those working in the field is to bring down costs. Solyndra had a reputed cost structure around $2 per watt. The fact that's no longer competitive is a sign that solar is succeeding, and delivering on its promise faster and better than the brightest minds and the big bucks ever imagined.
Solar panel factory protests tarnish China's clean-tech efforts
Chinese villagers protesting about pollution were dispersed by riot police in Haining, Zhejiang province
Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 September 2011 19.05 BST
China's ambition to build a harmonious clean-tech economy lost some of its sheen on Sunday after a violent confrontation over pollution from a solar panel factory.
Riot police broke up a four-day protest by several hundred villagers in Haining, Zhejiang province, who overturned cars and stormed the compound of a photovoltaic manufacturer that is accused of releasing toxins into a local river.
The demonstrators complained of police brutality and efforts to silence their voices in the latest in a rash of rallies and protests over environmental concerns in China.
The target on this occasion was Jinko Solar Holding, a fast-growing company listed on the New York stock exchange that produces ingots, wafers, cells and modules.
Although solar is seen as clean energy in terms of carbon emissions, the production of many components is energy intensive and polluting. Toxic discharges from the factory killed large numbers of fish and regulators have previously ordered the company to suspend operations, according to the domestic media.
Chen Hongming, deputy head of Haining's environmental protection bureau, told the Xinhua news agency that the plant has failed to meet pollution standards since April despite official warnings.
Locals are frustrated their complaints have not been heard. On Thursday, 500 people burst into the factory compound. They were dispersed, but continued their protests by camping outside.
Photographs and video of the demonstrations have spread across the internet. One banner – shown on the website of the National Business Daily newspaper– reads: "Return our lives to us, stay away from Jinko."
Video images on the municipal website showed smashed factory windows. Eight company vehicles were overturned on Thursday and four police vehicles were damaged on the following days, according to official accounts.
Riot police dispersed the gathering on Sunday and sealed off the site. Witnesses complained to reporters that the security forces had used heavy-handed tactics.
"Some people were beaten up during the protests," a protester with the surname Cao told Reuters. "Why can't we just tell the truth about this pollution? Now people talking to reporters are also being detained: what justice is there? We are being silenced."
Villagers said they wanted the factory to move because they were worried about the impact of its discharges into the river and air on the health of their children.
The clash highlights the difficulty that China faces as it tries to clean up its environment, reduce its reliance on coal and secure "clean tech" export business. The country is the world's biggest manufacturer of solar panels with about 70% of the global market, but overseas rivals say this dominant position has been achieved through unfair subsidies, low wages and lax environmental regulation.
Increasingly, however, Chinese citizens are uneasy about the consequences of pollution in all industries. As incomes levels and environmental awareness rise, there is a growing reluctance to accept dirty growth. Last month, the Dalian city government promised to halt a planned paraxylene (PX) plant after a rally by tens of thousands of people. In recent years, there have also been several violent demonstrations against battery factories and smelting facilities that are blamed for unhealthy levels of lead in the blood of children in some area. Many other smaller protests in the countryside go largely unreported.
Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 September 2011 19.05 BST
China's ambition to build a harmonious clean-tech economy lost some of its sheen on Sunday after a violent confrontation over pollution from a solar panel factory.
Riot police broke up a four-day protest by several hundred villagers in Haining, Zhejiang province, who overturned cars and stormed the compound of a photovoltaic manufacturer that is accused of releasing toxins into a local river.
The demonstrators complained of police brutality and efforts to silence their voices in the latest in a rash of rallies and protests over environmental concerns in China.
The target on this occasion was Jinko Solar Holding, a fast-growing company listed on the New York stock exchange that produces ingots, wafers, cells and modules.
Although solar is seen as clean energy in terms of carbon emissions, the production of many components is energy intensive and polluting. Toxic discharges from the factory killed large numbers of fish and regulators have previously ordered the company to suspend operations, according to the domestic media.
Chen Hongming, deputy head of Haining's environmental protection bureau, told the Xinhua news agency that the plant has failed to meet pollution standards since April despite official warnings.
Locals are frustrated their complaints have not been heard. On Thursday, 500 people burst into the factory compound. They were dispersed, but continued their protests by camping outside.
Photographs and video of the demonstrations have spread across the internet. One banner – shown on the website of the National Business Daily newspaper– reads: "Return our lives to us, stay away from Jinko."
Video images on the municipal website showed smashed factory windows. Eight company vehicles were overturned on Thursday and four police vehicles were damaged on the following days, according to official accounts.
Riot police dispersed the gathering on Sunday and sealed off the site. Witnesses complained to reporters that the security forces had used heavy-handed tactics.
"Some people were beaten up during the protests," a protester with the surname Cao told Reuters. "Why can't we just tell the truth about this pollution? Now people talking to reporters are also being detained: what justice is there? We are being silenced."
Villagers said they wanted the factory to move because they were worried about the impact of its discharges into the river and air on the health of their children.
The clash highlights the difficulty that China faces as it tries to clean up its environment, reduce its reliance on coal and secure "clean tech" export business. The country is the world's biggest manufacturer of solar panels with about 70% of the global market, but overseas rivals say this dominant position has been achieved through unfair subsidies, low wages and lax environmental regulation.
Increasingly, however, Chinese citizens are uneasy about the consequences of pollution in all industries. As incomes levels and environmental awareness rise, there is a growing reluctance to accept dirty growth. Last month, the Dalian city government promised to halt a planned paraxylene (PX) plant after a rally by tens of thousands of people. In recent years, there have also been several violent demonstrations against battery factories and smelting facilities that are blamed for unhealthy levels of lead in the blood of children in some area. Many other smaller protests in the countryside go largely unreported.
New offshore windfarm technologies in the battle against seasickness
Giant robotic arms among ideas to win financial backing from the Carbon Trust to fight major obstacle to wind energy: stormy seas
Damian Carrington
The Guardian, Monday 19 September 2011
Ships with rally-car suspension, seahorse-like tails or featuring their own harbours have been unveiled in the fight against a major obstacle to the UK's plans for a clean energy future: seasickness.
New technology is needed to defeat this oldest of seafaring problems, and 13 inventive ideas, including a ship steadied by a huge deep keel and another with a giant robotic arm, have shared a £1m development prize from the Carbon Trust.
The UK plans to erect 6,000 giant offshore wind turbines by 2020 to provide 25% of the country's electricity, but the structures have to be installed in far rougher and more remote waters than the 487 so far erected.
Thousands of technicians and engineers based at sea will be needed for maintenance and repairs, and getting them safely aboard the turbines in heavy swells is one of the toughest challenges currently facing the offshore industry.
"It's not the turbines and it's not the foundations that are the big problems, it's the weather," said Dave Armstrong, whose company North Sea Logistics runs 22 turbine-support ships, and whose hinged gangplank is one of the winning ideas. "If the weather is too rough you can't get the guys out. And the last thing you want is the guy being sick onboard as he's no good to anyone after that, believe me."
Benjamin Sykes, director of innovation at the Carbon Trust and offshore oil industry veteran, agreed. "You have to be a hundred per cent. Seasickness is a real challenge for work that requires precision, complexity and involves heavy machinery: it's not to be underestimated."
The Carbon Trust estimates that millions of journeys will be required to build and maintain the future offshore turbine fleet over its 25-year lifespan. The next turbines will be built up to 300km from shore and stormy seas big enough to halt work with current equipment occur on about 155 days a year, when waves top five feet.
But the new technologies must deliver workers safely and in a fit state in even higher, 10ft waves, cutting lost days to less than 65 a year. Sykes said that will cut turbine downtime, meaning billions of pounds in extra revenue.
One winner, the Australian-designed Nauti-craft, smooths the ride across choppy waters using four hulls connected to the main deck with a hydraulic suspension system (see video above) adapted from rally championship-winning cars. Another ship, called TransSpar and designed by Canada's Extreme Ocean Innovation, has a huge, deep keel for stability, giving it the shape of a seahorse, while a third is an adaptation of a Norwegian Navy minesweeping hovercraft.
Once at the base of the turbine, engineers have to get on to it, even in high seas. Armstrong's idea converts a long section of the deck of a ship into gangway, which attaches to the turbine and remains steady while the boat bobs up and down in the waves. Another idea to solve this problem is a large robot arm from German company Momac (see video below) which uses sensors to keep the arm steady as it places the worker on to the turbine.
"This is technology transfer from the car industry, and not as expensive as you might think," said Jan Matthiesen, offshore technology acceleration manager at the Carbon Trust. "It is light because it it electric rather than hydraulic, and it also moves fast." He said a turbine has to be visited by a team twice a year, for maintenance such as changing the oil in the gearbox, in addition to any visits for repairs.
A third category in the competition was for mother ships to provide a floating home for workers, with multiple daughter ships to ferry them to each turbine. Two winners have open sterns, forming a harbour within the ship up to 85m long into which the daughter ships would sail, sheltered from the elements.
"You will have an offshore community living out in the ocean, just as you do now with the oil industry," MatthiesenSykes says helicopters are not an attractive alternative. "The oil industry is moving away from helicopters for in-field operations because of safety concerns and, in any case, being winched on to the top of a 100m turbine in a gale is not an attractive proposition."
The winners, chosen from 450 entries, get up to £100,000 for nine months of development. The most promising inventions will then be given further funding by the Carbon Trust and its partners, including E.ON, RWE Innogy, SSE Renewables and Dong Energy. The trust is also helping to develop the turbulence-minimising layouts for windfarms with thousands of turbines, as well as new foundation designs.
The Trust's efforts are backed by the government. The energy and climate change minister, Greg Barker, said: "The UK is leading the world in offshore wind power generation, which is creating a huge market here in design, innovation and new technology. These projects represent some of the best ideas to overcome the challenges of working in deeper water."
Armstrong believes the ocean itself is the greatest obstacle of all: "What we do, putting people on the turbines, is the most challenging job in the whole offshore industry."
Damian Carrington
The Guardian, Monday 19 September 2011
Ships with rally-car suspension, seahorse-like tails or featuring their own harbours have been unveiled in the fight against a major obstacle to the UK's plans for a clean energy future: seasickness.
New technology is needed to defeat this oldest of seafaring problems, and 13 inventive ideas, including a ship steadied by a huge deep keel and another with a giant robotic arm, have shared a £1m development prize from the Carbon Trust.
The UK plans to erect 6,000 giant offshore wind turbines by 2020 to provide 25% of the country's electricity, but the structures have to be installed in far rougher and more remote waters than the 487 so far erected.
Thousands of technicians and engineers based at sea will be needed for maintenance and repairs, and getting them safely aboard the turbines in heavy swells is one of the toughest challenges currently facing the offshore industry.
"It's not the turbines and it's not the foundations that are the big problems, it's the weather," said Dave Armstrong, whose company North Sea Logistics runs 22 turbine-support ships, and whose hinged gangplank is one of the winning ideas. "If the weather is too rough you can't get the guys out. And the last thing you want is the guy being sick onboard as he's no good to anyone after that, believe me."
Benjamin Sykes, director of innovation at the Carbon Trust and offshore oil industry veteran, agreed. "You have to be a hundred per cent. Seasickness is a real challenge for work that requires precision, complexity and involves heavy machinery: it's not to be underestimated."
The Carbon Trust estimates that millions of journeys will be required to build and maintain the future offshore turbine fleet over its 25-year lifespan. The next turbines will be built up to 300km from shore and stormy seas big enough to halt work with current equipment occur on about 155 days a year, when waves top five feet.
But the new technologies must deliver workers safely and in a fit state in even higher, 10ft waves, cutting lost days to less than 65 a year. Sykes said that will cut turbine downtime, meaning billions of pounds in extra revenue.
One winner, the Australian-designed Nauti-craft, smooths the ride across choppy waters using four hulls connected to the main deck with a hydraulic suspension system (see video above) adapted from rally championship-winning cars. Another ship, called TransSpar and designed by Canada's Extreme Ocean Innovation, has a huge, deep keel for stability, giving it the shape of a seahorse, while a third is an adaptation of a Norwegian Navy minesweeping hovercraft.
Once at the base of the turbine, engineers have to get on to it, even in high seas. Armstrong's idea converts a long section of the deck of a ship into gangway, which attaches to the turbine and remains steady while the boat bobs up and down in the waves. Another idea to solve this problem is a large robot arm from German company Momac (see video below) which uses sensors to keep the arm steady as it places the worker on to the turbine.
"This is technology transfer from the car industry, and not as expensive as you might think," said Jan Matthiesen, offshore technology acceleration manager at the Carbon Trust. "It is light because it it electric rather than hydraulic, and it also moves fast." He said a turbine has to be visited by a team twice a year, for maintenance such as changing the oil in the gearbox, in addition to any visits for repairs.
A third category in the competition was for mother ships to provide a floating home for workers, with multiple daughter ships to ferry them to each turbine. Two winners have open sterns, forming a harbour within the ship up to 85m long into which the daughter ships would sail, sheltered from the elements.
"You will have an offshore community living out in the ocean, just as you do now with the oil industry," MatthiesenSykes says helicopters are not an attractive alternative. "The oil industry is moving away from helicopters for in-field operations because of safety concerns and, in any case, being winched on to the top of a 100m turbine in a gale is not an attractive proposition."
The winners, chosen from 450 entries, get up to £100,000 for nine months of development. The most promising inventions will then be given further funding by the Carbon Trust and its partners, including E.ON, RWE Innogy, SSE Renewables and Dong Energy. The trust is also helping to develop the turbulence-minimising layouts for windfarms with thousands of turbines, as well as new foundation designs.
The Trust's efforts are backed by the government. The energy and climate change minister, Greg Barker, said: "The UK is leading the world in offshore wind power generation, which is creating a huge market here in design, innovation and new technology. These projects represent some of the best ideas to overcome the challenges of working in deeper water."
Armstrong believes the ocean itself is the greatest obstacle of all: "What we do, putting people on the turbines, is the most challenging job in the whole offshore industry."
Thursday, 15 September 2011
Jumbo jets powered by chip fat and algae could be appearing on the horizon soon.
By VIVIENNE RAPER
Will your next flight be part-powered by used chip fat? The answer was 'yes' for 171 passengers flying between Amsterdam and Paris with Dutch airline KLM on June 29, 2011. They were aboard the world's first scheduled biofueled flight, which was powered by kerosene mixed with recycled cooking oil.
But behind the eye-catching headlines, debate rages about whether enough cheap fuel made from renewable organic materials could be produced to fuel future flying. And whether it's greener than fossil fuels. The aviation industry has long been regarded by environmental campaigners as one of the biggest contributors to climate change, with one study in 2009 by scientific journal, Atmospheric Environment, claiming it contributes up to 14% of anthropogenic climate warming. However, the industry has pledged to cut emissions by 50% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels.
Slashing Emissions
The hope is that biofueled flight can slash emissions. "Along with using less fuel, you can change the fuel itself and that's the biofuel journey," says Richard Wynne, Boeing's geopolitical and policy analysis director. The aviation industry claims a bio-fueled jet, or 'biojet', emits an estimated 80% less carbon dioxide than kerosene.
"We've pretty much cracked the technical issues," says Jonathon Counsell, British Airways' head of environment. But moving from one-off flights to powering global aviation is a big challenge.
Biojet is more than double the price of ordinary aviation fuel, says Finnair, which is making four flights with a biofuel blend. "It is challenging for U.S. airlines to afford such fuel cost premiums," says Jimmy Samartzis, United Airlines' managing director of global environmental sustainability. The hope is prices will fall as biofuel use expands.
Mr. Counsell and others are pushing for pro biojet policies, which they believe will also reduce prices. "We are consulting with the U.K. government to ensure there are economic incentives to produce biojet," he says. Airlines will get discounts for using biojet when they start paying for carbon emissions under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in 2012. But producing biofuels for road and air transport poses problems. One is running out of land. "To make just 1% of the oil we use nationwide in the U.S. would require us to devote 10% of our cropland," says James Bartis, senior policy researcher at RAND.
Seed and fruit oils from jatropha, camelina and palms are among the few plant biojet sources available today, Dr. Bartis says. "The problem with using seeds is you're using a small fraction of the plant and—as a result—the yield per acre of oil is extremely low."
Palm oil is linked to rainforest destruction. If biofuel use expands "the concern is this will lead to further expansion of palm oil in Indonesia and Malaysia, and deforestation," says Kenneth Richter, a biofuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth.
Biojet Sources
The aviation industry says camelina and jatropha can be grown on marginal land to avoid competing with food production. But Dr. Bartis is skeptical about potential yields. "We found what every farmer in the world knows. You put something on marginal land, don't irrigate it and you get a marginal crop."
Biojet sources that don't use land include waste paper and wood chips. U.S. bio-energy firm Solena Group and BA are building a $350 million (€240 million) plant in London, to convert agricultural, domestic and industrial waste into 16 million gallons (60 million liters) of fuel a year. The plant should be complete before 2015
But waste like cardboard and cooking fat has limited availability. Approximately 400 million gallons of waste cooking oils are collected annually from U.S. restaurants. But U.S. airlines require 17.5 billion gallons of fuel a year. "When folks ask whether Boeing is interested in camelina, jatropha or cellulosic material (like wood chips) as the great potential feedstock for aviation. The answer is yes, all of those," says Mr. Wynne.
Biojet's holy grail is milking oil from algae. "Algae is the feedstock many people think has the potential to supply the industry's volumetric needs," says Mr. Wynne. Biologist Craig Venter has teamed up with ExxonMobil on a $600 million project to genetically engineer biofuel-producing super-algae.
A 2009 scientific study included estimates that ocean-living algae could generate up to 200 times more oil per acre than seeds. But generating biojet from algae is hard. Biofuel producer Neste Oil launched two algae research projects this summer and says producing commercial quantities is five to 10 years away.
How much biojet can limit climate change is also unclear. A study by German Aerospace Center scientists published in March found aircraft condensation trails could cause more short-term climate warming than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft during the history of flight.
Professor Manfred Aigner says the scientific debate over contrails is "quite open at the moment". But he expects the biojet blend he is helping test for Lufthansa during the next six months will produce fewer condensation trails than kerosene.
Do airlines have options beyond biofuels? Boeing's website mentions its solar-powered SolarEagle and hydrogen-powered Phantom Eye planes. But Mr. Wynne explains they're research projects. "For the foreseeable future as an industry we're going to be burning high-energy liquid hydrocarbon fuels," he says. How many years is the "foreseeable future"? "Hopefully less than 1000," he says, laughing.
Will your next flight be part-powered by used chip fat? The answer was 'yes' for 171 passengers flying between Amsterdam and Paris with Dutch airline KLM on June 29, 2011. They were aboard the world's first scheduled biofueled flight, which was powered by kerosene mixed with recycled cooking oil.
But behind the eye-catching headlines, debate rages about whether enough cheap fuel made from renewable organic materials could be produced to fuel future flying. And whether it's greener than fossil fuels. The aviation industry has long been regarded by environmental campaigners as one of the biggest contributors to climate change, with one study in 2009 by scientific journal, Atmospheric Environment, claiming it contributes up to 14% of anthropogenic climate warming. However, the industry has pledged to cut emissions by 50% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels.
Slashing Emissions
The hope is that biofueled flight can slash emissions. "Along with using less fuel, you can change the fuel itself and that's the biofuel journey," says Richard Wynne, Boeing's geopolitical and policy analysis director. The aviation industry claims a bio-fueled jet, or 'biojet', emits an estimated 80% less carbon dioxide than kerosene.
"We've pretty much cracked the technical issues," says Jonathon Counsell, British Airways' head of environment. But moving from one-off flights to powering global aviation is a big challenge.
Biojet is more than double the price of ordinary aviation fuel, says Finnair, which is making four flights with a biofuel blend. "It is challenging for U.S. airlines to afford such fuel cost premiums," says Jimmy Samartzis, United Airlines' managing director of global environmental sustainability. The hope is prices will fall as biofuel use expands.
Mr. Counsell and others are pushing for pro biojet policies, which they believe will also reduce prices. "We are consulting with the U.K. government to ensure there are economic incentives to produce biojet," he says. Airlines will get discounts for using biojet when they start paying for carbon emissions under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in 2012. But producing biofuels for road and air transport poses problems. One is running out of land. "To make just 1% of the oil we use nationwide in the U.S. would require us to devote 10% of our cropland," says James Bartis, senior policy researcher at RAND.
Seed and fruit oils from jatropha, camelina and palms are among the few plant biojet sources available today, Dr. Bartis says. "The problem with using seeds is you're using a small fraction of the plant and—as a result—the yield per acre of oil is extremely low."
Palm oil is linked to rainforest destruction. If biofuel use expands "the concern is this will lead to further expansion of palm oil in Indonesia and Malaysia, and deforestation," says Kenneth Richter, a biofuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth.
Biojet Sources
The aviation industry says camelina and jatropha can be grown on marginal land to avoid competing with food production. But Dr. Bartis is skeptical about potential yields. "We found what every farmer in the world knows. You put something on marginal land, don't irrigate it and you get a marginal crop."
Biojet sources that don't use land include waste paper and wood chips. U.S. bio-energy firm Solena Group and BA are building a $350 million (€240 million) plant in London, to convert agricultural, domestic and industrial waste into 16 million gallons (60 million liters) of fuel a year. The plant should be complete before 2015
But waste like cardboard and cooking fat has limited availability. Approximately 400 million gallons of waste cooking oils are collected annually from U.S. restaurants. But U.S. airlines require 17.5 billion gallons of fuel a year. "When folks ask whether Boeing is interested in camelina, jatropha or cellulosic material (like wood chips) as the great potential feedstock for aviation. The answer is yes, all of those," says Mr. Wynne.
Biojet's holy grail is milking oil from algae. "Algae is the feedstock many people think has the potential to supply the industry's volumetric needs," says Mr. Wynne. Biologist Craig Venter has teamed up with ExxonMobil on a $600 million project to genetically engineer biofuel-producing super-algae.
A 2009 scientific study included estimates that ocean-living algae could generate up to 200 times more oil per acre than seeds. But generating biojet from algae is hard. Biofuel producer Neste Oil launched two algae research projects this summer and says producing commercial quantities is five to 10 years away.
How much biojet can limit climate change is also unclear. A study by German Aerospace Center scientists published in March found aircraft condensation trails could cause more short-term climate warming than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft during the history of flight.
Professor Manfred Aigner says the scientific debate over contrails is "quite open at the moment". But he expects the biojet blend he is helping test for Lufthansa during the next six months will produce fewer condensation trails than kerosene.
Do airlines have options beyond biofuels? Boeing's website mentions its solar-powered SolarEagle and hydrogen-powered Phantom Eye planes. But Mr. Wynne explains they're research projects. "For the foreseeable future as an industry we're going to be burning high-energy liquid hydrocarbon fuels," he says. How many years is the "foreseeable future"? "Hopefully less than 1000," he says, laughing.
Green deal must not be dominated by big energy companies
Labour's vision is a scheme where small businesses, co-operatives, charities and social enterprises are able to compete alongside large companies
Luciana Berger
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 September 2011 12.59 BST
On Wednesday afternoon the energy bill has its report stage and third reading in the House of Commons.
The bill's main aim is to establish a pay-as-you-save energy efficiency scheme called the "green deal", where homeowners can make their homes more energy efficient with loans whose repayments are offset by bill savings.
The green deal could offer some protection against the recent 20% gas and electricity prices by five of the six major energy companies.
Ministers are very quick to talk up its potential. Chris Huhne has called it "the most ambitious energy-saving plan ever put forward". In its current form, it lacks a clearly laid out strategy showing how much the green deal will reduce the UK's carbon emissions by and what progress is being made towards this.
That's why Labour has tabled the warm homes amendments, which link the green deal to the UK's carbon budgets and our legal target to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016. And we've put forward proposals for local carbon plans, to encourage local authorities and local businesses to be at the heart of reducing carbon emissions.
If these changes aren't adopted today, it looks like the marketplace will be dominated by the big energy companies. Labour's vision for the green deal is one where small businesses, co-operatives, charities and social enterprises are able to compete alongside large companies that want to take part in the scheme.
We tabled proposals to reduce administration fees and a guarantee of fair access to the green deal for smaller providers. The government voted against them. By rejecting this approach, ministers are in danger of leaving Britain's 2m small businesses with empty order books, as the big players squeeze them out of the market place.
Another part of the problem is that at present many consumers don't know about the scheme. At the beginning of August a survey by YouGov found that 54% of respondents were unable to identify that the green deal is designed to fund energy efficiency improvements. Fourteen per cent thought it was aimed at protecting national forests and outdoor spaces, while 9% believed it was for increasing the number of hybrid cars on UK roads.
There is much scepticism amongst those consumers who are aware of the programme. The main challenge is the loans are subject to interest charges.
A report by environmental think tank E3G says that relying on commercial loans could mean interest rates are as high as 8%. Polling conducted by the Great British Refurb Campaign worryingly found that only 7% of homeowners would be interested in taking up the green deal if the interest rate was 6% or above.
The government has not yet demonstrated that it has found a way to solve this problem and lower the interest rate. David Cameron's own senior energy adviser, Ben Moxham, has described the proposals as "unconvincing". It's incredible that something as fundamental as this has not been resolved at such a late stage.
If done properly, the green deal could mean lower fuel bills, reduced carbon emissions and more jobs. To make this happen, the government needs to set a clear level of ambition for the scheme, pass local carbon plans to help small businesses and make the scheme attractive to consumers.
• Luciana Berger MP is the shadow minister for climate change
Luciana Berger
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 September 2011 12.59 BST
On Wednesday afternoon the energy bill has its report stage and third reading in the House of Commons.
The bill's main aim is to establish a pay-as-you-save energy efficiency scheme called the "green deal", where homeowners can make their homes more energy efficient with loans whose repayments are offset by bill savings.
The green deal could offer some protection against the recent 20% gas and electricity prices by five of the six major energy companies.
Ministers are very quick to talk up its potential. Chris Huhne has called it "the most ambitious energy-saving plan ever put forward". In its current form, it lacks a clearly laid out strategy showing how much the green deal will reduce the UK's carbon emissions by and what progress is being made towards this.
That's why Labour has tabled the warm homes amendments, which link the green deal to the UK's carbon budgets and our legal target to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016. And we've put forward proposals for local carbon plans, to encourage local authorities and local businesses to be at the heart of reducing carbon emissions.
If these changes aren't adopted today, it looks like the marketplace will be dominated by the big energy companies. Labour's vision for the green deal is one where small businesses, co-operatives, charities and social enterprises are able to compete alongside large companies that want to take part in the scheme.
We tabled proposals to reduce administration fees and a guarantee of fair access to the green deal for smaller providers. The government voted against them. By rejecting this approach, ministers are in danger of leaving Britain's 2m small businesses with empty order books, as the big players squeeze them out of the market place.
Another part of the problem is that at present many consumers don't know about the scheme. At the beginning of August a survey by YouGov found that 54% of respondents were unable to identify that the green deal is designed to fund energy efficiency improvements. Fourteen per cent thought it was aimed at protecting national forests and outdoor spaces, while 9% believed it was for increasing the number of hybrid cars on UK roads.
There is much scepticism amongst those consumers who are aware of the programme. The main challenge is the loans are subject to interest charges.
A report by environmental think tank E3G says that relying on commercial loans could mean interest rates are as high as 8%. Polling conducted by the Great British Refurb Campaign worryingly found that only 7% of homeowners would be interested in taking up the green deal if the interest rate was 6% or above.
The government has not yet demonstrated that it has found a way to solve this problem and lower the interest rate. David Cameron's own senior energy adviser, Ben Moxham, has described the proposals as "unconvincing". It's incredible that something as fundamental as this has not been resolved at such a late stage.
If done properly, the green deal could mean lower fuel bills, reduced carbon emissions and more jobs. To make this happen, the government needs to set a clear level of ambition for the scheme, pass local carbon plans to help small businesses and make the scheme attractive to consumers.
• Luciana Berger MP is the shadow minister for climate change
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
High hopes for Norfolk's artificial volcano in fight against climate change
The project could result in 20 balloons, each the size of Wembley Stadium, firing tonnes of dust into the air at 20km up
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
A disused airfield in Norfolk will become the focus of a controversial scientific experiment to see whether it is feasible to engineer the climate by cooling the planet with a simulated volcanic eruption.
Click HERE to view graphic (63k jpg)
Scientists and engineers plan to test the "geoengineering" idea at Sculthorpe Airfield near Fakenham next month by launching a helium-filled balloon tethered to a strengthened hosepipe which will spray tap water into the air at a height of 1km.
The project is one of the first geoengineering field trials in the world and could result in the deployment of a fleet of up to 20 giant balloons, each the size of Wembley Stadium, injecting millions of tonnes of sulphate particles at a height of 20km into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.
The researchers behind the trial say the project is designed to test the movements of the tethering system in the wind, and will not attempt to reflect sunlight or alter the climate in any way.
"It doesn't have an impact on the environment, it doesn't have an impact on the climate, it is simply a technology test. It is one of the first times that people have taken geoengineering out of the lab into the field," Matt Watson of Bristol University, who is in charge of the £1.6m study, said yesterday at the British Science Festival at Bradford University. "It's very important to us to be able to communicate what we are doing effectively and honestly to make sure everyone understands, because this is a controversial and potentially alarming subject."
Geoengineering has become a semi-respectable subject for scientists to discuss in public. However, opponents argue that it is impractical and dangerous. Even talking about it could deflect attention from the urgent need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of man-made global warming, they argue.
"No form of geoengineering is a replacement for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It's very important, we are not advocating this as a good idea, we just want to know whether this is a good idea," Dr Watson said. "It's hard to imagine a situation except a dire emergency where this will be used but in order to have that conversation sensibly, we need to provide some evidence-based research."
Hugh Hunt of Cambridge University, who is leading the field test at Sculthorpe, said: "It may turn out that this whole strategy is a bad strategy, that's what we're trying to find out."
The test is part of a three-year project, Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice), which uses knowledge gained from observations of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991, when volcanic sulphate particles enveloped theplanet, cooling it by about 0.5C for two years.
The project, involving the universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Oxford, working with engineering company Marshall Aerospace, will evaluate the type of particles in solution that could be injected into the stratosphere, how they could best be carried 20km up and what effect the spraying would have on the global climate.
Dr Hunt said that a fleet of 10 to 20 giant balloons moored over the ocean and spraying at an altitude of 20km could cool the planet by about 2C at a cost of between £5bn and £50bn. "Because this is affordable, surely we must be thinking about it," he said.
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
A disused airfield in Norfolk will become the focus of a controversial scientific experiment to see whether it is feasible to engineer the climate by cooling the planet with a simulated volcanic eruption.
Click HERE to view graphic (63k jpg)
Scientists and engineers plan to test the "geoengineering" idea at Sculthorpe Airfield near Fakenham next month by launching a helium-filled balloon tethered to a strengthened hosepipe which will spray tap water into the air at a height of 1km.
The project is one of the first geoengineering field trials in the world and could result in the deployment of a fleet of up to 20 giant balloons, each the size of Wembley Stadium, injecting millions of tonnes of sulphate particles at a height of 20km into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.
The researchers behind the trial say the project is designed to test the movements of the tethering system in the wind, and will not attempt to reflect sunlight or alter the climate in any way.
"It doesn't have an impact on the environment, it doesn't have an impact on the climate, it is simply a technology test. It is one of the first times that people have taken geoengineering out of the lab into the field," Matt Watson of Bristol University, who is in charge of the £1.6m study, said yesterday at the British Science Festival at Bradford University. "It's very important to us to be able to communicate what we are doing effectively and honestly to make sure everyone understands, because this is a controversial and potentially alarming subject."
Geoengineering has become a semi-respectable subject for scientists to discuss in public. However, opponents argue that it is impractical and dangerous. Even talking about it could deflect attention from the urgent need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of man-made global warming, they argue.
"No form of geoengineering is a replacement for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It's very important, we are not advocating this as a good idea, we just want to know whether this is a good idea," Dr Watson said. "It's hard to imagine a situation except a dire emergency where this will be used but in order to have that conversation sensibly, we need to provide some evidence-based research."
Hugh Hunt of Cambridge University, who is leading the field test at Sculthorpe, said: "It may turn out that this whole strategy is a bad strategy, that's what we're trying to find out."
The test is part of a three-year project, Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice), which uses knowledge gained from observations of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991, when volcanic sulphate particles enveloped theplanet, cooling it by about 0.5C for two years.
The project, involving the universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Oxford, working with engineering company Marshall Aerospace, will evaluate the type of particles in solution that could be injected into the stratosphere, how they could best be carried 20km up and what effect the spraying would have on the global climate.
Dr Hunt said that a fleet of 10 to 20 giant balloons moored over the ocean and spraying at an altitude of 20km could cool the planet by about 2C at a cost of between £5bn and £50bn. "Because this is affordable, surely we must be thinking about it," he said.
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
Geoengineering: we need more evidence before we cast our vote
Government and scientists need more and better information on the pros and cons, and the only way to achieve this is with appropriate research
John Shepherd
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 September 2011 06.30 BST
This Wednesday, scientists will publish details of a long-proposed but controversial experiment on the feasibility of geoengineering the planet's climate.
One of the proposed techniques involves releasing into the atmosphere small particles, such as sulphates, to reflect a small percentage of the Sun's energy back into space. The Stratospheric particle injection for climate engineering (Spice) experiment, as the Guardian reported last month, will use a balloon to lift a hose about 1km into the air to test the feasibility of pumping liquids into the atmosphere. The experiment will not spray anything other than tapwater into the air, so it is not a test of geoengineering, since it will not have any effect on the climate or the weather. The research will simply test the mechanics, and has negligible environmental risks.
But some environmental groups feel that even physically harmless tests could represent the first step onto a slippery slope that would ultimately lead to full scale deployment of these technologies. This is a legitimate concern. However, to accept that "nothing should ever be done for the first time" is a counsel of despair that would have left our society devoid of many of the scientific advances from which we now benefit, had it been adhered to in the past. If the technology is found to be undesirable we must of course, ensure that it is not used.
Geoengineering the climate is a controversial subject, and rightly so. The Royal Society published an influential report reviewing the topic in 2009, but neither supports nor opposes geoengineering in general, and does not support any particular research projects, financially or otherwise. The report warned of the great uncertainty about the feasibility, costs, effectiveness and environmental and social consequences of almost all geoengineering ideas. However, it concluded that unless major cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are made soon, geoengineering technologies may become necessary.
I've concluded that geoengineering research – and I emphasise the term research - is, sadly, necessary. Our report was very clear that geoengineering does not provide an alternative to cutting emission and adapting to climate change, and that these activities must remain our top priorities. However, current emissions cuts are not enough and political aspirations are not yet leading to effective global action. The possible impacts of climate change could be disastrous for vulnerable people, and failing to explore ways to mitigate climate change, in addition to emission cuts, would be irresponsible.
What we really need is more and better information. The only way to get that information is through appropriate research.
Geoengineering, like climate change itself, is a global issue that affects us all, and therefore governance of research, and international co-operation, will be crucial. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity has decided that small-scale and low-risk field trials are acceptable (and the proposed Spice experiment is certainly one of these), but it did not define the boundaries of what is considered "small scale". Indeed there are, at present, no adequate international agreements to restrict or control many possible geoengineering activities, especially those in the atmosphere, and little experience of applying international legislation to this area.
A wide-ranging debate that involves all points of view is needed, and the Royal Society has launched a project to do just that.
As a scientist, I don't want to have to make decisions based on ignorance, and I don't believe that members of the public want that either. Those who prefer their decisions to be based on evidence should probably wait a bit before casting their vote on geoengineering.
• Prof John Shepherd is Chair of the Royal Society Working Group on Geoengineering
John Shepherd
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 September 2011 06.30 BST
This Wednesday, scientists will publish details of a long-proposed but controversial experiment on the feasibility of geoengineering the planet's climate.
One of the proposed techniques involves releasing into the atmosphere small particles, such as sulphates, to reflect a small percentage of the Sun's energy back into space. The Stratospheric particle injection for climate engineering (Spice) experiment, as the Guardian reported last month, will use a balloon to lift a hose about 1km into the air to test the feasibility of pumping liquids into the atmosphere. The experiment will not spray anything other than tapwater into the air, so it is not a test of geoengineering, since it will not have any effect on the climate or the weather. The research will simply test the mechanics, and has negligible environmental risks.
But some environmental groups feel that even physically harmless tests could represent the first step onto a slippery slope that would ultimately lead to full scale deployment of these technologies. This is a legitimate concern. However, to accept that "nothing should ever be done for the first time" is a counsel of despair that would have left our society devoid of many of the scientific advances from which we now benefit, had it been adhered to in the past. If the technology is found to be undesirable we must of course, ensure that it is not used.
Geoengineering the climate is a controversial subject, and rightly so. The Royal Society published an influential report reviewing the topic in 2009, but neither supports nor opposes geoengineering in general, and does not support any particular research projects, financially or otherwise. The report warned of the great uncertainty about the feasibility, costs, effectiveness and environmental and social consequences of almost all geoengineering ideas. However, it concluded that unless major cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are made soon, geoengineering technologies may become necessary.
I've concluded that geoengineering research – and I emphasise the term research - is, sadly, necessary. Our report was very clear that geoengineering does not provide an alternative to cutting emission and adapting to climate change, and that these activities must remain our top priorities. However, current emissions cuts are not enough and political aspirations are not yet leading to effective global action. The possible impacts of climate change could be disastrous for vulnerable people, and failing to explore ways to mitigate climate change, in addition to emission cuts, would be irresponsible.
What we really need is more and better information. The only way to get that information is through appropriate research.
Geoengineering, like climate change itself, is a global issue that affects us all, and therefore governance of research, and international co-operation, will be crucial. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity has decided that small-scale and low-risk field trials are acceptable (and the proposed Spice experiment is certainly one of these), but it did not define the boundaries of what is considered "small scale". Indeed there are, at present, no adequate international agreements to restrict or control many possible geoengineering activities, especially those in the atmosphere, and little experience of applying international legislation to this area.
A wide-ranging debate that involves all points of view is needed, and the Royal Society has launched a project to do just that.
As a scientist, I don't want to have to make decisions based on ignorance, and I don't believe that members of the public want that either. Those who prefer their decisions to be based on evidence should probably wait a bit before casting their vote on geoengineering.
• Prof John Shepherd is Chair of the Royal Society Working Group on Geoengineering
How China dominates solar power
Huge loans from the Chinese Development Bank are helping Chinese solar companies push American solar firms out of the market
Stephen Lacey for Grist, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 September 2011 14.10 BST
Armed with tens of billions in loans from the Chinese government, Chinese solar companies have scaled at a rate unthinkable only a few years ago. At the end of this year, there will likely be 50,000 megawatts (MW) of manufacturing capacity in place around the world, with much of that new capacity being developed in China and other Asian countries. (In the year 2000, there were only 100 MW of production capacity worldwide.)
In four years, the solar manufacturing sector shifted from being led by a geographically dispersed number of companies to one dominated by Chinese companies. In 2006, there were two companies from China in the list of top ten cell producers. In 2010, there were six, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. There are currently only two non-Asian manufacturers in the top ten, and those companies -- First Solar and Q-Cells -- have shifted a lot of their production to Asia.
So what happened? How did the Chinese come to completely dominate the solar industry in such a short period of time?
Bryan Ashley, the Chief Marketing Officer for Suniva, an American company that produces high-efficiency solar cells in Georgia, doesn't mince words.
"The Chinese strategy is very clear. They are engaging in predatory financing and they're trying to drive everybody else out of the market. When you've got free money you can out-dump everybody below cost," Ashley said in an interview with Climate Progress.
That "free money" Ashley refers to is the cheap debt provided by the
Chinese Development Bank (CDB). Here's how the CDB works its magic.
The CDB was originally set up as a "policy bank," to operate as an arm of the Chinese central government, doling out public funding to support central government development programs. Now it is a "joint stock company with limited liability" that often reports to China's national cabinet on certain policy issues. This allows the Chinese government to get involved in CDB activities and direct loans toward projects officials want to support.
Unlike most regular commercial banks, CDB raises most of its money
via long-term bonds. Funders cannot take that money back out until the term is up, so the bank can make longer-term loans to Chinese companies. CDB also gives borrowers very low interest rates, and, if the borrower cannot pay back the loan, it may be back-stopped by the Chinese government.
This makes it easier, cheaper, and a lot less risky for solar companies to obtain financing.
In 2010 alone, the bank handed out $30 billion in low-cost loans to the top five manufacturers in the country. (See chart above.) This has enabled China's solar producers to grow to GW scale in a very short period of time, turning the country into a leading exporter of solar and pushing down prices dramatically.
From a project development perspective, those steep price drops are a very good thing. But manufacturers trying to make product outside of China and other Asian countries are getting hit hard.
"Free money is impossible to compete with," said Ashley. "Even when global demand went down they were able to keep producing, producing, producing," said Ashley. "And now they're dumping. If something isn't done, there will be no American product left on the market."
Allegations of solar panel dumping have been made before in Europe and the U.S., but they have never been proven. In 2009, Suntech CEO Shi Zengrong explained in a conference call that his company was selling panels below marginal costs. But he reversed his statement shortly after, saying he misunderstood the reporter's question.
With Chinese producers in a far more dominant position than in 2009 and a slew of solar manufacturing facility closures announced in the U.S. in recent months, concerns about dumping have resurfaced. Just yesterday, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden sent a letter to President Obama asking him to investigate whether or not Chinese companies are selling product below cost in order to push American producers out of the market. He also called on the administration to implement a trade tariff on Chinese modules:
Letting that happen is unacceptable. Please know that if your administration is unwilling to take the appropriate steps, with haste, I will advance a legislative effort, as provided by the U.S. trade remedy laws, to ensure that the American solar industry is not harmed by unfair trade.
Wyden's letter comes after the high-profile bankruptcies of American solar manufacturers Solyndra and Evergreen. While a variety of technological and market-based factors contributed to the demise of these companies, the Chinese competition -- driven by cheap, easy debt -- played a central role.
Remarkably, even with all the pressure from China, the U.S. is a net exporter of solar products to the country. A new report issued by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association shows that America had a $247 million solar trade surplus with China in 2010, mostly because of polysilicon and equipment shipments.
"Yeah, that's great. But we're just sending the raw materials and buying back the finished goods," explained Suniva's Bryan Ashley. "That's a going-out-of-business strategy. Pretty soon they'll figure out how to produce quality polysilicon and they'll be doing it all themselves. We need to re-learn how to make things in this country."
Ashley would like to see a Buy America provision for certain installation programs and investigation into the dumping issue.
But rather than engage in trade battles, GTM Research's Director of Solar Shayle Kann believes that America needs to put its focus on technological innovation. Testifying in front of the House Natural Resources Committee yesterday, Kann explained the strategy:
It will be difficult for the U.S. to compete with China at its own game -- namely, high-volume manufacturing of a commoditized product -- given the cost advantages available for Chinese manufacturing. However, the U.S. can and should continue to develop and commercialize innovative technologies that offer lower costs than traditional panels. These new technologies are generally proprietary, require a more skilled labor force, and are difficult to duplicate.
Suniva could be considered part of this category. Using a unique cell design, the company has created a high-efficiency mono-crystalline solar cell that could compete with SunPower. But with all the cheap debt that the Chinese government is throwing at domestic companies, Suniva is finding it increasingly tough to stay in the U.S.
"If something isn't done, no one will be making solar PV in the U.S.," said Ashley.
The situation is a difficult one. China's domestic efforts are helping drop the price of solar at an astonishing pace -- something that everyone in the solar industry wants. But it's also making it extraordinarily difficult for American solar manufacturers to compete.
The United States invented the modern solar cell over a half century ago. As China continues to boost domestic solar companies, the American solar industry will be asking some hard questions about how -- and if -- solar manufacturing can ever make it in a big way in the U.S.
• Stephen Lacey is a reporter with Climate Progress covering clean energy issues. He formerly worked as a producer/editor at RenewableEnergyWorld.com.