Hinkley C – the shock of faith in the wrong technology

The British Government's decision to back Hinkley C nuclear power station is another success for the snake oil salesmen of a defunct technology that sends completely the wrong message.

I once wrote a novella about nuclear power that satirised the ease with which politicians fell for its sales pitch, seduced by that strong subtext of sexual potency, the Promethean glamour of seeming to commission the ultimate power source.

Except the reality was and remains a lengthy catalogue of dangerous failures, ineptitude, accidents and catastrophes – of which Chernobyl is the most famous.

A recent scientific study shows that "accidents on the scale of the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island in the USA (a damage cost of about 10 Billion USD) are more likely than not to occur every 10-20 years".

The same study highlights the "'flawed and woefully incomplete' public data from the nuclear industry" that is "leading to an over-confident attitude to risk".

Once nuclear power was sold to us as electricity supply that would be "too cheap to meter". Now, even though the British Tory government knows it's amongst the most expensive power sources on the planet...

... they're still keen to sell Hinkley C to a British public that doesn't want it [original data here].

They know, too, that the specific technology to be deployed at Hinkley C already has "a lengthy catalogue of dangerous failures, ineptitude, accidents and catastrophes" at the previous attempts to deploy it – Flammanville, Taishan and Olkiluoto – but they still want to commission another one like it.

They know that the nuclear industry was forced to become so secretive that its secrets – usually cover-ups of the lengthy catalogues of dangerous failures, ineptitude, accidents and catastrophes – were kept from governments and the public for years (and who knows what has yet to come to light) – and yet the fact that the Chinese government might have access to the secrets of the British nuclear industry and national grid is only offered as a bogus concern, not a serious obstacle to the much more important aim – remaining in the Chinese and French governments' good books.

If I didn't think that it was unlikely that members of the Tory government have read my novella, I'd think it was a case of life imitating or parodying art. (Although I wouldn't put it past the potential of civil servants to be consciously doing so – twisted, devious creatures capable of not just double-think, but triple-, quadruple-, and even octople-think that they are.)

I have observed the British government's grotesque and contorted dance of death with EDF and Hinkley C since it was begun by Tony Blair, with a mixture of fascination, horror and contempt, of the sort I normally reserve for watching the calculated relapse of an ex-alcoholic drawing themselves into a terminal vortex, the culmination of which is starkly obvious to all powerless onlookers.

When Theresa May hit the pause button on approving the Hinkley C decision when everyone expected her to rubber stamp it, she was like the pantomime villain horsing around with the expectations of the audience, just so that when they finally commit the Terrible Deed, they can reap even more opprobrium from the audience than they would have received had they dealt the blow straight away.

There has been so much coverage in the press that everyone can see what a terrible decision this is. The tail has wagged the dog, but it's the taxpayer who will foot the bill if the thing ever does get built. Here's 5 reasons why it shouldn't be built.

There is still a chance it might not. There is still a chance that May could be playing a double bluff: in her wish not to offend the Chinese she has greenlighted the project even though she knows it is an awful bet (she can't be so blinkered that she doesn't know this, can she?) hoping that some other factor – technical, financial, legal – there are a few in the pipeline – will prevent it ever being built, thereby exonerating her from possible future blame by the Chinese.

There's a chance, but it's a slim one. I wouldn't bet on it if I were a gambler.

The whole thing is a farce, but it's more than that, it's a parody of a farce that is still a farce. A post-post-modern farce. Grotesque, and embittered with the self-hypnotised reflection of irony in love with itself.

Meanwhile, if you have a spare hour, watch the video below which shows how, by the time Hinkley C is built, technological disruptions in the fields of energy storage, electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles, solar power and computing will mean there will be absolutely no market for its over-expensive electricity.

It will be old. Out of date. Unnecessary. But still producing nuclear waste we cannot yet render safe.


David Thorpe is the author of:

• Best Practices and Case Studies for Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement (with Oung, K. and Fawkes, S. UNEP, 2016)
• A London Conversation: Business Briefing on Green Bonds (The Fifth Estate, 2015)
• The One Planet Life (Introduction: Jane Davidson. Routledge, 2015)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Energy Management in Buildings (Earthscan, 2013)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Energy Management in Industry (Earthscan, 2013)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Solar Technology (Earthscan, 2011)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Sustainable Home Refurbishment (Earthscan, 2010)

UK energy and environment sectors face post-Brexit uncertainty

[note: Originally published in The Fifth Estate, on 28.6.16.]

The UK energy market and the prospects for environmental safeguards face an uncertain future following the country’s referendum vote to leave the European Union.

One-fifth of British business leaders said they were considering moving operations abroad after the vote, according to a survey by the Institute of Directors. One in four also planned to freeze recruitment and over a third said it would cause them to cut investment.

Immediately following the announcement of the result, Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven commented: “Many of the laws that make our drinking and bathing water safe, our air cleaner, our fishing industry more sustainable and our climate safer now hang by a thread… The climate change-denying wing of the Conservative Party will be strengthened by this vote.”

Jacob Hayler, the executive director of the Environmental Services Association, which represents the UK’s resource and waste management industry, also voiced the opinion that the result would “extend and intensify the uncertainty around both our industry and the UK more generally”.

“The danger now is that the waste and recycling sector is placed at the bottom of the government’s in-tray.”

He promised to “make the case for the circular economy within the UK”.

The effects on investment prospects are likely to be negative for these sectors. Last year the National Grid commissioned research from Vivid Economics on the impact of Brexit on the British energy sector, which concluded that investment costs would increase due to the “uncertainty arising from Brexit negotiations” at a time when the country is “undertaking a historic level of investment in energy infrastructure”.

This view was echoed following the announcement by Brian Jacobsen, chief portfolio strategist at Wells Fargo Funds Management, who said that energy companies could be most exposed to the effects of a Brexit. Plans for capital intensive projects such as offshore wind and new nuclear power stations are particularly vulnerable.

Although EDF chief executive Jean-Bernard Lévy said the UK’s decision would have no impact on EDF Energy’s strategy to build Hinkley Point C – the first new nuclear power station built in the UK in almost 20 years – this was contradicted by Fiona Reilly, PwC’s global head of nuclear capital projects and infrastructure. She said the decision to leave the EU “could have a significant impact on our nuclear program”, citing “access to capital and investor confidence”, but also the need to “renegotiate our involvement in the Euratom Treaty and our 123 Agreement with the US”.

Jonathan Grant, director of PwC sustainability and climate change, called the result “a major setback for the type of collaboration needed to tackle global environmental issues like climate change”, and said “there is a risk that it could kick EU ratification of the Paris Agreement into the long grass”.

Professor Steve Cowley, chief executive of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, the country’s nuclear research agency, told the BBC that over 1000 clean energy exploration jobs may be lost. Scientific research benefits greatly from EU partnerships and funding. Researchers are afraid, he said, that £55 million (AU$99m) in annual European Commission funding would be withdrawn.

While the decision to leave will not affect the UK’s climate change goals, as they are enshrined in law at a national level under the Climate Change Act 1998, there will still be implications. The UK’s own emissions will have to be deducted from the EU’s, which count together under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement.

The deduction could impair the EU’s perceived performance since, as the UK is a relatively high performer, it helps to counteract the lesser performance of other member states. The UK will also have to submit its own Nationally Determined Contribution to the UNFCCC process, since at present all member states are covered by a single document.

Christiana Figueres, before the vote, had already said that a pro-Brexit result would mean the Paris Agreement “would require recalibration”. Following the vote, Ian Duncan, the only Conservative MEP for Scotland and the British lead MEP on the bill to revise the Emissions Trading System, resigned. In his letter he said: “It is with quite some regret that I take this step. I believe passionately in the need to address climate change.”

Whether the UK will continue to participate in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is uncertain. European carbon prices fell over 15 per cent following the Brexit vote. If negotiations result in Britain adopting the EEA + EFTA model, then, like Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland, it will do so. Otherwise, arrangements will have to be made to compensate those companies which hold a surplus of emission allowances under the cap and trade scheme.

Also, the country will be free of the targets set by the EU Renewable Energy Directive and the restrictions under EU state aid, which could free the government to curtail renewable energy support regimes, as long as it still kept within the Climate Change Act’s restrictions. Many right-wing politicians would like to see this Act withdrawn, however.

But any subsidies must still comply with the World Trade Organisation’s subsidy regime – which arises from the same principles as EU State aid rules.

It’s unlikely that Brexit will reprieve the death sentence hanging over the UK coal-fired power stations and many older gas plants. The law stipulating that their greenhouse gas emissions are too high to permit them to continue was the EU Industrial Emissions Directive 2010, which passed into national law. The UK Government is anyway proposing (subject to consultation) to close all unabated coal-fired power stations by 2025.

A particular area of concern is the future of Europe’s ambitious plan to liberalise and harmonise its energy market and grids, known as Energy Union. The UK Government has always pushed the European market to be more liberal. Regardless of Brexit, cooperation with the EU internal energy market will still be necessary because of the electricity interconnectors and gas flows between the British Isles and the continent.

So whatever rules the EU opts for in the Energy Union market will have to be complied with by the UK without it having been able to participate in their formulation – unless the UK succeeds in negotiating to remain a member of the bodies that write the rules, such as ACER, ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G.

Karel Beckman, editor-in-chief of Energy Post, commented that policymakers in Brussels should reconsider the Energy Union and opt “for more realistic forms of market integration”.

Energy and the environment hardly figured in the public debates during the referendum campaign. But the vote’s legacy could have a much greater impact on both.

David Thorpe is the author of:

• Best Practices and Case Studies for Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement (with Oung, K. and Fawkes, S. UNEP, 2016)
• A London Conversation: Business Briefing on Green Bonds (The Fifth Estate, 2015)
• The One Planet Life (Introduction: Jane Davidson. Routledge, 2015)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Energy Management in Buildings (Earthscan, 2013)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Energy Management in Industry (Earthscan, 2013)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Solar Technology (Earthscan, 2011)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Sustainable Home Refurbishment (Earthscan, 2010)

Politicians strive to reassure infrastructure investors following Brexit vote

[note: Originally published on The Fifth Estate, on 5.7.16.]

The outlook for investment in housing, infrastructure and green energy projects in the UK remains uncertain following the referendum decision to leave the European Union, but politicians are now seeking to reassure industry and investors.

Over double the number of industry professionals (60 per cent vs 28 per cent) believe that Brexit will have a negative rather than positive long-term effect on the UK construction industry, with 12 per cent unsure, in an ongoing online poll among those in the UK building industry.

But looking closer, the picture becomes different for different sub-sectors and projects, with infrastructure projects, housing projects and green energy projects each facing differing challenges following the vote.

Infrastructure

The UK has plans for several big infrastructure projects, not least HS2 – a new high-speed rail link from London to the north – and Hinkley C nuclear power station, plus a number of offshore wind farms, Crossrail 2, numerous housing projects and the so-called “northern powerhouse” – a plan to rebalance the economy of Britain by investing in the North of England.

If any projects are to fall by the wayside they are likely to be HS2 and the expansion of Heathrow airport, both of which require substantial amounts of public money. Hinkley is also in serious doubt, but for quite a few additional reasons, not least the precarious nature of energy company EDF’s status and uncertainty about the technology chosen for the reactor.

Also at risk are smaller regeneration infrastructure projects (often road improvements) in England worth in total about £5.3 billion (AU$9.3b), according to the Local Government Association.

In Wales, which, unlike Scotland, London, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, did vote Leave, the future of the £500 million (AU$882m) annual grant Wales receives from the EU is in doubt.

Welsh government’s first minister Carwyn Jones, calling Leave campaigners “clueless”, says major projects are “in difficulty” because of the Brexit vote, and there are “hundreds of vital EU-funded projects right across Wales whose future is now in the balance”. Funding had been allocated to improve main roads and build the South Wales Metro rail link, a project with a £2 billion (AU$3.5b) price tag that would have received £150 million (AU$265m) from the EU.

House building

Housebuilders suffered a big drop in share prices – an average of 18 per cent – following the referendum result, but there has been some recovery since then. Tony Williams, an analyst at Building Value, says he still expects a slowdown in building, but the underlying momentum will still be strong because of the chronic under-supply of homes in the UK. The devaluation of the pound could actually attract foreign buyers to buy bargain property, particularly in London.

As to how sustainable these homes of the future will be, UK Green Building Council policy adviser Richard Twinn pointed to the fact there is nothing in UK legislation saying it has to meet a sustainability target, except for a requirement in the Housing and Planning Act for the secretary of state to “undertake a review” of energy efficiency measures, with no actual action required by UK law.

The UK’s chief energy efficiency policy is derived from the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, which requires all new buildings to be nearly zero-energy buildings from 2021, and may now be scrapped.

Other environmental protections at risk that derive from important European Directives protect birds and natural habitats. Developers have often found these a hindrance, but any attempt to roll back such protection will prompt vociferous opposition from environmentalists.

Green energy

The UK green energy sector last year had a market value of £16b (AU$28b) and employed around 117,000 people, according to the Renewable Energy Association. So far, no projects have been cancelled, and the sector is cautiously optimistic.

Marianne Wiinholt, chief financial officer for Denmark’s Dong Energy, which is building some of the UK’s largest offshore wind farms, says the UK’s energy policy is based on the need to replace old coal-fired power stations. She says any subsidies the UK government disburses to assist the construction of offshore wind farms are enshrined in private contracts “and will thus not be affected by the outcome of the EU vote”.

Many turbine blades for North Sea wind farms are made in Hull, on the north-east coast of England. These factories are not currently under threat, at least in the short term, says factory owner Siemens. Most of these big companies have hedging plans in place to cosset them from currency fluctuations.

Terri Wills, chief executive of the World Green Building Council, says that because the economic and environmental case for tackling climate change has in many ways already been won amongst policymakers, Brexit will make little difference.

“There is a sense that the green agenda is good for business, good for retaining amazing staff, good for us being strong corporate citizens looking to the long term and good for making sure corporations are resilient. So there is a business case for this. I think the market just wants to see that the government recognises that.”

The government has gone some way towards providing this recognition by last week adopting the 2050 emissions reduction target recommended by the Committee on Climate Change and agreeing with its damning report on its own progress, showing that it continues to be committed to the UK’s Climate Change Act and remain a leader on climate action.

Confidence building

Politicians have, in the last few days, been taking other steps to rebuild confidence in British investment plans.

Government infrastructure commissioner Sadie Morgan attempted to calm fears by saying she has “every confidence” projects will go ahead – because infrastructure spending is critical to lifting the country out of the Brexit crisis.

“As far as the [National Infrastructure Commission] is concerned, it’s business as usual,” she told a House of Commons reception for the construction industry.

“If anything is going to get us out of this hole it’s infrastructure.”

MP Conor McGinn, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Construction and Urban Development, told those at the gathering that the country was entering “really challenging and unprecedented times” so it was crucial for the government to “work in partnership” with construction firms to overcome the challenges.

Chancellor George Osborne on Monday set out a five-point plan that includes a proposal to set the level of corporation tax at under 15 per cent – the lowest of any major economy – to stimulate investment including in the north of England. The decision to leave the EU potentially threatens the UK’s relationship with China, which Osborne had been at pains to build in order to attract inward investment. Osborne has said he will reassure China and other countries that Britain is still open for business.

He will be encouraged by a bounce back in the value of the top British shares index on Monday, led by mining stocks, and with the blue-chip FTSE 100 index at its highest level since August 2015, following a slump after the referendum result. The Sterling’s weakness since then has, reports investing.com, provided a cushion to the FTSE 100, “since many of the index’s international companies can benefit from a weaker pound which would help exports”.

Finally, one of the contenders for the leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Crabb, has proposed a £100bn “Growing Britain Fund”. This would use government borrowing to fund infrastructure investment and invest in projects such as flood defences, a national fibre-optic broadband network, Crossrail 2, social housing, school buildings and new prisons.

European reaction

Further afield, the inward looking referendum result has jolted confidence around the world in the values formerly associated with not only Britain but the whole of the EU: pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity, equality and a commitment to sustainable development and poverty eradication globally.

EU leaders who gathered in Brussels for a crisis summit last week were almost unanimous in their opinions about how the EU needs to change as a result. There can no longer be ‘business as usual”, they said. “Europe needs change.”

“Nothing would be worse than the status quo.”

But there has been no sign yet of these feelings being translated into action. The first post-Brexit vote decision made in Brussels was to bow to corporate lobbying and extend the licence of the controversial toxic herbicide glyphosate for another 18 months. This “shows the executive is failing to learn the clear lesson that the EU needs to finally start listening to its citizens again,” said Bart Staes, a Belgian Green MEP.

This was a view even felt by the Commission itself, and is a result of the complex, often remote and unaccountable way in which decisions can be made at the European level.

Until this changes, the public in many other member countries will continue to demand their own referendum, like Britain’s, putting the European project, which has brought peace, stability and prosperity to the continent for the last 50 years, under threat.

All in all, it seems that investors are going to have to live with uncertainty for some time to come.

David Thorpe is the author of:

• Best Practices and Case Studies for Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement (with Oung, K. and Fawkes, S. UNEP, 2016)
• A London Conversation: Business Briefing on Green Bonds (The Fifth Estate, 2015)
• The One Planet Life (Introduction: Jane Davidson. Routledge, 2015)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Energy Management in Buildings (Earthscan, 2013)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Energy Management in Industry (Earthscan, 2013)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Solar Technology (Earthscan, 2011)
• Earthscan Expert Guide to Sustainable Home Refurbishment (Earthscan, 2010)

Energy companies spend $500 million to block climate legislation

Research from a Washington-based pressure group, The Center for American Progress Action Fund, has uncovered the extent to which energy companies and their supporters have lobbied to dissuade American politicians from pursuing climate change legislation.

It is the lack of progress in America which is having a knock on effect in the world's climate change negotiations.

The report, Dirty Money, says the $500 million figure is likely to be an underestimate, since company donations to trade associations are kept secret and a recent Supreme Court decision allows corporations to spend money to defeat electoral candidates without any disclosure or reporting requirements.

How is the money made up?

Since 2009, when the House of Representatives began debating the American Clean Energy and Security Bill, the entire electric utility industry spent over $264 million on lobbying alone through the first half of 2010.

Oil and gas interests spent a record $175 million lobbying in 2009, a 30% increase on the previous year, and have already spent $75 million in 2010.

The oil, gas and coal industries together have spent over $2 billion lobbying Congress since 1999. These three industries spent $543 million on lobbying in 2009 and the first half of 2010.

To put this in some perspective, alternative energy companies spent less than $32 million on lobbying in 2009 and $14.8 million this year.

Who are the biggest spenders? They are in order:

1. ExxonMobil
2. ConocoPhillips
3. Chevron
4. BP
5. Koch Industries – who also bankroll the right wing Tea Party
6. Shell
7. Southern Company, a major utility with significant coal-fired power generation.
8. American Electric Power.

The largest trade association working to defeat clean energy and global warming legislation is the Chamber of Commerce, which spent almost $190 million during the last year and a half.

The mystery is, why they spend so much money stopping the inevitable, when others in business are grasping the opportunities of the future.

On the other side...

These businesses who are embracing the future are not your usual tree huggers any more: recently, Marius Kloppers, the Australia-based BHP Billiton chief executive, called for a carbon tax. BHPBilliton, one of the largest mining companies in the world, with revenues of $10 billion in its coal business.

The World Wildlife Fund's Climate Saver program engages companies to make voluntary binding commitments to reduce their own emissions. It includes cement-maker LaFarge, IBM, Coca-Cola, and drug-maker Novo Nordisk.

The U.S. Climate Action Partnership calls for climate legislation with a membership that includes Duke Energy, PG&E, Johnson & Johnson, Dow Chemical, Ford Motor Company, DuPont, and General Electric.

Walmart's call to its supply chain to report and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions has catalyzed action in their 60,000-member supplier base. They have also, for example, just announced a project to cover the roofs of many of their stores with thin film PVs.

And there are plenty of examples in the UK, who are working in partnership with the Carbon Trust.

It's not surprising then, that environmental campaigners are increasingly targeting these few climate-change denying, oil-junkie, companies who are holding back progress and safety for the rest of the world.

Biomass-fired CHP - one third the price of the next cheapest power source

Councils or businesses would be well advised to construct biomass-fired combined heat and power (CHP) plants to satisfy their energy needs as the cheapest possible option - one that might even make a profit - of all possible energy solutions.

This is one conclusion of a set of figures published by DECC and highlighted this week in a parliamentary answer by Charles Hendry.

The tables below are taken from Mott Macdonald (2010) and give levelised cost estimates (average lifetime generation cost per megawatt-hour) for new build plants in the main large-scale electricity generation technologies in the UK, at current engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract prices.

Mott MacDonald comment that the CHP options reveal the lowest cost power by far, at only £24.9/MWh, one third the cost of a gas powered plant, once the steam revenues are factored in.

Assumptions include that the projects are able to secure a 100% use for their steam over the whole plant life, which may not always be possible, unless companies/councils are using the heat for their own premises. Another assumption is that carbon prices will continue to increase.

The biomass-fired schemes, which have much higher heat-to-power ratios, have the lowest net costs, even seeing negative costs in the medium to long term - i.e., they could make money for the developer.

Even if the biomass CHP schemes can capture only half of the projected steam credit, the costs would still be less than £70/MWh in 2020.

The table reveals other interesting aspects the cost of some renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage:

• offshore wind power is the most expensive form of power at £190/MWh for Round 3 of the bids

• integrating CCS (carbon capture and storage) into coal or gas fired plant would substantially raise capital and operating costs.

• the leading 3rd generation nuclear designs, although projected to incur a significant first build premium, have a lower levelised cost at £99/MWh than an Advanced Super Critical (ASC) coal plant without CCS, but still significantly higher than Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT).

• anaerobic digestion is not as cost effective as normally assumed

• landfill gas and sewage gas are much more cost-effective than energy from waste.

Under DECC’s central carbon price projection, the premium for CCS versus un-scrubbed plants is £32-38/MWh, although the carbon costs on the un-scrubbed coal and gas plants is £40/MWh and £15/MWh, respectively.

In the longer term, as these technologies bring costs down from experience, the levelised costs of CCS equipped plant will undercut those for the un-scrubbed plant.

Even then, the CCS equipped plants still see levelised costs of £105-115/MWh with gas at the lower end, and coal at the upper end of the range. Adopting DECC’s low carbon price projection would see the CCS equipped plant continuing to be more expensive than a non-equipped plant through the 2020s.

The tables

It should be noted that for the purposes of presentation, the table only gives either 'FOAK' (first-of-a-kind) prices or 'NOAK' (nth-of-a-kind) prices for each technology. On offshore wind, for example, it shows offshore wind 'FOAK' prices, whereas the round 2 technology may be considered to have progressed towards 'NOAK' prices. Mott Macdonald estimate 'NOAK' offshore wind costs at £125/MWh (10% discount rate, 2009 project start at today's EPC prices).

Case 1: 10% discount rate, 2009 project start at today's EPC prices, with mixed FOAK/NOAK
Levelised cost	Gas CC GT	Gas CCGT with CCS FOAK	ASC coal	ASC c oal with CCS FOAK	Coal IGCC FOAK	Coal IGCC with CCS FOAK	Onshore wind	Offshore wind FOAK	Offshore wind R3 FOAK	Nuclear PWR. FOAK
Capital Costs	12.4	29.8	33.4	74.1	61.7	82.0	79.2	124.1	144.6	77.3
Fixed operating Coals	3.7	7.7	8.6	18.6	9.7	17.7	14.6	36.7	45.8	12.25
Variable Operating Costs	2.3	3.6	2.2	4.7	3.4	4.6	__	__	__	2.1
Fuel Costs	46.9	65.0.	19.9	28.7	20.3	28.3	__	__	__	5.3
Carbon Costs	15.1	2.1	40.3	6.5	39.6	5.5	__	__	__	__
Decomm and waste fund	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	2.1
CO2 transport and storage	__	4.3	__	9.6	__	9.5	__	__	__	__
Steam Revenue	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	__
Total levelised cost	80.3	112.5	104.5	142.1	134.6	147.6	93.9	160.9	190.5.	99.0

Case 1: 10% discount rate, 2009 project start at today's EPC prices, with mixed FOAK/NOAK
Levelised Cost	Small business power only. FOAK	Large biomass power only. FOAK	OCGT	AD on waste	Landfill gas	Sewage gas	Small biomass CHP. FOAK
Capital Costs	55.8	46.1	7.1	63.8	25.8	42.0	91.3
Fixed operating Coals	21.0	13.4	3.0	21.0	13.1	8.9	23.9
Variable Operating Costs	2.5	2.5	1.5	18.6	21.1	2.1	2.8
Fuel Costs	36.7	31.2	60.6	__	__	__	54.9
Carbon Costs	__	__	18.2	__	__	__	__
Decomm and waste fund	__	__	__	__	__	__	__
CO2 transport and storage	__	__	__	__	__	__	__
Steam Revenue	__	__	__	__	__	__	148.5
Total levelised cost	116.0	93.2	90.5	103.3	60.0	54.0	172.9
Net levelised cost	__	__	__	__	__	__	24.4

Levelised Cost	Large biomass CHP. FOAK	10MW gas. CHP	Small GT based CHP	CCGT. CHP	Energy from waste	Hydro reservoir
Capital Costs	86.8	17.2	15.1	14.3	94.9	74.2
Fixed operating Coals	22.0	4.8	4.3	5.0	15.2	9.0
Variable Operating Costs	2.4	2.4	2.4	1.9	56.7	-
Fuel Costs	48.7	83.4	76.8	57.1	-	-
Carbon Costs	-	25.5	23.5	18.5	-	-
Decomm and waste fund	-	-	-	-	-	-
CO2 transport and storage	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steam Revenue	135.0	56.6	45.2	27.2	-	-
Total levelised cost	160.0	133.4	122.1	96.7	166.8	83.2
Net levelised cost	24.9	76.8	76.8	69.4	-	-

Energy and Environmental Management - new issue

The latest (Nov/Dec) issue of Energy and Environmental Management is now live to read online at the e-reader here.

There are articles on the credit and nature crunch, the Climate Change Act, and how environmental businesses are faring in the downturn, plus a Focus on emissions and pollution control.

Energy and climate change department's first tasks

The creation of a new Department for Energy and Climate Change is welcomed in all quarters: by environmental campaigners, CBI, oil and gas industry and the renewable energy industry.

Ed Miliband (38) - previously Cabinet Office Minister - is now the 10th minister in 11 years to hold the energy portfolio.

The energy team from BERR and the climate change and energy efficiency teams from Defra are now united.

The fact that the two areas of responsibility have been separated ever since Tony Blair split up John Prescott's humungous organisation the DETR, has resulted in a lack of joined-up thinking for many years, often lamented by commentators such as Andrew Warren of the Association for the Conservation of Energy.

Philip Wolfe of the Renewable Energy Association commented that "This will require Mr Miliband to extend the policy portfolio way beyond the narrow range considered by his predecessors."

This is absolutely right, and the Low Carbon Kid says that there is one relatively inexpensive and relatively easy to introduce a measure which it could champion that would have a highly cost-effective impact on fairly and equitably reducing year-on-year the carbon budget of the whole of the EU, not just the area of pollution covered by the ETS.

This is in addition to auctioning off ALL ETS permits to pollute, championing renewable energy end energy efficiency, stopping new coal burning power stations and nuclear new build.

This Tuesday afternoon, European parliamentarians gathering to finalise their proposals for a climate and energy plan for our continent should also adopt this policy.

We're talking Cap and Share.

Cap and Share is not a variant of personal carbon trading - it is an alternative to personal carbon trading because it is not based on individuals needing to surrender carbon credits upon the purchase of fuel or electricity.

The public is issued year on year with their own individual carbon allowance. They then sell it to the people who import carbon-based fuels into the country - the energy companies -- there must only be around 10 of these.

The public then gets money in their pockets. Year on year the allowances are reduced.

The suppliers of fossil-based energy can only sell the amount of fuel that they have permits to sell. The onus is on them to make the reductions, not on the public to make lots of complicated decisions about how they run their lives based on carbon accounting.

Instead they trust the government and the companies to do this for them and they receive in their pockets the financial benefit of the saving of this carbon. At the moment this benefit is given to the large energy users and accounts for some of the huge profit that oil companies have been making.

So, in Cap and Share it is the fossil fuel suppliers who would have to surrender carbon credits on their SALE (not purchase) of fossil fuels based on the emissions associated with the supplied fuel.

Indirect emissions can be covered by cap and share but not (in a simple way) in personal carbon trading.

Emissions have an indirect character when they are, so to speak, "embedded" in products - i.e. given off during the production of a good or a service that an individual or household purchases. Examples: flying or food. It would be hugely complicated and therefore expensive to calculate the embedded carbon for each purchase and make that part of a downstream system - however, with the Cap and Share upstream arrangement it is possible to design a scheme which covers these embedded carbon costs and compensates the public for them.

Another way of putting this is that Cap and Share could be designed to cover ALL non ETS emissions - not just the emissions associated directly with fuel sales to the public. This is about 50% of UK emissions. This should be compared with most presentations of personal carbon trading which cover 40% of UK emissions.

Cost? According to a report by AEA Energy and Environment the costs of administering an Irish scheme (The Irish government is seriously considering this policy) comes to the equivalent of about 40p a head for each time a permit is issued - probably once a year.

Energy and Environmental Management magazine now independent, online and free

Energy and Environmental Management is the name of one of the magazines I work on.

It actually covers a lot more than that, the whole of the sustainable development field in this country. There is a Focus Supplement on energy efficiency and another on waste.

You can now read Energy and Environmental Management online as a free online edition - and subscribe. It has very cool embedded video in the technology, this time used to illustrate the think08 conference which I was at.

The magazine used to be sponsored by Defra and is now independent -- so we are free to be more critical (although we were before -- Defra and BERR don't exactly see eye to eye on energy policy, particularly on the issue of energy efficiency)!

These are the full contents:

News

Combating fuel poverty . . .6
EU ETS kept emissions down . .  . . 7
Carbon Trust “could do better” . . .8
Tougher penalties on waste crime . . .9
WRAP’s new business plan . .  . . 10
UK battery regulations . .  . . 11
Think 08 review . .  . . 12
Personal carbon trading . .  . . 14
Health warning on car adverts . . .16

Focus on waste management and recycling

The true cost of waste, by David Moon . . .p1
WEEE Regulations, by Adrian Harding . . .p3
Industrial Symbiosis - an effective way of reducing industrial waste, by Maggie Morrisey . . .p4
Space of Waste, by Dan McTiernan and Geoff Stow . . .p5
Reducing reliance on landfill, by Barry Sheppard . .  . . p6
Waste not, want not, by Matthew Rowland-Jones  . . .p7

Focus on energy management and renewable energy

European Energy Management Standards, by Martin Fry . . .p1
Real efficiency, by Alan Aldridge . . .p3
Increasing popularity of solar, by Kathy Wyatt . . .p5
Regulating non-domestic buildings, by Melody Stokes . . .p8

Features

Climate change champions, by Steve Waller . . .18
UK award winners . .  . . 21

Regulars

Society for the Environment column . . .17
Resources/Events . .  . . 24/25
Products & Services . .  . . 26
Contacts  . .  . . 27

Legal challenge to ETS mooted

In the first phase of the EU's Emissions Trading System, permits to burn fossil fuels were given away to 5,000 of the EU's biggest polluters.

At one point, the price of permits rose to €27 per tonne, making the whole distribution worth €177 billion.

This inflated their profits and enabled them to out-compete cleaner, less energy-hungry firms. It also encouraged them to lobby in the manner described in Dire Threat to EU renewables.

If, instead, the emissions permits had been given to every EU resident, we could each have been better off by up to €280 a year.

Some campaigners are currently considering whetehr to mount a legal objection to this, on the grounds that the energy companies operated as a cartel, and that the emissions were part of 'the commons' belonging to all EU citizens, who had effectively paid for it through their energy bills.

Although it's a case of bolting the stable door after the horse has run off, the point of the challenge would be to raise awareness of the rip-off and challenge the companies' hegemony.

The only two policies that have a chance to see us through the climate change crisis are not the ETS or carbon capture and storage, but feed-in tarriffs and cap-and-share (or TEQs).

How long is a long time?

Current government policy on energy technology is based on a curious mismatch of ideas about time

Ideas of 'a long time' vary according to context in the Low Carbon Kid's analysis of the government's Energy Market Outlook published two days ago.

There is enough uranium ore in the world to meet currently projected demand for up to 85 years, according to current estimates from the Euratom Supply Agency.

Renewable energy will, by contrast and by definition, last forever. Oh yes, and it's free.

Technologies which use renewable energies as a fuel source will therefore have application forever.

In other words, investing now in developing new renewable energy technologies would produce expertise that would provide a strong foundation for industries that could last for centuries, rather than, by contrast with nuclear technology, one century.

Technologies' lifetimes

Technologies have their lifetimes.

Steam power has lasted roughly 250 years. The internal combustion engine may last (it first appeared in 1850) 200 years.

Nuclear power looks set to last for 150 years at the most.

Water power (mechanical) has been around for at least 2000 years and will probably never go away.

Electricity as a clean means of conducting energy may also be around now as long as we are.

Renewable technologies generating electricity and heat will obviously improve and change with innovation, but they will be around also as long as we are, it's safe to assume.

What the government says

In the long-run we believe increased prices and global demand will help maintain reliable uranium supplies, thus not representing a constraint on any new nuclear build in the UK.
This is not a long run in my books. It is a medium term run as it is looking not 85 years but 15 years into the future.

The report begins by saying
In the short term, the main concern is the extent to which
we can be confident that energy can be delivered when and
where it is needed, i.e. reliability.
In the medium term, the focus is on the availability of
infrastructure, the planning process and supply chain issues
such as the availability, both within the UK and
internationally, of raw materials, machine components and
project management and engineering skills.
In the longer term, there is a wider range of options open to market participants, including significant capital investment and the development of new technology. Given this, the key concern in this time-frame is likely to be the availability of primary sources of energy.
In this discussion, short term is therefore about up to 12 years (2020); medium term seems to be the same actually, as over the same period the same concerns apply, but might extend a further 10 years as the Grid infrastructure is updated; and long term is any time beyond this.

Governments usually can't see beyond the electoral term of office. They are therefore bound by the need to balance the books - they can't spend too much public money.

Nuclear power stations in general take twice as long to build as coal power stations - ten as opposed to five years.

It's therefore curious that nuclear stations are being backed by ministers as they neither address the short term issues or the very long term issues.

New build nuclear power stations will be up and running around 2020. They would last until around 2095, then the fuel runs out. And anyway they will be worn out.

Before then, there is plenty of time to implement 15% of our generating needs from renewables that are currently proven - wind power, ground source heat pumps, solar thermal, and solar electric.

In the medium term government policy should signal to the markets that they should invest In the newer technologies - marine current turbines, wave power, tidal power and more advanced solar photovoltaic generation.

In particular the more predicatable sources - marine currents, tides, geothermal, heat pumps - should be prioritised.

So that after 2020 these are increasingly phased in.

in the medium
term the electricity generating industry faces a substantial
challenge in ensuring delivery of the new generating
capacity that will be needed if demand continues to rise. [p 37]

All the more reason for speeding up the planning process.

[And we haven't even mentioned the very very very very long time that nuclear waste poses a threat for]. If Stonehenge had nen a nuclear reactor it would be well glowing still.
> Energy Market Outlook

The energy hierarchy

Last week the Low Carbon Kid attended a seminar at the Energy Saving Trust as he is one of about 30 'Green Ambassadors' for energy efficiency.

Its director Philip Sellwood (an unusual bloke, previously director of off-licence chains Threshers and Victoria Wine, and a Home Office advisor) was offloading all sorts of gripes about goverment attitudes to energy efficiency. Here are three titbits:

1. Does the EST support new nuclear power?

Not as such - but in practice it works out that it doesn't.

This is because the Trust argues that all means of both saving and generating energy should be looked at for cost-efficiency and ranked accordingly.

You then proceed up the hierarchy until you've met everyone's needs. They've worked out that everyone's needs would be met before there's a need for nuclear new build.

(This chimes with CAT's analysis - Zero Carbon Britain.)


So, given that investment in energy efficiency is always more cost-effective than building new generating capacity, this comes first.

Then comes microgeneration - solar water heating, heat pumps, water power, wind power, biofuels (wood boiler), solar electricity (in that order and if available).

Then we have combined heat and power - still on decentralised energy. Gas for electricity and heat supplied locally.

Then clean coal.

Then large scale renewables (wind farms), then tidal and other marine energies.

Finally nuclear power stations. The total life cycle costs - including looking after that waste for thousands of years - make this the least cost-effective.

Unsexy cavity filling

The most cost-effective energy efficiency measure if you have a cavity wall in your house is to fill it with insulation. It takes a day for a contractor and pays for itself in about nine months.

Despite this, millions of homes have yet to be treated and yet it would go a long way to reducing our carbon emissions.

Philip has tackled the Treasury several times on providing funds to support this.

Treasury bright boffins: "Obviously it's perfectly the rational and obvious thing to do, so people will do it."

Philip: "But people aren't rational. They prefer to spend money on sexier things."

Treasury: "Then they should be more rational. Sorry, we've got a military machine to support."

So lots of money and carbon continue to be wasted.

Non-eco schools

The government is committed to rebuilding every secondary school in the country. A massive undertaking.

Several schools are now eco schools and have solar panels and wind turbines to educate the pupils. This is, you would think, (rationally?) a perfect opportunity to make every school an eco-school.

Clearly, if we teach children energy efficiency, it's the best we can do for our energy future. And what better way than for the schools themselves to demonstrate what it means?

But Philip has found out that:

a) No energy-efficiency or renewable energy features are in the specifications for the buildings

b) He asked all government departments to cooperate with energy efficiency week next week - they all signed up to help out - except the Department for Education and Skills. It said it had too many messages already to get across to schools.

I wonder how Philip keeps from tearing down the walls with his fingernails. Perhaps he has a few bottles left over from Threshers to calm his nerves.

Tide turns for sea power

Using tidal stream (ocean current) and tidal range technology the UK could supply at least 10% of its electricity (around 5% from each).

The Sustainable Development Commission has just published its long-awaited report on tidal power and this is its conclusion.

It says: "Such a substantial prize deserves very close attention as part of much wider action aimed at tackling the twin challenges of climate change and energy security", the goals of the Energy White Paper.

It says a barrage in the Severn Estuary could supply 4.4% of the above total (17TWh), generating electricity for over 120 years.

This is certainly four times longer than a nuclear power station.

But to mitigate its efects on the environment, they say it should:

• be publicly led as a project and publicly owned as an asset to avoid short-termist decisions and ensure the long-term public interest

• be fully compliant with European Directives on habitats and birds and with a long-term commitment to creating compensatory habitats on an unprecedented scale

• investigate a habitat creation that addresses the impacts of climate change over the long term.

The best tidal stream sites are in the north of Scotland, with significant potential also around north Wales (Anglesey where it could replace the power lost by the closure of Wylfa nuclear power station with marine current turbines), Northern Ireland, and the Channel Islands.

The tidal range resource is concentrated in the estuaries off the west coast of Britain, including the Severn, the Mersey and the Humber.

The UK is leading the world in the development of a wide range of tidal stream devices, several of which are at the testing stage. The UK must ‘stay the course’ in developing these technologies, as the export and climate change benefits are potentially very large.

Despite the encouraging progress made so far, Government could do more to assist these emerging technologies, particularly through flexible financial support, and by providing additional resources to the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney.

On tidal lagoons, the SDC found that there is a lack of available evidence on the costs and environmental impacts, mainly due to the absence of any practical experience. We have called on Government to support the development of one or more demonstration project, which would help provide real-life data on their economic and environmental viability.

> Tidal Power report

Nuclear vs solar water heating and carbon impacts

New nuclear build is carbon lighter than fossil fuels but not as light as some renewables.

All renewables have a carbon impact, but it varies enormously from technology to technology. For example, much electricity is used for water heating. Solar water heating has negligible carbon emssions associated and can provide 30-50% of hot water over a year, depending on the location and orientation.

Electricity is used for space heating, and so is gas. Again, with new buildings, passive solar designs and high efficiency can reduce to almost zero the amount of fuel required. Heat pumps can triple the value of the energy input.

Figures from the LCBP show solar water heating was by far the renewable energy installation of choice for householders obtaining this grant. At the end of May, the figures showed that since it launched in April 2006 the LCBP has directly funded 2175 installations on homes, including 1467 (over two thirds) solar thermal heating systems, 313 (14%) solar PV projects and 242 (11%) mini-turbines.

That proves its popularity and effectiveness. The Energy Act should make it mandatory that all new buildings install this technology, and set retrofit targets. But as far as I can see it doesn't even mention this technology.

Space and water heating counts for 83% of domestic energy use (BNDH12, quoted in EST's Rise of the Machine, page 14) and about the same for office use. Together, offices and homes account for around 35% of UK energy use. Ie, 28% of total UK energy use.

Providing 40% of this by passive solar, solar water heating, heat pumps, domestic CHP, and woodchip/pellet boilers, would account for a significant proportion of the amount of power requirement as that required to compensate for the loss of old nuclear power stations.

It would have almost as great an impact in a shorter time scale and far cheaper but with little environmental impact than building new nuclear power stations, as well as creating more, sustainable jobs.

The above forms my answer to question two of the government's nuclear consultation

*Sigh* The nuclear 'consultation'

I haven't posted on this blog for ages because the whole sham of the consultation process depresses me.

I've gone over the arguments against nuclear and for renewables of many types many times before. Yet the government is persistent and persistency tends to pay off.

My friend George Monbiot and my girl Kate Doubleday the eco-singer insist I keep up the blog however. So here goes.

I said to George I thought the green movment had made a mistake by withdrawing from the consultation process, since the government was using this as propaganda, and the votes at the end of the seminars (however rigged), without their presence and influence, have been used to suggest most people support nuclear power.

He disagreed. He believes that, like the Big Conversation sham of a couple of years ago, also seen as a sham and which sank without trace, this will come to be seen the same way.

He thinks that if Greepeace did take part, it would be seen as hypocritical, since they have attacked the process and succeeded in court once.

However, I believe that as this consultation is going to end in an Energy Act, whatever the spun outcome is, it will be used to justify the Act's content.

No doubt the civil servants have told everyone to get nuclear in there at all costs, and no doubt the lobbyists from the four companies lining up to build new nuclear power stations have a good reason to believe they've already got the green light.

The government's favourite pollsters, Populus, founded by two Tories and published in the Times, have produced a convenient poll proving conclusively that the public backs new build.

No doubt people like me and other grenies are all deluded, and we only choose to believe the info that fits our preconceived ideas.

Well, whichever is the correct tactic, only time will tell, but I do believe this - the government is going around saying that the nuclear waste problem is solved, when it isn't; that Scotland and Wales don't want nuclear power; and that the Royal Commision is right to be worried about the security implications of the waste issue.

When renewables could deliver, sooner than nuclear, through tidal energy principally, but also through a myriad of other technologies, the solutions to our energy 'gap' and our energy security, without endangering the lives of future generations or international security, and by backing new techologies that will last far longer than nuclear power once the uranium is all used up in 80 years max, it doesn't make sense to back nuclear on any grounds - not even cost.

Boring democracy stuff

Happy solstice day everyone. So, politics is boring and too difficult and they always do what they want anyway.

A totally understandable position. And yet ... isn't it things like Make Poverty History and Greenpeace occupying incinerators that makes them change tack? Or p'raps you think they're a waste of time too and we should just blow up the House of Commons.

Well whatever you think, energy, waste and planning are the subjects of three public consultations running until September-ish.

Want more or less nukes? Motorways and runways in your back yard? To be able to have a loft conversion without going to court? Lots of flytipping? Exciting stuff, eh?

But these policies - once enshrined in law - will shape the country's future for the next decade and be implemented by Gordon Brown's government.

So, only 'cause it's my day job mind, to write these in the first place, I've kindly posted up handy summaries of the points in three pdf downloads to help you have your say.... if you feel like it.

Or you could just go and drive a car bomb into number 10 and go down in history. Who knows, we may be lighting bonfires for you in 500 years' time.

UK Energy White Paper 2007 | UK Planning White Paper 2007 | UK Waste Strategy 2007

Oil from algae

OK, so perhaps we have here a biofuel that isn't problematic.

Judge for yourselves.

Algae represent a feedstock for oil and fuel - biodiesel and ethanol production.

Many of the problems present with the traditional oilseeds such as palm & soy, and with ethanol feedstock such as corn and molasses/sugarcane are not present in algae.

Algae can grow fast, practically anywhere in the world, do not contribute to deforestation and do not interfere with the existing food crop value chains.

Add to this the fact that the fossil oil we use today was formed primarily from algae.

All these may be reasons enough to explore algae as a potentially important feedstock for our future oil and energy needs.

Check out the Oilgae link on the right for more info and let me know what you think.

New nuclear build doesn't stack up

The new nuclear power station being built in Finland is often pointed to by nuclear advocates as showing that new plants can be built without subsidies.

This is thrown into doubt by more than 1,000 breaches in safety standards reportedly identified by the Finnish safety executive STUK since work began 18 months ago.

It means that safety is being compromised to cut costs.

Activists from countries including the UK blockaded the entrance and occupied giant cranes at the Olkiluoto 3 site early on Monday, May 28, in protest over safety and work standards.

The project is also being attacked by lawyers at Brussels on rounds that it violates on two counts state aid laws - ie that it is really subsidised.

Government proposals on managing radioactive waste 'incoherent and opaque'

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee have attacked the government's proposals for the next phase of the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) programme.

In July 2006 the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) recommended geological disposal of the UK's radioactive waste.

CoRWM also recommended the setting-up of an independent body to oversee the MRWS programme-echoing a recommendation made by the Science and Technology Committee as far back as 1999.

The government have accepted the use of geological disposal but currently propose merely to set up an advisory group, rather than a truly independent overseeing body.

• The Lords Committee therefore recommend that the government should establish a statutory body, independent of day to day government control and accountable to Parliament, to oversee the implementation of the geological disposal programme.
• The Committee also criticise the institutional framework for the implementation stage of the MRWS programme. They label the government's plans 'incoherent and opaque' and urge the government to establish independent expert scrutiny and clear lines of accountability for the next stage of the MRWS programme.

The Committee also raise concerns about the government's approach to site selection for geographical disposal for radioactive waste.

The Committee emphasise the importance of transparency and impartiality, and recommend that the government begin by 'screening out' geologically unsuitable areas, before looking at socio-economic criteria and inviting interested local communities to come forward with offers of participation.

This phased approach is vital to avoid suspicion that site selection is politically driven, and to ensure that partnership with local communities is maintained.

Other recommendations the Committee make include:

• Progress in radioactive waste management should be steady and measured. So far we have had 'years of procrastination followed by ... unseemly haste'.
• The government should delay the publication of their forthcoming consultation document on MRWS, until an independent body has been put in place to scrutinise the programme>

Commenting Lord Broers, Chairman of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, said:

"We have serious concerns about the way the government are moving forward with the MRWS programme. The decisions we take now on radioactive waste will affect future generations for thousands of years.

"The government's stop-start approach creates the impression that these decisions are being driven by short-term energy policy goals, rather than by careful and impartial consideration of the scientific and practical realities.

"The proposals they have announced so far have been incoherent and confusing.

"If the government want people to be confident about the safety of nuclear energy and the disposal of nuclear waste it is now time to appoint a truly independent, democratically accountable body to oversee the whole process.

"People don't have enough confidence in politicians or the government to support any scheme on nuclear waste that is controlled from Whitehall. Only an independent, accountable and expert body will be able to convince people nationally and locally to sign up to the programme."

> The report

The "most affordable" solution to climate change

The building, transport and power sectors in the G8 countries, together with five leading developing countries (Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa) have the biggest potential for saving energy.

In fact, they could increase energy efficiency by a total of 20% by 2020, according to a report commissioned by WWF.

"There is no one silver bullet to stop dangerous climate change, but energy efficiency is the largest and most affordable solution available to avert the current crisis," says Hans Verolme, Director of WWF's Global Climate Change Programme.

He claims that endorsing these targets is technically and economically feasible for all countries. The report estimates the efficiency potential for each sector by the year 2030 as:

• the transport sector: 25-50%
• the building sector: 30-45%
• the power sector: 4-45%, depending on the country.

Recommended measures include standard setting, labelling for energy efficiency, fiscal instruments such as subsidies or tax credits, and a CO2 or energy tax.

Increased energy conservation would result in cost savings, an increase in energy security, and provide new business opportunities and increased employment.

> Read the report, Making Energy Efficiency happen: From Potential to Reality [PDF link]

Miliband's complacency

The Planning White Paper has been attacked by many on the grounds that it would increase, not reduce, overall greenhouse emissions

This is because it will permit fast-tracking of motorway widening, new ports, runways, bypasses and so on.

The overall climate impact of all of this has, unbelievably, not been calculated by the government despite "lip service" to the topic in the white paper.

Nevertheless, at Hay-on-Wye Literature Festival, David Miliband asserted that the central philosophy of the government's climate change programme is that "as long as overall emissions from the UK come down it doesn't matter where the cuts are made” and therefore transport emissions could continue to rise without necessarily contradicting policy.

Such complancy is shocking. How can he know that overall emissions will come down if the impact of the planned transport expansions haven't been calculated?

The plans will make it easier for homeowners to install microgeneration, but grants for these are pitifully few and low. You have to be rich to do it like David Cameron.

The Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP) has just received and from yesterday made available an extra £11.9m for housdeholders' solar, wind, groundsource etc.. power. This will last a month and then that's it.

What a way to support the renewables industry and meet the overwhelming public demand.

> Respond to the Planning consultation
The deadline for responses is 17 August.