Germany's recently approved "climate package" is its latest step in securing the country's position as a leading investment location in renewable energies.
What is needed in the UK is a similar package of measures to guarantee a strong future for investors in renewable energies.
"The reforms maintain attractive feed-in tariffs and strengthen the legal framework for energy-efficiency investments, therefore adding to Germany's already inviting investment conditions in photovoltaic (PV) energy," says David Wortmann, Director of the Renewable Energies and Resources team at Invest in Germany.
One of the main drivers of PV investment in Germany is the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG in German). The EEG requires power companies to buy renewable energy from owners of renewable energy installations at a rate that is above the standard retail price.
The "feed-in-tariff" for PV projects beginning in 2008 stands at 35.49 - 51.75 EUR cents/KWh. The rate is guaranteed for 20 years. There is also no limit to the energy that can be sold into the grid at the EEG rates. This legal framework encourages Germans to invest in PV products, creating a long-term and sustainable domestic market.
Germany is turning its renowned scientific expertise into an asset for the solar industry. There are over 80 different academic degree options in solar energy and energy management at German universities, including a new Masters Degree program at Berlin's Technical University (TU).
An "energy university" will soon open in Berlin to offer graduate-level students from all over the world the chance to improve their knowledge of the energy industry. This qualified workforce contributes to Germany's high standard of quality in its PV products and also to its comparatively low product failure rate.
This expertise is found not only in universities, but also in the many research institutions in Germany that cooperate closely with PV investors.
For example, the Fraunhofer ISE is part of the internationally renowned Fraunhofer Society that is one of numerous research institutes and universities doing research on the latest technologies in PV, often in cooperation with the solar industry.
Supportive laws, qualified employees, and access to researchers and suppliers are some of the reasons that leading PV companies such as First Solar, Arise Technologies, Signet Solar, and recent entries like Intico Solar and Masdar PV GmbH have invested in Germany.
More will be revealed at the 23rd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition (PVSEC), September 1 - 5, 2008 in Valencia, Spain.
If only it could happen in the UK.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Carbon capture and storage is an end-of-pipe dream
The Government is basing its enthusiasm for new coal-burning power stations on the notion of retrofitting CCS (carbon capture and storage) in the future once the technology is developed.
But is this feasible?
"Even the most optimistic proponent of CCS would not envisage any demonstration plant to be operational much before 2015, which would put wide-scale deployment as far away as 2020 or later after lessons from the pilot have been learned and digested," says a submission from The Royal Academy of Engineering to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC).
In July the EAC published its examination of CCS and found it to be a pipe dream. In fact, an end-of-pipe dream. It estimates that the cost of building the first CCS plant could be anything up to £500m, on top of the £1bn cost of a new coal-fired power station. Retrofitting CCS at a station like Kingsnorth is likely to cost over £1.1bn. This is a huge figure by any standard, and would have a massive impact on energy prices.
The EAC urges: "We cannot emphasise strongly enough that the possibility of CCS should not be used as a fig leaf to give unabated coal-fired power stations an appearance of environmental acceptability." Furthermore, "Replacing old coal-fired power stations with new ones, rather than using alternative energy sources, locks Britain in to a high level of emissions for many years to come."
Hutton has said that a high carbon price under the EU-ETS will mean that CCS-retrofitting so-called 'CCS-ready' new power stations becomes economical. The EAC slams this notion on three counts:
1. Lack of knowledge of the technology: since the eventual nature of CCS technology is currently unknown, how can a plant built now be designed to have the technology retro-fitted on?
2. Carbon emissions: "The EU ETS is a mechanism designed to reduce emissions; using it as a cover for choosing high emissions technology goes against the purpose of the scheme."
3. The price per tonne of CO2 for retrofitting CCS required to make it commercially viable is unfeasibly high: estimates of this vary from the rather optimistic €40 (E.ON UK) to €90-155 per tonne (Climate Change Capital) and €70-100 per tonne (UK Energy Research Centre). How much it will really be is anybody's guess, but the Government cites an EU estimate of a forward price of carbon of €39 for 2013-2020 (EU-ETS Phase 3). The UK Energy Research Centre predicts around €30. The EAC concludes from this: "the gap between the carbon price and the cost of CCS is enormous".
The EAC concludes: "Coal should be seen as the last resort, even with the promise of CCS."
[Sources available in the EAC report on CCS].
But is this feasible?
"Even the most optimistic proponent of CCS would not envisage any demonstration plant to be operational much before 2015, which would put wide-scale deployment as far away as 2020 or later after lessons from the pilot have been learned and digested," says a submission from The Royal Academy of Engineering to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC).
In July the EAC published its examination of CCS and found it to be a pipe dream. In fact, an end-of-pipe dream. It estimates that the cost of building the first CCS plant could be anything up to £500m, on top of the £1bn cost of a new coal-fired power station. Retrofitting CCS at a station like Kingsnorth is likely to cost over £1.1bn. This is a huge figure by any standard, and would have a massive impact on energy prices.
The EAC urges: "We cannot emphasise strongly enough that the possibility of CCS should not be used as a fig leaf to give unabated coal-fired power stations an appearance of environmental acceptability." Furthermore, "Replacing old coal-fired power stations with new ones, rather than using alternative energy sources, locks Britain in to a high level of emissions for many years to come."
Hutton has said that a high carbon price under the EU-ETS will mean that CCS-retrofitting so-called 'CCS-ready' new power stations becomes economical. The EAC slams this notion on three counts:
1. Lack of knowledge of the technology: since the eventual nature of CCS technology is currently unknown, how can a plant built now be designed to have the technology retro-fitted on?
2. Carbon emissions: "The EU ETS is a mechanism designed to reduce emissions; using it as a cover for choosing high emissions technology goes against the purpose of the scheme."
3. The price per tonne of CO2 for retrofitting CCS required to make it commercially viable is unfeasibly high: estimates of this vary from the rather optimistic €40 (E.ON UK) to €90-155 per tonne (Climate Change Capital) and €70-100 per tonne (UK Energy Research Centre). How much it will really be is anybody's guess, but the Government cites an EU estimate of a forward price of carbon of €39 for 2013-2020 (EU-ETS Phase 3). The UK Energy Research Centre predicts around €30. The EAC concludes from this: "the gap between the carbon price and the cost of CCS is enormous".
The EAC concludes: "Coal should be seen as the last resort, even with the promise of CCS."
[Sources available in the EAC report on CCS].
Friday, August 08, 2008
King Coal returns to the battleground
24 years after the miners strike, coal is at the centre of a new battle.
This weekend activists are attempting to close down Kingsnorth power station, protesting against government plans to build a new coal-fired power station at the site in Kent.
This is just one of many anti-coal protests around the country, as public feeling against coal mining and coal burning is mounting. Simultaneously, the industry has plans to open many new mines, and the government is deciding whether to give the go-ahead to seven or eight new coal-fired power stations, the first for 30 years.
Yet concerned climate scientists argue that leaving coal in the ground is the best form of carbon capture and storage - the planet just cannot survive that much more CO2 put into the atmosphere. The burning of coal for electricity and heating, the logic goes, is far easier to halt and to replace than is the use of oil for transportation.
Coal is primarily used for electricity generation, which is the largest source of UK greenhouse gas emissions. Of all power stations, coal-fired ones are most CO2 intensive.
Today, globally, burning coal is responsible for around one quarter of our global CO2 emissions. And currently, approximately 1,000 tonnes of CO2 are released into the Earth's atmosphere every second due to human activity. But around half of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now, due to us, is from burning coal. The majority of this came from Western developed nations who industrialised before China and other emerging indistrialised powers.
This is why developing economies like China and India argue, in the current round of climate control talks, that as today's climate change is due to our historical emissions, developed countries should curb their emissions before they do. Climate campaigners argue that if we want these countries to stop building new coal-fired power stations (China is opening two a week), we must set a good example.
James Hansen is described by many as the world's leading climate scientist. He first alerted Washington politicians to the dangers of climate change in June 1988 and has been an outspoken advocate of action to stop it ever since. He is the director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA and adjunct professor at earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University. He has called for a moratorium on building coal-fired power plants and for a 350ppm target for the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Currently it is 385ppm.)
"It's very difficult to see how we can prevent the oil from being used and the carbon getting in to the atmosphere because it comes from vehicles, but in the case of coal if we're going to use that, we could restrict it to power-plants and we should say it can only be used there if you capture the CO2," he says. He argues that it's easier to make electricity and heat buildings with other sources of energy than coal, than it is to find alternatives to the fossil fuels which power our vehicles. Therefore we should do this first. "I think it's a better way than saying let's reduce CO2 80% or 90% or 60% or any particular number because we really can't let 40% or 20% of the coal to continue to be used; that's the one source that we really need to cut off."
Hansen has written to Gordon Brown requesting that the Government doesn't build any new coal fired power plants without carbon capture and storage. "Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the air," he wrote. "Saving the planet and creation surely requires phase-out of coal use." We don't know if Brown replied. Source.
In June Hansen on Monday told listeners on Capitol Hill, Washington, that the heads of oil and coal companies who knowingly delayed action on curbing greenhouse gas emissions were committing a crime. “These CEO’s, these captains of industry,” he said in the briefing, “if they don’t change their tactics they’re guilty of crimes against humanity and nature.” He compared cordons of coal cars heading to power plants to the death trains of the Holocaust (because of the mass extinctions foreseen by many biologists should warming go unabated).
Hansen said in an interview in March: "I would say within a decade or so, that these coal plants are simply not compatible with keeping a planet resembling the one in which civilisation developed. And I think there is going to be eventually pressure to in effect bulldoze those plants, so economically they just don't make sense. You are not going to be able to leave them there 50 years."
Hanen argues that we will have to "restore the point of energy balance because as it stands now we will lose the Arctic sea ice without any more greenhouse gases, as there is additional warming in the pipeline. That means we would have to reduce the amount of CO2 at least to the 350ppm level, and we are already at 385. So, we've actually got to go backwards and it's really too bad that we didn't realise this earlier."
Does Hansen believe it's possible to reverse the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?
"Yes, yes, it's still possible. If we get on the stick very promptly, it's still practical to do that in ways that are quite natural. The most important thing is to have a moratorium on new coal fired power plants that don't capture CO2 and then to phase out the dirty coal use over the next 2-3 decades.
If we do that, you know that the system does still take up CO2, the ocean and the soils and things, so that other things being equal, CO2 would only go up to a bit more than 400 if we phase out coal use. But then we have got to take at least 50ppm out of the atmosphere, and that is possible with improved agricultural and forestry practices, things that we have not being paying much attention to."
Where will the coal come from? There are 17 opencast mines in the UK now, with a staggering 25 in planning or proposed (see table below).
Opencast coal mining recovers over 90% of the coal deposit, more than deep mining but leaves a huge scar on the landscape. Soil and rock are first broken up by drilling and blasting with explosives then removed by draglines or by power shovels and trucks. With the coal seam exposed, it is also drilled and blasted. Large trucks or conveyors then take it to where it will be used. These activities have the following effects on local communities, notwithstanding the climate damage:
Elsewhere, protestors have occupied Prospect Farm off Bell Lane, Smalley, Derbyshire, site of a proposed open cast mine and occupied by activists since June 2008. They were evicted on August 7.
If Britain is serious about climate change, it cannot sanction new coal mines and power stations.
This weekend activists are attempting to close down Kingsnorth power station, protesting against government plans to build a new coal-fired power station at the site in Kent.
This is just one of many anti-coal protests around the country, as public feeling against coal mining and coal burning is mounting. Simultaneously, the industry has plans to open many new mines, and the government is deciding whether to give the go-ahead to seven or eight new coal-fired power stations, the first for 30 years.
Yet concerned climate scientists argue that leaving coal in the ground is the best form of carbon capture and storage - the planet just cannot survive that much more CO2 put into the atmosphere. The burning of coal for electricity and heating, the logic goes, is far easier to halt and to replace than is the use of oil for transportation.
Coal is primarily used for electricity generation, which is the largest source of UK greenhouse gas emissions. Of all power stations, coal-fired ones are most CO2 intensive.
Today, globally, burning coal is responsible for around one quarter of our global CO2 emissions. And currently, approximately 1,000 tonnes of CO2 are released into the Earth's atmosphere every second due to human activity. But around half of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now, due to us, is from burning coal. The majority of this came from Western developed nations who industrialised before China and other emerging indistrialised powers.
This is why developing economies like China and India argue, in the current round of climate control talks, that as today's climate change is due to our historical emissions, developed countries should curb their emissions before they do. Climate campaigners argue that if we want these countries to stop building new coal-fired power stations (China is opening two a week), we must set a good example.
James Hansen
James Hansen is described by many as the world's leading climate scientist. He first alerted Washington politicians to the dangers of climate change in June 1988 and has been an outspoken advocate of action to stop it ever since. He is the director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA and adjunct professor at earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University. He has called for a moratorium on building coal-fired power plants and for a 350ppm target for the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Currently it is 385ppm.)
"It's very difficult to see how we can prevent the oil from being used and the carbon getting in to the atmosphere because it comes from vehicles, but in the case of coal if we're going to use that, we could restrict it to power-plants and we should say it can only be used there if you capture the CO2," he says. He argues that it's easier to make electricity and heat buildings with other sources of energy than coal, than it is to find alternatives to the fossil fuels which power our vehicles. Therefore we should do this first. "I think it's a better way than saying let's reduce CO2 80% or 90% or 60% or any particular number because we really can't let 40% or 20% of the coal to continue to be used; that's the one source that we really need to cut off."
Hansen has written to Gordon Brown requesting that the Government doesn't build any new coal fired power plants without carbon capture and storage. "Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the air," he wrote. "Saving the planet and creation surely requires phase-out of coal use." We don't know if Brown replied. Source.
In June Hansen on Monday told listeners on Capitol Hill, Washington, that the heads of oil and coal companies who knowingly delayed action on curbing greenhouse gas emissions were committing a crime. “These CEO’s, these captains of industry,” he said in the briefing, “if they don’t change their tactics they’re guilty of crimes against humanity and nature.” He compared cordons of coal cars heading to power plants to the death trains of the Holocaust (because of the mass extinctions foreseen by many biologists should warming go unabated).
Hansen said in an interview in March: "I would say within a decade or so, that these coal plants are simply not compatible with keeping a planet resembling the one in which civilisation developed. And I think there is going to be eventually pressure to in effect bulldoze those plants, so economically they just don't make sense. You are not going to be able to leave them there 50 years."
Hanen argues that we will have to "restore the point of energy balance because as it stands now we will lose the Arctic sea ice without any more greenhouse gases, as there is additional warming in the pipeline. That means we would have to reduce the amount of CO2 at least to the 350ppm level, and we are already at 385. So, we've actually got to go backwards and it's really too bad that we didn't realise this earlier."
Does Hansen believe it's possible to reverse the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?
"Yes, yes, it's still possible. If we get on the stick very promptly, it's still practical to do that in ways that are quite natural. The most important thing is to have a moratorium on new coal fired power plants that don't capture CO2 and then to phase out the dirty coal use over the next 2-3 decades.
If we do that, you know that the system does still take up CO2, the ocean and the soils and things, so that other things being equal, CO2 would only go up to a bit more than 400 if we phase out coal use. But then we have got to take at least 50ppm out of the atmosphere, and that is possible with improved agricultural and forestry practices, things that we have not being paying much attention to."
Britain's coal resources
The coal industry estimates there are 45 billion tonnes of recoverable UK coal reserves, which at current rates would last us 300 years. This represents around 150 billion tonnes of CO2. The industry says new mines are in development because it is becoming more cost-effective to mine rather than import, which currently costs Britain around £3 billion a year.
But just-released government energy statistics show that coal consumption fell by just under 7% in 2007, with an 8.5% decrease in consumption by the major power producers (consumers of 81% of total coal demand). Electricity supplied from coal in 2007, actually fell from 37% in 2006 to 34% in 2007. Burning coal at home only uses 1% of coal.
The only reason the government wants to burn more coal is to reduce the demand for imported gas and replace currently offline or closing nuclear power stations. But it should invest in renewables, the power of the future, instead.
The government's BERR and coal supporters talk about using ‘Carbon Capture and Storage’ (CCS) at coal-fired power stations as a solution to climate change. This technology does not yet exist and the industry itself says it won't be ready for at least 10 years. It is also likely to be highly expensive. In America the Bush administration withdrew its support for the FutureGen CCS project in February for this reason. Despite this, the government is now deciding whether to allow seven or eight new coal fired power stations.
Opencast coal mining
Where will the coal come from? There are 17 opencast mines in the UK now, with a staggering 25 in planning or proposed (see table below).
Opencast coal mining recovers over 90% of the coal deposit, more than deep mining but leaves a huge scar on the landscape. Soil and rock are first broken up by drilling and blasting with explosives then removed by draglines or by power shovels and trucks. With the coal seam exposed, it is also drilled and blasted. Large trucks or conveyors then take it to where it will be used. These activities have the following effects on local communities, notwithstanding the climate damage:
- Noise, such as blasting and vehicle movements
- Dust and dirt
- Health problems: respiratory, eye and skin conditions
- Traffic congestion
- Adverse visual impact and change to local landscape
- Long term environmental damage
- Reduced investment and lowering of property values
- Loss of local countryside for recreation.
Elsewhere, protestors have occupied Prospect Farm off Bell Lane, Smalley, Derbyshire, site of a proposed open cast mine and occupied by activists since June 2008. They were evicted on August 7.
If Britain is serious about climate change, it cannot sanction new coal mines and power stations.
Opencast coal mining sites in England and Wales: Currently producing:
| Licensee | Name | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Celtic Energy Ltd | Margam Opencast | Bridgend, S Wales |
| Celtic Energy Ltd | Nant Helen Extension | Powys |
| Celtic Energy Ltd | Selar | Neath, Port Talbot, S wales |
| Dynant Fach Colliery Company | Dynant Fawr | Carmarthenshire |
| Energybuild Ltd | Nant-y-Mynydd | Neath, Port Talbot, S wales |
| H J Banks Developments | Delhi Site | Northumberland |
| H J Banks Developments | Shotton Surface Mine | Northumberland |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Cutacre | Bolton |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Lodge House | Derbyshire |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Long Moor | Leicestershire |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Maidens Hall Extension | Northumberland |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Oxcroft | Derbyshire |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Sharlston | West Yorkshire |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Stobswood | Northumberland |
| Minerals (UK) Ltd | Bwlch Ffos | Neath, Port Talbot |
| Ward Brothers | Prestwick Pit | Northumberland |
| Miller Argent | Ffos-y-Fran | Mid-Glamorgan, Wales |
Opencast sites proposed/in planning process in England and Wales
| Licensee | Name | Location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bryn Bach Coal Ltd | Cwn Yr Onen Colliery Reclamation | Carmarthenshire | |
| Celtic Energy Ltd | East Pit East revised | Neath, Port Talbot, S wales | |
| Celtic Energy Ltd | Margam Extension | Bridgend, S Wales | Planning applied for Oct 2007 |
| Draeth Mining | Pentre Mawr | Carmarthenshire | |
| H J Banks Developments | Alcan Farms | Northumberland | planning put in Oct 2007 |
| H J Banks Developments | Brenkley | Northumberland | |
| H J Banks Developments | Cavil Head | Northumberland | planning put in Oct 2007 |
| H J Banks Developments | Houndalee, nr Widdrington | Northumberland | Planning put in Oct 2007 |
| H J Banks Developments | Newton Lane Surface Mine | Leeds | |
| H J Banks Developments | The Cockles, nr Ulgham | Northumberland | Planning put in Oct 2007 |
| Hall Construction Services Ltd | Skons Park, Burnopfield | Gateshead, Newcastle | Planning rejected 2007. New submission expected |
| Parkhill Estates Ltd | Caughley Quarry | Shropshire | |
| Shires Development Ltd | Corporal Lane Quarry | Calderdale, yorks | |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Bradley | County Durham | Planning expected April 2008 |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Butterwell, nr Ulgham | Northumberland | Planning expected 2008 |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Chesterfield Canal | Derbyshire | Planning expected 2008 |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Highthorn, nr Widdrington | Northumberland | planning submitted Oct 07 |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Huntington Lane | Telford,Shropshire | Planning expected 2008 |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Minorca | Leicestershire | Planning expected 2008 |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Park Wall North | County Durham | |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Potland Burn | Northumberland | |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Steadsburn | Northumberland | |
| UK Coal Mining Ltd | Whittonstall, nr Consett | Northumberland | planning submitted Oct 07 |
| UK Coal PLC | Temple Quarry | Kirklees, yorks | |
| Unknown | Whittle Colliery | Northumberland |
Sources:
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
French nuclear cock-ups: not coming soon to a reactor near you
The collapse of the EdF takeover of British Energy is the right decision for the wrong reasons.
The private shareholders in British Energy, Invesco and M&G Investments who own 22%, greedily holding out for a higher share price, have shocked the pro-nuclear, pro-business BERR with their decision to reject EdF's £12 billion offer. The French state-owned EdF wasn't too pleased either. That sort of thing wouldn't happen in France.
The government sold all but 35% of its stake in British Energy last year. They probably rue the day now because they would love to have the £4bn in the Treasury coffers and the nuclear newbuild to go ahead. Conservative MP Peter Luff said the collapse was not necessarily a bad thing - if it had gone through, EdF would have "owned over a quarter of all electricity generation in the UK and the competition effect would've been very serious." I quite agree.
Business Secretary John Hutton has put a brave face on it: "We thought it was a good deal and were ready to accept." Like a pathetic salesman he tried to tout the land still available for anybody who wants to build a new nuclear power station: "Our commitment to nuclear power is clear.... BE still has potential sites and sites are available from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority."
Meanwhile, British Energy is not exactly performing well. It announced in July that its Heysham and Hartlepool reactors, currently off-line due to faults, will now cost at least twice as much to repair - over £100m. Its chairman confessed that "output from our nuclear stations last year was disappointing." No kidding. And they say windfarms don't deliver.
On July 7, Areva accidentally poured at least 18 cubic meters of liquid containing at least 75 kilograms of uranium onto the ground and into the river at the Tricastin nuclear site, prompting local authorities to launch an official enquiry and local people to be banned from drinking their own water. Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo has ordered an overhaul of France's nuclear supervision as well as groundwater checks around all nuclear plants.
President Sarkozy is keen to export French nuclear know-how around the world. Since his election, he has signed cooperation agreements on civilian nuclear energy with Algeria, America, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates, among others.
France has 59 reactors supplying 80% of its electricity. The Tricastin site is a major part of the French nuclear industry, with over 5,000 employees and many sub-contracting companies. It includes the military research facility of Pierrelatte, the EDF power plant, a factory for converting natural uranium (Comurhex), and a uranium enrichment factory (Eurodiff). The latter two are subsidiaries of Areva, which wants to build new nuclear power stations in Britain.
In June a consortium led by Areva won a 17 year contract to clean up Sellafield, worth at least £50m a year. Malcolm Wicks said in a parliamentary answer just before the summer recess that the contract specified no limit on the risk to the taxpayer in the event of an accident like that at Tricastin.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has given Areva indemnity if there were to be an incident, provided that it is insured against the first £140m of the damage costs.
An audit of the NDA, published also in July, says there are "inherent risks" in the way the body operates, pointing out that half of its income is dependent on unreliable sources such as fuel reprocessing at Sellafield's Thorp plant (closed since a leak was discovered in 2005). It also highlights management and accounting failures; simple things like not taking notes at minutes has led to budgetary confusion.
The audit is by the government's Select Committee on Business and Enterprise. The NDA is funded by Government funding and from commercial income. The commercial slice is "volatile and over time will decline as sites progressively close and move into the decommissioning phase," says the report. "The grant-in-aid portion of the NDA's income already represents a very sizeable proportion of BERR's annual budget - 42% of the original total Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for the 2007-08 financial year."
However Britain doesn’t need to build major new power stations to keep the lights on and maintain security, according to a report just released by independent consultants Pöyry.
It says that if the UK government can meet its EU renewable energy targets and its own action plan to reduce demand through energy efficiency, then major new power stations (either coal, nuclear or gas) would not be needed to meet the country's electricity requirements up to at least 2020.
The private shareholders in British Energy, Invesco and M&G Investments who own 22%, greedily holding out for a higher share price, have shocked the pro-nuclear, pro-business BERR with their decision to reject EdF's £12 billion offer. The French state-owned EdF wasn't too pleased either. That sort of thing wouldn't happen in France.
The government sold all but 35% of its stake in British Energy last year. They probably rue the day now because they would love to have the £4bn in the Treasury coffers and the nuclear newbuild to go ahead. Conservative MP Peter Luff said the collapse was not necessarily a bad thing - if it had gone through, EdF would have "owned over a quarter of all electricity generation in the UK and the competition effect would've been very serious." I quite agree.
Business Secretary John Hutton has put a brave face on it: "We thought it was a good deal and were ready to accept." Like a pathetic salesman he tried to tout the land still available for anybody who wants to build a new nuclear power station: "Our commitment to nuclear power is clear.... BE still has potential sites and sites are available from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority."
Meanwhile, British Energy is not exactly performing well. It announced in July that its Heysham and Hartlepool reactors, currently off-line due to faults, will now cost at least twice as much to repair - over £100m. Its chairman confessed that "output from our nuclear stations last year was disappointing." No kidding. And they say windfarms don't deliver.
French nuclear headaches to be exported to Britain
For those who think that new nuclear power is not a solution to either high energy prices, energy security or climate change, the EdF/BE news was positive, especially in view of the scandal rocking the French nuclear industry at the moment.On July 7, Areva accidentally poured at least 18 cubic meters of liquid containing at least 75 kilograms of uranium onto the ground and into the river at the Tricastin nuclear site, prompting local authorities to launch an official enquiry and local people to be banned from drinking their own water. Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo has ordered an overhaul of France's nuclear supervision as well as groundwater checks around all nuclear plants.
President Sarkozy is keen to export French nuclear know-how around the world. Since his election, he has signed cooperation agreements on civilian nuclear energy with Algeria, America, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates, among others.
France has 59 reactors supplying 80% of its electricity. The Tricastin site is a major part of the French nuclear industry, with over 5,000 employees and many sub-contracting companies. It includes the military research facility of Pierrelatte, the EDF power plant, a factory for converting natural uranium (Comurhex), and a uranium enrichment factory (Eurodiff). The latter two are subsidiaries of Areva, which wants to build new nuclear power stations in Britain.
In June a consortium led by Areva won a 17 year contract to clean up Sellafield, worth at least £50m a year. Malcolm Wicks said in a parliamentary answer just before the summer recess that the contract specified no limit on the risk to the taxpayer in the event of an accident like that at Tricastin.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has given Areva indemnity if there were to be an incident, provided that it is insured against the first £140m of the damage costs.
NDA slammed for management failure as clean-up costs rise
We could have funded two London Olympics just from the rises in the estimated costs of cleaning up our nuclear waste over the past two years. The estimate is now around £73bn, according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).An audit of the NDA, published also in July, says there are "inherent risks" in the way the body operates, pointing out that half of its income is dependent on unreliable sources such as fuel reprocessing at Sellafield's Thorp plant (closed since a leak was discovered in 2005). It also highlights management and accounting failures; simple things like not taking notes at minutes has led to budgetary confusion.
The audit is by the government's Select Committee on Business and Enterprise. The NDA is funded by Government funding and from commercial income. The commercial slice is "volatile and over time will decline as sites progressively close and move into the decommissioning phase," says the report. "The grant-in-aid portion of the NDA's income already represents a very sizeable proportion of BERR's annual budget - 42% of the original total Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for the 2007-08 financial year."
The nuclear dilemma
It is said that your position on nuclear power comes down in part to your response to this dilemma: which is worse, the local damage caused by nuclear leaks and processed fuel lying around for 4.5 billion years (which Is the half life of depleted uranium), or the global catastrophes caused by runaway climate change?However Britain doesn’t need to build major new power stations to keep the lights on and maintain security, according to a report just released by independent consultants Pöyry.
It says that if the UK government can meet its EU renewable energy targets and its own action plan to reduce demand through energy efficiency, then major new power stations (either coal, nuclear or gas) would not be needed to meet the country's electricity requirements up to at least 2020.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Energy and Environmental Management magazine now independent, online and free
Energy and Environmental Management is the name of one of the magazines I work on.
It actually covers a lot more than that, the whole of the sustainable development field in this country. There is a Focus Supplement on energy efficiency and another on waste.You can now read Energy and Environmental Management online as a free online edition - and subscribe. It has very cool embedded video in the technology, this time used to illustrate the think08 conference which I was at.
The magazine used to be sponsored by Defra and is now independent -- so we are free to be more critical (although we were before -- Defra and BERR don't exactly see eye to eye on energy policy, particularly on the issue of energy efficiency)!
These are the full contents:
News
Combating fuel poverty . . .6
EU ETS kept emissions down . . . . 7
Carbon Trust “could do better” . . .8
Tougher penalties on waste crime . . .9
WRAP’s new business plan . . . . 10
UK battery regulations . . . . 11
Think 08 review . . . . 12
Personal carbon trading . . . . 14
Health warning on car adverts . . .16
Focus on waste management and recycling
The true cost of waste, by David Moon . . .p1
WEEE Regulations, by Adrian Harding . . .p3
Industrial Symbiosis - an effective way of reducing industrial waste, by Maggie Morrisey . . .p4
Space of Waste, by Dan McTiernan and Geoff Stow . . .p5
Reducing reliance on landfill, by Barry Sheppard . . . . p6
Waste not, want not, by Matthew Rowland-Jones . . .p7
Focus on energy management and renewable energy
European Energy Management Standards, by Martin Fry . . .p1
Real efficiency, by Alan Aldridge . . .p3
Increasing popularity of solar, by Kathy Wyatt . . .p5
Regulating non-domestic buildings, by Melody Stokes . . .p8
Features
Climate change champions, by Steve Waller . . .18
UK award winners . . . . 21
Regulars
Society for the Environment column . . .17
Resources/Events . . . . 24/25
Products & Services . . . . 26
Contacts . . . . 27
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Tidal vs Nuclear
Even as Gordon Brown gives support for more nuclear newbuild, tidal stream energy makes big strides forwards while nuclear costs rise and problems continue
Decommissioning costs rising
The cost of cleaning up the UK's nuclear facilities - some of which date back to the 1950s - will rise above £73bn, even as Gordon Brown is rushing to build new ones. Jim Morse, a senior director at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) told the BBC this week that the costs of dismantling 19 sites will rise by billions of pounds. The National Audit Office upgraded the figure to £73bn. it just keeps going up.
Morse said: "I think it's a high probability that in the short term it will undoubtedly go up. We've still a lot to discover. We haven't started waste retrieval in those parts of the estate where the degradation and radioactive decay has been at its greatest. No-one's done this before."
Nuclear shutdowns
In other nuclear developments this week, two of British Energy's ageing nuclear reactors - the Hunterston B7 reactor at Largs, Ayrshire, and the Sizewell B reactor in Leiston, Suffolk - also shut down unexpectedly triggering blackouts.
Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace's climate and energy campaign, said: "The nuclear industry has had a woeful 24 hours that must be shaking confidence in this outdated technology. Sizewell B shut down unexpectedly, clean-up costs are soaring and the reactor that France wants to sell us has had construction halted for safety reasons."
EDF's not to be trusted
On Tuesday, the French nuclear safety authority (ASN) ordered EDF Energy to partly suspend the construction of its new-generation nuclear reactor in Flamanville after concerns about the quality of the construction work. This is the same company that has recently been buying up farmland adjacent to Wylfa nuclear power station on Anglesey, expecting to be given the green light to build a new nuclear power station there.
The local council is in favour of the project, because it is fearful that a nearby steel plant, dependent on the energy from the power plants, will have to close down when the power station is decommissioned after 2012. But the Welsh Assembly government has not given its view.
Marine current turbine world first
A Friends of the Earth Wales report has said a marine tidal farm could generate the equivalent energy to Wylfa rendering a new nuclear power station unnecessarily. The marine currents just alongside the power station are amongst the strongest around Britain's coast. Construction is to begin on a 10.5MW project, expected to be commissioned around 2011/2012.
The pioneering project is a joint initiative with Marine Current Turbines and npower. Marine Current Turbines has successfully installed the world's first megawatt-scale tidal turbine, a 1.2MW SeaGen tidal energy system, in Strangford Narrows, Northern Ireland in May. It should start regularly feeding power into the Northern Ireland grid in August.
Martin Wright, Managing Director of Marine Current Turbines said: "This has been a ground-breaking operation, the like of which has never been attempted before and it has attracted interest from around the world. SeaGen's installation has been filmed by TV crews from North America, Germany and France as well as from Ireland and the UK." When fully operational the tidal system's 16m diameter, twin rotors will operate for up to 18-20 hours per day.
These turbines are modular, so if these installations are successful more may be added later, spreading the cost, unlike with tidal barrages or nuclear power stations.
Monday, June 02, 2008
UK and Irish governments told to implement personal carbon trading
The British government should reconsider its decision to put on the backburner the idea of personal carbon trading, especially since the Irish government has now been advised to roll out a pilot for the transport sector.
Britain should consider giving individuals a personal carbon emissions allowance that they can use or trade, in order to help the country meet its CO2 emissions target, the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) told the government last week. The government had earlier in the month dismissed the idea.
Hilary Benn, the environment minister, told me at a climate change conference (Think 08) that the scheme was too early (meaning that people weren't ready for it), too expensive and too complicated to explain and to administer. Additionally, he argued that there was a danger of inequity in the system, disproportionately affecting the elderly, rural and poor who would have to be compensated.
However, the Irish government has just received a recommendation to trial a form of Cap & Share in the transport sector.
The Defra report deliberately underplayed the carbon benefits and admitted to a low level of research quality citing a "reduction in personal emissions of 0-10% - although these figures have been drawn from research on metering and energy displays rather than trials of personal carbon trading... a low range of 0-5% reduction is assumed. Though [even] a 10% reduction would still not be sufficient to balance the cost-benefit assessment more favourably."
The Environmental Audit Committee disagreed. "Existing initiatives are unlikely to bring about behavioural change on the scale required, with many individuals choosing to disregard the connection between their own emissions and the larger challenge," the EAC said. "Personal carbon trading might be the kind of radical measure needed to bring about behavioural change." It would be more effective and fairer than bringing in "green" taxes.
Hilary Benn said the cost of introducing PCAs would be between £700m and £2bn.
However, Tim Yeo, the Conservative EAC chairman, strongly disagreed, saying difficulties of implementing the scheme could be overcome and calling for more feasibility work. He said that if the private sector were to administer it, it could be done a lot cheaper, along the lines of supermarket loyalty cards. "It engages people at all levels in their decisions, about whether they heat their house to a slightly lower temperature, whether they really need to put air conditioning in their flat, whether they really need to take that flight," he said.
Meanwhile, Ireland forges ahead
But PCAs are not the only such scheme on the table. At the end of May, British consultants AEA Energy and Environment released their interim final report, commissioned by Comhar, the Irish national sustainable development council, into Cap & Share, which the coalition government is seriously considering. Their conclusion was that Cap & Share is much fairer, cheaper, and more cost-effective.
Under Cap & Share, permits for the right to emit carbon are given to the population, who can then choose whether or not to sell them to companies introducing fossil fuels to the national economy. (Currently of course permits are given away under the EU emissions trading scheme, which boosts the energy companies’ profits at consumers’ expense.) As only a small number of firms are importing or producing energy, this makes C&S easy to administer. Each fuel company is required to purchase permits to match the eventual emissions from the fossil fuels they extract or import, with the total number being reduced year on year to promote the transition to a low carbon society.
Of course companies have to add the cost of the permits to their prices and this puts up the cost of everything sold because all goods and services have an energy content. But the Irish environment organization Feasta comments: "it's just as fair as any other scheme. Under the proposal lower income households, on average, would benefit since they have lower than average energy consumption and would receive emissions certificates worth more than the increased fuel costs they incur. "
How much would it cost?
AEA compares 10 different ways of rationing carbon currently being considered around the world, including carbon taxes. Their report is far more detailed than that produced by Hillary Benn’s department.
The AEA report compares the various carbon reducing schemes on offer. The green colour symbolizes the most benefit and the redder shade the least benefit.
They say the cost of "the Cap and Share scheme... would be lower than the more complex personal carbon allocation options but higher than introducing a carbon tax. For the Cap and Share scheme the cost of administering the fuel suppliers is likely to be secondary to the costs associated with issuing certificates to the general public. Our simple bottom up estimate... puts the transaction costs for a system where certificates are cashed in remotely in the range 8-11% of the value of the certificates. This range depends on income and assumes an allowance price of €20/tCO2 and a bank direct transaction charge of 5%. At higher carbon prices the cost effectiveness would be better, with transaction costs around 6-7% for a price of €50/tCO2."
AEA therefore recommends the system to be introduced on a trial basis first of all in the transport sector in the Republic of Ireland "with subsequent consideration to sectoral and geographical expansion" in the North. This would also combat the fuel tourism which currently goes on, as fuel is cheaper south of the border – which I witnessed first hand recently. Measures would be needed to shield the vulnerable from increased costs. AEA suggests not allocating to children, "although again consideration will be needed for increasing support to families".
AEA concludes its comparison thus: "Cap and Share and the Sky Trust currently appear the most favourable [schemes]. The schemes that treat individuals as an emitting entity (Tradable Energy Quotas, Personal Carbon Rationing, Rate All Products and Services and the Ayres Scheme) look the least appealing, because of their complexity and the resulting costs. Furthermore, the lack of public engagement, uncertainty over environmental outcome and no direct compensation for individuals mean non-traded options such as a carbon tax and direct regulation score less well in our analysis than Cap and Share and Sky Trust."
[The Sky Trust is an American idea whereby permits to pollute are auctioned and the revenue generated given to households in order to "lock in public support for emission reductions, no matter how high fuel prices would rise." The dividends could be used by residents to subsidize the price of energy-efficient appliances and/or renewable energy generation.]
The Irish Environmental Protection Agency is currently considering the recommendations. If the Irish government goes ahead it will be another case of the Republic courageously going first where its neighbours in the British Isles later follow – as with banning plastic bags and smoking in pubs. The ‘Celtic Tiger’ can certainly teach us a thing or two about looking after our health and the environment. How surprising is that?
Further illustrations of how the different schemes work:
Monday, March 17, 2008
In Memoriam Will Howard
My good friend Will Howard has just died, following a long and brave battle with cancer. Will has been in recent years a passionate advocate of the form of personal carbon trading known as Cap and Share [link to the web site he set up].
Unbelievably, on the day he died, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn announced that the UK would set up what Reuters' press release called "Domestic Carbon Emissions Trading". This represents a fantastic achievement for the whole movement to get such a trading scheme established.
Despite his cancer Will cycled to Brussels from his home in west Wales near Machynlleth last summer as part of this campaign.
It's to his great credit, that as the main UK campaigner for this simplified form of carbon trading, it is now firmly on the UK political agenda.
A lifelong campaigner
I will try to summarise what I know of his life. Will was a brave man who cared deeply about the state of the planet and its people.I met him in 1997 when we began collaboration on two projects: a Green Solutions CD-Rom for the Centre for ALternative Technoogy, featuring the then new technology of Quicktime virtual reality, and the Palace of Amnesia, a prototype computer game I wrote and he directed.
At that time he was living on the Gower Peninsula near Swansea, running an Apple Mac design company.
With his wife Lyn and boys Sam and Dougie they had moved there from Bristol, where Will, who held a PhD in biology and was an ornithologist, had been a campaign officer for Amnesty International.
This was an early example of the strength of his campaigning zeal.
When my wife Zoe was severely ill in 1998 with a heart tumour, they put us up in their Swansea flat and took care of our own boys.
Their boys were and are home-educated, another example of Will's do-it-yourself approach to life - he and Lyn believe the education system lets children down.
The track of their life eventually led them to Machynlleth where I live, and where Will pioneered a campaign to have the Dyfi Valley becme a Fair Trade Valley - and he succeeded.
As a multimedia author he programmed the Carbon Gym for CAT, and designed the multimedia version of Peter Lord's The Visual Culture of Wales - three CD-Roms for the University of Wales.
This was not enough - he moved on to the most pressing matter of our time - mitigating climate change.
Will was not good at putting himself first. This was part of his selflessness.
In 2004 he had lower back ache which he attributed to poor computer use. In fact it was cancer but because he delayed seeing a doctor about it, so it was at stage 4 before being diagnosed.
He was given just about three months to live.
But he refused to give in, a mark of his courage.
He spent a year trying alternative methods of treatment believing the NHS way to be deeply flawed. They almost worked. But cancer is a persistent enemy.
With stubborn determination he survived a further three years - with the help of his wife, Lyn, and boys, always trying the latest remedies and treatments, from Switzerland and the States, supported by his GP Simon Morpeth. Latterly these included chemo and radiotherapy.
Perhaps he should not have made the bike ride to Brussels. But you couldn't have stopped him. He was determined to do it, because he loved the planet and believed this to be the best thing he could do with his life.
You couldn't ask for more.
The best tribute for him is that his work be carried on to its successful completion.
This is an inadequate memorial. I hope others will add to it.
Monday, March 10, 2008
New climate chief is government patsy
Lord Adair Turner, in day one of his job as chair of the so-called "independent" Committee on Climate Change revealed in a Radio 4 Today interview this morning that he is not going to give the government a hard time.
The committee is supposed to be a sharp-toothed watchdog criticising Government progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Under repeated questioning by John Humphreys, he said he would not query specific government policies, and supported the 'dream' (Naughtie's word) of carbon capture and storage (CCS).
CCS is not proven or costed. But the business world is counting on it to deliver business as usual.
So is the government. Business Secretary John Hutton said today power generation from fossil fuels would continue to play a "key role"
The Government is considering whether to give the go-ahead to build Britain's first new coal-fired power station in over 20 years, at Kingsnorth in Kent.
Hutton said: "Our leadership role is best promoted by the actions we take on capping emissions, carbon pricing and supporting the development of new carbon capture and storage technology. Not by gesture politics."
Gesture politics is something the government is very good at when it comes to fighting climate change.
Turner and Hutton are of the same mold.
Baron Turner of Ecchinswell is a British businessman, academic, a non-executive director for a number of business groups including Standard Chartered plc, United Business Media plc, Siemens plc, Paternoster Ltd.
He is a former Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), and a former vice chairman of Merrill Lynch Europe.
He knows a thing or two about business as usual, and has plenty of vested interests to pursue.
I would imagine that his discussions with fellow committee member Michael Grubb, the Chief Economist at the Carbon Trust, will be quite heated. Grubb is a lot more realistic about the dire straits we're in.
But when Turner eventually gets round to publishing his first report from the committee - not until December - what a sense of urgency - you can expect it to be as criticial as an interview with Michael Parkinson.
Let's be clear. Digging carbon out of the ground is something we should phase out asap. CCS is not going to work or be prohibitively expensive.
The committee is supposed to be a sharp-toothed watchdog criticising Government progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Under repeated questioning by John Humphreys, he said he would not query specific government policies, and supported the 'dream' (Naughtie's word) of carbon capture and storage (CCS).
CCS is not proven or costed. But the business world is counting on it to deliver business as usual.
So is the government. Business Secretary John Hutton said today power generation from fossil fuels would continue to play a "key role"
The Government is considering whether to give the go-ahead to build Britain's first new coal-fired power station in over 20 years, at Kingsnorth in Kent.
Hutton said: "Our leadership role is best promoted by the actions we take on capping emissions, carbon pricing and supporting the development of new carbon capture and storage technology. Not by gesture politics."
Gesture politics is something the government is very good at when it comes to fighting climate change.
Turner and Hutton are of the same mold.
Who is Turner?
Baron Turner of Ecchinswell is a British businessman, academic, a non-executive director for a number of business groups including Standard Chartered plc, United Business Media plc, Siemens plc, Paternoster Ltd.
He is a former Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), and a former vice chairman of Merrill Lynch Europe.
He knows a thing or two about business as usual, and has plenty of vested interests to pursue.
I would imagine that his discussions with fellow committee member Michael Grubb, the Chief Economist at the Carbon Trust, will be quite heated. Grubb is a lot more realistic about the dire straits we're in.
But when Turner eventually gets round to publishing his first report from the committee - not until December - what a sense of urgency - you can expect it to be as criticial as an interview with Michael Parkinson.
Let's be clear. Digging carbon out of the ground is something we should phase out asap. CCS is not going to work or be prohibitively expensive.
Friday, March 07, 2008
"The Energy Bill: In Search of Alternatives"
Places remain at an important parliamentary debate, which I can't get to but I urge anyone near London who can to do so.
It is taking place in two weeks time (Thursday 20th March 2008) in Westminster.
ONLY 8 PLACES REMAIN (reserve your place today - see below - names can be changed later).
Please click here to learn of the high calibre line-up or see below:
09:30 Registration and Networking
10:15 Chair’s Introductions
Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive, British Wind Energy Association (BWEA)
10:30 The Need for a Rational and Open Debate on the Future of Energy Policy
Malcolm Wicks MP, Minister for Energy (provisional confirmation)
10:45 Delivering the Energy Bill
- The energy supply side focus: planning and infrastructure;
- Delivering the three low carbon energy types - Renewables, Carbon Capture and storage and Nuclear;
- How is it all going to actually happen, and to what timescale?
Speaker tbc, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)
11:00 The Future Role of Nuclear Power
- New nuclear as part of Britain’s future energy mix;
- The importance of nuclear power in fighting climate change;
- Securing the UK’s future electricity supplies though nuclear means.
Sir Keith Parker, Chief Executive, Nuclear Industry Association (NIA)
11:15 Critique of the Latest Government Thinking
- The challenges ahead
- Alternative models to the problems currently faced in regards to the search for alternatives.
Rt. Hon Michael Meacher MP, Former Environment Minister
11:30 Environmentally Friendly Energy Alternatives
- Investment in hydrogen production and fuel cells as enablers of a future renewable and low-carbon economy;
-Alternative solutions such as marine reserves and renewable energy;
- Threats linked to energy alternatives such as harmful radiation and proliferation.
Doug Parr, Chief Scientist, Greenpeace
11:45 Coffee Break and Networking
12:00 Questions and Answers Session
13:00 Lunch and Networking
14:00 Close
Another event which also may be of interest to you could be:
http://insidegovernment.msgfocus.com/c/16I8kEIGjeT7SFX
To book, click: http://insidegovernment.msgfocus.com/c/16I9vwBXRuGYBdO
If you have any other queries, please call 0207 484 5224.
It is taking place in two weeks time (Thursday 20th March 2008) in Westminster.
ONLY 8 PLACES REMAIN (reserve your place today - see below - names can be changed later).
Please click here to learn of the high calibre line-up or see below:
Agenda
09:30 Registration and Networking
10:15 Chair’s Introductions
Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive, British Wind Energy Association (BWEA)
10:30 The Need for a Rational and Open Debate on the Future of Energy Policy
Malcolm Wicks MP, Minister for Energy (provisional confirmation)
10:45 Delivering the Energy Bill
- The energy supply side focus: planning and infrastructure;
- Delivering the three low carbon energy types - Renewables, Carbon Capture and storage and Nuclear;
- How is it all going to actually happen, and to what timescale?
Speaker tbc, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)
11:00 The Future Role of Nuclear Power
- New nuclear as part of Britain’s future energy mix;
- The importance of nuclear power in fighting climate change;
- Securing the UK’s future electricity supplies though nuclear means.
Sir Keith Parker, Chief Executive, Nuclear Industry Association (NIA)
11:15 Critique of the Latest Government Thinking
- The challenges ahead
- Alternative models to the problems currently faced in regards to the search for alternatives.
Rt. Hon Michael Meacher MP, Former Environment Minister
11:30 Environmentally Friendly Energy Alternatives
- Investment in hydrogen production and fuel cells as enablers of a future renewable and low-carbon economy;
-Alternative solutions such as marine reserves and renewable energy;
- Threats linked to energy alternatives such as harmful radiation and proliferation.
Doug Parr, Chief Scientist, Greenpeace
11:45 Coffee Break and Networking
12:00 Questions and Answers Session
13:00 Lunch and Networking
14:00 Close
Another event which also may be of interest to you could be:
http://insidegovernment.msgfocus.com/c/16I8kEIGjeT7SFX
To book, click: http://insidegovernment.msgfocus.com/c/16I9vwBXRuGYBdO
If you have any other queries, please call 0207 484 5224.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Don't let them relax uranium transport rules!
About 20 million packages of all sizes containing radioactive materials are transported around the world annually on public road, railways and ships.
With the comeback of nuclear power, there is an increasing demand for transportation of radioactive materials.
Wisely, regulations have been in place to strictly control their movement. But the industry is now complaining of bottlenecks and delays.
This is compounded by the fact that, sensibly, fewer and fewer transporters want to deal with the hazardous materials. Moeller Maersk, the world's largest container shipping line measured on vessel capacity, adopted a policy of not shipping radioactive materials in April 2007.
"It is a very complex problem," said Bernard Monot, external relations vice president at the logistics department of the world's biggest maker of nuclear reactors, Areva.
"The shippers complain about the port authorities, who in turn hold the shipping lines responsible and everybody accuses heavy regulations," he says.
So they want the rules cut.
For example in Holland, "It takes around six weeks to receive a permit," according to Pyter Hiemstra, spokesman for SenterNovem, the agency handling permits on behalf of the Dutch Department of Spatial Planning, Housing and Environment.
He said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had asked countries to speed this up.
"What we would be looking for is for radioactive to be accepted for transit permission normally with 24 to 48 hours notice," said John Leach, General Manager for Dangerous Cargo, Special Cargo Management at Moeller Maersk.
The Low Carbon Kid argues hat the last thing we need is a relaxing of rule around the transport of radioactive materials. The world is a dangerous enough place as it is.
It is governments and local authorities and port authorities who control these rules. Write to your MP and ask them not to let these rules be relaxed.
With the comeback of nuclear power, there is an increasing demand for transportation of radioactive materials.
Wisely, regulations have been in place to strictly control their movement. But the industry is now complaining of bottlenecks and delays.
This is compounded by the fact that, sensibly, fewer and fewer transporters want to deal with the hazardous materials. Moeller Maersk, the world's largest container shipping line measured on vessel capacity, adopted a policy of not shipping radioactive materials in April 2007.
"It is a very complex problem," said Bernard Monot, external relations vice president at the logistics department of the world's biggest maker of nuclear reactors, Areva.
"The shippers complain about the port authorities, who in turn hold the shipping lines responsible and everybody accuses heavy regulations," he says.
So they want the rules cut.
For example in Holland, "It takes around six weeks to receive a permit," according to Pyter Hiemstra, spokesman for SenterNovem, the agency handling permits on behalf of the Dutch Department of Spatial Planning, Housing and Environment.
He said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had asked countries to speed this up.
"What we would be looking for is for radioactive to be accepted for transit permission normally with 24 to 48 hours notice," said John Leach, General Manager for Dangerous Cargo, Special Cargo Management at Moeller Maersk.
The Low Carbon Kid argues hat the last thing we need is a relaxing of rule around the transport of radioactive materials. The world is a dangerous enough place as it is.
It is governments and local authorities and port authorities who control these rules. Write to your MP and ask them not to let these rules be relaxed.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Stop Arctic Oil and Gas
Arctic Oil & Gas Corp. is an oil exploration venture company that has filed for the exclusive exploitation, development, marketing and extraction rights to the oil and gas resources of the seafloor and subsurface contained within the ”Arctic Claims“.
A preliminary assessment by the US Geological Survey (USGS) suggests the Arctic seabed may hold up to a quarter of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas reserves.
But the planet’s ecosystem could not absorb without radical change the release of the greenhouse gases their burning would release, nor the seabed’s ecosystem survive the mining.
It is madness and craziness beyond belief to exploit this resource.
It is absolutely vital that the world agree, as it did fifty years ago with Antarctica, to set aside a large percentage of the world’s surface as inviolable conservation areas, and it must be made financially worthwhile by their host nations to do so, along the lines of the agreement to pay countries with rainforests not to chop them down in return for carbon credits, in the post-2012 climate negotiations.
But this company does not care about this. Its email to me asked me to invest in the chance to make trillions of dollars from exploiting "the last frontier". It boasted greedily of how the area has more promise than Iraq.
An Exclusive Rights Claim to the Hydrocarbon Resources of the Arctic Oceans Commons was formally lodged by the Company and its partners with the United Nations and the five Arctic countries on May 9th 2006.
The Company intends to operate as the ”lead manager“ tasked to create a multinational joint venture consortium of major oil companies, whose technology and managerial expertise will be vital to recovering the oil and gas from the harsh, deep waters of the Arctic in an environmentally safe manner.
Its contact details are here:
Corporate Address:
Arctic Oil and Gas Corp.
8350 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Investors and Press phone: 702.953.9688
Corporate phone: 323.556.0643
Email: ir@arcticoag.com
The company is obviously aware of the "sensitive" nature of its activities. Reading its policy on "corporate governance" is illuminating:
Arctic Oil & Gas Corp. is also committed to the highest possible standards of openness, honesty and accountability. In line with that commitment, we expect employees and others that we deal with who have serious concerns about any aspect of the company‘s work to come forward and voice those concerns.
Employees are often the first to realize that there may be something seriously wrong within the company. However, they may decide not to express their concerns because they feel that speaking up would be disloyal to their colleagues or to the company.
They may also fear harassment or victimization. In these circumstances, they may feel it would be easier to ignore the concern rather than report what may just be a suspicion of malpractice.
For this reason, the company has instituted a Whistle Blowing Policy is that is intended to encourage and enable employees to raise serious concerns within the company rather than overlooking a problem or seeking a resolution of the problem outside the company.
Then, presumably, they can be silenced.
A preliminary assessment by the US Geological Survey (USGS) suggests the Arctic seabed may hold up to a quarter of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas reserves.
But the planet’s ecosystem could not absorb without radical change the release of the greenhouse gases their burning would release, nor the seabed’s ecosystem survive the mining.
It is madness and craziness beyond belief to exploit this resource.
It is absolutely vital that the world agree, as it did fifty years ago with Antarctica, to set aside a large percentage of the world’s surface as inviolable conservation areas, and it must be made financially worthwhile by their host nations to do so, along the lines of the agreement to pay countries with rainforests not to chop them down in return for carbon credits, in the post-2012 climate negotiations.
But this company does not care about this. Its email to me asked me to invest in the chance to make trillions of dollars from exploiting "the last frontier". It boasted greedily of how the area has more promise than Iraq.
An Exclusive Rights Claim to the Hydrocarbon Resources of the Arctic Oceans Commons was formally lodged by the Company and its partners with the United Nations and the five Arctic countries on May 9th 2006.
The Company intends to operate as the ”lead manager“ tasked to create a multinational joint venture consortium of major oil companies, whose technology and managerial expertise will be vital to recovering the oil and gas from the harsh, deep waters of the Arctic in an environmentally safe manner.
Its contact details are here:
Corporate Address:
Arctic Oil and Gas Corp.
8350 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Investors and Press phone: 702.953.9688
Corporate phone: 323.556.0643
Email: ir@arcticoag.com
The company is obviously aware of the "sensitive" nature of its activities. Reading its policy on "corporate governance" is illuminating:
Arctic Oil & Gas Corp. is also committed to the highest possible standards of openness, honesty and accountability. In line with that commitment, we expect employees and others that we deal with who have serious concerns about any aspect of the company‘s work to come forward and voice those concerns.
Employees are often the first to realize that there may be something seriously wrong within the company. However, they may decide not to express their concerns because they feel that speaking up would be disloyal to their colleagues or to the company.
They may also fear harassment or victimization. In these circumstances, they may feel it would be easier to ignore the concern rather than report what may just be a suspicion of malpractice.
For this reason, the company has instituted a Whistle Blowing Policy is that is intended to encourage and enable employees to raise serious concerns within the company rather than overlooking a problem or seeking a resolution of the problem outside the company.
Then, presumably, they can be silenced.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Sustainable war
It's nice to know that even the Ministry of Defence is going green, in the battle against climate change.
Derek Twigg of the MoD told Fraser Kemp on Monday, in Parliamentary Questions, all about the measures they are taking... "improving building energy management and energy efficiency... working with the Carbon Trust ... embedding pro-rata energy efficiency targets into service delivery agreements ... trying to procure energy-efficient vehicles and offset emissions from ministerial flights."
And they will "develop and implement a carbon neutrality strategy for the MOD office estate..." etc. etc.
One day, perhaps, all wars will be carbon neutralised and solar-powered. Just like the old days.
So that's alright then.
Derek Twigg of the MoD told Fraser Kemp on Monday, in Parliamentary Questions, all about the measures they are taking... "improving building energy management and energy efficiency... working with the Carbon Trust ... embedding pro-rata energy efficiency targets into service delivery agreements ... trying to procure energy-efficient vehicles and offset emissions from ministerial flights."
And they will "develop and implement a carbon neutrality strategy for the MOD office estate..." etc. etc.
One day, perhaps, all wars will be carbon neutralised and solar-powered. Just like the old days.
So that's alright then.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Fire at nuclear plant put out
A fire started at Vattenfall Europe's currently closed Kruemmel nuclear plant in northern German but was quickly put out by the plant's own fire brigade on Monday, the operator and local government said [report from Reuters].
No radioactive substances had been released and all relevant authorities had been informed, Vattenfall said in a statement.
The 1,402 megawatt plant, which is jointly operated by the Swedish/German utility Vattanfall utility group and by Germany's E.ON has been closed since June 28, 2007 when a fire at a tranformer substation caused a short circuit.
The Social Affairs Ministry in the northern state of Schleswig Holstein, which supervises nuclear safety, said the incident took place around 0700 GMT and was resolved shortly after 0800 GMT.
The internal fire brigade had dealt with the fire so there had been no need to involve public fire fighters, it said. There were no injuries.
Vattenfall confirmed the details in a statement, saying there had been a smouldering fire at a ventilation system.
Germany is in the process of phasing out nuclear power by 2020 under plans agreed by the previous coalition of Social Democrats (SPD) and Greens.
The plans are being contested by the conservative parties CDU/CSU, which are currently in a coalition government with the SPD. Each safety-related incident is helping to weaken their arguments and reignite fears over the safety of the technology.
A statement from the ministry said the cause of the fire had not yet been determined but its experts were investigating at the site.
The 24-year old Kruemmel reactor is about 20 km (12.43 miles) southeast of Hamburg on the River Elbe.
Adjacent Brunsbuettel, another nuclear plant operated jointly by Vattenfall and E.ON, with 806 megawatts of capacity, also remains shut since the incidents last summer.
Environmental organisation Greenpeace called for the permanent closure of the two plants.
"The latest fire at Kruemmel shows that reactors cannot be operated safely," it said in a statement, adding that power markets were managing without the supply.
Utilities say they need to prolong nuclear operations to win time to meet increasingly ambitious goals for curbing emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide.
No radioactive substances had been released and all relevant authorities had been informed, Vattenfall said in a statement.
The 1,402 megawatt plant, which is jointly operated by the Swedish/German utility Vattanfall utility group and by Germany's E.ON has been closed since June 28, 2007 when a fire at a tranformer substation caused a short circuit.
The Social Affairs Ministry in the northern state of Schleswig Holstein, which supervises nuclear safety, said the incident took place around 0700 GMT and was resolved shortly after 0800 GMT.
The internal fire brigade had dealt with the fire so there had been no need to involve public fire fighters, it said. There were no injuries.
Vattenfall confirmed the details in a statement, saying there had been a smouldering fire at a ventilation system.
Germany is in the process of phasing out nuclear power by 2020 under plans agreed by the previous coalition of Social Democrats (SPD) and Greens.
The plans are being contested by the conservative parties CDU/CSU, which are currently in a coalition government with the SPD. Each safety-related incident is helping to weaken their arguments and reignite fears over the safety of the technology.
A statement from the ministry said the cause of the fire had not yet been determined but its experts were investigating at the site.
The 24-year old Kruemmel reactor is about 20 km (12.43 miles) southeast of Hamburg on the River Elbe.
Adjacent Brunsbuettel, another nuclear plant operated jointly by Vattenfall and E.ON, with 806 megawatts of capacity, also remains shut since the incidents last summer.
Environmental organisation Greenpeace called for the permanent closure of the two plants.
"The latest fire at Kruemmel shows that reactors cannot be operated safely," it said in a statement, adding that power markets were managing without the supply.
Utilities say they need to prolong nuclear operations to win time to meet increasingly ambitious goals for curbing emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
What about the waste?
The Energy Bill has no clear statement on the waste disposal regime that will be necessary for new build nuclear.
The problem is underscored by a new National Audit Office report on the costs of cleaning up waste from Britain's first civil nuclear power programme, which it says "are still rising and uncertainties abound". It says the current £73bn cost of decommissioning the 19 existing nuclear sites over the next century is 18% above initial estimates, and the costs of even near-term actions are still rising when they should have stabilised.
CoRWM, the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, said in 2006 nuclear waste, which remains toxic for centuries, should be kept forever in a specially built safe storage facility deep underground. But while the government pointed to this as the solution to waste from any new plants, CoRWM said it only meant this solution to apply to waste from Britain's old military nuclear programme dating back to the 1950s, so called legacy waste.
So each company wishing to invest in nuclear power will have to submit a 'funded decommissioning programm' to the Secretary of State for BERR's approval. This will lay out how hazardous material will be treated, stored, transported and disposed of 'during the operation of a nuclear installation'.
The Government has asked for communities to volunteer to have nuclear waste stored in its location, but none have been forthcoming so far. However, an agreement between Copeland, Cumbria county council and the government has been made to set up a “community fund” in return for allowing the continued operation and expansion of a low-level waste repository, where lightly contaminated material such as clothing is stored.
The government will put £10m ($19m, €13m) into the fund as well as £1.5m for each year the repository is operating - the first such arrangement in the UK, after 18 months of talks. Much bigger sums and tougher negotiations would be involved before any community agreed to host a long-term deep-level waste dump.
Yet the government has said taxpayers will not foot the bill for the storage of waste from new nuclear build. So how are we to trust such statements?
The Energy Bill has no clear statement on the waste disposal regime that will be necessary for new build nuclear.
The problem is underscored by a new National Audit Office report on the costs of cleaning up waste from Britain's first civil nuclear power programme, which it says "are still rising and uncertainties abound". It says the current £73bn cost of decommissioning the 19 existing nuclear sites over the next century is 18% above initial estimates, and the costs of even near-term actions are still rising when they should have stabilised.
CoRWM, the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, said in 2006 nuclear waste, which remains toxic for centuries, should be kept forever in a specially built safe storage facility deep underground. But while the government pointed to this as the solution to waste from any new plants, CoRWM said it only meant this solution to apply to waste from Britain's old military nuclear programme dating back to the 1950s, so called legacy waste.
So each company wishing to invest in nuclear power will have to submit a 'funded decommissioning programm' to the Secretary of State for BERR's approval. This will lay out how hazardous material will be treated, stored, transported and disposed of 'during the operation of a nuclear installation'.
The Government has asked for communities to volunteer to have nuclear waste stored in its location, but none have been forthcoming so far. However, an agreement between Copeland, Cumbria county council and the government has been made to set up a “community fund” in return for allowing the continued operation and expansion of a low-level waste repository, where lightly contaminated material such as clothing is stored.
The government will put £10m ($19m, €13m) into the fund as well as £1.5m for each year the repository is operating - the first such arrangement in the UK, after 18 months of talks. Much bigger sums and tougher negotiations would be involved before any community agreed to host a long-term deep-level waste dump.
Yet the government has said taxpayers will not foot the bill for the storage of waste from new nuclear build. So how are we to trust such statements?
Friday, January 25, 2008
The EU's 2020 targets for emissions and renewables
The EU has set a target of a 20% cut from 2005 levels in the continent's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, potentially rising to 30% in the event of a global agreement.
Total EU industrial emissions in 2020 will be capped at 21% below 2005 levels. This means that 20% of all energy consumption - for electricity, heating and cooling, and transport - in the 25 states must be derived from renewable sources by that date.
In addition up to 12 carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects will be supported and gases capotured would be credited as not emitted under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
The ETS itself will be modified to establish a central cap on emissions rather than the current system of Member States setting emissions caps for their own economies. Furthermore:
• two new gases (nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons) will be included
• road transport and shipping remain excluded, although the latter is likely to be included later
• agriculture and forestry are also left out because it's hard to measure their emissions
• smaller installations, emitting below 10,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, will be able to opt out from the ETS, provided they institute alternative reduction measures.
For the UK, the Commission proposes:
• a 16% reduction in UK emissions from sectors not covered by the EU ETS by 2020 from 2005 levels
• 15% of all UK energy to be renewable by 2020
• 10% of road transport fuels to come from renewable sources, as long as they are produced sustainably.
Business Secretary John Hutton said most of the new renewable electricity would come from the fact that "the UK is already scoping a vast expansion of wind energy offshore and tidal power on the Severn". Transport Minister Ruth Kelly welcomed the proposal of sustainability criteria for biofuels.
But Greenpeace said "The EU target for biofuels is a mistake. Biomass is more efficiently used for electricity and heat production rather than to fuel high-consumption cars".
Currently, 90% of carbon emission allowances are given free to industrial installations, but by 2013 it is estimated that around 60% will be auctioned. The text adds that "full auctioning should be the rule from 2013 onwards for the power sector", which is expected to lead to a 10-15% rise in electricity prices. In other sectors, free allocations will gradually be completely phased out on an annual basis between 2013 and 2020.
However, certain energy-intensive sectors could continue to get all their allowances for free in the long term if the Commission determines that otherwise facilities would relocate to countries with less stringent climate protection laws. The EC says these sectors "are yet to be determined".
Commission President José Manuel Barroso said, "There is no point in Europe being tough if it just means production shifting to countries allowing a free-for-all on emissions. An international agreement is the best way to tackle this."
Assuming a global climate change deal is reached, member states will continue to be able to meet part of their target by financing emission reduction projects in countries outside the EU, up to a limit of about a quarter of total reduction. CDM administrators have complained this will mean a reduction in projects.
The proposals will get final adoption by April-May 2009 at the latest, following negotiations between member states and the European parliament.
Total EU industrial emissions in 2020 will be capped at 21% below 2005 levels. This means that 20% of all energy consumption - for electricity, heating and cooling, and transport - in the 25 states must be derived from renewable sources by that date.
In addition up to 12 carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects will be supported and gases capotured would be credited as not emitted under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
The ETS itself will be modified to establish a central cap on emissions rather than the current system of Member States setting emissions caps for their own economies. Furthermore:
• two new gases (nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons) will be included
• road transport and shipping remain excluded, although the latter is likely to be included later
• agriculture and forestry are also left out because it's hard to measure their emissions
• smaller installations, emitting below 10,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, will be able to opt out from the ETS, provided they institute alternative reduction measures.
For the UK, the Commission proposes:
• a 16% reduction in UK emissions from sectors not covered by the EU ETS by 2020 from 2005 levels
• 15% of all UK energy to be renewable by 2020
• 10% of road transport fuels to come from renewable sources, as long as they are produced sustainably.
Business Secretary John Hutton said most of the new renewable electricity would come from the fact that "the UK is already scoping a vast expansion of wind energy offshore and tidal power on the Severn". Transport Minister Ruth Kelly welcomed the proposal of sustainability criteria for biofuels.
But Greenpeace said "The EU target for biofuels is a mistake. Biomass is more efficiently used for electricity and heat production rather than to fuel high-consumption cars".
Allocation of credits
Campaigners did welcome the fact that power generators will, from 2013, have to pay for their ETS credits, rather than get windfall profits from being given them as at present, but criticised the loopholes given to high energy users - the steel, aluminium and cement industries - after fierce lobbying.Currently, 90% of carbon emission allowances are given free to industrial installations, but by 2013 it is estimated that around 60% will be auctioned. The text adds that "full auctioning should be the rule from 2013 onwards for the power sector", which is expected to lead to a 10-15% rise in electricity prices. In other sectors, free allocations will gradually be completely phased out on an annual basis between 2013 and 2020.
However, certain energy-intensive sectors could continue to get all their allowances for free in the long term if the Commission determines that otherwise facilities would relocate to countries with less stringent climate protection laws. The EC says these sectors "are yet to be determined".
Commission President José Manuel Barroso said, "There is no point in Europe being tough if it just means production shifting to countries allowing a free-for-all on emissions. An international agreement is the best way to tackle this."
Assuming a global climate change deal is reached, member states will continue to be able to meet part of their target by financing emission reduction projects in countries outside the EU, up to a limit of about a quarter of total reduction. CDM administrators have complained this will mean a reduction in projects.
"a very small effort
WWF observed that "The 20% target is not even in line with the latest Bali agreement - that developed countries should cut emissions by 25-40% by 2020". "Overall, it is a very small effort," said Dr Stephan Singer, head of its European Climate and Energy Unit.The proposals will get final adoption by April-May 2009 at the latest, following negotiations between member states and the European parliament.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Congratulations to Australia
Hats off to Australia's new Foreign Minister Stephen Smith who had the guts to tell India's nuclear envoy Shyam Saran on Tuesday that Oz would not sell uranium to New Delhi unless it signs the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
This reverses a decision by the previous government.
India's Saran had brokered a deal with the I-don't-give-a-damn United States to provide nuclear power aid to India while allowing it to continue nuclear weapons production
He'd then got the old OZ government to agree to supply the yellow stuff, overturning a policy of selling the fuel only to NPT signatories.
Fortunately Australia's now seen sense and the world is, in theory at least, a safer place.
This reverses a decision by the previous government.
India's Saran had brokered a deal with the I-don't-give-a-damn United States to provide nuclear power aid to India while allowing it to continue nuclear weapons production
He'd then got the old OZ government to agree to supply the yellow stuff, overturning a policy of selling the fuel only to NPT signatories.
Fortunately Australia's now seen sense and the world is, in theory at least, a safer place.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Uranium Blues
Building new nuclear power stations will have an impact that reaches far beyond our borders - to the places where the fuel for them is mined.
> Comment is Free article
> Comment is Free article
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Will new nuclear power stations be insurable?
The Government has announced its decision on nuclear power, which is SUCH a surprise!
Utility bosses such as Dr Paul Golby, CEO of E.On and Monsieur Vincent de Rivaz, CEO of EDF proclaim they do not want or seek subsidies for new nuclear build.
Anyone who believes this probably still thinks nuclear power is "so cheap as to be hardly worth metering" (the industry's original claim).
Here's a list of questions about just a few things the poor taxpayer will probably have to stump up for:
Insurance. Nuclear plant operators have limited liability in the case of an accident. Any cost over £700m is covered by the taxpayer. Are they prepared to take on board the full insurance liabilities, which in the case of Chernobyl has already run to several tens of billions?
And are they prepared to share with any other private investors the full costs of the pre-construction safety analysis, currently covered by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate using public money?
What about the costs of the UK's membership of the EU's nuclear agency, Euratom; and the International Atomic Energy Agency - both of which do promotional and safety work for nuclear? Taxpayers pay for this.
And the current Technology Strategy Board £100m competition for proposals for collaborative research and development, into low carbon tech, including nuclear power.
Or the current research done by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, using taxpayers' money, on so-called Generation 4 reactor designs?
And are we expected to believe these companies will be around in any time over a few decades hence, for thousands of years, to pay for the full cost of management of the new radioactive waste produced?
The Low Carbon Kid would place money on all answers to these questions being in the negative.
Utility bosses such as Dr Paul Golby, CEO of E.On and Monsieur Vincent de Rivaz, CEO of EDF proclaim they do not want or seek subsidies for new nuclear build.
Anyone who believes this probably still thinks nuclear power is "so cheap as to be hardly worth metering" (the industry's original claim).
Here's a list of questions about just a few things the poor taxpayer will probably have to stump up for:
Insurance. Nuclear plant operators have limited liability in the case of an accident. Any cost over £700m is covered by the taxpayer. Are they prepared to take on board the full insurance liabilities, which in the case of Chernobyl has already run to several tens of billions?
And are they prepared to share with any other private investors the full costs of the pre-construction safety analysis, currently covered by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate using public money?
What about the costs of the UK's membership of the EU's nuclear agency, Euratom; and the International Atomic Energy Agency - both of which do promotional and safety work for nuclear? Taxpayers pay for this.
And the current Technology Strategy Board £100m competition for proposals for collaborative research and development, into low carbon tech, including nuclear power.
Or the current research done by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, using taxpayers' money, on so-called Generation 4 reactor designs?
And are we expected to believe these companies will be around in any time over a few decades hence, for thousands of years, to pay for the full cost of management of the new radioactive waste produced?
The Low Carbon Kid would place money on all answers to these questions being in the negative.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Nuclear Power Consultation Flawed - Report
Business Secretary John Hutton is due to announce a decision on an expansion of nuclear energy tomorrow. But an academic report has accused its public consultation last year of being flawed and misleading.
Greenpeace says it is considering dragging the Government back to court.
"The government was in error in asking the public for a decision 'in principle', when the core 'what if' issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way, or resolved in practice," the academics from universities including Oxford, Warwick, Sussex, Newcastle, Cardiff and Manchester conclude.
"These issues include nuclear fuel supply and manufacture, vulnerability to attack, security and nuclear proliferation, radiation waste, radiation risk and health effects, reactor decommissioning, reactor design and siting," they added.
Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said, "For such senior insiders to be so critical of the consultation process is a deeply troubling commentary on the Government’s approach to this issue, and as the report reveals, nuclear power could only reduce the UK’s CO2 emissions by 4% by 2025 - too little, too late.
"Our lawyers are looking at this report and will also examine the Government’s decision on new nuclear build with great interest. We won’t be rushed into a decision, but nothing has been ruled out at this stage."
The main issue for the group of academics is disposal of waste from the new nuclear plants.
"The government consultation documents said this issue had been resolved. That is simply not true," said Paul Dorfman of Warwick University, one of the report's authors.
CoRWM, the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, said in 2006 nuclear waste, which remains toxic for centuries, should be kept forever in a specially built safe storage facility deep under ground.
But while the government pointed to this as the solution to waste from any new plants, CoRWM said it only meant this solution to apply to waste from Britain's old military nuclear programme dating back to the 1950s, so called legacy waste.
The academics also accused the government of glossing over security considerations, the true costs of nuclear and alternative renewable energy sources, the availability of uranium fuel and the siting of new nuclear plants given sea level rises due to global warming.
Of course, a government green light is not actually necessary -- there is no legal barrier to any utility now opting to build a nuclear plant, although there is a lot of planning red tape.
"Although the government has said no public money will be involved in any new nuclear plants, a positive declaration must indicate government commitment in the final event and that can only mean taxpayers' money," said Dorfman.
The report notes that the new nuclear plant being built in Finland, touted by pro-nuclear adherents as a model for the way forward, is not only two years behind schedule but already 50 percent over budget, a fate it suggests would be in store for new plants in Britain, to the detriment of alternative power sources.
The Business and Enterprise Department says the Government believed the consultation was an "open, fair and full" process.
A spokesman said, "We have received 2,700 responses from the extensive consultation, which included public meetings across the UK, a written consultation document and a website. Time is pressing. Consulting indefinitely is not an option."
In Wales the Assembly Government is also sceptical about the need for new nuclear power stations - but with major energy decisions reserved to Westminster, it is powerless to block them.
Ministers in Cardiff Bay nevertheless "strongly support" an extension to the life of the Wylfa site on Anglesey, due to be decommissioned in 2010.
The site in the constituency of Deputy First Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones is of "economic importance", the WAG said.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Have a low carbon Christmas!
From the Low Carbon Kid to all his readers - whatever their carbon footprint!
Peace, friendship and all the best for 2008. May 2008 be the year the drive to reduce climate change reaches critical mass.
Recommended new year's present
The Low Carbon Kid recommends - of all the boooks out right now on sustainable development:
TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ECONOMY
By Worldwatch Institute
• From car-sharing and carbon taxes to fair trade and zero-waste cities, there are many ways to reach a more sustainable global economy – the focus of this year’s State of the World
• Updated annually providing information on the latest emerging markets and opportunities, this is ‘the environmentalist’s bible’ (Times Higher Education Supplement)
• ‘Essential reading’ – The Good Book Guide
In this 25th edition of State of the World – long established as the most authoritative and accessible annual guide to our progress towards a sustainable future – the studies pay particular attention to the many innovations in economic policy and business practices that lead us towards a more sustainable global economy.
Published annually in 28 languages, State of the World is relied upon by national governments, UN agencies, development workers and law-makers for its authoritative and up-to-the-minute analysis and information. It is essential for anyone concerned with building a positive, global future.
Get it here!
TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ECONOMY
By Worldwatch Institute
• From car-sharing and carbon taxes to fair trade and zero-waste cities, there are many ways to reach a more sustainable global economy – the focus of this year’s State of the World
• Updated annually providing information on the latest emerging markets and opportunities, this is ‘the environmentalist’s bible’ (Times Higher Education Supplement)
• ‘Essential reading’ – The Good Book Guide
In this 25th edition of State of the World – long established as the most authoritative and accessible annual guide to our progress towards a sustainable future – the studies pay particular attention to the many innovations in economic policy and business practices that lead us towards a more sustainable global economy.
Published annually in 28 languages, State of the World is relied upon by national governments, UN agencies, development workers and law-makers for its authoritative and up-to-the-minute analysis and information. It is essential for anyone concerned with building a positive, global future.
Get it here!
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Sellafield bomber - more details
This is an update on my post of 14 December about the "Sellafield bomber".
Darren Morris was arrested by Cumbria Constabulary on Monday 9 December in Southey Walk, Egremont, West Cumbria after a "small, rudimentary explosive device" was discovered by bailiffs at the home he owns.
A bomb disposal squad was brought in and a 100-metre cordon put in place around the property. The device was taken away for forensic examination.
Morris disappeared for a couple of days but was found, arrested, then released on bail. A report is being prepared by the Crown Prosecution Service and will be presented when he attends Workington Police Station on January 28.
The police have sought information from BNFL and his employer, Hertel.
They told me that "they and are satisfied that terrorist law is not applicable in this case. The case is being considered under criminal law the facts of which will be self explanatory if they are aired at court."
They continued "Enquiries at BNFL have been made with regard to any potential security issues."
So what was he doing there?
According to Hertel, he was part of a team removing asbestos from Calder Hall, the world's first commercial nuclear power station, primarily used to produce weapons-grade plutonium, which is being decommissioned.
(Interestingly, the four Calder Hall cooling towers were demolished by controlled explosions as recently as Saturday 29 September 2007.)
In order to do this work he was vetted by the Defence Vetting Agency and apparently has no criminal record. His work was described as "low grade" - this work is still ongoing.
He has worked for Hertel since August 2006. Pending the investigation's results he has been suspended.
While there is a criminal investigation ongoing no one can comment further.
The Daily Mirror is the only source which says the device is "thought to be a nailbomb".
The second question that needs a response is - if he had security clearance and the device was only discovered accidentally, could he have gained further access to the site?
Calder Hall will not by now contain highly radioactive material, at least in the area Morris was working. But you do not need much radioactive material to make a 'dirty bomb'.
This incident ought to raise further disquiet about the overall danger to world security of the drive to build further nuclear power stations, let alone the quality of security at existing ones.
Darren Morris was arrested by Cumbria Constabulary on Monday 9 December in Southey Walk, Egremont, West Cumbria after a "small, rudimentary explosive device" was discovered by bailiffs at the home he owns.
A bomb disposal squad was brought in and a 100-metre cordon put in place around the property. The device was taken away for forensic examination.
Morris disappeared for a couple of days but was found, arrested, then released on bail. A report is being prepared by the Crown Prosecution Service and will be presented when he attends Workington Police Station on January 28.
The police have sought information from BNFL and his employer, Hertel.
They told me that "they and are satisfied that terrorist law is not applicable in this case. The case is being considered under criminal law the facts of which will be self explanatory if they are aired at court."
They continued "Enquiries at BNFL have been made with regard to any potential security issues."
So what was he doing there?
According to Hertel, he was part of a team removing asbestos from Calder Hall, the world's first commercial nuclear power station, primarily used to produce weapons-grade plutonium, which is being decommissioned.
(Interestingly, the four Calder Hall cooling towers were demolished by controlled explosions as recently as Saturday 29 September 2007.)
In order to do this work he was vetted by the Defence Vetting Agency and apparently has no criminal record. His work was described as "low grade" - this work is still ongoing.
He has worked for Hertel since August 2006. Pending the investigation's results he has been suspended.
While there is a criminal investigation ongoing no one can comment further.
The Daily Mirror is the only source which says the device is "thought to be a nailbomb".
The big question is - what did he intend to do with it?
The second question that needs a response is - if he had security clearance and the device was only discovered accidentally, could he have gained further access to the site?
Calder Hall will not by now contain highly radioactive material, at least in the area Morris was working. But you do not need much radioactive material to make a 'dirty bomb'.
This incident ought to raise further disquiet about the overall danger to world security of the drive to build further nuclear power stations, let alone the quality of security at existing ones.
Is it a UFO?
Is this a flying saucer sitting in its hangar in Area 52?
Don't be silly, it's the Belgian ‘Princess Elisabeth’ research station, to be built in Antarctica by the International Polar Foundation during the summer season 2007-2008,.
It's going to be equipped with 408 solar modules from Kyocera as part of a plan to make the station the first zero-emission research facility.
Eight wind turbines will also be installed, to generate on-site power for communication infrastructure, heating and electronics.
The Princess Elisabeth station will be exposed to the extreme Antarctic conditions, with temperatures going as low as –60°C and wind speeds reaching 250 km/h.
Such conditions demand a reliable energy supply.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Ofgem consults on distributed energy
The energy watchdog is conducting a 12-week consultation on distributed low-carbon electricity.
This is about medium-sized generation for communities and larger businesses - domestic microgeneration is being considered separately.
This is a technical document for owners and operators of distributed energy schemes, electricity suppliers, generators, distribution network operators, consumer groups, local authorities, property developers, and manufacturers and suppliers of small-scale renewable generation and CHP plant.
There will be a summary and workshop early in 2008 for non-specialists.
Deadline for response: 11 March 2008.
The document is here
This is about medium-sized generation for communities and larger businesses - domestic microgeneration is being considered separately.
This is a technical document for owners and operators of distributed energy schemes, electricity suppliers, generators, distribution network operators, consumer groups, local authorities, property developers, and manufacturers and suppliers of small-scale renewable generation and CHP plant.
There will be a summary and workshop early in 2008 for non-specialists.
Deadline for response: 11 March 2008.
The document is here
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Bali: what was agreed - or not
World struggles to address "the defining challenge of our time"
189 nations left the dramatic Bali talks with a commitment from all, including the US - following its U-turn only seven years too late - to the principle of "deep cuts in global emissions", and to concluding negotiations by late 2009 in Copenhagen.
The complex multistranded dialogues will aim to culminate with concrete targets.
Governments and businesses have four years to prepare before the current targets expire.
The Bali talks communicated to the world the urgency and severity of the situation. The debate over how much responsibility rich nations must accept stumbled on United States' demands that developing countries such as China make tougher commitments.
Afterwards, a relieved UNFCCC head Yvo de Boer said the deal showed global commitment and that it broke down the divide between countries with Kyoto obligations and those without.
However, the WWF said that the agreement fell short and was "weak on substance". Greenpeace said it had been stripped of the reduction targets that science and humanity demands.
What was agreed - or not:
-
Adaptation: developing countries - those most affected - will manage an Adaptation Fund Board to help poor countries adapt to climate change. Cash will be available to Kyoto Protocol signees almost immediately from a 2% levy on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). UNFCCC estimates $40bn is needed but only $36m is now in the pot. $100m to $500m a year is required between 2008 and 2012.
-
Industry: A provision for "global sectoral agreements" aimed at industries such as the paper, metals and cement industries will require major players to agree on targets to cut emissions.
-
Technology transfer: a call for more financial resources and investment for developing countries on adaptation, mitigation and technology cooperation, especially for the most vulnerable.
-
Deforestation: A deal to tackle emissions from deforestation (REDD) could from 2013 allow poor but forested nations to turn conservation into billions of dollars worth of carbon credits, but only if rich nations take on more stringent reductions targets.
-
Carbon capture and storage: discussions postponed on this untested technology.
-
HFCs: failure to agree whether controversial destruction of newly produced powerful greenhouse gases hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) should qualify for carbon credits. Factories doing this have been accused of a giant scam.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Nuclear worker arrested with bomb
A worker at Sellafield nuclear processing plant was arrested this week "on suspicion of possessing an explosive substance with intent to endanger life" after police found a homemade bomb at his home.
Neighbours were evacuated after a "small, rudimentary explosive device" was discovered at the home of Sellafield worker Darren Morris on Monday in Southey Walk, Egremont, West Cumbria.
A bomb disposal squad was brought in and a 100-metre cordon put in place around the property. The device has been taken away for forensic examination.
This is amazing news. But....
The Low Carbon Kid wonders why there have been no front page tabloid headlines screaming "Worker at Nuclear Power Station Had Bomb" or "A-Bomb Terror Plot"???
Is it because the culprit isn't Muslim or even dark skinned, so he doesn't fit the stereotype of a "dangerous terrorist"?
He's already been released on bail - why not banged up for 28 days without charge?
Furthermore, is this not proof that nuclear sites provide targets or material for terrorists? Is the media coverage muted because of the government's pro-nuclear stance?
This is the second bomb scare for a reactor site in a period of under two months.
(The first, however, at the US Palo Verde nuclear reactor site, has been queried as being possibly a pro-nuclear stunt designed to show off to visiting inspectors how good the security was!)
Neighbours were evacuated after a "small, rudimentary explosive device" was discovered at the home of Sellafield worker Darren Morris on Monday in Southey Walk, Egremont, West Cumbria.
A bomb disposal squad was brought in and a 100-metre cordon put in place around the property. The device has been taken away for forensic examination.
This is amazing news. But....
The Low Carbon Kid wonders why there have been no front page tabloid headlines screaming "Worker at Nuclear Power Station Had Bomb" or "A-Bomb Terror Plot"???
Is it because the culprit isn't Muslim or even dark skinned, so he doesn't fit the stereotype of a "dangerous terrorist"?
He's already been released on bail - why not banged up for 28 days without charge?
Furthermore, is this not proof that nuclear sites provide targets or material for terrorists? Is the media coverage muted because of the government's pro-nuclear stance?
This is the second bomb scare for a reactor site in a period of under two months.
(The first, however, at the US Palo Verde nuclear reactor site, has been queried as being possibly a pro-nuclear stunt designed to show off to visiting inspectors how good the security was!)
Bali overview
The best overview/summary of events in Bali that I've found so far is on the Spero News website.
One outcome has been in adaptation.
Funds to help poor countries adapt to climate change will be managed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Bank; its Adaptation Fund Board will be managed by developing countries - those most affected - which own the fund.
Cash will be available to Kyoto Protocol signees almost immediiately and comes from a 2% levy on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
However, UNFCCC estimates $40bn is needed but only $36m is now in the pot. $100m to $500m a year is required between 2008 and 2012, it says.
One outcome has been in adaptation.
Funds to help poor countries adapt to climate change will be managed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Bank; its Adaptation Fund Board will be managed by developing countries - those most affected - which own the fund.
Cash will be available to Kyoto Protocol signees almost immediiately and comes from a 2% levy on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
However, UNFCCC estimates $40bn is needed but only $36m is now in the pot. $100m to $500m a year is required between 2008 and 2012, it says.
Are biofuels a sustainable solution to climate change?
The new US energy bill will see a big increase in corn-produced ethanol.
The motiivation for the White House behind this is reduced subsidies for US farmers. The knock-on effects will be high corn prices for food. Fertilisers and pesticides will be used. The soil will suffer.
This is discussed in a good article published today in Indonesia, home of the climate talks.
The motiivation for the White House behind this is reduced subsidies for US farmers. The knock-on effects will be high corn prices for food. Fertilisers and pesticides will be used. The soil will suffer.
This is discussed in a good article published today in Indonesia, home of the climate talks.
Chinese carbon emissions - or ours?
Why should we bother about climate change when China doesn't? Because China uses our hipocrisy - and failure to act - as an excuse for its own inaction.
In this country many people say: "What does it matter what we do about climate change in the UK - our actions are dwarfed by China's emissions!"
After all, China’s annual coal production is set to double to a staggering 5 billion tonnes a year by 2030. It is also planning to move 400 million people from the country into cities over the next 30 years. Over this period it will build approximately half the new buildings in the world, and Chinese buildings are currently only a third as energy efficient as Europe's.
China is therefore key to the success of the current climate talks.
But China argues that its per capita carbon dioxide emission is much less than that of the United States and European countries, (according to Wan Gang, Minister of Science and Technology of China yesterday).
Wan Gang said his country has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emission by 20 percent per unit of GDP during 2006-2010. But this is clearly not enough. The atmosphere cannot cope with the output of two new coal burning power stations every week for years, which China is currently building.
So is there no point in doing anything here? Yes of course, and here is one reason why: in the press release on the Chinese government's web site, announcing Wan Gang's speech, the first link below the text, under the heading " Correlative Article" is a link to the report I discussed yesterday that UK emissions have "risen by one fifth".
The Chinese government appears to be saying by putting the link here - "Put your own house in order, you developed countries - practice what you so loudly preach - before you tell us that we can't give our people the same quality of life that yours have."
But hold on. A big rise in our emissions is really because we're buying more goods from cheap sources like China.
And the Chinese love this. Here's a glimpse of the future: China is investing $30bn in a 100 square kilometre site to build the Beijing Cyber Recreation Project. Among other things this will house the infrastructure (computer server farms, electricity-generation, online banking links, transport logistics etc.) to host nine or ten virtual worlds, that will be used to direct market Chinese goods to the rest of the world. Think 3-D Amazon and more.
This will enable China - avoiding UK retail outlets and distributors - to recoup 100% of the retail price of its products. The project's chief scientist, Chi Tau Robert Lai, said that the aim was to cut out the middlemen. "A shirt made in China for £1 typically sells for £20 in Europe. We have a big manufacturing capacity." No kidding. Just imagine what that will do to British high streets, not to mention air freight impacts.
Logic therefore implies that even without the climate change imperative, Britain and Europe need to act now to protect themselves from this threat to their retail industry by becoming less reliant on goods from the far east.
Meanwhile, Wan Gang, China IS, in fact, one of the reasons why UK emissions are increasing. Perhaps you should not have posted that link on your press release after all.
And perhaps you should accept the many reasons which delegates at Bali are giving you, as to why it makes sense for China to sign up to ambitious climate-heating gas reduction targets.
In this country many people say: "What does it matter what we do about climate change in the UK - our actions are dwarfed by China's emissions!"
After all, China’s annual coal production is set to double to a staggering 5 billion tonnes a year by 2030. It is also planning to move 400 million people from the country into cities over the next 30 years. Over this period it will build approximately half the new buildings in the world, and Chinese buildings are currently only a third as energy efficient as Europe's.
China is therefore key to the success of the current climate talks.
But China argues that its per capita carbon dioxide emission is much less than that of the United States and European countries, (according to Wan Gang, Minister of Science and Technology of China yesterday).
Wan Gang said his country has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emission by 20 percent per unit of GDP during 2006-2010. But this is clearly not enough. The atmosphere cannot cope with the output of two new coal burning power stations every week for years, which China is currently building.
So is there no point in doing anything here? Yes of course, and here is one reason why: in the press release on the Chinese government's web site, announcing Wan Gang's speech, the first link below the text, under the heading " Correlative Article" is a link to the report I discussed yesterday that UK emissions have "risen by one fifth".
The Chinese government appears to be saying by putting the link here - "Put your own house in order, you developed countries - practice what you so loudly preach - before you tell us that we can't give our people the same quality of life that yours have."
But hold on. A big rise in our emissions is really because we're buying more goods from cheap sources like China.
And the Chinese love this. Here's a glimpse of the future: China is investing $30bn in a 100 square kilometre site to build the Beijing Cyber Recreation Project. Among other things this will house the infrastructure (computer server farms, electricity-generation, online banking links, transport logistics etc.) to host nine or ten virtual worlds, that will be used to direct market Chinese goods to the rest of the world. Think 3-D Amazon and more.
This will enable China - avoiding UK retail outlets and distributors - to recoup 100% of the retail price of its products. The project's chief scientist, Chi Tau Robert Lai, said that the aim was to cut out the middlemen. "A shirt made in China for £1 typically sells for £20 in Europe. We have a big manufacturing capacity." No kidding. Just imagine what that will do to British high streets, not to mention air freight impacts.
Logic therefore implies that even without the climate change imperative, Britain and Europe need to act now to protect themselves from this threat to their retail industry by becoming less reliant on goods from the far east.
Meanwhile, Wan Gang, China IS, in fact, one of the reasons why UK emissions are increasing. Perhaps you should not have posted that link on your press release after all.
And perhaps you should accept the many reasons which delegates at Bali are giving you, as to why it makes sense for China to sign up to ambitious climate-heating gas reduction targets.
US Energy Bill passed with the good bits ripped out by Democrats
The US Senate Republicans Thursday passed a new energy bill after the Democrats sadly stripped a vital support package for renewable energy from the bill.
This was a bitter blow yesterday for the renewable energy industries. The Senate was one vote short of passing the tax package, which included a long-term extension of the investment tax credit and a short-term extension of the production tax credit.
"Today's vote is out of step with Americans across the political spectrum who overwhelmingly support clean, home-grown renewable energy,” said Gregory Wetstone, Senior Director of Governmental and Public Affairs at the American Wind Energy Association.
It appears that Senators voted along party lines because of pressure from Republican leaders and the White House, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).
The stripped down bill was passed 86-8. It contains:
The bill now goes to the House, where a vote is expected next week. President Bush will sign the legislation if it reaches his desk, as is expected.
The increased auto efficiency by 2020 will save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day, equal to half the oil now imported from the Persian Gulf, save consumers $22 billion at the pump, and reduce annual greenhouse gases emissions by 200 million tons, said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii., whose committee crafted the measure.
Tax breaks for a wide range of clean energy industries, including wind, solar, biomass and carbon capture from coal plants, were part of the tax package that was dropped.
Senate Democrats earlier also abandoned a House-passed provision that would have required investor-owned utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other renewable sources.
"The Senate Democrats should show some backbone," said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth. "If Republicans want to block progress on clean energy and global warming, they should be forced to mount a real filibuster — for weeks if necessary."
He calculates that the big five oil companies' projected profit loss due to the dropped measures, of $13.5 billion over 10 years, amounted to a mere 1.1 percent of the net profits at today's oil prices.
It's these bastards that are behind the White House's shameful behaviour in Bali today.
However some good news from America: on Wednesday a federal court judge in Fresno, California ruled that the state's landmark law mandating reduced greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, from passenger vehicles may stand.
He rejected arguments by car makers that federal law should preempt the state's effort.
This was a bitter blow yesterday for the renewable energy industries. The Senate was one vote short of passing the tax package, which included a long-term extension of the investment tax credit and a short-term extension of the production tax credit.
"Today's vote is out of step with Americans across the political spectrum who overwhelmingly support clean, home-grown renewable energy,” said Gregory Wetstone, Senior Director of Governmental and Public Affairs at the American Wind Energy Association.
It appears that Senators voted along party lines because of pressure from Republican leaders and the White House, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).
The stripped down bill was passed 86-8. It contains:
- a 21-billion-dollar tax package, under which some 13.5 billion dollars in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies would be repealed and used for tax incentives to promote renewable fuels and energy efficiency.
- Meaasures to increase vehicle fuel economy by 40 percent to an industry average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 - the first increase in the federal vehicle standard for cars in 32 years - but only bringing it up to what has been the norm in Europe for years.
- a sevenfold increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, with two-thirds to be cellulosic ethanol from such feedstock as prairie grass and wood chips. this could be an ecological disaster and counterproductive in emissions terms if we are not careful
- an increase energy efficiency requirements for appliances and federal and commercial buildings and require faster approval of federal energy efficiency standards.
The bill now goes to the House, where a vote is expected next week. President Bush will sign the legislation if it reaches his desk, as is expected.
The increased auto efficiency by 2020 will save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day, equal to half the oil now imported from the Persian Gulf, save consumers $22 billion at the pump, and reduce annual greenhouse gases emissions by 200 million tons, said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii., whose committee crafted the measure.
Tax breaks for a wide range of clean energy industries, including wind, solar, biomass and carbon capture from coal plants, were part of the tax package that was dropped.
Senate Democrats earlier also abandoned a House-passed provision that would have required investor-owned utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other renewable sources.
"The Senate Democrats should show some backbone," said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth. "If Republicans want to block progress on clean energy and global warming, they should be forced to mount a real filibuster — for weeks if necessary."
He calculates that the big five oil companies' projected profit loss due to the dropped measures, of $13.5 billion over 10 years, amounted to a mere 1.1 percent of the net profits at today's oil prices.
It's these bastards that are behind the White House's shameful behaviour in Bali today.
However some good news from America: on Wednesday a federal court judge in Fresno, California ruled that the state's landmark law mandating reduced greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, from passenger vehicles may stand.
He rejected arguments by car makers that federal law should preempt the state's effort.
Carbon sink slowdown contributing to rapid growth in atmospheric CO2
As the White House and its oil-addicted friends block attempts by the rest of the world to introduce targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, recent research that shows things are even worse than we thought.
A study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), published October 25, 2007, finds that there's been a recent swift increase in atmospheric CO2, that was unexpected.
This science goes beyond the recent IPCC report.
The increase, they say, is due to faster economic growth, coupled with a halt in carbon intensity reductions, plus the failure of natural sinks to continue to remove a proportion of emissions from the air.
The efficiency of natural sinks to remove emissions from human activities has been declining for 50 years, as they become saturated or forests are removed.
This is scary.
Read the research.
A study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), published October 25, 2007, finds that there's been a recent swift increase in atmospheric CO2, that was unexpected.
This science goes beyond the recent IPCC report.
The increase, they say, is due to faster economic growth, coupled with a halt in carbon intensity reductions, plus the failure of natural sinks to continue to remove a proportion of emissions from the air.
The efficiency of natural sinks to remove emissions from human activities has been declining for 50 years, as they become saturated or forests are removed.
This is scary.
Read the research.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
UK emissions have "risen by one fifth"
Far from reducing, as the government often claims, the UK's greenhouse gas emissions have risen by nearly a fifth over the past two decades, according to a report, Too Good To Be True? The UK's Climate Change Record, from Chairman of Defra's Academic Panel Dieter Helm.
It shows that Britain has not yet broken the link between economic growth and emissions.
Helm says that when the UK's emissions are analysed using the UN climate convention's method, which measures consumption of energy, Britain appeared to achieved a fall of 5.3 per cent in emissions between 1990 and 2005.
However, when international air travel and supply chain implications are factored in - ie total production is quantified - then the trend is "adverse".
The depressing report only serves to underline the need to consume less, and to consume locally - either we downsize in a planned and managed way, as the Transition Towns movement is trying to do for example, or we will be forced to do so later in a much more unpleasant fashion.
It shows that Britain has not yet broken the link between economic growth and emissions.
Helm says that when the UK's emissions are analysed using the UN climate convention's method, which measures consumption of energy, Britain appeared to achieved a fall of 5.3 per cent in emissions between 1990 and 2005.
However, when international air travel and supply chain implications are factored in - ie total production is quantified - then the trend is "adverse".
The depressing report only serves to underline the need to consume less, and to consume locally - either we downsize in a planned and managed way, as the Transition Towns movement is trying to do for example, or we will be forced to do so later in a much more unpleasant fashion.
Monday, December 10, 2007
"Green capitalism is a self-contradiction"
At the climate change march on Saturday, it was most amusing to walk past the Porsch showroom in Mayfair, whose plateglass windows displayed the latest expensive fuel guzzlers.Unlike the rest of the route it was guarded by a line of police protecting these windows from the perceived wrath of climate radicals.
But there was no such trouble. About 3-4000 people braved the rain and wind in the corner of Grosvener Square opposite the US embassy, to hear speeches from all shades of the political spectrum pledging to tackle the burning issue.
But only one speech told the truth - as hard to bear for some as it is - that no sustainability is possible with a capitalist system that is predicated on continuous growth.
George Monbiot began this speech by saying that the only sensible form of carbon storage is to leave the fossil fuels in the ground.
He recounted a direct action he took part in near Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales last Wednesday at the site of the largest open cast coal mine being constructed in Europe, which protestors closed for the day by chaining themselves to diggers.
He then explained that capitalism is based on lending money at interest. Interest requires either inflation or further economic activity to create more wealth. This wealth itself requires exploitation of nature's resources to fuel it.
Economists predict that the amount of weath to be created in the next 20 years by this method will double the amount of such resource use, not over the last twenty years but over the whole of mankind's lifetime.
That is, we will be causing as much pollution and despoilation of the environment in the next twenty years if we carry on at this rate as in the last million years.
Although we may tinker with increasing 'resource efficiency', and 'decoupling growth from carbon use', other forms of resource exploitation are still totally unsustainable.
Therefore there is a fundamental contradiction in the phrase 'green capitalism'.
He therefore urged all listeners to go out and take direct action against fossil fuel drilling and mining to protect our future, and urged the creation of a new kind of economics.
But there was no such trouble. About 3-4000 people braved the rain and wind in the corner of Grosvener Square opposite the US embassy, to hear speeches from all shades of the political spectrum pledging to tackle the burning issue.
But only one speech told the truth - as hard to bear for some as it is - that no sustainability is possible with a capitalist system that is predicated on continuous growth.
George Monbiot began this speech by saying that the only sensible form of carbon storage is to leave the fossil fuels in the ground.
He recounted a direct action he took part in near Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales last Wednesday at the site of the largest open cast coal mine being constructed in Europe, which protestors closed for the day by chaining themselves to diggers.
He then explained that capitalism is based on lending money at interest. Interest requires either inflation or further economic activity to create more wealth. This wealth itself requires exploitation of nature's resources to fuel it.
Economists predict that the amount of weath to be created in the next 20 years by this method will double the amount of such resource use, not over the last twenty years but over the whole of mankind's lifetime.
That is, we will be causing as much pollution and despoilation of the environment in the next twenty years if we carry on at this rate as in the last million years.
Although we may tinker with increasing 'resource efficiency', and 'decoupling growth from carbon use', other forms of resource exploitation are still totally unsustainable.
Therefore there is a fundamental contradiction in the phrase 'green capitalism'.
He therefore urged all listeners to go out and take direct action against fossil fuel drilling and mining to protect our future, and urged the creation of a new kind of economics.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Samsø: The Danish Renewable Energy Island
Machynlleth - my home town - last week achieved recognition by the Transition Towns initiative.
Transition Towns, Cities, Villages and Islands are aiming to adapt to the twin challenges of Peak Oil and Climate Change.
In fact it will be the whole Dyfi Valley that does this, an area of many enevironmental types, from upland, through forests, farmland and coastal areas, including a UN recoognsed bosphere. It has an approx. 5000 population.
Last night at a meeting we saw a video about Samsø, The Danish Renewable Energy Island - which by next March will be self-sufficient in energy from sustainable sources.
It was very inspiring. Residents including farmers and the elderly installed solar panels and insulation, not for economic benefit but because it was "the right thing to do".
They got to a point where they were trying to outdo their neighbours in green features on their homes.
They are just ordinary people who recognise the sense in what they're doing.
I can't find the video online, but here's another.
Perhaps this is a more objective, although ideological, report on the island, which throws light on more of the real problems they faced:
Transition Towns, Cities, Villages and Islands are aiming to adapt to the twin challenges of Peak Oil and Climate Change.
In fact it will be the whole Dyfi Valley that does this, an area of many enevironmental types, from upland, through forests, farmland and coastal areas, including a UN recoognsed bosphere. It has an approx. 5000 population.
Last night at a meeting we saw a video about Samsø, The Danish Renewable Energy Island - which by next March will be self-sufficient in energy from sustainable sources.
It was very inspiring. Residents including farmers and the elderly installed solar panels and insulation, not for economic benefit but because it was "the right thing to do".
They got to a point where they were trying to outdo their neighbours in green features on their homes.
They are just ordinary people who recognise the sense in what they're doing.
I can't find the video online, but here's another.
Perhaps this is a more objective, although ideological, report on the island, which throws light on more of the real problems they faced:
80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050 - minimum target for rich countries
The Climate Change Bill must say that we should aim for at least a 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050.
Last week's UN human development report called for such a target for the richer countries.
Speaking to the Royal Economic Society last Friday, Nicholas Stern underscored this: "For a global 50% reduction in emissions by 2050, the world average per capita must drop from 7 tonnes to 2-3 tonnes.
"An 80% target for rich countries would bring equality of only the flow of emissions around 2-3 tonnes per capita.
"In fact, rich countries will have consumed the big majority of the 'available space in the atmosphere'."
In other words, if we are to achieve an equitable world agreement on carbon reductions, we have to commit to cuts of 80% or more.
This should therefore be in the Climate Change Bill.
The same is true in the States, where the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday passed the Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) sponsored climate change bill that would establish the first US nationwide cap-and-trade system to reduce global warming gas emissions.
The bill now moves to the Senate floor. The decision sends a positive message to the Bali talks about America's willingness to accept responsibility for climate change.
But even with aggressive action by developing countries and other industrialized nations, the United States must cut its emissions at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050, argues the Union of Concerned Scientists.
They say that in its current form the bill gets about three-quarters of the way there.
Last week's UN human development report called for such a target for the richer countries.
Speaking to the Royal Economic Society last Friday, Nicholas Stern underscored this: "For a global 50% reduction in emissions by 2050, the world average per capita must drop from 7 tonnes to 2-3 tonnes.
"An 80% target for rich countries would bring equality of only the flow of emissions around 2-3 tonnes per capita.
"In fact, rich countries will have consumed the big majority of the 'available space in the atmosphere'."
In other words, if we are to achieve an equitable world agreement on carbon reductions, we have to commit to cuts of 80% or more.
This should therefore be in the Climate Change Bill.
The same is true in the States, where the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday passed the Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) sponsored climate change bill that would establish the first US nationwide cap-and-trade system to reduce global warming gas emissions.
The bill now moves to the Senate floor. The decision sends a positive message to the Bali talks about America's willingness to accept responsibility for climate change.
But even with aggressive action by developing countries and other industrialized nations, the United States must cut its emissions at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050, argues the Union of Concerned Scientists.
They say that in its current form the bill gets about three-quarters of the way there.
Heathrow Third Terminal social cost - three times higher than Government figure
The Environmental Audit Committee on December 4 heard Friends of the Earth and WWF say that
The figure for the economic cost of carbon emissions — the future cost of climate change - being used by the Government to justify developments like Hathrow's third terminal - is nearly three times lower than Sir Nicholas Stern recommended.
Stern cites a figure for the social cost of carbon in 2000 of $85 per tonne of CO2 equivalent.
Using DEFRA's exchange rate, Friends of the Earth calculated that that equates to £53 per tonne of CO2 equivalent.
But DEFRA has introduced a new concept — "the shadow cost of carbon" — and puts the 2000 value of that at only £19, which is nearly three times lower.
What does this mean?
It gives us a social cost of carbon emissions in the Heathrow consultation of just £4.8 billion.
If DEFRA and the Department for Transport had stuck to Sir Nicholas Stern’s figure, they would have put the cost at more than £13 billion.
That would have stopped in its tracks the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow.
Although carbon emissions are rising year on year — and have risen since the Government came to power — they have given the green light to one of the very projects that will stop them meeting their own targets.
The cost to the environment and, as Sir Nicholas Stern pointed out, to the economy will be huge.
The figure for the economic cost of carbon emissions — the future cost of climate change - being used by the Government to justify developments like Hathrow's third terminal - is nearly three times lower than Sir Nicholas Stern recommended.
Stern cites a figure for the social cost of carbon in 2000 of $85 per tonne of CO2 equivalent.
Using DEFRA's exchange rate, Friends of the Earth calculated that that equates to £53 per tonne of CO2 equivalent.
But DEFRA has introduced a new concept — "the shadow cost of carbon" — and puts the 2000 value of that at only £19, which is nearly three times lower.
What does this mean?
It gives us a social cost of carbon emissions in the Heathrow consultation of just £4.8 billion.
If DEFRA and the Department for Transport had stuck to Sir Nicholas Stern’s figure, they would have put the cost at more than £13 billion.
That would have stopped in its tracks the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow.
Although carbon emissions are rising year on year — and have risen since the Government came to power — they have given the green light to one of the very projects that will stop them meeting their own targets.
The cost to the environment and, as Sir Nicholas Stern pointed out, to the economy will be huge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)