Revenue from the Carbon Reduction Commitment, instead of being used to reward good environmental stewardship by those participants, will instead go to fill the hole that is the budget deficit.
This has come as a big surprise for participating organisations, especially as it was not even mentioned in Chancellor George Osborne's speech on the spending review.
This means that, for the first time, the UK has been introduced to a carbon tax by the back door.
It will hit all organisations that use large amounts of electricity, from supermarket and banking chains to hospitals, counsel and universities.
There was no consultation before the announcement of the measure. It is currently uncertain how participants are going to respond, and whether they will be so willing to participate.
The Treasury statement says that it expects to receive about £3.5 billion over the next four fiscal years.
British Retail Consortium director general Stephen Robertson said: "We are surprised and dismayed that the £1bn per year that businesses will put in to the CRC scheme is to be pocketed by the Exchequer.
"This is a stealth tax on business... a tax of this size surely merits a mention in the Chancellor's speech. It is appalling the Government is sneaking this in."
Richard Lambert, CBI DG, said: "Businesses that have just signed up to the flagship Carbon Reduction Commitment energy efficiency scheme will be very let down by the Government's unexpected announcement that it will remove the cash-back incentive. A scheme that was meant to change behaviour by encouraging energy efficiency has now become another stealth tax.
"By contrast, the commitment to clean coal technology, manufacturing off-shore wind turbines, and renewable heat and flood defences will boost private sector confidence in investing in low-carbon technology. Plans for a Green Investment Bank are also welcome, but the Government must get the design right to make it attractive to private investors."
Climate Minister Greg Barker said that the decision had not been taken lightly. It will increase costs for businesses but he argued that it made the structure simpler to administrate, and that “progressive businesses that act to improve energy efficiency will be able to minimise their exposure".
"This is a fundamental change to the scheme, with major consequences for the bottom line of those companies that are in the CRC," Craig Lowrey, an energy consultant at J.C. Rathbone Associates Ltd., said. This "is now another tax on industry in all but name."
The CRC was designed to cover about 10% of UK climate gas emissions and include up to 5000 companies, many of whom are not covered by the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. They will have to buy credits equal to their emissions from April next year.
Allowances will cost £12 per tonne of carbon dioxide in the first place, but according to Treasury calculations the assumption is that it will rise to £16 in the tax year ending 2014.
This 'stick' is meant to act as an incentive for them to reduce emissions and increase efficiency. Those who fail to do so will pay more, and participating companies, when they signed up, were told they would receive this money as a 'carrot' to reward successful efforts.
The government was advised last month by its Climate Change Committee to simplify the programme by dividing it into public and private sector participants.
“This is effectively a tax on companies taking part," said Harry Manisty, environmental tax specialist in London at the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Greg Barker added:“ I want to hear from business on how we can simplify and improve the scheme."
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Carbon capture and storage under question as E.ON pulls out
Energy supplier E-ON has announced that it is abandoning efforts to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent, which would have been the first new coal burning electricity generating plant to have been built in the UK for decades.
It was to have been part of the government's carbon capture and storage demonstration programme, one of four such plants which the government hopes to build.
In fact, the only coal project left that is currently still under development using carbon capture and storage (CCS), is one to bolt on the technology onto an existing coal power station at ScottishPower's Longannet plant.
There, it is planned that the captured CO2 would be used in Enhanced Coal-Bed Methane Recovery (allowing methane gas to be recovered from coal seams and the CO2 to be stored).
The government's “market sounding exercise" for three of the four demonstration projects ended on 8 October. The Office of Carbon Capture and Storage is now considering this and will publish its response shortly.
The CCS pilots are in line to receive an estimated £1 billion of government funding, mostly under the EU Funding Mechanism “NER300”. This is a pot of 300 million EU ETS allowances set aside for supporting 8 CCS and 34 renewable energy projects. At current prices, each allowance is worth €15.
E.ON reckoned that even with this subsidy, building the Kingsnorth plant would be uneconomic given “current energy prices".
It said it has not withdrawn its application to build Kingsnorth at some point in the future, possibly as one of the later CCS pilot projects, after 2020.
Environmental campaigners are claiming this as a victory. Greenpeace, in a statement, said, “It does underline that right now the economics for new coal simply don’t stack up.
“But we need to make sure the future of dirty coal plants is dictated by climate and energy security needs, not simply the prevailing economic winds.
“That’s why Osborne’s promised Green Investment Bank is so important, and why we need it to be accompanied by tough new rules to put a legal limit on pollution from power stations."
Greenpeace is concerned that three later, second tranche, CCS demonstration plants, which are in line for funding via a "CCS levy" on energy bills, could result in new coal plants being built that only capture around a quarter of their carbon emissions.
But the Government has said it is committed that no new coal-fired power stations will be built without CCS, and emission performance standards. Climate Change Minister Gregory Barker told Parliament last Tuesday that he is working with his Scottish counterparts "to establish an emissions performance standard that would prevent coal-fired power stations being built without the provision of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to enable them to comply with our Emissions Performance Standard (EPS)".
Unlike the first of the four projects in the CCS competition, these three second tranche ones will not receive direct government funding.
CCS is not cheap. A project in Norway, the Mongstad CCS centre, has seen costs rise from an original projection of $700 million to $1.02 billion, Reuters reported at the end of September.
Another recent report, from the Wuppertal Institute, said that with renewables prices coming down, it will be cheaper to invest in these and phase out fossil-burning plants, than in the still technically uncertain CCS.
Budgets slashed but programmes to continue
It could have been worse. With both environment departments, DECC and DEFRA, having their budgets slashed by around 30%, funding for climate change and transport infrastructure remains relatively intact, although the delivery channels and funding mechanisms are set to change radically. Here is a summary:
The review pledges to support transport infrastructure, including £14 billion for national rail improvements, the construction of Crossrail, plans to create a new high-speed rail network, an incentive scheme offering up to £5000 towards the cost of a new ultra low emission vehicle from January 2011 and electric car charging infrastructure.
This is an area that has been ring-fenced, with an increase in Official Development Assistance to 0.7% of gross national income from 2013, and a new watchdog, the Commission on Aid Impact, to keep an eye on value for money and whether UK plc receives benefit from the spending.
£2.9 billion is pledged over the spending review period for international climate finance, to be funded jointly by DfID, DECC and DEFRA, in line with agreements made at Copenhagen and the UN climate talks.
£200 million is pledged to make sure that offshore wind plans continue, including the vital adaptation of ports to be able to accept the large vessels that are required for installing the huge turbines.
The Renewable Heat Incentive, which was in doubt and the subject of energetic lobbying, is to go ahead, as is the Green Deal. The RHI is to be funded by £860 million of Annual Managed Expenditure from next April. It is expected to encourage investment in anaerobic digestion, solar water heating and biomass projects.
"The Government will not be taking forward the previous administration's plans of funding this scheme through an overly complex Renewable Heat levy," the review adds. I.e., it will be funded by the government rather than the market.
The review says, “this will ensure the UK meets its 2020 renewable energy targets while making efficiency savings of 20%, or £105 million a year, by 2014-15 compared with the previous government’s plans."
The Green Investment Bank is to be set up using £1 billion, carved from departmental budgets and what the Chancellor called "additional significant proceeds from asset sales", to provide collateral for private financial investments in green infrastructure projects, such as offshore wind farms.
The paybacks received by customers signing up to Feed-in Tariffs may be reduced or, in the language of the report, “improved... rebalancing them in favour of more cost-effective carbon abatement technologies". This will happen at the next review stage for the FITs, and save £40 million in 2014-15. A further 70 million a year on average will apparently also be saved by using “support for lower value innovation and technology projects".
Up to £1 billion is to go towards the first for carbon capture and storage (CCS) plants – see separate post. This money comes from general taxation and will not require an increase on electricity bills. Whether such an increase will be introduced in future will be decided at the same time as the reform of the climate change Levy to support the carbon price, after spring 2011.
However, DECC's core budget is being slashed by 30% in real terms by 2014-15 by focusing on key priorities and cutting projects which do not give “value for money".
DECC says it will reduce resource spending by 18% in real terms, and increase capital spending by 41% in real terms. The Department’s Administration budget will be reduced by 33%.
The status of the Marine Renewables Development Fund, which allocates funding for wave and tidal, is at this stage unclear.
The government remains committed to obtaining 15% of energy from renewables by 2020.
Continuing to protect the stockpiles of nuclear waste at Sellafield is assured: no cuts there. In fact, spending will increase, to compensate for a projected decrease in the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's income.
But future nuclear power takes a hit with the axing of Government funding for the National Nuclear Centre of Excellence.
DECC is reviewing the work delivered at arm’s length by bodies such as the Carbon Trust, Energy Saving Trust, and the delivery arm of Ofgem. The Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes is also being reviewed.
DECC is to undertake a review of fuel poverty policy to address this stubborn problem. The language here, as with the Green Deal, is “working as an an enabler rather than the default provider" of energy efficiency services to households, in partnership with the private sector.
So, it is envisaged that private enterprise will take over gradually from the Warm Front programme, saving £345 million by 2013-14. There is no indication, as yet, what kind of quality controls will be in place to avoid quick fixes and get long-term value for money.
From April 2011, energy suppliers will provide greater help with the financial costs of energy bills to more of the most vulnerable fuel poor households, through Social Price Support – with total support of £250 million in 2011-12 rising to £310 million in 2014-15.
The Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency scheme, which met with loud opposition from quarters in the private sector, is to be simplified. The first allowance of sales for 2011-12 emissions will now take place in 2012, not 2011.
In a surprise move for participants, revenues from these sales, totalling an anticipated £1 billion per year by 2014-15 world, rather than being recycled to participants in the scheme, go into the Treasury coffers [see separate post], making it a carbon tax.
The government will make permanent the temporary increases to Cold Weather Payments provided in the past two winters, at a cost of £50 million a year, so that eligible households receive £25 for each seven day cold spell recorded or forecast where they live.
DECC will issue guidance to re-emphasise best practice on heating, cooling and lighting Government buildings. This guidance will encourage departments to reduce waste on energy costs, helping to reduce the Government’s £95 million annual energy bill, whilst saving carbon emissions at the same time.
DEFRA will continue to invest in flood defences and coastal erosion risk management, with £2 billion allocated over the spending review period.
DEFRA has had its budget cut by a similarly huge amount to DECC - 29% - by more than halving its number of Arms Length Bodies to 39. It will reduce its running costs by £174 million over the period.
The environmental stewardship scheme, which pay farmers to take conservation measures to protect biodiversity, has had its budget slashed by £66 million by 2014-15, but the review says it will remain open to all farmers in England.
Seven waste PFI projects face the axe, because it's judged they aren't required any more to meet landfill diversion targets, saving £3 million. These include the North London Waste Authority's plans, which received the single largest award of waste PFI funding in March 2010 and the £1 billion Cheshire project. The full list is:
• Cheshire West and Chester, and Cheshire East
• Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire (‘Project Transform')
• Gloucestershire
• Leicestershire
• Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire
• North London Waste Authority
• South London Waste Partnership.
11 other waste PFI projects currently in procurement well remain so, and the 21 other deals that had already been signed are secure.
> http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sr2010_completereport.pdf
Transport
The review pledges to support transport infrastructure, including £14 billion for national rail improvements, the construction of Crossrail, plans to create a new high-speed rail network, an incentive scheme offering up to £5000 towards the cost of a new ultra low emission vehicle from January 2011 and electric car charging infrastructure.
International development
This is an area that has been ring-fenced, with an increase in Official Development Assistance to 0.7% of gross national income from 2013, and a new watchdog, the Commission on Aid Impact, to keep an eye on value for money and whether UK plc receives benefit from the spending.
£2.9 billion is pledged over the spending review period for international climate finance, to be funded jointly by DfID, DECC and DEFRA, in line with agreements made at Copenhagen and the UN climate talks.
Climate change and energy
£200 million is pledged to make sure that offshore wind plans continue, including the vital adaptation of ports to be able to accept the large vessels that are required for installing the huge turbines.
The Renewable Heat Incentive, which was in doubt and the subject of energetic lobbying, is to go ahead, as is the Green Deal. The RHI is to be funded by £860 million of Annual Managed Expenditure from next April. It is expected to encourage investment in anaerobic digestion, solar water heating and biomass projects.
"The Government will not be taking forward the previous administration's plans of funding this scheme through an overly complex Renewable Heat levy," the review adds. I.e., it will be funded by the government rather than the market.
The review says, “this will ensure the UK meets its 2020 renewable energy targets while making efficiency savings of 20%, or £105 million a year, by 2014-15 compared with the previous government’s plans."
The Green Investment Bank is to be set up using £1 billion, carved from departmental budgets and what the Chancellor called "additional significant proceeds from asset sales", to provide collateral for private financial investments in green infrastructure projects, such as offshore wind farms.
The paybacks received by customers signing up to Feed-in Tariffs may be reduced or, in the language of the report, “improved... rebalancing them in favour of more cost-effective carbon abatement technologies". This will happen at the next review stage for the FITs, and save £40 million in 2014-15. A further 70 million a year on average will apparently also be saved by using “support for lower value innovation and technology projects".
Up to £1 billion is to go towards the first for carbon capture and storage (CCS) plants – see separate post. This money comes from general taxation and will not require an increase on electricity bills. Whether such an increase will be introduced in future will be decided at the same time as the reform of the climate change Levy to support the carbon price, after spring 2011.
However, DECC's core budget is being slashed by 30% in real terms by 2014-15 by focusing on key priorities and cutting projects which do not give “value for money".
DECC says it will reduce resource spending by 18% in real terms, and increase capital spending by 41% in real terms. The Department’s Administration budget will be reduced by 33%.
The status of the Marine Renewables Development Fund, which allocates funding for wave and tidal, is at this stage unclear.
The government remains committed to obtaining 15% of energy from renewables by 2020.
Continuing to protect the stockpiles of nuclear waste at Sellafield is assured: no cuts there. In fact, spending will increase, to compensate for a projected decrease in the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's income.
But future nuclear power takes a hit with the axing of Government funding for the National Nuclear Centre of Excellence.
DECC is reviewing the work delivered at arm’s length by bodies such as the Carbon Trust, Energy Saving Trust, and the delivery arm of Ofgem. The Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes is also being reviewed.
Fuel poverty and energy efficiency
DECC is to undertake a review of fuel poverty policy to address this stubborn problem. The language here, as with the Green Deal, is “working as an an enabler rather than the default provider" of energy efficiency services to households, in partnership with the private sector.
So, it is envisaged that private enterprise will take over gradually from the Warm Front programme, saving £345 million by 2013-14. There is no indication, as yet, what kind of quality controls will be in place to avoid quick fixes and get long-term value for money.
From April 2011, energy suppliers will provide greater help with the financial costs of energy bills to more of the most vulnerable fuel poor households, through Social Price Support – with total support of £250 million in 2011-12 rising to £310 million in 2014-15.
The Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency scheme, which met with loud opposition from quarters in the private sector, is to be simplified. The first allowance of sales for 2011-12 emissions will now take place in 2012, not 2011.
In a surprise move for participants, revenues from these sales, totalling an anticipated £1 billion per year by 2014-15 world, rather than being recycled to participants in the scheme, go into the Treasury coffers [see separate post], making it a carbon tax.
The government will make permanent the temporary increases to Cold Weather Payments provided in the past two winters, at a cost of £50 million a year, so that eligible households receive £25 for each seven day cold spell recorded or forecast where they live.
DECC will issue guidance to re-emphasise best practice on heating, cooling and lighting Government buildings. This guidance will encourage departments to reduce waste on energy costs, helping to reduce the Government’s £95 million annual energy bill, whilst saving carbon emissions at the same time.
Environmental management
DEFRA will continue to invest in flood defences and coastal erosion risk management, with £2 billion allocated over the spending review period.
DEFRA has had its budget cut by a similarly huge amount to DECC - 29% - by more than halving its number of Arms Length Bodies to 39. It will reduce its running costs by £174 million over the period.
The environmental stewardship scheme, which pay farmers to take conservation measures to protect biodiversity, has had its budget slashed by £66 million by 2014-15, but the review says it will remain open to all farmers in England.
Seven waste PFI projects face the axe, because it's judged they aren't required any more to meet landfill diversion targets, saving £3 million. These include the North London Waste Authority's plans, which received the single largest award of waste PFI funding in March 2010 and the £1 billion Cheshire project. The full list is:
• Cheshire West and Chester, and Cheshire East
• Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire (‘Project Transform')
• Gloucestershire
• Leicestershire
• Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire
• North London Waste Authority
• South London Waste Partnership.
11 other waste PFI projects currently in procurement well remain so, and the 21 other deals that had already been signed are secure.
> http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sr2010_completereport.pdf
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Osbourne axes Severn barrage
The BBC has just reported that George Osborne, the Chancellor, has told Chris Huhne, energy and climate change Secretary, to axe the Severn barrage.
This is a blow to the country's efforts to move towards a much lower carbon economy. Huhne is instead likely to sanction the building of new nuclear power stations.
The other options were intended to appease environmental campaigners worried about the loss of precious wildlife habitats in the estuary.
The technology could have generated up to 5% of Britain's electricity requirements, and created hundreds of jobs and develop technology that could have been exported around the world.
Instead eight sites have been approved for new nuclear power stations by 2025, which, if they go ahead, are likely to be financed and owned by foreign companies and produce fewer jobs. These are:
• Bradwell, Essex
• Hartlepool, Borough of Hartlepool
• Heysham, Lancashire
• Hinkley Point, Somerset
• Oldbury, South Glos.
• Sellafield, Cumbria
• Sizewell, Suffolk
• Wylfa, Isle of Anglesey.
They would add to the growing and expensive stockpile of nuclear waste, providing danger for thousands of years to come. In the Spending Review, more money was allocated to the task of safeguarding the existing stockpile.
Tidal power, on the other hand, is renewable and free, but the uranium for nuclear power stations is dangerous to mine and is likely to run out within 60 years.
A tidal scheme could last around 120 years, significantly longer than nuclear, thermal, wind, and other energy infrastructure, but in common with other hydropower generation projects.
This makes its overall levelised costs – lifetime costs – comparable to or better than other forms of generation, but the initial high capital cost is prohibitive in the current economic climate, the report says.
Supporters of the tidal project, which would link Lavernock Point near Cardiff, to Brean Down near Weston-Super-Mare, claimed it could generate 5% of Britain's electricity.
Dr Rob Kirby, an independent expert on the Severn Estuary, has worked on the project for the last 40 years, said: "The government's view is that it's too big a project to approach in financial terms.
"It's quite unambiguous - the Cardiff to Weston (barrage) can only benefit the environment and those who say otherwise are not telling the truth."
Shadow Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said scrapping the barrage would be "equally disastrous" for the economy and the environment.
"Not only is Chris Huhne turning his back on the proposed barrage scheme that would have created hundreds of good quality green jobs for Welsh people, it appears that he decided to abandon in its entirety the idea of using the Severn estuary as a generator of electricity," he said.
The feasibility study into a tidal energy project in the Severn estuary concludes that its total cost – over £30 billion – makes it unaffordable at the present time because a significant proportion of the funding would have to be borne by the taxpayer, and it would be difficult to attract sufficient private investment.
The report does not rule out a project in the estuary in the longer term if it could be shown that it did not fundamentally change the estuary's natural environment.
It also highlights the fact that even the scale and impact of smaller schemes like a tidal lagoon would be unprecedented in an environmentally sensitive area. Providing compensation for any possible damage is considered to be challenging.
The report argues that other low carbon energy sources represent a better deal in the short term for taxpayers, industry and consumers.
Dr Neil Bentley, CBI Director of Business Environment, commented: “Tidal power has the potential to play a significant role in the UK’s energy future. Given the state of the public finances, it is understandable that Government investment in the main Severn Barrage scheme has been ruled out at this time. But the Government should continue to encourage innovation in tidal power to reduce the cost of this technology.”
Welsh Environment Minister Jane Davidson added, “Two of the three schemes assessed under SETS showed a good deal of potential for extracting renewable energy from the area.
“However further work is needed to develop these technologies to the point where they may be considered as part of any future Tidal Power scheme.
“I would urge the UK Government and others to continue working with us and key business partners such as Veredeg and Rolls Royce on the development of these emerging technologies, not just for applications in the Severn but also in other locations around our resource rich coast line.
"These technologies have real potential to provide a vital source of renewable energy for the whole of the UK, which would enable us to increase our energy security and help in the global fight against climate change”
This is a blow to the country's efforts to move towards a much lower carbon economy. Huhne is instead likely to sanction the building of new nuclear power stations.
The other options were intended to appease environmental campaigners worried about the loss of precious wildlife habitats in the estuary.
The technology could have generated up to 5% of Britain's electricity requirements, and created hundreds of jobs and develop technology that could have been exported around the world.
Instead eight sites have been approved for new nuclear power stations by 2025, which, if they go ahead, are likely to be financed and owned by foreign companies and produce fewer jobs. These are:
• Bradwell, Essex
• Hartlepool, Borough of Hartlepool
• Heysham, Lancashire
• Hinkley Point, Somerset
• Oldbury, South Glos.
• Sellafield, Cumbria
• Sizewell, Suffolk
• Wylfa, Isle of Anglesey.
They would add to the growing and expensive stockpile of nuclear waste, providing danger for thousands of years to come. In the Spending Review, more money was allocated to the task of safeguarding the existing stockpile.
Tidal power, on the other hand, is renewable and free, but the uranium for nuclear power stations is dangerous to mine and is likely to run out within 60 years.
A tidal scheme could last around 120 years, significantly longer than nuclear, thermal, wind, and other energy infrastructure, but in common with other hydropower generation projects.
This makes its overall levelised costs – lifetime costs – comparable to or better than other forms of generation, but the initial high capital cost is prohibitive in the current economic climate, the report says.
Supporters of the tidal project, which would link Lavernock Point near Cardiff, to Brean Down near Weston-Super-Mare, claimed it could generate 5% of Britain's electricity.
Dr Rob Kirby, an independent expert on the Severn Estuary, has worked on the project for the last 40 years, said: "The government's view is that it's too big a project to approach in financial terms.
"It's quite unambiguous - the Cardiff to Weston (barrage) can only benefit the environment and those who say otherwise are not telling the truth."
Shadow Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said scrapping the barrage would be "equally disastrous" for the economy and the environment.
"Not only is Chris Huhne turning his back on the proposed barrage scheme that would have created hundreds of good quality green jobs for Welsh people, it appears that he decided to abandon in its entirety the idea of using the Severn estuary as a generator of electricity," he said.
The feasibility study into a tidal energy project in the Severn estuary concludes that its total cost – over £30 billion – makes it unaffordable at the present time because a significant proportion of the funding would have to be borne by the taxpayer, and it would be difficult to attract sufficient private investment.
The report does not rule out a project in the estuary in the longer term if it could be shown that it did not fundamentally change the estuary's natural environment.
It also highlights the fact that even the scale and impact of smaller schemes like a tidal lagoon would be unprecedented in an environmentally sensitive area. Providing compensation for any possible damage is considered to be challenging.
The report argues that other low carbon energy sources represent a better deal in the short term for taxpayers, industry and consumers.
Dr Neil Bentley, CBI Director of Business Environment, commented: “Tidal power has the potential to play a significant role in the UK’s energy future. Given the state of the public finances, it is understandable that Government investment in the main Severn Barrage scheme has been ruled out at this time. But the Government should continue to encourage innovation in tidal power to reduce the cost of this technology.”
Welsh Environment Minister Jane Davidson added, “Two of the three schemes assessed under SETS showed a good deal of potential for extracting renewable energy from the area.
“However further work is needed to develop these technologies to the point where they may be considered as part of any future Tidal Power scheme.
“I would urge the UK Government and others to continue working with us and key business partners such as Veredeg and Rolls Royce on the development of these emerging technologies, not just for applications in the Severn but also in other locations around our resource rich coast line.
"These technologies have real potential to provide a vital source of renewable energy for the whole of the UK, which would enable us to increase our energy security and help in the global fight against climate change”
Saturday, October 09, 2010
The death toll of fossil fuels - and my new book
Who said this, and when?
"Eventually industry will no longer find in Europe the resources to satisfy its prodigious expansion... Coal will undoubtedly be used up. What will industry do then?"
It was solar pioneer, Augustin Bernard Mouchot, after demonstrating an early industrial application of solar thermal energy as long ago as 1880.
Four years earlier he had demonstrated the use of solar power for cooking, by making a block of ice using a parabolic dish collector.
The solar age is undoubtedly coming - and it's been waiting to arrive for a long time, continually frustrated by the aggressive marketing of cheap energy.
I have just finished writing my latest book, The Earthscan Expert Guide to Solar Power for Power, Heating, and Cooling.
In writing it I have discovered some astonishing facts about just how long the technologies have been around... and how different the twentieth century would have been if we had been forced to rely on solar and other renewable sources of power instead of fossil fuels...
...if we hadn't been cursed - as well as blessed - with nature's bequest of such huge quantities of oil, gas and coal.
Because from the first world war - partly fought over access to the newly discovered oilfields of Iraq, which was created as a result of that war - through the Six Day War and the recent Iraq wars, not to mention hundreds of other conflicts, access to fossil fuels has been the cause of millions of deaths.
With growing awareness of the impact of climate change, their aspect as a curse on the global scale has become increasingly apparent.
In 1913, Frank Schuman, who designed the world's first solar power station, dreamt of a completely solar powered world. It was theoretically possible then, as indeed it is now.
Nowadays, the phrase “energy security" is being used by those who want to see local, sustainable sources of clean energy replace dirty fossil fuels.
This is because the sun, wind and other renewable sources of energy are available abundantly, everywhere on the planet, with no need for conflict over their use. Looking at the history of solar power it is clear how its development has suffered as a result of the abundance of fossil fuels.
Humanity - or its leaders - are now faced with a clear choice: whether to stick with the status quo and vested interests that aggressively promote as inevitable, a continued dependence on fossil fuels; or whether to accelerate the deployment, research and development into solar and other renewable, sustainable technologies and practices.
My new book makes the case for the latter, looking at all the available technologies, and the sunrise ones:
Here is a not-exhaustive list of the technologies it looks at from the point of view of their end use:
The potential of these technologies is completely clear and proven. The scientific case for the likelihood with business-as-usual of a runaway greenhouse effect, has been conclusively established.
The stakes could not be higher and the choice more stark.
The Earthscan Expert Guide to Solar Power for Power, Heating, and Cooling will be out next year.
"Eventually industry will no longer find in Europe the resources to satisfy its prodigious expansion... Coal will undoubtedly be used up. What will industry do then?"
It was solar pioneer, Augustin Bernard Mouchot, after demonstrating an early industrial application of solar thermal energy as long ago as 1880.
Four years earlier he had demonstrated the use of solar power for cooking, by making a block of ice using a parabolic dish collector.
The solar age is undoubtedly coming - and it's been waiting to arrive for a long time, continually frustrated by the aggressive marketing of cheap energy.
I have just finished writing my latest book, The Earthscan Expert Guide to Solar Power for Power, Heating, and Cooling.
In writing it I have discovered some astonishing facts about just how long the technologies have been around... and how different the twentieth century would have been if we had been forced to rely on solar and other renewable sources of power instead of fossil fuels...
...if we hadn't been cursed - as well as blessed - with nature's bequest of such huge quantities of oil, gas and coal.
Because from the first world war - partly fought over access to the newly discovered oilfields of Iraq, which was created as a result of that war - through the Six Day War and the recent Iraq wars, not to mention hundreds of other conflicts, access to fossil fuels has been the cause of millions of deaths.
With growing awareness of the impact of climate change, their aspect as a curse on the global scale has become increasingly apparent.
In 1913, Frank Schuman, who designed the world's first solar power station, dreamt of a completely solar powered world. It was theoretically possible then, as indeed it is now.
Nowadays, the phrase “energy security" is being used by those who want to see local, sustainable sources of clean energy replace dirty fossil fuels.
This is because the sun, wind and other renewable sources of energy are available abundantly, everywhere on the planet, with no need for conflict over their use. Looking at the history of solar power it is clear how its development has suffered as a result of the abundance of fossil fuels.
Humanity - or its leaders - are now faced with a clear choice: whether to stick with the status quo and vested interests that aggressively promote as inevitable, a continued dependence on fossil fuels; or whether to accelerate the deployment, research and development into solar and other renewable, sustainable technologies and practices.
My new book makes the case for the latter, looking at all the available technologies, and the sunrise ones:
- passive solar architecture
- solar water heating
- solar thermal electricity generation.
Here is a not-exhaustive list of the technologies it looks at from the point of view of their end use:
- Heating and cooling space: passive solar design, urban planning, passive stack ventilation, phase change materials, unglazed transpired collectors, solar-powered chillers and coolers
Lighting: glazing, special glass coatings; sun pipes - Heating water: solar water heating systems; evacuated tubes; swimming pool heating; active solar cooling; applications for large buildings and districts
Cooking, food drying, desalination and water treatment - Electricity: thermoelectric devices, photovoltaic modules, system design, process heat, concentrating solar power
- Transport: solar vehicles, hydrogen production.
The potential of these technologies is completely clear and proven. The scientific case for the likelihood with business-as-usual of a runaway greenhouse effect, has been conclusively established.
The stakes could not be higher and the choice more stark.
The Earthscan Expert Guide to Solar Power for Power, Heating, and Cooling will be out next year.
Wednesday, September 29, 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.
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.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Are heat pumps effective? The answer: it depends...
Most heat pumps are not being installed correctly and do not perform as well as expected, finds a survey of 83 sites recently published.
Heat pumps are one of the government's answers to increasing energy efficiency in homes. If the Green Deal, or the Renewable Heat Incentive, go ahead, the advice behind government policy suggests that heat pumps are highly cost-effective for saving carbon per £ of money spent.
But this report confirms what the Low Carbon Kid has said before - they only do so under certain circumstances.
Heat pumps are a new and growing technology: during 2009, their installed base doubled with annual sales of around 14,000 units.
However, there have been very few field trials to determine whether they actually match up to expectations in real-life installations.
Moreover, their effects on reducing carbon emissions is widely misunderstood.
Now, the first study of installations in the UK has been published by the Energy Saving Trust. It provides a mixed picture.
How do they work?
The principle of heat pumps is the same as a fridge, but backwards: if it was operating in a fridge, heat, instead of being pumped out of the back of the fridge, would be pumped from the outside of the fridge, into it.
This would heat the fridge up because low temperature air from large volume would be concentrated into a higher temperature in a smaller volume.
If, instead of a fridge, we have a building or a room, the same principle applies on a larger scale.
Heat pumps can take heat from the ground, air or a nearby body of water if it’s available.
Many heat pumps are reversible, and can be used for cooling – except, of course, it would be better if the home could be cooled without using electricity (solar cooling is real, commercial, and one of the first uses of solar energy in 1876).
How do we judge a heat pump?
Heat pumps are judged by their coefficient of performance (CoP). This is the ratio of the amount of heat or coolth produced divided by the electricity consumption of the pump used to operate it.
So for example a heat pump with a CoP of 3 (or 3:1) will produce three times as much heating or cooling energy as the electrical energy it consumes.
The higher the COP, the better the performance. The COP depends on the difference between the temperature of the source and the final delivered temperature. The greater the difference, the lower the COP.
Therefore, heat pumps are far more effective if used for space heating which is delivered by radiant heating - underfloor heating or skirting board heating - which can be at a much lower temperature - for example 20°C - to achieve the same level of thermal comfort as central heating radiators kept at a much higher temperature. This depends on the overall heating and system design.
As for the temperature of the source, the ground, 10 feet or so under, has a relatively stable temperature in this country and rarely goes below freezing, whereas the air can go below freezing in the times that we need heating the most. This negatively affects the performance of air source heat pumps, reducing their efficiency severely. So in these situations in air source pumps are at a disadvantage.
So how did the heat pumps perform?
The 83 heat pump systems performed very differently. Many systems appeared to be installed incorrectly.
The air source products had a COP that varied between 1.2 and 3.3. The ground source ones were slightly better, varying between 1.3 and 3.6.
Overall system efficiency was approximately the same, but slightly less.
This compares to a European trial where the ground source heat pumps performed significantly better than air source.
The effect on carbon emissions
What the report does not discuss is how effective they are at reducing carbon emissions. This depends entirely on what form of heating for space or water the heat pump is replacing, either theoretically or in practice.
If the heating was previously supplied by electricity, and the electricity was not renewable, then the COP needs to be consistently over 3 to make any difference to carbon emissions.
This is because of the losses - typically over 70% - in efficiency between the burning of fossil fuel in the generating plant and the arrival of the electricity at the heat pump.
If the electricity is renewable, there is clearly a benefit.
They are most effective at reducing carbon emissions and heating bills if they are replacing heating fuels such as electricity, LPG and oil. They are less effective if they are replacing gas. In fact they may have a negative effect on carbon emissions, if the COP is below 3.
Recommendations
The main non-technical factors affecting the performance of the heat pumps are the system design, installation and customer behaviour.
The report concludes "it is essential that installation and system design meet the heat demand of the particular building".
It recommends improved consumer advice for the use of the controls, which many users found confusing. This was especially true of social housing tenants, if they are not actively involved in the choosing, installation and training process.
One problem with installation was that often there was "no single contractor responsible for installation, which might involve a ground works contractor, a plumber, a heat pump installer and an electrician. This meant that there was often no single point of responsibility for the whole installation".
The report concludes that the performance of heat pumps depends very much on installation and commissioning practices. It recommends a thorough review of installation guidelines and proper systematic training for installers.
The Energy Saving Trust is working with trade associations, manufacturers and the governments and the Microgeneration Certification Scheme to identify improvements in installation guidelines and training.
The industry response
"The heat pump industry is addressing these issues through major investment in training and support of the new National Occupational Standards published by Summit Skills earlier this year. Industry is also actively engaged in the successful development of a National Skills Academy," said Kelly Butler, BEAMA's marketing director of the British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers Association, in response to the report.
"This year, an estimated 2,000 installers have been trained in heat pump design and installation. By 2020, under the new qualification framework, 8,000 installers will be trained to help install some one million heat pumps," Butler said.
The majority of field trial sites actually pre-date government's relatively new Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), which is also supported by the heat pump industry.
This scheme certifies product and installer standards and currently has 357 products and 370 installers approved. More than 200 additional heat pump products are currently in the process of approval.
In addition, BEAMA says its Underfloor Heating Manufacturers Association will be seeking to publish guidance on the advantages of effective low temperature heating systems.
Heat pumps are a relatively new technology being rolled out quickly on a mass scale. If they are to have the effect on energy efficiency and carbon emissions that the government hopes, they certainly need to be installed and operated with much greater knowledge and sensitivity to how they work.
Heat pumps are one of the government's answers to increasing energy efficiency in homes. If the Green Deal, or the Renewable Heat Incentive, go ahead, the advice behind government policy suggests that heat pumps are highly cost-effective for saving carbon per £ of money spent.
But this report confirms what the Low Carbon Kid has said before - they only do so under certain circumstances.
Heat pumps are a new and growing technology: during 2009, their installed base doubled with annual sales of around 14,000 units.
However, there have been very few field trials to determine whether they actually match up to expectations in real-life installations.
Moreover, their effects on reducing carbon emissions is widely misunderstood.
Now, the first study of installations in the UK has been published by the Energy Saving Trust. It provides a mixed picture.
How do they work?
The principle of heat pumps is the same as a fridge, but backwards: if it was operating in a fridge, heat, instead of being pumped out of the back of the fridge, would be pumped from the outside of the fridge, into it.
This would heat the fridge up because low temperature air from large volume would be concentrated into a higher temperature in a smaller volume.
If, instead of a fridge, we have a building or a room, the same principle applies on a larger scale.
Heat pumps can take heat from the ground, air or a nearby body of water if it’s available.
Many heat pumps are reversible, and can be used for cooling – except, of course, it would be better if the home could be cooled without using electricity (solar cooling is real, commercial, and one of the first uses of solar energy in 1876).
How do we judge a heat pump?
Heat pumps are judged by their coefficient of performance (CoP). This is the ratio of the amount of heat or coolth produced divided by the electricity consumption of the pump used to operate it.
So for example a heat pump with a CoP of 3 (or 3:1) will produce three times as much heating or cooling energy as the electrical energy it consumes.
The higher the COP, the better the performance. The COP depends on the difference between the temperature of the source and the final delivered temperature. The greater the difference, the lower the COP.
Therefore, heat pumps are far more effective if used for space heating which is delivered by radiant heating - underfloor heating or skirting board heating - which can be at a much lower temperature - for example 20°C - to achieve the same level of thermal comfort as central heating radiators kept at a much higher temperature. This depends on the overall heating and system design.
As for the temperature of the source, the ground, 10 feet or so under, has a relatively stable temperature in this country and rarely goes below freezing, whereas the air can go below freezing in the times that we need heating the most. This negatively affects the performance of air source heat pumps, reducing their efficiency severely. So in these situations in air source pumps are at a disadvantage.
So how did the heat pumps perform?
The 83 heat pump systems performed very differently. Many systems appeared to be installed incorrectly.
The air source products had a COP that varied between 1.2 and 3.3. The ground source ones were slightly better, varying between 1.3 and 3.6.
Overall system efficiency was approximately the same, but slightly less.
This compares to a European trial where the ground source heat pumps performed significantly better than air source.
The effect on carbon emissions
What the report does not discuss is how effective they are at reducing carbon emissions. This depends entirely on what form of heating for space or water the heat pump is replacing, either theoretically or in practice.
If the heating was previously supplied by electricity, and the electricity was not renewable, then the COP needs to be consistently over 3 to make any difference to carbon emissions.
This is because of the losses - typically over 70% - in efficiency between the burning of fossil fuel in the generating plant and the arrival of the electricity at the heat pump.
If the electricity is renewable, there is clearly a benefit.
They are most effective at reducing carbon emissions and heating bills if they are replacing heating fuels such as electricity, LPG and oil. They are less effective if they are replacing gas. In fact they may have a negative effect on carbon emissions, if the COP is below 3.
Recommendations
The main non-technical factors affecting the performance of the heat pumps are the system design, installation and customer behaviour.
The report concludes "it is essential that installation and system design meet the heat demand of the particular building".
It recommends improved consumer advice for the use of the controls, which many users found confusing. This was especially true of social housing tenants, if they are not actively involved in the choosing, installation and training process.
One problem with installation was that often there was "no single contractor responsible for installation, which might involve a ground works contractor, a plumber, a heat pump installer and an electrician. This meant that there was often no single point of responsibility for the whole installation".
The report concludes that the performance of heat pumps depends very much on installation and commissioning practices. It recommends a thorough review of installation guidelines and proper systematic training for installers.
The Energy Saving Trust is working with trade associations, manufacturers and the governments and the Microgeneration Certification Scheme to identify improvements in installation guidelines and training.
The industry response
"The heat pump industry is addressing these issues through major investment in training and support of the new National Occupational Standards published by Summit Skills earlier this year. Industry is also actively engaged in the successful development of a National Skills Academy," said Kelly Butler, BEAMA's marketing director of the British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers Association, in response to the report.
"This year, an estimated 2,000 installers have been trained in heat pump design and installation. By 2020, under the new qualification framework, 8,000 installers will be trained to help install some one million heat pumps," Butler said.
The majority of field trial sites actually pre-date government's relatively new Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), which is also supported by the heat pump industry.
This scheme certifies product and installer standards and currently has 357 products and 370 installers approved. More than 200 additional heat pump products are currently in the process of approval.
In addition, BEAMA says its Underfloor Heating Manufacturers Association will be seeking to publish guidance on the advantages of effective low temperature heating systems.
Heat pumps are a relatively new technology being rolled out quickly on a mass scale. If they are to have the effect on energy efficiency and carbon emissions that the government hopes, they certainly need to be installed and operated with much greater knowledge and sensitivity to how they work.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
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.
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).
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 | - | - |
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Carbon capture may be unnecessary - new report
There is little need for the power plant sector to worry about implementing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), says a new report.
Its analysis is that if the current energy policy priorities are retained, then even with ambitious climate protection targets, the expensive and untried technology is unnecessary.
The study, "Comparison of Renewable Energy Technologies with Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS): An Update" by the Wuppertal Institute, was commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment.
Three conclusions will be of interest to policymakers:
• the technology is not expected to become available on a large scale before 2025
• if renewable energies and combined heat and power are expanded further and energy productivity is enhanced, there is likely to be only a limited demand for CCS power plants
• new life cycle assessments for CCS in the power plant sector indicate that the greenhouse gas emissions from one kwh of electricity generated by first-generation CCS power plants could only be reduced by 68 to 87%.
A major reason is that electricity generating costs of renewable energies are approaching those of CCS power plants.
Therefore, by 2020, several renewable technologies may well be in a position to offer electricity at a cheaper rate than CCS power plants.
CCS could constitute an important climate protection technology in large coal-consuming countries such as China, India and the USA, however, in order to meet their climate protection targets. If it can be shown to work cost-effectively.
Its analysis is that if the current energy policy priorities are retained, then even with ambitious climate protection targets, the expensive and untried technology is unnecessary.
The study, "Comparison of Renewable Energy Technologies with Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS): An Update" by the Wuppertal Institute, was commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment.
Three conclusions will be of interest to policymakers:
• the technology is not expected to become available on a large scale before 2025
• if renewable energies and combined heat and power are expanded further and energy productivity is enhanced, there is likely to be only a limited demand for CCS power plants
• new life cycle assessments for CCS in the power plant sector indicate that the greenhouse gas emissions from one kwh of electricity generated by first-generation CCS power plants could only be reduced by 68 to 87%.
A major reason is that electricity generating costs of renewable energies are approaching those of CCS power plants.
Therefore, by 2020, several renewable technologies may well be in a position to offer electricity at a cheaper rate than CCS power plants.
CCS could constitute an important climate protection technology in large coal-consuming countries such as China, India and the USA, however, in order to meet their climate protection targets. If it can be shown to work cost-effectively.
The feedback loop accelerating climate change
The current awful drought and record high temperatures in Russia are attributed to global warming.
But besides causing 700 extra deaths a day in Moscow alone - due to the smoke from forest fires, according to its top health official - the smoke is hastening the melting of Arctic ice.
Forest and peat bog fires around Moscow are burning over 1,740 sq kms (672 sq mile), the Russian Emergencies Ministry says.
Similar fires in Asia are having a similar effect on glaciers in the Himalayas.
On the other side of the planet, official Brazilian data shows the Amazon rainforest lost 1,810 sq kms in almost a year to June 2010. The real figure is likely to be higher.
Brown clouds also form over parts of North America, Europe, the Amazon basin and southern Africa. Burning of savannah in sub-Saharan Africa, to clear land for crops, is a new source.
"Health effects of such clouds are huge," said Veerabhadran Ramanathan, chair of a new U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) study called Atmospheric Brown Clouds.
This report says there are five hot spots for such clouds:
But the effects can be felt far away...
A team from Aberystwyth University currently doing research in Greenland has found unprecedented levels of melting of the Greenland ice sheet.
A key factor, they have discovered, is cryoconite, a form of ice dusted with minute specks - a mixture of desert sand blown thousands of kilometres from Africa, soot particles from power stations, vehicle exhausts and microscopic algae and bacteria.
These particles settle on the ice and, being dark, absorb the sun's rays, causing it to melt.
Besides that, the UNEP report says this atmospheric smog is near-permanent and blames it for causing chronic respiratory and heart diseases.
Since 1970, southern Greenland has warmed by 3oC (in Britain it is half of a degree). A week ago, a massive iceberg 100sq miles in area broke off the Petermann Glacier in the north-west of the island and floated into the ocean - the largest chunk of ice to break off Greenland for nearly half a century.
Greenland is losing, net, about 267 billion tons of ice a year, according to Aberystwyth University's Dr Alun Hubbard, Britain's leading glaciologist studying Greenland.
He says that two weeks ago an ice lake 2.5 miles across drained into the sea in just two hours when a crack opened up at the lake's deepest point.
He said it sounded like "an extraordinary rumbling, like an atomic bomb going off ". Ominous cracks opened up in the ice beneath his camp's tents as the lake was swallowed by the ice.
Such melt-water flows underneath the ice sheet to the sea, at the same time lubricating the passage of the ice above it and accelerating it towards oblivion. Exactly the same process is happening in the Himalayas and Antarctica.
If all of Greenland's ice were to melt, sea levels would rise by seven metres worldwide. London and Liverpool would be flooded. Hwever, current estimates are that this is unlikely to happen until a few hundred years have passed.
A reporter with the Daily Mail, embedded with the Aberystwyth University team, wrote this week that "Sceptics will argue that Greenland has always had moulins and meltwater rivers; this is true. But what is new is these used to be confined to the very edge of the icesheet, marginal, ephemeral features that lasted just a few weeks in the height of the summer melting season. Now there are lakes and moulins right on the centre of the cap, and persisting well into August."
When the normally sceptic Daily Mail and its climate change-denying columnist Michael Hanlon runs pieces like this, you know something is going on.
"The Russian fires are in principle similar to what you see from other brown clouds," said Henning Rodhe of Stockholm University, a vice-chair of the UNEP Atmospheric Brown Cloud (ABC) study. "The difference is that this only lasts a few weeks."
Elsewhere, however, the polluting haze blocks out sunlight and so slows climate change. Despite this, overall, the report says, the brown clouds have the net effect of "heating of the surface-atmosphere system and therefore constitute a positive radiative forcing of the climate system and contribute to global warming. Thus, black carbon aerosols are major agents of regional and global warming."
The report says that in the Himalayas, "If the current rate of retreat continues unabated, these glaciers and snow packs are expected to shrink by as much as 75 per cent before the year 2050, posing grave danger to the region’s water security. Projections show that most parts of South and East Asia will suffer from water stress by 2050."
13 mega-city ABC hotspots in Asia have been identified: Bangkok, Beijing, Cairo, Dhaka, Karachi, Kolkata, Lagos, Mumbai, New Delhi, Seoul, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Tehran.
Kim Holmen, director of research at the Norwegian Polar Institute, runs a pollution monitoring station in Svalbard in the high Arctic. He says the air over Russia has been fairly stable in recent days, but a shift in winds could blow the smoke towards the Arctic.
He supports Russian authorities' concerns that the fires may also release radioactive elements locked in vegetation since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986. He says radioactive isotopes include strontium 90 and caesium 137. Other industrial pollutants such as PCBs could also be freed.
"Such conditions are likely to become more common in the future," Rodhe said of the Russian heatwave and related fires.
If they are, sea level rise is likely to accelerate at a faster rate than would be anticipated if only linked to a global average temperature rise.
Arctic sea ice, which shrinks in mid-September to an annual minimum before the winter freeze, now covers a slightly bigger area than in 2007 and 2008, the smallest extents since satellite measurements began in the 1970s.
But besides causing 700 extra deaths a day in Moscow alone - due to the smoke from forest fires, according to its top health official - the smoke is hastening the melting of Arctic ice.
Forest and peat bog fires around Moscow are burning over 1,740 sq kms (672 sq mile), the Russian Emergencies Ministry says.
Similar fires in Asia are having a similar effect on glaciers in the Himalayas.
On the other side of the planet, official Brazilian data shows the Amazon rainforest lost 1,810 sq kms in almost a year to June 2010. The real figure is likely to be higher.
Brown clouds also form over parts of North America, Europe, the Amazon basin and southern Africa. Burning of savannah in sub-Saharan Africa, to clear land for crops, is a new source.
"Health effects of such clouds are huge," said Veerabhadran Ramanathan, chair of a new U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) study called Atmospheric Brown Clouds.
This report says there are five hot spots for such clouds:
- East Asia
- Indo-Gangetic Plain in South Asia
- Southeast Asia
- Southern Africa; and
- the Amazon Basin.
But the effects can be felt far away...
Melting Greenland
A team from Aberystwyth University currently doing research in Greenland has found unprecedented levels of melting of the Greenland ice sheet.
A key factor, they have discovered, is cryoconite, a form of ice dusted with minute specks - a mixture of desert sand blown thousands of kilometres from Africa, soot particles from power stations, vehicle exhausts and microscopic algae and bacteria.
These particles settle on the ice and, being dark, absorb the sun's rays, causing it to melt.
Besides that, the UNEP report says this atmospheric smog is near-permanent and blames it for causing chronic respiratory and heart diseases.
Since 1970, southern Greenland has warmed by 3oC (in Britain it is half of a degree). A week ago, a massive iceberg 100sq miles in area broke off the Petermann Glacier in the north-west of the island and floated into the ocean - the largest chunk of ice to break off Greenland for nearly half a century.
Greenland is losing, net, about 267 billion tons of ice a year, according to Aberystwyth University's Dr Alun Hubbard, Britain's leading glaciologist studying Greenland.
He says that two weeks ago an ice lake 2.5 miles across drained into the sea in just two hours when a crack opened up at the lake's deepest point.
He said it sounded like "an extraordinary rumbling, like an atomic bomb going off ". Ominous cracks opened up in the ice beneath his camp's tents as the lake was swallowed by the ice.
Such melt-water flows underneath the ice sheet to the sea, at the same time lubricating the passage of the ice above it and accelerating it towards oblivion. Exactly the same process is happening in the Himalayas and Antarctica.
If all of Greenland's ice were to melt, sea levels would rise by seven metres worldwide. London and Liverpool would be flooded. Hwever, current estimates are that this is unlikely to happen until a few hundred years have passed.
A reporter with the Daily Mail, embedded with the Aberystwyth University team, wrote this week that "Sceptics will argue that Greenland has always had moulins and meltwater rivers; this is true. But what is new is these used to be confined to the very edge of the icesheet, marginal, ephemeral features that lasted just a few weeks in the height of the summer melting season. Now there are lakes and moulins right on the centre of the cap, and persisting well into August."
When the normally sceptic Daily Mail and its climate change-denying columnist Michael Hanlon runs pieces like this, you know something is going on.
Brown clouds
"The Russian fires are in principle similar to what you see from other brown clouds," said Henning Rodhe of Stockholm University, a vice-chair of the UNEP Atmospheric Brown Cloud (ABC) study. "The difference is that this only lasts a few weeks."
Elsewhere, however, the polluting haze blocks out sunlight and so slows climate change. Despite this, overall, the report says, the brown clouds have the net effect of "heating of the surface-atmosphere system and therefore constitute a positive radiative forcing of the climate system and contribute to global warming. Thus, black carbon aerosols are major agents of regional and global warming."
The report says that in the Himalayas, "If the current rate of retreat continues unabated, these glaciers and snow packs are expected to shrink by as much as 75 per cent before the year 2050, posing grave danger to the region’s water security. Projections show that most parts of South and East Asia will suffer from water stress by 2050."
Mega-city hotspots
13 mega-city ABC hotspots in Asia have been identified: Bangkok, Beijing, Cairo, Dhaka, Karachi, Kolkata, Lagos, Mumbai, New Delhi, Seoul, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Tehran.
Kim Holmen, director of research at the Norwegian Polar Institute, runs a pollution monitoring station in Svalbard in the high Arctic. He says the air over Russia has been fairly stable in recent days, but a shift in winds could blow the smoke towards the Arctic.
He supports Russian authorities' concerns that the fires may also release radioactive elements locked in vegetation since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986. He says radioactive isotopes include strontium 90 and caesium 137. Other industrial pollutants such as PCBs could also be freed.
"Such conditions are likely to become more common in the future," Rodhe said of the Russian heatwave and related fires.
If they are, sea level rise is likely to accelerate at a faster rate than would be anticipated if only linked to a global average temperature rise.
Arctic sea ice, which shrinks in mid-September to an annual minimum before the winter freeze, now covers a slightly bigger area than in 2007 and 2008, the smallest extents since satellite measurements began in the 1970s.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The battle in the British Isles against offshore drilling
Here's a question: in which country do you imagine that a police officer might say to a protestor who is trying to prevent an offshore gas/oil drilling exploration, “I have your last breath in my hands”?
Well, allegedly, it isn't the Gulf of Mexico but a good deal closer.
On the night of 14 July, a number of campaigners entered the water in Broadhaven Bay, County Mayo, on Ireland's north west coast, in kayaks and rafts in a peaceful attempt to prevent Shell from bringing in a borehole drilling platform.
They were met by five Garda water unit boats, with approximately 16 Gardaà on board.
Campaigners attempted to approach the platform but were prevented from
doing so by Gardaà who overturned their kayaks.
One managed to get close to the platform. When Gardaà overturned the kayak belonging to one of the campaigners, Eoin Lawless, he swam under the platform. A Garda then jumped into the water after him, and proceeded to drag him from the water into the nearby Garda boat.
Mr. Lawless rlates what happened next: “I said I would leave the area but they knelt on my back. One Garda then pinched my throat with his two fingers and cut off my air supply. He held me like that for about 90 seconds, allowing me to take one or two gasps. He kept saying into my ear that he had my last breath in his hands.
"It was terrifying. I truly believed he might kill me."
Mr. Lawless received medical attention at Belmullet Garda station and afterwards called for human rights observers to come back down to Mayo as a matter of urgency.
Such observers have been there before, because this is not the first time such a incident, or worse, has happened, in this long-running dispute that has been barely reported in the UK.
An independent report by Front Line, The International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, concluded this year that Irish Government-sponsored incidents against these protestors, who are mostly local fishermen and crofters worried about the impact of the development on their livelihood in this environmentally-sensitive area, warranted defence under human rights legislation.
Off-shore discovery
The bakground to this story is that gas was found off North Mayo in 1996 by Enterprise Oil. A consortium of oil companies was established to develop the gas field, called Enterprise Energy Ireland EEI.
Shell later took over the exploration and now plans a pipeline coming onshore at Glengad, then crossing under Sruwaddacon Bay to Rossport and journeying nine kilometres overland to a refinery at Bellanaboy.
The development is controversial for a number of reasons. The planned pipeline is a high pressure one. It also carries raw gas, which is more volatile. Some residents argue that it goes too near to their houses – and fear the effects of an explosion. The refinery is located in – and the pipeline passes through – ecologically sensitive areas.
Shell to Sea, the group representing locals opposed to the project, has another concern – that the terms upon which the State has granted rights to oil companies were too generous (see below).
Shell to Sea wants the gas refined at sea on a shallow water platform.
In 2008, a previous group of protestors, Pobal Chill Chomáin, claiming to represent most locals opposed to the development, proposed building the refinery elsewhere – such as at Glinsk, a remote area in Mayo – with the pipeline coming onshore by a different route.
Shell has rejected this proposal. The refinery at Bellanaboy has now been substantially built. In order to pass over the lands at Rossport, either the consent of landowners had to be sought or compulsory purchase orders had to be made.
Most landowners consented but six did not. In 2004 planning permission was granted by an Bord Pleanála for the refinery at the Bellanaboy site, but the decision was a controversial one. Previously, a planning inspector had advised that the proposed development defied “any rational understanding of the term ‘sustainability’”.
Imprisonment
Some Rossport residents defied a court order by preventing Shell agents entering lands over which the planned pipeline was to run. As a result, they were imprisoned for 94 days. The men concerned became known as the Rossport 5. They were released on 30 September 2005. Their campaign against Shell’s plans had now become an international news story.
The Irish government commissioned a review of safety issues - but the consultancy commissioned to carry out the review, British Pipeline Agency (BPA), was 50% owned by Shell. BPA kept quiet about this, even though they knew that the Minister wanted the review to be independent. The Minister did not find out until after the report was published. This did not endear him to objectors or solve the stand-off, which has continued to date.
Shell went ahead with some works at Bellanaboy without authorisation. A new report was commissioned that expressed concern that the maximum pressure for the onshore pipeline be more than halved from 345 bar to 144 bar. Shell accepted this but protestors were not satisfied with the report because it didn't consider whether processing should be offshore or alternative routes for the pipeline or an alternative site for the refinery.
There have been many other objections. For example, levels of aluminium in discharge water from the Bellanaboy plant regularly exceeding those permitted by very large margins; a slip road being built without planning permission at Glengad; unauthorised drilling carried out by Shell consultants in a Special Area of Conservation.
The Bolivian connection
More significantly, the security firm hired by Shell, IRMS, was accused of being heavy-handed. It has come under scrutiny because some of its employees have been involved in activities on behalf of gas and oil interests in Bolivia which led to one of them, Michael Dwyer from Tipperary, being shot by the Bolivian government for involvement in a plot to destabilise the government of President Evo Morales.
This is where the plot gets even murkier.
Bolivia is the key player in the struggle by developing countries to secure justice in the international climate negotiations. Three months ago it hosted the World People´s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth carried out in Cochabamba.
Oil companies are prominent amongst those lobbying against action to counter climate change. Removing the Bolivian government would clearly be in their interests.
Links to oil and gas companies are indeed mentioned in a Prime Time investigation into the death of Dwyer, and the involvement of colleagues he met through his work with IRMS at Rossport, by reports Paul Murphy and Oonagh Smyth for the tv company RTE, broadcast on 3 December 2009.
They uncovered that the right wing Hungarian terrorist who recruited Dwyer and wanted to overturn the La Paz government was financed to the tune of millions of dollars, way beyond the capacity of local business interests to raise alone, and trace it back to oil and gas companies.
The Frontline report notes that one of the security guards had posted "inappropriate material regarding operations on Glengad" on a website he ran. He also headed a far right group, the Szeckler legion.
IRMS itself was not involved with the Bolivian group. But it has been involved in a string of violent incidents against protestors, along with the Gardai. Fisherman Pat O’Donnell for example claims that his boat was sunk by masked men on 11 June 2009.
He and others have been in Castlerea prison for much of this year for refusing to stop fishing in the vicinity of the proposed tunnel. He was released after 158 days on 17 July.
Another boat has been confiscated by the Gardai.
And on 22/23 April 2009 one Willie Corduff was allegedly assaulted by Gardaà and IRMS staff. Mr Corduff had been staging a sit in under a truck.
IRMS and Gardai boats have also on at least one occasion rammed the boats of protestors.
Last week, on the same night that Eoin Lawless was struggling to breathe at the hands of a policeman, a film about O'Donnell and the campaign, ‘The Pipe’ won best documentary at the Galway Film Fleadh.
The protest continues
The protest continues, led by a body called Shell to Sea, which claims it is a national campaign with active groups based across Ireland. It has three main aims:
• to have the Corrib gas field exploited in a safe way that will not expose the local community in Erris to unnecessary health, safety and environmental risks;
• to renegotiate the terms of the Great Oil and Gas Giveaway, which "sees
Ireland’s 10 billion barrels of oil equivalent off the West Coast go directly to the oil companies, with the Irish State retaining a 0% share, no energy security of supply and only 25% tax on profits against which all costs can be deducted";
• finally, to seek justice for the human rights abuses suffered by Shell to Sea campaigners.
Shell plans to drill up to 80 boreholes to survey the Sruth Fhada Chonn estuary to determine the course of a tunnel under the estuary linking up the offshore pipeline with the proposed inland refinery. The new route is still within 250m of several houses and the local community remains opposed to the plans.
The estuary is a Specially Protected Area & part of the Broadhaven Bay Special Area of Conservation. Protestors claim that the operation will damage parts of the estuary & disturb the wildlife there, particularly Atlantic salmon, otters & birds found on the intertidal areas.
Shell to Sea say their aim is to try to stop Shell from drilling the boreholes over the next few months through a campaign of peaceful protest.
In the planetwide shadow cast by BP's offshore drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, these protestors' battle with the authorities has a significance way beyond the normally quiet Western Isles.
> www.shelltosea.com/content/environment
Well, allegedly, it isn't the Gulf of Mexico but a good deal closer.
On the night of 14 July, a number of campaigners entered the water in Broadhaven Bay, County Mayo, on Ireland's north west coast, in kayaks and rafts in a peaceful attempt to prevent Shell from bringing in a borehole drilling platform.
They were met by five Garda water unit boats, with approximately 16 Gardaà on board.
Campaigners attempted to approach the platform but were prevented from
doing so by Gardaà who overturned their kayaks.
One managed to get close to the platform. When Gardaà overturned the kayak belonging to one of the campaigners, Eoin Lawless, he swam under the platform. A Garda then jumped into the water after him, and proceeded to drag him from the water into the nearby Garda boat.
Mr. Lawless rlates what happened next: “I said I would leave the area but they knelt on my back. One Garda then pinched my throat with his two fingers and cut off my air supply. He held me like that for about 90 seconds, allowing me to take one or two gasps. He kept saying into my ear that he had my last breath in his hands.
"It was terrifying. I truly believed he might kill me."
Mr. Lawless received medical attention at Belmullet Garda station and afterwards called for human rights observers to come back down to Mayo as a matter of urgency.
Such observers have been there before, because this is not the first time such a incident, or worse, has happened, in this long-running dispute that has been barely reported in the UK.
An independent report by Front Line, The International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, concluded this year that Irish Government-sponsored incidents against these protestors, who are mostly local fishermen and crofters worried about the impact of the development on their livelihood in this environmentally-sensitive area, warranted defence under human rights legislation.
Off-shore discovery
The bakground to this story is that gas was found off North Mayo in 1996 by Enterprise Oil. A consortium of oil companies was established to develop the gas field, called Enterprise Energy Ireland EEI.
Shell later took over the exploration and now plans a pipeline coming onshore at Glengad, then crossing under Sruwaddacon Bay to Rossport and journeying nine kilometres overland to a refinery at Bellanaboy.
The development is controversial for a number of reasons. The planned pipeline is a high pressure one. It also carries raw gas, which is more volatile. Some residents argue that it goes too near to their houses – and fear the effects of an explosion. The refinery is located in – and the pipeline passes through – ecologically sensitive areas.
Shell to Sea, the group representing locals opposed to the project, has another concern – that the terms upon which the State has granted rights to oil companies were too generous (see below).
Shell to Sea wants the gas refined at sea on a shallow water platform.
In 2008, a previous group of protestors, Pobal Chill Chomáin, claiming to represent most locals opposed to the development, proposed building the refinery elsewhere – such as at Glinsk, a remote area in Mayo – with the pipeline coming onshore by a different route.
Shell has rejected this proposal. The refinery at Bellanaboy has now been substantially built. In order to pass over the lands at Rossport, either the consent of landowners had to be sought or compulsory purchase orders had to be made.
Most landowners consented but six did not. In 2004 planning permission was granted by an Bord Pleanála for the refinery at the Bellanaboy site, but the decision was a controversial one. Previously, a planning inspector had advised that the proposed development defied “any rational understanding of the term ‘sustainability’”.
Imprisonment
Some Rossport residents defied a court order by preventing Shell agents entering lands over which the planned pipeline was to run. As a result, they were imprisoned for 94 days. The men concerned became known as the Rossport 5. They were released on 30 September 2005. Their campaign against Shell’s plans had now become an international news story.
The Irish government commissioned a review of safety issues - but the consultancy commissioned to carry out the review, British Pipeline Agency (BPA), was 50% owned by Shell. BPA kept quiet about this, even though they knew that the Minister wanted the review to be independent. The Minister did not find out until after the report was published. This did not endear him to objectors or solve the stand-off, which has continued to date.
Shell went ahead with some works at Bellanaboy without authorisation. A new report was commissioned that expressed concern that the maximum pressure for the onshore pipeline be more than halved from 345 bar to 144 bar. Shell accepted this but protestors were not satisfied with the report because it didn't consider whether processing should be offshore or alternative routes for the pipeline or an alternative site for the refinery.
There have been many other objections. For example, levels of aluminium in discharge water from the Bellanaboy plant regularly exceeding those permitted by very large margins; a slip road being built without planning permission at Glengad; unauthorised drilling carried out by Shell consultants in a Special Area of Conservation.
The Bolivian connection
More significantly, the security firm hired by Shell, IRMS, was accused of being heavy-handed. It has come under scrutiny because some of its employees have been involved in activities on behalf of gas and oil interests in Bolivia which led to one of them, Michael Dwyer from Tipperary, being shot by the Bolivian government for involvement in a plot to destabilise the government of President Evo Morales.
This is where the plot gets even murkier.
Bolivia is the key player in the struggle by developing countries to secure justice in the international climate negotiations. Three months ago it hosted the World People´s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth carried out in Cochabamba.
Oil companies are prominent amongst those lobbying against action to counter climate change. Removing the Bolivian government would clearly be in their interests.
Links to oil and gas companies are indeed mentioned in a Prime Time investigation into the death of Dwyer, and the involvement of colleagues he met through his work with IRMS at Rossport, by reports Paul Murphy and Oonagh Smyth for the tv company RTE, broadcast on 3 December 2009.
They uncovered that the right wing Hungarian terrorist who recruited Dwyer and wanted to overturn the La Paz government was financed to the tune of millions of dollars, way beyond the capacity of local business interests to raise alone, and trace it back to oil and gas companies.
The Frontline report notes that one of the security guards had posted "inappropriate material regarding operations on Glengad" on a website he ran. He also headed a far right group, the Szeckler legion.
IRMS itself was not involved with the Bolivian group. But it has been involved in a string of violent incidents against protestors, along with the Gardai. Fisherman Pat O’Donnell for example claims that his boat was sunk by masked men on 11 June 2009.
He and others have been in Castlerea prison for much of this year for refusing to stop fishing in the vicinity of the proposed tunnel. He was released after 158 days on 17 July.
Another boat has been confiscated by the Gardai.
And on 22/23 April 2009 one Willie Corduff was allegedly assaulted by Gardaà and IRMS staff. Mr Corduff had been staging a sit in under a truck.
IRMS and Gardai boats have also on at least one occasion rammed the boats of protestors.
Last week, on the same night that Eoin Lawless was struggling to breathe at the hands of a policeman, a film about O'Donnell and the campaign, ‘The Pipe’ won best documentary at the Galway Film Fleadh.
The protest continues
The protest continues, led by a body called Shell to Sea, which claims it is a national campaign with active groups based across Ireland. It has three main aims:
• to have the Corrib gas field exploited in a safe way that will not expose the local community in Erris to unnecessary health, safety and environmental risks;
• to renegotiate the terms of the Great Oil and Gas Giveaway, which "sees
Ireland’s 10 billion barrels of oil equivalent off the West Coast go directly to the oil companies, with the Irish State retaining a 0% share, no energy security of supply and only 25% tax on profits against which all costs can be deducted";
• finally, to seek justice for the human rights abuses suffered by Shell to Sea campaigners.
Shell plans to drill up to 80 boreholes to survey the Sruth Fhada Chonn estuary to determine the course of a tunnel under the estuary linking up the offshore pipeline with the proposed inland refinery. The new route is still within 250m of several houses and the local community remains opposed to the plans.
The estuary is a Specially Protected Area & part of the Broadhaven Bay Special Area of Conservation. Protestors claim that the operation will damage parts of the estuary & disturb the wildlife there, particularly Atlantic salmon, otters & birds found on the intertidal areas.
Shell to Sea say their aim is to try to stop Shell from drilling the boreholes over the next few months through a campaign of peaceful protest.
In the planetwide shadow cast by BP's offshore drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, these protestors' battle with the authorities has a significance way beyond the normally quiet Western Isles.
> www.shelltosea.com/content/environment
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Sustainable Home Refurbishment
My new book, Sustainable Home Refurbishment: The Earthscan Expert Guide to Retrofitting Homes for Efficiency, is out now, published by Earthscan.
"This is an excellent book - comprehensively-researched, powerfully-presented and crystal clear. It should be the first stop for anyone seeking objective advice in a field cluttered with misleading claims. I couldn't recommend it more strongly." - George Monbiot
"As the idea of radical retrofit of our existing housing stock gradually moves from geek-dom to chic-dom, this book is a must have for all involved in this burgeoning industry. This book is both for the capable amateur and the professionally engaged.
"There is all the detail you could wish for with a vast array of practical examples and materials. This is not a book for the total novice but is a life saver for anyone on the road to radical retrofit.
"We can't recommend it highly enough. David has managed to make the book a good and interesting ready whilst managing to get all the necessary hard-core energy information in there as well." - Penney Poyzer (tv presenter, writer, Queen of Green, grass roots activist) and Gil Schalom (architect) .
A retro-fit offers many benefits: cutting electricity and heating bills, increasing the resale value of homes, slashing carbon emissions and creating a healthier place to live. This book is the guide to making it happen.
It looks at:
Enlivened with helpful diagrams and photographs, plus plenty of pointers for further information, it provides a comprehensive resource handbook for any building professional and contractor, students - or any homeowner serious about efficiency (cash and carbon) savings.
CONTENTS
It looks at:
- draught-proofing, insulation and damp
- ventilation, heating and cooling
- electrical efficiency and renewable energy
- water use and re-use
- materials' life cycles and incorporating nature
- protection from climate change impacts
- modelling energy flows and embodied energy
- how we can meet the need to cut carbon emissions from dwellings by 80% by 2050.
Enlivened with helpful diagrams and photographs, plus plenty of pointers for further information, it provides a comprehensive resource handbook for any building professional and contractor, students - or any homeowner serious about efficiency (cash and carbon) savings.
CONTENTS
Introduction
1. Airtightness: Reducing Energy Demand for Heating and Cooling
2. Insulation Materials
3. Insulation Strategies
4. Going All The Way - Towards Passivhaus
5. Windows and Doors
6. Ventilation, Cooling and Heating
7. Water Management
8. Electricity Efficiency and Supply
9. Contextual Issues
1. Airtightness: Reducing Energy Demand for Heating and Cooling
2. Insulation Materials
3. Insulation Strategies
4. Going All The Way - Towards Passivhaus
5. Windows and Doors
6. Ventilation, Cooling and Heating
7. Water Management
8. Electricity Efficiency and Supply
9. Contextual Issues
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
‘Climategate’ review clears scientists and replicates their results
The long-awaited third review of the co-called 'Climategate' affair chaired by Sir Muir Russell has cleared the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) of any wrong-doing.
The scientists at the heart of the matter, particularly Professor Phil Jones, have been cleared of any attempt to mislead or manipulate data or display bias. The report concludes, "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
The review team also tried to replicate the CRU's results using publicly available data which critics had said was not possible. This confirmed the conclusions of the IPCC and CRU that average global temperatures are increasing.
Background
In November 2009, approximately 1000 e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit
(CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) were hacked into by climate sceptics and published on blogs.
CRU is a small research unit which over the last 30 years has played an important role in the development of climate science, in particular in their work on developing global temperature trends.
The leak happened in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate talks last November and were partly responsible for a rise in perceived scepticism of the reality of global warming. The results of those climate talks are widely held to have been disappointing.
It's therefore vitally important that the science behind the IPCC's verdicts on climate change is held up to rigorous scrutiny and perceived to be robust.
But scientists have been their own enemy too often in this respect. So besides urging the to be more open, the Review urges them to learn to communicate and defend themselves better.
The 'blogosphere' has been the principle arena for attacking their work. The
Review team therefore "simply urges all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand."
But also "scientists should be supported to explain their position, and ... a public space can be created where these debates can be conducted on appropriate terms, where what is and is not uncertain can be recognised".
The Russell Report's conclusions
In a nutshell, the report says:
• there's no evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments
• CRU was not in a position to withhold access to land station temperature data or tamper with it
• no evidence of bias in the selection of stations for evidence
• no evidence to support that implication that CRU s work in this area shouldn't be trusted
• there was no subversion of the peer process
• the phenomenon of “divergence” in expressing the uncertainty associated
with reconstruction is not hidden and that the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers
• the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 is not misleading
• the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick" and to "hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading.
However on the negative side:
• CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record
(CRUTEM).
• CRU’s responses to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive
• Ruusell urges CRU to follow "the conventional scientific method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative hypotheses for peer review and publication".
The question of replication
A chief criticism of CRU was that it did not make available the raw data collected from the weather-monitoring land stations, which it used to produce its report. Nor did it make available the computer code used to crunch these numbers.
To test this, the Review team tried to replicate the process adopted by CRU themselves.
They found three sources of data that are publicly available and would be known to scientists working in the field. They were able, using a competent programmer, to write their own code in just two days to process this data.
They then ran the data through the process and compared it to the results obtained by CRU and to the results published in the IPCC’s 4th report.
What is significant is that all four lines - shown below - more or less tally.
In other words, the data is publicly available, easily processed, and produces graphs showing temperature increases that corroborate each other.
They note that it doesn't even matter that some of the land stations are urban and may be influenced by the 'heat island' effect – another criticism of CRU by sceptics like Benny Peizer. The overall trend of temperature change is still upwards, rising with the same degree of statistical variation.
The need for openness
However the Review does say that CRU should have been more open - a view expressed also by the House of Commons science and technology select committee in their report on 31 March. That report concluded that "Professor Jones has in many ways been scapegoated as a result of what really was a frustration on his part that people were asking for information purely to undermine his research."
But the Russell Review says "Without such openness, the credibility of their
work will suffer because it will always be at risk of allegations of concealment
and hence mal-practice."
Frustrating as it is, it is part of his job to deal with such enquiries, or at least that of the UEA who should have responded to the freedom of information requests, not CRU, as the Select Committee observed.
Lord Oxburgh's subsequent "international panel" review examined "the integrity" of CRU's research and that also cleared the unit.
"We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the CRU and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it," the review concluded. "Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups, their internal procedures were rather informal."
Given the global importance of this work it’s clear that groups such as this must be better resourced and supported to carry it out thoroughly.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
More money needed for the new Green Deal
The ″greenest government ever″ must put serious money behind this scheme to let householders eco-renovate and repay their loans from their savings on fuel bills.
The UK's domestic properties need to be renovated to a high energy efficiency standard at a rate of 700,000 a year in order to have renovated them all by the year 2050. We need to do this because there are 28 million homes in the UK which are responsible for 27% of our greenhouse gas emissions, most of them will still be standing by then, and they need to be treated to make a contribution to meeting our national targets of reducing these emissions by 80% by 2050. ['The 40% House', Boardman et. al., 2005, and The Low-Carbon Strategy, 2008 (Oxford Environmental Change Institute)]
It would be alright if we knew exactly what it is that we have to do. The problem is that there are many areas of uncertainty, not least of which is the embodied energy of the materials used in construction. Unless we know this cannot estimate the carbon balance of the measures we are proposing to take and know that we are really saving carbon.
There also needs to be agreement on what measures these are to be - and they will be different for each type of property. There is an appalling lack of experience in this country of monitoring and measuring the efficacy of sustainable refurbishments that have already taken place to see how effective they have been.
One thing we do know is that they often don't live up to expectations, whether it is because of poor workmanship leaving, for example, gaps in insulation or whether it is that the occupants of the treated houses do not behave in a manner predicted by the architects and continue to turn their heating up.
Retrofit for the Future is a government-sponsored project that is hoping to find the answers to some of these questions for the social housing sector. I shared a panel with Neil Morgan, the project director, at the recent Greener Homes & Buildings show and he gave an outline of a number of research projects they are backing. One of these projects - by Anne Thorne Architects - showed that they are going for the demanding Passivhaus standard, which is more or less the standard that we are going to have to aim at in every case.
Neil gave some costs: they are allocating a budget of £120,000 per property for a sustainable renovation. Of this perhaps £60-£70,000 will actually be used for the renovation itself, the rest might go on overheads, sorting out the supply chain issues - which are right at their infancy and help to increase costs - dramatically, and post-occupancy monitoring and evaluation.
The government announced in the new energy bill that it would institute a Pay As You Save scheme to support households that wanted to carry out eco-renovation. No figure has yet been put on the loans that will be available to householders but before the election the Tories were touting the figure of £6,500.
This is about one tenth of what Retrofit for the Future is allocating. In Germany where similar pioneering work was done quite a few years ago costs in the region of £20-£40,000 per property were common, and another figure that has been offered is around at least 10% of the value of the house.
In other words, £6,500 is going to be nowhere near enough.
Everybody working in this field is advocating that whenever any work is done on a property the opportunity should be taken to renovate it to the highest possible energy efficiency standard to reduce the electricity and heating cost demands. These measures will of course pay for themselves in the future.
In other words if you are having workmen going into your house or scaffolding being put up, it makes sense to get them to do other jobs that need to be done while they are there rather than to get them back later. It would be more expensive if you were to do that and a valuable opportunity would be lost. For example if the roof is being replaced it makes a good idea to put solar water heating panels on it at the same time or at least put the pipes through the insulation and the roof so that they can be added easily later when a budget permits without having to tear apart your earlier work.
The danger is that in an era where savage public spending cuts are to be made then the amount of money that is going to be loaned to householders will be nowhere near enough, and the work will not be done to the sufficient standard. Another opportunity will have been wasted to help not only the UK reach its carbon emissions reductions targets but also for householders to reduce their ongoing energy costs.
Demand reduction is the best investment. It also means that we have to build fewer power stations and there is less likelihood of the lights going out in the future.
The UK's domestic properties need to be renovated to a high energy efficiency standard at a rate of 700,000 a year in order to have renovated them all by the year 2050. We need to do this because there are 28 million homes in the UK which are responsible for 27% of our greenhouse gas emissions, most of them will still be standing by then, and they need to be treated to make a contribution to meeting our national targets of reducing these emissions by 80% by 2050. ['The 40% House', Boardman et. al., 2005, and The Low-Carbon Strategy, 2008 (Oxford Environmental Change Institute)]
It would be alright if we knew exactly what it is that we have to do. The problem is that there are many areas of uncertainty, not least of which is the embodied energy of the materials used in construction. Unless we know this cannot estimate the carbon balance of the measures we are proposing to take and know that we are really saving carbon.
There also needs to be agreement on what measures these are to be - and they will be different for each type of property. There is an appalling lack of experience in this country of monitoring and measuring the efficacy of sustainable refurbishments that have already taken place to see how effective they have been.
One thing we do know is that they often don't live up to expectations, whether it is because of poor workmanship leaving, for example, gaps in insulation or whether it is that the occupants of the treated houses do not behave in a manner predicted by the architects and continue to turn their heating up.
Retrofit for the Future is a government-sponsored project that is hoping to find the answers to some of these questions for the social housing sector. I shared a panel with Neil Morgan, the project director, at the recent Greener Homes & Buildings show and he gave an outline of a number of research projects they are backing. One of these projects - by Anne Thorne Architects - showed that they are going for the demanding Passivhaus standard, which is more or less the standard that we are going to have to aim at in every case.
Neil gave some costs: they are allocating a budget of £120,000 per property for a sustainable renovation. Of this perhaps £60-£70,000 will actually be used for the renovation itself, the rest might go on overheads, sorting out the supply chain issues - which are right at their infancy and help to increase costs - dramatically, and post-occupancy monitoring and evaluation.
The government announced in the new energy bill that it would institute a Pay As You Save scheme to support households that wanted to carry out eco-renovation. No figure has yet been put on the loans that will be available to householders but before the election the Tories were touting the figure of £6,500.
This is about one tenth of what Retrofit for the Future is allocating. In Germany where similar pioneering work was done quite a few years ago costs in the region of £20-£40,000 per property were common, and another figure that has been offered is around at least 10% of the value of the house.
In other words, £6,500 is going to be nowhere near enough.
Everybody working in this field is advocating that whenever any work is done on a property the opportunity should be taken to renovate it to the highest possible energy efficiency standard to reduce the electricity and heating cost demands. These measures will of course pay for themselves in the future.
In other words if you are having workmen going into your house or scaffolding being put up, it makes sense to get them to do other jobs that need to be done while they are there rather than to get them back later. It would be more expensive if you were to do that and a valuable opportunity would be lost. For example if the roof is being replaced it makes a good idea to put solar water heating panels on it at the same time or at least put the pipes through the insulation and the roof so that they can be added easily later when a budget permits without having to tear apart your earlier work.
The danger is that in an era where savage public spending cuts are to be made then the amount of money that is going to be loaned to householders will be nowhere near enough, and the work will not be done to the sufficient standard. Another opportunity will have been wasted to help not only the UK reach its carbon emissions reductions targets but also for householders to reduce their ongoing energy costs.
Demand reduction is the best investment. It also means that we have to build fewer power stations and there is less likelihood of the lights going out in the future.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
European Union is NOT increasing its emissions cut targets!
A number of newspapers and other sources, including The Times, are claiming this week that the European Union plans to increase the target for greenhouse gas emission cuts.
They report that a new target of cutting emissions by 30 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, would be set and that this "would cost the EU an extra £33 billion a year by 2020".
Unfortunately, there is no truth in the story.
It is true that the European Commission has released a discussion document on the subject. But it is not, as The Times describes, a draft of a communication.
In fact, it explicitly says, "The purpose of this Communication is not to decide now to move to a 30% target: the conditions set are clearly not met."
The conditions remain the same as they were during the Copenhagen discussions in December. At that point the Commission said that it would move from the current target of 20% to 30% if everybody else committed to legally binding targets.
A spokesperson for the European Commission told us unequivocally that there are no plans to increase the target to 30%.
And currently the expectation is that a legally binding global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that would be a successor to the Kyoto Protocol will not happen, if it ever will, until mid-2011 at the earliest.
One might wonder why The Times is publishing so prominently - it was on the front page - a story like this. It contains the following paragraph:
"Business leaders fear that thousands of jobs could be lost and energy bills could soar. Carbon taxes on road fuel, heating and other sources of emissions could be introduced, with proceeds reinvested in renewable energy products."
Those who hold conspiracy theories about sceptics of climate change or the European Union might draw their own conclusions.
They report that a new target of cutting emissions by 30 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, would be set and that this "would cost the EU an extra £33 billion a year by 2020".
Unfortunately, there is no truth in the story.
It is true that the European Commission has released a discussion document on the subject. But it is not, as The Times describes, a draft of a communication.
In fact, it explicitly says, "The purpose of this Communication is not to decide now to move to a 30% target: the conditions set are clearly not met."
The conditions remain the same as they were during the Copenhagen discussions in December. At that point the Commission said that it would move from the current target of 20% to 30% if everybody else committed to legally binding targets.
A spokesperson for the European Commission told us unequivocally that there are no plans to increase the target to 30%.
And currently the expectation is that a legally binding global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that would be a successor to the Kyoto Protocol will not happen, if it ever will, until mid-2011 at the earliest.
One might wonder why The Times is publishing so prominently - it was on the front page - a story like this. It contains the following paragraph:
"Business leaders fear that thousands of jobs could be lost and energy bills could soar. Carbon taxes on road fuel, heating and other sources of emissions could be introduced, with proceeds reinvested in renewable energy products."
Those who hold conspiracy theories about sceptics of climate change or the European Union might draw their own conclusions.
Will the "greenest government ever" preside over a 'blackout Britain'?
Before the election, the energy sector and the CBI by and large supported a policy programme that promised to "keep the lights on" and build a low carbon economy.
In five to ten years' time some current coal and nuclear power stations may have to be mothballed and there is now doubt that new nuclear power stations - which anyway would not be producing power for 15 years - will now be built, as Chris Huhne is known not to favour spending public money on them.
Add this to the cuts in both DECC's and Defra's budgets, and there is concern over a possible 'energy gap' looming.
“We need to explore alternative ways to combat this shortfall, such as building green oil power plants that run off of sustainable oil, waste to energy systems that use all municipal solid waste (MSW) to generate electricity, which means there is no need for consumers to sort out their waste," said David Weaver, CEO of clean-tech company Ultra Green.
“These kinds of projects can be completed and producing power within five years. However, we need government support in the form of development grants and guarantees to accelerate the Britain’s renewables growth programme.”
We have already seen the loss of the Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP) grants which will adversely affect the renewable heat sector (see my previous blog post).
An energy efficiency drive will reduce the rate of increase in demand for electricity.
But the sector requires immediately huge input in research, development, infrastructure and plant to quickly evolve a low carbon energy supply mix that meets future demand and bridges the energy gap.
Furthermore, the Queen's Speech contains bills that could have a negative impact on the UK’s energy and environmental sector.
A Devolution and Localism Bill, which will give local councils more control, could affect onshore renewable energy projects, by giving more power to NIMBYs.
Greg Clark, Minister for Decentralisation, said, "This Bill would reverse years of creeping state control and return power to people, communities and councils."
But the vast majority of councils which have rejected wind farm planning applications across the country have historically been Tory held.
One commentator, Howard Thomas, said on a government website that the coalition policy on ensuring 'sustainable development’ in planning is too vague and requires clarity. He called for "a clause in planning policy statements that every new development must not increase global-warming emissions and should save on them".
There's also the Public Bodies (Reform) Bill, which promises to do the opposite to the Localism Bill - centralise power by abolishing, merging or transferring quangos back into Departments.
Cutting quangos like The Carbon Trust, The Technology Strategy Board and its Knowledge Transfer Networks, and WRAP could seriously affect low carbon delivery objectives.
This could result in the loss of support for emerging tender shoots of nascent low carbon technologies.
In five to ten years' time some current coal and nuclear power stations may have to be mothballed and there is now doubt that new nuclear power stations - which anyway would not be producing power for 15 years - will now be built, as Chris Huhne is known not to favour spending public money on them.
Add this to the cuts in both DECC's and Defra's budgets, and there is concern over a possible 'energy gap' looming.
The Energy Gap
“We need to explore alternative ways to combat this shortfall, such as building green oil power plants that run off of sustainable oil, waste to energy systems that use all municipal solid waste (MSW) to generate electricity, which means there is no need for consumers to sort out their waste," said David Weaver, CEO of clean-tech company Ultra Green.
“These kinds of projects can be completed and producing power within five years. However, we need government support in the form of development grants and guarantees to accelerate the Britain’s renewables growth programme.”
We have already seen the loss of the Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP) grants which will adversely affect the renewable heat sector (see my previous blog post).
An energy efficiency drive will reduce the rate of increase in demand for electricity.
But the sector requires immediately huge input in research, development, infrastructure and plant to quickly evolve a low carbon energy supply mix that meets future demand and bridges the energy gap.
Furthermore, the Queen's Speech contains bills that could have a negative impact on the UK’s energy and environmental sector.
Planning issues
A Devolution and Localism Bill, which will give local councils more control, could affect onshore renewable energy projects, by giving more power to NIMBYs.
Greg Clark, Minister for Decentralisation, said, "This Bill would reverse years of creeping state control and return power to people, communities and councils."
But the vast majority of councils which have rejected wind farm planning applications across the country have historically been Tory held.
One commentator, Howard Thomas, said on a government website that the coalition policy on ensuring 'sustainable development’ in planning is too vague and requires clarity. He called for "a clause in planning policy statements that every new development must not increase global-warming emissions and should save on them".
Loss of support
There's also the Public Bodies (Reform) Bill, which promises to do the opposite to the Localism Bill - centralise power by abolishing, merging or transferring quangos back into Departments.
Cutting quangos like The Carbon Trust, The Technology Strategy Board and its Knowledge Transfer Networks, and WRAP could seriously affect low carbon delivery objectives.
This could result in the loss of support for emerging tender shoots of nascent low carbon technologies.
Renewable energy grant scheme abruptly halted
The new Government's self-professed green credentials have come under question as a key grant scheme to put renewable heating into buildings has been stopped, to save a mere £3 million.
As of 6am on Monday, May 24th, the Government stopped taking fresh applications for grants for renewable heat systems. These were available under phase 2e of the Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP).
The previous government’s intent was for the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) to take over from the LCBP. However there is now a gap of ten months before this goes live on April 1st 2011.
The LCPB's website says that "demand for grants has been unprecedented" and "we had very little unallocated funding remaining". It has therefore "been decided that by closing the programme now, these unallocated funds will contribute towards DECC’s overall savings".
The Solar Trade Association (STA) called it a "a retrogressive step" given "the relatively small budget required to support the LCBP".
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said it had to make the cut to as its part of the £6bn cuts announced by George Osbourne and the Treasury. DECC is contributing £85m to this total.
About half this figure will come from efficiencies and other savings across our central spending and that of DECC's quangos. The other half comes from cutting or slowing down planned expenditure.
The declared "unprecedented demand" indicates a healthy sector and the public's desire to install microgeneration. Many social housing providers had significant plans to install renewable technologies such as heat pumps this year under the scheme.
These and other projects will now most likely be put on hold until the RHI comes in, although its exact form has yet to be confirmed.
Therefore the STA believes the ten month gap will cause a loss of jobs in the industry just at the moment the country wants to build capacity to install hundreds of thousands of renewable heating systems each year.
They called on the Government to find a small extra element in its budget to support the LCBP until the launch of the new incentive.
Howard Johns, Chairman of the STA said “This is very bad news for the solar industry, and a very disappointing move from the new coalition who are aiming to be the greenest Government ever. Once again been undermined for short term gain. At this point we have no idea what the RHI will look like and whether we will get it at all - effectively leaving our sector in limbo, and jobs at risk.”
Scott McLean, marketing director of Ownergy, commented: "The same happened to LCBP grants for renewable electricity installations ahead of the Feed-In Tariffs going live. We don't see it as any indication that the Renewable Heat Incentive is under threat."
The LCBP grant programme has provided approximately 20,000 grants for the capital and installation costs of Microgeneration equipment of which, to date 11,000 have been for thermal technology (33% by value, 58% by number of installations). These have produced lifetime carbon savings of 300,000 tonnes of CO2.
Feed-In-Tariff for renewable electricity, introduced on 1 April 2010, mean that LCBP is no longer required for electrical microgeneration.
As of 6am on Monday, May 24th, the Government stopped taking fresh applications for grants for renewable heat systems. These were available under phase 2e of the Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP).
The previous government’s intent was for the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) to take over from the LCBP. However there is now a gap of ten months before this goes live on April 1st 2011.
The LCPB's website says that "demand for grants has been unprecedented" and "we had very little unallocated funding remaining". It has therefore "been decided that by closing the programme now, these unallocated funds will contribute towards DECC’s overall savings".
The Solar Trade Association (STA) called it a "a retrogressive step" given "the relatively small budget required to support the LCBP".
DECC's cuts
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said it had to make the cut to as its part of the £6bn cuts announced by George Osbourne and the Treasury. DECC is contributing £85m to this total.
About half this figure will come from efficiencies and other savings across our central spending and that of DECC's quangos. The other half comes from cutting or slowing down planned expenditure.
Effect on the industry
The declared "unprecedented demand" indicates a healthy sector and the public's desire to install microgeneration. Many social housing providers had significant plans to install renewable technologies such as heat pumps this year under the scheme.
These and other projects will now most likely be put on hold until the RHI comes in, although its exact form has yet to be confirmed.
Therefore the STA believes the ten month gap will cause a loss of jobs in the industry just at the moment the country wants to build capacity to install hundreds of thousands of renewable heating systems each year.
They called on the Government to find a small extra element in its budget to support the LCBP until the launch of the new incentive.
Howard Johns, Chairman of the STA said “This is very bad news for the solar industry, and a very disappointing move from the new coalition who are aiming to be the greenest Government ever. Once again been undermined for short term gain. At this point we have no idea what the RHI will look like and whether we will get it at all - effectively leaving our sector in limbo, and jobs at risk.”
Scott McLean, marketing director of Ownergy, commented: "The same happened to LCBP grants for renewable electricity installations ahead of the Feed-In Tariffs going live. We don't see it as any indication that the Renewable Heat Incentive is under threat."
The Low Carbon Buildings Programme
The LCBP grant programme has provided approximately 20,000 grants for the capital and installation costs of Microgeneration equipment of which, to date 11,000 have been for thermal technology (33% by value, 58% by number of installations). These have produced lifetime carbon savings of 300,000 tonnes of CO2.
Feed-In-Tariff for renewable electricity, introduced on 1 April 2010, mean that LCBP is no longer required for electrical microgeneration.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Green Belt campaigner and serial expenses abuser is new Defra chief
Caroline Spelman has joined the Cabinet as one of the few women members and is the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Defra.
She is MP for Meriden in the West Midlands and was once the Conservative party chairman (Jul 2007 - Jan 2009) but was removed during the expenses scandal.
During that time she was forced to apologise and pay back £9,600 of Commons allowances she 'inadvertently' misused to pay her children's nanny.
She also faced questions over her Commons expenses after pocketing £40,000 to run her Georgian mansion, claiming it was her 'second' home - allowing her to claim a small fortune of taxpayers' cash for cleaning and bills - while her husband Mark claimed it was his main home during his unsuccessful bid to become a Conservative MEP in this month's European elections.
And she overclaimed £200 for council tax which she has paid back. She said it was a 'one-off administrative oversight'.
More recently she has kept well within her expenses limit.
She also appears to have been confused about what to do with the House of Lords having voted both "strongly" against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords and "strongly" for a wholly elected House of Lords.
Previous posts she has held are:
• Shadow communities and local government secretary since Jan 2009
• Shadow secretary of state for communities and local government (Dec 2005 - Jul 2007)
• Shadow secretary of state for local and devolved government (Mar 2004 - Dec 2005)
• Opposition spokesperson, environment and shadow minister for women (Nov 2003 - Mar 2004)
• Opposition spokesperson, international development (Sep 2001 - Nov 2003).
She has also authored a book on the non-food use of agricultural products.
She has a particular interest in preserving the "green belt" and housing.
On her website she writes "Striking an appropriate balance between the sustainance of rural character and the allowance of urban growth is a particularly sensitive issue in the Meriden Constituency.
"I was elected with a pledge to try and defend the Green belt and find myself in a pitched battle with the Government's planning rules."
She has campaigned against ‘garden developments’ or ‘garden grabbing’, arguing that “Currently, gardens are not protected as ‘green space’, but are treated as ‘Brownfield land’. What is needed is clarification of the definition of ‘Brownfield Land’”.
This is something that I blogged about last week, as an area that the coalition will need to look at.
She introduced a Private Members’ Bill in Parliament at the end of 2006 which would protect these green spaces and adjust planning rules so as to take this need into consideration.
Hopefully this is something she is in a better position to see through now.
With her obvious lack of experience and questionable judgment she will need to sharpen up quickly, before she gets eaten by farmers and waste disposal engineers.
She is MP for Meriden in the West Midlands and was once the Conservative party chairman (Jul 2007 - Jan 2009) but was removed during the expenses scandal.
During that time she was forced to apologise and pay back £9,600 of Commons allowances she 'inadvertently' misused to pay her children's nanny.
She also faced questions over her Commons expenses after pocketing £40,000 to run her Georgian mansion, claiming it was her 'second' home - allowing her to claim a small fortune of taxpayers' cash for cleaning and bills - while her husband Mark claimed it was his main home during his unsuccessful bid to become a Conservative MEP in this month's European elections.
And she overclaimed £200 for council tax which she has paid back. She said it was a 'one-off administrative oversight'.
More recently she has kept well within her expenses limit.
Previous attitudes
According to They Work For You, she has voted "very strongly" for laws to stop climate change and for replacing Trident - opposing her new Liberal Democrat colleagues.She also appears to have been confused about what to do with the House of Lords having voted both "strongly" against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords and "strongly" for a wholly elected House of Lords.
Previous posts she has held are:
• Shadow communities and local government secretary since Jan 2009
• Shadow secretary of state for communities and local government (Dec 2005 - Jul 2007)
• Shadow secretary of state for local and devolved government (Mar 2004 - Dec 2005)
• Opposition spokesperson, environment and shadow minister for women (Nov 2003 - Mar 2004)
• Opposition spokesperson, international development (Sep 2001 - Nov 2003).
Why has she been chosen for Defra?
Defra says that before then Mrs Spelman had an extensive career in the agriculture sector, with fifteen years in the agriculture industry and in-depth experience of the international arena, including as deputy director of the International Confederation of European Beet Growers and a research fellow for the Centre for European Agricultural Studies.She has also authored a book on the non-food use of agricultural products.
She has a particular interest in preserving the "green belt" and housing.
On her website she writes "Striking an appropriate balance between the sustainance of rural character and the allowance of urban growth is a particularly sensitive issue in the Meriden Constituency.
"I was elected with a pledge to try and defend the Green belt and find myself in a pitched battle with the Government's planning rules."
She has campaigned against ‘garden developments’ or ‘garden grabbing’, arguing that “Currently, gardens are not protected as ‘green space’, but are treated as ‘Brownfield land’. What is needed is clarification of the definition of ‘Brownfield Land’”.
This is something that I blogged about last week, as an area that the coalition will need to look at.
She introduced a Private Members’ Bill in Parliament at the end of 2006 which would protect these green spaces and adjust planning rules so as to take this need into consideration.
Hopefully this is something she is in a better position to see through now.
With her obvious lack of experience and questionable judgment she will need to sharpen up quickly, before she gets eaten by farmers and waste disposal engineers.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
New DECC man Huhne faces tough challenges
Chris Huhne is the new Energy and Climate Change Secretary. The Liberal Democrat, 55, MP for Eastleigh in Hampshire, was latterly the party's Home Affairs shadow, and previously its environment spokesman.
Simon Hughes, who was the LibDem's Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, might be surprised at the appointment.
But according to the website They Work For You, Mr Huhne does have a better record than Mr Hughes on voting to stop climate change.
Mr Huhne is particularly interested in tax reform, which might explain his appointment.
He has in the past advocated a switch from taxing employment and labour on to resource use, pollution and carbon emissions.
Together with Vince Cable, it's possible that they may influence George Osbourne's position in the Treasury on these crucial issues.
As we enter a period of public spending cuts the new coalition Government will have little room to bankroll environmental action, but instead has an opportunity to shift the burden of taxation to both protect jobs and the environment.
But there will be other tough decisions on policy.
During the election campaign, the Conservatives said they wanted to replace the Renewable Obligation and system of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) with an extended feed-in tariff scheme.
This could mean considerable uncertainty for large-scale renewable energy projects investors, such as wind farms, which are currently being planned based on the returns they could realise through the ROC system.
Huhne will have to spell out very soon what he plans to do about this.
In addition, the Tories are for nuclear and the LibDems against.
Apparently the Tories are giving their coalition partners the option of abstaining on any Parliamentary vote on nuclear power, leaving them have to get Labour on board to secure a majority, as well as promising not to spend any public money on the technology.
This could mean that new nuclear build faces an uncertain future.
Simon Hughes, who was the LibDem's Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, might be surprised at the appointment.
But according to the website They Work For You, Mr Huhne does have a better record than Mr Hughes on voting to stop climate change.
Mr Huhne is particularly interested in tax reform, which might explain his appointment.
He has in the past advocated a switch from taxing employment and labour on to resource use, pollution and carbon emissions.
Together with Vince Cable, it's possible that they may influence George Osbourne's position in the Treasury on these crucial issues.
As we enter a period of public spending cuts the new coalition Government will have little room to bankroll environmental action, but instead has an opportunity to shift the burden of taxation to both protect jobs and the environment.
But there will be other tough decisions on policy.
During the election campaign, the Conservatives said they wanted to replace the Renewable Obligation and system of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) with an extended feed-in tariff scheme.
This could mean considerable uncertainty for large-scale renewable energy projects investors, such as wind farms, which are currently being planned based on the returns they could realise through the ROC system.
Huhne will have to spell out very soon what he plans to do about this.
In addition, the Tories are for nuclear and the LibDems against.
Apparently the Tories are giving their coalition partners the option of abstaining on any Parliamentary vote on nuclear power, leaving them have to get Labour on board to secure a majority, as well as promising not to spend any public money on the technology.
This could mean that new nuclear build faces an uncertain future.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Will a hung Parliament be good for the environment?
Now that we know there is to be a hung Parliament, the stage is set for much horse trading on environmental issues between the three main parties.
And, now that Caroline Lucas has become the first Green Party MP since Cynog Dafis won his seat in the '90s on a joint Green-Plaid Cymru ticket, it will be fascinating to see if she succeeds in raising the profile of environmental issues.
She deserves huge congratulations, as she has won this on the back of many years of dedication and hard work as a Green MEP.
On the whole, the Liberal Democrats hold the greenest of policies amongst the main three, but if, as seems likely, they attempt to forge an alliance with the Conservatives, then it will be very interesting to see how a party that is against nuclear power and for onshore wind can get on with one that opposes these policies.
Let's take one topic and see what could happen: planning and housing.
Where both Tories and LibDems agree, and differ from Labour, is in a promise to abolish regional planning, including regional spatial strategies.
Although the Liberal Democrat Policies for the Environment election document had little to say about spatial planning it did pledge to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and return planning, including housing targets to "local people", something the Tories might agree with.
A Conservative government would pay councils to release land for housing by matching pound-for-pound the council tax receipts they receive from new housing, and the LibDems could support that.
But the Tories have no target for housing on brownfield land to protect greenspace, unlike the Labour Government, which set one at 75%.
Labour promised to maintain the 60% brownfield and minimum density targets for housing in its election document A Green Future for All, and was the only main party to say it would enforce greenfield land releases, according to its Plan for Housing.
Labour also promised promise to end so-called "garden grabbing" by defining them as greenfield sites in "planning law" so they cannot be so easily built over.
The Tory document, Modern Conservatism: Our Quality of Life Agenda launched during the campaign represented a very pale green version of John Gummer's 2007 quality of life commission document which promoted a wide range of radical Smart Growth policies.
One thing seems certain: the prospect of a hung Parliament will act as a brake on the deregulatory excesses of the right that historically have not boded well for the environment - which, naturally, does not have a vote.
And, now that Caroline Lucas has become the first Green Party MP since Cynog Dafis won his seat in the '90s on a joint Green-Plaid Cymru ticket, it will be fascinating to see if she succeeds in raising the profile of environmental issues.
She deserves huge congratulations, as she has won this on the back of many years of dedication and hard work as a Green MEP.
On the whole, the Liberal Democrats hold the greenest of policies amongst the main three, but if, as seems likely, they attempt to forge an alliance with the Conservatives, then it will be very interesting to see how a party that is against nuclear power and for onshore wind can get on with one that opposes these policies.
Let's take one topic and see what could happen: planning and housing.
Where both Tories and LibDems agree, and differ from Labour, is in a promise to abolish regional planning, including regional spatial strategies.
Although the Liberal Democrat Policies for the Environment election document had little to say about spatial planning it did pledge to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and return planning, including housing targets to "local people", something the Tories might agree with.
A Conservative government would pay councils to release land for housing by matching pound-for-pound the council tax receipts they receive from new housing, and the LibDems could support that.
But the Tories have no target for housing on brownfield land to protect greenspace, unlike the Labour Government, which set one at 75%.
Labour promised to maintain the 60% brownfield and minimum density targets for housing in its election document A Green Future for All, and was the only main party to say it would enforce greenfield land releases, according to its Plan for Housing.
Labour also promised promise to end so-called "garden grabbing" by defining them as greenfield sites in "planning law" so they cannot be so easily built over.
The Tory document, Modern Conservatism: Our Quality of Life Agenda launched during the campaign represented a very pale green version of John Gummer's 2007 quality of life commission document which promoted a wide range of radical Smart Growth policies.
One thing seems certain: the prospect of a hung Parliament will act as a brake on the deregulatory excesses of the right that historically have not boded well for the environment - which, naturally, does not have a vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)