The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's commercial arm, UKAEA Ltd, has been snapped up by defence engineering contractor Babcock. UKAEA specialises in nuclear decommissioning, waste management and nuclear new build support services.
It was sold by Peter Mandelson for a mere £50 million. Yet the government has commitments to clean up Britain's massive nuclear waste legacy, the cost of which is estimated to be around £113.7 billion by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Lord Mandelson claimed the deal "generates good value for taxpayers". Quite how this is so remains to be seen.
Last year the firm operating Sellafield nuclear site appealed for former workers to come forward if they remembered where they had deposited nuclear waste. Perhaps Babcock's first job will be to try and find it.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Windsave goes bust revealing the truth about micro wind power
The residential arm of Scottish micro wind generation company Windsave, which supplied roof-mounted wind turbines to former energy minister Brian Wilson, has gone into liquidation.
Hands up those who aren't surprised - even that it took so long.
In 2003 this Scottish company began promoting roof mounted domestic turbines using Photoshopped montages. Despite cries from practitioners in the field -- including this blogger - that the performance figures it was quoting didn’t make any sense - and in fact broke the laws of physics - Brian Wilson, the then UK energy minister, and another Scot, became convinced.
A PR exercise was mounted with his help that succeeded amongst other things in persuading DIY chain B&Q to retail them. In June 2006 their Plug’n’Save system won the title of “Best New Product” at the European Business Awards for the Environment. Hundreds of optimistic householders parted with their cash.
At the beginning of 2009 B&Q finally admitted that they didn’t work and withdrew them from sale in response to many disgruntled owners' angry complaints. They had been told they would be able to generate a good proportion of their electricity and recoup their costs in a few years. Some were lucky to generate a miserable few kilowatt-hours over the entire year.
The results of a substantial monitoring exercise of real micro-wind turbines in situ both on urban rooftops and free standing in rural areas was published in July 2009 by the Energy Saving Trust and confirmed what the technical experts and those unfortunate householders already knew: that wind speeds in urban areas coupled with the turbulence caused by nearby buildings mean that the speed of 5m/s required for contemporary turbines to operate efficiently is never reached in an urban situation.
To put it bluntly: domestic scale wind turbines only work in the countryside.
And there they work very well: the results of the field monitoring show that “a properly sited and positioned 6kW rated free standing pole mounted turbine with a similar annual performance would be expected to generate approximately 18,000 kWh per annum.” In today’s English money that is £2,340. It represents a very quick payback.
The success of a wind turbine is measured by its load factor and the higher the number the better. The performance of free standing turbines in the survey frequently exceeded the manufacturers’ quoted annual load factors of 17%; the average was 19%, and the best were 30%. By abysmal contrast, “No urban or suburban building mounted sites generated more than 200kWh or £26 per annum, corresponding to load factors of 3% or less.”
No wonder those B&Q customers were upset.
Turbines need an uninterrupted wind flow and the higher above the ground the more wind there is. This is why they are commonly mounted on 10m or 25m poles and in exposed places. The same survey by the Energy Saving Trust estimates that in the UK 1.9% of homes are situated in conditions like this and can make use of wind power. That is 455,650 households.
If they all installed 6kW wind turbines than the annual generation from them would be in the order of 3,459GWh. This is the amount of electricity used by twice that number of homes - approximately 870,000, or nearly 1% of the UK is electricity requirements and over 3% of its domestic demand. So they would need to be grid connected - and they could generate an income from their sales. This would then decrease the payback period, especially if feed-in tariffs are available. Without them, the payback period is something like six or seven years under these conditions.
In other words, it’s worth doing in these places and nowhere else. The annual average wind speed needs to be greater than 5 m/s and is preferably measured with an anemometer for 12 months before designing the system, but desktop evaluation can be made first to see if it’s worthwhile doing this by looking at figures from the Met Office. But because local conditions can vary enormously - for example due to thermal updraughts, local topography or sea breezes - there is nothing like real on-site measurement.
Windsave's directors are blaming the planning laws for the fact that they have gone bust. No, gentlemen, it's the laws of physics, something an energy minister ought to be aware of.
Hands up those who aren't surprised - even that it took so long.
In 2003 this Scottish company began promoting roof mounted domestic turbines using Photoshopped montages. Despite cries from practitioners in the field -- including this blogger - that the performance figures it was quoting didn’t make any sense - and in fact broke the laws of physics - Brian Wilson, the then UK energy minister, and another Scot, became convinced.
A PR exercise was mounted with his help that succeeded amongst other things in persuading DIY chain B&Q to retail them. In June 2006 their Plug’n’Save system won the title of “Best New Product” at the European Business Awards for the Environment. Hundreds of optimistic householders parted with their cash.
At the beginning of 2009 B&Q finally admitted that they didn’t work and withdrew them from sale in response to many disgruntled owners' angry complaints. They had been told they would be able to generate a good proportion of their electricity and recoup their costs in a few years. Some were lucky to generate a miserable few kilowatt-hours over the entire year.
Real data
The results of a substantial monitoring exercise of real micro-wind turbines in situ both on urban rooftops and free standing in rural areas was published in July 2009 by the Energy Saving Trust and confirmed what the technical experts and those unfortunate householders already knew: that wind speeds in urban areas coupled with the turbulence caused by nearby buildings mean that the speed of 5m/s required for contemporary turbines to operate efficiently is never reached in an urban situation.
To put it bluntly: domestic scale wind turbines only work in the countryside.
And there they work very well: the results of the field monitoring show that “a properly sited and positioned 6kW rated free standing pole mounted turbine with a similar annual performance would be expected to generate approximately 18,000 kWh per annum.” In today’s English money that is £2,340. It represents a very quick payback.
The success of a wind turbine is measured by its load factor and the higher the number the better. The performance of free standing turbines in the survey frequently exceeded the manufacturers’ quoted annual load factors of 17%; the average was 19%, and the best were 30%. By abysmal contrast, “No urban or suburban building mounted sites generated more than 200kWh or £26 per annum, corresponding to load factors of 3% or less.”
No wonder those B&Q customers were upset.
Where micro wind works
Turbines need an uninterrupted wind flow and the higher above the ground the more wind there is. This is why they are commonly mounted on 10m or 25m poles and in exposed places. The same survey by the Energy Saving Trust estimates that in the UK 1.9% of homes are situated in conditions like this and can make use of wind power. That is 455,650 households.
If they all installed 6kW wind turbines than the annual generation from them would be in the order of 3,459GWh. This is the amount of electricity used by twice that number of homes - approximately 870,000, or nearly 1% of the UK is electricity requirements and over 3% of its domestic demand. So they would need to be grid connected - and they could generate an income from their sales. This would then decrease the payback period, especially if feed-in tariffs are available. Without them, the payback period is something like six or seven years under these conditions.
In other words, it’s worth doing in these places and nowhere else. The annual average wind speed needs to be greater than 5 m/s and is preferably measured with an anemometer for 12 months before designing the system, but desktop evaluation can be made first to see if it’s worthwhile doing this by looking at figures from the Met Office. But because local conditions can vary enormously - for example due to thermal updraughts, local topography or sea breezes - there is nothing like real on-site measurement.
Windsave's directors are blaming the planning laws for the fact that they have gone bust. No, gentlemen, it's the laws of physics, something an energy minister ought to be aware of.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Can Britain follow Germany with feed-in tariffs?
The government plans to implement feed-in tariffs by April 2010 to incentivise renewable electricity installations up to a maximum capacity of 5 MW. The consultation document looks at how it could work and best practices from other countries.
It does a good job of setting out the options, but stops short of specific proposals. The following variables are considered:
A fixed tariff pays an overall amount per unit of electricity generated, independent of market price. A premium tariff is an amount paid on top of the market price. In a stepped tariff the amount varies according to type of technology, scale, and local conditions. A flat tariff takes no account of this.
Proposals by the working groups for the Renewable Energy Association, mentioned in the last issue, suggested that all renewable energy generators would be paid a fixed renewable tariff for all energy produced (a “generation tariff”), and an additional price for that exported to the grid, set at a level established between the supply company and the beneficiary and subject to market competition. This is Taken up in one of these consultation documents but not others, which argue on the whole for fixed, stepped tariffs.
At a domestic scale most individuals will use much of their generated electricity themselves, and their use may be unpredictable so they may still be cautious about investing in these technologies because the payback period will, even with these subsidies, be considerable without other grants for installation. The main document says that a generation tariff will be a fixed price, set at different levels for different technologies and installation sizes. "We expect to lower the tariff levels for new projects over the years, but any individual installation, once starting to receive a tariff at a certain level, will continue to receive the same generation tariff level throughout its entire support period under the FITs".
To give long-term certainty to investors, the consultation process to "require suppliers to purchase exports from FITs generators at a guaranteed minimum price". The tariff level will have to be sufficiently high to attract the level of uptake needed to meet targets. The report notes that "due to the fact that small generators provide only small amounts of electricity to the grid, they may have difficulty in securing the same wholesale price for exports that a large-scale generator can access, and may receive a much lower price".
Criticism has been made that the proposals are not being examined at the same time as those for renewable heat, which is to be introduced a year later. This is especially bizarre since the report does look at the electricity-only component of combined heat and power technologies.
The consultation proposes that from 1 April 2010 installations of 50kW and below eligible for FITs will only get the option of receiving FITs. However, those from 50kW to 5MW will be able to choose between the RO and FITs.
Deadline for responses: 15 October 2009. See the DECC consultation page
A house (it could be an office building) generates 2,500 kilowatt hours (kWh) per annum (e.g. from a solar PV panel). They use 1,500kWh of the electricity they generate. 1,000kWh is exported, because it is generated at times when the household does not use it. The household uses a total of 4,500kWh per annum. Therefore, it needs to import 3,000kWh from an electricity supplier.
If the tariff for generation is, for example, 30p/kWh, the householders will receive a FITs payment of £750 per annum (2500kWh x 30p) for the electricity they generate. They will also receive a payment for the electricity they export; assuming a price of 5p/kWh this would be £50 (1000kWh x 5p). They also derive a benefit from the 1,500kWh they generate and use on-site as that will offset 1,500kWh they would otherwise have had to buy from their electricity supplier. Assuming an import price of 10p/KWh this would be a saving of £150 (1500kWh x 10p).
If FITs were delivered by a "generation only" tariff, and generators were required to pay import rates for all electricity used (including that generated on-site) the household would receive much more: £950 per annum (2500kWh x 38p).
It does a good job of setting out the options, but stops short of specific proposals. The following variables are considered:
A fixed tariff pays an overall amount per unit of electricity generated, independent of market price. A premium tariff is an amount paid on top of the market price. In a stepped tariff the amount varies according to type of technology, scale, and local conditions. A flat tariff takes no account of this.
Proposals by the working groups for the Renewable Energy Association, mentioned in the last issue, suggested that all renewable energy generators would be paid a fixed renewable tariff for all energy produced (a “generation tariff”), and an additional price for that exported to the grid, set at a level established between the supply company and the beneficiary and subject to market competition. This is Taken up in one of these consultation documents but not others, which argue on the whole for fixed, stepped tariffs.
At a domestic scale most individuals will use much of their generated electricity themselves, and their use may be unpredictable so they may still be cautious about investing in these technologies because the payback period will, even with these subsidies, be considerable without other grants for installation. The main document says that a generation tariff will be a fixed price, set at different levels for different technologies and installation sizes. "We expect to lower the tariff levels for new projects over the years, but any individual installation, once starting to receive a tariff at a certain level, will continue to receive the same generation tariff level throughout its entire support period under the FITs".
To give long-term certainty to investors, the consultation process to "require suppliers to purchase exports from FITs generators at a guaranteed minimum price". The tariff level will have to be sufficiently high to attract the level of uptake needed to meet targets. The report notes that "due to the fact that small generators provide only small amounts of electricity to the grid, they may have difficulty in securing the same wholesale price for exports that a large-scale generator can access, and may receive a much lower price".
Criticism has been made that the proposals are not being examined at the same time as those for renewable heat, which is to be introduced a year later. This is especially bizarre since the report does look at the electricity-only component of combined heat and power technologies.
FITs or RO?
The consultation proposes that from 1 April 2010 installations of 50kW and below eligible for FITs will only get the option of receiving FITs. However, those from 50kW to 5MW will be able to choose between the RO and FITs.
Deadline for responses: 15 October 2009. See the DECC consultation page
How it might work in practice
A house (it could be an office building) generates 2,500 kilowatt hours (kWh) per annum (e.g. from a solar PV panel). They use 1,500kWh of the electricity they generate. 1,000kWh is exported, because it is generated at times when the household does not use it. The household uses a total of 4,500kWh per annum. Therefore, it needs to import 3,000kWh from an electricity supplier.
If the tariff for generation is, for example, 30p/kWh, the householders will receive a FITs payment of £750 per annum (2500kWh x 30p) for the electricity they generate. They will also receive a payment for the electricity they export; assuming a price of 5p/kWh this would be £50 (1000kWh x 5p). They also derive a benefit from the 1,500kWh they generate and use on-site as that will offset 1,500kWh they would otherwise have had to buy from their electricity supplier. Assuming an import price of 10p/KWh this would be a saving of £150 (1500kWh x 10p).
If FITs were delivered by a "generation only" tariff, and generators were required to pay import rates for all electricity used (including that generated on-site) the household would receive much more: £950 per annum (2500kWh x 38p).
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Breakthough ideas for this century
At the SDC Breakthroughs event.
There were 19 brilliant ideas for how to save the planet - or at least the UK. It's a shame to single out just a few, but apart from Cap and Share (www.capandshare.org), there were biochar and algae - with a working model - ways of financing eco-refurb and educating kids about SD, and ideas for building communities and gardening.
Ed Miliband made a speech supporting CCS and growth. Boo, hiss.
HRH Charles made a speech which I've forgotten.
Porritt, in his swan song speech (he's retiring this month), criticised this and really laid into the Treasury. I mean REALLY - what has he got to lose now?
The new head of the SDC, Will Day, made a speech that didn't yet give a flavour of what his tenure will be like.
I nobbled Hilary Benn (to whom I got an intro from Welsh Evironment Minister Jane Davidson), and spieled him on Cap n Share, which he'd never heard of! He seemed to take it in and went off with the Feasta brochure.
Jane Davidson made an inspiring speech (I wish she had Benn's position and worked for Westminser instead of Cardiff). However, although Wales now has loads of inspiring targets like getting to a ecological fotprint of on plaet from he curret 2.77 in 20 years, the Welsh Assembly Gov's latest document on open cast coal mining basically has so many holes in it, it is not going to stop anyone open cast mining.
So, lots of hopeful and inspiring ideas and fabulously creative wannabe policies. All we need is joined-up government and strong leadership. Is that all?
There were 19 brilliant ideas for how to save the planet - or at least the UK. It's a shame to single out just a few, but apart from Cap and Share (www.capandshare.org), there were biochar and algae - with a working model - ways of financing eco-refurb and educating kids about SD, and ideas for building communities and gardening.
Ed Miliband made a speech supporting CCS and growth. Boo, hiss.
HRH Charles made a speech which I've forgotten.
Porritt, in his swan song speech (he's retiring this month), criticised this and really laid into the Treasury. I mean REALLY - what has he got to lose now?
The new head of the SDC, Will Day, made a speech that didn't yet give a flavour of what his tenure will be like.
I nobbled Hilary Benn (to whom I got an intro from Welsh Evironment Minister Jane Davidson), and spieled him on Cap n Share, which he'd never heard of! He seemed to take it in and went off with the Feasta brochure.
Jane Davidson made an inspiring speech (I wish she had Benn's position and worked for Westminser instead of Cardiff). However, although Wales now has loads of inspiring targets like getting to a ecological fotprint of on plaet from he curret 2.77 in 20 years, the Welsh Assembly Gov's latest document on open cast coal mining basically has so many holes in it, it is not going to stop anyone open cast mining.
So, lots of hopeful and inspiring ideas and fabulously creative wannabe policies. All we need is joined-up government and strong leadership. Is that all?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Breakthrough Ideas for the 21st Century
I'm off to the Sustainable Development Commission's Breakthrough Ideas for the 21st Century event tomorrow.
See: www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/the-short-listed-breakthrough-ideas.html
It will showcase a selection of 39 ‘breakthrough’ ideas, as chosen by the SDC from around 300 ideas submitted from sustainable development experts and enthusiasts from business, academia, government and communities. They will be some of the best ideas that, if put in place, would truly put the UK on the path to becoming a sustainable society. It will also celebrate the talent, creativity and enthusiasm for sustainable development breakthroughs in the UK, and provide a space where others can demonstrate the good work that they are doing on sustainability.
The event will provide a platform for taking these ideas forward, by bringing together people who have the ability to make change happen, and inspiring them to do so, with workshops and other opportunities for delegates to learn and engage with the breakthrough ideas and sustainable development more generally.
The event will be hosted by Jonathon Porritt, Jonathan Dimbleby, Anna Ford and Rosie Boycott, and will include high-level speakers and others like Prince Charles.
I'm with the group supporting Cap and Share: see www.capandshare.org.
See: www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/the-short-listed-breakthrough-ideas.html
It will showcase a selection of 39 ‘breakthrough’ ideas, as chosen by the SDC from around 300 ideas submitted from sustainable development experts and enthusiasts from business, academia, government and communities. They will be some of the best ideas that, if put in place, would truly put the UK on the path to becoming a sustainable society. It will also celebrate the talent, creativity and enthusiasm for sustainable development breakthroughs in the UK, and provide a space where others can demonstrate the good work that they are doing on sustainability.
The event will provide a platform for taking these ideas forward, by bringing together people who have the ability to make change happen, and inspiring them to do so, with workshops and other opportunities for delegates to learn and engage with the breakthrough ideas and sustainable development more generally.
The event will be hosted by Jonathon Porritt, Jonathan Dimbleby, Anna Ford and Rosie Boycott, and will include high-level speakers and others like Prince Charles.
I'm with the group supporting Cap and Share: see www.capandshare.org.
Monday, June 22, 2009
The Commons debates personal carbon trading
This took place on 18.6.09: debating the Goernment's response to the Environmental Audit Commission's report. David Fleming was present at this debate.
Many of the objections to PCT put here, simply don't apply to Cap & Share, which is not mentioned in the whole debate... or the AEA report. It seems most parliamentarians are still unaware of Cap and Share despite the Irish Government's interest.
Joan Ruddock says on PCT "a significant number of low-income households would lose out, and we cannot ignore that. More than 2 million low- income households could be doubly disadvantaged. Not only would they pay the cost of the scheme, which could be around £40 to £80 per household per year, but if they lived in a rural area and had to use their car regularly, for example, they would exceed their free allocation and incur the cost of buying additional allowances. We cannot find a way of overcoming that."
The EAC wants to see a pilot. Ruddock wants it funded by the private sector. She puts faith in the 'upstream' ETS (C&S is also upstream - capping emissions where they enter the economy): "With regard to the upstream schemes, we estimate that it would cost about £50 million to cover a few dozen fuel companies, compared with the £1 billion to £2 billion to introduce a trading scheme that would have to involve 50 million participants. So what additional benefit could be gained by the downstream approach?". But as Yeo observes, the ETS doesn't deliver, and is not value for money.
Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat) does say: "One of our proposals is to switch from the climate change levy to a carbon tax, which would apply to "primary fuels as they enter the economy, once our energy efficiency measures have become effective in tackling fuel poverty, using revenues to cut other taxes."" Then he says: "I have decided that my party has an obligation to respond formally to the proposition in the report, and that we need to do so quickly, so I have decided that we will have a short period of formal but open consultation, picking up on what has come from the Committee's report and from the Government response, which makes arguments against it. We will complete that process by September, by the time of our conference."
Gregory Barker (Shadow Minister, Energy and Climate Change; Bexhill & Battle, Conservative) is against PCT on the grounds it is too Big Brother.
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2009-06-18a.141.0
Many of the objections to PCT put here, simply don't apply to Cap & Share, which is not mentioned in the whole debate... or the AEA report. It seems most parliamentarians are still unaware of Cap and Share despite the Irish Government's interest.
Joan Ruddock says on PCT "a significant number of low-income households would lose out, and we cannot ignore that. More than 2 million low- income households could be doubly disadvantaged. Not only would they pay the cost of the scheme, which could be around £40 to £80 per household per year, but if they lived in a rural area and had to use their car regularly, for example, they would exceed their free allocation and incur the cost of buying additional allowances. We cannot find a way of overcoming that."
The EAC wants to see a pilot. Ruddock wants it funded by the private sector. She puts faith in the 'upstream' ETS (C&S is also upstream - capping emissions where they enter the economy): "With regard to the upstream schemes, we estimate that it would cost about £50 million to cover a few dozen fuel companies, compared with the £1 billion to £2 billion to introduce a trading scheme that would have to involve 50 million participants. So what additional benefit could be gained by the downstream approach?". But as Yeo observes, the ETS doesn't deliver, and is not value for money.
Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat) does say: "One of our proposals is to switch from the climate change levy to a carbon tax, which would apply to "primary fuels as they enter the economy, once our energy efficiency measures have become effective in tackling fuel poverty, using revenues to cut other taxes."" Then he says: "I have decided that my party has an obligation to respond formally to the proposition in the report, and that we need to do so quickly, so I have decided that we will have a short period of formal but open consultation, picking up on what has come from the Committee's report and from the Government response, which makes arguments against it. We will complete that process by September, by the time of our conference."
Gregory Barker (Shadow Minister, Energy and Climate Change; Bexhill & Battle, Conservative) is against PCT on the grounds it is too Big Brother.
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2009-06-18a.141.0
Thursday, April 09, 2009
We need a budget for green homes
New Guardian piece: We need a budget for green homes - Alistair Darling must set up a co-ordinated plan to encourage energy efficiency and refurbish the nation's dwellings.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Tell Sammy to step down
Sammy Wilson is Northern Ireland’s DUP Environment Minister, and he is persuaded that man-made global warming as an ‘hysterical pseudo-religion’. And so he has halted a government advertising campaign – which gave people ‘the impression that by turning off the standby light on their TV they could save the world from melting glaciers and being submerged in 40ft of water’ – denouncing it as ‘insidious New Labour propaganda’.
Send Sammy Wilson [lewisp@parliament.uk] an email:
"To ignore all of the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change exists and is a man-made, means that you are completely unqualified for those responsible political position that you hold. You would be well advised to step down now and seek an alternative ministerial post more suited to your views."
> www.wikio.co.uk/uk_politics/parties/democratic_unionist_party/sammy_wilson
Send Sammy Wilson [lewisp@parliament.uk] an email:
"To ignore all of the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change exists and is a man-made, means that you are completely unqualified for those responsible political position that you hold. You would be well advised to step down now and seek an alternative ministerial post more suited to your views."
> www.wikio.co.uk/uk_politics/parties/democratic_unionist_party/sammy_wilson
Friday, January 30, 2009
Age of Stupid's fantastic trailer
Age of Stupid is set to make its impact on March 15th with a London premier and then general release.
Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite (In The Name of the Father, Brassed Off) stars as a man living alone in the devasted world of 2055, looking back at “archive” footage from 2007 and asking: why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?
> Read my article and interview with the director.
Oscar-nominated Pete Postlethwaite (In The Name of the Father, Brassed Off) stars as a man living alone in the devasted world of 2055, looking back at “archive” footage from 2007 and asking: why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?
> Read my article and interview with the director.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Climate change, George Monbiot, Agas, oil, blame, and guilt
Unusually for this blog, I'm directing you to a poem - on my other blog - about climate change - I like playing games - but not the Blame Game . The attitudes of some greenies really pisses me off. So this is about climate change, George Monbiot, Agas, oil, blame, guilt and so on.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Emission allowance auction to be held as price crashes
The second auction in Phase II of the European Union's Emissions Trading System will be held on behalf of the government on 24th March.
But the scheme has come under attack again, as the owners of registered installations - large energy generators, cement manufacturers, chemical plants and the like - have been selling off credits which they are not using on account of the recession - to the tune of 75 to 150 million euros a day - to raise funds to balance their books.
Big polluters must purchase allowances corresponding to the tonnes of carbon they expect to emit. 7% of the UK's allowance cap is auctioned - about 86 million allowances over Phase II.
West European iron and steel output is expected to fall by at least 14% this year compared to 2008, and EU cement production by 20-25%, meaning there will be a surplus of carbon allowances of 66 million tons for those two sectors alone. This is worth about 750 million euros. But the sell-off is causing a glut and a price collapse - by up to a third in January. Analysts said it could drop as low as 5 euros from a peak of 31 euros last summer.
"This was not designed as a scheme to give corporates cheap short-term funding options in a credit crunch meltdown," said Mark Lewis, Deutsche Bank carbon analyst. "But that appears to be what's happening."
A low price undermines incentives for companies to cut emissions. "It demonstrates that the targets after 2012 (to 2020) are too lax, especially in combination with a large use of carbon offsets," said Cambridge University's Karsten Neuhoff. But Barbara Helfferich, EU Commission environment spokeswoman brushed off criticism, saying "If those companies were smart they would take those profits and invest them in greener technology". But will they?
The allowances are one of the worst investments so far in 2009, falling more than almost any other energy commodity or index of global stocks. Only the energy guzzlers have benefited - so it looks as if this auction won't raise nearly as much cash for the government as the first one.
This is yet another reason why the ETS needs a complete overhaul - it is just not fit for purpose.
But the scheme has come under attack again, as the owners of registered installations - large energy generators, cement manufacturers, chemical plants and the like - have been selling off credits which they are not using on account of the recession - to the tune of 75 to 150 million euros a day - to raise funds to balance their books.
Big polluters must purchase allowances corresponding to the tonnes of carbon they expect to emit. 7% of the UK's allowance cap is auctioned - about 86 million allowances over Phase II.
West European iron and steel output is expected to fall by at least 14% this year compared to 2008, and EU cement production by 20-25%, meaning there will be a surplus of carbon allowances of 66 million tons for those two sectors alone. This is worth about 750 million euros. But the sell-off is causing a glut and a price collapse - by up to a third in January. Analysts said it could drop as low as 5 euros from a peak of 31 euros last summer.
"This was not designed as a scheme to give corporates cheap short-term funding options in a credit crunch meltdown," said Mark Lewis, Deutsche Bank carbon analyst. "But that appears to be what's happening."
A low price undermines incentives for companies to cut emissions. "It demonstrates that the targets after 2012 (to 2020) are too lax, especially in combination with a large use of carbon offsets," said Cambridge University's Karsten Neuhoff. But Barbara Helfferich, EU Commission environment spokeswoman brushed off criticism, saying "If those companies were smart they would take those profits and invest them in greener technology". But will they?
The allowances are one of the worst investments so far in 2009, falling more than almost any other energy commodity or index of global stocks. Only the energy guzzlers have benefited - so it looks as if this auction won't raise nearly as much cash for the government as the first one.
This is yet another reason why the ETS needs a complete overhaul - it is just not fit for purpose.
Monday, January 26, 2009
"5,000 to 7,000 more offshore wind turbines" - report
Environmental study to inform location of future offshore energy developments
A new Government study of the UK's shores has recommended that between 5,000 to 7,000 more offshore wind turbines could be installed. This would be enough to power the equivalent of almost all the homes in the UK (assuming 3.6MW to 5MW turbines).
An Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), produced by Hartley Anderson Ltd, assesses the potential for further development in offshore wind, as well as oil and gas licensing and natural gas storage. The environmental report, the bulk of it, records vital information on bird populations, mammals, plankton and more. Following a twelve week consultation on this report, the Government will propose an "acceptable" level of offshore wind development, as well as offshore oil and gas licensing.
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said: "This report provides a real advance in our understanding of the ecology and geology of the UK marine environment so we can continue to ensure that projects like wind farms are built in the most suitable places and that we will also protect the natural environment."
The Government has already proposed increases in the financial incentives to make the UK an attractive place for offshore wind development. Seven wind farms (North Hoyle, Scroby Sands, Kentish Flats, Barrow, Burbo Bank, Lynn and Inner Dowsing) are already operating off the UK coast, five more are being built, nine have been approved and two are in the planning process.
> www.offshore-sea.org.uk
> DECC's offshore wind pages
Severn tidal power shortlist contains two lagoon proposals
Up to 5% of UK electricity could be generated
Both controversial barrages and innovative tidal lagoons favoured by conservationists have made it onto the shortlist of schemes to generate electricity in the Severn estuary. If the largest were to go ahead, it could produce enough electricity to supply all of Wales' needs.New funding of £500,000 has also been announced to further develop new technologies like tidal reefs and fences. Their progress will be taken into account before a final decision is made. The tides in the Severn estuary are the second highest in the world.
A year-long feasibility study has been investigating ten options that are now whittled down to five. A consultation is now underway until 23 April on which projects to take forwards (which includes the five schemes that didn't make the shortlist). The five schemes are:
- Cardiff Weston Barrage: crossing the estuary from Brean Down, near Weston-super-Mare to Lavernock Point, near Cardiff. Estimated capacity: over 8.6 gigawatts - nearly 5% of UK electricity
- Shoots Barrage: further upstream of the Cardiff Weston scheme. Capacity: 1.05GW (similar to a large fossil fuel plant)
- Beachley Barrage: just above the Wye River. Capacity: 625MW
- Bridgwater Bay Lagoon: on the English shore between east of Hinkley Point and Weston-super-Mare. Capacity: 1.36GW
- Fleming Lagoon: on the Welsh shore between Newport and the Severn road crossings. Capacity: 1.36GW.
Rare habitat
The estuary is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA), under the European Union Birds Directive, in recognition of its internationally important overwintering bird populations.Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said: "We have tough choices to make. Failing to act on climate change could see catastrophic effects on the environment and its wildlife, but the estuary itself is a protected environment, home to vulnerable species including birds and fish.
"We need to think about how to balance the value of this unique natural environment against the long-term threat of global climate change," Miliband concluded.
Under the Habitats laws a development can proceed if it is within the overriding public interest to do so, even if it may damage protected sites, but only if it can ensure that the appropriate compensatory measures to secure the coherence of the Natura 2000 network of sites and replace lost habitats before the project proceeds.
The study has considered this up to a point but come to no firm conclusion yet on whether it would be possible to deliver compensation on the scale required, calling it "a significant challenge".
The shortlisted schemes are based on relatively well understood hydroelectric technologies, with a mix of existing and new engineering structures.
The scope of the Strategic Environmental Assessment has also been published to ensure a detailed understanding.
> Severn Tidal Power Consultation
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
What EDF doesn't want, Npower picks up
Npower has bought the farmland next to Wylfa nuclear power station, which EDF bought in the summer and then hurriedly sold.
While the ignorant local MP, Albert Owen, and the council, equally ignorant, are in favour of a new nuclear power station here, a recent survey found opposition running at 80%.
The fact is, as I have blogged before, marine current turbines would represent a much more sustainable, long-lasting and low impact solution to any perceived energy or jobs crisis on the island of Anglesey.
Such turbines are already being installed by Marine Current Turbines.
There is an opposition campaign to Wylfa-B called, appropriately enough, People Against Wylfa B - PAWB. Go there and sign the petition.
As they point out, the fact that EDF sold the land next to Wylfa A, demonstrates that Wylfa is a weak contender for a second nuclear plant anyway.
While the ignorant local MP, Albert Owen, and the council, equally ignorant, are in favour of a new nuclear power station here, a recent survey found opposition running at 80%.
The fact is, as I have blogged before, marine current turbines would represent a much more sustainable, long-lasting and low impact solution to any perceived energy or jobs crisis on the island of Anglesey.
Such turbines are already being installed by Marine Current Turbines.
There is an opposition campaign to Wylfa-B called, appropriately enough, People Against Wylfa B - PAWB. Go there and sign the petition.
As they point out, the fact that EDF sold the land next to Wylfa A, demonstrates that Wylfa is a weak contender for a second nuclear plant anyway.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Obama puts science and climate change at America's heart
"It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted nor obscured by politics nor ideology."
With these words, Barack Obama has drawn a line under the faith-based, oil-industry-biased policies of his predecessor.
He has made the following highly significant appointments which are fantastic news for climate-change campaigners, and which mean the world can now begin to hope that America can lead the way to a speedy about-turn in fossil-fuel dependence, and make up for eight lost years of Bush Presidency:
He believes America can reduce its energy use without reducing its wealth, and has worked with the Helios Project, the research initiative Berkeley Lab launched for breakthrough renewable energy and efficiency technology - nanotech photovoltaics, microbial and cellulosic biofuels, and chemical photosynthesis. This despite the fact that his Nobel Prize was for his work in atomic physics.
In this video he explains his philosophy:
Holdren, an entrepreneur-supporting scientist who has worked with Paul Ehrlich and received the Nobel Peace Prize, knows about the new figures that show the rapid acceleration in the loss of Arctic sea ice, as well as dramatic acidification of the ocean.
Lubchenco (the first woman to hold the position of head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has said that even if the world abruptly shifts away from fossil fuels, the oceans will continue to soak up carbon dioxide and become more acidic. She recommends protecting marine life by reducing overfishing, cutting back on nutrient run-off and creating marine reserves to protect marine eco-systems.
With these words, Barack Obama has drawn a line under the faith-based, oil-industry-biased policies of his predecessor.
He has made the following highly significant appointments which are fantastic news for climate-change campaigners, and which mean the world can now begin to hope that America can lead the way to a speedy about-turn in fossil-fuel dependence, and make up for eight lost years of Bush Presidency:
- respected climatologist Jane Lubchenco is to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- Steven Chu, a Nobel prizewinner, is to be Secretary of the Department of Energy
- Harvard physicist John Holdren has been made director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
He believes America can reduce its energy use without reducing its wealth, and has worked with the Helios Project, the research initiative Berkeley Lab launched for breakthrough renewable energy and efficiency technology - nanotech photovoltaics, microbial and cellulosic biofuels, and chemical photosynthesis. This despite the fact that his Nobel Prize was for his work in atomic physics.
In this video he explains his philosophy:
Holdren, an entrepreneur-supporting scientist who has worked with Paul Ehrlich and received the Nobel Peace Prize, knows about the new figures that show the rapid acceleration in the loss of Arctic sea ice, as well as dramatic acidification of the ocean.
Lubchenco (the first woman to hold the position of head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has said that even if the world abruptly shifts away from fossil fuels, the oceans will continue to soak up carbon dioxide and become more acidic. She recommends protecting marine life by reducing overfishing, cutting back on nutrient run-off and creating marine reserves to protect marine eco-systems.
Friday, December 19, 2008
New grants for renewable energy
The Government has announced £12 million in funding for industry, businesses and community groups investing in biomass-fuelled heating and combined heat and power systems, including anaerobic digesters, in England.
It's a pittance, a drop in the ocean, but it's better than a kick in the gonads.
Round 5 of the Bio-energy Capital Grants Scheme is now open for applications until at least 30 April 2009.
It will pay 40% of the difference in cost of a biomass boiler and the fossil fuel alternative up to £500,000. “Nearly half of the UK’s carbon emissions come from heating, so it’s essential to change how we heat businesses, hospitals, schools and community buildings,” says Sustainable Development and Energy Innovation Minister, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Since the scheme was launched in 2002, £55 million has been used to set up biomass power stations, biomass-fuelled heat and power plants and biomass heating systems.
Schools, hospitals, charities and local authorities can also apply for a slice of £7 million from the Low Carbon Buildings Programme for microgeneration technologies.
It's a pittance, a drop in the ocean, but it's better than a kick in the gonads.
Round 5 of the Bio-energy Capital Grants Scheme is now open for applications until at least 30 April 2009.
It will pay 40% of the difference in cost of a biomass boiler and the fossil fuel alternative up to £500,000. “Nearly half of the UK’s carbon emissions come from heating, so it’s essential to change how we heat businesses, hospitals, schools and community buildings,” says Sustainable Development and Energy Innovation Minister, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Since the scheme was launched in 2002, £55 million has been used to set up biomass power stations, biomass-fuelled heat and power plants and biomass heating systems.
Schools, hospitals, charities and local authorities can also apply for a slice of £7 million from the Low Carbon Buildings Programme for microgeneration technologies.
Get your hot ROCS off!
Renewable electricity supplier Good Energy has launched HotROCs, the UK's first Renewable Heat Incentive.
It intends to pay domestic solar heat generators for the heat energy they produce.
Over 450 businesses and homes have also signed up to its HomeGen scheme, which pays 10p for every unit of renewable electricity generated - including the units they use at home.
> www.good-energy.co.uk
It intends to pay domestic solar heat generators for the heat energy they produce.
Over 450 businesses and homes have also signed up to its HomeGen scheme, which pays 10p for every unit of renewable electricity generated - including the units they use at home.
> www.good-energy.co.uk
Health test for new nuclear power stations
A government consultation ending in March is asking whether we regard four designs put forward for new nuclear power stations in the UK meet health criteria, when balanced against their alleged benefits.
The criteria include the health detriment, defined as an estimate of the risk of reduction in length and quality of life occurring in a population following exposure to ionising radiations.
The Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) has put forward the proposals, which are being examined as stage one of a legal process on the road to the potential construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations.
They are being tested under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004, a piece of EU legislation transposed into UK law.
These stipulate that before any new type of practice involving ionising radiation can be introduced in the UK, it must first undergo a high-level, generic assessment to determine whether its overall benefit outweighs any associated health detriment.
The Minister for Energy and Climate Change Mike O'Brien will decide the result of the consultation, which ends in March. It will be followed by a further consultation between September and December 2009 on his draft decision.
The Low Carbon Kid says no health detriment is acceptable. And what about the health of future generations, and those in the nuclear fuel and decommissioning life cycle? But we're not allowed to comment on that, so narrow are the terms of this consultation.
> Consultation on whether new nuclear power stations in the UK meet health criteria
The criteria include the health detriment, defined as an estimate of the risk of reduction in length and quality of life occurring in a population following exposure to ionising radiations.
The Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) has put forward the proposals, which are being examined as stage one of a legal process on the road to the potential construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations.
They are being tested under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004, a piece of EU legislation transposed into UK law.
These stipulate that before any new type of practice involving ionising radiation can be introduced in the UK, it must first undergo a high-level, generic assessment to determine whether its overall benefit outweighs any associated health detriment.
The Minister for Energy and Climate Change Mike O'Brien will decide the result of the consultation, which ends in March. It will be followed by a further consultation between September and December 2009 on his draft decision.
The Low Carbon Kid says no health detriment is acceptable. And what about the health of future generations, and those in the nuclear fuel and decommissioning life cycle? But we're not allowed to comment on that, so narrow are the terms of this consultation.
> Consultation on whether new nuclear power stations in the UK meet health criteria
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Poznan and Brussels: Failure
The news from Poznan and from the European Union is deeply depressing.
In Europe what we are seeing is a last ditch attempt by the dinosaurs of the old industrial system to hang on to what they once had.
The transition to a low carbon economy to cope with the pressures of climate change was always going to be either chaotic and disruptive, or managed and planned well. It looks like it is more the first than the last.
Governments pay far too much attention to the demands of the old industries. At the very least they should be giving concessions to them only in exchange for targeted, rapid evolution to reliance on post-carbon technology.
At Poznan it is the developed countries who have blocked the establishment of rigorous targets. At Brussels, it was Germany s trying to protect its heavy industry in a bizarre alliance with Poland and Berlusconi.
Poznan also saw little progress in helping the developing world make the necessary transition -- the developed world is now too caught up in a financial crisis of its own making.
Is this the worst possible outcome? Not quite. There are still more negotiations to come in the post-Kyodo process. But one thing we don't have is time.
Representatives of the Cap and Share group of which the Low Carbon Kid is a member who went to Poznan reported back on the almost futility of their visit. Thousands of campaigners, each with their own particular message actually locked out of the area where the real decision-making was taking place.
Our own strategy will now be to target decision-makers here. Beginning with the policymakers at DECC and the new Climate Change Committee led by Lord Turner who put out their own sadly inadequate report two weeks ago. Why inadequate? Because the climate is changing more rapidly than predicted two years ago by the IPCC.
In case anybody doubts that the hour is not late, do read the evidence amassed in this report by my colleagues at the Public Information Research Centre.
In Europe what we are seeing is a last ditch attempt by the dinosaurs of the old industrial system to hang on to what they once had.
The transition to a low carbon economy to cope with the pressures of climate change was always going to be either chaotic and disruptive, or managed and planned well. It looks like it is more the first than the last.
Governments pay far too much attention to the demands of the old industries. At the very least they should be giving concessions to them only in exchange for targeted, rapid evolution to reliance on post-carbon technology.
At Poznan it is the developed countries who have blocked the establishment of rigorous targets. At Brussels, it was Germany s trying to protect its heavy industry in a bizarre alliance with Poland and Berlusconi.
Poznan also saw little progress in helping the developing world make the necessary transition -- the developed world is now too caught up in a financial crisis of its own making.
Is this the worst possible outcome? Not quite. There are still more negotiations to come in the post-Kyodo process. But one thing we don't have is time.
Representatives of the Cap and Share group of which the Low Carbon Kid is a member who went to Poznan reported back on the almost futility of their visit. Thousands of campaigners, each with their own particular message actually locked out of the area where the real decision-making was taking place.
Our own strategy will now be to target decision-makers here. Beginning with the policymakers at DECC and the new Climate Change Committee led by Lord Turner who put out their own sadly inadequate report two weeks ago. Why inadequate? Because the climate is changing more rapidly than predicted two years ago by the IPCC.
In case anybody doubts that the hour is not late, do read the evidence amassed in this report by my colleagues at the Public Information Research Centre.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
300 NGOs agree - Keep nuclear power out of climate talks
The Low Carbon Kid is not alone! In only one week, over 300 NGOs representing millions of individuals from 50 countries in every corner of the planet signed on to the public appeal to keep the nuclear power option out of the climate talks.
Three dozen environmental leaders from 16 countries braved icy cold weather yesterday morning in front of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Meeting in Poznan, Poland where they called nuclear power “a Mickey Mouse solution” to climate change.
The activists were carrying banners and posters with lively slogans including “Don’t Nuke the Climate,” “No Nuclear Power in The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)” and “Nuclear Power, No Thanks!”
Most were wearing T-shirts with the familiar “Mickey Mouse ears” emblazoned with the radiation symbol.
The activists, representing non-governmental organizations from European countries, Taiwan, South Korea, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, California and elsewhere, announced the release of a global call for the elimination of proposals to include nuclear power as an approved investment for greenhouse gas mitigation in the 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC.
Spokespeople from the four organizers of today’s action made their case throughout the morning by talking one-on-one to hundreds of government delegates and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as they entered the conference site for morning sessions.
Speaking to the press, Sabine Bock, coordinator of energy and climate protection for Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) said: “Nuclear energy has proven in the past that it is a threat not only to our health and the environment, but also to human rights.”
“In our work at WECF with local communities,” Bock continued, “we have encountered severe health problems and human rights abuses of populations due to the harmful effects of nuclear energy and radiation.” Bock added: “We can’t understand why governments still promote this dangerous technology rather than taking the opportunity to develop safe and sustainable new, renewable, and clean energy solutions.”
Jan Van de Putte, Nuclear Campaign Coordinator for Greenpeace described nuclear power as an obstacle to effective climate protection saying that money invested in nuclear power is not nearly as effective as money invested in wind power, for example.”
“Nuclear power is a dangerous and dirty energy source – it provides too little energy for mitigation at too slow a pace and at too great a cost.” Van de Putte continued, “the cost per Kwh of nuclear power is double that of wind energy. It just doesn’t make sense to pursue this outdated energy source.”
Vladimir Slivyak, Co-Chair of Ecodefense Russia called upon his national government as well as other delegations, to stop promoting nuclear power into the Kyoto Protocol via provisions for Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism. “78 % of Russians are opposed to nuclear power,” Slivyak said. “We demand that the Russian delegation stop any plans to develop new nuclear plants.” “We further call on all governments to stop new nuclear development.”
Claire Greensfelder, Deputy Director of the International Forum on Globalization of San Francisco, California, said: “Despite year after year of rejection by the state parties to the Convention, the nuclear industry (and a small group of states) continues to promote the economic and public health disaster of nuclear power.” Greensfelder continued: “We also have grave concerns about the health and environmental impacts of increased uranium mining, milling and nuclear waste storage, much of which is on indigenous peoples’ lands, many of whom are opposed to continued nuclear development.” “Indigenous peoples’ right to free prior and informed consent of development on their lands, as established by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (passed in the UN General Assembly in September 2007), must be taken into consideration.”
Holding a colorful homemade banner proclaiming “No Fishy Nukes!,”, Gloria Hsu, Chair, of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union (TEPU) said: “Using nuclear power for CO2 reduction is the same as drinking some poison to quench your thirst.”
“We have managed thus far to keep nuclear power out of the Kyoto Protocol,” said Peer de Rijk, executive director of World Information Service on Energy (WISE) speaking from Amsterdam. “We will continue to do whatever we can to achieve the same for a much be-needed post Kyoto agreement. Nuclear energy is a deadlock, blocking real solutions. Don’t nuke the climate! »
> the statement on NIRS' website
> A list of the organizational signers on NIRS' website
Three dozen environmental leaders from 16 countries braved icy cold weather yesterday morning in front of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Meeting in Poznan, Poland where they called nuclear power “a Mickey Mouse solution” to climate change.
The activists were carrying banners and posters with lively slogans including “Don’t Nuke the Climate,” “No Nuclear Power in The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)” and “Nuclear Power, No Thanks!”
Most were wearing T-shirts with the familiar “Mickey Mouse ears” emblazoned with the radiation symbol.
The activists, representing non-governmental organizations from European countries, Taiwan, South Korea, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, California and elsewhere, announced the release of a global call for the elimination of proposals to include nuclear power as an approved investment for greenhouse gas mitigation in the 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC.
Spokespeople from the four organizers of today’s action made their case throughout the morning by talking one-on-one to hundreds of government delegates and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as they entered the conference site for morning sessions.
Speaking to the press, Sabine Bock, coordinator of energy and climate protection for Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) said: “Nuclear energy has proven in the past that it is a threat not only to our health and the environment, but also to human rights.”
“In our work at WECF with local communities,” Bock continued, “we have encountered severe health problems and human rights abuses of populations due to the harmful effects of nuclear energy and radiation.” Bock added: “We can’t understand why governments still promote this dangerous technology rather than taking the opportunity to develop safe and sustainable new, renewable, and clean energy solutions.”
Jan Van de Putte, Nuclear Campaign Coordinator for Greenpeace described nuclear power as an obstacle to effective climate protection saying that money invested in nuclear power is not nearly as effective as money invested in wind power, for example.”
“Nuclear power is a dangerous and dirty energy source – it provides too little energy for mitigation at too slow a pace and at too great a cost.” Van de Putte continued, “the cost per Kwh of nuclear power is double that of wind energy. It just doesn’t make sense to pursue this outdated energy source.”
Vladimir Slivyak, Co-Chair of Ecodefense Russia called upon his national government as well as other delegations, to stop promoting nuclear power into the Kyoto Protocol via provisions for Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism. “78 % of Russians are opposed to nuclear power,” Slivyak said. “We demand that the Russian delegation stop any plans to develop new nuclear plants.” “We further call on all governments to stop new nuclear development.”
Claire Greensfelder, Deputy Director of the International Forum on Globalization of San Francisco, California, said: “Despite year after year of rejection by the state parties to the Convention, the nuclear industry (and a small group of states) continues to promote the economic and public health disaster of nuclear power.” Greensfelder continued: “We also have grave concerns about the health and environmental impacts of increased uranium mining, milling and nuclear waste storage, much of which is on indigenous peoples’ lands, many of whom are opposed to continued nuclear development.” “Indigenous peoples’ right to free prior and informed consent of development on their lands, as established by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (passed in the UN General Assembly in September 2007), must be taken into consideration.”
Holding a colorful homemade banner proclaiming “No Fishy Nukes!,”, Gloria Hsu, Chair, of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union (TEPU) said: “Using nuclear power for CO2 reduction is the same as drinking some poison to quench your thirst.”
“We have managed thus far to keep nuclear power out of the Kyoto Protocol,” said Peer de Rijk, executive director of World Information Service on Energy (WISE) speaking from Amsterdam. “We will continue to do whatever we can to achieve the same for a much be-needed post Kyoto agreement. Nuclear energy is a deadlock, blocking real solutions. Don’t nuke the climate! »
> the statement on NIRS' website
> A list of the organizational signers on NIRS' website
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)