Grid connection and intermittency of renewable energy

It's still said that when the wind doesn't blow you need other sources of power, so wind farms are really a waste of money.

This topic - grid integration of renewables and variability - has been extensively investigated.

One conclusion - from the UK Government report quoted below - is: "For penetrations of intermittent renewables up to 20% of electricity supply, additional system balancing reserves due to short term (hourly) fluctuations in wind generation amount to about 5-10% of installed wind capacity."

Peter Freere, formerly an engineering professor at Monash University in Australia says:

"It is correct that in normal electric grids (without energy storage - eg pumped storage, charging electric cars, etc.), a single wind farm would not work well on its own and some conventional energy sources are also required.

"The same applies to the conventional energy sources, especially nuclear, whose response time is so slow that they must have a fast responding generation system in parallel.

"It is also true that due to the large sizes of modern generators in conventional systems (eg. 500 MW per generator), to allow for maintenance and breakdowns, it is necessary to have a complete spare generator ready to take over when another stops working (for whatever reason)."

"Hence the risk with wind farms is not so great - no more than many conventional systems."

The largest study on grid integration was done in Germany by DENA. The gist is that investment in the grid will be necessary to integrate the new renewable generation needed meet the German target of 20% of supply from renewable energy by 2020. The investment required is less expensive than additional grid expansion if new central-station plants are built, and this investment will result in making the grid more stable with or without the renewable generation.

A March 2006 UK Energy Research Centre report analysed the results of 200 studies on the grid integration of intermittent renewables. The following are excerpts from the summary of The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency: An assessment of the evidence on the costs and impacts of intermittent generation on the British electricity network. Below are its conclusions:

• It is sometimes said that wind energy, for example, does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions because the intermittent nature of its output means it needs to be backed up by fossil fuel plant. Wind turbines do not displace fossil generating capacity on a one-for-one basis. But it is unambiguously the case that wind energy can displace fossil fuel-based generation, reducing both fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions.


• Wind generation does mean that the output of fossil fuel-plant needs to be adjusted more frequently, to cope with fluctuations in output. Some power stations will be operated below their maximum output to facilitate this, and extra system balancing reserves will be needed. Efficiency may be reduced as a result. At high penetrations (above 20%) energy may need to be 'spilled' because the electricity system cannot always make use of it. (However it is hoped that in the future elecric cars will be charged sing this energy.) But overall these effects are much smaller than the savings in fuel and emissions that renewables can deliver at the levels of penetration examined in this report.


• None of the 200+ studies reviewed suggest that introducing significant levels of intermittent renewable energy generation on to the British electricity system must lead to reduced reliability of electricity supply2. Many of the studies consider intermittent generation of up to 20% of electricity demand, some considerably more. It is clear that intermittent generation need not compromise electricity system reliability at any level of penetration foreseeable in Britain over the next 20 years, although it may increase costs. In the longer term much larger penetrations may also be feasible given appropriate changes to electricity networks.


• The introduction of significant amounts of intermittent generation will affect the way the electricity system operates. There are two main categories of impact and associated cost. The first, so called system balancing impacts, relates to the relatively rapid short term adjustments needed to manage fluctuations over the time period from minutes to hours. The second, which is termed here 'reliability impacts', relates to the extent to which we can be confident that sufficient generation will be available to meet peak demands. No electricity system can be 100% reliable, since there will always be a small chance of major failures in power stations or transmission lines when demands are high. Intermittent generation introduces additional uncertainties, and the effect of these can be quantified.


• System balancing entails costs which are passed on to electricity consumers. Intermittent generation adds to these costs. For penetrations of intermittent renewables up to 20% of electricity supply, additional system balancing reserves due to short term (hourly) fluctuations in wind generation amount to about
  5-10% of installed wind capacity. Globally, most studies estimate that the associated costs are less than £5/MWh ($0.0087/kWh) of intermittent output, in some cases substantially less. The range in UK relevant studies is £2 - £3/MWh ($0.0035-$0.0052/kWh).


• Unless there is a large amount of responsive or controllable demand, a system margin is needed to cope with unavailability of installed generation and fluctuations in electricity requirements (e.g. due to the weather). Conventional plant - coal, gas, nuclear - cannot be completely relied upon to generate electricity at times of peak demand as there is, very approximately, a one-in-ten chance that unexpected failures (or "forced outages") in power plant or electricity transmission networks will cause any individualconventional generating unit not to be available to generate power. Even with a system margin, there is no absolute guarantee in any electricity system that all demands can be met at all times.


• Intermittent generation increases the size of the system margin required to maintain a given level of reliability. This is because the variability in output of intermittent generators means they are less likely to be generating at full power at times of peak demand. The system margin needed to achieve a desired level of reliability depends on many complex factors but may be explored by statistical calculations or simplified models. Intermittent generation introduces new factors into the calculations and changes some of the numbers, but it does not change the fundamental principles on which such calculations are based.


• Intermittent generators can make a contribution to system reliability, provided there is some probability of output during peak periods. They may be generating power when conventional stations experience forced outages and their output may be independent of fluctuations in energy demand. These factors can be taken into account when the relationship between system margin and reliability is calculated using statistical principles.
  


• Capacity credit is a measure of the contribution that intermittent generation can make to reliability. It is usually expressed as a percentage of the installed capacity of the intermittent generators. There is a range of estimates for capacity credits in the literature and the reasons for there being a range are well understood. The range of findings relevant to British conditions is approximately 20 - 30% of installed capacity when up to 20% of electricity is sourced from intermittent supplies (usually assumed to be wind power). Capacity credit as a percentage of installed intermittent capacity declines as the share of electricity supplied by intermittent sources increases.


• The capacity credit for intermittent generation, the additional conventional capacity required to maintain a given level of reliability and thus the overall system margin are all related to each other. The smaller the capacity credit, the more capacity needed to maintain reliability, hence the larger the system margin. The amount by which the system margin must rise in order to maintain reliability has been described in some studies as "standby capacity","back-up capacity" or the "system reserves". But there is no need to provide dedicated "back-up" capacity to support individual generators. [Emphasis added] These terms have meaning only at the system level.


• This assumes around 20% of electricity is supplied by well dispersed wind power. Current costs are much lower; indeed there is little or no impact on reliability at existing levels of wind power penetration. The cost of maintaining reliability will increase as the market share of intermittent generation rises.


• The aggregate 'costs of intermittency' are made up of additional short-run balancing costs and the additional longer term costs associated with maintaining reliability via an adequate system margin. Intermittency costs in Britain are of the order of £5 to £8/MWh ($0.0087-$0.0139/kWh), made up of £2 to £3/MWh from shortrun balancing costs and £3 to £5/MWh from the cost of maintaining a higher system margin. For comparison, the direct costs of wind generation would typically be approximately £30 to £55/MWh ($0.052-$0.0958). If shared between all consumers the impact of intermittency on electricity prices would be of the order 0.1to 0.15 p/kWh ($0.0017-$0.0026/kWh).

Below are a few links to other reports on grid integration of renewables.

• Managing Variability: A report to WWF-UK, RSPB, Greenpeace UK and Friends of the Earth EWNI by David Milborrow, June, 2009


• Impact of Intermittency: How Wind Variability Could Change the Share of the British and Irish Electricity Markets July, 2009
  


• Design and Operation of Power Systems with Large Amounts of Wind Power, IEA Wind Task 25, 2007


• Supplying Baseload Power and Reducing Transmission Requirements by
  Interconnecting Wind Farms, Cristina Archer, Mark Jacobson, Stanford, 2007


• Midwest Wind Integration Study


• Wind Penetration Update Denmark 2007


• Wind Penetration Update 2006


• Wind Power in Power Systems by Thomas Ackermann


• The Costs and Impacts
  of Intermittency: An assessment of the evidence on the costs and impacts of
  intermittent generation on the British electricity network by the the UK Energy Research Centre’s Technology and Policy Assessment function, March, 2006.
  


• Summary of the Essential Results of the Study, Planning of the Grid Integration of Wind Energy in Germany Onshore and Offshore up to the Year 2020 (Dena Grid study), by the Project Steering Group, Deutsche Energie-Agentur, Berlin, 2005.


• Large Scale Integration of Wind Energy in the European Power Supply: analysis, issues, and recommendations, EWEA, Brussels, 2005.


• An Analysis of the Impacts of Large-Scale Wind Generation on the Ontario Electricity System, CanWEA, AWS TrueWind, 2005.


• California Renewables Portfolio Standard Renewable Generation Integration Cost Analysis Phase III: Recommendations For Implementation, Publication Number: 500-04-054, 2004


• The Costs of Wind's Variability: Is There a Threshold?, Joseph F. DeCarolis and David W. Keith, January/February 2005.


• The Economics and Environmental Impacts of Large-Scale Wind Power in a
  Carbon Constrained World, by Joseph Frank DeCarolis (PhD dissertation), Carnegie Mellon, 2004


• The Economics of Wind Power with Energy Storage, Liliana E. Dragulescu, Pablo C. Benítez and G. Cornelis van Kooten, Resource and Environmental economics and Policy Analysis (REPA) Research Group Department of Economics University of Victoria, January 2006.


• Renewable Electricity and the Grid, The Challenge of Variability, edited by Godfrey Boyle, Earthscan, September 2007

The cost-effectiveness of low or zero carbon energy generation

This update is following from my previous blog and George Monbiot's attack on feed-in tarriffs and responses to it.

Reliable independent figures on cost-effectiveness of low or zero carbon energy generation based on real monitored examples are yet few, and I'm trying to collate them, because this kind of evidence is what we need to help determine policy.

Crucially, page 37 of the 2009 impact assessment of the Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP) (which places an obligation on energy suppliers and electricity generators to meet a CO2 reduction target) ranks the effectiveness of non-large-scale generation measures in kgCO2 per pound sterling spent as follows:

1 Existing community heat to CHP 88 (kg CO2 score per £ spent)
2 Electric to community CHP 39
3 Wood pellet boilers (primary) 24
4 Micro Hydro (0.7kWp, 50% LF) 16
5 Ground source heat pumps 14
6 Air source heat pump 13
7 MiniCHP (revised) 9
8 Mini-wind 5 kW, 20% LF 4
9 Solar Water Heater (4m2) 4
10 Photovoltaic panels (2.5 kWp) 3
11 Micro Wind (1 kWp, 1% LF) 0

From this it is quite glaringly obvious that for both heat and power the community scale is by far the most efficient level for interventions. Right at the bottom are the single-dwelling only solutions (I dispute the figures for wood pellet boilers since data on their carbon content is disputed) except where hydro is available (not many places).

The Electricity and Gas (Carbon Emissions Reduction) Order 2008 (CERT) looked into the cost and carbon reduction effectiveness of various measures. The document Explanatory Memorandum To The Electricity And Gas (Carbon Emissions Reduction) Order 2008 contains a further Evidence Base.

In this community CHP with woodchips comes out at nine times more cost-effective in ££ per tonne of carbon saved than solar water heating and about the same as ground source heat pumps.

The figures are (- with suppliers’ cost to save one tonne C02 (£/tC02) for the Priority Group):
1 Community heating with wood chip 3
2 Ground source heat pumps 42
3 Wood chip CHP 49
4 Wood pellet boilers (primary) 58
5 Micro Hydro (0.7kWp, 50% LF) 60
6 Log burning stoves 110
7 Mini-wind 5 kW, 20% LF 125
8 Wood pellet stoves (secondary) 126
9 mCHP 176
10 Photovoltaic panels (2.5 kWp) 218
11 Solar Water Heater (4m2) 346
12 Micro Wind (1 kWp, 10% LF) 685
13 Community ground source heat pumps 697

The above underscores that renewable energies are frequently site-dependent and sensitive to economies of scale, because you have to cost the whole system.

Only 2% of UK homes can have a small wind turbine. This Energy Saving Trust report suggests the best sites and how to pick them.

Solar electricity

In my previous blog I link to actual surveys of real PV installations and the figures show that they do not generate sufficient power in the UK when we need it for the reason that there is not enough sunshine in the winter - unless you have a huge array, which is currently very expensive.

If PVs could become as cheap as a low-e coated window unit, with spray-on or printed nano-scale circuitry or similar it might be worthwhile. This is a technological advance not a deployment advance. They would also need to capture a greater range of frequencies of light.

I would suggest that the standard for measuring and marketing the rated output of a panel or a system is changed to make it more realistic and easier for buyers to understand. As discussed in the blog above, the test conditions are way different from European field conditions and led to unreal expectations, or to potential obfuscation by the industry/ unscrupulous installation companies.

Conclusion

All of this suggests that while renewable heat can work on a community level, only CHP can universally provide electricity, whatever the power source, and then not that much in relation to demand since there is a limit to the available waste, waste heat and biomass.

Therefore we have to conclude that for renewable electricity generation larger scale wind and marine power are what is required at a massive scale. Of these, only wind is currently cost-effective and that is why it is being aggressively pursued offshore and onshore.

Does PV - solar electricity - work in the UK?

The Government's Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) programme - energy cashback - will soon give subsidies for householders installing renewable energy in their homes.

George Monbiot told me last night he's going to publish tomorrow a critique of them (it's online now, here), arguing that when subsidising solar electricity (photovoltaic/PV) panels they are a waste of money and a rip-off to taxpayers.

As I have in the past campaigned for FITs, I was initially taken aback. But then I recalled I'd looked into the cost-effectiveness of PV systems before and agreed.

The truth is they do have very long cash payback times, even with a subsidy, which is an artificial way of reducing payback and doesn't reduce its actual real-world cost.

The question then arises - shouldn't we spend the money on other technologies which can have the same impact on reducing carbon emissions but more cost-effectively? George quotes the same McKinsey report comparison table Ive used before and which is in the Stern Report, to indicate which technologies do offer value for money.

What's the evidence for saying they are a waste of money?

Firstly: Here are the results of a 2006 study from Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London:

This paper compared two solar systems, an actual building integrated, photovoltaic roof (BIPV) and a notional solar thermal system for a residential block in London, UK.

The carbon payback for the solar thermal system is 2 years, the BIPV system has a carbon payback of 6 years.

Simple economic payback times for both systems are more than 50 years. Calculations considering the current UK energy price increase (10%/yr), reduce the economic payback time for the PV roof to under 30 years.

The costs to reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions using a BIPV roof are £196/tonne CO2, solar thermal individual systems at £65/tonne CO2 and community solar thermal at £38/tonne CO2.

Secondly: A BRE / DTI 2006 UK Photovoltaic Domestic Field Trail (PV DFT) made recommendations on installing PV but did not even look at payback.

Thirdly: Here's something I wrote in my forthcoming book on environmental refurbishment that was taken out by an editor:

Photovoltaics would not need the high level of financial support that the technology clearly does if there wasn’t a problem with generating enough power in extreme latitudes to justify their installation.

Many people have had their enthusiasm for photovoltaics curbed when they find out exactly how much power they can expect to generate for their cash. Therefore it is important to be quite clear on this: you are unlikely to generate more than a fraction of what you need and if you’re looking for quick paybacks, forget it.

The best way to demonstrate this is through a worked example.

Lesson 1: Solar panel manufacturers quote figures for the “peak power” and “installed capacity” of their products. According to industry standards these are the amounts of electrical output in watts that they would generate if one kilowatt per square metre of the sun’s energy were to fall on them. But how close is this to the amount of sunshine at your location? These figures can be found out from the same source on insolation given in the section on solar water heating. For most of the latitudes that cover England and Wales, the summer insolation is a fraction of that figure. Even Europe’s sunniest place, Limassol in Cyprus, only gets 325 W per square metre. London gets 198 and Edinburgh 172 in July. In December, the figures are 96, 22 and 13 respectively. So in the winter, it’s a lot less -- and that’s when you need more power because the lights will be on for longer.

On average, Edinburgh receives just 9% of the solar energy required by the panel to generate what it says it will on the box.

Lesson 2: Suppose you installed 30m2 of panels that were quoted by the manufacturer as having a peak power or installed capacity of 5.7kWp. Suppose they were installed in London, which has an average insolation figure over the year of 109W/m2. In that case you wouldn’t get 5.7kW averaged over the year, but 0.109 x 5.7kW = 621W. However that is the average figure.

In darkest December they were generating just 125W, or enough to power 10 low energy light bulbs. In fact it might be even less than this, because of shading, downtime and other system inefficiencies.

Lesson 3: How much would this cost and what would your payback be? Here are some figures from 2004 for an installation on the roof of The Insolvency Service, in Bloomsbury London. (There aren’t that many case studies where the figures are all available -- this one comes from a UK government report - Large-Scale Building Integrated Photovoltaic Field Trial: URN Number 07/1316, BERR, 2007:

Size  Annual Output Project Cost Cost per peak W  Cost per kWh Payback time

kWp MWh/year £ £/Wp p/kWh (years)

25.4 11.8 318,760 12.6 108.2 237

237 years payback? This is a good example of how not to do it - and perhaps ironic given the purpose of the institution (if we did this we would go bankrupt).

The best performance figures in the report come from a water park in the Cotswolds.

These are from 300 building-integrated monocrystalline modules rated at 85W on a 150m2 sloping roof, with a yield of 51kWp. The system cost €397,500 in 2003 and the following year generated 44.3MWh. The figures in the report are:

51.0 42.8 2 65,000 5.2 24 .8 54

54 years is still a long time to wait to get your money back, especially when the modules only came with a 20 year warranty from BP. And 24.8p per kWh is still twice the current average electricity price.

(These examples illustrate how to work out PV systems’ cost effectiveness. To work out how much carbon emissions they save, simply multiply the megawatt-hours by the carbon dioxide emissions figure given for fossil fuel electricity, which presumably the panels will displace, given on page x - 550 kg/MWh.)

Lesson 4: Although the figures from the field trials report a mean/peak power ratio of over 7%, equivalent to an annual yield of over 610kWh/kWp, if we accept a grid-purchased electricity price of £0.114/kWh (the 2008 UK average), and require a 5 year payback period, the break-even cost of a PV system - the total installation cost per peak watt - is £0.35/Wp.

But the UK Energy Saving Trust, in its brochure on solar electricity published in 2007, quotes installation prices for domestic rooftop PV of £5–£7.50/Wp. This seems a bit steep, but: it is 14–20 times higher than the break-even value.

And you’re only generating a fraction of the power you need.

Renewable domestic heating

On a domestic level, the Government has committed to support domestic micro-CHP with £2,300* cash support. But this does not apply to district level heating schemes.

This article looks at both ideas, carbon impacts and support in the UK.

District heating

District heating is more carbon-efficient than heating individual homes where the density of accommodation is high enough. The example in Southampton is often cited.

The idea was part of last year's DECC Heat and Energy Saving Strategy Consultation. It did suggest support for these schemes.

The conclusions were published in August 2009. We're still waiting to see what the Government decides to do.... and will probably wait for some time as there is an election on.

District heating is recommended to the Government by this month's report from the Green Building Council. This says:

1. Public sector buildings should be required, where available and viable, to connect to existing or planned community heat networks, to provide an ‘anchor load’ of demand, and large businesses should be encouraged to do the same.

2. The ‘allowable solutions’ mechanism should be used as a way of providing additional ring fenced capital to support the delivery of heat infrastructure. Government has said that developers will be able to invest in so-called 'allowable solutions' in order to meet the required standard when constructing new zero carbon buildings.

It says nothing about existing non-public buildings though.

Neither is district heating part of the current renewable heat consultation. This scheme, which is due to start in April 2011, will subsidise a rapid increase in the number of homes and offices heated by woodfuel, biogas, solar thermal, heat pumps and waste-to-energy technologies. The deadline for responses to this consultation is Monday 26 April so do have your say.

District heating systems are ideal if a whole street, area or block of flats is to be renovated. Economies of scale make this form of heat and power delivery the cheapest on a per-household basis, and by far the most carbon-efficient, if low carbon fuel sources are specified.

A district heating scheme in Southampton, England, serves many residential developments from gas-fired CHP and geothermal energy, saving 11,000 tonnes of carbon a year and benefiting residents with a service price 5 per cent less than the market rate.

Systems are most efficient when servicing both homes and businesses or premises used during the day, as the two heat loads throughout a 24 hour period suit the continuous running required of a large plant.

District CHP plants may utilize fuel sources from waste to biomass, as well as geothermal where it is available. They work best where buildings are close together. A not-for-profit energy service company is usually formed to manage the system.

Micro-CHP

Micro-CHP – combined heat and power – is a nascent technology of small units for individual homes, typically the size of a fridge. They run on natural gas to produce up to about 10kW of power.

The current crop of models are based on the Stirling engine, Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) or internal combustion engine. The first two have high thermal efficiency and output but low electrical efficiency (10 per cent) – and this is a sticking point.

Electricity output is around 1.1kW, enough to maintain back-up power in the event of a power cut or boil a kettle. A 1kWe (1kW electrical power) model from Honda called Ecowill has sold well in Japan.

A 2007 trial by the UK’s Carbon Trust concluded that micro-CHP can cut electricity bills and overall CO2 emissions by 15–20 per cent when they’re the lead boiler in larger contexts like care homes, district schemes, apartment blocks and leisure centres.

The best individual home for them therefore is a medium-to-large, moderately well-insulated one, maybe with solid walls, solid floors and no loft space that is harder to insulate well and has a relatively large heat demand.

Here, micro-CHP units can potentially deliver carbon savings of 5–10 per cent – fewer than a condensing boiler, since capacity is likely to be best matched to demand, for both heat and power.

Payback can be as little as five years. But they offer limited benefits for smaller and newer dwellings.

The key to success is matching the thermal output to the building’s pattern of use so that they operate not intermittently but for many hours at a time, making the value of electricity generated pay for the marginal investment in as little as three years in a typical family home.

It therefore works best with a buffer storage tank to save the surplus heat for later.

Grid connection for electricity export is going to be crucial to micro-CHP’s widespread acceptance. On average, half of all electricity generated by a typical 1kWe micro-CHP device is exported to the grid as it’s not needed at the time.

Reliability is also a key issue – service agreements will be essential. So homeowners shouldn’t yet trade in their condensing boilers, which have about the same overall heating efficiency – 90 per cent – without also producing electricity, but they might keep an eye on developments.

Superinsulated homes will have to wait until the next generation of machines, based on fuel cells. These generally come in two types – proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) and solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs).

They have a heat to power ratio that is approximately equal so for example they could produce 5kW of heat and 5kW of electricity.

Support for micro-CHP

Under the Feed-in Tarriff scheme, from the 1st April 2010, microCHP units with a capacity below 2kW will receive 10p per kW hour generated, for a period of ten years. This tariff is available for the first 30,000 microCHP installations. A review will take place when 12,000 units have been installed.

However the Government has not followed through on commitments made in the Energy Act to support miniCHP units of up to 50 kW capacity.

* - based on 10p generation tariff and assuming a 3p pence export rate. Assuming annual generation of 2000 kWh and 50% export. Assuming import electricity price of 14p kWh-1. The total income paid to a generator over a 10 year FiT period would be £2,300 over full period of 10 years. Annual figure therefore of £230.

The Feed-in Tariff (FiT) scheme is the first phase of the Government’s Clean Energy Cashback programme - see the Energy Saving Trust website for details.

What is the most carbon efficient heating?

An independent survey conducted by the UK Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes which looked at the carbon impact of different domestic heating and hot water systems in both houses and flats concluded that the following performed best, all other things being equal (figures in kgCO2/m2/yr):
• community heating and CHP, fuelled wholly or mainly by biomass - 4.15
• community heating without CHP fuelled wholly or mainly by biomass - 7.11
• wood burning boilers - 10.02
• wood burning boilers with solar water heating panels - 10.09
• ground source heat pumps with low temperature heat distribution/emitters (e.g. underfloor heating) - 20.83
• solar water heating panels in conjunction with gas boiler systems - 21.98

Source: Heating Strategy Group of the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes, January 2008

Green gadgets - do people care?

A new survey 'Is There Any Hope For Green Gadgets?' into attitudes towards buying more eco-friendly products makes depressing reading.

However, its question 'What would make you more 'green' with gadgets?' (an awkward question anyway) is loaded with its multiple choice answers.

56% of people said tax rebates and cash incentives.
47% of people said easier ways to recycle gadgets.
29% said information to educate them about what they can do to help.
17% said new laws would make them more green.

Of course people are going to answer tax rebates and cash incentives! and not like new laws.

In fact it is environmental legislation that drives companies to make changes in their product standards, save resources, and indeed develop international standards like Energy Star.

Legislation should actually remove inefficient and wasteful goods from the market. If the choice is taken out, so you can't buy them, there's no need for consumers to feel they have to be bribed or plagued by guilt to help nature.

This is happening with old fashioned light bulbs. It should happen with all wasteful gadgets.

But there is another point. Gadgets are becoming more efficient. But we are not using less energy. This is because we are buying more gadgets.

There's only one real answer - to buy less.

Bloom box mania - behind the hype

Lot of fuss in the States about the 'Bloom Box'. Wild claims and fantasy. Let's just set it straight:

What is it? = a solid oxide fuel cell

What does it do? = convert one type of energy - hydrocarbon chemical - into another - electricity

Is it renewable? - Depends what you charge up the fuel cell with. As with electric cars, think beyond the battery. It runs on ethanol, biodiesel, methane or natural gas. At least one of these (the last) is not renewable. Ethanol can be distilled from plants. Methane can be tapped from landfill/sewage etc. Whether the first two are sustainable (the real question) depends on the original bio-material - plenty of controversy about biofuels right now. Indonesian palm oil? No thanks. Displacing food-growing? Also no. High fertiliser and pesticide input? (ie fossil fuel and pollution) Also no.

Is it efficient? = The unit is not even a mini-chp (combined heat and power) plant - so the heat output is wasted. Solid oxide fuel cells have an efficiency of around 50% - better than a conventional power plant (32%) but CHP is over 90%.

Should I buy one? = You're better off with a mini-CHP and using the heat. These're also fridge-sized, will heat your building a well as power it, are more efficient when grid-connected, and will be mass market in a couple of years. They are already fairly big in Japan.

Weather, climate and complexity - where the sceptics don't get it

So why have there been cold snaps in Washington and London if the planet is warming?

Climate change marks a transition between a (recent past) stable period of predictable global climate and another, as yet unknown, one in the future, where temperatures on a global average will be higher.

When any system moves from one stable position to another there is always a period of instability and turbulence in between.

The study of this is called complexity theory and uses mathematical models developed from non-linear chaos theory.

A parallel analogy is, for example, an aeroplane changing its angle of flight from level (stable) to vertical (falling from the sky, but still linear). In between it will stall, and this is when occupants would feel their ride to be very bumpy.

Transferring the analogy to weather - weather is a local variant of climate.

Instability in the climate will therefore result in local 'bumpiness' - unusual and extreme local weather conditions. In some places this will mean occasional extremely cold, stormy or hot weather.

To think that an episode of local cold weather means that the whole world is getting colder, or even not warmer, as climate sceptics do, is almost like thinking that if the lights fail in your building, it's the same all over the world.

My house is for sale - near the Centre for Alternative Technology

We've just put our house on the market! It's near the Centre for Alternative Technology and is a 3-4 bedroom house plus a self-contained one-bed 'granny-flat' or sublet on the side, by a river! It's been well-renovated and has a large garden and has loads of potential. Only £185k! I love the whole valley - I'm just moving to a smaller place in the valley. I even spent a while commuting to London for work - you can go there and back in a day by train. More info?
http://www.davidthorpe.info/house-for-sale-mid-wales.htm

After the disappointment of Copenhagen - where now?

It depended what, or where, you were reading, how December's COP-15 talks were spun to you. Hailed as a success in the US and the Indian Times, they were marked as a failure in Europe.

For those who saw failure for the UN Climate Change conference to conclude with a legally binding and effective deal, the blame lay either with China or the US.

Over in the US, the pro-climate action body World Resources Institute was among those who blamed Somalia and other developing nations most threatened by climate change for nearly scuppering the deal, which they claimed was "rescued" by Obama.

Meanwhile, Lumumba Di-Aping (Sudanese leader of the G77) compared the Copenhagen Accord proposed to the Holocaust and to asking African people to sign a suicide pact.

Tuvalu and other threatened states remain very bitter about the lack of transparency - the text of the Accord had been agreed before midnight by a small group of countries (including China, Japan, India, Brazil, the US and EU) and brought to the plenary.

The EC identified the biggest challenge as finding a way to share global emission reductions between rapidly-developing countries, like China and India, and more industrialised regions, like the US and Europe, responsible for the bulk of historical CO2 emissions. It said it was 'disappointed' by both the Chinese and Ameican pledges at Copenhagen.

After the dust has settled, it does seem that China was more obstructive than any other significant player.

So, after two years of wrangling and stalling, we must now wait for further meetings and talks this year to (maybe) declare a legally binding document, with firm targets.

What was decided at Copenhagen?

A small group of nations negotiated the Copenhagen Accord. However, they are responsible for 80% of emissions, and they promised immediately $28bn of short term support and $100bn/yr from 2020.

When this document was taken to the Plenary on the floor, there wasn't final agreement, but UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer claims there was "overwhelming support", citing the 120 heads of state who came to Copenhagen. But in the end, the Accord was only "noted" by those countries.

Nevertheless, de Boer argues, "it is a political tool we will deploy to resolve remaining issues over the coming year, e.g. on financial support and what developing contries need to do and what bodies need to be established".

The Accord contains no mention of targets for 2020 or 2050, but there is an "intent" to work towards a maximum 2 degree Celsius limit on average global temperature rise.

The document mentions pledges already made by some parties. Other countries can write their intentions into the scheme in the document before 1 February.

Before Copenhagen, financial pledges were made by individual countries and these are in the Accord.

For long term finance: $100 bn each year by 2020 was promised, from public and private sources.

For short term finance (2010-12) the following was promised:

$30 billion - EU

$11 billion - Japan

$3.6 billion - US.

Verification of countries' claims for emission reduction was a contentious issue: large developing countries must report their emissions every second year. There will be some kind of international surveillance but at the same time "respecting national sovereignty". There will not be a review of progress until 2015 to determine if all this action is urgent enough. We already know it is not.

In fact, de Boer said on 20 January that the failure at Copenhagen "makes our task more urgent, as the window of opportunity is closing faster than before". He acknowledged that in "financial, human and economic terms the challenge requires much greater investment". Nevertheless he acknowledged three outcomes:

1. the challenge is being met at the highest levels of government

2. it reflects a gobal political consensus

3. at negotiations away from the camera, a full set of decisions was brought to conclusion.

However, the REDD framework was not finalised at Copenhgen, so REDD money (for forest preservation) cannot be distributed.

The UN is looking forward

The names of those countries who agree with the Accord will be published in the Accord below the title.

De Boer has given countries a deadline of 31 January to be on this list, which will be updated on an ongoing basis on the UNFCCC website.

He was careful to say that signing it meant they do not "adhere" to its contents but agree to "be associated".

They can opt to adhere, or, if they are industrialised countires, to indicate the targets they will set, or, if developing countries, say what actions they will take. "The Accord is a living document" he said. No one is 'bound' to the Accord.

It will be used to advance the formal negotiations inside the UN process.

Of the short term finance pledged, many countries have it in their budgets and will channel it through the existing Kyoto Protocol measures and bodies. No more meetings are therefore required to implement it.

The next COP (16) is expected to be held in Mexico from 29 November 2010 to 10 December 2010. De Boer wants an "incentivised negotiating schedule" before then, in the second part of this year, details yet to be determined.

At the end of May / early June there will be a review of progress towards Mexico. Mexico could conclude in a legally binding agreement, but that can only be decided then. De Boer said he had spoken to 15-20 countries sine Copenhagen, who believe that discussions in Mexico will reach a conclusion after which it will be decided how to package it in legal terms.

The decision making process

The cumbersome nature of discussions came under much criticism at Copenhagen. Individual countries could hold up major discussions on points of order.

Could it be improved upon? De Boer now believes that "You can't have 192 countries involved in all the details all of the time on all issues.

"These are the most complicated negotiations the world has ever seen. They must be broken up into smaller parts. Transparency is vital. Countries will decide where they want to be involved.

"Then, when any decisions are brought back to the whole community, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This will build confidence among all parties," he said.

The vulnerable countries strike back

Many countries feel excluded from the UN process. Pablo Solon, Bolivia's ambassador to the UN said on 18 January:“The US climate envoy Pershing must be very deaf if he thinks that only a small minority of countries opposed the Copenhagen Accord. The agreement was roundly condemned in almost every quarter of the world, because it patently fails to tackle the climate crisis.

"The leaders of the world's largest polluting nations have failed us. That is why Bolivia is organizing a Peoples' Conference on Climate Change in April to put forward effective proposals for saving humanity from climate chaos. We invite all people committed to saving our planet to join us.”

Climate Justice will mean radical reduction of emissions in industrialized countries and the transfer of resources and technology to developing countries.

"If the US and other governments can so easily find money for endless wars, bank bailouts and bonanza bonuses for the rich, they clearly have the resources to help save lives and protect future generations.”

Solon added: “The US admission that it wants to exclude the vast majority of the planet from decisions about climate change is deeply offensive, when the climate crisis will fall first on those who are most vulnerable.

"The earthquake in Haiti has shown very clearly how vulnerable impoverished countries will be to environmental crises. The US decision to ignore our voices is the attitude of a colonial ruler.”

Europe struggles to lead the way

The Commission has proposed immediate action on climate finance agreed in Copenhagen, including fast-start funding ($30 billion) for 2010-2012 and long-term finance ($100 billion per year in 2020).

At an informal meeting of European energy and environment ministers in Seville on 16 January there were calls for swift implementation by the EU of the Copenhagen Accord. They urged other countries to follow suit and reach a legally-binding agreement in 2010.

"Doing so will require an active outreach by the EU, including at bilateral and regional levels, but possibly also through facilitating a meeting of 'Friends of the Accord' during the first quarter of 2010," a statement said.

The EU (which accounts for about 14% of the world's CO2 emissions) has committed to achieving a 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared to 1990, as called for in its climate and energy package adopted in 2008. It would commit to 30% if other developed countries commit to comparable emission reductions and economically-advanced developing countries - namely China and India - contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities. 

The nominee for European climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, told a European Parliament hearing on 15 January that she hoped the EU's conditions for moving to 30% would be met before a meeting set for Mexico later this year.

The EU's newly-appointed president Herman Van Rompuy (a former Belgian prime minister) has said he will be focusing on Europe's recovery from the financial crisis and on tackling climate change during his two-and-a-half-year tenure. 

Though the Copenhagen climate talks lfailed to meet European expectations, they laid a good foundation for further work, Van Rompuy told the German chancellery. 

Angela Merkel has said that without European participation in the Copenhagen summit, China and India would not have taken any responsibility or confronted the issue of climate change. 

In March there is an EU Summit to endorse the European Energy Action Plan for 2010 onward.

US prospects

The loss of a Democrat majority in the US Senate on 20 January was seen as potentially making it more difficult for the US cap-and-trade climate change bill to be passed.

Steny Hoyer, Democrat leader in the House of Representatives, said the bill was not dead, but parts aimed at increasing energy independence were more likely to pass than those aimed at reducing carbon emissions.

De Boer put a brave face on the news: "No political development in US will mean we go back. US concerns on fuel prices and scarcity and economic problems will not go away.

"At Copenhagen Obama committed to a reduction of 17% - the global community will hold the US accountable to this," he said.

Have your say on new nuclear power stations

A consultation on new nuclear power stations is underway.

The potential sites for these are at Bradwell, Braystones, Hartlepool, Heysham, Hinkley Point, Kirksanton, Oldbury, Sellafield, Sizewell and Wylfa. Bradwell was nominated by EDF, who are currently seeking to sell the site to a credible nuclear operator.

Under new planning laws which make it harder for people to object, large infrastructure projects (like nuclear power stations, railways, large wind farms, power stations, reservoirs, harbours, airports and sewage treatment works) are subject to generic consultation periods conducted by the new Infrastructure Planning Commission, with individual instances having restricted subjects on which it's possible for locals to comment.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change's consultation on the Energy National Policy Statements ends on the 22nd February, followed by an opportunity for Parliament to comment.

Nuclear power is a step in the wrong direction, sucking capital and engineering know-how into a short-term technology with a terrible long-term legacy of nuclear waste.

Instead support energy efficiency to reduce the demand. Support renewable energy whose fuel is harmless and free and will never run out.

A map of potential sites for new nuclear is here.

Respond to the consultation here.

Early praise for Sustainable Home Refurbishment

Sustainable Home Refurbishment: The Earthscan Expert Guide to Retrofitting Homes for Efficiency, to be published by Earthscan in June 2010
Just in: some nice praise for this title:

"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).

Order it using the link above

Earth: Art of a Changing World at the Royal Academy

Yesterday I visited the Earth: Art of a Changing World exhibition at the Royal Academyd exhibition at the Royal Academy. It's fantastic, the best show I've been to in a long time - superior to the Radical Nature one at the Barbican earlier this year.

It collects works by many artists that have enviromental themes, especially addressing climate change. In many ways it does what the Centre for Alternative Technology's (CAT) Arts in Transition initiative wants artists to do.

It's not overwhelmingly polemical. Many of the works are oblique, some funny, many sad or touching, some make you angry, and a surprising number are very beautiful.

36 pieces are gathered under the following themes: Introduction; External, Perceived Reality; Destruction; the Artist as Explorer; and Re-Reality. Many current art world stars are represented, including David Nash, Anthony Gormley, Keith Tyson, Sophie Calle, and Tracey Emin - whose 3 pieces are the best things by her I've seen - touching and beautifully executed.

Several artists have been to Greenland on Cape Farewell tours, specifically organised to expose artists to the physical effects of climat change in the arctic. Novelist Ian McEwan, who went on one such trip, is represented by a text he wrote in response.

Yael Bartana's video about Israeli men driving their 4x4s over sand dunes for kicks is crazy - is this the summit of human progress? 'Progress' is also questioned by Lemn Sissay's poem, performed in a video with a jazz trio, "What if?" - poignant and challenging.

Another video, 'Doomed', by Tracey Moffat, is a hilarious compilation of disaster sequences from Hollywood movies. Yao Lu alters an image of rubbish dumps to make them seem at first glance like traditional Chinese landscapes.

Clare Twomey's ceramic flowers and Adriane Colburne's fabulous installation Up From Under the Edge of the Earth, are among pieces that by being incredibly beautiful and fragile remind us of the care we need to take to preserve our awesome natural environment, while Edward Burtynsky's photographs of Canadian tar sand exploitation, quarries and a Chinese chicken-processing factory (whose rows of women workers themselves look like factory farmed chicks), show us how little care some industries are taking.

Finally, we are made to hope that Antti Laitinen's documention of his long, futile attempt to make an island in the freezing Baltic Sea, striving like King Canute to fight the inevitable tidal forces, is not a prophetic allegory for humanity's attempt to stave off the effects of global warming.

The Drowning has begun

Earlier this year I won a grant [scroll down from this link to the item] from Powys' Chance to Create to write a novel for older children called The Drowning.

One of the grant conditions was the production of a blog to document the writing of the novel. Now I have begun to write it this is a fine time to start.

What is The Drowning?

The story is set in Borth, Taliesin, and West Powys in the not-too-distant future when sea level rise threatens low-lying dwellings and the smooth running of society.

It is a mystery story - what happened when a boy died one stormy evening on the moors north of Nant-y-Moch?

It is a story of the love-hate relationship between two very different boys from contrasting backgrounds forced to get on together in order to survive, and how the arrival of a girl affects this.

It mixes in and updates Welsh legends - specifically the origin of Taliesin and a reinterpretation of his character and this story, and the story of Cantre'r Gwaelod which, besides having obvious resonance with climate change-related sea level rise and weather events, is situated in this same area.

There are other elements as well, and one challenge of writing a blog about a work in progress is to not reveal the plot and spoil it for future readers!

Progress

I have so far:

• researched all of the mythological elements I wish to use
• walked in most of the areas where the story is set - but will need to revisit some during the writing
• done some research on the flora and fauna - need to do a little more
• conducted most of the research on the science of climate change and sea level rise; sources include articles in the New Scientist; Ranyl Rhydwen, a lecturer on climate science at CAT; a study of the Dyfi Valley coastline (near Borth) by a German researcher/Ceredigion Council; and Bill Thompson of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
• need to in particular find out more about the Eastern Greenland coast and the behaviour of melting ice sheets there
• I have worked on the characters, learnt some Welsh, and plotted the novel out on scene (index) cards)
• begun to write it (a week ago) - 2000 words completed. Projected length: 40,000 words, maybe less, mixed media format

More to follow. Offers of help (research information) welcome.

US intransigence caps Copenhagen fiasco

If anyone should shoulder the blame for the failure of the UN Climate Change conference to conclude with a legally binding and effective deal it is President Obama.

Other countries had made or been ready to make concessions, even though no-one did enough to secure the measures required to avoid a temperature rise of at least 3 degrees Celsius.

China conceded that it would no longer seek financial support from rich countries to help it reduce its emissions. But when it saw no new US measures on the table, it felt no compunction to accept independent monitoring of its emission reduction efforts.

The EU had agreed a unilateral 20 per cent emissions cut by 2020 on 1990 levels and offered to raise this to 30 per cent if other rich countries did more. It also promised to pay its “fair share” of a global total of €22-50 billion in international public money.

The UK seems unwilling to criticise the US, putting a brave face on the fact that Obama came to Copenhagen at all.

The text agreed so far contains only an aspiration to provide $100bn by 2020, with no certainty about how much is public money from rich countries. The money may largely come from carbon trading - a volatile, unpedictable market.

Lumumba Di-Aping (Sudanese leader of G77) compared the Copenhagen Accord proposed to the Holocaust and to asking African people to sign the suicide pact.

Tuvalu and other threatened states are very bitter about lack of transparency - the text had been agreed before midnight by a small group of countries (25-10-5 countries, including US and EU) and brought to the plenary.

There is no tight deadline to convert the deal into a legally-binding agreement - so no sense of urgency.

After two years of wrangling and stalling - what a tragedy for the most vulnerable nations and the whole world.

The governments of the world have behaved like irresponsible schoolchildren who had to prepare for an important exam but left everything to the last minute and failed the exam, rather than like responsible custodians of the planet.

What a betrayal of our trust.

What does the Accord say?

Targets: no mitigation targets for 2020 or 2050
The document mentions pledges already made by some parties. Other countries can write their intentions into the scheme in the document before 1 February 2010.

Finance:
- long term finance: 100 bln USD each year by 2020 repeated, no concrete pledges. The money should go from public and private sources.

- short term finance 2010-12
10,6 bilion USD - UE
11 bln USD - Japan
3,6 bln USD - US

Verification/control: control wording taken out. Big developing countries have to report their emissions every second year, some kind of international surveillance but at the same time "respecting national sovereignty".

Daily Express would rther have us believe a corrupt redneck politician than the majority of scientists

The Daily Express and the Telegraph today run a climate sceptic story, supposedly quoting a report from 'The European Foundation'.

What is the 'European Foundation"?

They are an organisation that is one man: the right wing anti-Maastricht Treaty campaigner Bill Cash.

This is a man who wants to turn the clock back to the time when international cooperation was much less than it is now: a nationalist redneck anti-European fanatic.

A corrupt man who claimed more than £15,000 in taxpayer-funded expenses to pay his daughter rent for her London flat – even though he owned a home closer to Westminster.

His voting record includes:

• never voting on a transparent Parliament


• voting against introducing a smoking ban


• voting strongly against introducing student top-up fees


• voting very strongly for the Iraq war


• voting very strongly for replacing Trident


• voting very strongly against the hunting ban


• voting against equal gay rights


• voting (why?!) for laws to stop climate change!

Why do the Express and Telegraph want people to believe this backward-looking man rather than the combined weight of the vast majority of scientists and politicians?

To sell papers. What cynical morons.

Here's the truth:

The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science. :

• Misleading argument 1: ’Climate change is nothing to do with humans’


• Misleading argument 2: ’CO2 not responsible for global warming’


• Misleading argument 3: ’Rises in CO2 occur after global warming, not before’


• Misleading argument 4: ’Temperature observations don’t support the theory’


• Misleading argument 5: ’Global warming computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable’


• Misleading argument 6: ’Global warming is all to do with the sun’


• Misleading argument 7: ’The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays’


• Misleading argument 8: ’The negative effects of climate change are overstated’

What developed nations have put on the table at Copenhagen

Here is a document from the Oxfam policy team on what the countries below have stated in terms of emissions reductions, financing for developing countries and political dynamics.

China, India, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Africa Group, Least, Developed Countries (LDC)
Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), , Indonesia, South Korea, EU, US, Norway, Australia, Canada, Japan
New Zealand

Naturally it is not enough, but it's where we are at today.

Civil rights abuse in Copenhagen

A good blog by singer-songwriter David Rovics on the police clampdown in Copenhagen, civil rights and politics in Denmark.
Report from Cop-enhagen

Yes, it's - The Stupid Show

Watch the Stupid Show from Franny and Co. live from Copenhagen!



Or watch it at www.stupidshow.tv.

From the people who brought you the great film Age of Stupid...

How green is the green flagship city of the developing world?

During the COP-15 negotiations, where can we find an example of a sustainable city in the developing world?

Google the question and you get an answer: Curitiba in Parana state, Brazil, whose ex-Mayor, Jaime Lerner, is celebrated for pioneering sustainable solutions. Only last month he was in London sharing ideas with its mayor, Boris Johnson.

So I went to Curitiba, from the UK, to see just how green it really is. What I found surprised me: big roads, traffic, out of town shopping centres, Wal-Mart, McDonalds and Burger Kings. The eco-hostel where I stayed is surrounded by gated condominiums topped with razor wire and electric fences, manned by sentries.

I took an elliptical trip on one of the renowned metro-buses accessed by entering a glass tube. These fully wheelchair-accessible expresses have a different network, making fewer stops. The city was designed around this transit system, and it is this for which Curitiba is the most famous. It's afternoon, and we don't encounter a single traffic jam.

My guide - Rafael, a sustainability consultant for a local publisher - says the city is resting on its laurels. It won its reputation for sustainability in the '80s and '90s when many of the initiatives it is still renowned for were inaugurated. But now the rest of the world has caught up.

We visited SPVS, an NGO responsible for biodiversity conservation, where a director, Ricardo, explains how they audited the green areas and discovered that a City Hall claim that Curitiba had over 50 square metres per person of greenspace wasn't exactly as green as it sounded: much of it was grass verges. So they are working with the city so credit only goes to the biodiverse areas with native species. They have two projects: the 'Condominio do bioversidade' works to educate people about the native species and their value. 'Bio Cidade' aims to create officially protected areas. The City has signed up to the UN Convention on Biodiversity.

At the Free College of the Environment, the educational officer, Naiana Arruba says it was set up in 1991 by Jaime Lerner himself, to try and raise awareness and do research into environmental issues. "However," she continues, "the City stopped supporting it four years ago for political and personal reasons. Unless we can secure more sponsorship we may close."

She says the water in the lake is being polluted by a budding favela - illegal occupation = in the land above the quarry. "Cohab, the municipal housing agency, should turf them off," she says. She doesn't see it as an opportunity to demonstrate sustainability in practice. She is clearly disillusioned.

Rafael says these favelas are hidden away "on the edges of Curitiba and its commuter towns. Curitiba is a victim of its own success. As it proclaimed how 'sustainable' it was, it attracted inhabitants from everywhere, exploding from a few thousand to 1.7 million."

The favelas' inhabitants sort the rubbish. Everywhere they pull their barrows, laden with cardboard, old exhausts, abandoned white goods and plastic. There also live the women who work as cleaners and nannies in the middle clsss homes.

"Isn't this Curitiba's dirty secret?" I worried. "That it would grind to a halt if not for the existence of these second class citizens?"

Our next stop provided a kind of answer. At NGO Alliança Empreendedora, co-director Lina Useche, a beautiful 25-year old, described their work with favela women, training them in crafts, sewing and business management, obtaining micro-credit, via support from banks and Wal-Mart, and creating co-operatives to make and market their work.

"The collectors lease the barrows for $R10 a day," she said. "They can barely earn that from what they sell. So we help them obtain microcredit to buy the barrows and, by clubbing together, acquire balers to package the garbage and sell direct to the top buyer for a better price."

Lina showed us beautiful bags and wallets made from recycled materials. 97% of rubbish is recycled by the favelas. The City Hall has realised that they need to help the collectors and have just given the Co-ops responsibility for the remaining 3%.

Finally, we got a tour of a favela: a tight hodgepodge of small homes cobbled together with any materials in rubbish-strewn streets, a lively area with its own economy of shops, barbers, cafes, but most of all warehouses where the rubbish is sorted into types for selling.

Some homes have been modernised: good materials, a fresh coat of paint applied with pride. Lina said, "When people become richer, they don't leave the favelas - they improve them, and give employment to those around." The community bootstraps itself up.

But there's no trickledown. It's due to the work of NGOs and the funding from the City Hall. Cohab is charged with providing housing. "But" says Lina, "when people leave the favelas they have to pay taxes, water and energy." Why should they leave, then? Some politicians oppose helping them because it only encourages the wrong sort of people to come.

But unless the City completely changes its system of rubbish recycling they will always need the favelas. And the favelas need the rubbish to provide their income.

Water and sanitation remain a problem but the city is getting on top of it.

There are so many environmental technologies in Europe that they haven't heard of here yet, which they could be implementing instead of 'wiring in' unsustainable infrastructure and habits: sustainable urban drainage, green rooves, solar water heating, micro-renewables, trains, shutters to reduce the need for air-conditioning, and even small water-saving tricks like fitting plugs in sinks and basins.

This is what worries me most - not here but everywhere. Unsustainable bad habits are harder to undo than changing a piece of energy kit.

Whether the habit is fast food, freezers, no plugs for basins, tumble driers, or no shutters on windows, they have causal chains that result in high ecological footprints that can be locked in for decades.

Some of these habits are universal and a function of capitalism, like fast food. Others are not, but a result of planning issues, like the plugs, transport and shutters. It's the latter which we can campaign for developing cities to take aware action on.

US Youth Crash Climate Denier Event in Copenhagen

Young Clean Energy Advocates called "Hitler Youth" by Climate Denier Lord Monckton

Fifty young Americans took over a climate denier conference hosted by a prominent conservative organization this evening in Copenhagen, rushing the stage and telling the live TV audience that a clean energy future is the real road to prosperity in America.

The young people, merely a fraction of the more than 350 US youth in Denmark for the UN climate negotiations, entered a session of the Americans for Prosperity "Hot Air Tour" speakers series and were able to drop two banners and gain access to the conference's stage. The live event was webcast to over forty climate denier rallies in cities across the United States.

The students entered the event in small groups, joining a paltry audience of five conference attendees, who had come to hear climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton speak about the Copenhagen climate negotiations.

After the first five minutes of the event, student representatives from SustainUS, the Sierra Student Coalition, the Cascade Climate Network, and other American youth NGOs displayed banners reading "Climate Disaster Ahead" and "Clean Energy Now." After security agents at the event took the banners, the young attendees began a chant of "Real Americans for Prosperity are Americans for Clean Energy."

The chant lasted five minutes, as the youth took the stage and displayed their message for the live video feed being sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, despite evasive action on the camera crew's part. As they left the stage, Lord Monckton repeatedly called the activists "Hitler Youth" and "nazis."

"Clean energy creates jobs," says Rachel Barge, a 24-year-old entrepreneur from San Francisco, CA who was the first young person to raise her voice at the event, "These climate action delayers and science deniers are stealing bold, new economic opportunities from the American public."

Laura Comer, 21, of Strongsville, OH, seconded Barge, saying, "We're representing the majority of Americans on this, particularly young Americans. The real America wants clean energy - not more fossil fuel-funded lies about the science."

For more information, contact Ben Wessel, +45 50 11 12 48, ben.wessel@sustainus.org