Home energy labels still on

All homes sold in England and Wales from June next year will still have to carry energy efficiency 'eco-labels,' despite the recent government backtrack on a central part of the packs.

An Energy Performance Certificate will be required for all houses sold and bought, reflecting their energy efficiency and carbon emissions. An energy efficiency assessment will precede each sale, covering heating, hot water, lighting and insulation/draughtproofing.

The labels, similar to the voluntary EU eco-label scheme (awarded in May to three British youth hostels), will place the energy efficiency of each home on a scale of A to G and give advice on how to improve.

They will form part of the "Home Information Pack" that the Department for Communities is introducing next year, even though the inclusion of a home condition report in the pack has been scrapped.

Together with smart meters and disclosure notices from electricity suppliers on the carbon content and source of the electricity supplied to a home, the measure is expected to transform people's awareness of domestic energy use, and lead to more take-up of micro-generation.

European agreements require all homes for sale in the EU to carry energy certificates from 2009. France has already introduced a compulsory eco-label for homes.

Personal carbon allowances back on the agenda

Personal carbon allowances to combat rising domestic emissions
Tradeable personal carbon allowances are now on the government agenda, says David Miliband, Environment Secretary.

This is an idea whose time has come. Much research has already been done into making it as fair as possible. You can't expect it to solve problems of inequity which already exist in the world - the rich will always be able to buy themselves a way out, and survive catastrophes better than the poor.

But properly run, the scheme would protect the fuel poor, and allow low carbon consumers to make money from the rich.

Following last year's private members' Bill by Colin Challon, the idea, which has been current for at least ten years, is gaining ground as an effective way of changing people's behaviour without being prescriptive.

Mr Miliband said he believed "there is merit in providing people with a capped number of carbon allowances, which if they chose to reduce their emissions, could then make them money by selling surplus allowances".

Carbon allowances would cover people's direct use of energy through their electricity, gas, petrol and air travel – which makes up 44 per cent of the economy's total emissions. He said such a scheme would be more fair than tax increases because personal carbon allowances provide free entitlements and only offered financial penalties for those who go above their entitlement.

Speaking yesterday at the Audit Commission's annual lecture, Mr Miliband said: ”Imagine a country where carbon becomes a new currency. We carry bank cards that store both pounds and carbon points. When we buy electricity, gas and fuel, we use our carbon points, as well as pounds. To help reduce carbon emissions, the Government would set limits on the amount of carbon that could be used.

“People on low incomes are likely to benefit as they will be able to sell their excess allowances. People on higher incomes tend to have higher carbon emissions due to higher car ownership and usage, air travel and tourism, and larger homes.

“It is more empowering than many forms of regulation because instead of banning particular products, services or activities, or taxing them heavily, a personal carbon allowance enables citizens to make trade-offs. It is also empowering because many citizens want to be able to do their bit for the environment and tackle climate change, but there is no measurable way of guiding their decisions.”

Personal carbon tradeable allowances are one of a number of ways the Government is looking to consider further how individuals can be better informed and personally involved in tackling climate change. Carbon loyalty cards, league tables, the use of carbon offsets at point of purchase for certain sectors, awareness raising through labelling and carbon calculators are all being investigated as potential long-term measures.

Brenda Boardman, of the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University, is running a feasibility study on the introduction of personal carbon allowances and trading, and would like to run a pilot scheme, perhaps on the Isle of Man. She proudly carries round a mock-up of a carbon credit card.

The success of such a scheme will ride on the amount of the overall, yearly decreasing, cap on emissions, which must be carefully fabricated and monitored. Directly linked to this is the price of the units. As we've seen with the European Carbon Trading Scheme, the wrong price results in failure to achieve the scheme's goals and discrediting of the whole scheme.

The Energy Review highlighted that the Government (Department of Communities and Local Government, Defra, Department for Trade and Industry and HM Treasury) will undertake a joint study that will look at the role of “community level” approaches to mobilising individuals, and the role of local authorities in particular in making them work effectively.

The study will draw on experience of what initiatives have and have not worked in both the environmental area and other policy areas, such as public health. In the light of this information, the study will examine what new policy options, such as tradeable personal carbon allowances, could be deployed to stimulate local action and consider their relative advantages and disadvantages.

The pilot will report back to Ministers in the first half of 2007.

> Tyndall Centre Report

Questioning Blair's assumptions on the need for nuclear power

This week Downing Street published three graphs on its web site to support Blair's case for going nuclear "with a vengeance". But what are the assumptions behind these figures?

Are they correct? Are there other possible predictions? If so, we can question Blair's conclusions on the basis that his assumptions can be changed.

Challenge 1: The 'carbon gap'

The first challenge is not up for question.


If we do not reduce our carbon emissions, by whatever means, we can only expect that the devastation predicted to come from climate change will be at the mosre severe end of the spectrum.

At the moment the trends are all going the wrong way, despite the Kyoto agreement. Something radical must be done.

Challenges 2 and 3

These two challenges are up for question.

The main way to do so, according to many commentators, is to observe that they fail to take account of policies and strategies to implement the Rational Use of Energy (RUE), which reduces demand, and makes the most of what we have.

So much energy is currently wasted.

As Peter Harper, from the Centre for Alternative Technology, comments today: "This should go in and 'orthodoxy' should concur. After that it's just a question of filling in the gaps according to our political and other prejudices.'

Peter is one of the authors of CAT's 1977 document Alternative Energy Strategy for the UK.

This was the first report of its kind and addressed concerns such as Climate Change, Peak Oil and resource depletion many years before they entered the mainstream consciousness. So he has been thinking about this stuff for a good deal longer than Tony Blair.

He continues: "The pattern I prefer is below very similar, Dave, to the one you published a couple of years ago [in Defra's own highly subversive Energy and Environmental Management magazine... Something else Blair doesn't read, no doubt.]



"This is just as plausible as the nuclear route, and in fact could incorporate a nuclear component," continues Peter. "But neither will happen if left to a deregulated market."

It's easy to see from the graph that RUE reduces the need for power, and therefore for new plant, and therefore, in principle, new nuclear build.

If we can make products, transport and homes more efficient, we need less power. If we use the power we do generate more efficiently, we need less power. If we need less power, energy bills come down, and we need to spend less on generating power.

Energy efficiency is always cheaper than buying new plant.

Whether our energy in Blair's future comes from nuclear or renewables, or clean coal, the price we pay for it is going to rocket. This is the end of cheap energy, and the beginning of higher bills for business and consumers.

What does the CBI, which applauded Blair on Monday night, think of this?

It should be thinking, that it is becoming far more cost-effective make rational use of the energy it buys and stop wasting £1.5 billion a year (Carbon Trust figure).

Rational Use of Energy (RUE)

Google currently references several pages on Rational Use of Energy (RUE) from DTI's own web site, but these links are broken, and a search on the DTI site turns up very little.

Is it a coincidence that they have suddenly disappeared?

In fact the DTI has been a partner in a pan-Europan programme to develop the Rational Use of Energy under the Fifth Framework Programme.

Nowadays RUE is generally called energy efficiency and resource efficiency. The EU has published its research on the types of policies governments can effect to promote the Rational Use of Energy. The UK Government is perfectly aware of them (somewhere).

The political will to implement the policies is the only thing lacking.

Blair is letting his government off the hook.

Instead, by choosing to put the onus on the nuclear industry and a deregulated market to find the means to address the three challenges, Blair is letting his government off the hook.

A policy solution requires an effort of strong leadership and implementation (such as Taking the choice out of sustainability).

But we know from New Labour's attempts to reform the NHS or implement big IT projects - or even meet its own climate targets - how difficult Blair finds such a government-led solution.

Is it not much easier, he surely thinks, just to pass the buck?

Surely then no one could blame him for failing to "take the tough decisons" or, even, failing - and leaving us with either a legacy of nuclear waste and a security nightmare, a horribly expensive legacy, or the devastation of climate change.

It would be someone else's fault. Dream on, Mr Blair.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

"Back on the agenda with a vengeance"

Speaking to the CBI last night, Tony Blair said he was "back on the agenda with a vengeance", and that, after a period of unpopularity, he would make another comeback to rescue British business from predicted dark days ahead.

The BBC reported, "Mr Blair's official spokesman predicted there would be "despairing shrieks of outrage" in response to the prime minister's comments".

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr Blair wasn't talking about himself was he? He was talking about nuclear power!

No prizes for guessing that what he said about it was what he has been thinking for at least 18 months.

It's just another example of how Blair is always happy to trample over the wishes of the majority in pursuit of his own convictions.

He claimed that he based his statement on having seen a 'first cut' of the Energy Review's conclusions.

But this is not actually due till July..surely a little pre-emptive? Perhaps it's really the draft he's had in his bottom drawer for the last eighteen months.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said ministers appeared to be considering changes to the planning process to overcome local resistance to new power stations. What's that about then? - if the democratic process doesn't work in your favour - change it.

BBC political correspondent Carole Walker was maybe on the ball when she said Mr Blair "is trying to distract from all the speculation there is about when he is going to go." He has to appear to be big and macho - still the alpha male - and what's more macho than nukes?

What did he actually say? Blair said "stark" facts "put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance."

If the latter two were ever off the agenda, then who's fault is that Mr Blair? You've ignored the matter for too many years and now there's real urgency.

But all those pesky details of all the different renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are too boring to get your head around - better to just make one decision - more nuclear power stations. The hell with the details.

The Low Carbon Kid says: politics and nuclear power make an explosive combination. When they are in bed together you can be sure, as wrong decisions can be taken for the right reasons, it will end in tears.

So many have told you Mr Blair that nukes - for reasons of timing, security, the long view and expense - are that wrong decision.

Listen, for once.... or leave - and turn the light off as you go.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

Revealed: bizarre Nirex plans to 'groom' political favour

The Low Carbon Kid has obtained evidence of a deliberate and secret plan by the nuclear industry to influence Parliament and public opinion.

The evidence is a document from Nirex, the nuclear waste agency funded by your and my taxes.

Its initial aim, on page 4, is 'to produce a list of MPs with an interest in radioactive waste management...which can be targeted".

This is based on an analysis of MPs and Lords' voting and speaking history since 1995, and other research.

It then fiendishly goes on to discuss other targets and how they can be 'groomed' to promote Nirex' views as the only viable ones.

Prepared by an anonymous PR consultant, the 48 page report includes a substantial section 'The Way Forward'.

This nefarious plot argues that "We have to be sure that 'opinion leaders are carefully recruited and groomed'", and someone has cleverly handwritten the word 'Careful!" at the side of this paragraph.

Hmm, obviously they weren't quite careful enough.

Target: journalists

Surprise! The target groups include journalists. Page 12 reads: "My general feeling is that journalists are manageable and must be kept on-side. It's also important to recognise that we are dealing with different 'types' of journalists".

The Low Carbon Kid wonders how much the un-named consultant who wrote his devastatingly insightful comment was paid for his specialist advice.

Target: Wales

But there's more of this cutting stuff. Wales is also considered - he writes (and this is all he says about Wales): "We must also be aware of Wales with its devolved powers in the environment field."

The WAG must be quaking in its boots.

Fatuously, it continues: they [decision makers] must be made to "realise that 'our' way is the best way forward, otherwise there can be no future development of the nuclear industry" (sic). [p. 16]

Target: CoRWM

The document is not new - it is dated 2004 - and refers to the forthcoming CoRWM report (their views were published earlier this month).

It seeks to argue that "a positive CoRWM report does not mean that government will act. They will still be facing the same problems and lobby groups that they face today."

Well, he got that right. Yes, we're not going anywhere.

So, "There will be a need to argue". Smart thinking, Batman.

Meanwhile, NIREX should bring "third party pressure to bear" on CoRWM.

As the report is now out, and we can see that CoRWM did indeed opt for burial, we must expect that the Nirex 'strategy' was implemented and is being implemented now... however poorly.

Target: everyone

The 'strategy' lists four targets:

1. Parliament and government
2. The public at large
3. Regional communities that might be affected
4. Nirex' image and reputation.

Well, that should cover everyone.

The first target groups are supposed to be "well-briefed to respond 'spontaneously' to the CoRWM report".

Spontaneous planning, eh? Kind of like a "Well-planned spontaneous riot".

Our ever resourceful consultant then lists organisations who can be encouraged to influence the public. These are:

- BGS
- Geological Society
- ESEF (Emgland and Wales)
- universities
- and, er, others.

Not a very good list then.

The report then lists all the MPs to be targeted (including Jeremy Corbyn - good luck, guys!)

The last 12 pages include a 5 page action plan of who to target, and how.

On this evidence we're not quaking in our boots either. It's hardly surprising that Nirex shuld be doing this, although, as a public body, it's highly questionable that they should be spending our taxes on this sort of nonsense. No, they should employ a consultant who knows what he's doing (not).

>> Read the Nirex document [PDF 517kB]

Technorati Tags: Energy; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill passes third reading

The important Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill has this afternoon passd its third reading in the House of Commons.

The Low Carbon Kid applauds all the effort which has gone into making this happen, including much grass-roots lobbying, and the work of backbench MPs, all trying to push ministers into doing what they should have done anyway if they really wanted to walk their talk about climate change.

It's great to get some good news from Westminster for once.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

David Miliband's blog site

Our new environment secrtary, a mere stripling at 42, has a blog site.

This should make it easy for friends of the Low Carbon Kid and others to let the minister know what they think the government should be up to!

The Low Carbon Kid has started the ball rolling here, sand there's a new link on the right.

Miliband chose a Prius as his Ministerial car and takes the train to his South Shields constituency.

The latest issue of Which? magazine says the Toyota Prius 1.5 VVTi T-Spirit Hybrid is the greenest petrol car available in the UK, emitting less CO2 than even the cleanest diesel supermini.

A hybrid family car that uses both a petrol engine and an electric motor, the Prius cuts CO2 emissions by 44 percent versus a similarly sized 1.8-litre Toyota Avensis auto.

It saves money too. In an independent trial the Prius averaged 45 to 50 miles per gallon.

However potential buyers may baulk at the price - 20,270 pounds.

It remains to be seen if Miliband will bite the bullet on the really tough issues like transport, waste and energy efficiency by getting the Treasury on board. It's they who need to take the cost out of going green.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange;

'Optimism gone mad' on nuclear waste

The UK has still not developed a plan for disposing of its nuclear waste, says New Scientist magazine. So the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, cannot go ahead with a new nuclear power programme claiming that it has.

An editorial in the 6 May edition of New Scientist argues that draft recommendations from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), revealed last month, do not provide a solution to the problem of what to do with the waste produced by 50 years of nuclear power and weapons.

CoRWM has said that disposal deep underground is the "best available" long term solution for the waste, some of which remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.

But it has not expressed any preference for the type of geology in which a repository should be built.

Nor has the committee been able to say whether the waste should be retrievable or not.

"The committee is split," says New Scientist, "with some members arguing that retrievability would benefit future generations and others saying it would burden them."

Blair has said that new reactors cannot be built until there is a plan for disposing of radioactive waste, the editorial points out.

"Some advocates of nuclear power will doubtless argue that CoRWM has now provided that plan. This is optimism gone mad," it concludes.

"Deciding to put waste down a hole, with no idea what form the repository should take or where it should be, is no more of a plan than has existed for the past 30 years."

From Rob Edwards

Technorati Tags: Energy; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

Scottish and Southern Electricity's RSPB Energy cock-up part 2

Energywatch and RSPB have now responded rapidly to the Low Carbon Kid's complaint about Southern Electricity yesterday. The customer call centre operator who I spoke to yesterday was wrong to say SSE supplies 90% of renewable electricity.

The true amount is 7.5%.

See their SSE Fuel Mix Disclosure Table lst updated 5 days ago (search for 'fuel mix' and scroll to the bottom of the results).

If a tariff is advertised as 100% renewable, this usually means that for every unit of energy you use, the supplier should ensure that an equal amount of energy from renewable sources is brought onto the grid.

They have not done this, and I have asked them to assure me that they'll make it up. The call centre manager blamed the mistake on "human error".

Energywatch says "There are no set guidelines for compensation in such a case. In the circumstances it would be reasonable to expect that both you and the RSPB receive whichever benefits would have been provided over the time of the contract you have agreed with them." I have told RSPB what has happened.

Energywatch continues: "In 2006-07, Energywatch is looking to deliver powerful evidence that, with the right information and motivation, consumers can make a major contribution to carbon reduction targets through their own usage.

"We are also arguing for the establishment of a reliable accreditation scheme for Green Tariffs to ensure consumers can transfer to them with confidence in their enviromental credentials.

"If you have raised a complaint against SSE and remain unsatisfied with their response, we may be able to assist more directly. If you need us to intervene, or investigate, on your behalf, you will need to call us on 08459 060708 or complete the complaint form on our website."

I hope others who think they're on a green tarriff will perform a similar check.

RSPB's attitude

RSPB Energy's Neil Barton has also ben quick to respond.

He says: "Had you been successfully transferred your metered usage of electricity would have been matched by 100% renewable generation - largely hydro, but including 10% of other sources like wind power and biomass. The more customers we are able to attract to the scheme, the greater the renewable capacity needed to supply them.

"In addition to the 100% renewable supply, the monies generated for the RSPB by the scheme are used by the RSPB and SSE in very specific ways:

1. To buy land to offset the predicted damaging impacts of climate change and sea level rise

2. to establish small scale renewable capacity on RSPB sites (to reduce our own emissions but also to raise the profile of the issue to visitors) and,

3. through the retiral of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) at a rate of 10%, to encourage the development of new renewable capacity.

The latter is complex, but in essence means that for every 10 RSPB Energy customers enough renewable electricity is generated for an additional average household.

Scottish and Southern

SSE is the UK's largest renewable generator and has an 8 year programme of investment on renewable generation of £850m.

This investment will see renewable generation grow to 2000MW by 2008.

Over 600MW of this will have been installed since the start of the Renewables Obligation (April 2002).

By 2008, over 50% of SSE's renewables generation will qualify for ROCs.

RSPB Energy's Neil Barton says "My understanding is that currently roughly 15% of SSE's total generation capacity of 10,000MW comes from renewable sources". By SSE's fuel mix disclosure he seems to be wrong by 200%.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Environment; ClimateChange;

Watch out for RSPB Energy

The Low Carbon Kid has just found out he's been deceived by Scottish and Southern Electricity utility company for the last six years. All this time he had ben told he was on a green electricity tarriff when he was not.

Furthermore the tarriff is not even 100% green.

SSE says on their web site: "At Scottish and Southern Energy we care about the environment and have become the UK’s largest generator of renewables.... Electricity from RSPB Energy is produced from renewable sources, including hydro-power and wind power, which do not create harmful emissions. The electricity is matched to output from renewable sources fed into the network."

It says also that RSPB will get £10 when you sign up for the tarriff plus £5 for each year thereafter.

This double benefit, plus the price - no different from 'brown' electricity - is why we joined the scheme in February 2000.

But now we find that due to a bureaucratic error, we haven't been on the scheme after all, even though leaflets etc. were sent when we signed up for the domestic account confirming we had done so. What alerted me to check was that there was no mention of the green tarriff on my bill.

All this time we thought we were getting green electricity from the Scottish hydro plants - and we weren't. Also, that RSPB was receiving donations of £10 when we switched our electricity supply plus £5 for each additional year since, as the web site claimed.

The call centre operator has apologised and said SSE will recompense RSPB.

However during the conversation she also said there's no difference between the electricity supplied by RSPB Energy and normal SE electricity. It is all 90% renewable due to the hydro plants the company owns.

This account of the mix is not true and I am going to investigate what the supply mix actually is. Meanwhile the RSPB Energy web page clearly gives the impression that all the electricity supplied under the tarriff is green.

If you buy RSPB Energy, you're advised to check yourself that you're really getting what you think you're paying for.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange;

Government should take the choice out of sustainability

Social Forum Wales 2006 took place in Aberystwyth over the weekend with lots of workshops, seminars and films and music. In the workshop on climate change the Low Carbon Kid asked the panel what they thought it would take to provide a tipping point for behaviour change so that the whole country takes the real measures necessary to combat climate change?

Two answers were forthcoming: either strong leadership from government or a series of crises such as floods, power cuts, high energy prices.

This conclusion is echoed in the new report from the sustainable consumption roundtable which says that government must make it a lot easier for individuals to take the action they need to take. At the moment it is just too confusing and too difficult and most people can't be bothered or remain ignorant.

It's ridiculous to expect people to work out the life cycle analysis of a range of washing machines before choosing one, the ecological footprint of a computer, or to know if a shoe manufacturer exploits children in Thailand, or to find out how to carbon neutralise their holiday.

It should be done for them!

According to the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, consumers need to be able to buy green products and services as second nature. Government and business must take radical action to help people tackle climate change and environmental problems, and get damaging products out of the shops.

As they say, "To see real improvements, the deadlock must be broken."

“The Government has got to stop relying on information leaflets and hoping for the best - and start working with businesses and NGOs to get practical measures into people’s lives.” - Alan Knight, co-chair of the Roundtable

According to the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable report – I will if you will – Government should:

• Unite with business to get the most damaging products out of the shops, and replace them with environmental products, e.g.
- TV and set-top boxes which use massively less power when on standby
- Affordable hybrid cars
- Alternative fish species to Britain’s much-loved, but hugely over-fished, cod

• Give consumers up-to-date energy information, so they can manage their energy use, by getting smart meters into every home by 2012

• Take the lead and make all schools and hospitals carbon-neutral by 2015

• Automatically give travellers the option to carbon offset their flights, to demonstrate the environmental impact of flying

• Develop a working economic model to track the links between national income, consumption growth and resources, by 2008.

So it's either this - or more crisis management?

Probably the latter. The response from Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett to the report was merely to "promise the government would take a lead in helping consumers make choices which are more sustainable".

This is simply an abnegation of responsibility. Government should lead. It's instead confused by its oft-repeated mantra of choice.

Too often we hear about 'empowering choice' when all we actually want are decent services everywhere - like schools, healthcare etc.

In this case, we don't want choice either - we want sustainability built into everything, so we don't even have to trouble our little heads with it, and the Low Carbon Kid can give up writing this column and go and do something fun.

That's what I'd choose.

Full Report of the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable

» I will if you will - Towards sustainable consumption

Summary Booklet

» I will if you will - A summary

» Full press release.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Environment; ClimateChange;

UK nuclear accident fallout map

The map showing what would happen if there was an accident at a UK nuclear power station of the Chernobyl scale has been updated.

We know it's a terribly irresponsible thing to suggest this is possible. But someone has to do it.

You can click on a site and see the extent of the fallout over the UK. It works quite well; it's just that you can't rotate the fallout depending on wind direction.

>> www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk

Technorati Tags: Energy; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

Nuclear Waste Sites Vulnerable to Attack

group of senior nuclear security experts have warned about the danger of a massive release of radiation form Britain’s nuclear waste sites, saying that they are vulnerable to attack and the storage arrangements are unacceptable.

The warning is in a report presented to the government appointed Committee on Radioactive Waste Management which is due to make recommendations about the future of Britain’s nuclear waste in July.

According to the BBC, signatories to the report include:

• Dr Gordon Thompson of US Institute for Resource and Security Studies
• OFNS Office for Civil Nuclear Security, linked to the UK intelligence services
• BNFL British Nuclear Fuels
• Nuclear physicist Professor Frank Barnaby

One such vulnerable site is Facility B215 at Sellafield in Cumbria, with 21 tanks of high level radioactive waste, containing 88x the amount of Caesium 137 released in the Chernobyl disaster.

In an interview for the World at One programme, Dr Gordon Thompson of US Institute for Resource and Security Studies said, “The amounts of radioactive material that we’re talking about are at a magnitude where they represent a strategic threat to the UK and to surrounding countries. By releasing large amounts of radioactive material attackers could render large land areas uninhabitable for periods of decades or longer and could wreak great economic and psychological damage."

Regarding the probability of a 9/11 style attack he added, “It is more likely that an attacker would use a smaller aircraft equipped with explosives, because that can be precision targeted and will produce a more focused form of damage. An attack of that nature could with high probability penetrate the tanks and damage the cooling systems associated with them.”

Signatory nuclear physicist Frank Barnaby, consultant to Oxford Research Group, said, “These are obvious targets for a terrorist group. They are unacceptably vulnerable. A successful terrorist attack on the high level waste tanks could result worldwide in about 210 000 fatal cancers per tank.”

There was no comment from BNFL or OFNS.

Bob Jones, head of operations at Sellafield tried to reassure us with a description of the precautions curently in place: “We have a number of different layers of security… which involve people and also involve planned design.”

To this, Patrick Mercer (Shadow Security minister for Homeland Security) added: “In my visits to Sellafield I have been very impressed by their forethought and their way that they’ve tried to design, as far as they can, the siting of the tanks to make it difficult to attack. It would be impossible of course to make it completely proof. But, as we’ve heard in the report, there is no government programme which is designed to deal with this.”

Vitrification, converting to a form of glass, is the main route to stabilising the liquid waste, but this is not due to be completed until 2020.

Feeling reassured?

Technorati Tags: Energy; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

Biomass renewable heat - the way ahead is still slow and tortured

A new 5 year capital grant scheme for biomass boilers, with funding of £10 - £15 million over the first two years and a second round of the Bio-energy Infrastructure Scheme, with funding at, or close to the level, proposed by the Task Force is part of the Government's Response to the Biomass Task Force Report announced today by Defra.

The Task Force's recommendation that the Government should not pursue a renewable heat obligation which was attacked by many groups, will be considered further and the evidence reviewed.

Other features include:

• Agreement in principle to support for energy crops under the new Rural Development Programme for England to be introduced in 2007, closely integrated with bioenergy market development
• Announcement of the Forestry Commission's new Biomass Energy Centre as a major new hub for bioenergy advice and best practice for industry and the public
• Further measures to integrate environmental assessment in the planning of energy crop development
• Government leadership through public procurement, including the commitment to map the potential use of biomass across the main procuring departments of the Government estate
• Working with Regional Development Agencies and other organisations to ensure effective, coordinated mechanisms for delivery of policy and advice
• Action already taken to improve the Renewables Obligation
• Use of the planning system to stimulate renewables development, including our support for planning authorities applying a minimum percentage of renewable energy in new developments
• Action to address regulatory barriers identified by the Task Force and to develop standards to improve efficacy and confidence in biomass
• Support for the EU Biomass Action Plan and agreement on UK membership of the Global Bioenergy Partnership from its launch in May 2006.
• The introduction of new Building Regulations, from April 2006, with new procedures and tougher standards which will encourage the use of Low or Zero Carbon (LZC) systems, such as biomass

The Renewable Energy Association calls the proposals a missed opportunity.

Graham Meeks, Head of Heat at the REA, said: "Eighteen months after the Government launched the Biomass Task Force we are still waiting for new measures to drive real growth in the market for renewable heat supplies. The opportunity to deliver real progress in tackling climate change, lift households out of fuel poverty and create sustainable jobs in the rural economy is still being squandered.”

Graham Meeks called on the Government to move quickly to implement an overarching policy that directly rewards the environmental, security and social benefits of supplying heat from renewable sources.

"Biomass can meet 7% of UK demand for heat, reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels, and cut CO2 emissions by over 20 million tonnes each year.

"The Government has used obligations on suppliers to stimulate demand in the renewable electricity and transport fuels markets. So it seems bizarre that we are still waiting for the same level of incentive for heat.

"The measures outlined today, including a new capital grant programme, will certainly help the biomass industry. But they will have only a limited impact in delivering the sustained, long-term industry growth Government should be looking for."

>> The Strategy

>> The Biomass Task Force report

Barrages, lagoons, or marine current turbines?

A Severn barrage is proposed by the Welsh Assembly to generate 6% of our electricity. But conservationists argue that a lagoon is better.

Today's You and Yours on BBC R4 exmained the pros and cons, with a debate between greens, WAG's Andrew Davies and renewables academic Dave Elliot of the OU, who argued for marine current turbines.

Listen to it here. Scroll to half way along the programme.

Speakers suggested that lagoons are less well tested than barrages, ie an unknown quantity, and would require public money (not true according to Tidal Electric).

Also that the tidal barrage at La Rance in France has actually increased biodiversity.

The RSPB says it's the wrong sort of biodiversity (not what is there now). And that the £15bn (private finance all according to Taylor Woodrow's consortium) would be better spent on many more smaller projects.

Davies says that global warming will alter the biodiversity anyway.

Dave Elliott, who has been writing for 30 years on renewable energy, says that marine current turbines are cheaper than either of these options.

"15% of UK electricity could be obtained from these, built on the sea bed, and each could be built in a matter of weeks as the money became available." We should do this first he says, and the barrage, maybe, later.

Elliott says that the barrage could produce electricity at the wrong times sometimes. But this could be stored in fuel cells/hydrogen.

The barrage project now heads for evaluation, over at Westminster.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange;

CoRWM says bury the nuclear waste

Do you live in any of these places? A nuclear waste dump could be coming to you, acording to the draft report of CoRWM published today.

• Adjacent to Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex
• Ministry of Defence land on Potton Island, 8 km from Southend on Sea. Essex
• Under the North Sea, accessed from the port at Redcar, Yorkshire
• Under the sea between the Inner Hebrides and Northern Ireland, accessed from the port at Hunterston in North Ayrshire
• Killingholme, South Humberside
• Ministry of Defence training area, Stanford, Norfolk
• Adjacent to Dounreay nuclear plant in Caithness
• Two sites near the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria
• Altnabreac in Caithness 18 km south of Dounreay
• Fuday, small, uninhabited island north of Barra in the Western Isles
• Sandray, small, uninhabited island south of Barra in the Western Isles

Hmm. How come Westminster isn't on the list?
After years of shilly-shallying, is deep storage the best they can do? Yes. Which just goes to show how dumb it would be to create more of the stuff.

Listening to the report being announced, it was clear from the tone of voice of CoRWM Chairman Gordon MacKerron on BBC's World At One, that he is deeply reluctant about any of the options, and realises full well that any community earmarked for the endeavour will rise up in opposition.

Although he said 'no comment' to a query on his thoughts on waste transport and new nuclear build, because he doesn't want to be drawn into that minefield, again, his tone suggested anyone would be mad to create more of this nightmarish stuff.

CoRWM has said that if Britain builds 10 new reactors this would produce an extra 31,900 cubic metres of spent fuel, on top of the 8,150 cubic metres currently stored. The implication being that there's simply no room for it.

A month ago, travelling on the M54 at night, the Low Carbon Kid passed a nuclear waste convoy. Five specially built vehicles were trundling over two lanes down the road. Only one was carrying the waste.

Are these costs and safety issues built into these expensive reports or industry lobbying documents? The Low Carbon Kid would love to see any evidence of this.

Greens say that any method eventually found to manage a legacy of radioactive waste for thousands of years would require it to be retrievable and monitorable. And that deep storage underground is an 'out of sight out of mind' method of dealing with the legacy and reinforces the extent of the problem we have created for future generations.

Green MSP Baird has said today: "The nuclear industry claims that new nuclear power stations will only add 10% to our current problem. This is a dishonest claim and I am pleased that CORWM clarify this on their website that it will in fact add over 300% to the high level waste mountain."

>> CoRWM’s package of draft recommendations for the long-term management of the UK's radioactive waste


>> CoRWM’s Radioactive Waste and Materials Inventory

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

Europe's largest windfarm gets go-ahead

The go ahead for Europe’s largest wind farm has been announced today by Allan Wilson MSP, Deputy Minister for Enterprise & Lifelong Learning at the Scottish Executive

ScottishPower's application for the Whitelee wind farm project, south of Glasgow, has been given planning consent.

It will have a capacity to generate 322 megawatts (MW) of electricity, enough to power nearly every home in Glasgow.

It will provide over 11% of the 2010 Scottish Executive’s renewable energy target (18% of all electricity generation in Scotland), and 2.4% of the UK wide target for 10% of electricity generation from renewables by 2010.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Environment; ClimateChange;

WHO are they kidding?

The World Health Organisation's estimate of the number of people dying as a result of the Chernobyl tragedy is laughable. But I'm not laughing.

WHO's report says a total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure. Official UN figures predict up to 9,000 Chernobyl-related cancer deaths.

Dr Michael Repacholi, Manager of WHO's Radiation Program has said there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."

Greenpeace responded on Tuesday quoting recent studies estimating the actual toll will be 93,000. Other illnesses could take the toll to 200,000.

Part of the problem is that a comprehensive plan to dispose of tons of high-level radioactive waste at and around the Chernobyl NPP site, in accordance with current safety standards, has yet to be defined - so who knows what terrors lie in the future? £1.2bn is the current estimated cost of a new sarcophagus to cover it.

But also it depends whether you take account of just direct, or indirect causes. Furthermore tens of thousands have suffered health problems which don't result in death but which are still significant.

Green MSP Mark Ruskell speaking in a parliament debate today on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, said that it was unlikely that the precise death toll would ever be finally known and dismissed claims made by pro-nuclear campaigners that the public health damage from Chernobyl had been overstated.

In April this year, in a report for the Green group in the European Parliament, independent radiation scientists from the UK said that the death toll from cancers caused by Chernobyl will lie somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000.

"Chernobyl serves as a reminder of our obligation and responsibility to future generations to deliver safe, clean, sustainable energy supplies for the future," he said.

"In a country with among the world's best renewable energy resources it is unbelievable that we should be taking such a gamble when we have completely safe alternatives."

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;

Is it all over for nuclear power?

The Features Editor, Michael Brooks, of the prestigious New Scientist magazine seems to think so, in an article in the current issue.

He quotes a January Standard & Poors report saying that even the new incentives for the US nuclear industry will not be enough to persuade investors to climb aboard; from a business perspective, nuclear remains the highest-risk form of power generation.

He criticises the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) at Olkiluoto, Finland, the only nuclear power station presently under construction in Europe. A relatively new design of pressurised water reactor, the EPR is being built jointly by the French nuclear company Areva and the German company Siemens, and is being financed at extremely low rates of interest by French and German state-owned organisations.

The scheme is being investigated by the European Commission, following a complaint by the European Renewable Energies Federation that the financing breaches the commission's rules.

If the complaint is upheld, it will be a serious blow to the nuclear industry, which likes to point to Olkiluoto as evidence of the
viability of new nuclear stations.

Additionally, the company the plant is being built for, called TVO, is not a conventional electricity utility, but a company owned by large Finnish industrial concerns that supplies electricity to its owners on a not-for-profit basis. The sums wouldn't add up for any other project.

Brooks concludes "Nuclear power continues to prompt concerns based on safety issues, regulatory problems and the danger that it encourages proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons. Now it also faces a bigger hurdle: there are better economic options that are no less climate-friendly."

>> Read the full article as a PDF

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear

The dirty energy boom fueling Europe

A new online map of energy projects in South-east Europe, put together by Stability Pact Watch, shows how the region is being turned into a fossil fuel transit corridor and a source of dirty energy for the European Union.

Current and planned fossil fuel and nuclear projects total at least $18 billion, dwarfing the roughly $253 million required for current and planned IFI-supported renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

And this is despite the desperate need for improved energy efficiency across the region and its massive potential for the development of renewables.

Key regional players such as the World Bank and the EBRD say they have recognised the importance of developing energy efficiency and renewable energy in the region, but so far the evidence on the ground is desperately thin.

The EBRD was behind the dubious funding of the new Chernobyl reactors (see previous blog item).

See the extent of the Balkan energy carve-up click here.

Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;