Carbon plan to be shelved over funding shortage as fears grow for Tories' green agenda after chancellor's 'austerity' remark
Terry Macalister and Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 October 2011 20.20 BST
Scottish Power is understood to have pulled the plug on a major green energy scheme at Longannet power station, Fife, close to the Firth of Forth.
The threatened scrapping comes amid growing concern that David Cameron and George Osborne want to scale back the green agenda on the grounds that low carbon technology, such as carbon capture storage (CCS) and offshore wind power, cost too much in a time of austerity.
The chancellor told the Conservative conference this week that if he had his way the UK would cut "carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe".
Scottish Power and its partners Shell and the National Grid have just completed a detailed study of the Longannet scheme. They are concerned about its commercial viability without more public backing.The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) had promised £1bn but the developers are understood to be saying they cannot proceed unless more money is provided to enable them to trial a scheme which involves burying carbon emissions in the North Sea.
Both sides insist "talks are ongoing" but well-placed industry and political sources say the process is "pretty much over" and a statement is expected shortly.
Jeff Chapman, chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, said the collapse of Longannet would be a "severe disappointment" for the wider hopes of the sector.
A senior Conservative backbencher with knowledge of the energy sector told the Guardian he expected the CCS deal to collapse within weeks. He said blame lay with the Labour government, which had dithered in awarding the CCS demonstration contract until only one bidder was left, leaving the government in an impossible negotiating position.
A DECC spokesman said Longannet was only one CCS project and the government still planned to choose another three that could be eligible for cash from an EU fund by the end of the year.
In May DECC submitted seven UK-based CCS projects for European funding, including Longannet, but the Fife scheme was by far the most advanced and is spearheading the drive to develop the new technology in Britain. Ministers have repeatedly stressed the importance of CCS as a way to keep coal and possibly other fossil-fuel burning power stations in operation without undermining moves to cut carbon emissions and counter global warming.But they have already seen E.ON back out of plans to construct a new coal-fired power station with prototype CCS technology at Kingsnorth in Kent.
At 2,400MW, Longannet is the third largest coal-fired power station in Europe and was once highlighted as Scotland's biggest single polluter. In 2009 at the launch of a small-scale pilot study Ignacio Galán, the chairman of Scottish Power and its Spanish parent group Iberdrola, highlighted the importance of the scheme.
"We believe that the UK can lead the world with CCS technology, creating new skills, jobs and opportunities for growth," he said. "There is the potential to create an industry on the same scale as North Sea oil, and we will invest in Scotland and the UK to help realise this potential."
Charles Hendry, the energy minister, said in May that Longannet and other CCS schemes in the UK showed it was "at the cutting edge of the low carbon agenda."
But an industrialist in the department told the Guardian ministers were now privately questioning renewable power and other schemes that involved substantial public subsidies. Ministers have come under sustained lobbying from traditional power companies and energy intensive manufacturers to concentrate on lower priced, higher carbon fuels such as gas.
WWF Scotland's Director, Dr Richard Dixon, said: "This news is deeply worrying. If the UK truly wants to lead the development of this technology, as many politicians have said, then we hope that all those involved can find a way to make this project happen. It would be a major blow to international efforts to develop carbon capture and storage if this scheme were not to happen at Longannet.
Monday, 10 October 2011
Big names behind US push for geoengineering
A coalition representing the most powerful academic, military, scientific and corporate interests has set its sights on vast potential profits
UK scientists last week "postponed" one of the world's first attempts to physically manipulate the upper atmosphere to cool the planet. Okay, so the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering project wasn't actually going to spray thousands of tonnes of reflective particles into the air to replicate a volcano, but the plan to send a balloon with a hose attached 1km into the sky above Norfolk was an important step towards the ultimate techno-fix for climate change.
The reason the British scientists gave for pulling back was that more time was needed for consultation. In retrospect, it seems bizarre that they had only talked to a few members of the public. It was only when 60 global groups wrote to the UK government and the resarch groups behind the project requesting cancellation that they paid any attention to critics.
Over the Atlantic, though, the geoengineers are more gung-ho. Just days after the British got cold feet, the Washington-based thinktank the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) published a major report calling for the United States and other likeminded countries to move towards large-scale climate change experimentation. Trying to rebrand geoengineering as "climate remediation", the BPC report is full of precautionary rhetoric, but its bottom line is that there should be presidential leadership for the nascent technologies, a "coalition of willing" countries to experiment together, large-scale testing and big government funding.
So what is the BPC and should we take this non-profit group seriously? For a start these guys - and they are indeed mostly men - are not bipartisan in any sense that the British would understand. The operation is part-funded by big oil, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and while it claims to "represent a consensus among what have historically been divergent views," it appears to actually represent the most powerful US academic, military, scientific and corporate interests. It lobbies for free trade, US military supremacy and corporate power and was described recently as a "collection of neo-conservatives, hawks, and neoliberal interventionists who want to make war on Iran".
Their specially convened taskforce is, in fact, the cream of the emerging science and military-led geoengineering lobby with a few neutrals chucked in to give it an air of political sobriety. It includes former ambassadors, an assistant secretary of state, academics, and a chief US climate negotiator.
Notable among the group is David Whelan, a man who spent years in the US defence department working on the stealth bomber and nuclear weapons and who now leads a group of people as Boeing's chief scientist working on "ways to find new solutions to world's most challenging problems".
There are signs of cross US-UK pollination – one member of the taskforce is John Shepherd, who recently wrote for the Guardian: "I've concluded that geoengineering research – and I emphasise the term research – is, sadly, necessary." But he cautioned: "what we really need is more and better information. The only way to get that information is through appropriate research."
It also includes several of geoengineering's most powerful academic cheerleaders. Atmosphere scientist Ken Caldeira, from Stanford University, used to work at the National laboratory at Livermore with the people who developed the ill-fated "star wars" weapons. Together with David Keith, a researcher at the University of Calgary in Canada, who is also on the BPC panel, Caldeira manages billionaire Bill Gates's geoengineering research budget. Both scientists have patents pending on geoengineering processes and both were members of of the UK Royal Society's working group on geoengineering which in 2009 recommended more research. Meanwhile, Keith has a company developing a machine to suck CO2 out of the year and Caldeira has patented ideas to stop hurricanes forming.
In sum, this coalition of US expertise is a group of people which smell vast potential future profits for their institutions and companies in geo-engineering.
Watch out. This could be the start of the next climate wars.
UK scientists last week "postponed" one of the world's first attempts to physically manipulate the upper atmosphere to cool the planet. Okay, so the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering project wasn't actually going to spray thousands of tonnes of reflective particles into the air to replicate a volcano, but the plan to send a balloon with a hose attached 1km into the sky above Norfolk was an important step towards the ultimate techno-fix for climate change.
The reason the British scientists gave for pulling back was that more time was needed for consultation. In retrospect, it seems bizarre that they had only talked to a few members of the public. It was only when 60 global groups wrote to the UK government and the resarch groups behind the project requesting cancellation that they paid any attention to critics.
Over the Atlantic, though, the geoengineers are more gung-ho. Just days after the British got cold feet, the Washington-based thinktank the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) published a major report calling for the United States and other likeminded countries to move towards large-scale climate change experimentation. Trying to rebrand geoengineering as "climate remediation", the BPC report is full of precautionary rhetoric, but its bottom line is that there should be presidential leadership for the nascent technologies, a "coalition of willing" countries to experiment together, large-scale testing and big government funding.
So what is the BPC and should we take this non-profit group seriously? For a start these guys - and they are indeed mostly men - are not bipartisan in any sense that the British would understand. The operation is part-funded by big oil, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and while it claims to "represent a consensus among what have historically been divergent views," it appears to actually represent the most powerful US academic, military, scientific and corporate interests. It lobbies for free trade, US military supremacy and corporate power and was described recently as a "collection of neo-conservatives, hawks, and neoliberal interventionists who want to make war on Iran".
Their specially convened taskforce is, in fact, the cream of the emerging science and military-led geoengineering lobby with a few neutrals chucked in to give it an air of political sobriety. It includes former ambassadors, an assistant secretary of state, academics, and a chief US climate negotiator.
Notable among the group is David Whelan, a man who spent years in the US defence department working on the stealth bomber and nuclear weapons and who now leads a group of people as Boeing's chief scientist working on "ways to find new solutions to world's most challenging problems".
There are signs of cross US-UK pollination – one member of the taskforce is John Shepherd, who recently wrote for the Guardian: "I've concluded that geoengineering research – and I emphasise the term research – is, sadly, necessary." But he cautioned: "what we really need is more and better information. The only way to get that information is through appropriate research."
It also includes several of geoengineering's most powerful academic cheerleaders. Atmosphere scientist Ken Caldeira, from Stanford University, used to work at the National laboratory at Livermore with the people who developed the ill-fated "star wars" weapons. Together with David Keith, a researcher at the University of Calgary in Canada, who is also on the BPC panel, Caldeira manages billionaire Bill Gates's geoengineering research budget. Both scientists have patents pending on geoengineering processes and both were members of of the UK Royal Society's working group on geoengineering which in 2009 recommended more research. Meanwhile, Keith has a company developing a machine to suck CO2 out of the year and Caldeira has patented ideas to stop hurricanes forming.
In sum, this coalition of US expertise is a group of people which smell vast potential future profits for their institutions and companies in geo-engineering.
Watch out. This could be the start of the next climate wars.
China eyes shale gas and uranium firms
CNOOC linked to backer of Blackpool shale gas firm Cuadrilla, while bid expected for uranium producer Kalahari Minerals
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 9 October 2011 17.21 BST
China's growing attempts to seize global natural resources has reached Britain with a link to the recent shale discoveries near Blackpool and a bid for a London-listed uranium company.
Close ties have emerged between China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and a backer of Cuadrilla Resources, the exploration group that claimed last month there were trillions of cubic metres of shale gas under Lancashire.
The Beijing-to-Blackpool link was revealed after the Hong Kong-based Kerogen Capital came to the rescue of one of the largest shareholders in Cuadrilla. Kerogen and CNOOC are behind a new $1.5bn (£1bn) fund, which is looking at investing in new resource projects. Kerogen, set up by former JP Morgan bankers Ivor Orchard and Jason Cheng, has taken a 15% stake in AJ Lucas – an Australian engineering business that holds about 40% of Cuadrilla.
Lucas has been struggling to raise new cash and needed to inject $10m in Cuadrilla to maintain its stake in a business that is also 40% owned by Riverstone – a private equity firm in which former BP boss, Lord Browne, is a key player.
Chinese companies have already bought into shale gas companies in the US, where a welter of discoveries has sent the price of natural gas plummeting. Cuadrilla made headlines when it claimed that two exploratory wells in the Bowland shale of Lancashire indicated huge reserves of 5.6tn cubic metres of shale gas.
Some academics have questioned the very high estimates, but Cuadrilla told the Guardian that it stands by those numbers, and made clear that Lord Browne, one of the most respected figures in the oil world, had endorsed them too in his capacity as a Cuadrilla board member.
Objections to shale operations focus on potential water contamination, due to the chemicals pumped into the ground with water to hydraulically fracture, or "frack", the rock and release the hydrocarbons. Green groups also fear that cheap gas will undermine government carbon-reduction targets and inhibit the nascent renewable energy industry. The process has been banned in France and some US states but another company is also applying for drilling licences in Britain, this time in the Mendip Hills outside Bath.
Meanwhile, the state-backed China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (CGNPG) is expected to launch a £650m takeover of a London-listed uranium miner, Kalahari Minerals, as early as this week.
Shares in Kalahari, which is listed on the Alternative Investment Market, rose 7% on Friday amid speculation about interests in the far east. Kalahari is of interest to nuclear operators because it owns a big stake in the Husab uranium mine in Namibia, one of the world's largest.
Despite the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, China is still expected to proceed with its reactor construction programme – it already has 25 plants under construction, half of the world's new capacity.
CGNPG offered 290p a share for Kalahari Minerals in March, valuing the mining group at £756m, but the deal fell apart after the Chinese company tried to cut the price after Fukushima.
The tsunami led Japan, Germany and Austria to halt their new nuclear programmes or phase out reactors early, reducing uranium's value as a fuel.
China's Minmetals launched a $1.2bn offer last month for Anvil Mining, a copper producer with assets in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 9 October 2011 17.21 BST
China's growing attempts to seize global natural resources has reached Britain with a link to the recent shale discoveries near Blackpool and a bid for a London-listed uranium company.
Close ties have emerged between China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and a backer of Cuadrilla Resources, the exploration group that claimed last month there were trillions of cubic metres of shale gas under Lancashire.
The Beijing-to-Blackpool link was revealed after the Hong Kong-based Kerogen Capital came to the rescue of one of the largest shareholders in Cuadrilla. Kerogen and CNOOC are behind a new $1.5bn (£1bn) fund, which is looking at investing in new resource projects. Kerogen, set up by former JP Morgan bankers Ivor Orchard and Jason Cheng, has taken a 15% stake in AJ Lucas – an Australian engineering business that holds about 40% of Cuadrilla.
Lucas has been struggling to raise new cash and needed to inject $10m in Cuadrilla to maintain its stake in a business that is also 40% owned by Riverstone – a private equity firm in which former BP boss, Lord Browne, is a key player.
Chinese companies have already bought into shale gas companies in the US, where a welter of discoveries has sent the price of natural gas plummeting. Cuadrilla made headlines when it claimed that two exploratory wells in the Bowland shale of Lancashire indicated huge reserves of 5.6tn cubic metres of shale gas.
Some academics have questioned the very high estimates, but Cuadrilla told the Guardian that it stands by those numbers, and made clear that Lord Browne, one of the most respected figures in the oil world, had endorsed them too in his capacity as a Cuadrilla board member.
Objections to shale operations focus on potential water contamination, due to the chemicals pumped into the ground with water to hydraulically fracture, or "frack", the rock and release the hydrocarbons. Green groups also fear that cheap gas will undermine government carbon-reduction targets and inhibit the nascent renewable energy industry. The process has been banned in France and some US states but another company is also applying for drilling licences in Britain, this time in the Mendip Hills outside Bath.
Meanwhile, the state-backed China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (CGNPG) is expected to launch a £650m takeover of a London-listed uranium miner, Kalahari Minerals, as early as this week.
Shares in Kalahari, which is listed on the Alternative Investment Market, rose 7% on Friday amid speculation about interests in the far east. Kalahari is of interest to nuclear operators because it owns a big stake in the Husab uranium mine in Namibia, one of the world's largest.
Despite the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, China is still expected to proceed with its reactor construction programme – it already has 25 plants under construction, half of the world's new capacity.
CGNPG offered 290p a share for Kalahari Minerals in March, valuing the mining group at £756m, but the deal fell apart after the Chinese company tried to cut the price after Fukushima.
The tsunami led Japan, Germany and Austria to halt their new nuclear programmes or phase out reactors early, reducing uranium's value as a fuel.
China's Minmetals launched a $1.2bn offer last month for Anvil Mining, a copper producer with assets in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
