Hard-pressed energy consumers face a "worryingly high" bill of £4.7bn to pay for the cost of hooking up wind farms and new nuclear power stations to the UK's electricity grid network over the next decade, it was made clear today.
A report from a joint government, industry and regulatory group said that 1,000 kilometres of new cables were needed in what would be the biggest expansion in the network for half a century.
The Electricity Networks Strategy Group (ENSG) said the shake-up would allow Britain to move towards a low-carbon energy supply with the potential for 30% of electricity generated from renewables by 2020. It advises that work should start immediately on the project, which includes two high-voltage sub-sea links between Scotland and England.
Mike O'Brien, the energy and climate change minister, said it was vital to build a grid that was "fit for purpose" so that Britain could cut carbon emissions and make supply more secure. "This is a massive long-term investment opportunity and this upgrade work will help support jobs across the low-carbon economy," he added.
Department officials said that there was no intention at this point of the government picking up the tab, which would be an issue for the energy companies and their consumers. This suggests that higher bills are likely at a time when households have already been under pressure over rising energy bills, helped only recently by lower oil and gas prices.
The National Grid, which runs the transmission system in England and Wales and will pay for the bulk of the programme in the first instance, said it was government's role to provide the right framework of policies rather than pay directly for it. "We can recover the costs in the same way that we do all our other investments," said a Grid spokesman, who admitted it could need to spend as much as £9bn overall on changes to the network.
The Grid would bill utilities such as Centrica, EDF and E.ON, which generate the electricity and then supply it to customers using the Grid's network. These companies can be expected in turn to pass on the extra costs to the householder.
Chris Stubbs, director at environment consultancy WSP, said the £4.7bn bill highlighted the "worryingly high cost" of embracing new energy generation and that the consumer or taxpayer would end up paying.
"It is important to consider that offshore wind is particularly expensive when compared with onshore wind, as the laying of underwater cabling is costly, as is the building of the turbines," he added.
Friends of the Earth's executive director, Andy Atkins, welcomed the report as forward-looking. "Up to now the short-term attitude of the energy regulator Ofgem and lack of strategic thinking have stood in the way of the massive expansion of renewable energy needed to tackle climate change and bring hundreds of thousands of new jobs to this country," he said.
Source - The Guardian
Showing posts with label Centrica. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Centrica. Show all posts
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Sunday, 1 March 2009
Green energy spending gap
The big six energy companies in Britain are investing on average only £30 per year from each customer in renewable energy projects. If this continues, the UK may miss its 2020 green targets by 50%.
The findings, compiled for independent green power group Ecotricity, will be published ahead of the government's biggest test yet on commercial confidence about wind power, the Tuesday deadline for bids on the third offshore licensing round.
Ecotricity claims that British Gas parent Centrica has spent £397.3m on renewables over the last five years, only £13.28 per customer per year. E.ON, the German-owned group at the centre of the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station controversy, spent just £210.5m, £5.37 per customer.
"It is a scandal that the average investment in new build by the big six over the past five years does not even amount to £30 per customer. This £30 is roughly what it would take for each company to meet the bare minimum legal obligation to grow renewables by about 1% per year," said Dale Vince, Ecotricity founder.
"While the big six are performing badly, more surprising perhaps is the lack of investment by two green independent companies. With a zero investment in the last five years, they are contributing nothing to the urgent need for new build. By contrast, Ecotricity has invested an average of over £450 per customer a year over the last five years," he added.
The Ecotricity figures show the worst performing of the big six suppliers was EDF Energy, the French group, which is leading the charge to build nuclear reactors in Britain. It is estimated to have invested £89.6m on renewables in this country, or £14.14 per customer. Green Energy and Good Energy have invested nothing, according to Ecotricity, but are purely supply companies which do not generate power, instead buying it on the open market.
Centrica hit back at the findings, saying the Ecotricity figures gave no indication about the level of future spending. "If all the projects we are currently working on come to completion we could spend £3.5bn building 1,500 megawatts of wind power over the next few years," said a spokesman for the group.
The government's renewables advisory board suggests that wind should provide us with a minimum of 31,000MW by 2020, yet 2008 investment levels will generate less than half of the target, 13,849MW, or a 55% shortfall.
Ecotricity says the energy regulator's new green tariffs, issued earlier this month, are likely to make matters worse. Ecotricity will not sign up to Ofgem's guidelines as it predicts they will make green tariffs more confusing and expensive for consumers and will do nothing to encourage energy companies to build new renewable energy.
Source - The Guardian
The findings, compiled for independent green power group Ecotricity, will be published ahead of the government's biggest test yet on commercial confidence about wind power, the Tuesday deadline for bids on the third offshore licensing round.
Ecotricity claims that British Gas parent Centrica has spent £397.3m on renewables over the last five years, only £13.28 per customer per year. E.ON, the German-owned group at the centre of the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station controversy, spent just £210.5m, £5.37 per customer.
"It is a scandal that the average investment in new build by the big six over the past five years does not even amount to £30 per customer. This £30 is roughly what it would take for each company to meet the bare minimum legal obligation to grow renewables by about 1% per year," said Dale Vince, Ecotricity founder.
"While the big six are performing badly, more surprising perhaps is the lack of investment by two green independent companies. With a zero investment in the last five years, they are contributing nothing to the urgent need for new build. By contrast, Ecotricity has invested an average of over £450 per customer a year over the last five years," he added.
The Ecotricity figures show the worst performing of the big six suppliers was EDF Energy, the French group, which is leading the charge to build nuclear reactors in Britain. It is estimated to have invested £89.6m on renewables in this country, or £14.14 per customer. Green Energy and Good Energy have invested nothing, according to Ecotricity, but are purely supply companies which do not generate power, instead buying it on the open market.
Centrica hit back at the findings, saying the Ecotricity figures gave no indication about the level of future spending. "If all the projects we are currently working on come to completion we could spend £3.5bn building 1,500 megawatts of wind power over the next few years," said a spokesman for the group.
The government's renewables advisory board suggests that wind should provide us with a minimum of 31,000MW by 2020, yet 2008 investment levels will generate less than half of the target, 13,849MW, or a 55% shortfall.
Ecotricity says the energy regulator's new green tariffs, issued earlier this month, are likely to make matters worse. Ecotricity will not sign up to Ofgem's guidelines as it predicts they will make green tariffs more confusing and expensive for consumers and will do nothing to encourage energy companies to build new renewable energy.
Source - The Guardian
Monday, 29 December 2008
Windfarm revolution tangled in red tape
Britain's wind power industry is facing a double blow of lengthy planning delays and rapidly rising construction costs in a crisis that threatens to sink the government's climate-change goals.
Dozens of projects are being held up by planning inquiries, with the average length of time taken to win permission being 15 to 20 months in England and far longer in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the bulk of the schemes are being developed.
There are 262 different projects representing seven gigawatts stuck in the planning stages. And the rate of approvals is slowing despite government promises, according to the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA).
It said that the start of a third inquiry into one project in Norfolk that has already been delayed for seven years showed that the government has not cured the problem despite introducing the Planning Act to speed up the process.
Meanwhile Centrica, owner of British Gas and one of the most powerful energy utilities, said a 250-megawatt scheme off the Lincolnshire coast was hanging in the balance because turbine manufacturers and other suppliers had raised their prices so high they were jeopardising the economics of the scheme.
With Britain committed to producing 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 to meet European Union targets, the government would be blown off course unless it intervened more robustly, said the BWEA.
"The government does not want the political problems of undermining local democracy by taking control out of the hands of local councillors," said Charles Anglin, director of communications at the BWEA. "But if it fails to act it is just storing up more difficult problems further down the road when it gives the go-ahead to coal or expensive gas projects instead."
To meet the 15% target, the BWEA estimates that Britain needs more than 30GW of wind capacity. "We think you can get 20GW offshore, which means you need 10-12GW onshore, and yet so far we have only got 2.5GW," Anglin said.
"We are aware that the planning system does need to be quicker and there are other barriers to projects," said a department of energy and climate change spokesman. "That is why we are going to unveil a renewable energy strategy with the next steps to meeting our goals."
The planning problem is highlighted by the battle waged by Ecotricity at Shipdham in Norfolk over a wind farm application submitted in December 2001. The company has won two planning inquiries only to find the final decision challenged in the high court by two local residents claiming potential noise problems.
The Planning Act applies only to schemes in England - and then only those over 50MW. "Eighty to 90% of the schemes in England are under 50MW anyway so the Planning Act does virtually nothing," Anglin said.
Offshore operators are also struggling because of the mounting costs that have already chased Shell and BP off to the US.
The cost of Centrica's 250MW Lincs wind farm off Skegness has increased from £2bn to £3bn a GW. "We are committed to building wind farms," said a company spokesman, "but we have got to get the costs down to an economic level."
Source - The Guardian
Dozens of projects are being held up by planning inquiries, with the average length of time taken to win permission being 15 to 20 months in England and far longer in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the bulk of the schemes are being developed.
There are 262 different projects representing seven gigawatts stuck in the planning stages. And the rate of approvals is slowing despite government promises, according to the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA).
It said that the start of a third inquiry into one project in Norfolk that has already been delayed for seven years showed that the government has not cured the problem despite introducing the Planning Act to speed up the process.
Meanwhile Centrica, owner of British Gas and one of the most powerful energy utilities, said a 250-megawatt scheme off the Lincolnshire coast was hanging in the balance because turbine manufacturers and other suppliers had raised their prices so high they were jeopardising the economics of the scheme.
With Britain committed to producing 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 to meet European Union targets, the government would be blown off course unless it intervened more robustly, said the BWEA.
"The government does not want the political problems of undermining local democracy by taking control out of the hands of local councillors," said Charles Anglin, director of communications at the BWEA. "But if it fails to act it is just storing up more difficult problems further down the road when it gives the go-ahead to coal or expensive gas projects instead."
To meet the 15% target, the BWEA estimates that Britain needs more than 30GW of wind capacity. "We think you can get 20GW offshore, which means you need 10-12GW onshore, and yet so far we have only got 2.5GW," Anglin said.
"We are aware that the planning system does need to be quicker and there are other barriers to projects," said a department of energy and climate change spokesman. "That is why we are going to unveil a renewable energy strategy with the next steps to meeting our goals."
The planning problem is highlighted by the battle waged by Ecotricity at Shipdham in Norfolk over a wind farm application submitted in December 2001. The company has won two planning inquiries only to find the final decision challenged in the high court by two local residents claiming potential noise problems.
The Planning Act applies only to schemes in England - and then only those over 50MW. "Eighty to 90% of the schemes in England are under 50MW anyway so the Planning Act does virtually nothing," Anglin said.
Offshore operators are also struggling because of the mounting costs that have already chased Shell and BP off to the US.
The cost of Centrica's 250MW Lincs wind farm off Skegness has increased from £2bn to £3bn a GW. "We are committed to building wind farms," said a company spokesman, "but we have got to get the costs down to an economic level."
Source - The Guardian
Wednesday, 20 August 2008
How green is your energy - UK energy special
Cheap it may be. But is your electricity supplier clean or downright dirty? The argument over coal-fired power - often rated as the filthiest - is now white hot.
When we revealed a fortnight ago how to find the cheapest gas and electricity suppliers, E.ON emerged as one of our best buys. Readers then told us that, instead of saving money with E.ON, they wanted to switch away from the firm to protest against its involvement with new coal capacity at Kingsnorth, site of the Camp for Climate Action this summer.
Electricity has to come from somewhere - and most generation involves CO2 emissions or nuclear waste.
Only Good Energy is 100% sourced from renewables such as wind and waterpower. All companies have been set a government target of 9.1% of electricity from renewables by next March, rising to 15.4% by 2016.
Top of the coal burners is Scottish Power, where 55% of its generation comes from coal, substantially greater than its rivals. Not surprisingly, it also heads the carbon emission table.
EDF is the next biggest coal user at 47% followed by npower at 44% and E.ON at 42%. E.ON’s percentage is likely to rise should Kingsnorth get off the ground.
By contrast, British Gas (Centrica) takes just 18% of its needs from the fuel. It uses its own gas for electricity generation. But for those whose main worry is nuclear energy, Scottish Power’s supplies to its five million customers comes out well at only 1%.
Ecotricity, which figures prominently on green lists, mixes coal, nuclear, renewables and gas in almost equal amounts. The firm concedes it does not have a 100% green fuel mix although it does offer a 100% green supply for those who want it. “We are working towards more renewables. Our most popular tariff is made up of around 70% brown energy. Buying existing green energy, which is what most 100% tariffs contain, does nothing at all to reduce CO2 emissions or increase UK green energy capacity - you simply take something that already exists and have it for yourself.
“Robbing Peter to supply Paul is how we like to describe it. Most 100% green tariffs are a con, because they tell you you’ll reduce your carbon footprint etc, but don’t tell you someone else’s will go up as a direct result. Nothing really changes - it’s just a redistribution of existing green sources.”
Scottish Power says its high coal dependency is due to inheriting coal-fired stations - it owns Longannet station in Fife, one of the biggest in the UK. It is investigating “carbon capture” techniques. These cut down on emissions but are controversial on cost and energy grounds.
It says: “We will spend around £1bn on new renewable projects in the next two years including Europe’s biggest windfarm, Whitelee near Glasgow. Our renewable portfolio will be 10% of our capacity by 2010.”
But those who want pure green energy have to pay for it. A typical 3,300kilowatt electricity consumption costs £484 with Good Energy or £436 with Ecotricity New Energy Plus.
Scottish Power’s Green Energy H2O (it comes from hydropower) costs £354 (the same as its non-green supply) while the cheapest for non-green tariff (British Gas Click 5) costs £295.
Meanwhile Friends of the Earth says the best way to cut carbon is to turn off lights and power.
Source - The Guardian
When we revealed a fortnight ago how to find the cheapest gas and electricity suppliers, E.ON emerged as one of our best buys. Readers then told us that, instead of saving money with E.ON, they wanted to switch away from the firm to protest against its involvement with new coal capacity at Kingsnorth, site of the Camp for Climate Action this summer.
Electricity has to come from somewhere - and most generation involves CO2 emissions or nuclear waste.
Only Good Energy is 100% sourced from renewables such as wind and waterpower. All companies have been set a government target of 9.1% of electricity from renewables by next March, rising to 15.4% by 2016.
Top of the coal burners is Scottish Power, where 55% of its generation comes from coal, substantially greater than its rivals. Not surprisingly, it also heads the carbon emission table.
EDF is the next biggest coal user at 47% followed by npower at 44% and E.ON at 42%. E.ON’s percentage is likely to rise should Kingsnorth get off the ground.
By contrast, British Gas (Centrica) takes just 18% of its needs from the fuel. It uses its own gas for electricity generation. But for those whose main worry is nuclear energy, Scottish Power’s supplies to its five million customers comes out well at only 1%.
Ecotricity, which figures prominently on green lists, mixes coal, nuclear, renewables and gas in almost equal amounts. The firm concedes it does not have a 100% green fuel mix although it does offer a 100% green supply for those who want it. “We are working towards more renewables. Our most popular tariff is made up of around 70% brown energy. Buying existing green energy, which is what most 100% tariffs contain, does nothing at all to reduce CO2 emissions or increase UK green energy capacity - you simply take something that already exists and have it for yourself.
“Robbing Peter to supply Paul is how we like to describe it. Most 100% green tariffs are a con, because they tell you you’ll reduce your carbon footprint etc, but don’t tell you someone else’s will go up as a direct result. Nothing really changes - it’s just a redistribution of existing green sources.”
Scottish Power says its high coal dependency is due to inheriting coal-fired stations - it owns Longannet station in Fife, one of the biggest in the UK. It is investigating “carbon capture” techniques. These cut down on emissions but are controversial on cost and energy grounds.
It says: “We will spend around £1bn on new renewable projects in the next two years including Europe’s biggest windfarm, Whitelee near Glasgow. Our renewable portfolio will be 10% of our capacity by 2010.”
But those who want pure green energy have to pay for it. A typical 3,300kilowatt electricity consumption costs £484 with Good Energy or £436 with Ecotricity New Energy Plus.
Scottish Power’s Green Energy H2O (it comes from hydropower) costs £354 (the same as its non-green supply) while the cheapest for non-green tariff (British Gas Click 5) costs £295.
Meanwhile Friends of the Earth says the best way to cut carbon is to turn off lights and power.
Source - The Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
