Ministry of Defence confirms it has tried and tested 'windfarm-friendly radars'
Jessica Shankleman for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 January 2012 11.18 GMT
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has signed a deal that could unlock more than 4GW of windfarms currently stuck in the planning system, after successfully trialling a radar system that can ignore the spinning blades of turbines.
The MoD announced late last week that contractor SERCO had installed and successfully tested a Lockheed Martin TPS-77 Air Defence Radar at Trimingham on the Norfolk coast, which allows it to conditionally scrap its objections to five offshore wind farms in the Greater Wash.
The proposed wind farms boast a combined capacity of up to 3.3GW.
The department also confirmed, as reported last year, that it has ordered two more "wind farm-friendly radars", which will be paid for by developers and installed at Staxton Wold, North Yorkshire and Brizlee Wood, Northumberland, potentially unlocking a further 750MW of proposed projects.
The Brizlee Wood replacement was purchased to allow North British Windpower's 48 turbine Fallago Rig project to progress. But the mitigation solution could also remove objections to a number of other wind farms planned nearby.
According to the government's Renewables Roadmap, most of the 1.9GW of onshore wind farms that have been unable to gain planning consent for more than two years are held up by objections over radar interference because the spinning blades disrupt radar signals.
Wind turbines as small as 50kW can reflect radar waves, appearing on tracking screens as 'clutter' in an unpredictable and confusing way. However, independent wind farm developers often cannot afford to invest in expensive mitigation technologies designed to reduce the impact on radars.
Dr Gordon Edge, RenewableUK's director of policy, hailed the news as "the end of what has been a long-term obstacle for the expansion of wind energy".
"Through close co-operation with the Ministry of Defence, the industry is identifying its impact on our defence infrastructure and bearing its share of the costs of mitigating that impact," he said. "By doing so, we expand our ability to tap into Britain's world-beating renewable energy resources."
Today's news is the product of two memorandums of understandings between the wind energy industry and stakeholders, such as the MoD, the Crown Estate, and air traffic control operator NATS.
Commenting on the news, Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans Andrew Robathan said the MoD had played an "instrumental" role in "convincing the energy companies to collaborate and jointly fund the cost of the radar".
"This is good news for all parties to this arrangement," he added.
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Smart meters could lead to huge rise in energy bills
Committee of MPs concludes that installation of intelligent meters is open to abuse by suppliers
Rajeev Syal
The Guardian, Tuesday 17 January 2012
Plans to roll out new and more sophisticated meters to every home in Britain are open to abuse by energy companies and should be regulated with more vigour by the government, a powerful committee of MPs has concluded.
Savings to the supplier from the installation of so-called "smart meters" might not be passed on to customers, while ministers may be over-reliant on an ineffective market to drive down prices, a report by the public administration committee finds.
It comes just days after one consumer group called for the government to halt the plans over fears that costs could escalate uncontrollably.
Margaret Hodge, the chair of the committee, said that the government will have to do more to ensure that consumers reap the benefits from the changeover.
"Consumers will have to pay suppliers for the costs of installing and operating smart meters through their energy bills and no transparent mechanism presently exists for ensuring that savings to the supplier are passed on. The track record of energy companies to date does not inspire confidence that this will happen.
"The government is relying on competition in the market to drive down prices. But, as has been previously reported by Ofgem, the energy market does not currently operate as an effective competitive market," she said.
"The department [of energy and climate change] should clearly set out what energy suppliers' responsibilities will be for engaging with consumers to deliver the benefits of smart meters; and how they will be held accountable to both the department and consumers," she added.
Under European directives, all member states are required to install "intelligent metering systems" to at least 80% of domestic electricity consumers by 2020.
The government has opted for a more challenging programme, with plans for energy suppliers to install smart electricity and gas meters in all homes and smaller non-domestic premises by 2019. The government plans to install 53m of them in all homes and small businesses in the country by 2019, at an estimated cost of £11.7bn.
The committee also voiced concerns over how the programme will affect vulnerable consumers and those on low incomes.
"Expecting these consumers to pay for smart meters is of itself regressive, and there is a risk that they may end up paying more through their bills where the costs of installing the meters outweigh the savings they are able to make," it concludes.
"The department should set out how it intends to ensure that vulnerable and low-income consumers do not miss out on the benefits from smart metering," a committee spokesman said.
Recently ministers were urged to halt the planned rollout of new energy meters until they can guarantee that the costs will not escalate uncontrollably.
The consumer campaign group Which? said the government's hands-off approach to the installation of smart meters by energy companies meant it was at risk of becoming a "fiasco".
The energy minister Charles Hendry, commenting on the report, said that the coalition government could not accept further "dither and delay" by re-examining how smart meters will be rolled out.
"We accept that in the past government had been too hands-off and that is exactly why we have brought the programme in-house. We are determined to take the scheme forward, with ministerial oversight and safeguards for consumers built in."
Rajeev Syal
The Guardian, Tuesday 17 January 2012
Plans to roll out new and more sophisticated meters to every home in Britain are open to abuse by energy companies and should be regulated with more vigour by the government, a powerful committee of MPs has concluded.
Savings to the supplier from the installation of so-called "smart meters" might not be passed on to customers, while ministers may be over-reliant on an ineffective market to drive down prices, a report by the public administration committee finds.
It comes just days after one consumer group called for the government to halt the plans over fears that costs could escalate uncontrollably.
Margaret Hodge, the chair of the committee, said that the government will have to do more to ensure that consumers reap the benefits from the changeover.
"Consumers will have to pay suppliers for the costs of installing and operating smart meters through their energy bills and no transparent mechanism presently exists for ensuring that savings to the supplier are passed on. The track record of energy companies to date does not inspire confidence that this will happen.
"The government is relying on competition in the market to drive down prices. But, as has been previously reported by Ofgem, the energy market does not currently operate as an effective competitive market," she said.
"The department [of energy and climate change] should clearly set out what energy suppliers' responsibilities will be for engaging with consumers to deliver the benefits of smart meters; and how they will be held accountable to both the department and consumers," she added.
Under European directives, all member states are required to install "intelligent metering systems" to at least 80% of domestic electricity consumers by 2020.
The government has opted for a more challenging programme, with plans for energy suppliers to install smart electricity and gas meters in all homes and smaller non-domestic premises by 2019. The government plans to install 53m of them in all homes and small businesses in the country by 2019, at an estimated cost of £11.7bn.
The committee also voiced concerns over how the programme will affect vulnerable consumers and those on low incomes.
"Expecting these consumers to pay for smart meters is of itself regressive, and there is a risk that they may end up paying more through their bills where the costs of installing the meters outweigh the savings they are able to make," it concludes.
"The department should set out how it intends to ensure that vulnerable and low-income consumers do not miss out on the benefits from smart metering," a committee spokesman said.
Recently ministers were urged to halt the planned rollout of new energy meters until they can guarantee that the costs will not escalate uncontrollably.
The consumer campaign group Which? said the government's hands-off approach to the installation of smart meters by energy companies meant it was at risk of becoming a "fiasco".
The energy minister Charles Hendry, commenting on the report, said that the coalition government could not accept further "dither and delay" by re-examining how smart meters will be rolled out.
"We accept that in the past government had been too hands-off and that is exactly why we have brought the programme in-house. We are determined to take the scheme forward, with ministerial oversight and safeguards for consumers built in."
Cargo boat and US navy ship powered by algal oil in marine fuel trials
Substituting biofuel for bunker fuel may bring about revolution in world's shipping fleets
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 January 2012 17.59 GMT
Giant cargo boats and US navy warships have been successfully powered on oil derived from genetically modified algae in a move which could herald a revolution in the fuel used by the world's fleets – and a reduction in the pollution they cause.
The results of substituting algal oil for low-grade, "bunker" fuel and diesel in a 98,000-tonne container ship are still being evaluated by Maersk, the world's biggest shipping company, which last week tested 30 tonnes of oil supplied by the US navy in a vessel travelling from Europe to India. Last month, the navy tested 20,000 gallons of algal fuel on a decommissioned destroyer for a few hours. Both ran their trials on a mix of algal oil – between 7% and 100% – and conventional bunker fuel.
"The tests are not complete yet, but we had very few problems," a Maersk spokesman said.
Collaboration between the world's two biggest shipping fleets is expected to lead to the deployment of renewable marine fuels. Maersk uses more than $6bn of bunker fuel a year for its 1,300 ships, and the US navy, the world's biggest single user of marine fuels, burns around 40m barrels of oil a year. The navy plans to test more ships on algal fuel next year as part of its "green fleet" initiative and has pledged to cut 50% of its conventional oil use a year by 2020. Maersk hopes to achieve similar cuts in the same time.
"Shipping takes 350m tonnes of oil a year and causes 3-4% of all greenhouse gas emissions, so it is very attractive to find alternatives. We can envisage [the world's] ships being 10% or more powered by biofuels in 20 years' time," Jacob Sterling, the Maersk head of climate and environment, said.
The exact nature of the algae, one of 30,000 single-cell organisms known to exist in the wild, is a secret closely guarded by Solazyme, the company that manufactures the fuel in giant fermentation tanks in Pennsylvania. The fast-growing algae are fed crop or forest waste and convert their sugars to oil.
"The technology is there. The question now is how to scale up," Tyler Painterm, the chief finance officer of Solazyme, which has a contract to produce 450,000 gallons of biofuels for the navy's trial, said. "We have tested thousands of algae, found in swamps, in mountains and at sea and we know we can be competitive. By using different strains of algae, we can produce different kinds of oils."
The company, which is set to expand shortly with a 50m gallon-a-year plant in Brazil, is backed by the oil company Chevron, the giant US agribusiness Bunge, and Sir Richard Branson, whose Virgin airline has tested planes on algal fuel.
Unlike early biofuels, which made transport fuel from food crops, the new "second generation" process uses only plant waste and does not displace foods which could be fed to people or animals. Nevertheless, immense amounts of feedstock would be needed to power the world's ships. Maersk estimates it could take the crop waste of an area half the size of Denmark to completely power its ships.
But even a partial switch to algal oils would massively reduce air pollution. Bunker fuel, which is little more than asphalt, can produce as much pollution from a single ship in a year as 50m cars and is the most polluting fuel in the world.
But there is uncertainty over how much algal fuels would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Algae sequester CO2 when growing, but release it when burned as oil. Solazyme and Maersk claim they reduce carbon emissions by 80% compared with petroleum-derived fuels in a "lifetime" analysis.
The race is on between different companies to produce competitive algal oils. In October 2010, the US Navy purchased 20,055 gallons on algae biofuel at $424 per gallon, but by December 2011, the price had reduced to $26.67 per gallon. Meanwhile, Craig Venter, the scientist who first sequenced the human genome and designed the first synthetic cell, is trying to develop a genetically-engineered algae fuel that depends only on sunlight and sea water and can be grown and harvested at sea.
In an interview in this month's Scientific American, he said: "We need three major ingredients: CO2, sunlight and seawater, aside from having the facility and refinery to convert all those things. We're looking at sites around the world that have the major ingredient. To us, this is a long-term plan."
If the US navy does switch to algae or other biofuels, it would mark the end of an era of oil-burning navies ushered in by Winston Churchill. In 1911, as the British navy minister, he controversially ordered the huge British fleet to switch from coal to oil for efficiency.
Two years later, he bought a 51% controlling interest in the then small Anglo-Persian Oil Company for the UK government. Within a few years, the company changed its name to BP, and is now the world's fourth-largest corporation.
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 January 2012 17.59 GMT
Giant cargo boats and US navy warships have been successfully powered on oil derived from genetically modified algae in a move which could herald a revolution in the fuel used by the world's fleets – and a reduction in the pollution they cause.
The results of substituting algal oil for low-grade, "bunker" fuel and diesel in a 98,000-tonne container ship are still being evaluated by Maersk, the world's biggest shipping company, which last week tested 30 tonnes of oil supplied by the US navy in a vessel travelling from Europe to India. Last month, the navy tested 20,000 gallons of algal fuel on a decommissioned destroyer for a few hours. Both ran their trials on a mix of algal oil – between 7% and 100% – and conventional bunker fuel.
"The tests are not complete yet, but we had very few problems," a Maersk spokesman said.
Collaboration between the world's two biggest shipping fleets is expected to lead to the deployment of renewable marine fuels. Maersk uses more than $6bn of bunker fuel a year for its 1,300 ships, and the US navy, the world's biggest single user of marine fuels, burns around 40m barrels of oil a year. The navy plans to test more ships on algal fuel next year as part of its "green fleet" initiative and has pledged to cut 50% of its conventional oil use a year by 2020. Maersk hopes to achieve similar cuts in the same time.
"Shipping takes 350m tonnes of oil a year and causes 3-4% of all greenhouse gas emissions, so it is very attractive to find alternatives. We can envisage [the world's] ships being 10% or more powered by biofuels in 20 years' time," Jacob Sterling, the Maersk head of climate and environment, said.
The exact nature of the algae, one of 30,000 single-cell organisms known to exist in the wild, is a secret closely guarded by Solazyme, the company that manufactures the fuel in giant fermentation tanks in Pennsylvania. The fast-growing algae are fed crop or forest waste and convert their sugars to oil.
"The technology is there. The question now is how to scale up," Tyler Painterm, the chief finance officer of Solazyme, which has a contract to produce 450,000 gallons of biofuels for the navy's trial, said. "We have tested thousands of algae, found in swamps, in mountains and at sea and we know we can be competitive. By using different strains of algae, we can produce different kinds of oils."
The company, which is set to expand shortly with a 50m gallon-a-year plant in Brazil, is backed by the oil company Chevron, the giant US agribusiness Bunge, and Sir Richard Branson, whose Virgin airline has tested planes on algal fuel.
Unlike early biofuels, which made transport fuel from food crops, the new "second generation" process uses only plant waste and does not displace foods which could be fed to people or animals. Nevertheless, immense amounts of feedstock would be needed to power the world's ships. Maersk estimates it could take the crop waste of an area half the size of Denmark to completely power its ships.
But even a partial switch to algal oils would massively reduce air pollution. Bunker fuel, which is little more than asphalt, can produce as much pollution from a single ship in a year as 50m cars and is the most polluting fuel in the world.
But there is uncertainty over how much algal fuels would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Algae sequester CO2 when growing, but release it when burned as oil. Solazyme and Maersk claim they reduce carbon emissions by 80% compared with petroleum-derived fuels in a "lifetime" analysis.
The race is on between different companies to produce competitive algal oils. In October 2010, the US Navy purchased 20,055 gallons on algae biofuel at $424 per gallon, but by December 2011, the price had reduced to $26.67 per gallon. Meanwhile, Craig Venter, the scientist who first sequenced the human genome and designed the first synthetic cell, is trying to develop a genetically-engineered algae fuel that depends only on sunlight and sea water and can be grown and harvested at sea.
In an interview in this month's Scientific American, he said: "We need three major ingredients: CO2, sunlight and seawater, aside from having the facility and refinery to convert all those things. We're looking at sites around the world that have the major ingredient. To us, this is a long-term plan."
If the US navy does switch to algae or other biofuels, it would mark the end of an era of oil-burning navies ushered in by Winston Churchill. In 1911, as the British navy minister, he controversially ordered the huge British fleet to switch from coal to oil for efficiency.
Two years later, he bought a 51% controlling interest in the then small Anglo-Persian Oil Company for the UK government. Within a few years, the company changed its name to BP, and is now the world's fourth-largest corporation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
