By Tony Juniper
Science & Technology
Friday, 9 March 2012 at 12:43 pm
While efforts to tackle climate change bring a host of major challenges, there are opportunities too. This fact is not least demonstrated by the entrepreneurial individuals who are coming up with so many innovative emissions-busting solutions.
As we approach Climate Week (12-18 March), and as we continue with the debate about how best to rejuvenate the economy, it is perhaps timely to have a quick look at the work of the ‘ecopreneurs’ who are bringing new energy and imagination to the job of cutting emissions.
In addition to coming up with great business ideas another thing that strikes me about these new pioneers is how they are so effectively challenging the received wisdom as to the apparent choice between meeting environmental goals and economic ones.
Take solar outfit Eight19, for example. This company was set up by scientists at the University of Cambridge to provide affordable solar-powered lighting to homes in developing countries. They did this to assist the 20 per cent of people in the world who don’t have electricity and instead use dirty fuels such as kerosene.
Eight19 developed a concept based on the fact that 600 million people who do not have electricity are mobile phone subscribers. Its IndiGo service allows off-grid communities to use mobile phones for ‘pay as you go’ solar power.
Individuals pay $10 to install the solar lighting system and a keypad (IndiGo box). They can then buy power for any period of time they wish – purchasers receive a passcode via text message.
Power from the solar cell charges the battery in the IndiGo box, making electricity available for lighting or charging other devices, such as mobile phones.
First introduced in Kenya and then trialed in Zambia, Malawi and Southern Sudan, Eight19 this January signed a deal with charity Solar Aid to distribute an initial 4,000 Indigo systems in East Africa.
Other micro-scale innovations are supported by a programme called SEED – a global partnership for action on sustainable development and the green economy run by the United Nations. The scheme awards funding to small, local entrepreneurs across the world whose businesses provide social and environmental benefits.
One of these, based in The Gambia, sells briquettes made from groundnut shells alongside fuel efficient stoves. This uses a waste product to make affordable fuel for local people with stoves produced by local welders. It is piloted by partners including restaurants and school kitchens and is promoted through women’s networks.
It seems to me that alongside large scale initiatives relying on multi-billion dollar investments that it is a myriad of small innovations like these that will help to make a difference. Of course, all changes need to come alongside legislation and targets agreed to by governments. But even in well governed western countries legislation is rarely enough by itself – innovation and behaviour change are also key factors in determining how we use natural resources and protect climatic stability. And there are plenty of examples here in the UK of how that is happening.
One individual, a young engineer called Laurence Kemball-Cook, has designed paving slabs which generate electricity from footsteps. The Pavegen system works by harnessing the kinetic energy generated when footsteps depress the slab. The energy can either be stored in a battery or connected directly to a piece of equipment such as a light or sign.
The latest version of Pavegen is made from 70 per cent recycled materials to minimise its environmental impact. The young engineer has toured Pavegen around schools, music festivals and town centres to help build awareness of the possibilities of renewable energy. He believes that it could be possible for all kinds of devices, such as ticket barriers at underground stations, to be powered by his micro-generators.
Designs like Pavegen are so exciting because they have been conceived to meet needs, as well as reduce environmental impact. In making this kind of step are a growing band of mainly young ‘ecopreneurs’. It seems to me that they are at the forefront of a new age of environmentalism – ensuring it is workable as well as good for the planet. But these people need more than brilliant ideas, drive, commitment and imagination. As well as help from policy-makers they could do with a bit more recognition and encouragement, and that is what the Climate Week awards are all about.
Designed to recognise and celebrate those who are devising ingenious ways of combating climate change, a total of 56 initiatives have been shortlisted covering a huge array of categories, including individuals, business, education and events.
As one of the judges who sifted through a wide range of inspired and inspiring entries, I have to say that I was left feeling how there is every good reason to be optimistic about our ability to solve even this gravest of global challenges. While most politicians and large companies give every impression that they wish the problem would just go away, there is a mass of activity going on, driving us toward a better future, and in many cases being pushed forward by tomorrow’s leaders.
Monday, 12 March 2012
Green investment bank HQ to be in Edinburgh
Vince Cable also says GIB fundraising office will open in London, in move that strengthens case against Scottish independence
Severin Carrell Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 8 March 2012 13.13 GMT
A green investment bank intended to attract billions of pounds in funding for new renewables projects will be run from Edinburgh, in a move designed partly to bolster the case against Scottish independence.
Vince Cable, the business secretary, announced that the new bank, expected to employ between 50 and 70 people, would have its headquarters in Edinburgh, but will also operate a large fundraising office in London to exploit the City's financial clout and global reach.
Cable told the Guardian the two cities had come top of a financial and technical assessment, with Manchester lying third.
But he said the side-effect of splitting it between Edinburgh and London supported the "wider narrative" of binding Scotland into the UK in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum.
He admitted he expected criticism of the decision to split its operations up, and confirmed that London had by far the strongest case of all the 19 cities studied. But, he added, the UK government was also committed to putting major institutions in other parts of the UK to "rebalance the economy".
"Edinburgh has a lot going for it, both in terms of it asset management and finance sectors, [and] also its proximity to green energy activity," he said. "I think Manchester came third [during the assessment process] and had Manchester come second, I would've felt obliged to look at Manchester but it didn't. Edinburgh had more to offer."
Choosing the Scottish capital to strengthen the UK was "a good argument anyway" since it supported "the wider narrative that the UK has a lot going for it".
Suspicions that the decision was partly politically motivated were reinforced after Michael Moore, the Scottish secretary, said that sharing its operations between Edinburgh and London underlined the significance and interdependence of the whole UK energy market.
As Alex Salmond builds his case for Scottish independence by highlighting Scotland's significant green energy potential, UK ministers have been arguing that independence would harm new investment by undermining the pan-UK energy framework and removing the UK government's crucial public subsidies.
Moore said: "The size and scale of the UK's single energy market ensures the level of investment that will unlock Scotland's renewables future, providing sustainable and affordable green energy across the UK. It makes perfect sense to have a GIB presence there.
"By basing the GIB's corporate HQ, asset management and administrative functions in Edinburgh and its transaction team in London, we can harness expertise across the country to deliver a strong and successful GIB for the UK."
The first minister has previously insisted that an independent Scotland's energy industry would still be closely integrated with the rest of the UK's, but made no reference to independence or the 2014 referendum in his reaction to the GIB announcement.
Salmond, who has played a prominent role in building up overseas investments in green energy, pointed out instead that £103m of the GIB's start up capital of £3bn came from the money owed to Scotland by the Treasury, which has been sitting on Scotland's share of the fossil fuel levy for some years.
He stressed that Scotland had a major role to play for the UK, with the potential to meet 30% of the UK's overall renewables target, if it achieved the Scottish government's target of generating 100% of its electricity from green sources by 2020.
"The decision recognises Scotland's position at the vanguard of the renewables revolution and follows an excellent and professional bid campaign. It is great news for Edinburgh's economy and for Scotland's thriving low carbon sector," he said.
Green campaigners said the decision on the GIB's location ignored the problems with its powers: it would not have borrowing powers until at least 2015, raising significant issues about its ability to start raising the £200bn estimated to be needed to hit the UK's CO2 reduction targets.
The bank will initially get £775m towards that £3bn total funding due to come from the Treasury; its key role is to raise up to £15bn in private sector funding, from pension funds, foreign sovereign wealth funds, energy companies and banks, by underwriting the initial losses and risks from new and untested green technologies.
Sue Charman, the "one planet finance leader" at WWF-UK, said the GIB had an essential role to play in shifting the UK to a low carbon economy, but giving it no immediate borrowing powers was a critical mistake. "Stepping up investment in renewable energy infrastructure and energy efficiency will be critical to cutting the UK's climate emissions," she said.
"The current proposals that the bank won't be able to borrow until 2015 risks hindering urgent and much needed investment in green jobs and technologies and the UK government should reconsider this.
"In addition, linking borrowing power with net debt falling as a percentage of GDP will hamstring the bank's power and calls into question if the Bank really sits at the heart of UK financial and economic policy."
David Powell, Friends of the Earth's economics campaigner, urged the chancellor, George Osborne, to use this month's budget to allow the bank to borrow immediately. "Choosing the HQ for the green investment bank has been like arguing about where to put the cherry on a half-baked cake," he said. "This is great news for Edinburgh, but George Osborne's inadequate support means it will start life as a lame duck."
Cable said the green groups were wrong. He said that the bank's first priority was to find investors for the most difficult, initial start-up costs of new technologies, rather than borrow billions of pounds for projects not yet in planning. "The question about borrowing powers assumes that there are a vast number of projects out there waiting for funding, and that just isn't the case," he said. "I don't think the green groups appreciate the difficulties in getting new projects off the ground, making them work and being credible."
Mike Crockart, the Lib Dem MP for Edinburgh West, who played a leading role in the city's campaign to bring the GIB to Scotland against bids from 19 other cities, said that the political element in the decision was exaggerated.
He said the campaign for Edinburgh, which was backed by the first minister, all the main parties and other Scottish cities, was based on its technical and academic expertise in green energy technologies, and its large financial and investment sector, which is the second largest in the UK.
It had decided to ignore the argument that siting it in Edinburgh would help "bind Scotland into the union" in late 2010, Crockart said.
The city's campaign "was quite unashamedly why Edinburgh had the strongest business case, the location of financial services, green technology and research investment going into Scottish universities; that is the case we have been making for 16 months."
Martin McAdam, chief executive of Aquamarine Power, one of a number of Edinburgh-based marine energy firms, said that choosing the city was "tremendous news" for his industry, which has been boosted by a series of green energy investment decisions by major global firms including Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Samsung Heavy Industries.
"The GIB will build on this lead and enable businesses such as Aquamarine Power to leverage the significant private sector capital which will allow the UK's green energy sector to flourish," he said.
Severin Carrell Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 8 March 2012 13.13 GMT
A green investment bank intended to attract billions of pounds in funding for new renewables projects will be run from Edinburgh, in a move designed partly to bolster the case against Scottish independence.
Vince Cable, the business secretary, announced that the new bank, expected to employ between 50 and 70 people, would have its headquarters in Edinburgh, but will also operate a large fundraising office in London to exploit the City's financial clout and global reach.
Cable told the Guardian the two cities had come top of a financial and technical assessment, with Manchester lying third.
But he said the side-effect of splitting it between Edinburgh and London supported the "wider narrative" of binding Scotland into the UK in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum.
He admitted he expected criticism of the decision to split its operations up, and confirmed that London had by far the strongest case of all the 19 cities studied. But, he added, the UK government was also committed to putting major institutions in other parts of the UK to "rebalance the economy".
"Edinburgh has a lot going for it, both in terms of it asset management and finance sectors, [and] also its proximity to green energy activity," he said. "I think Manchester came third [during the assessment process] and had Manchester come second, I would've felt obliged to look at Manchester but it didn't. Edinburgh had more to offer."
Choosing the Scottish capital to strengthen the UK was "a good argument anyway" since it supported "the wider narrative that the UK has a lot going for it".
Suspicions that the decision was partly politically motivated were reinforced after Michael Moore, the Scottish secretary, said that sharing its operations between Edinburgh and London underlined the significance and interdependence of the whole UK energy market.
As Alex Salmond builds his case for Scottish independence by highlighting Scotland's significant green energy potential, UK ministers have been arguing that independence would harm new investment by undermining the pan-UK energy framework and removing the UK government's crucial public subsidies.
Moore said: "The size and scale of the UK's single energy market ensures the level of investment that will unlock Scotland's renewables future, providing sustainable and affordable green energy across the UK. It makes perfect sense to have a GIB presence there.
"By basing the GIB's corporate HQ, asset management and administrative functions in Edinburgh and its transaction team in London, we can harness expertise across the country to deliver a strong and successful GIB for the UK."
The first minister has previously insisted that an independent Scotland's energy industry would still be closely integrated with the rest of the UK's, but made no reference to independence or the 2014 referendum in his reaction to the GIB announcement.
Salmond, who has played a prominent role in building up overseas investments in green energy, pointed out instead that £103m of the GIB's start up capital of £3bn came from the money owed to Scotland by the Treasury, which has been sitting on Scotland's share of the fossil fuel levy for some years.
He stressed that Scotland had a major role to play for the UK, with the potential to meet 30% of the UK's overall renewables target, if it achieved the Scottish government's target of generating 100% of its electricity from green sources by 2020.
"The decision recognises Scotland's position at the vanguard of the renewables revolution and follows an excellent and professional bid campaign. It is great news for Edinburgh's economy and for Scotland's thriving low carbon sector," he said.
Green campaigners said the decision on the GIB's location ignored the problems with its powers: it would not have borrowing powers until at least 2015, raising significant issues about its ability to start raising the £200bn estimated to be needed to hit the UK's CO2 reduction targets.
The bank will initially get £775m towards that £3bn total funding due to come from the Treasury; its key role is to raise up to £15bn in private sector funding, from pension funds, foreign sovereign wealth funds, energy companies and banks, by underwriting the initial losses and risks from new and untested green technologies.
Sue Charman, the "one planet finance leader" at WWF-UK, said the GIB had an essential role to play in shifting the UK to a low carbon economy, but giving it no immediate borrowing powers was a critical mistake. "Stepping up investment in renewable energy infrastructure and energy efficiency will be critical to cutting the UK's climate emissions," she said.
"The current proposals that the bank won't be able to borrow until 2015 risks hindering urgent and much needed investment in green jobs and technologies and the UK government should reconsider this.
"In addition, linking borrowing power with net debt falling as a percentage of GDP will hamstring the bank's power and calls into question if the Bank really sits at the heart of UK financial and economic policy."
David Powell, Friends of the Earth's economics campaigner, urged the chancellor, George Osborne, to use this month's budget to allow the bank to borrow immediately. "Choosing the HQ for the green investment bank has been like arguing about where to put the cherry on a half-baked cake," he said. "This is great news for Edinburgh, but George Osborne's inadequate support means it will start life as a lame duck."
Cable said the green groups were wrong. He said that the bank's first priority was to find investors for the most difficult, initial start-up costs of new technologies, rather than borrow billions of pounds for projects not yet in planning. "The question about borrowing powers assumes that there are a vast number of projects out there waiting for funding, and that just isn't the case," he said. "I don't think the green groups appreciate the difficulties in getting new projects off the ground, making them work and being credible."
Mike Crockart, the Lib Dem MP for Edinburgh West, who played a leading role in the city's campaign to bring the GIB to Scotland against bids from 19 other cities, said that the political element in the decision was exaggerated.
He said the campaign for Edinburgh, which was backed by the first minister, all the main parties and other Scottish cities, was based on its technical and academic expertise in green energy technologies, and its large financial and investment sector, which is the second largest in the UK.
It had decided to ignore the argument that siting it in Edinburgh would help "bind Scotland into the union" in late 2010, Crockart said.
The city's campaign "was quite unashamedly why Edinburgh had the strongest business case, the location of financial services, green technology and research investment going into Scottish universities; that is the case we have been making for 16 months."
Martin McAdam, chief executive of Aquamarine Power, one of a number of Edinburgh-based marine energy firms, said that choosing the city was "tremendous news" for his industry, which has been boosted by a series of green energy investment decisions by major global firms including Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Samsung Heavy Industries.
"The GIB will build on this lead and enable businesses such as Aquamarine Power to leverage the significant private sector capital which will allow the UK's green energy sector to flourish," he said.
Post-Fukushima world must embrace thorium, not ditch nuclear
The man whose inventions led to nuclear power proliferation knew thorium was preferable to uranium – it's time we caught up
• What is thorium and how does it generate power?
Bryony Worthington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 March 2012 11.24 GMT
A year ago this Sunday, a dreadful and terrifying natural disaster was sweeping a trail of death and destruction along the north-eastern coast of Japan. The Tohoku earthquake and ensuing tsunami claimed an estimated 20,000 lives, washing away entire towns and wreaking havoc with the nation's infrastructure. An oil refinery was set ablaze leading to the death of six workers and a reservoir also failed, killing a further four people. The nuclear reactors at Fukushima experienced a partial meltdown causing the release of radiation, but killing no one.
The media's treatment of the entire disaster, however, was completely out of kilter with these facts. The unfolding events at the stricken power station quickly dominated the coverage, ousting the actual earthquake and its dreadful aftermath from the headlines and, it seems, our collective memories. A year later we talk of the anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, not the far, far greater tragedy of the Tohoku earthquake.
In no way do I wish to make light of the suffering of the thousands evacuated from the exclusion zone around the power station, nor to undervalue the immense bravery of the workers who, under extreme pressure, worked tirelessly to minimise the impact of the accident. But we need to keep things in perspective. This was a terrible event, caused by a much more terrible event, which again brought to the surface the many troubling aspects of how the nuclear industry operates.
For instance, the siting of reactors on the eastern seaboard of a country highly vulnerable to earthquakes ought to have necessitated far more preventative measures or, better yet, the decision not to build there at all. The reactor itself was over 40 years old and operating company Tepco had been criticised ahead of the accident for lax safety standards.
The events in Fukushima do not justify a wholesale rejection of nuclear power. We have been able to harness the fissioning of the nucleus of an atom for good and evil, for life-saving medical treatments and to create the atom bomb. Somewhere on this scale of achievements lies our use of nuclear energy. And even within this, not all nuclear power is equal.
The inventor of the technology upon which most of today's operating nuclear power stations are based, Alvin Weinberg, was all too aware of this. He worried about some of the safety issues involved in using solid uranium fuel in his water-cooled reactors. He believed this configuration, though useful for creating materials for nuclear weapons, posed too many safety risks and created too much hazardous waste for widespread civilian use. As a result, he also directed a research team that invented a radically differently designed reactor, based on using chemically stable liquid salts as the coolant, and thorium as the fuel. Sadly, though he advocated safer, cleaner nuclear designs for the rest of his life, the world took no heed and the reactors we live with today are still fundamentally the same as those that he considered unnecessarily complex and vulnerable to accident.
Fortunately, one of the legacies of Fukushima is that while investment in today's current reactor designs may have slowed, there is a renewed interest in Alvin's alternative designs and in other fundamentally different approaches. In China, a major R&D programme into thorium molten salt reactors is underway, with the first test reactors to be completed in 2015 and a larger-scale demo ready by the end of the decade. In the US, safer, molten salt cooled pebble bed reactors are being developed. In Europe, there are various research programmes into new designs. Even here in the UK, where nuclear R&D has been starved of investment, important but fragmented research is underway and, with the help of the Weinberg Foundation, I have helped to set up an all-party parliamentary group dedicated to exploring the potential of thorium-based energy.
Fukushima must mark a turning point in the history of nuclear power. The proponents of the existing technologies should be chastened by the reminder it provided of how things can go wrong. Even if they are not, the providers of investment, both public and private, have had a wake-up call and will proceed with far greater caution.
But the twin concerns of climate change and energy security mean we cannot afford to turn our back on nuclear altogether, as there is no greater potential source of energy on the planet. It is still an amazing achievement to have harnessed the vast energy forged into the heart of an atom during the dying moments of a star, and a safer, cleaner form of nuclear power is possible. As we move forward we need to admit to the failings of the current technologies and commit to developing new ones now.
To try to use Fukushima to justify a complete disavowal of the use of nuclear power would be a gross distortion of the extent of the threat it posed. It would also consign the world to greater use of fossil fuels and higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, unleashing many more natural disasters with huge loss of life. This is the real risk we need to be vigilant against.
• What is thorium and how does it generate power?
Bryony Worthington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 March 2012 11.24 GMT
A year ago this Sunday, a dreadful and terrifying natural disaster was sweeping a trail of death and destruction along the north-eastern coast of Japan. The Tohoku earthquake and ensuing tsunami claimed an estimated 20,000 lives, washing away entire towns and wreaking havoc with the nation's infrastructure. An oil refinery was set ablaze leading to the death of six workers and a reservoir also failed, killing a further four people. The nuclear reactors at Fukushima experienced a partial meltdown causing the release of radiation, but killing no one.
The media's treatment of the entire disaster, however, was completely out of kilter with these facts. The unfolding events at the stricken power station quickly dominated the coverage, ousting the actual earthquake and its dreadful aftermath from the headlines and, it seems, our collective memories. A year later we talk of the anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, not the far, far greater tragedy of the Tohoku earthquake.
In no way do I wish to make light of the suffering of the thousands evacuated from the exclusion zone around the power station, nor to undervalue the immense bravery of the workers who, under extreme pressure, worked tirelessly to minimise the impact of the accident. But we need to keep things in perspective. This was a terrible event, caused by a much more terrible event, which again brought to the surface the many troubling aspects of how the nuclear industry operates.
For instance, the siting of reactors on the eastern seaboard of a country highly vulnerable to earthquakes ought to have necessitated far more preventative measures or, better yet, the decision not to build there at all. The reactor itself was over 40 years old and operating company Tepco had been criticised ahead of the accident for lax safety standards.
The events in Fukushima do not justify a wholesale rejection of nuclear power. We have been able to harness the fissioning of the nucleus of an atom for good and evil, for life-saving medical treatments and to create the atom bomb. Somewhere on this scale of achievements lies our use of nuclear energy. And even within this, not all nuclear power is equal.
The inventor of the technology upon which most of today's operating nuclear power stations are based, Alvin Weinberg, was all too aware of this. He worried about some of the safety issues involved in using solid uranium fuel in his water-cooled reactors. He believed this configuration, though useful for creating materials for nuclear weapons, posed too many safety risks and created too much hazardous waste for widespread civilian use. As a result, he also directed a research team that invented a radically differently designed reactor, based on using chemically stable liquid salts as the coolant, and thorium as the fuel. Sadly, though he advocated safer, cleaner nuclear designs for the rest of his life, the world took no heed and the reactors we live with today are still fundamentally the same as those that he considered unnecessarily complex and vulnerable to accident.
Fortunately, one of the legacies of Fukushima is that while investment in today's current reactor designs may have slowed, there is a renewed interest in Alvin's alternative designs and in other fundamentally different approaches. In China, a major R&D programme into thorium molten salt reactors is underway, with the first test reactors to be completed in 2015 and a larger-scale demo ready by the end of the decade. In the US, safer, molten salt cooled pebble bed reactors are being developed. In Europe, there are various research programmes into new designs. Even here in the UK, where nuclear R&D has been starved of investment, important but fragmented research is underway and, with the help of the Weinberg Foundation, I have helped to set up an all-party parliamentary group dedicated to exploring the potential of thorium-based energy.
Fukushima must mark a turning point in the history of nuclear power. The proponents of the existing technologies should be chastened by the reminder it provided of how things can go wrong. Even if they are not, the providers of investment, both public and private, have had a wake-up call and will proceed with far greater caution.
But the twin concerns of climate change and energy security mean we cannot afford to turn our back on nuclear altogether, as there is no greater potential source of energy on the planet. It is still an amazing achievement to have harnessed the vast energy forged into the heart of an atom during the dying moments of a star, and a safer, cleaner form of nuclear power is possible. As we move forward we need to admit to the failings of the current technologies and commit to developing new ones now.
To try to use Fukushima to justify a complete disavowal of the use of nuclear power would be a gross distortion of the extent of the threat it posed. It would also consign the world to greater use of fossil fuels and higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, unleashing many more natural disasters with huge loss of life. This is the real risk we need to be vigilant against.
Solar power firms in Mojave desert feel glare of tribes and environmentalists
Presence of horned toads and desert tortoises are holding up production at multimillion-dollar sites in California
Edward Helmore in Blythe, California
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 11 March 2012 16.00 GMT
Of the many projects commissioned by the Obama administration to showcase its commitment to renewable energy, few are as grandly futuristic as the multibillion-dollar solar power projects under construction across broad swaths of desert on the California-Arizona border.
But at least two developments, including the $1bn, 250-megawatt Genesis Solar near Blythe in the lower Colorado river valley and the Solar Millennium project, are beset with lengthy construction delays, while others are facing legal challenges lodged by environmental groups and Native American groups who fear damage to the desert ecology as well as to ancient rock art and other sacred heritage sites.
Out on the stony desert floor, Native Americans say, are sites of special spiritual significance, specifically involving the flat-tailed horned toad and the desert tortoise.
"This is where the horny toad lives," explains Alfredo Figueroa, a small, energetic man and a solo figure of opposition who could have sprung from the pages of a Carlos Castaneda novel, pointing to several small burrows. Figueroa is standing several hundred metres into the site of Solar Millennium, a project backed by the Cologne-based Solar Millennium AG. The firm, which has solar projects stretching from Israel to the US, was last month placed in the hands of German administrators and its assets listed for disposal.
Figueroa is delighted with the news. "Of all the creatures, the horny toad is the most sacred to us because he's at the centre of the Aztec sun calendar," he says. "And the tortoise also, who represents Mother Earth. They can't survive here if the developers level the land, because they need hills to burrow into."
Figueroa, 78, a Chemehuevi Indian and historian with La Cuna de Aztlán Sacred Sites Protection Circle, has become one of the most vocal critics of the solar programme and expresses some unusually bold claims as to the significance of this valley: he claims it is the birthplace of the Aztec and Mayan systems of belief. He points out the depictions of a toad and a tortoise on a facsimile of the Codex Borgia, one of a handful of divinatory manuscripts written before the Spanish conquest.
On a survey of the 2,400-hectare site Figueroa points out a giant geoglyph, an earth carving he says represents Kokopelli, a fertility deity often depicted as a humpbacked flute player with antenna-like protrusions on his head. Kokopelli, he says, will surely be disturbed if the development here resumes.
The area is known for giant geoglyphs, believed by some to date back 10,000 years. Gesturing towards the mountains, he also describes Cihuacoatl – a pregnant serpent woman – he sees shaped in the rock formations. All of this, he says, amounts to why government-fast-tracked solar programmes in the valley, where temperatures can reach 54C, should be abandoned. It is a matter of their very survival.
"We are traditional people – the people of the cosmic tradition," Figueroa explains. "The Europeans came and did a big number on us. They tried to destroy us. But they were not able to destroy our traditions, and it's because of our traditions and our mythology that we've been able to survive. If we'd blended in with the Wasps – the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants – we'd have been lost long ago."
At the Genesis Solar site, 20 miles west, Florida-based NextEra has begun to develop an 810-hectare site. The brackets that will hold the reflecting mirrors stand like sentinels. Backed by a $825m department of energy loan, Genesis Solar is planned as a centrepiece of the administration's renewable energy programme, with enough generating capacity to power 187,500 homes.
But local Native American groups collectively known as the Colorado River Indian Tribes are demanding that 80 hectares of the development be abandoned after prehistoric grinding stones were found on a layer of ashes they say is evidence of a cremation site "too sacred to disturb".
NextEra rejects the claim, arguing that while Native American artefacts have been found, "no determination" has been made that they come from a village or prehistoric site. "At the request of the Native American tribes we have not tested the ashes, so to suggest this is a cremation site is incorrect," says the NextEra spokesman, Steve Stengel.
The company says that attempts to sue it by lawyers representing the La Cuna group – which is not federally recognised as a Native American tribe – have already been dismissed. But it warns that losing a 10th of the site over any of these claims could make it uneconomic to proceed.
Critics of the solar programme say problems stem from hasty planning and lack of local consultation – claims denied by bureau of land management (BLM) officials. John Kalish, spokesman for the department in Palm Springs, says: "All the projects were thoroughly analysed and assessed for their impact on cultural and biological resources. As part of that process we developed agreements with the tribes to deal with any potential conflicts."
But tribal leaders say damage to their sacred sites is inevitable. They have filed suits against six sites, including Ivanpah, a $2.2bn Google-backed project in the Mojave desert which will be the largest solar plant when it comes online in 2014.
BrightSource, operator of Ivanpah, says that claims that hundreds of square miles of desert will be scraped flat, destroying sensitive habitat, are exaggerated. The company calculates that if all 11 plants approved by the California energy commission are built, they would cover only 66 square miles, 0.26% of the Mojave desert's 25,000 square miles.
The company says it has spent $22m to help the desert tortoises with breeding and nursery programmes, fencing and, at certain times, 100 biologists employed to patrol the site. In addition, BrightSource plans to spend up to $34m to meet federal and state mitigation obligations. The tortoises are not short of attention: one early survey found just 17 across the entire site.
The rush to establish new solar projects has led to reports of a gold rush mentality with some desert areas said to be experiencing a 10- to 20-fold gain in land values.
In others, there are suspicions that the solar business is a rigged game in which projects affiliated to power companies are given the green light more readily. "Land deals are being done but unless you can get connected there is no deal," says Vinson Johnson, a real estate agent in Twentynine Palms, a city in nearby San Bernardino county, California.
None of this impresses tribal leaders, who argue that the land around Blythe was theirs until their numbers shrank and it came under federal control. "It was reservation land until it was reduced," says Figueroa. "They didn't even contact us. So we filed a lawsuit."
One alternative to using BLM land, he says, would be to use areas that have already been disturbed, such as farmland, abandoned military airfields or the huge testing ranges that dot the south-western deserts.
Figueroa is sceptical of the suggestion that accepting solar would be a greater good. "How much is Mother Earth worth?" he says, sharply.
"Yes, it is good to make use of the sun but not when it comes to disturbing sacred sites, pristine desert, the turtles or the horny toad. We were placed here to be guardians of harmonious equilibrium and we have a mission to ensure the sites are preserved for future generations. We cannot allow them to destroy us."
Edward Helmore in Blythe, California
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 11 March 2012 16.00 GMT
Of the many projects commissioned by the Obama administration to showcase its commitment to renewable energy, few are as grandly futuristic as the multibillion-dollar solar power projects under construction across broad swaths of desert on the California-Arizona border.
But at least two developments, including the $1bn, 250-megawatt Genesis Solar near Blythe in the lower Colorado river valley and the Solar Millennium project, are beset with lengthy construction delays, while others are facing legal challenges lodged by environmental groups and Native American groups who fear damage to the desert ecology as well as to ancient rock art and other sacred heritage sites.
Out on the stony desert floor, Native Americans say, are sites of special spiritual significance, specifically involving the flat-tailed horned toad and the desert tortoise.
"This is where the horny toad lives," explains Alfredo Figueroa, a small, energetic man and a solo figure of opposition who could have sprung from the pages of a Carlos Castaneda novel, pointing to several small burrows. Figueroa is standing several hundred metres into the site of Solar Millennium, a project backed by the Cologne-based Solar Millennium AG. The firm, which has solar projects stretching from Israel to the US, was last month placed in the hands of German administrators and its assets listed for disposal.
Figueroa is delighted with the news. "Of all the creatures, the horny toad is the most sacred to us because he's at the centre of the Aztec sun calendar," he says. "And the tortoise also, who represents Mother Earth. They can't survive here if the developers level the land, because they need hills to burrow into."
Figueroa, 78, a Chemehuevi Indian and historian with La Cuna de Aztlán Sacred Sites Protection Circle, has become one of the most vocal critics of the solar programme and expresses some unusually bold claims as to the significance of this valley: he claims it is the birthplace of the Aztec and Mayan systems of belief. He points out the depictions of a toad and a tortoise on a facsimile of the Codex Borgia, one of a handful of divinatory manuscripts written before the Spanish conquest.
On a survey of the 2,400-hectare site Figueroa points out a giant geoglyph, an earth carving he says represents Kokopelli, a fertility deity often depicted as a humpbacked flute player with antenna-like protrusions on his head. Kokopelli, he says, will surely be disturbed if the development here resumes.
The area is known for giant geoglyphs, believed by some to date back 10,000 years. Gesturing towards the mountains, he also describes Cihuacoatl – a pregnant serpent woman – he sees shaped in the rock formations. All of this, he says, amounts to why government-fast-tracked solar programmes in the valley, where temperatures can reach 54C, should be abandoned. It is a matter of their very survival.
"We are traditional people – the people of the cosmic tradition," Figueroa explains. "The Europeans came and did a big number on us. They tried to destroy us. But they were not able to destroy our traditions, and it's because of our traditions and our mythology that we've been able to survive. If we'd blended in with the Wasps – the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants – we'd have been lost long ago."
At the Genesis Solar site, 20 miles west, Florida-based NextEra has begun to develop an 810-hectare site. The brackets that will hold the reflecting mirrors stand like sentinels. Backed by a $825m department of energy loan, Genesis Solar is planned as a centrepiece of the administration's renewable energy programme, with enough generating capacity to power 187,500 homes.
But local Native American groups collectively known as the Colorado River Indian Tribes are demanding that 80 hectares of the development be abandoned after prehistoric grinding stones were found on a layer of ashes they say is evidence of a cremation site "too sacred to disturb".
NextEra rejects the claim, arguing that while Native American artefacts have been found, "no determination" has been made that they come from a village or prehistoric site. "At the request of the Native American tribes we have not tested the ashes, so to suggest this is a cremation site is incorrect," says the NextEra spokesman, Steve Stengel.
The company says that attempts to sue it by lawyers representing the La Cuna group – which is not federally recognised as a Native American tribe – have already been dismissed. But it warns that losing a 10th of the site over any of these claims could make it uneconomic to proceed.
Critics of the solar programme say problems stem from hasty planning and lack of local consultation – claims denied by bureau of land management (BLM) officials. John Kalish, spokesman for the department in Palm Springs, says: "All the projects were thoroughly analysed and assessed for their impact on cultural and biological resources. As part of that process we developed agreements with the tribes to deal with any potential conflicts."
But tribal leaders say damage to their sacred sites is inevitable. They have filed suits against six sites, including Ivanpah, a $2.2bn Google-backed project in the Mojave desert which will be the largest solar plant when it comes online in 2014.
BrightSource, operator of Ivanpah, says that claims that hundreds of square miles of desert will be scraped flat, destroying sensitive habitat, are exaggerated. The company calculates that if all 11 plants approved by the California energy commission are built, they would cover only 66 square miles, 0.26% of the Mojave desert's 25,000 square miles.
The company says it has spent $22m to help the desert tortoises with breeding and nursery programmes, fencing and, at certain times, 100 biologists employed to patrol the site. In addition, BrightSource plans to spend up to $34m to meet federal and state mitigation obligations. The tortoises are not short of attention: one early survey found just 17 across the entire site.
The rush to establish new solar projects has led to reports of a gold rush mentality with some desert areas said to be experiencing a 10- to 20-fold gain in land values.
In others, there are suspicions that the solar business is a rigged game in which projects affiliated to power companies are given the green light more readily. "Land deals are being done but unless you can get connected there is no deal," says Vinson Johnson, a real estate agent in Twentynine Palms, a city in nearby San Bernardino county, California.
None of this impresses tribal leaders, who argue that the land around Blythe was theirs until their numbers shrank and it came under federal control. "It was reservation land until it was reduced," says Figueroa. "They didn't even contact us. So we filed a lawsuit."
One alternative to using BLM land, he says, would be to use areas that have already been disturbed, such as farmland, abandoned military airfields or the huge testing ranges that dot the south-western deserts.
Figueroa is sceptical of the suggestion that accepting solar would be a greater good. "How much is Mother Earth worth?" he says, sharply.
"Yes, it is good to make use of the sun but not when it comes to disturbing sacred sites, pristine desert, the turtles or the horny toad. We were placed here to be guardians of harmonious equilibrium and we have a mission to ensure the sites are preserved for future generations. We cannot allow them to destroy us."
Monday, 5 March 2012
Bill Clinton Points Fingers in Clean-Energy Speech
By Yuliya Chernova
Bill Clinton, speaking at a Department of Energy conference this week, said that despite new ways of recovering oil and gas in the U.S.–and despite the efforts of climate change naysayers and other opponents–the country should still pursue cleaner energy sources and energy efficiency.
Associated Press Shown here in a Thursday speech, Clinton spoke earlier in the week at a clean-technology conference.
This sector, said the former U.S. president and head of the Clinton Climate Initiative, will bring jobs, reduce climate change and allow the country to stop being affected as much by volatile oil and gas prices.
“Our economic future isn’t threatened by what you are doing, but is dependent on the success of what you are doing,” said Clinton, addressing hundreds of listeners in National Harbor, Md., many of them representatives of start-ups working on advanced-energy technologies and recipients of grants from the Department of Energy’s ARPA-e program, which is tasked with backing high-risk, high-potential energy technologies.
But Clinton said that despite an imperative for continued support for clean energy technologies, several entities are trying to derail the efforts.
While not all Republicans are against clean energy–Senator Lamar Alexander was one of the keynote speakers at the ARPA-e conference–Clinton said that the party has made it “ideologically imperative to delay realities of climate change.”
It’s not true, he said, that reducing carbon emissions has to correlate with slower economic growth, pointing to the examples of Sweden and Denmark.
“I think the government should invest even more money in ARPA-e,” said Clinton, referring to the Energy Department’s grant program that was funded initially through the Recovery Act of 2009. President Obama’s new budget proposal is asking to put $350 million more into the program. It previously received about $445 million.
The Obama administration has received strong push-back from many in the Republican party who do not see continued clean-energy government investments as wise policy, especially after the notorious bankruptcy of solar panel maker Solyndra.
Clinton said that it’s not just those efforts that are making things unnecessarily difficult. He slammed government-sponsored Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two of the nation’s largest mortgage holders, for refusing to allow homeowners to pay for energy-efficiency retrofits via mortgages. Clinton said that people are ready and interested in making their homes use less energy but “the biggest obstacle is from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
“It’s not true that it undermines the value of the house,” he said, of homes that are retrofitted. “The house is worth more, not less.”
Clinton laid out the most important ways he sees that the country should undertake to pursue the development of clean energy. He cited the Department of Defense as one that will deploy many technologies. “We need more reliance on the military and their capacity to organize and implement” technologies.
The U.S. DoD is on track to spend $10 billion each year on clean energy by 2030, according to the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate.
He said the country should stop emitting as much methane and other rapidly dispersing greenhouse gases that are more of a contributor to climate change than carbon. “I don’t think there should be any open landfills anywhere in the U.S.,” he said. Methane can be captured and turned into fuel, he said.
Before the U.S. asks developing countries to do something about climate change, “We should go after methane, prove there are financeable, affordable models that can work,” he said.
Clinton also touted decoupling, or removing the direct link between a utility’s sales of energy and its profits, which is aimed at giving utilities incentive to invest in clean energy projects. In 20 states, said Clinton, utilities are paid not simply on how much electricity they sell, but rather they receive a certain rate of return based on expenses that can include investments in energy-efficiency and distributed-energy programs.
Even as he called for more investments in non-fossil-fuel energy, Clinton said that the audience should “remove ambivalence on natural gas. We will take it out of the ground.” There are many benefits to that, he said, like jobs created in his state of Arkansas, and the U.S. recently becoming a net exporter of fuel for the first time in a long while.
In an earlier speech at the same conference, Frederick W. Smith, chairman, president and chief executive of one of America’s largest corporations, FedEx, drove home some of the same themes as as Clinton.
“The U.S. cannot operate as a growing industrial society without access to low-cost energy,” he said. “Our dependence on imported oil constitutes our country’s largest security risk and largest economic risk.”
FedEx, a $28.8 billion company by market capitalization, is involved in several initiatives to increase the use of electric cars and natural-gas-driven vehicles.
Reach Yuliya Chernova via email at yuliya.chernova@dowjones.com and follow her on Twitter at @ychernova.
Bill Clinton, speaking at a Department of Energy conference this week, said that despite new ways of recovering oil and gas in the U.S.–and despite the efforts of climate change naysayers and other opponents–the country should still pursue cleaner energy sources and energy efficiency.
Associated Press Shown here in a Thursday speech, Clinton spoke earlier in the week at a clean-technology conference.
This sector, said the former U.S. president and head of the Clinton Climate Initiative, will bring jobs, reduce climate change and allow the country to stop being affected as much by volatile oil and gas prices.
“Our economic future isn’t threatened by what you are doing, but is dependent on the success of what you are doing,” said Clinton, addressing hundreds of listeners in National Harbor, Md., many of them representatives of start-ups working on advanced-energy technologies and recipients of grants from the Department of Energy’s ARPA-e program, which is tasked with backing high-risk, high-potential energy technologies.
But Clinton said that despite an imperative for continued support for clean energy technologies, several entities are trying to derail the efforts.
While not all Republicans are against clean energy–Senator Lamar Alexander was one of the keynote speakers at the ARPA-e conference–Clinton said that the party has made it “ideologically imperative to delay realities of climate change.”
It’s not true, he said, that reducing carbon emissions has to correlate with slower economic growth, pointing to the examples of Sweden and Denmark.
“I think the government should invest even more money in ARPA-e,” said Clinton, referring to the Energy Department’s grant program that was funded initially through the Recovery Act of 2009. President Obama’s new budget proposal is asking to put $350 million more into the program. It previously received about $445 million.
The Obama administration has received strong push-back from many in the Republican party who do not see continued clean-energy government investments as wise policy, especially after the notorious bankruptcy of solar panel maker Solyndra.
Clinton said that it’s not just those efforts that are making things unnecessarily difficult. He slammed government-sponsored Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two of the nation’s largest mortgage holders, for refusing to allow homeowners to pay for energy-efficiency retrofits via mortgages. Clinton said that people are ready and interested in making their homes use less energy but “the biggest obstacle is from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
“It’s not true that it undermines the value of the house,” he said, of homes that are retrofitted. “The house is worth more, not less.”
Clinton laid out the most important ways he sees that the country should undertake to pursue the development of clean energy. He cited the Department of Defense as one that will deploy many technologies. “We need more reliance on the military and their capacity to organize and implement” technologies.
The U.S. DoD is on track to spend $10 billion each year on clean energy by 2030, according to the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate.
He said the country should stop emitting as much methane and other rapidly dispersing greenhouse gases that are more of a contributor to climate change than carbon. “I don’t think there should be any open landfills anywhere in the U.S.,” he said. Methane can be captured and turned into fuel, he said.
Before the U.S. asks developing countries to do something about climate change, “We should go after methane, prove there are financeable, affordable models that can work,” he said.
Clinton also touted decoupling, or removing the direct link between a utility’s sales of energy and its profits, which is aimed at giving utilities incentive to invest in clean energy projects. In 20 states, said Clinton, utilities are paid not simply on how much electricity they sell, but rather they receive a certain rate of return based on expenses that can include investments in energy-efficiency and distributed-energy programs.
Even as he called for more investments in non-fossil-fuel energy, Clinton said that the audience should “remove ambivalence on natural gas. We will take it out of the ground.” There are many benefits to that, he said, like jobs created in his state of Arkansas, and the U.S. recently becoming a net exporter of fuel for the first time in a long while.
In an earlier speech at the same conference, Frederick W. Smith, chairman, president and chief executive of one of America’s largest corporations, FedEx, drove home some of the same themes as as Clinton.
“The U.S. cannot operate as a growing industrial society without access to low-cost energy,” he said. “Our dependence on imported oil constitutes our country’s largest security risk and largest economic risk.”
FedEx, a $28.8 billion company by market capitalization, is involved in several initiatives to increase the use of electric cars and natural-gas-driven vehicles.
Reach Yuliya Chernova via email at yuliya.chernova@dowjones.com and follow her on Twitter at @ychernova.
New device heralds potential to turn sewage plants into power stations
Breakthrough that combines fuel cell with other technologies could provide power for entire water grids, scientists say
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 March 2012 19.00 GMT
Sewage can be used to generate electricity using a new device revealed by scientists on Thursday. It combines a fuel cell with other technologies to convert waste water treatment stations into power plants, which the researchers believe could provide the power for entire water grids.
"We certainly could take care of the whole water system: the treating and pumping of water, which currently requires substantial amounts of power," said Prof Bruce Logan at Pennsylvania State University in the US. "We also treated the organic matter much faster."
His team's work is published in the journal Science and is "the proof of concept", Logan said. "Our hope now is to optimise the electricity generation as much as possible."
Switching sewage plants from users to generators of electricity would be especially useful in developing countries, said Logan, an environmental engineer specialising in water systems. "There are 2 billion people in the world who need sanitation, including 1 billion who need access to clean water," he said. "If you go into a country and give them a waste treatment system - the World Bank and others have done this - they do not keep it going, as it needs power and maintenance. It is a drain on the community. But if you can also provide electricity for lighting, or charging mobile phones, that's a game-changer."
The new device combines two types of energy-producing technology: a microbial fuel cell, in which bacteria consume organic matter to produce a current, and a reverse electrodialysis system, in which positive and negative ions are separated by a series of membranes, also creating a current. Microbial fuel cells are relatively inefficient while reverse electrodialysis requires many specialised membranes, making it expensive.
"By combining the two technologies, we overcame the limitations of the fuel cell and synergistically generated energy for the reverse electrodialysis system," said Logan. A crucial factor was using ammonium bicarbonate as the fuel for reverse electrodialysis, which performs better than the seawater typically used. Lastly, said Logan, the combination of technologies meant it was possible to use just five membrane pairs rather than the 20 pairs typically needed to generate electricity.
The device produced 0.9 kilowatt-hours of electricity per kilogram of organic waste. In contrast, sewage treatment usually consumes 1.2kWh per kilogram.
"There were a lot of people looking at fuel cells and a completely different group looking at reverse electrodialysis," said Logan. "We brought the technologies together."
The scientists said broths of other organic material, such as crop waste or other sources of cellulose, could be used to generate power in their device. They also said it could be used to produce electricity from the 7-17% of energy used in the US that is lost as waste heat.
In 2011, British water company Thames Water said it would produce 16% of its electricity by burning sewage flakes. Another company, Wessex Water, has launched a trial running a car on methane gas derived from the sewage treatment process at its Bristol works.
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 March 2012 19.00 GMT
Sewage can be used to generate electricity using a new device revealed by scientists on Thursday. It combines a fuel cell with other technologies to convert waste water treatment stations into power plants, which the researchers believe could provide the power for entire water grids.
"We certainly could take care of the whole water system: the treating and pumping of water, which currently requires substantial amounts of power," said Prof Bruce Logan at Pennsylvania State University in the US. "We also treated the organic matter much faster."
His team's work is published in the journal Science and is "the proof of concept", Logan said. "Our hope now is to optimise the electricity generation as much as possible."
Switching sewage plants from users to generators of electricity would be especially useful in developing countries, said Logan, an environmental engineer specialising in water systems. "There are 2 billion people in the world who need sanitation, including 1 billion who need access to clean water," he said. "If you go into a country and give them a waste treatment system - the World Bank and others have done this - they do not keep it going, as it needs power and maintenance. It is a drain on the community. But if you can also provide electricity for lighting, or charging mobile phones, that's a game-changer."
The new device combines two types of energy-producing technology: a microbial fuel cell, in which bacteria consume organic matter to produce a current, and a reverse electrodialysis system, in which positive and negative ions are separated by a series of membranes, also creating a current. Microbial fuel cells are relatively inefficient while reverse electrodialysis requires many specialised membranes, making it expensive.
"By combining the two technologies, we overcame the limitations of the fuel cell and synergistically generated energy for the reverse electrodialysis system," said Logan. A crucial factor was using ammonium bicarbonate as the fuel for reverse electrodialysis, which performs better than the seawater typically used. Lastly, said Logan, the combination of technologies meant it was possible to use just five membrane pairs rather than the 20 pairs typically needed to generate electricity.
The device produced 0.9 kilowatt-hours of electricity per kilogram of organic waste. In contrast, sewage treatment usually consumes 1.2kWh per kilogram.
"There were a lot of people looking at fuel cells and a completely different group looking at reverse electrodialysis," said Logan. "We brought the technologies together."
The scientists said broths of other organic material, such as crop waste or other sources of cellulose, could be used to generate power in their device. They also said it could be used to produce electricity from the 7-17% of energy used in the US that is lost as waste heat.
In 2011, British water company Thames Water said it would produce 16% of its electricity by burning sewage flakes. Another company, Wessex Water, has launched a trial running a car on methane gas derived from the sewage treatment process at its Bristol works.
Support for wind energy remains strong
Any suggestion that investment in UK wind energy is 'grinding to a halt' does not chime with reality
Maria McCaffery
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 March 2012 19.32 GMT
In a series of articles this week, you reported on some of the challenges faced by the wind energy industry (The wind war, 27 February-March 1). This did an excellent job of highlighting what the UK stands to lose – in terms of investment, jobs and energy security – if we don't overcome these challenges and grasp the reins of this new industrial revolution. However, in places it also injected some uncertainty over the future of this crucial industry which does not chime with reality.
In particular, your front page subheading on 27 February wrongly stated: "Investment in wind energy grinds to a halt as companies doubt political will." This year the UK has already benefited from hundreds of millions of pounds of investment pledged by multinational companies planning to create jobs across the country. Since January, Samsung has announced a £100m project in Scotland to develop its new offshore turbine at Fife Energy Park, which will employ up to 500 people. The wind turbine manufacturer Vestas has submitted a planning application to build a factory at Sheerness, Kent, which could create 2,000 jobs. Siemens wants to build a wind turbine factory in Hull, creating 700 jobs directly, and many more in the supply chain, when it opens. Samsung has also agreed a multimillion-pound deal to design and manufacture gearboxes for the new turbine. No "grinding to a halt" there.
You also stated that there are "concerns over the government's commitment to wind energy". The opposite is true. Although the industry is not complacent about recent backbench opposition, last month a No 10 spokesman said: "We need a low carbon infrastructure and onshore wind is a cost effective and valuable part of the diverse energy mix." And this was backed up by deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg.
In another article, you stated that "Turbines bring millions for rich landowners" and reported how the Prince of Wales would benefit from leases for offshore wind farms. Well, there are community-owned windfarms such as the Fintry Renewable Energy Enterprise near Stirling, where villagers earn tens of thousands of pounds for community projects.
Local people who host wind farms also reap financial benefits. The wind industry stipulates that communities must receive at least £1,000 per megawatt per year of wind energy installed. These benefit funds are handed over to local people so that they can decide how to spend that money. This is how residents in Burton Latimer, Northamptonshire, were able to afford solar panels for a sheltered housing scheme, children's books for the local library, and energy-efficient glazing for a health centre. That's why, as you reported with a new opinion poll, "a large majority of the public (60%) remains firmly in favour of wind energy".
Maria McCaffery
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 March 2012 19.32 GMT
In a series of articles this week, you reported on some of the challenges faced by the wind energy industry (The wind war, 27 February-March 1). This did an excellent job of highlighting what the UK stands to lose – in terms of investment, jobs and energy security – if we don't overcome these challenges and grasp the reins of this new industrial revolution. However, in places it also injected some uncertainty over the future of this crucial industry which does not chime with reality.
In particular, your front page subheading on 27 February wrongly stated: "Investment in wind energy grinds to a halt as companies doubt political will." This year the UK has already benefited from hundreds of millions of pounds of investment pledged by multinational companies planning to create jobs across the country. Since January, Samsung has announced a £100m project in Scotland to develop its new offshore turbine at Fife Energy Park, which will employ up to 500 people. The wind turbine manufacturer Vestas has submitted a planning application to build a factory at Sheerness, Kent, which could create 2,000 jobs. Siemens wants to build a wind turbine factory in Hull, creating 700 jobs directly, and many more in the supply chain, when it opens. Samsung has also agreed a multimillion-pound deal to design and manufacture gearboxes for the new turbine. No "grinding to a halt" there.
You also stated that there are "concerns over the government's commitment to wind energy". The opposite is true. Although the industry is not complacent about recent backbench opposition, last month a No 10 spokesman said: "We need a low carbon infrastructure and onshore wind is a cost effective and valuable part of the diverse energy mix." And this was backed up by deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg.
In another article, you stated that "Turbines bring millions for rich landowners" and reported how the Prince of Wales would benefit from leases for offshore wind farms. Well, there are community-owned windfarms such as the Fintry Renewable Energy Enterprise near Stirling, where villagers earn tens of thousands of pounds for community projects.
Local people who host wind farms also reap financial benefits. The wind industry stipulates that communities must receive at least £1,000 per megawatt per year of wind energy installed. These benefit funds are handed over to local people so that they can decide how to spend that money. This is how residents in Burton Latimer, Northamptonshire, were able to afford solar panels for a sheltered housing scheme, children's books for the local library, and energy-efficient glazing for a health centre. That's why, as you reported with a new opinion poll, "a large majority of the public (60%) remains firmly in favour of wind energy".
Monday, 27 February 2012
Over 9 million could be living in fuel poverty by 2016
Campaigners call on the Government to give £4bn of carbon tax revenue to homes most at need
Simon Read
Monday 27 February 2012
More than nine million households will be living in fuel poverty within four years unless the Government directs £4bn a year from carbon taxes to families in greatest need, campaigners warn.
Click here to see the 'Burning money: The rise of fuel poverty' graphic
More Britons die every year from living in a cold home than on the roads, they said, with the situation expected to worsen sharply because of soaring utility bills.
A new study has revealed that there are a million more households already living in fuel poverty compared with previous estimates, taking the total to 6.4 million. The study, by energy efficiency experts Camco, suggests that the total will hit 9.1 million by 2016.
Mike O'Connor, chief executive of Consumer Focus, said: "It is a harsh truth that an effective strategy to transform the energy efficiency of our homes and to tackle growing numbers in fuel poverty will need far greater ambition and resources. Billions of pounds will go directly from our energy bills to the Exchequer as part of schemes to cut carbon emissions. That money could reap a double benefit if it was directed to reduce massively our wasteful consumption of energy."
The campaign, called the Energy Bill Revolution, was created by Transform UK, a not-for-profit organisation.
Ed Matthew, of Transform UK, said: "More people die every year in the UK from living in a cold home than die on our roads. Millions more struggle to make ends meet in the face of high energy bills. This is a national scandal."
Camco reckons that if the Government's annual £4bn revenue were recycled to households to spend on energy efficiency measures, it would be enough to bring nine out of 10 households out of fuel poverty. It could also be used to create 200,000 jobs and quadruple carbon emission cuts compared to the Government's new energy efficiency schemes, it claims.
Mr Matthew said that if carbon revenue – from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and Carbon Floor Price – were recycled back to households to spend on energy efficiency measures, it could be used to help all households or used to support the most vulnerable.
"It could provide, for example, an average grant of £6,500 to make 600,000 fuel-poor homes highly energy efficient every year," he said.
"This would bring down their energy bills each year by £310 and remove nine out of 10 homes from fuel poverty in 15 years. The rest would have their homes brought up to the energy efficiency standard of a home built today."
A petition is being launched today at www.energybillrevolution.org to raise support for the Energy Bill Revolution campaign. It is already backed by more than 50 charities, unions, consumer groups and businesses, including Save the Children, the National Pensioners' Convention, Consumer Focus and the Co-operative Group.
Paul Monaghan, head of social goals at the Co-operative, said: "The UK can get to grips with fuel poverty and not only keep carbon emissions reducing, but secure increased buy-in from the general public. Right now the elderly and poor suffer the most, but left unchecked this is going to become an issue for everyday families."
Last week the children's charity Barnardo's said rising energy prices have left the poorest families £450 short of being able to adequately heat their homes. Barnardo's chief executive Anne Marie Carrie said: "We need to get serious about tackling fuel poverty. Families should never have to choose between whether to heat their homes or put food on the table for children."
She said poorer families are most hit by energy companies because they use pre-payment meters to pay off debt and to pay for gas and electricity.
"Effectively these families are being penalised by their payment method at a time when they need the most financial help," she said. "Energy companies have a moral duty to behave responsibly by ensuring that the poorest families are on the lowest tariffs available and that prices for pre-payment meters are brought down to the same rates as online tariffs."
She urged the Government to tackle fuel poverty by bringing forward the requirement on landlords to make their properties energy efficient for tenants.
Case study: 'I worried about the kids' health'
Lesley Perry lives with her husband Matthew and their five children in a large, high-ceilinged property in Bournemouth. It seemed like a "God-send" when they moved in, amid a shortage of council homes, but they were soon crippled with fuel poverty. The family are currently being supported by a Barnardo's children's centre.
I made curtains to try and keep the warm in as the windows didn't have double glazing – only shutters. I bought cold excluders for the doors too, but it was still cold. I started noticing damp patches appearing on the walls. I was worried about the health of the kids and our finances were really dwindling. The children's needs will always be our priority. We won't go out in the car for days because the petrol's too expensive, but that means we stay in and have to have the heating on. It's a vicious circle and we just go without if we have to.
Simon Read
Monday 27 February 2012
More than nine million households will be living in fuel poverty within four years unless the Government directs £4bn a year from carbon taxes to families in greatest need, campaigners warn.
Click here to see the 'Burning money: The rise of fuel poverty' graphic
More Britons die every year from living in a cold home than on the roads, they said, with the situation expected to worsen sharply because of soaring utility bills.
A new study has revealed that there are a million more households already living in fuel poverty compared with previous estimates, taking the total to 6.4 million. The study, by energy efficiency experts Camco, suggests that the total will hit 9.1 million by 2016.
Mike O'Connor, chief executive of Consumer Focus, said: "It is a harsh truth that an effective strategy to transform the energy efficiency of our homes and to tackle growing numbers in fuel poverty will need far greater ambition and resources. Billions of pounds will go directly from our energy bills to the Exchequer as part of schemes to cut carbon emissions. That money could reap a double benefit if it was directed to reduce massively our wasteful consumption of energy."
The campaign, called the Energy Bill Revolution, was created by Transform UK, a not-for-profit organisation.
Ed Matthew, of Transform UK, said: "More people die every year in the UK from living in a cold home than die on our roads. Millions more struggle to make ends meet in the face of high energy bills. This is a national scandal."
Camco reckons that if the Government's annual £4bn revenue were recycled to households to spend on energy efficiency measures, it would be enough to bring nine out of 10 households out of fuel poverty. It could also be used to create 200,000 jobs and quadruple carbon emission cuts compared to the Government's new energy efficiency schemes, it claims.
Mr Matthew said that if carbon revenue – from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and Carbon Floor Price – were recycled back to households to spend on energy efficiency measures, it could be used to help all households or used to support the most vulnerable.
"It could provide, for example, an average grant of £6,500 to make 600,000 fuel-poor homes highly energy efficient every year," he said.
"This would bring down their energy bills each year by £310 and remove nine out of 10 homes from fuel poverty in 15 years. The rest would have their homes brought up to the energy efficiency standard of a home built today."
A petition is being launched today at www.energybillrevolution.org to raise support for the Energy Bill Revolution campaign. It is already backed by more than 50 charities, unions, consumer groups and businesses, including Save the Children, the National Pensioners' Convention, Consumer Focus and the Co-operative Group.
Paul Monaghan, head of social goals at the Co-operative, said: "The UK can get to grips with fuel poverty and not only keep carbon emissions reducing, but secure increased buy-in from the general public. Right now the elderly and poor suffer the most, but left unchecked this is going to become an issue for everyday families."
Last week the children's charity Barnardo's said rising energy prices have left the poorest families £450 short of being able to adequately heat their homes. Barnardo's chief executive Anne Marie Carrie said: "We need to get serious about tackling fuel poverty. Families should never have to choose between whether to heat their homes or put food on the table for children."
She said poorer families are most hit by energy companies because they use pre-payment meters to pay off debt and to pay for gas and electricity.
"Effectively these families are being penalised by their payment method at a time when they need the most financial help," she said. "Energy companies have a moral duty to behave responsibly by ensuring that the poorest families are on the lowest tariffs available and that prices for pre-payment meters are brought down to the same rates as online tariffs."
She urged the Government to tackle fuel poverty by bringing forward the requirement on landlords to make their properties energy efficient for tenants.
Case study: 'I worried about the kids' health'
Lesley Perry lives with her husband Matthew and their five children in a large, high-ceilinged property in Bournemouth. It seemed like a "God-send" when they moved in, amid a shortage of council homes, but they were soon crippled with fuel poverty. The family are currently being supported by a Barnardo's children's centre.
I made curtains to try and keep the warm in as the windows didn't have double glazing – only shutters. I bought cold excluders for the doors too, but it was still cold. I started noticing damp patches appearing on the walls. I was worried about the health of the kids and our finances were really dwindling. The children's needs will always be our priority. We won't go out in the car for days because the petrol's too expensive, but that means we stay in and have to have the heating on. It's a vicious circle and we just go without if we have to.
'Bacteria battery' boosted by space microbes found in river Wear
The development takes microbial power technology a stage nearer its goal of providing a renewable source of energy
Martin Wainwright
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 February 2012 08.34 GMT
Scientists have doubled the power output of a "bacteria battery" by selecting microbes from a UK river estuary, including one normally found in space.
The development takes microbial power technology a stage nearer its goal of providing a portable, independent and renewable source of power for use with low-energy devices and in parts of the world without electricity.
A multi-disciplinary team from Newcastle university focussed on the river Wear estuary to collect and test different bacteria for their power-generation potential. The microbial power process is well-established in sewage treatment and water cleansing, but remains well short of providing a significant supply of electricity.
The Newcastle survey, reported in the latest issue of the American Chemical Society's Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, shows how a prolonged dredge of just one site can come up with a formidable range of relatively powerful microbes. One of the best, whose presence startled the scientists, was Bacillus stratosphericus which is found in large quantities 30km above the Earth and brought down to the planet by atmospheric cycling.
The survey tested 75 species before combining the best into a Microbial Fuel Cell whose output then rose from 105 watts per cubic meter to 200, or enough to run an electric light.
"The research and findings show the potential power of the technique," said Grant Burgess, professor of marine biotechnology at Newcastle. "What we have done is deliberately manipulate the microbial mix to engineer a biofilm that is more efficient at generating electricity.
"This is the first time individual microbes have been studied and selected in this way. Finding B. stratosphericus was quite a surprise but what it demonstrates is the potential of this technique for the future – there are billions of microbes out there with the potential to generate power.
"We have got used to seeing road signs powered by small solar cells. In the same way, an MFC could potentially be portable and just need immersing in water or sticking in soil for the bacterial process to start."
Selected by Time magazine three years ago as one of contemporary science's 50 most important inventions, microbial power harnesses the glow-worm-like electricity naturally generated by some microbes during their processing of waste water or mud. Commercial versions coat carbon electrodes with a bacterial slime whose tiny organisms convert nutrients into electrons and pass the power into a battery.
The research brings the lead in MFC technology back to the part of the world where it first began. In 1911, Prof M C Potter at Durham university produced electricity from E.coli bacteria in his botany department, a breakthrough little-remarked at the time but followed up from 1930s onwards.
Samples of microbe "pick-and-mix" are likely to follow from an increasing range of places including the deep sea. Prof Burgess's current lecture topics include snotworms, whose ability to decompose the bones of dead whales on the seabed is attracting scientific interest.
Martin Wainwright
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 February 2012 08.34 GMT
Scientists have doubled the power output of a "bacteria battery" by selecting microbes from a UK river estuary, including one normally found in space.
The development takes microbial power technology a stage nearer its goal of providing a portable, independent and renewable source of power for use with low-energy devices and in parts of the world without electricity.
A multi-disciplinary team from Newcastle university focussed on the river Wear estuary to collect and test different bacteria for their power-generation potential. The microbial power process is well-established in sewage treatment and water cleansing, but remains well short of providing a significant supply of electricity.
The Newcastle survey, reported in the latest issue of the American Chemical Society's Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, shows how a prolonged dredge of just one site can come up with a formidable range of relatively powerful microbes. One of the best, whose presence startled the scientists, was Bacillus stratosphericus which is found in large quantities 30km above the Earth and brought down to the planet by atmospheric cycling.
The survey tested 75 species before combining the best into a Microbial Fuel Cell whose output then rose from 105 watts per cubic meter to 200, or enough to run an electric light.
"The research and findings show the potential power of the technique," said Grant Burgess, professor of marine biotechnology at Newcastle. "What we have done is deliberately manipulate the microbial mix to engineer a biofilm that is more efficient at generating electricity.
"This is the first time individual microbes have been studied and selected in this way. Finding B. stratosphericus was quite a surprise but what it demonstrates is the potential of this technique for the future – there are billions of microbes out there with the potential to generate power.
"We have got used to seeing road signs powered by small solar cells. In the same way, an MFC could potentially be portable and just need immersing in water or sticking in soil for the bacterial process to start."
Selected by Time magazine three years ago as one of contemporary science's 50 most important inventions, microbial power harnesses the glow-worm-like electricity naturally generated by some microbes during their processing of waste water or mud. Commercial versions coat carbon electrodes with a bacterial slime whose tiny organisms convert nutrients into electrons and pass the power into a battery.
The research brings the lead in MFC technology back to the part of the world where it first began. In 1911, Prof M C Potter at Durham university produced electricity from E.coli bacteria in his botany department, a breakthrough little-remarked at the time but followed up from 1930s onwards.
Samples of microbe "pick-and-mix" are likely to follow from an increasing range of places including the deep sea. Prof Burgess's current lecture topics include snotworms, whose ability to decompose the bones of dead whales on the seabed is attracting scientific interest.
Wind energy companies fear government's commitment is cooling
Wind power firms express concern over future policy and reveal how investment in the UK's energy infrastructure is on hold
Fiona Harvey and Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 26 February 2012 21.42 GMT
Billions of pounds' worth of investment in Britain's energy infrastructure is on hold or uncertain because of concerns over the government's commitment to wind energy.
In an exclusive survey, the heads of some of the world's biggest wind companies, which have been considering setting up factories, research facilities and other developments in the UK, have told the Guardian they are reviewing their investments or seeking clarification and reassurances from ministers on future energy policy in the wake of growing political opposition to wind energy that culminated in this month's unprecedented attack on the government's policies in a letter signed by more than 100 Tory MPs.
General Electric (GE) Energy's managing director, Magued Eldaief, told the Guardian his company's proposed wind manufacturing investment – amounting to at least £100m directly but worth much more in its knock-on effect to the economy – was "on hold" pending ministers' decisions on future reforms to the energy market.
"Our investment is on hold until we have certainty and clarity regarding the policy environment that we are in," Eldaief said. "One of the most important things for us is political certainty, so we can justify the business and investment case for a facility in the UK. But we think there are some [political] headwinds which do not help, especially in terms of the subsidies discussion."
He added that the recent anti-wind activity was "certainly a concern". He said: "It's something we're watching very closely. We would like clarity and we would like it as quickly as possible."
Vestas, the world's biggest wind turbine maker, said it was waiting to see whether its customers were able to sign orders before committing itself to build a proposed turbine factory in Kent that would create about 2,000 jobs. Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Siemens – all potential investors in offshore wind to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds – also expressed concerns that an anti-wind power backlash was building up in UK politics, after the MPs' letter to the prime minister called for subsidies to be slashed and cast doubt on the value of wind energy.
Ditlev Engel, chief executive of Vestas, warned that if the political mood shifted against wind, the company would be forced to rethink its UK proposals. He said: "If things should change, my customers will not be able to sign orders – and that is a prerequisite. We will only go ahead if we have firm, unconditional orders – we will only get orders from our customers if they are sure that the development [of windfarms] can go ahead.
"The most important issue that our customers have is a long-term policy framework – that is required to put in these investments, which are huge … [But] we have not had reassurance from the government."
Matthew Chinn, managing director of Siemens Energy for the UK and north-west Europe, whose company is planning a £210m factory that would employ 700 people in Hull, on top of its £500m in existing investments, said the firm saw a perceived lack of enthusiasm for wind power as "very significant", although it wanted to push ahead with its plans.
Akio Fukui, chief executive of Mitsubishi Power Systems Europe, which is mulling an investment of more than £30m in research and development in Britain, said: "Commitment from the government to proceed is vital. If the government commits, then investors will come."
Jorge Calvet, chief executive of turbine company Gamesa, also a potential large investor, called for the industry to rally round in public support of wind projects. Calvet said: "Supporters of wind should be a bit more vocal. The regulatory framework is the most important thing [for wind investors]."
Jim Smith, chief executive of SSE Renewables, said the political furore surrounding wind was unhelpful at a time when billions in foreign funds were needed to build clean technology schemes. "Clearly what the industry needs is clear, consistent government policy and anything that potentially upsets that is not good for the industry," he said.
While most companies said they wanted to push ahead with their investment plans, some investment bankers also expressed concerns. Simon Brooks, vice-president of the European Investment Bank, which provides backing for some UK wind farms, said the letter to Cameron "injects a bit of uncertainty", which was bad for investment.
Matthew Clayton, a fund manager at Triodos Investment Management, added: "It worries me from the level of understanding of MPs who are running the country. The arguments [put forward] about costs never seem to factor in an expected rising price of oil and gas and the fact that wind, once installed, provides almost free electricity."
Clayton said that, under some measurements, onshore wind was within 7% of oil and gas costs – even taking into account subsidies for turbines but not taking into account the tax breaks given to the fossil fuels industry. "I don't really think this [opposition] is about economics. It is largely about the aesthetics of wind and its impact on the countryside," he said. "We need to have a more honest debate about this."
Keith Anderson, chief corporate officer at Scottish Power, contrasted the situation with that in Scotland, where top politicians, the media and the public tend to advocate more wind power. Much of the company's planned £1bn investment will go to Scotland.
He warned politicians that massive new investment would be needed in the UK's energy infrastructure "despite the political noise" against wind. "We've been living off [energy generation] assets that are 40, 50 or 60 years old," he said. "We need £150bn to £100bn investment in the next 10 years. That is a serious issue."
Several potential investors also pointed to particular problems with the UK's infrastructure that must be resolved, such as the ageing electricity grid, which must be upgraded to cope with a massive influx of intermittent wind energy. Engel said: "A long-term grid plan is very important."
Ports are another key issue. While the government has promised £60m for a port upgrade on the east coast, the potential boost has not yet been detailed. Eldaief said: "From an industry perspective, that [funding] may not be adequate." Fukui added that the UK's east coast ports needed "more space than under the current plan" to cope with offshore wind.
The government should also look to skills, said Chinn. "There is a huge lack of basic engineering resources and skills in the UK," he warned.
The energy secretary, Ed Davey, said yesterday: "A responsible energy policy for this country is one that rules in all of the key low carbon technologies to help us keep the lights on and emissions down. Ruling any of them out would be folly."
Fiona Harvey and Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 26 February 2012 21.42 GMT
Billions of pounds' worth of investment in Britain's energy infrastructure is on hold or uncertain because of concerns over the government's commitment to wind energy.
In an exclusive survey, the heads of some of the world's biggest wind companies, which have been considering setting up factories, research facilities and other developments in the UK, have told the Guardian they are reviewing their investments or seeking clarification and reassurances from ministers on future energy policy in the wake of growing political opposition to wind energy that culminated in this month's unprecedented attack on the government's policies in a letter signed by more than 100 Tory MPs.
General Electric (GE) Energy's managing director, Magued Eldaief, told the Guardian his company's proposed wind manufacturing investment – amounting to at least £100m directly but worth much more in its knock-on effect to the economy – was "on hold" pending ministers' decisions on future reforms to the energy market.
"Our investment is on hold until we have certainty and clarity regarding the policy environment that we are in," Eldaief said. "One of the most important things for us is political certainty, so we can justify the business and investment case for a facility in the UK. But we think there are some [political] headwinds which do not help, especially in terms of the subsidies discussion."
He added that the recent anti-wind activity was "certainly a concern". He said: "It's something we're watching very closely. We would like clarity and we would like it as quickly as possible."
Vestas, the world's biggest wind turbine maker, said it was waiting to see whether its customers were able to sign orders before committing itself to build a proposed turbine factory in Kent that would create about 2,000 jobs. Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Siemens – all potential investors in offshore wind to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds – also expressed concerns that an anti-wind power backlash was building up in UK politics, after the MPs' letter to the prime minister called for subsidies to be slashed and cast doubt on the value of wind energy.
Ditlev Engel, chief executive of Vestas, warned that if the political mood shifted against wind, the company would be forced to rethink its UK proposals. He said: "If things should change, my customers will not be able to sign orders – and that is a prerequisite. We will only go ahead if we have firm, unconditional orders – we will only get orders from our customers if they are sure that the development [of windfarms] can go ahead.
"The most important issue that our customers have is a long-term policy framework – that is required to put in these investments, which are huge … [But] we have not had reassurance from the government."
Matthew Chinn, managing director of Siemens Energy for the UK and north-west Europe, whose company is planning a £210m factory that would employ 700 people in Hull, on top of its £500m in existing investments, said the firm saw a perceived lack of enthusiasm for wind power as "very significant", although it wanted to push ahead with its plans.
Akio Fukui, chief executive of Mitsubishi Power Systems Europe, which is mulling an investment of more than £30m in research and development in Britain, said: "Commitment from the government to proceed is vital. If the government commits, then investors will come."
Jorge Calvet, chief executive of turbine company Gamesa, also a potential large investor, called for the industry to rally round in public support of wind projects. Calvet said: "Supporters of wind should be a bit more vocal. The regulatory framework is the most important thing [for wind investors]."
Jim Smith, chief executive of SSE Renewables, said the political furore surrounding wind was unhelpful at a time when billions in foreign funds were needed to build clean technology schemes. "Clearly what the industry needs is clear, consistent government policy and anything that potentially upsets that is not good for the industry," he said.
While most companies said they wanted to push ahead with their investment plans, some investment bankers also expressed concerns. Simon Brooks, vice-president of the European Investment Bank, which provides backing for some UK wind farms, said the letter to Cameron "injects a bit of uncertainty", which was bad for investment.
Matthew Clayton, a fund manager at Triodos Investment Management, added: "It worries me from the level of understanding of MPs who are running the country. The arguments [put forward] about costs never seem to factor in an expected rising price of oil and gas and the fact that wind, once installed, provides almost free electricity."
Clayton said that, under some measurements, onshore wind was within 7% of oil and gas costs – even taking into account subsidies for turbines but not taking into account the tax breaks given to the fossil fuels industry. "I don't really think this [opposition] is about economics. It is largely about the aesthetics of wind and its impact on the countryside," he said. "We need to have a more honest debate about this."
Keith Anderson, chief corporate officer at Scottish Power, contrasted the situation with that in Scotland, where top politicians, the media and the public tend to advocate more wind power. Much of the company's planned £1bn investment will go to Scotland.
He warned politicians that massive new investment would be needed in the UK's energy infrastructure "despite the political noise" against wind. "We've been living off [energy generation] assets that are 40, 50 or 60 years old," he said. "We need £150bn to £100bn investment in the next 10 years. That is a serious issue."
Several potential investors also pointed to particular problems with the UK's infrastructure that must be resolved, such as the ageing electricity grid, which must be upgraded to cope with a massive influx of intermittent wind energy. Engel said: "A long-term grid plan is very important."
Ports are another key issue. While the government has promised £60m for a port upgrade on the east coast, the potential boost has not yet been detailed. Eldaief said: "From an industry perspective, that [funding] may not be adequate." Fukui added that the UK's east coast ports needed "more space than under the current plan" to cope with offshore wind.
The government should also look to skills, said Chinn. "There is a huge lack of basic engineering resources and skills in the UK," he warned.
The energy secretary, Ed Davey, said yesterday: "A responsible energy policy for this country is one that rules in all of the key low carbon technologies to help us keep the lights on and emissions down. Ruling any of them out would be folly."
Eden Project installs UK's first employee-owned solar plant
New solar array in Cornwall hopes to make the case that renewable energy is not just for well-off householders
Chris Goodall for Carbon Commentary, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 February 2012 10.01 GMT
A new 50 kilowatt PV array at the Eden Project has just become the UK's first employee owned renewables installation. Ebico, the Witney-based social enterprise that is the UK's only not-for-profit electricity supplier, lent money to a new company that put 200 panels on the roofs of some of Eden's storage buildings. Employees are now able to buy shares in the new business and the proceeds of this unique offer will be used to pay back Ebico. Savers putting in as little as £200 each will share in the feed-in tariff income for the next 25 years. Returns are projected to be over 10% per year for small investors.
Feed-in tariffs, particularly for solar PV, have been attacked because they subsidise richer householders at the expense of the rest of the population. The aim at Eden has been to show that renewables can also be of financial benefit to people not able to afford to put PV on their own roofs. I helped structure this deal and wrote the document that offers the shares to employees.
The recent changes in the solar PV tariffs mean that installation such as the one at Eden are less attractive to small investors. Other technologies, such as wind and anaerobic digestion, are now much more appropriate for employee or community financing. The returns to investors can be at least as high as we project for savers buying shares in the PV array at Eden.
The aims of feed-in tariffs are to encourage smaller renewable energy installations, push down the cost of new low-carbon technologies and, third, to assist in the decentralisation of electricity supply. The solar PV tariffs worked extraordinarily well at building up an efficient and competitive base of installers and reducing the price of household installations by about 50% in the space of two years. Anybody wanting an array on the roof of their house in 2009 would have got a quote of about £5,000 per kilowatt. Today, that price can be below £2,500 for a larger installation. There is no doubt that the PV tariffs successfully met the first two of the three aims that the government had for the tariffs.
What about the third objective- the decentralisation of electricity supply? The evidence here is mixed. Although hundreds of thousands of household PV installations have taken place, the impact on the electricity supply of the UK has been of the order of 0.1%. Wind turbines owned by community companies must surely be the next step. One 500 kilowatt wind turbine, the sort of size that might sit on a small hill at the edge of a town, can typically provide the same power output as three or four hundred domestic PV installations or twenty five times as much as the Eden array (the 50 kW Eden array will deliver about 47,000 kilowatt hours a year, or just under 1,000 kilowatt hours per kilowatt capacity. A well sited wind turbine will deliver a 'capacity factor' of over twice as much.)
The striking thing about community ownership of wind turbines is that local resistance disappears if people have a financial stake in their success. One wonderful Dutch study even showed that people ceased to hear the swishing noise of the blades if they had some ownership of the wind farm. Community ownership is the only way we are ever going to see the UK use its under-exploited resources of onshore wind. Today, the costs of the subsidies for renewable energy are borne by everybody but the benefits are largely flowing to the large electricity companies and richer householders. Larger scale community energy installations, such as the one at Eden, can achieve rapid growth of low carbon energy sources and also remove the regressive element in the feed-in tariffs.
Chris Goodall for Carbon Commentary, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 February 2012 10.01 GMT
A new 50 kilowatt PV array at the Eden Project has just become the UK's first employee owned renewables installation. Ebico, the Witney-based social enterprise that is the UK's only not-for-profit electricity supplier, lent money to a new company that put 200 panels on the roofs of some of Eden's storage buildings. Employees are now able to buy shares in the new business and the proceeds of this unique offer will be used to pay back Ebico. Savers putting in as little as £200 each will share in the feed-in tariff income for the next 25 years. Returns are projected to be over 10% per year for small investors.
Feed-in tariffs, particularly for solar PV, have been attacked because they subsidise richer householders at the expense of the rest of the population. The aim at Eden has been to show that renewables can also be of financial benefit to people not able to afford to put PV on their own roofs. I helped structure this deal and wrote the document that offers the shares to employees.
The recent changes in the solar PV tariffs mean that installation such as the one at Eden are less attractive to small investors. Other technologies, such as wind and anaerobic digestion, are now much more appropriate for employee or community financing. The returns to investors can be at least as high as we project for savers buying shares in the PV array at Eden.
The aims of feed-in tariffs are to encourage smaller renewable energy installations, push down the cost of new low-carbon technologies and, third, to assist in the decentralisation of electricity supply. The solar PV tariffs worked extraordinarily well at building up an efficient and competitive base of installers and reducing the price of household installations by about 50% in the space of two years. Anybody wanting an array on the roof of their house in 2009 would have got a quote of about £5,000 per kilowatt. Today, that price can be below £2,500 for a larger installation. There is no doubt that the PV tariffs successfully met the first two of the three aims that the government had for the tariffs.
What about the third objective- the decentralisation of electricity supply? The evidence here is mixed. Although hundreds of thousands of household PV installations have taken place, the impact on the electricity supply of the UK has been of the order of 0.1%. Wind turbines owned by community companies must surely be the next step. One 500 kilowatt wind turbine, the sort of size that might sit on a small hill at the edge of a town, can typically provide the same power output as three or four hundred domestic PV installations or twenty five times as much as the Eden array (the 50 kW Eden array will deliver about 47,000 kilowatt hours a year, or just under 1,000 kilowatt hours per kilowatt capacity. A well sited wind turbine will deliver a 'capacity factor' of over twice as much.)
The striking thing about community ownership of wind turbines is that local resistance disappears if people have a financial stake in their success. One wonderful Dutch study even showed that people ceased to hear the swishing noise of the blades if they had some ownership of the wind farm. Community ownership is the only way we are ever going to see the UK use its under-exploited resources of onshore wind. Today, the costs of the subsidies for renewable energy are borne by everybody but the benefits are largely flowing to the large electricity companies and richer householders. Larger scale community energy installations, such as the one at Eden, can achieve rapid growth of low carbon energy sources and also remove the regressive element in the feed-in tariffs.
Monday, 20 February 2012
Britain must act fast to rule wave-power world
UK's marine energy firms will be left trailing in their rivals' wake unless ministers take more visionary approach, MPs warn
Matt Chorley
Sunday 19 February 2012
Britain's dream of leading the world in harnessing the power of the sea is in danger of being sunk by risk-averse, under-ambitious policymakers who are letting foreign rivals dominate a multibillion-pound industry. An influential Commons committee warns that without a "more visionary" approach from ministers and officials, the development of wave and tidal technology will stall and other countries will steal a march on British firms.
Experts believe that up to 20 per cent of the UK's electricity could one day come from devices deployed around the coastline. But the technology is still in its infancy, and a report today from the Energy and Climate Change Committee warns that Britain could cede its pioneering status to other countries unless ministers intervene.
"Britannia really could rule the waves when it comes to marine renewable energy," said Tim Yeo, the Tory MP who chairs the committee. "We are extremely well placed to lead the world in wave and tidal technologies, which could bring significant benefits in manufacturing and jobs, as well an abundant supply of reliable, low-carbon electricity."
But there are fears of history repeating itself. Britain once led the world in wind-power technology, but was leapfrogged by Denmark, which offered financial backing through feed-in tariffs and saw its industry grow dramatically to become the world's leading supplier of turbines.
The Government has a target for 200-300MW of marine capacity by 2020. It is estimated that by 2050 the industry could be worth £340bn worldwide, with Britain potentially able to claim a £76bn share with the creation of 68,000 jobs. The UK has the largest wave and tidal resource in Europe. Unlike wind or solar, wave power is less variable from hour to hour and can be forecast days in advance. There is also a good match between periods of high production and seasonal electricity demand.
The committee raises doubts about the level of public funding available for marine renewables and the way it is administered. The Department for Energy and Climate Change has created a £20m fund and the Scottish Government has £18m available. London and Edinburgh are urged to work together closely to pool the cash, so developers are not forced to bid twice for small pots of money.
At present the cost of generating electricity from a wave farm is around four times that of an onshore wind farm. Stephen Wyatt, head of technology accelerator at the Carbon Trust, said: "Accelerating the pace of cost reduction further will require greater levels of innovation support for the industry."
The select committee took evidence from scientists, industry leaders, environmentalists and ministers. Its report says the absence of ambitious long-term targets for the deployment of marine renewables is hampering investor confidence, and suggests significant public sector investment will be needed. The costs of wave and tidal power schemes are expected to fall by 2020 to a level that makes it commercially viable.
Better connections to the national grid will also be needed, along with a commitment to developing the engineering skills needed to make the industry a global success.
Using the sea to generate power has long been a dream for environmentalists but the development of viable equipment has had a chequered history. In 2008, an "inverted windmill" was lowered into the mouth of Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland; it was the first device of its kind in the world, heralding hopes of a sea-power revolution. Other trials followed. Of the eight tidal and wave trials worldwide, seven are taking place in Britain. Most are around the Orkneys, where the European Marine Energy-testing Centre is located. Other key sites include Strangford Lough and north Cornwall, which is expected to become a key test bed for leading companies.
In 2010 the coalition pulled the plug on the idea of a 10-mile, £30bn barrage across the Severn estuary, arguing it was a one-off project which would not be replicated elsewhere, limiting the export opportunities. Last month ministers announced plans for the South-west to become the UK's first Marine Energy Park, placing it at the forefront of the technology's development.
It is hoped scientists, engineers and surveyors will flock to the region. Similar parks are planned for Scotland and Northern Ireland but the move from one-off tests to the deployment of large-scale, commercially viable arrays of devices could be years off.
Dr Gordon Edge, policy director of the industry body RenewableUK, said marine energy is now "on the threshold of commercial viability" and the report paves the way for it to become "a major part of our electricity generation system". But he warned: "We can't afford to have innovation and manufacturing in hi-tech industries go overseas."
The technology giant Siemens announced last week it was taking over the tidal developer Marine Current Turbines. Ted Scheidegger, head of the solar and hydro division of Siemens Energy, said: "We will continue to drive the commercialisation of this promising technology which harvests energy from highly predictable tidal streams. Our target is to secure a leading position in this future business."
The Department for Energy and Climate Change claimed to be "fully committed to spurring on the growth of this industry", but Labour's Caroline Flint claimed that since the coalition was formed, the UK has slipped from third to 13th in the world for green investment. "Marine energy can help make us less reliant on volatile fossil fuel prices and keep energy bills down, cut our carbon emissions and create new jobs and industries in the UK. But we need to move quickly to cement our advantage and stop this opportunity slipping through our fingers," she said.
The Government is under growing pressure to set out a vision for Britain's future energy use. Onshore wind farms, like nuclear power stations, continue to attract vociferous opposition, and more than 100 Tory MPs have written to David Cameron this month demanding "dramatic cuts" to the industry's £400m-a-year subsidies. The solar industry was thrown into turmoil last year when the Department for Energy and Climate Change pulled the plug on funding for generous feed-in tariffs paid to home owners and businesses who installed solar panels.
A carbon capture and storage project at a coal-fired power station at Longannet in Scotland was abandoned after its backers failed to reach a deal with power companies. It is understood ministers will shortly announce a new pilot, this time aimed at removing carbon emissions from a gas-powered plant.
Matt Chorley
Sunday 19 February 2012
Britain's dream of leading the world in harnessing the power of the sea is in danger of being sunk by risk-averse, under-ambitious policymakers who are letting foreign rivals dominate a multibillion-pound industry. An influential Commons committee warns that without a "more visionary" approach from ministers and officials, the development of wave and tidal technology will stall and other countries will steal a march on British firms.
Experts believe that up to 20 per cent of the UK's electricity could one day come from devices deployed around the coastline. But the technology is still in its infancy, and a report today from the Energy and Climate Change Committee warns that Britain could cede its pioneering status to other countries unless ministers intervene.
"Britannia really could rule the waves when it comes to marine renewable energy," said Tim Yeo, the Tory MP who chairs the committee. "We are extremely well placed to lead the world in wave and tidal technologies, which could bring significant benefits in manufacturing and jobs, as well an abundant supply of reliable, low-carbon electricity."
But there are fears of history repeating itself. Britain once led the world in wind-power technology, but was leapfrogged by Denmark, which offered financial backing through feed-in tariffs and saw its industry grow dramatically to become the world's leading supplier of turbines.
The Government has a target for 200-300MW of marine capacity by 2020. It is estimated that by 2050 the industry could be worth £340bn worldwide, with Britain potentially able to claim a £76bn share with the creation of 68,000 jobs. The UK has the largest wave and tidal resource in Europe. Unlike wind or solar, wave power is less variable from hour to hour and can be forecast days in advance. There is also a good match between periods of high production and seasonal electricity demand.
The committee raises doubts about the level of public funding available for marine renewables and the way it is administered. The Department for Energy and Climate Change has created a £20m fund and the Scottish Government has £18m available. London and Edinburgh are urged to work together closely to pool the cash, so developers are not forced to bid twice for small pots of money.
At present the cost of generating electricity from a wave farm is around four times that of an onshore wind farm. Stephen Wyatt, head of technology accelerator at the Carbon Trust, said: "Accelerating the pace of cost reduction further will require greater levels of innovation support for the industry."
The select committee took evidence from scientists, industry leaders, environmentalists and ministers. Its report says the absence of ambitious long-term targets for the deployment of marine renewables is hampering investor confidence, and suggests significant public sector investment will be needed. The costs of wave and tidal power schemes are expected to fall by 2020 to a level that makes it commercially viable.
Better connections to the national grid will also be needed, along with a commitment to developing the engineering skills needed to make the industry a global success.
Using the sea to generate power has long been a dream for environmentalists but the development of viable equipment has had a chequered history. In 2008, an "inverted windmill" was lowered into the mouth of Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland; it was the first device of its kind in the world, heralding hopes of a sea-power revolution. Other trials followed. Of the eight tidal and wave trials worldwide, seven are taking place in Britain. Most are around the Orkneys, where the European Marine Energy-testing Centre is located. Other key sites include Strangford Lough and north Cornwall, which is expected to become a key test bed for leading companies.
In 2010 the coalition pulled the plug on the idea of a 10-mile, £30bn barrage across the Severn estuary, arguing it was a one-off project which would not be replicated elsewhere, limiting the export opportunities. Last month ministers announced plans for the South-west to become the UK's first Marine Energy Park, placing it at the forefront of the technology's development.
It is hoped scientists, engineers and surveyors will flock to the region. Similar parks are planned for Scotland and Northern Ireland but the move from one-off tests to the deployment of large-scale, commercially viable arrays of devices could be years off.
Dr Gordon Edge, policy director of the industry body RenewableUK, said marine energy is now "on the threshold of commercial viability" and the report paves the way for it to become "a major part of our electricity generation system". But he warned: "We can't afford to have innovation and manufacturing in hi-tech industries go overseas."
The technology giant Siemens announced last week it was taking over the tidal developer Marine Current Turbines. Ted Scheidegger, head of the solar and hydro division of Siemens Energy, said: "We will continue to drive the commercialisation of this promising technology which harvests energy from highly predictable tidal streams. Our target is to secure a leading position in this future business."
The Department for Energy and Climate Change claimed to be "fully committed to spurring on the growth of this industry", but Labour's Caroline Flint claimed that since the coalition was formed, the UK has slipped from third to 13th in the world for green investment. "Marine energy can help make us less reliant on volatile fossil fuel prices and keep energy bills down, cut our carbon emissions and create new jobs and industries in the UK. But we need to move quickly to cement our advantage and stop this opportunity slipping through our fingers," she said.
The Government is under growing pressure to set out a vision for Britain's future energy use. Onshore wind farms, like nuclear power stations, continue to attract vociferous opposition, and more than 100 Tory MPs have written to David Cameron this month demanding "dramatic cuts" to the industry's £400m-a-year subsidies. The solar industry was thrown into turmoil last year when the Department for Energy and Climate Change pulled the plug on funding for generous feed-in tariffs paid to home owners and businesses who installed solar panels.
A carbon capture and storage project at a coal-fired power station at Longannet in Scotland was abandoned after its backers failed to reach a deal with power companies. It is understood ministers will shortly announce a new pilot, this time aimed at removing carbon emissions from a gas-powered plant.
U.S. Joins Effort to Fight Climate Change
By TENNILLE TRACY
WASHINGTON—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Thursday the formation of a new global coalition to fight emissions other than carbon dioxide that contribute to climate change.
The coalition—which includes Sweden, Mexico, Canada, Bangladesh and the U.S.—will be funded with $15 million, mostly from the U.S. It hasn't yet determined which actions it will take to reduce the emissions, nor has it identified specific reduction targets. Such precise goals will be developed in coming months, a senior administration official said on a call with reporters.
The Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which Ms. Clinton called a "new global effort to fight climate change," is being launched as the Obama administration moves forward with efforts to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants and other industrial facilities. New rules that require carbon-dioxide cuts follow a failed attempt by Congress to develop a plan to address carbon emissions.
The administration is also putting up federal dollars for clean-energy investments, unveiling a 2013 budget plan this week that sets aside hundreds of millions of dollars for wind, solar and other clean-energy projects.
The coalition announced Thursday will target emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is far more potent than carbon dioxide, as well as soot and hydrofluorocarbons. Together, these emissions account for more than a third of current global-warming developments, a senior administration official said.
The coalition's focus on so-called short-lived pollutants won't replace efforts to slash carbon emissions, for which "the world has not yet done enough," Ms. Clinton said. It aims instead to complement those efforts.
While the coalition hasn't yet addressed specific actions it wants to take, a recent report from the United Nations Environment Programme identifies more than a dozen steps that could be pursued. If these actions are taken, the coalition could slow the rate of global warmth by half a degree Celsius by 2050, Ms. Clinton said, representing 25% of the world's goal.
The UNEP will oversee the day-to-day operations of the coalition.
Methane comes from natural-gas production, landfills, agriculture and other sources. Experts have been particularly interested in methane leaks from natural-gas production, which some scientists say erode the environmental value of natural-gas usage.
Ms. Clinton said the coalition hoped to recruit more global partners in coming months.
Write to Tennille Tracy at tennille.tracy@dowjones.com
WASHINGTON—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Thursday the formation of a new global coalition to fight emissions other than carbon dioxide that contribute to climate change.
The coalition—which includes Sweden, Mexico, Canada, Bangladesh and the U.S.—will be funded with $15 million, mostly from the U.S. It hasn't yet determined which actions it will take to reduce the emissions, nor has it identified specific reduction targets. Such precise goals will be developed in coming months, a senior administration official said on a call with reporters.
The Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which Ms. Clinton called a "new global effort to fight climate change," is being launched as the Obama administration moves forward with efforts to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants and other industrial facilities. New rules that require carbon-dioxide cuts follow a failed attempt by Congress to develop a plan to address carbon emissions.
The administration is also putting up federal dollars for clean-energy investments, unveiling a 2013 budget plan this week that sets aside hundreds of millions of dollars for wind, solar and other clean-energy projects.
The coalition announced Thursday will target emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is far more potent than carbon dioxide, as well as soot and hydrofluorocarbons. Together, these emissions account for more than a third of current global-warming developments, a senior administration official said.
The coalition's focus on so-called short-lived pollutants won't replace efforts to slash carbon emissions, for which "the world has not yet done enough," Ms. Clinton said. It aims instead to complement those efforts.
While the coalition hasn't yet addressed specific actions it wants to take, a recent report from the United Nations Environment Programme identifies more than a dozen steps that could be pursued. If these actions are taken, the coalition could slow the rate of global warmth by half a degree Celsius by 2050, Ms. Clinton said, representing 25% of the world's goal.
The UNEP will oversee the day-to-day operations of the coalition.
Methane comes from natural-gas production, landfills, agriculture and other sources. Experts have been particularly interested in methane leaks from natural-gas production, which some scientists say erode the environmental value of natural-gas usage.
Ms. Clinton said the coalition hoped to recruit more global partners in coming months.
Write to Tennille Tracy at tennille.tracy@dowjones.com
Scotland could raise £30bn energy fund over 20 years, says Salmond
First minister sets out economic case for independence, claiming better use of natural resources would make Scotland rich
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 February 2012 19.35 GMT
An independent Scotland could reap a £30bn dividend from a "reindustrialised" green energy sector over the next 20 years, Alex Salmond said on Wednesday night, raising the stakes in his economic case for a break from the union.
The first minister told an audience of academics, students and members of the public at the London School of Economics Scotland's "unparallelled energy resources" would give a fully independent Holyrood "a huge competitive advantage" over the rest of Europe.
Salmond also said if Scotland had had full fiscal control since 1979, the nation would now have assets worth between £87bn and £117bn.
"Under independence we would make the best use of our unparalleled energy resources," he said. "We have 25% of Europe's tidal power potential, 25% of its offshore wind potential and 10% of its wave power potential – not bad for a nation with less than 1% of Europe's population.
"Scotland has a huge competitive advantage. We will be able to produce energy better and cheaper than anywhere else – and in deeper waters".
Salmond cited research by the thinktank Reform Scotland that suggested Scotland could export half the electricity generated by 2020 because of the Scottish government's renewable energy targets.
He said: "Reform Scotland estimates that as a result of our renewable electricity target Scotland would export half the electricity generated by 2020, increasing Scottish exports by £2 billion a year – equivalent to around 17% of Scottish manufacturing exports to the rest of the UK.
"And while renewables will be the source of Scotland's reindustrialisation, in value terms there is at least as much oil and gas still to come out as has already been used - at least 40 years of oil and gas reserves. We still have an opportunity to establish an energy fund.
"If Scotland had been independent in 1979, oil revenues could have reduced our public sector debt from 39% GDP in 1979 to 0% by 1983-84, and we would then have continued to run budget surpluses throughout the late 1980s.
"If we had been able to establish a sovereign wealth fund as North Sea oil revenues started to come on stream, then it is likely that Scotland would currently have financial assets worth anything from £87 billion to £117 billion pounds.
"The debate about independence is about looking forward and creating a better future for Scotland. With that future in mind, we still have an opportunity to establish an energy fund to benefit future generations. Even just £1 billion a year – less than 10% – invested over 20 years, would create a fund for Scotland worth almost £30 billion.
"An independent Scotland would pursue policies of ambition and responsibility. We would use Scotland's natural resources and skilled workforce to build a sustainable economy.
"The rest of the UK has much to gain from the emergence of a secure, prosperous ally to its north. An independent Scotland would seek to make a responsible contribution on the European and world stage - and that would benefit all of the nations of these islands."
David Cameron is to give a speech on Thursday in which he is expected to make a case in support of the Union, after which he will hold talks with Salmond.
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 February 2012 19.35 GMT
An independent Scotland could reap a £30bn dividend from a "reindustrialised" green energy sector over the next 20 years, Alex Salmond said on Wednesday night, raising the stakes in his economic case for a break from the union.
The first minister told an audience of academics, students and members of the public at the London School of Economics Scotland's "unparallelled energy resources" would give a fully independent Holyrood "a huge competitive advantage" over the rest of Europe.
Salmond also said if Scotland had had full fiscal control since 1979, the nation would now have assets worth between £87bn and £117bn.
"Under independence we would make the best use of our unparalleled energy resources," he said. "We have 25% of Europe's tidal power potential, 25% of its offshore wind potential and 10% of its wave power potential – not bad for a nation with less than 1% of Europe's population.
"Scotland has a huge competitive advantage. We will be able to produce energy better and cheaper than anywhere else – and in deeper waters".
Salmond cited research by the thinktank Reform Scotland that suggested Scotland could export half the electricity generated by 2020 because of the Scottish government's renewable energy targets.
He said: "Reform Scotland estimates that as a result of our renewable electricity target Scotland would export half the electricity generated by 2020, increasing Scottish exports by £2 billion a year – equivalent to around 17% of Scottish manufacturing exports to the rest of the UK.
"And while renewables will be the source of Scotland's reindustrialisation, in value terms there is at least as much oil and gas still to come out as has already been used - at least 40 years of oil and gas reserves. We still have an opportunity to establish an energy fund.
"If Scotland had been independent in 1979, oil revenues could have reduced our public sector debt from 39% GDP in 1979 to 0% by 1983-84, and we would then have continued to run budget surpluses throughout the late 1980s.
"If we had been able to establish a sovereign wealth fund as North Sea oil revenues started to come on stream, then it is likely that Scotland would currently have financial assets worth anything from £87 billion to £117 billion pounds.
"The debate about independence is about looking forward and creating a better future for Scotland. With that future in mind, we still have an opportunity to establish an energy fund to benefit future generations. Even just £1 billion a year – less than 10% – invested over 20 years, would create a fund for Scotland worth almost £30 billion.
"An independent Scotland would pursue policies of ambition and responsibility. We would use Scotland's natural resources and skilled workforce to build a sustainable economy.
"The rest of the UK has much to gain from the emergence of a secure, prosperous ally to its north. An independent Scotland would seek to make a responsible contribution on the European and world stage - and that would benefit all of the nations of these islands."
David Cameron is to give a speech on Thursday in which he is expected to make a case in support of the Union, after which he will hold talks with Salmond.
US wind industry warns 37,000 jobs at risk if tax credit lapses
American Wind Energy Association urges Congress to extend tax credit after measure is excluded from payroll tax bill
BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 14.21 GMT
The US wind energy industry yesterday issued a stark warning that its recent progress will stall and 37,000 jobs could be at risk if Congress fails to extend a tax credit widely regarded as critical to wind farm developers.
The American Wind Energy Association warned that an extension of the federal wind energy production tax credit (PTC) does not appear to have been included in payroll tax legislation currently passing through Congress.
Failure to agree an extension of the tax break would result in its expiration at the end of the year – a scenario that experts claim would have a chilling effect on projects throughout the year.
"The stakes here could not be clearer," American Wind Energy Association chief executive Denise Bode said in a statement. "Economic studies have shown that Congressional inaction on the PTC will kill 37,000 American jobs, shutter plants and cancel billions of dollars in private investment. Congress needs to understand that, with PTC uncertainty, layoffs have already begun and further job losses and even plant closings will accelerate each month as we near expiration in December."
She added that the tax credit has significant bi-partisan support, while companies as diverse as Nike, Campbell Soup and Yahoo have all gone on record to call for the tax break to be extended.
"The broad base of support for wind energy positions us well to get the PTC extended at the next possible opportunity," she said, adding that while it is disappointing the tax breaks have not been included in the controversial payroll tax bill, hope remains that the extension could be agreed later this year.
"The fact that Congress is on the verge of reaching a compromise on such a major piece of legislation bodes well for other legislation," she said. "While Congress decided not to act on tax credit extenders or any energy provisions as part of the payroll tax bill, we are still committed to finding any opportunity for a first-quarter extension. Our campaign continues."
In other Congressional news, the long-running row over president Obama's decision to block the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline took another twist after the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill that will allow Congress to approve the controversial project.
The condition was attached to a highway funding bill, which now also includes measures to expand offshore oil drilling and open areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
The vote steps up pressure on Senate negotiations, where Republicans are also pushing for Keystone XL approval to be tied to the highway funding bill.
BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 14.21 GMT
The US wind energy industry yesterday issued a stark warning that its recent progress will stall and 37,000 jobs could be at risk if Congress fails to extend a tax credit widely regarded as critical to wind farm developers.
The American Wind Energy Association warned that an extension of the federal wind energy production tax credit (PTC) does not appear to have been included in payroll tax legislation currently passing through Congress.
Failure to agree an extension of the tax break would result in its expiration at the end of the year – a scenario that experts claim would have a chilling effect on projects throughout the year.
"The stakes here could not be clearer," American Wind Energy Association chief executive Denise Bode said in a statement. "Economic studies have shown that Congressional inaction on the PTC will kill 37,000 American jobs, shutter plants and cancel billions of dollars in private investment. Congress needs to understand that, with PTC uncertainty, layoffs have already begun and further job losses and even plant closings will accelerate each month as we near expiration in December."
She added that the tax credit has significant bi-partisan support, while companies as diverse as Nike, Campbell Soup and Yahoo have all gone on record to call for the tax break to be extended.
"The broad base of support for wind energy positions us well to get the PTC extended at the next possible opportunity," she said, adding that while it is disappointing the tax breaks have not been included in the controversial payroll tax bill, hope remains that the extension could be agreed later this year.
"The fact that Congress is on the verge of reaching a compromise on such a major piece of legislation bodes well for other legislation," she said. "While Congress decided not to act on tax credit extenders or any energy provisions as part of the payroll tax bill, we are still committed to finding any opportunity for a first-quarter extension. Our campaign continues."
In other Congressional news, the long-running row over president Obama's decision to block the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline took another twist after the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill that will allow Congress to approve the controversial project.
The condition was attached to a highway funding bill, which now also includes measures to expand offshore oil drilling and open areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
The vote steps up pressure on Senate negotiations, where Republicans are also pushing for Keystone XL approval to be tied to the highway funding bill.
Why we must phase out nuclear power
The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy can and does have disastrous consequences
Caroline Lucas, Rebecca Harms, and Dany Cohn-Bendit
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 16.40 GMT
On 11 March last year, Japan was hit by massive earthquake and tsunami, resulting in thousands of tragic deaths, as well as a nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima.
While global attention has long since shifted elsewhere, the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima is far from over. This is the nature of nuclear accidents: they leave a long-lasting radioactive legacy.
One year on, the situation is not under control. The announcement by the Japanese government that the damaged reactors were in a state of "cold shutdown" was met with scepticism and anger from a concerned public – and with disbelief among nuclear experts.
As the recent rise in temperature in Reactor 2 has shown, the Fukushima facility remains unstable and highly vulnerable to a new earthquake. Meanwhile, it has been estimated that "cleaning up" the disaster will take a hundreds-strong workforce decades to complete.
Beyond the reactors themselves, and the arbitrary 20km exclusion zone, the surrounding area in Fukushima province and beyond will suffer from radioactive contamination for generations to come.
To give a concrete example: the amount of radioactive caesium 137 (which has a half life of around 30 years) released during the Fukushima disaster was 168 times that released by the Hiroshima bomb.
It has been estimated that excess deaths, due to radiation exposure in the region, could run into the thousands.
Fukushima, like Chernobyl 25 years before it, has shown us that while the likelihood of a nuclear disaster occurring may be low, the potential impact is enormous.
The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy, as well as the related proliferation of nuclear technologies, can and does have disastrous consequences. The only certain way to eliminate this potentially devastating risk is to phase out nuclear power altogether.
Some countries appear to have learnt this lesson. In Germany, the government changed course in the aftermath of Fukushima and decided to go ahead with a previously agreed phase out of nuclear power. Many scenarios now foresee Germany sourcing 100% of its power needs from renewables by 2030. Meanwhile Italian citizens voted against plans to go nuclear with a 90% majority.
The same is not yet true in Japan. Although only three out of its 54 nuclear reactors are online and generating power, while the Japanese authorities conduct "stress tests", the government hopes to reopen almost all of these and prolong the working life of a number of its ageing reactors by to up to 60 years.
The Japanese public have made their opposition clear however. Opinion polls consistently show a strong majority of the population is now against nuclear power. Local grassroots movements opposing nuclear power have been springing up across Japan. Mayors and governors in fear of losing their power tend to follow the majority of their citizens.
The European level response has been to undertake stress tests on nuclear reactors across the union. However, these stress tests appear to be little more than a PR exercise to encourage public acceptance in order to allow the nuclear industry to continue with business as usual.
The tests fail to assess the full risks of nuclear power, ignoring crucial factors such as fires, human failures, degradation of essential infrastructure or the impact of an airplane crash.
In the UK, the government is determined to push ahead with the development of a new fleet of nuclear reactors, as the partnership announced by David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozy shows.
The orchestrated effort between coalition officials and the nuclear industry to create a pro-nuclear public information campaign in the days after Fukushima showed that not even a large-scale nuclear incident could halt ministers' obsession with new nuclear. Officials did not even wait for the results of the government's own safety review before rushing to assure the British people that a similar disaster is not possible in the UK.
Now, the proposed electricity market reform is set to rig the energy market in favour of nuclear – with the introduction of a carbon price floor likely to result in huge windfall handouts of around £50m a year to existing nuclear generators.
Despite persistent denials by ministers, this is clearly a subsidy by another name, making a mockery of the coalition pledge not to gift public money to this already established industry. The Energy Fair group is arguing that the cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents is technically a subsidy and therefore illegal under EU law – and is now taking the case to the European commission.
Fukushima showed us that nuclear remains a high risk technology. But what is also clear is that nuclear fails to make the grade even in economic terms.
As we have seen with the two new nuclear reactors under construction in Europe, the already prohibitive upfront constructions costs have been grossly underestimated. The EPR reactors under construction in Finland and France are both around 100% over budget, with the end date for construction being constantly postponed.
The hidden costs of nuclear - such as waste disposal, insurance and decommissioning - are also huge, and it is the public that ends up footing the bill. Surely it makes more sense to invest billions of pounds in genuinely sustainable and low risk technologies?
One year on from Fukushima, we should not wait for another disaster to finally convince us to give up on nuclear power.
• Rebecca Harms and Dany Cohn-Bendit are co-presidents of the Greens/EFA group in the European parliament
Caroline Lucas, Rebecca Harms, and Dany Cohn-Bendit
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 16.40 GMT
On 11 March last year, Japan was hit by massive earthquake and tsunami, resulting in thousands of tragic deaths, as well as a nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima.
While global attention has long since shifted elsewhere, the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima is far from over. This is the nature of nuclear accidents: they leave a long-lasting radioactive legacy.
One year on, the situation is not under control. The announcement by the Japanese government that the damaged reactors were in a state of "cold shutdown" was met with scepticism and anger from a concerned public – and with disbelief among nuclear experts.
As the recent rise in temperature in Reactor 2 has shown, the Fukushima facility remains unstable and highly vulnerable to a new earthquake. Meanwhile, it has been estimated that "cleaning up" the disaster will take a hundreds-strong workforce decades to complete.
Beyond the reactors themselves, and the arbitrary 20km exclusion zone, the surrounding area in Fukushima province and beyond will suffer from radioactive contamination for generations to come.
To give a concrete example: the amount of radioactive caesium 137 (which has a half life of around 30 years) released during the Fukushima disaster was 168 times that released by the Hiroshima bomb.
It has been estimated that excess deaths, due to radiation exposure in the region, could run into the thousands.
Fukushima, like Chernobyl 25 years before it, has shown us that while the likelihood of a nuclear disaster occurring may be low, the potential impact is enormous.
The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy, as well as the related proliferation of nuclear technologies, can and does have disastrous consequences. The only certain way to eliminate this potentially devastating risk is to phase out nuclear power altogether.
Some countries appear to have learnt this lesson. In Germany, the government changed course in the aftermath of Fukushima and decided to go ahead with a previously agreed phase out of nuclear power. Many scenarios now foresee Germany sourcing 100% of its power needs from renewables by 2030. Meanwhile Italian citizens voted against plans to go nuclear with a 90% majority.
The same is not yet true in Japan. Although only three out of its 54 nuclear reactors are online and generating power, while the Japanese authorities conduct "stress tests", the government hopes to reopen almost all of these and prolong the working life of a number of its ageing reactors by to up to 60 years.
The Japanese public have made their opposition clear however. Opinion polls consistently show a strong majority of the population is now against nuclear power. Local grassroots movements opposing nuclear power have been springing up across Japan. Mayors and governors in fear of losing their power tend to follow the majority of their citizens.
The European level response has been to undertake stress tests on nuclear reactors across the union. However, these stress tests appear to be little more than a PR exercise to encourage public acceptance in order to allow the nuclear industry to continue with business as usual.
The tests fail to assess the full risks of nuclear power, ignoring crucial factors such as fires, human failures, degradation of essential infrastructure or the impact of an airplane crash.
In the UK, the government is determined to push ahead with the development of a new fleet of nuclear reactors, as the partnership announced by David Cameron and Nicholas Sarkozy shows.
The orchestrated effort between coalition officials and the nuclear industry to create a pro-nuclear public information campaign in the days after Fukushima showed that not even a large-scale nuclear incident could halt ministers' obsession with new nuclear. Officials did not even wait for the results of the government's own safety review before rushing to assure the British people that a similar disaster is not possible in the UK.
Now, the proposed electricity market reform is set to rig the energy market in favour of nuclear – with the introduction of a carbon price floor likely to result in huge windfall handouts of around £50m a year to existing nuclear generators.
Despite persistent denials by ministers, this is clearly a subsidy by another name, making a mockery of the coalition pledge not to gift public money to this already established industry. The Energy Fair group is arguing that the cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents is technically a subsidy and therefore illegal under EU law – and is now taking the case to the European commission.
Fukushima showed us that nuclear remains a high risk technology. But what is also clear is that nuclear fails to make the grade even in economic terms.
As we have seen with the two new nuclear reactors under construction in Europe, the already prohibitive upfront constructions costs have been grossly underestimated. The EPR reactors under construction in Finland and France are both around 100% over budget, with the end date for construction being constantly postponed.
The hidden costs of nuclear - such as waste disposal, insurance and decommissioning - are also huge, and it is the public that ends up footing the bill. Surely it makes more sense to invest billions of pounds in genuinely sustainable and low risk technologies?
One year on from Fukushima, we should not wait for another disaster to finally convince us to give up on nuclear power.
• Rebecca Harms and Dany Cohn-Bendit are co-presidents of the Greens/EFA group in the European parliament
Nuclear power is an expensive gamble that may (or may not) pay off
Energy deals could suck in vast resources for generations, or prove one of the most far-sighted government decisions ever
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 15.56 GMT
Britain's energy future starts in Paris with David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy signing formal agreements for the UK and France to work together on nuclear power. Attention will soon shift to a 500-hectare (1,250-acre) plot in Somerset where the French state energy giant EDF hopes to start work on Hinkley C. If all goes to plan, the first nuclear power station to be built in Britain since 1995 will generate 2,000MW of electricity a year by 2018-2019.
The reality is that few, if any, of the world's 435 working nuclear power stations were built to cost, or on schedule – the prototypes of the two stations EDF wants to build in Britain have taken far longer and proved much more expensive to build than anyone ever expected.
The Paris agreements only allow preparatory work to start, but they do establish one version of the low-carbon electricity future that climate change demands. The deals also address the fact that Britain has very few young engineers to run what may eventually be eight or more nuclear stations, by providing money for a training centre in Bridgwater, Somerset.
However, while EDF's earth-movers arrive in Somerset for Hinkley C, questions about radioactive waste management, long-term fuel supplies, vulnerability to terrorist attack, the risk of radiation, decommissioning, coastal siting, flooding, exorbitant costs and accident liabilities which were all skated over in consultations last year, have not been answered and are likely to come back to haunt governments for generations.
Nuclear critics, like the former energy secretary Chris Huhne, argue that nuclear energy is a tried and failed technology which has needed hundreds of billions of pounds of state subsidies and sweeteners but still generates expensive and dangerous energy.
The question hanging over Britain's new stations will be whether cheaper, safer, alternatives become available. If so, Britain will be embarrassed, chained to a massively expensive technology that will suck in resources for ever. If they do not, the decision to build them may prove to be one of the most far-sighted taken by any government.
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 15.56 GMT
Britain's energy future starts in Paris with David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy signing formal agreements for the UK and France to work together on nuclear power. Attention will soon shift to a 500-hectare (1,250-acre) plot in Somerset where the French state energy giant EDF hopes to start work on Hinkley C. If all goes to plan, the first nuclear power station to be built in Britain since 1995 will generate 2,000MW of electricity a year by 2018-2019.
The reality is that few, if any, of the world's 435 working nuclear power stations were built to cost, or on schedule – the prototypes of the two stations EDF wants to build in Britain have taken far longer and proved much more expensive to build than anyone ever expected.
The Paris agreements only allow preparatory work to start, but they do establish one version of the low-carbon electricity future that climate change demands. The deals also address the fact that Britain has very few young engineers to run what may eventually be eight or more nuclear stations, by providing money for a training centre in Bridgwater, Somerset.
However, while EDF's earth-movers arrive in Somerset for Hinkley C, questions about radioactive waste management, long-term fuel supplies, vulnerability to terrorist attack, the risk of radiation, decommissioning, coastal siting, flooding, exorbitant costs and accident liabilities which were all skated over in consultations last year, have not been answered and are likely to come back to haunt governments for generations.
Nuclear critics, like the former energy secretary Chris Huhne, argue that nuclear energy is a tried and failed technology which has needed hundreds of billions of pounds of state subsidies and sweeteners but still generates expensive and dangerous energy.
The question hanging over Britain's new stations will be whether cheaper, safer, alternatives become available. If so, Britain will be embarrassed, chained to a massively expensive technology that will suck in resources for ever. If they do not, the decision to build them may prove to be one of the most far-sighted taken by any government.
Monday, 6 February 2012
Clegg to deliver stormy rebuff to Tories who demand wind farm cuts
Andrew Grice
Monday 06 February 2012
Nick Clegg will today rebuff more than 100 Conservative MPs by declaring the Government will reject their demands to cut subsidies for onshore wind farms.
Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Secretary, will also make clear he is a firm supporter of "green energy" and will not bow to Tory pressure. The demand, in a letter to David Cameron, is seen as a test of Mr Davey's environmental credentials after he succeeded Chris Huhne, who quit on Friday. In a joint appearance today, Mr Clegg and Mr Davey will seek to reassure green groups that Mr Huhne's departure will not dilute the Coalition's commitment to their cause. Visiting a test site for green homes in Watford, the Deputy Prime Minister will say: "The choice for the UK is simple: wake up, or end up playing catch up. In today's world the savviest states understand that going for growth means going green. Low-carbon markets are the next frontier in the battle for global pre-eminence.
Mr Davey will say: "There may have been a change at the helm, but there'll be no change in direction or ambition." He will add: "I have long believed in the need to marry our economic and environmental agendas. Greening the economy isn't just good for the planet – it's good for the wallets, purses and pockets... My priorities are very simple: green jobs, green growth and getting the best deal for energy bill payers."
Tory MPs want a "dramatic cut" in the £400m a year subsidy to an "inefficient" onshore wind turbine industry. They want planning laws changed so local people have more chance of stopping new wind farms. Mr Cameron is unlikely to back them, not least because subsidies have already been cut.
Chris Heaton-Harris, the Tory MP who organised the letter, said many more MPs would have signed it had they been allowed to – suggesting significant support among ministers and their aides. Two Liberal Democrats, two Labour members and one Democratic Unionist also backed it, he said.
A Conservative MP said: "In the on-going review of renewable energy subsidies, we ask the Government to dramatically cut the subsidy for on-shore wind and spread the savings made between other types of reliable renewable energy production and energy efficiency measures."
Monday 06 February 2012
Nick Clegg will today rebuff more than 100 Conservative MPs by declaring the Government will reject their demands to cut subsidies for onshore wind farms.
Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Secretary, will also make clear he is a firm supporter of "green energy" and will not bow to Tory pressure. The demand, in a letter to David Cameron, is seen as a test of Mr Davey's environmental credentials after he succeeded Chris Huhne, who quit on Friday. In a joint appearance today, Mr Clegg and Mr Davey will seek to reassure green groups that Mr Huhne's departure will not dilute the Coalition's commitment to their cause. Visiting a test site for green homes in Watford, the Deputy Prime Minister will say: "The choice for the UK is simple: wake up, or end up playing catch up. In today's world the savviest states understand that going for growth means going green. Low-carbon markets are the next frontier in the battle for global pre-eminence.
Mr Davey will say: "There may have been a change at the helm, but there'll be no change in direction or ambition." He will add: "I have long believed in the need to marry our economic and environmental agendas. Greening the economy isn't just good for the planet – it's good for the wallets, purses and pockets... My priorities are very simple: green jobs, green growth and getting the best deal for energy bill payers."
Tory MPs want a "dramatic cut" in the £400m a year subsidy to an "inefficient" onshore wind turbine industry. They want planning laws changed so local people have more chance of stopping new wind farms. Mr Cameron is unlikely to back them, not least because subsidies have already been cut.
Chris Heaton-Harris, the Tory MP who organised the letter, said many more MPs would have signed it had they been allowed to – suggesting significant support among ministers and their aides. Two Liberal Democrats, two Labour members and one Democratic Unionist also backed it, he said.
A Conservative MP said: "In the on-going review of renewable energy subsidies, we ask the Government to dramatically cut the subsidy for on-shore wind and spread the savings made between other types of reliable renewable energy production and energy efficiency measures."
As EU Ramps Up Biofuels, Climate Debate Intensifies
By ALESSANDRO TORELLO
ROTTERDAM, Netherlands—At the tip of the 30-mile-long peninsula that hosts one of the busiest ports in the world, Finland's Neste Oil has just finished converting a plot of land reclaimed from the sea into the biggest biodiesel refinery in Europe.
The €670 million ($850 million) investment by the state-controlled company in the plant, which is already transforming vegetable oil and waste animal fat into diesel, aims at benefiting from European Union policies that seek to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and trucks.
But this plant, with a capacity of 800,000 metric tons a year, and others built by different companies around Europe face a new challenge: a possible shift in EU policy that could undermine their profitability.
"Europe. Europe is the key" in terms of markets, in important part because of EU regulation, said Matti Lievonen, Neste Oil's chief executive, in an interview on the day the company announced the start-up of production here in September.
However, less than three years after adopting a key law—which mandates that by 2020, 10% of the total energy used in transport will have to come from renewable sources such as biofuels—a tough debate has begun in the EU on whether biofuels really are better for the climate than conventional fuels.
On Thursday, the environmental organization Friends of the Earth Europe urged the EU to scrap its 2020 target, saying it would cost consumers as much as €126 billion without helping the climate.
"Europe's squeezed consumers and taxpayers are paying the price for a flawed green policy that delivers no environmental benefits," said Robbie Blake, a campaigner with the group.
If policy makers judge biofuels' touted benefits to the climate to be illusory, officials say changes in regulation could result. That would likely cause the demand for biofuels to drop, consequently calling into question many investments.
The majority of European cars run on diesel engines, and companies like Cargill, Sofiprotéol in France or Abengoa in Spain have all together invested billions of euros in building up biodiesel production capacity. But current capacity would already almost be enough to cover the EU 2020 targets, while regulatory uncertainty is doing its part in lowering interest in new investments, experts say.
Biofuels are usually more expensive than regular gasoline or diesel. Europe diesel prices have been around $1,000 per ton, while biodiesel prices range from $1,200 to $1,400 per ton, said Matti Lehmus, responsible for oil products and renewable business at Neste Oil. The company's biofuel product, NExTBL, costs slightly more than that, he explained.
A liter of biofuel emits roughly the same carbon dioxide as a liter of fossil fuel when used in a car engine. But biofuels made from refining vegetable oils have been considered virtually carbon neutral because the plants from which the fuel is made has previously absorbed the carbon dioxide that is emitted by burning it.
By setting a target for 2020, the EU is effectively encouraging farmers to grow biofuel crops. But that potentially incentivizes farmers to cut down forests and move into peat lands, both of which absorb high levels of carbon dioxide in their natural states. Even if these lands aren't claimed directly to grow crops for biofuels, biofuel crops could displace food crops that would then be forced to move there. This process is called indirect land use change, or ILUC.
The debate has intensified since a panel of scientists from the European Environmental Agency, a body that provides scientific background to the EU for its policy decisions, began to question whether biofuels are really carbon neutral.
If you didn't grow a crop used to produce bioenergy on a given piece of land, they argue in a report published in September, some other crop would grow there, offsetting at least some of the carbon dioxide emitted by burning fossil fuels.
"If bioenergy production replaces forests, reduces forest stocks or reduces forest growth, which would otherwise sequester more carbon, it can increase the atmospheric carbon concentration. If bioenergy crops displace food crops, this may lead to more hunger if crops are not replaced and lead to emissions from land-use change if they are," the 19 scientists said in their report.
"The potential consequences of this bioenergy accounting error are immense," they said.
In 2008, EU governments and the European Parliament left for later the highly controversial issue of how to account for the full impact of higher demand for biofuels on the global use of land. The issue is so controversial that the European Commission, the EU's executive body, is already a year late in coming up with a way to account for ILUC in certifying biofuels.
Including an ILUC factor in certifying biofuels allowed in the EU would threaten Europe's ability to reach its 10% target, because it would reduce the amount of biofuels that could be used.
The commission itself is divided on the issue: Its energy department wants to stick with the target, but its climate branch is inclined to change it if it doesn't actually help the environment, officials said.
Neste Oil says it isn't worried about policy change. In Rotterdam, the company mainly produces NExTBL—a transparent, alcohol-like, odorless liquid, 40% of whose ingredients are waste products, like animal fat from the food industry. NExTBL has the potential to replace other biodiesels because it can be used in higher percentages when mixed with regular fuel, has a higher energy content and can stand lower temperatures, Mr. Lievonen said.
Write to Alessandro Torello at alessandro.torello@dowjones.com
What are the key green policies in Ed Davey's in-tray?
He must get to grips with energy suppliers and green campaigners – but the toughest challenge for the new climate and energy secretary is likely to come from cabinet colleagues
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 February 2012 17.10 GMT
Ed Davey, the new secretary of state for energy and climate change, faces a daunting in-tray of policies that will create battles with industry, electricity consumers, anxious renewable energy investors and green campaigners – but the toughest challenge of all is likely to come from his cabinet colleagues.
Chris Huhne was one of the few heavyweight champions of the green agenda within the coalition government. His departure sparked immediate fears that without him, the voices within cabinet - and among the Tory rank-and-file - that have been calling ever more loudly for a watering down of environmental policies will prevail. Those calls have been led by George Osborne, the chancellor, who vowed the UK would do no more than the minimum to meet environmental goals, and could revise current targets downwards.
Andrew Simms, fellow at the New Economics Foundation, urged: "Davey must face down the economic and environmental self-defeating destructiveness of the Treasury, which is preventing the UK from becoming a world leader [in green industries]."
Matthew Spencer, director of the Green Alliance, said it was time for David Cameron and Nick Clegg to speak up: "This creates a moment for the prime minister and deputy prime minister to assert their ownership of the green economy, and for the new secretary of state to build a broader coalition for action across government. It's important that the top tier of government speak publicly to correct the misunderstanding that the leadership are giving up on this agenda."
Speaking in Westminster today, Davey said: "I've now got to take up the challenges, the challenge of climate change, of energy security and I'm particularly conscious of the impact on consumer households across the country of high energy bills."
He added: "I want us to have a green economy where there's lots of green jobs to help grow our economy."
Here are the key policies in Davey's in-tray:
Energy bills
The government's ability to influence bills, which have soared on the back of international fossil fuel prices, relies mainly on attempts to bully and shame the big six suppliers. Its answer has been to bring forward a new flagship policy, the "green deal", for cutting consumer charges by encouraging insulation and other low-carbon home improvements. The bad news is the green deal is in trouble, as several analyses show its appeal is likely to be limited when it launches this autumn.
Renewable energy
Subsidies for renewable energy are under fierce attack, from free-market thinktanks and sections of the rightwing media. The government was humiliated when it tried to cut feed-in tariffs for small-scale renewables, in a hasty move that judges ruled unlawful, and that stirred up turmoil and job losses among solar companies. But the promise of hundreds of thousands of green jobs, billions of pounds in investment, and meeting our EU obligations on renewable generation all hang on a strong showing of government support for the sector.
New nuclear power
For Liberal Democrats, nuclear power is always a tricky issue. Huhne tried to finesse his party's long-standing opposition to new reactors with Tory enthusiasm for them by pledging that they would receive no public subsidy. Critics pointed out that policies to aid "low-carbon" generation would also provide financial support to nuclear. As nuclear projects inch forward, Davey will have to walk a similar tightrope.
Fourth carbon budget
Under pressure on his green credentials, Cameron agreed last summer to carbon-cutting targets for the UK that will be some of the most stringent in the world when they take effect in the 2020s. Osborne wants to review them within two years. This will be a key test for Davey - if he is still around by then.
International
The next two years will see some of the toughest negotiations over climate change within the European Union and globally in the long-running United Nations talks. In Brussels, member states must thrash out the next set of renewable energy and carbon targets by the end of 2014. Under the UN, countries have committed to forge a new global climate change treaty by the end of 2015. Both these punishing forums require a combination of high statesmanship and low guile. Huhne was widely praised for his skilful performances - Davey will have a tough act to follow.
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 February 2012 17.10 GMT
Ed Davey, the new secretary of state for energy and climate change, faces a daunting in-tray of policies that will create battles with industry, electricity consumers, anxious renewable energy investors and green campaigners – but the toughest challenge of all is likely to come from his cabinet colleagues.
Chris Huhne was one of the few heavyweight champions of the green agenda within the coalition government. His departure sparked immediate fears that without him, the voices within cabinet - and among the Tory rank-and-file - that have been calling ever more loudly for a watering down of environmental policies will prevail. Those calls have been led by George Osborne, the chancellor, who vowed the UK would do no more than the minimum to meet environmental goals, and could revise current targets downwards.
Andrew Simms, fellow at the New Economics Foundation, urged: "Davey must face down the economic and environmental self-defeating destructiveness of the Treasury, which is preventing the UK from becoming a world leader [in green industries]."
Matthew Spencer, director of the Green Alliance, said it was time for David Cameron and Nick Clegg to speak up: "This creates a moment for the prime minister and deputy prime minister to assert their ownership of the green economy, and for the new secretary of state to build a broader coalition for action across government. It's important that the top tier of government speak publicly to correct the misunderstanding that the leadership are giving up on this agenda."
Speaking in Westminster today, Davey said: "I've now got to take up the challenges, the challenge of climate change, of energy security and I'm particularly conscious of the impact on consumer households across the country of high energy bills."
He added: "I want us to have a green economy where there's lots of green jobs to help grow our economy."
Here are the key policies in Davey's in-tray:
Energy bills
The government's ability to influence bills, which have soared on the back of international fossil fuel prices, relies mainly on attempts to bully and shame the big six suppliers. Its answer has been to bring forward a new flagship policy, the "green deal", for cutting consumer charges by encouraging insulation and other low-carbon home improvements. The bad news is the green deal is in trouble, as several analyses show its appeal is likely to be limited when it launches this autumn.
Renewable energy
Subsidies for renewable energy are under fierce attack, from free-market thinktanks and sections of the rightwing media. The government was humiliated when it tried to cut feed-in tariffs for small-scale renewables, in a hasty move that judges ruled unlawful, and that stirred up turmoil and job losses among solar companies. But the promise of hundreds of thousands of green jobs, billions of pounds in investment, and meeting our EU obligations on renewable generation all hang on a strong showing of government support for the sector.
New nuclear power
For Liberal Democrats, nuclear power is always a tricky issue. Huhne tried to finesse his party's long-standing opposition to new reactors with Tory enthusiasm for them by pledging that they would receive no public subsidy. Critics pointed out that policies to aid "low-carbon" generation would also provide financial support to nuclear. As nuclear projects inch forward, Davey will have to walk a similar tightrope.
Fourth carbon budget
Under pressure on his green credentials, Cameron agreed last summer to carbon-cutting targets for the UK that will be some of the most stringent in the world when they take effect in the 2020s. Osborne wants to review them within two years. This will be a key test for Davey - if he is still around by then.
International
The next two years will see some of the toughest negotiations over climate change within the European Union and globally in the long-running United Nations talks. In Brussels, member states must thrash out the next set of renewable energy and carbon targets by the end of 2014. Under the UN, countries have committed to forge a new global climate change treaty by the end of 2015. Both these punishing forums require a combination of high statesmanship and low guile. Huhne was widely praised for his skilful performances - Davey will have a tough act to follow.
India records world-beating green energy growth
Increase of 52% to $10.3bn in 2011 was based on strong solar performance
BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 February 2012 14.07 GMT
India's transformation into a cleantech powerhouse moved up a gear in 2011 when it racked up investments of $10.3bn in the sector, a growth rate of 52 per cent year on year that dwarfed the rest of the world's significant economies.
Solar investments led the growth with a seven-fold increase in funding, from $0.6bn in 2010 to $4.2bn in 2011, just below the $4.6bn invested in wind during the year, according to figures released yesterday by analysts Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
A record 2,827MW of wind energy capacity was added in 2011, which kept India third behind China and the US in terms of new installations. BNEF said a further 2,500MW to 3,200MW could be added in 2012.
Grid-connected solar also saw a substantial increase, up from 18MW in 2010 to an estimated 277MW by the end of 2011, while another 500MW to 750MW of solar projects could be added in the coming year.
Asset financing for utility-scale projects remains the main type of clean energy investment in India, with $9.5bn in 2011, BNEF said. Venture capital and private equity investment made a strong comeback with $425m invested in 2011, more than four times the 2010 figure, but equity raising via the public markets was only $201m compared with a record $735m in 2010, when the Indian stock market was at its all-time high.
"There was concern at the beginning of last year that increasing lending rates might hit investment," said Ashish Sethia, head of India research at BNEF, in a statement. "The surge in installation of renewable energy shows it is becoming cost competitive and scalable."
BNEF expects India to exceed the target of adding 12.4GW of grid-connected renewable energy during its 11th five-year plan, running from April 2007 to March 2012, and is likely to bring 14.2GW of capacity online.
However, Sethia said that if the targets are to be met, the country needs to improve the grid to handle increasing amounts of renewable energy, as well as ensuring renewable purchase obligations are enforced and project developers are paid on time for the power they produce.
But India still has significant scope for growth as it only accounts for four per cent of global investment in clean energy.
"India's record performance in 2011, and the momentum it is carrying into 2012, is one of the bright spots in the clean energy firmament," concluded BNEF chief executive Michael Liebreich.
"With support mechanisms falling away in the US, the ongoing financial crisis in Europe and China already going flat out, it is gratifying to see some of the world's other major potential markets coming alive."
BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 February 2012 14.07 GMT
India's transformation into a cleantech powerhouse moved up a gear in 2011 when it racked up investments of $10.3bn in the sector, a growth rate of 52 per cent year on year that dwarfed the rest of the world's significant economies.
Solar investments led the growth with a seven-fold increase in funding, from $0.6bn in 2010 to $4.2bn in 2011, just below the $4.6bn invested in wind during the year, according to figures released yesterday by analysts Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
A record 2,827MW of wind energy capacity was added in 2011, which kept India third behind China and the US in terms of new installations. BNEF said a further 2,500MW to 3,200MW could be added in 2012.
Grid-connected solar also saw a substantial increase, up from 18MW in 2010 to an estimated 277MW by the end of 2011, while another 500MW to 750MW of solar projects could be added in the coming year.
Asset financing for utility-scale projects remains the main type of clean energy investment in India, with $9.5bn in 2011, BNEF said. Venture capital and private equity investment made a strong comeback with $425m invested in 2011, more than four times the 2010 figure, but equity raising via the public markets was only $201m compared with a record $735m in 2010, when the Indian stock market was at its all-time high.
"There was concern at the beginning of last year that increasing lending rates might hit investment," said Ashish Sethia, head of India research at BNEF, in a statement. "The surge in installation of renewable energy shows it is becoming cost competitive and scalable."
BNEF expects India to exceed the target of adding 12.4GW of grid-connected renewable energy during its 11th five-year plan, running from April 2007 to March 2012, and is likely to bring 14.2GW of capacity online.
However, Sethia said that if the targets are to be met, the country needs to improve the grid to handle increasing amounts of renewable energy, as well as ensuring renewable purchase obligations are enforced and project developers are paid on time for the power they produce.
But India still has significant scope for growth as it only accounts for four per cent of global investment in clean energy.
"India's record performance in 2011, and the momentum it is carrying into 2012, is one of the bright spots in the clean energy firmament," concluded BNEF chief executive Michael Liebreich.
"With support mechanisms falling away in the US, the ongoing financial crisis in Europe and China already going flat out, it is gratifying to see some of the world's other major potential markets coming alive."