The world's largest tidal stream energy development will be built off the west coast of Scotland.
ScottishPower Renewables' £40 million tidal array will harness the power of the Sound of Islay and generate enough electricity for more than 5,000 homes, more than double the number of homes on Islay.
The 10 megawatt (MW) facility will further develop emerging tidal energy technology, and provide economic and community benefits to Islay and Jura.
The Scottish Government said it will cement Scotland's position as a global leader in marine energy.
Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth John Swinney, who determined the application as it is in Energy Minister Jim Mather's Argyll & Bute constituency, said: ''With around a quarter of Europe's potential tidal energy resource and a tenth of the wave capacity, Scotland's seas have unrivalled potential to generate green energy, create new, low carbon jobs, and bring billions of pounds of investment to Scotland.
''This development - the largest tidal array in the world - does just that and will be a milestone in the global development of tidal energy.''
Mr Swinney said the Scottish Power Renewables array will work in harmony with the environment and use the power of the tides in the Sound of Islay to generate enough green energy to power double the number of homes on Islay.
He added: ''There is simply nothing like it consented anywhere else in the world.
''Developers must also work with host communities to provide local benefits.
''I am pleased that ScottishPower Renewables will work with the Islay Energy Trust to maximise social and economic opportunities, for instance using local marine contractors during installation or creating new local jobs in the onshore construction phase.
''And the wider Scottish supply chain is set to benefit, with Scottish businesses set to benefit from four million pounds worth of contracts in making the turbines to be used in the development, including manufacture of a test prototype at BiFab in Arnish.
''The Scottish Government has the right incentives for commercial marine energy generation.
''With the highest support levels in the UK for wave and tidal energy, our £10 million Saltire Prize - Scotland's energy challenge to the world to inspire innovation in marine energy - and our low carbon investment project, Scotland is one of the most attractive markets in the world for investment in marine renewables.
''We will continue to work with our enterprise agencies and with other partners to develop to our full potential and cement Scotland's position as a global leader in marine energy.''
Monday, 21 March 2011
Chris Huhne: Nuclear power may become less attractive option for UK
Chris Huhne says he still backs government's 'three-pronged' energy approach but Fukushima could make nuclear unviable
Toby Helm guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 March 2011 19.45 GMT
Britain may back away from the use of nuclear energy because of safety fears and a potential rise in costs after the Fukushima disaster, says Chris Huhne, the energy secretary.
In an interview with the Observer, Huhne insisted that he would not "rush to judgment" until the implications of the disaster were known and a report into the safety of UK nuclear plants by the chief nuclear officer, Dr Mike Weightman, was complete. The interim findings are due in May.
"I am not ruling out nuclear now," said Huhne. But he said events in Japan could have profound long-term implications for UK policy, which is based on a three-pronged "portfolio" approach: a commitment to nuclear energy; the development of more renewable energy, such as wind and sea power; and new carbon-capture technology to mitigate the damaging environmental effects of fossil fuel-fired power plants and industrial facilities.
Huhne, a Liberal Democrat, said that Britain was in a very different position from Japan, which was vulnerable to strong earthquakes and tsunamis. The UK also used different types of reactors. But he conceded that the Japanese disaster was likely to make it more difficult for private investors to raise capital to build the eight new reactors planned by the government. "There are a lot of issues outside of the realm of nuclear safety, which we will have to assess. One is what the economics of nuclear power post-Fukushima will be, if there is an increase in the cost in capital to nuclear operators."
He said that after the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster in the US 32 years ago, it became more difficult to raise money for nuclear investment. "After Three Mile Island in 1979, nuclear operators found it very hard to finance new projects.
Huhne said he remained wedded to the "portfolio" approach, but added that nuclear energy's future, as part of the mix, had become more uncertain as leaders of other nations, including the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, openly questioned its future. "Globally, this undoubtedly casts a shadow over the renaissance of the nuclear industry. That is blindingly obvious," he said.
Any move away from nuclear – while certain to be welcomed by many Lib Dems – would alarm many in the Tory party. Tim Yeo, the Conservative chair of the environment and climate change select committee, said any such shift would be a huge mistake. "If Britain abandons or significantly delays its programme of building new nuclear power stations, there are three inevitable consequences. First, electricity prices will rise. Second, Britain will not be able to meet its carbon emission reduction targets. And third, the risk that the lights will go out will significantly increase.
"This is because other forms of low-carbon energy, such as solar or offshore wind, are more expensive than nuclear. Solar and wind are not reliable generators of electricity – on cloudy, still days they produce nothing. So they have to be backed up by reliable sources of power. If nuclear is not used, that means more gas or coal, both of which have far higher carbon emissions."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change has carried out its own projections, which show the UK could – with a massive extra commitment to renewable energy and successful use of carbon capture on a grand scale – meet its target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050 without nuclear energy.
Huhne said: "We can do the 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 without new nuclear, but it will require a big effort on carbon capture and storage and renewables."
However, Yeo said: "Nuclear currently provides almost one-fifth of our electricity. Nearly all our existing nuclear power stations will shut by 2020. Demand for electricity will rise steadily from now on as cars, vans, etc start to use electricity and the heating of buildings relies more on electricity. It is very likely that without new nuclear power stations we will simply not build enough other forms of reliable electricity generation in time to replace the contribution nuclear currently makes."
Huhne has asked Weightman to draw up a report into the safety of UK nuclear plants, assessing their resistance to the kind of natural disasters that could hit this country, including flooding and storms. But ministers acknowledge that, even if plants are declared safe, the public perception of nuclear power has been undermined. The cost of meeting new safety conditions and insuring plants, as well as satisfying evacuation requirements in the event of a disaster, could make new reactors economically unviable.
Huhne said ministers needed to show flexibility as untried and untested technology succeeded or failed along the way. "The whole point about a portfolio is that over time – a 20-year view – some of those sources [of energy] will turn out to be much more economic and attractive than others," he said.
After the anti-nuclear Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories last May, Huhne forged a deal under which plans for a new generation of nuclear would go ahead, but without public subsidy. He said at the time that the Lib Dems' preference for meeting the country's energy needs was still to make greater use of renewable energy, such as wind and sea power.
The deal marked a departure for Huhne from his stance in opposition. In 2007 he said: "Nuclear is a tried, tested and failed technology and the government must stop putting time, effort and subsidies into this outdated industry."
Toby Helm guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 March 2011 19.45 GMT
Britain may back away from the use of nuclear energy because of safety fears and a potential rise in costs after the Fukushima disaster, says Chris Huhne, the energy secretary.
In an interview with the Observer, Huhne insisted that he would not "rush to judgment" until the implications of the disaster were known and a report into the safety of UK nuclear plants by the chief nuclear officer, Dr Mike Weightman, was complete. The interim findings are due in May.
"I am not ruling out nuclear now," said Huhne. But he said events in Japan could have profound long-term implications for UK policy, which is based on a three-pronged "portfolio" approach: a commitment to nuclear energy; the development of more renewable energy, such as wind and sea power; and new carbon-capture technology to mitigate the damaging environmental effects of fossil fuel-fired power plants and industrial facilities.
Huhne, a Liberal Democrat, said that Britain was in a very different position from Japan, which was vulnerable to strong earthquakes and tsunamis. The UK also used different types of reactors. But he conceded that the Japanese disaster was likely to make it more difficult for private investors to raise capital to build the eight new reactors planned by the government. "There are a lot of issues outside of the realm of nuclear safety, which we will have to assess. One is what the economics of nuclear power post-Fukushima will be, if there is an increase in the cost in capital to nuclear operators."
He said that after the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster in the US 32 years ago, it became more difficult to raise money for nuclear investment. "After Three Mile Island in 1979, nuclear operators found it very hard to finance new projects.
Huhne said he remained wedded to the "portfolio" approach, but added that nuclear energy's future, as part of the mix, had become more uncertain as leaders of other nations, including the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, openly questioned its future. "Globally, this undoubtedly casts a shadow over the renaissance of the nuclear industry. That is blindingly obvious," he said.
Any move away from nuclear – while certain to be welcomed by many Lib Dems – would alarm many in the Tory party. Tim Yeo, the Conservative chair of the environment and climate change select committee, said any such shift would be a huge mistake. "If Britain abandons or significantly delays its programme of building new nuclear power stations, there are three inevitable consequences. First, electricity prices will rise. Second, Britain will not be able to meet its carbon emission reduction targets. And third, the risk that the lights will go out will significantly increase.
"This is because other forms of low-carbon energy, such as solar or offshore wind, are more expensive than nuclear. Solar and wind are not reliable generators of electricity – on cloudy, still days they produce nothing. So they have to be backed up by reliable sources of power. If nuclear is not used, that means more gas or coal, both of which have far higher carbon emissions."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change has carried out its own projections, which show the UK could – with a massive extra commitment to renewable energy and successful use of carbon capture on a grand scale – meet its target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050 without nuclear energy.
Huhne said: "We can do the 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 without new nuclear, but it will require a big effort on carbon capture and storage and renewables."
However, Yeo said: "Nuclear currently provides almost one-fifth of our electricity. Nearly all our existing nuclear power stations will shut by 2020. Demand for electricity will rise steadily from now on as cars, vans, etc start to use electricity and the heating of buildings relies more on electricity. It is very likely that without new nuclear power stations we will simply not build enough other forms of reliable electricity generation in time to replace the contribution nuclear currently makes."
Huhne has asked Weightman to draw up a report into the safety of UK nuclear plants, assessing their resistance to the kind of natural disasters that could hit this country, including flooding and storms. But ministers acknowledge that, even if plants are declared safe, the public perception of nuclear power has been undermined. The cost of meeting new safety conditions and insuring plants, as well as satisfying evacuation requirements in the event of a disaster, could make new reactors economically unviable.
Huhne said ministers needed to show flexibility as untried and untested technology succeeded or failed along the way. "The whole point about a portfolio is that over time – a 20-year view – some of those sources [of energy] will turn out to be much more economic and attractive than others," he said.
After the anti-nuclear Lib Dems went into coalition with the Tories last May, Huhne forged a deal under which plans for a new generation of nuclear would go ahead, but without public subsidy. He said at the time that the Lib Dems' preference for meeting the country's energy needs was still to make greater use of renewable energy, such as wind and sea power.
The deal marked a departure for Huhne from his stance in opposition. In 2007 he said: "Nuclear is a tried, tested and failed technology and the government must stop putting time, effort and subsidies into this outdated industry."
European emissions trading: the cap that does not fit
Markets that trade carbon pollution permits are meant to cut emissions. So why did the carbon dioxide vented in 2010 under Europe's scheme go up?
An update on the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and just how loose the cap on emissions is now, following the economic crash …
The latest analysis from Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that last year, carbon emissions from the energy, steel, concrete and manufacturing facilities in the ETS rose by an estimated 1.8%. Yes, rose, not fell.
I think carbon trading schemes are necessary as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit climate change. But to work, the cap on emissions has to be tight enough. The reason emissions rose in 2010 compared with 2009 was that emissions had fallen hard from 2008-2009 (11%) and 2007-2008 (5%). So there was room last year for emissions to grow, as the economy recovered a little, without hitting the cap.
As it stands, Sandbag's Damien Morris tells me that no country in the EU will have to cut its carbon until at least 2015. Sandbag's analysis shows that the entire 2008-2012 ETS period (phase two) is likely result in no carbon being cut, at all. On the contrary, some spare pollution permits will probably be carried over into the next phase.
I agree with the UK's energy secretary, Chris Huhne, that Europe has to increase its ambition, to a continent-wide 30%. Some may argue that allowing businesses to make use of the looseness of the carbon cap as they recover from the recession makes perfect sense. But that is only the case if you believe that high-carbon businesses have a long-term future.
If you think a low-carbon future is inevitable, then banking the carbon cuts caused by the recession and thereby redirecting investment to develop sustainable activities, such as renewable energy, is the only sane choice. If not, I'm sure China will be very happy to sell us the technology when we realise we need it, rather than vice versa.
Footnote: If you want to post comments below like "the ETS is corrupt and broken – time to cash in", or "quick, fill your boots before they close down this scam!", then feel free. The ETS has been appallingly badly run. But for the sake of clarity, do please say whether you think carbon emissions need to be reduced at all. If you do, please say what your alternative to the ETS is. I am away for much of tomorrow, but will dive into the comments later.
An update on the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and just how loose the cap on emissions is now, following the economic crash …
The latest analysis from Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that last year, carbon emissions from the energy, steel, concrete and manufacturing facilities in the ETS rose by an estimated 1.8%. Yes, rose, not fell.
I think carbon trading schemes are necessary as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit climate change. But to work, the cap on emissions has to be tight enough. The reason emissions rose in 2010 compared with 2009 was that emissions had fallen hard from 2008-2009 (11%) and 2007-2008 (5%). So there was room last year for emissions to grow, as the economy recovered a little, without hitting the cap.
As it stands, Sandbag's Damien Morris tells me that no country in the EU will have to cut its carbon until at least 2015. Sandbag's analysis shows that the entire 2008-2012 ETS period (phase two) is likely result in no carbon being cut, at all. On the contrary, some spare pollution permits will probably be carried over into the next phase.
I agree with the UK's energy secretary, Chris Huhne, that Europe has to increase its ambition, to a continent-wide 30%. Some may argue that allowing businesses to make use of the looseness of the carbon cap as they recover from the recession makes perfect sense. But that is only the case if you believe that high-carbon businesses have a long-term future.
If you think a low-carbon future is inevitable, then banking the carbon cuts caused by the recession and thereby redirecting investment to develop sustainable activities, such as renewable energy, is the only sane choice. If not, I'm sure China will be very happy to sell us the technology when we realise we need it, rather than vice versa.
Footnote: If you want to post comments below like "the ETS is corrupt and broken – time to cash in", or "quick, fill your boots before they close down this scam!", then feel free. The ETS has been appallingly badly run. But for the sake of clarity, do please say whether you think carbon emissions need to be reduced at all. If you do, please say what your alternative to the ETS is. I am away for much of tomorrow, but will dive into the comments later.
Solar feed-in tariff U-turn marks another betrayal by the 'greenest government ever'
No renewables company or investor will easily trust this government again
Jeremy Leggett guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 March 2011 16.32 GMT
In numerous conversations with ministers since the comprehensive spending review, I was assured that any review of the UK's solar photovoltaic (PV) feed-in tariffs before April 2012 would not happen unless installations exceeded a certain published level and would exclude urban solar PV, tackling only the green field solar farms. The government has not only betrayed those assurances, but today proposes feed-in tariff rates that will ensure the UK PV industry stalls.
More than 40 countries have chosen to build their renewable energy industries via a feed-in tariff: a levy on energy bills that reduces over time, on particular dates flagged to the market well in advance, as costs fall in the industry created by the tariff. The details of the UK's "ambush" review of solar are arcane, but the core problem is that at the rates the government proposes for every installation above a mere 50 kilowatts, those once considering solar roofs will be put off en masse.
Property developers and companies whose premises have large roofs will take a quick look at the diminished returns and say no. Many of the energy co-operatives being set up around the country will no longer be able to persuade enough citizens to go ahead. Solar investment funds being set up will hand money back to investors – they had already started to do so even once the risk of today's announcement had become clear a few weeks ago.
In announcing this sabotage, ministers make a mockery of their own supposed core objectives: local empowerment within a "big society"; massive job creation – via a green industrial revolution – to counter austerity-related job losses; desire to be the greenest government ever; tackling global warming, and so on. Rather than putting them on track to fulfil their rhetoric, the proposed tariffs add to the growing evidence that this will be not the greenest but the meanest government ever.
The total cost of the PV tariff to date has been less than 1p a month on domestic bills and the total feed-in tariff spend is running way below the government's projections. Meanwhile thousands of new green jobs had been created, and the Treasury had already begun benefiting from the increased tax and national insurance income. All of that has been debilitated at a stroke.
No renewables company or investor can easily trust this government again after this U-turn by ministers. They were so quick in opposition to call for a more ambitious feed-in tariff. They were so ready with empty promises in the early months of their term of office. How can they expect us ever to trust them again now?
Moreover, they do all this at the time of both the Fukishima nuclear disaster and profound instability in the Middle East. The inevitable slowing in plans for a UK nuclear renaissance and the potential end of an affordable oil supply mean that the UK needs fast-growing domestic renewable energy industries more than ever. In setting us back at such a time, I believe the government is now guilty of a betrayal of the UK's national security interests.
• Jeremy Leggett is the founder and chairman of Solarcentury
Jeremy Leggett guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 March 2011 16.32 GMT
In numerous conversations with ministers since the comprehensive spending review, I was assured that any review of the UK's solar photovoltaic (PV) feed-in tariffs before April 2012 would not happen unless installations exceeded a certain published level and would exclude urban solar PV, tackling only the green field solar farms. The government has not only betrayed those assurances, but today proposes feed-in tariff rates that will ensure the UK PV industry stalls.
More than 40 countries have chosen to build their renewable energy industries via a feed-in tariff: a levy on energy bills that reduces over time, on particular dates flagged to the market well in advance, as costs fall in the industry created by the tariff. The details of the UK's "ambush" review of solar are arcane, but the core problem is that at the rates the government proposes for every installation above a mere 50 kilowatts, those once considering solar roofs will be put off en masse.
Property developers and companies whose premises have large roofs will take a quick look at the diminished returns and say no. Many of the energy co-operatives being set up around the country will no longer be able to persuade enough citizens to go ahead. Solar investment funds being set up will hand money back to investors – they had already started to do so even once the risk of today's announcement had become clear a few weeks ago.
In announcing this sabotage, ministers make a mockery of their own supposed core objectives: local empowerment within a "big society"; massive job creation – via a green industrial revolution – to counter austerity-related job losses; desire to be the greenest government ever; tackling global warming, and so on. Rather than putting them on track to fulfil their rhetoric, the proposed tariffs add to the growing evidence that this will be not the greenest but the meanest government ever.
The total cost of the PV tariff to date has been less than 1p a month on domestic bills and the total feed-in tariff spend is running way below the government's projections. Meanwhile thousands of new green jobs had been created, and the Treasury had already begun benefiting from the increased tax and national insurance income. All of that has been debilitated at a stroke.
No renewables company or investor can easily trust this government again after this U-turn by ministers. They were so quick in opposition to call for a more ambitious feed-in tariff. They were so ready with empty promises in the early months of their term of office. How can they expect us ever to trust them again now?
Moreover, they do all this at the time of both the Fukishima nuclear disaster and profound instability in the Middle East. The inevitable slowing in plans for a UK nuclear renaissance and the potential end of an affordable oil supply mean that the UK needs fast-growing domestic renewable energy industries more than ever. In setting us back at such a time, I believe the government is now guilty of a betrayal of the UK's national security interests.
• Jeremy Leggett is the founder and chairman of Solarcentury
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
