As the Obama Administration pushes for increased use of renewables in the fight against global warming, Southern California Gas Co. (The Gas Company) announced today it expects to award incentives of up to $633,000 to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) for installing the nation's largest solar photovoltaic system at a transit facility, as well as a state-of-the-art energy management system.
The 6,720 solar panels at Metro's Support Service Center in downtown Los Angeles -- Metro's central maintenance facility for busses -- represent the largest solar installation in the City of Los Angeles, with a capability of generating 1.2 megawatts of power. Metro expects to cut the facility's annual $1.1 million energy bill in half with the system and reduce carbon emissions by more than 3,700 metric tons -- the equivalent of taking 600 cars off the road.
Metro also installed new heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, and compressed air systems, and replaced about 4,000 lighting fixtures, all controlled by a state-of-the-art energy management system.
Metro qualified for the incentives by participating in The Gas Company's Self-Generation Incentive and Business Energy-efficiency programs. Both are state-sponsored programs that provide financial incentives to businesses for generating their own electricity on site and improving energy efficiency.
"Thanks, in part, to The Gas Company's incentives, Los Angeles is now one step closer to becoming the solar capital of the United States," said Los Angeles Mayor and Metro Board Chair Antonio Villaraigosa. "Today's unveiling of the city's largest solar-powered facility will not only generate clean, renewable energy, but will provide the kinds of green jobs that this economy so desperately needs."
"The Gas Company has awarded more than $70 million since 2001 to customers installing electric-generation systems, providing the state with 77 megawatts of much-needed generation -- enough to power about 50,000 homes," said Hal D. Snyder, vice president of customer solutions for The Gas Company. "Over the past 18 years, our energy-efficiency programs have helped customers conserve more than 386 million therms of natural gas, or enough to supply energy to more than 770,000 homes for one year, at a cost savings of more than $320 million.
"We commend Metro for its leadership in the use of renewable energy and energy-efficient equipment, reducing costs and helping California meet its greenhouse-gas emissions-reduction goals," said Snyder.
The Metro Support Service Center is used for the central maintenance of Metro's bus fleet, which includes more than 2,500 compressed natural gas-fueled busses. Spanning 27 acres, the 400,000-square foot facility consists of five separate buildings where technicians and mechanics keep Metro's bus fleet in all of the agency's 11 operating divisions in top condition.
For more information on The Gas Company's energy-efficiency and self-generation incentive programs, customers can visit the utility's Web site at www.socalgas.com/business.
Southern California Gas Co. has been delivering clean, safe and reliable natural gas to its customers for more than 140 years. It is the nation's largest natural gas distribution utility, providing safe and reliable energy to 20.5 million consumers through 5.7 million meters in more than 500 communities. The company's service territory encompasses approximately 20,000 square miles in diverse terrain throughout Central and Southern California, from Visalia to the Mexican border. The Gas Company is a regulated subsidiary of Sempra Energy (NYSE: SRE). Sempra Energy, based in San Diego, is a Fortune 500 energy services holding company.
Source - marketwire
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Bright Future With Solar Lanterns For India's Poor
Solar energy has the potential to improve the living conditions of poor rural households in India as well as contribute to the country’s future energy security, according to Professor Govindasamy Agoramoorthy from Tajen University, who is Tata-Sadguru Visiting Chair, and Dr. Minna Hsu from the National Sun Yat-sen University in Taiwan.
Their study, looking at the benefits of solar lanterns on the livelihoods of village communities in Western India, as well as sustainable use of the environment, has just been published online in Springer’s journal Human Ecology.
In India, approximately 70 percent of rural areas lack electricity and over 60 percent of rural households use kerosene lamps for lighting. Kerosene lamps are not only expensive, they are also inefficient, potentially dangerous and a major source of greenhouse gases. Interestingly, the average number of sunny days in India ranges from 250 to 300 days a year, with a solar energy equivalent greater than the country’s total energy consumption. Energy efficiency is critical to nations such as India with large and growing populations. Solar lanterns, which make the most of the country’s natural and abundant sunshine, could be a practical and clean energy alternative to kerosene lamps in village communities.
Sadguru Foundation, a non-profit agency specializing in natural resources management in India, supplied 100 solar lanterns to socially and economically disadvantaged households in 25 villages in the Dahod District of the Gujarat State between January 2004 and December 2007. Agoramoorthy and Hsu studied the effects of using solar lanterns on energy usage, household savings in terms of kerosene and electricity costs, as well as the family’s quality of life. The women in the households were interviewed a month before and again a month after the introduction of the solar lanterns.
Overall, expenditure on kerosene and electricity dropped significantly in all households, after the solar lanterns were introduced. On average each household made important savings ranging from 150 to 250 US dollars annually. Whereas both households above and below the poverty level used a similar amount of electricity before the lanterns were introduced, after their introduction households below the poverty level used significantly less electricity than those above the poverty level.
The researchers also found that the solar lanterns particularly benefited school-aged children and women. Although 70 percent of the villages are connected to the power grid, they do not receive power early in the morning or in the evening because the state power company redirects electricity to major towns and cities. However, with the six hours of light supplied daily by the solar lanterns, study hours increased which had a positive influence on the children’s performance at school. Women were also able to perform their routine household work both indoors and outdoors during power outages.
The authors conclude that “the use of solar energy will contribute to India’s future energy security, particularly in rural areas where the technology that converts sunlight directly into electricity offers a decentralized alternative to uncertain electricity supplies. If implemented efficiently, renewable energy projects could not only improve the quality of life for India’s rural poor but also enhance sustainable use of the environment.”
Source - Sciencedaily
Their study, looking at the benefits of solar lanterns on the livelihoods of village communities in Western India, as well as sustainable use of the environment, has just been published online in Springer’s journal Human Ecology.
In India, approximately 70 percent of rural areas lack electricity and over 60 percent of rural households use kerosene lamps for lighting. Kerosene lamps are not only expensive, they are also inefficient, potentially dangerous and a major source of greenhouse gases. Interestingly, the average number of sunny days in India ranges from 250 to 300 days a year, with a solar energy equivalent greater than the country’s total energy consumption. Energy efficiency is critical to nations such as India with large and growing populations. Solar lanterns, which make the most of the country’s natural and abundant sunshine, could be a practical and clean energy alternative to kerosene lamps in village communities.
Sadguru Foundation, a non-profit agency specializing in natural resources management in India, supplied 100 solar lanterns to socially and economically disadvantaged households in 25 villages in the Dahod District of the Gujarat State between January 2004 and December 2007. Agoramoorthy and Hsu studied the effects of using solar lanterns on energy usage, household savings in terms of kerosene and electricity costs, as well as the family’s quality of life. The women in the households were interviewed a month before and again a month after the introduction of the solar lanterns.
Overall, expenditure on kerosene and electricity dropped significantly in all households, after the solar lanterns were introduced. On average each household made important savings ranging from 150 to 250 US dollars annually. Whereas both households above and below the poverty level used a similar amount of electricity before the lanterns were introduced, after their introduction households below the poverty level used significantly less electricity than those above the poverty level.
The researchers also found that the solar lanterns particularly benefited school-aged children and women. Although 70 percent of the villages are connected to the power grid, they do not receive power early in the morning or in the evening because the state power company redirects electricity to major towns and cities. However, with the six hours of light supplied daily by the solar lanterns, study hours increased which had a positive influence on the children’s performance at school. Women were also able to perform their routine household work both indoors and outdoors during power outages.
The authors conclude that “the use of solar energy will contribute to India’s future energy security, particularly in rural areas where the technology that converts sunlight directly into electricity offers a decentralized alternative to uncertain electricity supplies. If implemented efficiently, renewable energy projects could not only improve the quality of life for India’s rural poor but also enhance sustainable use of the environment.”
Source - Sciencedaily
Barack Obama's 100 days: Green measures
Environmentalists in general have been impressed by the speed and sheer sweep of Obama's efforts to leave behind the George Bush era of climate change denial
Barack Obama's $787bn economic recovery plan contained historic levels of green investment.
Barack Obama promised on his very first day in the White House to help move America towards a new green future. Now, 100 days on, environmentalists in general have been impressed by the speed and sheer sweep of Obama's efforts to leave behind the George Bush era of climate change denial, and try to set in place the foundations of a low carbon future.
So how has he performed? Obama, of course, has not had time to put in place the long-term measures needed to wean America off oil and coal. His administration has also had to scale back some of its ambitions because of opposition from Congress, charged with passing cap and trade legislation, and an American public that – unlike Obama – has yet to see global warming as a priority threat.
The Senate has yet to take up climate change legislation, which sharply reduces the chances of introducing a market-based cap and trade system by the end of this year. The administration has also frustrated some environmentalists.
But most agree that Obama has moved faster, and acted across a wider, than any other president to lay the foundations of a new low-carbon economy.
Here are some of the highlights of the last 100 days:
January 20: Only hours after Obama takes the oath of office, the White House issues a memo staying a number of Bush's "midnight regulations". The regulations, issued in the final hours of the Bush administration, had sought to do away with a generation of environmental protections imposed on polluters from factory farms to the burning of hazardous waste and oil shales development. Obama orders a review of the measures, which had been deplored by conservationists.
January 26: The president signs a pair of executive orders intended to set stricter limits on car exhaust emissions. Obama directs the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its refusal, under George Bush, to allow California to cut car exhaust by 30%. The president also calls on the Transportation Department to draw up new fuel 35 MPG fuel standard for all cars rolling off the assembly lines from 2012.
February 17: Obama signs a $787bn economic recovery plan. The rescue package contained historic levels of green investment – well over $100bn by some estimates. There were billions for refitting existing buildings to make them more energy efficiency, high-speed rail lines and commuter transit and updating the electric grid.
"In a lot of respects the stimulus package was a gigantic climate and energy bill by itself in a very positive way," said David Gardiner, a senior adviser at the Energy Future Coalition. "We have never had a president who has focused on this ... with [that] intensity."
March 19: He pledges $2.4bn for the development of hybrid cars and advanced batteries.
March 20: Michelle Obama digs up a patch of ground behind the White House to plant the first presidential vegetable garden since the second world war. The Obamas plan to put in lettuce, spinach, herbs such as coriander, and hot peppers – but no beets because the president does not like them.
March 30: Obama sets aside 2m acres of public land spread across nine states as wilderness, from California's Sierra Nevada to Virginia's Jefferson forest, shielding it from mining, logging and other operations. Another provision protects 1,000 miles of river.
April 17: The Environmental Protection Agency formally declares that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. The so-called endangerment finding is a first step towards regulating coal-fired power plants and to forcing US car manufacturers to make cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles.
April 27: The US hosts a two-day forum for 17 of the world's most polluting economies to try to get closer to a deal before the international climate change summit at Copenhagen in December. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, declares the US, after eight years of going missing under George Bush, is now committed to helping lead the world towards a planet-saving deal. She also makes a direct pitch to India and China, saying that a move towards a greener economy will not hold back development, but could help them reach greater prosperity.
Source - The Guardian
Barack Obama's $787bn economic recovery plan contained historic levels of green investment.
Barack Obama promised on his very first day in the White House to help move America towards a new green future. Now, 100 days on, environmentalists in general have been impressed by the speed and sheer sweep of Obama's efforts to leave behind the George Bush era of climate change denial, and try to set in place the foundations of a low carbon future.
So how has he performed? Obama, of course, has not had time to put in place the long-term measures needed to wean America off oil and coal. His administration has also had to scale back some of its ambitions because of opposition from Congress, charged with passing cap and trade legislation, and an American public that – unlike Obama – has yet to see global warming as a priority threat.
The Senate has yet to take up climate change legislation, which sharply reduces the chances of introducing a market-based cap and trade system by the end of this year. The administration has also frustrated some environmentalists.
But most agree that Obama has moved faster, and acted across a wider, than any other president to lay the foundations of a new low-carbon economy.
Here are some of the highlights of the last 100 days:
January 20: Only hours after Obama takes the oath of office, the White House issues a memo staying a number of Bush's "midnight regulations". The regulations, issued in the final hours of the Bush administration, had sought to do away with a generation of environmental protections imposed on polluters from factory farms to the burning of hazardous waste and oil shales development. Obama orders a review of the measures, which had been deplored by conservationists.
January 26: The president signs a pair of executive orders intended to set stricter limits on car exhaust emissions. Obama directs the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its refusal, under George Bush, to allow California to cut car exhaust by 30%. The president also calls on the Transportation Department to draw up new fuel 35 MPG fuel standard for all cars rolling off the assembly lines from 2012.
February 17: Obama signs a $787bn economic recovery plan. The rescue package contained historic levels of green investment – well over $100bn by some estimates. There were billions for refitting existing buildings to make them more energy efficiency, high-speed rail lines and commuter transit and updating the electric grid.
"In a lot of respects the stimulus package was a gigantic climate and energy bill by itself in a very positive way," said David Gardiner, a senior adviser at the Energy Future Coalition. "We have never had a president who has focused on this ... with [that] intensity."
March 19: He pledges $2.4bn for the development of hybrid cars and advanced batteries.
March 20: Michelle Obama digs up a patch of ground behind the White House to plant the first presidential vegetable garden since the second world war. The Obamas plan to put in lettuce, spinach, herbs such as coriander, and hot peppers – but no beets because the president does not like them.
March 30: Obama sets aside 2m acres of public land spread across nine states as wilderness, from California's Sierra Nevada to Virginia's Jefferson forest, shielding it from mining, logging and other operations. Another provision protects 1,000 miles of river.
April 17: The Environmental Protection Agency formally declares that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. The so-called endangerment finding is a first step towards regulating coal-fired power plants and to forcing US car manufacturers to make cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles.
April 27: The US hosts a two-day forum for 17 of the world's most polluting economies to try to get closer to a deal before the international climate change summit at Copenhagen in December. The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, declares the US, after eight years of going missing under George Bush, is now committed to helping lead the world towards a planet-saving deal. She also makes a direct pitch to India and China, saying that a move towards a greener economy will not hold back development, but could help them reach greater prosperity.
Source - The Guardian
BP profits slump 62%
Energy giant to cut spending on finding and developing new oil and gas reserves
BP is cutting spending on new projects after suffering a 62% drop in profits following the slump in the oil price.
The energy giant reported this morning that it made a profit of $2.387bn (£1.64bn) in the first three months of this year, down from $6.231bn a year ago. It blamed the fall in the price of oil, which fluctuated between $35 and $50 a barrel during the quarter, while a year ago a barrel cost more than $100.
With profits also lower than in the last three months of 2008, when BP made $2.587bn, the company is now planning to spend less on finding and developing new oil and gas reserves. It warned today that it will spend less than $20bn on capital expenditure this year, down from an earlier target of $20bn-$22bn. This comes after Opec, the group of oil-producing nations, threatened to cut production unless the oil price rose soon.
The cut in capital expenditure could have long-term consequences for BP's future growth. It is not clear which projects will be affected by the cutbacks, but environmentalists are likely to welcome the move, given the controversy over projects such as the tar sands scheme in Canada.
The move comes less than a month after BP said it will reduce the headcount at its solar power division by 620, or nearly a quarter, in a cost-cutting drive.
BP today also reported a drop in sales at its solar division, which makes solar panels. Its sales during the quarter would generate 15 megawatts of power, down from 34 MW in the same period in 2008. BP said this reflected "ongoing weak demand in the market".
Shareholders will receive a dividend of 14 cents per share, the same as in the last quarter and nearly half a cent more than a year ago.
Shares in BP rose by 3p this morning to 486.25p.
Source - The guardian
BP is cutting spending on new projects after suffering a 62% drop in profits following the slump in the oil price.
The energy giant reported this morning that it made a profit of $2.387bn (£1.64bn) in the first three months of this year, down from $6.231bn a year ago. It blamed the fall in the price of oil, which fluctuated between $35 and $50 a barrel during the quarter, while a year ago a barrel cost more than $100.
With profits also lower than in the last three months of 2008, when BP made $2.587bn, the company is now planning to spend less on finding and developing new oil and gas reserves. It warned today that it will spend less than $20bn on capital expenditure this year, down from an earlier target of $20bn-$22bn. This comes after Opec, the group of oil-producing nations, threatened to cut production unless the oil price rose soon.
The cut in capital expenditure could have long-term consequences for BP's future growth. It is not clear which projects will be affected by the cutbacks, but environmentalists are likely to welcome the move, given the controversy over projects such as the tar sands scheme in Canada.
The move comes less than a month after BP said it will reduce the headcount at its solar power division by 620, or nearly a quarter, in a cost-cutting drive.
BP today also reported a drop in sales at its solar division, which makes solar panels. Its sales during the quarter would generate 15 megawatts of power, down from 34 MW in the same period in 2008. BP said this reflected "ongoing weak demand in the market".
Shareholders will receive a dividend of 14 cents per share, the same as in the last quarter and nearly half a cent more than a year ago.
Shares in BP rose by 3p this morning to 486.25p.
Source - The guardian
UK’s energy shortfall
The government fired the starting gun today for the rebirth of Britain’s nuclear power industry, announcing the names of eleven sites earmarked for construction of new reactors.
Each of the new stations will cost £4.5 billion to build and will be powerful enough to supply as many as 2 million homes with electricity for up to 60 years.
Energy experts warned that the first one would not be ready before 2017 at the earliest — too late to avoid a yawning gap opening up in Britain’s energy supplies with a string of ageing coal and nuclear stations set to close over the next few years.
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said that the list of new sites — all of which are located at or close to existing nuclear stations and which span the country from West Cumbria to Kent and Somerset — represented “another important step towards a new generation of nuclear power stations”.
“Nuclear power is part of the low-carbon future for Britain. It also has the potential to offer thousands of jobs to the UK and multimillion-pound opportunities to British businesses.”
The public now has one month to respond to the list of sites, including Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk, considered the frontrunners for the first two stations to be built by the French power giant EDF.
Other sites thought to be among the first wave of new reactors include Wylfa in Anglesey; Oldbury in Gloucestershire; and Bradwell in Essex.
The list also includes Dungeness in Kent; Hartlepool in Cleveland; Heysham in Lancashire; and three separate sites in West Cumbria at Sellafield, Braystones and Kirksanton.
Craig Lowrey, head of energy markets at EIC, an independent consultancy, pointed out that the new plants would arrive too late to help Britain avoid a dangerous slide towards an unhealthy dependency on electricity produced from gas-fired power stations.
This was an unwelcome development because of the carbon emissions associated with burning gas and because the UK was running short of its own supplies in the North Sea,forcing it to import more and more of the fuel from countries such as Russia, Algeria and Qatar, Dr Lowrey said.
Britain’s current fleet of power stations — including coal, gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind and biomass stations — have a generating capacity of about 83.5 gigawatts. Roughly a quarter of that (22-23 gigawatts) is set to close in the next few years as ageing nuclear plants are retired from service, while a big chunk of coal-fired generation is set to close by 2015 to meet tough new European rules on the use of coal and oil-fired power stations.
The announcement of the nuclear sites also triggered a wave of protest from environmental groups, which argue that the high costs involved and the waste produced by nuclear stations do not justify the contribution they will make in cutting UK carbon emissions.
“We urgently need to end our addiction to fossil fuels, but breathing new life into the failed nuclear experiment is not the answer,” said Robin Webster, energy campaigner for Friends of the Earth. “Nuclear power leaves a deadly legacy of radioactive waste that remains highly dangerous for tens of thousands of years and costs tens of billions of pounds to manage.
Source - The Times
Each of the new stations will cost £4.5 billion to build and will be powerful enough to supply as many as 2 million homes with electricity for up to 60 years.
Energy experts warned that the first one would not be ready before 2017 at the earliest — too late to avoid a yawning gap opening up in Britain’s energy supplies with a string of ageing coal and nuclear stations set to close over the next few years.
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said that the list of new sites — all of which are located at or close to existing nuclear stations and which span the country from West Cumbria to Kent and Somerset — represented “another important step towards a new generation of nuclear power stations”.
“Nuclear power is part of the low-carbon future for Britain. It also has the potential to offer thousands of jobs to the UK and multimillion-pound opportunities to British businesses.”
The public now has one month to respond to the list of sites, including Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk, considered the frontrunners for the first two stations to be built by the French power giant EDF.
Other sites thought to be among the first wave of new reactors include Wylfa in Anglesey; Oldbury in Gloucestershire; and Bradwell in Essex.
The list also includes Dungeness in Kent; Hartlepool in Cleveland; Heysham in Lancashire; and three separate sites in West Cumbria at Sellafield, Braystones and Kirksanton.
Craig Lowrey, head of energy markets at EIC, an independent consultancy, pointed out that the new plants would arrive too late to help Britain avoid a dangerous slide towards an unhealthy dependency on electricity produced from gas-fired power stations.
This was an unwelcome development because of the carbon emissions associated with burning gas and because the UK was running short of its own supplies in the North Sea,forcing it to import more and more of the fuel from countries such as Russia, Algeria and Qatar, Dr Lowrey said.
Britain’s current fleet of power stations — including coal, gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind and biomass stations — have a generating capacity of about 83.5 gigawatts. Roughly a quarter of that (22-23 gigawatts) is set to close in the next few years as ageing nuclear plants are retired from service, while a big chunk of coal-fired generation is set to close by 2015 to meet tough new European rules on the use of coal and oil-fired power stations.
The announcement of the nuclear sites also triggered a wave of protest from environmental groups, which argue that the high costs involved and the waste produced by nuclear stations do not justify the contribution they will make in cutting UK carbon emissions.
“We urgently need to end our addiction to fossil fuels, but breathing new life into the failed nuclear experiment is not the answer,” said Robin Webster, energy campaigner for Friends of the Earth. “Nuclear power leaves a deadly legacy of radioactive waste that remains highly dangerous for tens of thousands of years and costs tens of billions of pounds to manage.
Source - The Times
Schwarzenegger’s optimistic solar panel forecast
THE world’s economy and its glaciers are experiencing a simultaneous meltdown for many of the same reasons. The solutions to our economic and climate change challenges are also intertwined, and present us with a fantastic opportunity for a century of unparalleled growth and prosperity for everyone — if we start by changing the way we think about energy.
Did you know that enough sunlight falls on the Earth every hour to power all of humanity’s energy needs for a year?
Or that there’s enough hydrogen in the water discharged by sewage treatment plants to power all of our cars, trucks, trains and aeroplanes?
Add to these the potential of biomass, geothermal, tidal power, wind and other renewables and it’s clear that there are enough clean, renewable energy resources — if only we deploy the technology to use them, especially technologies that make more of what we already have.
We’ve done it in California — for example, setting energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings that now make us 40 per cent more energy efficient than average Americans.
Source - The Sun
Did you know that enough sunlight falls on the Earth every hour to power all of humanity’s energy needs for a year?
Or that there’s enough hydrogen in the water discharged by sewage treatment plants to power all of our cars, trucks, trains and aeroplanes?
Add to these the potential of biomass, geothermal, tidal power, wind and other renewables and it’s clear that there are enough clean, renewable energy resources — if only we deploy the technology to use them, especially technologies that make more of what we already have.
We’ve done it in California — for example, setting energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings that now make us 40 per cent more energy efficient than average Americans.
Source - The Sun
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
The solar panels revolution begins
The solar panels photovoltaics industry is the fastest-growing green energy industry in the world. Growth in 2008, announced this week, was fully 89%, notwithstanding deep recession. 2008 venture capital investments in “cleantech” have also been totted up of late.
More than 50 families of green energy technology interest venture capital investors, but in 2008 more than 50% of all their cleantech investment globally in went into solar photovoltaics. There is a solar revolution in the making, and UK plc ought to be part of it – not just for the sake of our competitiveness, but also our oft-stated desire to lead in fighting climate change, and in generating new green jobs to pave the way out of recession.
All this fast growth, globally, is because many governments are now actively building domestic solar industries, using market-enablement mechanisms such as feed-in tariffs and subsidies.
As with all technology, this kind of support is needed if the kit is to be commercialised fast. It needs to stay in place only long enough for the price of solar electricity to be driven firmly below the price of conventional electricity. From that point – “grid parity”, in the jargon – a mass market becomes inevitable.
A recent report by the UK Photovoltaics Manufacturers Association showed that grid parity in Britain may be as close as 2013 for the residential sector, and 2018 for the commercial sector, notwithstanding our cloudy skies. This proximity is another reason for a burst of market-enablement support: we need to build a domestic industry rapidly if we are to meet demand, come the mass market.
Knowing all this, it was with hope in my heart that accepted an invitation from the government to speak at its jobs summit in January, about the scope for a UK green new deal. In March, I attended the Low Carbon Summit in similar mood. There, Gordon Brown called for a global green new deal, using those exact words. Peter Mandelson said that the UK must play a full role in the unfolding green industrial revolution. Ed Miliband said we are in race, both because our competitors are forging ahead, but also because climate change is speeding up faster than expected.
But a few days later, the government cut its main support programme for solar photovoltaics without warning. Scarcely being able to believe what I was hearing, I remonstrated with No 10, and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I was told that ministers hadn’t known about the decision, which had been taken by DECC officials – wait for this – because solar PV was proving more popular than the other technologies in the programme, and the civil servants wanted the others to catch up. I waited, hoping for corrective action. It hasn’t happened. Job losses have started in solar companies, and still nothing has been done.
Funding for solar PV has been cut before in recent years, only to be reinstated later. The industry in the UK has been put on a kind of stop-start drip-feed. Overseas, in contrast, governments have opted for the kind of reliable commitments that allow businesses to make realistic plans, and hire people, while attracting investors. Its almost as though Whitehall has decided it actually wants to kill this industry in the UK, for some reason. I can’t bring myself to believe in such a conspiracy, but if you did want to kill an industry, in a Yes Minister kind of way, you’d do just what the government is doing.
On 20 April a letter will be delivered to Gordon Brown signed by the National Federation of Roofing Contractors, the Federation of Master Builders, the Electrical Contractors Association, leading architects, and most of the UK solar industry. Essentially, it asks the government to act consistently with its rhetoric on the green new deal, and give the domestic solar PV industry the chance to play a role in the creation of new jobs that this country so badly needs.
It really shouldn’t be this difficult to make reality sit comfortably with rhetoric.
Source - The guardian
More than 50 families of green energy technology interest venture capital investors, but in 2008 more than 50% of all their cleantech investment globally in went into solar photovoltaics. There is a solar revolution in the making, and UK plc ought to be part of it – not just for the sake of our competitiveness, but also our oft-stated desire to lead in fighting climate change, and in generating new green jobs to pave the way out of recession.
All this fast growth, globally, is because many governments are now actively building domestic solar industries, using market-enablement mechanisms such as feed-in tariffs and subsidies.
As with all technology, this kind of support is needed if the kit is to be commercialised fast. It needs to stay in place only long enough for the price of solar electricity to be driven firmly below the price of conventional electricity. From that point – “grid parity”, in the jargon – a mass market becomes inevitable.
A recent report by the UK Photovoltaics Manufacturers Association showed that grid parity in Britain may be as close as 2013 for the residential sector, and 2018 for the commercial sector, notwithstanding our cloudy skies. This proximity is another reason for a burst of market-enablement support: we need to build a domestic industry rapidly if we are to meet demand, come the mass market.
Knowing all this, it was with hope in my heart that accepted an invitation from the government to speak at its jobs summit in January, about the scope for a UK green new deal. In March, I attended the Low Carbon Summit in similar mood. There, Gordon Brown called for a global green new deal, using those exact words. Peter Mandelson said that the UK must play a full role in the unfolding green industrial revolution. Ed Miliband said we are in race, both because our competitors are forging ahead, but also because climate change is speeding up faster than expected.
But a few days later, the government cut its main support programme for solar photovoltaics without warning. Scarcely being able to believe what I was hearing, I remonstrated with No 10, and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I was told that ministers hadn’t known about the decision, which had been taken by DECC officials – wait for this – because solar PV was proving more popular than the other technologies in the programme, and the civil servants wanted the others to catch up. I waited, hoping for corrective action. It hasn’t happened. Job losses have started in solar companies, and still nothing has been done.
Funding for solar PV has been cut before in recent years, only to be reinstated later. The industry in the UK has been put on a kind of stop-start drip-feed. Overseas, in contrast, governments have opted for the kind of reliable commitments that allow businesses to make realistic plans, and hire people, while attracting investors. Its almost as though Whitehall has decided it actually wants to kill this industry in the UK, for some reason. I can’t bring myself to believe in such a conspiracy, but if you did want to kill an industry, in a Yes Minister kind of way, you’d do just what the government is doing.
On 20 April a letter will be delivered to Gordon Brown signed by the National Federation of Roofing Contractors, the Federation of Master Builders, the Electrical Contractors Association, leading architects, and most of the UK solar industry. Essentially, it asks the government to act consistently with its rhetoric on the green new deal, and give the domestic solar PV industry the chance to play a role in the creation of new jobs that this country so badly needs.
It really shouldn’t be this difficult to make reality sit comfortably with rhetoric.
Source - The guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
