China adopted an amendment to its renewable energy law Saturday that requires utilities to buy all the power produced by generators of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.
Power enterprises that refuse to do so will face fines up to an amount double that of the economic loss of the renewable energy company, state-run news agency Xinhua reports.
The amendment also requires the Chinese government to set up a special fund for renewable energy scientific research, finance rural clean energy projects, build independent power systems in remote areas and islands, and build information networks to exploit renewable energy.
The fund would be managed by finance, energy and pricing sectors of the state council.
China's renewable energy law, which took effect in January 2006, covered subsidies, pricing management and supervision measures and was aimed at "optimizing the country's energy structure and safeguarding energy security."
China, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, last year relied on coal for nearly 70 percent of its total energy use. But its goal is to increase use of renewable-energy sources to 15 percent of its total by 2020, from 9 percent last year.
Last month Chinese president Hu Jintao announced a separate target ahead of the Copenhagen climate-change summit to reduce the country's carbon emissions relative to economic output by 40 percent to 45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.
Yet China's emissions will continue to grow as its economy expands.
The amendment "strengthens the confidence of achieving the target" and "contributes to the global fight on climate change," said Wang Zhongying, director of the renewable energy development center of the Energy Research Institute under China's National Development and Reform Commission, Xinhua reports.
According to Xinhua, renewable resources supplied 9 percent of China's total energy consumption last year, equal to reducing carbon dioxide by 600 million tons. It said China used more hydro and solar power than any other country and ranked fourth worldwide for its use of wind power.
But industry experts estimate that one-third of China's wind-generated electricity could not be well transmitted to the grid. The new legislation requires grid companies to improve transmitting technologies and enhance grid capability to absorb more power produced by renewable energy generators.
Xiao Liye, director of the Institute of Electrical Engineering of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, suggested using "smart grids" to enhance grid capability. He said "smart grids" and renewable energy should be developed in tandem like "twin brothers."
Source - Solar Daily
Showing posts with label Wind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wind. Show all posts
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Sunday, 5 July 2009
UK households face rise in energy bills
Consumers will have to pay hundreds of pounds more on their electricity bills in future because the Government has failed to invest enough in cheap alternative sources like wind and solar power, the Royal Society has warned.
The UK Government has committed to cutting greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050 to tackle climate change. Most of the cuts will have to come from switching from fossil fuels such as oil and coal to renewable energy sources like the wind or waves.
However a new report by the Royal Society has found a “disappointing rate of progress” on new technology such as offshore wind turbines, solar panels and biofuels.
The document by the country’s leading scientists said the UK will have to invest billions more in developing new technologies as well as building a new generation of nuclear power stations and investing in “clean coal”. The bill is most likely to be paid by energy companies through a system of incentives and taxes.
Professor John Shepherd, lead author of the report, said ultimately consumers will end up paying.
“We have to be prepared to pay more for energy as a whole than we have been used to in order to avoid the side effects on the environment and have cleaner sources of energy in the future,” he said.
Lord Turner, the Government’s adviser on climate change, has already warned that electricity bills may have to rise by around £500 per annum over the next decade.
Prof Shepherd said it was likely to cost the consumer hundreds of pounds every year. However he said the cost could be even greater if the UK continues to rely on fossil fuels as the cost of oil and coal continues to rise.
“Would a few per cent on your electricity bills really be too much to pay for a sustainable energy future?” he asked. “I do not think it would.”
Prof Shepherd also said the UK will have to invest in nuclear despite safety concerns. Britain’s nuclear watchdog recently admitted there were more than 1,750 leaks, breakdowns or other “events” over the past seven years.
Again Prof Shepherd said the Government has failed to invest in the technology but the industry could be developed by employing more engineers and experts from abroad.
Coal will also have to be used in the future despite concerns about the carbon emissions through investing in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The Royal Society are calling for any new power stations to capture 90 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 – much tougher than the Government’s “disappointing” current policy.
However in the long run Prof Shepherd, a climate scientist at Southampton University, said the UK must rely on renewables like solar and wind.
“For the sake of future generations we cannot afford to wait until our climate is changed dramatically or the oil runs out before we end our dependency on fossil fuels,” he warned.
Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, said the UK will be setting out a vision for renewables in a white paper due to be revealed next month.
“We have identified ways to tackle the challenges – we will need a mix of renewables, clean fossil fuels and nuclear and we’re already making world leading progress in those areas,” he said.
Source - The Telegraph
The UK Government has committed to cutting greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050 to tackle climate change. Most of the cuts will have to come from switching from fossil fuels such as oil and coal to renewable energy sources like the wind or waves.
However a new report by the Royal Society has found a “disappointing rate of progress” on new technology such as offshore wind turbines, solar panels and biofuels.
The document by the country’s leading scientists said the UK will have to invest billions more in developing new technologies as well as building a new generation of nuclear power stations and investing in “clean coal”. The bill is most likely to be paid by energy companies through a system of incentives and taxes.
Professor John Shepherd, lead author of the report, said ultimately consumers will end up paying.
“We have to be prepared to pay more for energy as a whole than we have been used to in order to avoid the side effects on the environment and have cleaner sources of energy in the future,” he said.
Lord Turner, the Government’s adviser on climate change, has already warned that electricity bills may have to rise by around £500 per annum over the next decade.
Prof Shepherd said it was likely to cost the consumer hundreds of pounds every year. However he said the cost could be even greater if the UK continues to rely on fossil fuels as the cost of oil and coal continues to rise.
“Would a few per cent on your electricity bills really be too much to pay for a sustainable energy future?” he asked. “I do not think it would.”
Prof Shepherd also said the UK will have to invest in nuclear despite safety concerns. Britain’s nuclear watchdog recently admitted there were more than 1,750 leaks, breakdowns or other “events” over the past seven years.
Again Prof Shepherd said the Government has failed to invest in the technology but the industry could be developed by employing more engineers and experts from abroad.
Coal will also have to be used in the future despite concerns about the carbon emissions through investing in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The Royal Society are calling for any new power stations to capture 90 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 – much tougher than the Government’s “disappointing” current policy.
However in the long run Prof Shepherd, a climate scientist at Southampton University, said the UK must rely on renewables like solar and wind.
“For the sake of future generations we cannot afford to wait until our climate is changed dramatically or the oil runs out before we end our dependency on fossil fuels,” he warned.
Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, said the UK will be setting out a vision for renewables in a white paper due to be revealed next month.
“We have identified ways to tackle the challenges – we will need a mix of renewables, clean fossil fuels and nuclear and we’re already making world leading progress in those areas,” he said.
Source - The Telegraph
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Green energy overtakes fossil fuel investment, says UN
Green energy overtook fossil fuels in attracting investment for power generation for the first time last year, according to figures released today by the United Nations.
Wind, solar and other clean technologies attracted $140bn (£85bn) compared with $110bn for gas and coal for electrical power generation, with more than a third of the green cash destined for Britain and the rest of Europe.
The biggest growth for renewable investment came from China, India and other developing countries, which are fast catching up on the West in switching out of fossil fuels to improve energy security and tackle climate change.
"There have been many milestones reached in recent years, but this report suggests renewable energy has now reached a tipping point where it is as important – if not more important – in the global energy mix than fossil fuels," said Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN's Environment Programme.
It was very encouraging that a variety of new renewable sectors were attracting capital, while different geographical areas such as Kenya and Angola were entering the field, he added.
The UN still believes $750bn needs to be spent worldwide between 2009 and 2011 and the current year has started ominously with a 53% slump in first quarter renewables investment to $13.3bn.
Counting energy efficiency and other measures, more than $155bn of new money was invested in clean energy companies and projects, even though capital raised on public stock markets fell 51% to $11.4bn and green firms saw share prices slump more than 60% over 2008, according to the report, Global Trends in Sustainable Energy, drawn up for the UN by the New Energy Finance (NEF) consultancy in London.
Wind, where the US is now global leader, attracted the highest new worldwide investment, $51.8bn, followed by solar at $33.5bn. The former represented annual growth of only 1%, while the latter was up by nearly 50% year-on-year.
Biofuels were the next most popular investment, winning $16.9bn, but down 9% on 2007, as the sector was hit by overcapacity issues in the US and political opposition, with ethanol being blamed for rising food prices.
Europe is still the main centre for investment in green power with $50bn being pumped into projects across the continent, an increase of 2% on last year, while the figure for America was $30bn, down 8%.
But while overall spending in the West dipped nearly 2%, there was a 27% rise to $36.6bn in developing countries led by China, which pumped in $15.6bn, mostly in wind and biomass plants.
China more than doubled its installed wind turbine capacity to 11GW of capacity, while Indian wind investment was up 17% to $2.6bn, as its overall clean tech spending rose to $4.1bn in 2008, 12% up on 2007 levels.
A number of Green New Deals – government reflationary packages designed to kickstart economies and boost action to counter climate change – have been laid out by ministers around the world.
The slump in global renewable investment during the first quarter of 2009 has alarmed the UN and New Energy Finance, the London-based consultancy that compiled the figures for the UN.
Michael Liebreich, chief executive of NEF, said the second quarter had revealed "green shoots" of recovery, which indicated this year could end up with investment at the upper end of a $95bn to $115bn range, but still a quarter down on 2008 at the least.
About $3bn of new money had been raised via initial public offerings or secondary issues on the stock markets in the second quarter, compared with none in the first three months of this year.
The New Energy Index of clean tech stocks, which had slumped from a 450 high to 134 by March, had since bounced back to 230, while more project financing had been raised in the last six weeks than in the 13 before that, he said.
But Steiner and Liebreich are still anxious that politicians do more to stimulate growth.
"There is a strong case for further measures, such as requiring state-supported banks to raise lending to the sector, providing capital gains tax exemptions on investments in clean technology, creating a framework for Green Bonds and so on, all targeted at getting investment flowing," said Liebreich.
It is important stimulus funds start flowing immediately, not in a year or so, he added: "Many of the policies to achieve growth over the medium-term are already in place, including feed-in tariff regimes, mandatory renewable energy targets and tax incentives. There is too much emphasis amongst some policy-makers on support mechanisms, and not enough on the urgent needs of investors right now."
Source - The guardian
Wind, solar and other clean technologies attracted $140bn (£85bn) compared with $110bn for gas and coal for electrical power generation, with more than a third of the green cash destined for Britain and the rest of Europe.
The biggest growth for renewable investment came from China, India and other developing countries, which are fast catching up on the West in switching out of fossil fuels to improve energy security and tackle climate change.
"There have been many milestones reached in recent years, but this report suggests renewable energy has now reached a tipping point where it is as important – if not more important – in the global energy mix than fossil fuels," said Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN's Environment Programme.
It was very encouraging that a variety of new renewable sectors were attracting capital, while different geographical areas such as Kenya and Angola were entering the field, he added.
The UN still believes $750bn needs to be spent worldwide between 2009 and 2011 and the current year has started ominously with a 53% slump in first quarter renewables investment to $13.3bn.
Counting energy efficiency and other measures, more than $155bn of new money was invested in clean energy companies and projects, even though capital raised on public stock markets fell 51% to $11.4bn and green firms saw share prices slump more than 60% over 2008, according to the report, Global Trends in Sustainable Energy, drawn up for the UN by the New Energy Finance (NEF) consultancy in London.
Wind, where the US is now global leader, attracted the highest new worldwide investment, $51.8bn, followed by solar at $33.5bn. The former represented annual growth of only 1%, while the latter was up by nearly 50% year-on-year.
Biofuels were the next most popular investment, winning $16.9bn, but down 9% on 2007, as the sector was hit by overcapacity issues in the US and political opposition, with ethanol being blamed for rising food prices.
Europe is still the main centre for investment in green power with $50bn being pumped into projects across the continent, an increase of 2% on last year, while the figure for America was $30bn, down 8%.
But while overall spending in the West dipped nearly 2%, there was a 27% rise to $36.6bn in developing countries led by China, which pumped in $15.6bn, mostly in wind and biomass plants.
China more than doubled its installed wind turbine capacity to 11GW of capacity, while Indian wind investment was up 17% to $2.6bn, as its overall clean tech spending rose to $4.1bn in 2008, 12% up on 2007 levels.
A number of Green New Deals – government reflationary packages designed to kickstart economies and boost action to counter climate change – have been laid out by ministers around the world.
The slump in global renewable investment during the first quarter of 2009 has alarmed the UN and New Energy Finance, the London-based consultancy that compiled the figures for the UN.
Michael Liebreich, chief executive of NEF, said the second quarter had revealed "green shoots" of recovery, which indicated this year could end up with investment at the upper end of a $95bn to $115bn range, but still a quarter down on 2008 at the least.
About $3bn of new money had been raised via initial public offerings or secondary issues on the stock markets in the second quarter, compared with none in the first three months of this year.
The New Energy Index of clean tech stocks, which had slumped from a 450 high to 134 by March, had since bounced back to 230, while more project financing had been raised in the last six weeks than in the 13 before that, he said.
But Steiner and Liebreich are still anxious that politicians do more to stimulate growth.
"There is a strong case for further measures, such as requiring state-supported banks to raise lending to the sector, providing capital gains tax exemptions on investments in clean technology, creating a framework for Green Bonds and so on, all targeted at getting investment flowing," said Liebreich.
It is important stimulus funds start flowing immediately, not in a year or so, he added: "Many of the policies to achieve growth over the medium-term are already in place, including feed-in tariff regimes, mandatory renewable energy targets and tax incentives. There is too much emphasis amongst some policy-makers on support mechanisms, and not enough on the urgent needs of investors right now."
Source - The guardian
Monday, 18 May 2009
Thinktanks seek funds to back green technologies in poor countries
New financial mechanisms to ensure the transfer of low-carbon technology to emerging economies will help achieve a meaningful breakthrough at the Copenhagen climate change conference in December, according to a report by an alliance of some of the world's leading thinktanks.
The recently formed Global Climate Network, which includes the UK's Institute for Public Policy Research, the Center for American Progress led by John Podesta, head of Barack Obama's presidential transition team, and the influential Research Centre for Sustainable Development from China, is gathering in London this week to establish a policy to fund action to fight global warming using solar power, wind, carbon capture and energy efficiency.
These include harnessing the cheap borrowing facilities available in rich countries to be targeted at low-carbon energy in poorer countries. Encouraging pension funds to finance schemes and adopting proposals that would see a proportion of countries' carbon permits auctioned off with the proceeds specifically going to developing countries are other measures being considered.
The US is unlikely to fund poor countries' efforts to introduce low-carbon technologies so financial innovation will be required, argues the network.
Podesta said: "Reaching an agreement on the transfer of low-carbon technology will be critical to the success of the global climate talks in Copenhagen later this year. Developing countries are right to call for more help with it. However... the absence of strong national policy frameworks, standards and incentives is the single greatest obstacle to the creation of markets for low-carbon technologies in developing countries.
"That situation needs to be reversed for real progress to be made in reducing emissions there. In exchange, developed countries need to do far more to help developing ones, who are still struggling to lift millions out of extreme poverty, to meet the cost of low-carbon technology policies. That's the sort of deal we need to see."
Source - The guardian
The recently formed Global Climate Network, which includes the UK's Institute for Public Policy Research, the Center for American Progress led by John Podesta, head of Barack Obama's presidential transition team, and the influential Research Centre for Sustainable Development from China, is gathering in London this week to establish a policy to fund action to fight global warming using solar power, wind, carbon capture and energy efficiency.
These include harnessing the cheap borrowing facilities available in rich countries to be targeted at low-carbon energy in poorer countries. Encouraging pension funds to finance schemes and adopting proposals that would see a proportion of countries' carbon permits auctioned off with the proceeds specifically going to developing countries are other measures being considered.
The US is unlikely to fund poor countries' efforts to introduce low-carbon technologies so financial innovation will be required, argues the network.
Podesta said: "Reaching an agreement on the transfer of low-carbon technology will be critical to the success of the global climate talks in Copenhagen later this year. Developing countries are right to call for more help with it. However... the absence of strong national policy frameworks, standards and incentives is the single greatest obstacle to the creation of markets for low-carbon technologies in developing countries.
"That situation needs to be reversed for real progress to be made in reducing emissions there. In exchange, developed countries need to do far more to help developing ones, who are still struggling to lift millions out of extreme poverty, to meet the cost of low-carbon technology policies. That's the sort of deal we need to see."
Source - The guardian
Sunday, 12 April 2009
Green energy feels the chill in harsh economic climate
Britain’s wind energy industry increased its call for state aid yesterday, after new figures showed that investment in the sector has collapsed by nearly 80 per cent.
The amount invested in British renewable energy schemes, including wind, solar and wave power, fell from £377 million during the first three months of last year to £79 million during the same period this year, according to figures from New Energy Finance, a research group that monitors industry trends. The figures have raised fresh questions over the Government’s ability to fulfil its pledge to slash Britain’s carbon emissions and produce more than one third of the country’s electricity from green energy by 2020.
Adam Bruce, the chairman of the British Wind Energy Association, (BWEA), said that the figures reflected the need for the Chancellor to introduce new measures to support the industry, which is struggling to secure finance because of the credit crunch. It is also suffering from the weak pound, which has driven up the cost of turbines and other equipment — most of which is produced outside Britain — and the falling price of coal, oil and gas.
There were signs yesterday that the Government was considering the inclusion of measures in the April 22 Budget to prevent the cancellation of large projects such as the London Array, a £3 billion scheme to build the world’s largest offshore wind farm in the Thames Estuary, which Gordon Brown has backed.
Its developers are already seeking a bailout from the European Investment Bank to allow the scheme to proceed. Its 341 turbines would produce enough electricity for 750,000 homes.
Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK, one of Britain’s “big six” energy companies and one of the project’s backers, told The Times he now thought that it would be impossible for the country to meet its target of generating 15 per cent of total energy from renewable sources by 2020, which amounts to 35 per cent of its electricity. The target is a key part of Britain’s promise to cut its carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
Lord Smith of Finsbury, chairman of the Environment Agency, said that it was crucial to Britain’s future in the renewables sector that more funding, including public funding, was made available. “We’ve already seen some companies pull out. We will see more of these things happening if we don’t improve the funding,” he said. “Over the past 10-15 years we have tended to come too late to the table, as a country, when it comes to the development of renewable energy.”
Although investment in renewable energy has been falling everywhere in the recession, the British decline was unusually steep. Globally, investment fell by 53 per cent to £9.1 billion in the first three months of this year, compared with £19.3 billion at the start of last year, according to New Energy Finance. Delays securing planning consent and access to the national grid have compounded the problems.
The news comes as the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) prepares to publish a report next week that will warn that Britain must act now if it is to take the opportunity to build a thriving offshore wind energy industry that could employ as many as 70,000 people. The institute said that only 700 people were employed in the sector at present.
The BWEA is calling on Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, to introduce incentives and grants to support the industry in the Budget. It also urged the Government to accelerate planning decisions and reduce the cost to developers of hooking up schemes to the national grid.
Some companies, such as BP and Shell, have already left the wind industry, while others, such as Iberdrola Renovables, the world’s largest wind-farm operator, have cut their investment programmes.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said that Mike O’Brien, the Energy Minister, was exploring options to help the industry.
Source - The Times
The amount invested in British renewable energy schemes, including wind, solar and wave power, fell from £377 million during the first three months of last year to £79 million during the same period this year, according to figures from New Energy Finance, a research group that monitors industry trends. The figures have raised fresh questions over the Government’s ability to fulfil its pledge to slash Britain’s carbon emissions and produce more than one third of the country’s electricity from green energy by 2020.
Adam Bruce, the chairman of the British Wind Energy Association, (BWEA), said that the figures reflected the need for the Chancellor to introduce new measures to support the industry, which is struggling to secure finance because of the credit crunch. It is also suffering from the weak pound, which has driven up the cost of turbines and other equipment — most of which is produced outside Britain — and the falling price of coal, oil and gas.
There were signs yesterday that the Government was considering the inclusion of measures in the April 22 Budget to prevent the cancellation of large projects such as the London Array, a £3 billion scheme to build the world’s largest offshore wind farm in the Thames Estuary, which Gordon Brown has backed.
Its developers are already seeking a bailout from the European Investment Bank to allow the scheme to proceed. Its 341 turbines would produce enough electricity for 750,000 homes.
Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK, one of Britain’s “big six” energy companies and one of the project’s backers, told The Times he now thought that it would be impossible for the country to meet its target of generating 15 per cent of total energy from renewable sources by 2020, which amounts to 35 per cent of its electricity. The target is a key part of Britain’s promise to cut its carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
Lord Smith of Finsbury, chairman of the Environment Agency, said that it was crucial to Britain’s future in the renewables sector that more funding, including public funding, was made available. “We’ve already seen some companies pull out. We will see more of these things happening if we don’t improve the funding,” he said. “Over the past 10-15 years we have tended to come too late to the table, as a country, when it comes to the development of renewable energy.”
Although investment in renewable energy has been falling everywhere in the recession, the British decline was unusually steep. Globally, investment fell by 53 per cent to £9.1 billion in the first three months of this year, compared with £19.3 billion at the start of last year, according to New Energy Finance. Delays securing planning consent and access to the national grid have compounded the problems.
The news comes as the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) prepares to publish a report next week that will warn that Britain must act now if it is to take the opportunity to build a thriving offshore wind energy industry that could employ as many as 70,000 people. The institute said that only 700 people were employed in the sector at present.
The BWEA is calling on Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, to introduce incentives and grants to support the industry in the Budget. It also urged the Government to accelerate planning decisions and reduce the cost to developers of hooking up schemes to the national grid.
Some companies, such as BP and Shell, have already left the wind industry, while others, such as Iberdrola Renovables, the world’s largest wind-farm operator, have cut their investment programmes.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said that Mike O’Brien, the Energy Minister, was exploring options to help the industry.
Source - The Times
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Consumers beware the costly spin of wind turbines
The view from the top could not be clearer: Ed Miliband, the minister for energy and climate change, said last week that opposing the onward march of wind turbines – on which the government is pinning its hopes of meeting its targets on renewable energy – should be as “socially unacceptable” as not wearing a seatbelt or failing to stop at a zebra crossing.
Hmm. Tell that to the people who believe the view over Britain’s last remaining wildernesses is about to be destroyed for ever – and for a very dubious set of returns. Will wind farms turn out to be a truly revolutionary source of energy for the future or an expensive folly?
Whatever the final answer, there’s no doubt about the expense. Over the past decade developers have grown rich on lavish – and, critics would say, misdirected – government subsidies. Wind farming is the new gold rush.
So far, renewable power companies have erected 2,390 wind turbines at 200 onshore sites. Another 4,800 are planned, with many more to follow. The power generated will be carried away by lines of pylons crossing Snowdonia national park and areas of outstanding natural beauty in Anglesey, Kent, Lincolnshire and Somerset. For enthusiasts such as Miliband, this destruction is the price Britain must pay.
Alas, it’s not the only price. A quick calculation shows just how lucrative wind farms can be for the lucky few: take the output of a 3-megawatt (MW) turbine, standing about 550ft high. In a good wind it can generate enough power to meet the annual needs of about 1,600 households.
The owner of such a machine could expect to sell the 9,200MW hours of power generated in a year for about £331,000 at today’s prices. Not bad, but the real profit lies elsewhere, in the form of little bits of paper known as renewable obligation certificates (Rocs). Under a government scheme, the wind farmer is allowed to “create” one Roc for each megawatt hour of electricity generated – and to charge the consumer for doing so.
Currently each Roc is worth £48, so our 3MW turbine is generating an additional £441,600 each year, simply from the sale of Rocs. Add this all together and that one machine will earn £772,600 a year, or just under £20m over a typical 25-year lifetime – assuming the subsidies continue at the same rate. And it will have cost only around £3m£4m to build.
In other European Union countries the payback can be even more astonishing. Germany subsidises renewable power generation through the so-called “feed-in tariff” (Fit). Anyone generating solar, wind-powered or hydro electricity gets a guaranteed payment of four times the market rate – about 35p a unit – for 20 years.
The cost is spread among users so that only €1.50 (£1.40) is added to the average bill a month. The German system is deemed so successful that Fits have been adopted in 19 countries and the recent Climate Change Act allows for their introduction here.
In Britain, however, while the government has thrown money at renewable energy generators, it seems not to have anticipated the huge additional costs that wind brings with it.
The problem is this: wind does not blow all the time, so if Britain is to keep the lights on when the breeze slackens, wind power needs support from other forms of power. This means that for every wind farm we build, there must be a coal or gas-fired power station waiting in the wings to take over.
Right now Britain has about 76 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity, mostly nuclear, coal and gas. The government has said it wants 30GW of our power to come from wind by 2030, but to achieve that it will also have to build or maintain an extra 30GW of back-up power stations. So by 2030 Britain will have to sustain power stations capable of generating 100GW of electricity to provide the power we now get from 76GW.
Then there are the new European Union regulations, which stipulate that Britain must get 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. To meet this target overall will mean producing some 30% of our electricity from renewables – and wind is the only mature technology able to deliver it.
Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford University, believes this is too ambitious. “We could build and install the thousands of turbines and back-up power stations needed, but only at great cost,” he says. “It is bound to fail but no one dares talk about that – or not yet.”
The other thing government does not like to talk about is the cost to consumers. At the moment, subsidising wind turbines adds £12 to the typical annual domestic power bill of £474. This is small now but will surge as more turbines are built.
Will it be worth it? The renewables obligation, by the way, is just one of the charges for dealing with climate change already being added to our energy bills. The average power and gas consumer is already paying an annual extra £31 for carbon permits, under the EU emissions trading scheme, and another £38 for the UK government’s carbon emission reductions programme, which subsidises home energy efficiency programmes.
Many wonder if such mounting charges are politically sustainable. A couple of years ago Ofgem, the energy regulator, warned the government that the renewables obligation system was handing wind farm operators windfall profits that could provoke a consumer backlash – perhaps one as angry as the fuel tax protests of 2000. What price then for Miliband’s bleats about the “social unacceptability” of opposing wind power?
Source - Thetimes
Hmm. Tell that to the people who believe the view over Britain’s last remaining wildernesses is about to be destroyed for ever – and for a very dubious set of returns. Will wind farms turn out to be a truly revolutionary source of energy for the future or an expensive folly?
Whatever the final answer, there’s no doubt about the expense. Over the past decade developers have grown rich on lavish – and, critics would say, misdirected – government subsidies. Wind farming is the new gold rush.
So far, renewable power companies have erected 2,390 wind turbines at 200 onshore sites. Another 4,800 are planned, with many more to follow. The power generated will be carried away by lines of pylons crossing Snowdonia national park and areas of outstanding natural beauty in Anglesey, Kent, Lincolnshire and Somerset. For enthusiasts such as Miliband, this destruction is the price Britain must pay.
Alas, it’s not the only price. A quick calculation shows just how lucrative wind farms can be for the lucky few: take the output of a 3-megawatt (MW) turbine, standing about 550ft high. In a good wind it can generate enough power to meet the annual needs of about 1,600 households.
The owner of such a machine could expect to sell the 9,200MW hours of power generated in a year for about £331,000 at today’s prices. Not bad, but the real profit lies elsewhere, in the form of little bits of paper known as renewable obligation certificates (Rocs). Under a government scheme, the wind farmer is allowed to “create” one Roc for each megawatt hour of electricity generated – and to charge the consumer for doing so.
Currently each Roc is worth £48, so our 3MW turbine is generating an additional £441,600 each year, simply from the sale of Rocs. Add this all together and that one machine will earn £772,600 a year, or just under £20m over a typical 25-year lifetime – assuming the subsidies continue at the same rate. And it will have cost only around £3m£4m to build.
In other European Union countries the payback can be even more astonishing. Germany subsidises renewable power generation through the so-called “feed-in tariff” (Fit). Anyone generating solar, wind-powered or hydro electricity gets a guaranteed payment of four times the market rate – about 35p a unit – for 20 years.
The cost is spread among users so that only €1.50 (£1.40) is added to the average bill a month. The German system is deemed so successful that Fits have been adopted in 19 countries and the recent Climate Change Act allows for their introduction here.
In Britain, however, while the government has thrown money at renewable energy generators, it seems not to have anticipated the huge additional costs that wind brings with it.
The problem is this: wind does not blow all the time, so if Britain is to keep the lights on when the breeze slackens, wind power needs support from other forms of power. This means that for every wind farm we build, there must be a coal or gas-fired power station waiting in the wings to take over.
Right now Britain has about 76 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity, mostly nuclear, coal and gas. The government has said it wants 30GW of our power to come from wind by 2030, but to achieve that it will also have to build or maintain an extra 30GW of back-up power stations. So by 2030 Britain will have to sustain power stations capable of generating 100GW of electricity to provide the power we now get from 76GW.
Then there are the new European Union regulations, which stipulate that Britain must get 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. To meet this target overall will mean producing some 30% of our electricity from renewables – and wind is the only mature technology able to deliver it.
Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford University, believes this is too ambitious. “We could build and install the thousands of turbines and back-up power stations needed, but only at great cost,” he says. “It is bound to fail but no one dares talk about that – or not yet.”
The other thing government does not like to talk about is the cost to consumers. At the moment, subsidising wind turbines adds £12 to the typical annual domestic power bill of £474. This is small now but will surge as more turbines are built.
Will it be worth it? The renewables obligation, by the way, is just one of the charges for dealing with climate change already being added to our energy bills. The average power and gas consumer is already paying an annual extra £31 for carbon permits, under the EU emissions trading scheme, and another £38 for the UK government’s carbon emission reductions programme, which subsidises home energy efficiency programmes.
Many wonder if such mounting charges are politically sustainable. A couple of years ago Ofgem, the energy regulator, warned the government that the renewables obligation system was handing wind farm operators windfall profits that could provoke a consumer backlash – perhaps one as angry as the fuel tax protests of 2000. What price then for Miliband’s bleats about the “social unacceptability” of opposing wind power?
Source - Thetimes
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment
Royal Dutch Shell provoked a furious backlash from campaigners yesterday when it announced plans to scale back its renewable energy business and focus purely on oil, gas and biofuels.
Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive, said that Shell, the world's second-largest non-state-controlled oil company, was planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.
“I don't expect them to grow much at Shell from here, due to portfolio fit and the returns outlook compared to other opportunities,” he said, speaking at the Anglo-Dutch group's annual strategy briefing.
He said that instead Shell would focus its remaining renewable energy investments on biofuels, where it is conducting research into “second generation” fuels, so far with little commercial success.
Linda Cook, who heads Shell's gas and power business, said that wind and solar power “struggle to compete with the other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio”.
The announcement, which comes as Shell is fighting to maintain its commitments on dividends (which it will increase by 5 per cent this year) and its core oil and gas business in the face of a more than $100 slide in the price of crude since last summer, triggered a furious response from green groups.
John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said that Shell had “rejoined the ranks of the dirtiest, most regressive corporations in the world ... After years of proclaiming their commitment to clean power, they're now pulling out of the technologies we need to see scaled up if we're to slash emissions.”
A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change said: “We believe renewables have a strong future as part of the UK and global energy mix in the fight against climate change.”
Shell has invested $1.7billion on alternative energy in the past five years, compared with total capital expenditure of $32billion this year. It holds stakes in 11 wind power projects, mostly in the United States, with the capacity to generate 1,100 megawatts of electricity. It also operates research programmes into thin-film solar and hydrogen technology.
Shell also said that it will maintain its spending on carbon capture and storage projects in Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Australia and America - most of which also receive state support.
Source - The times
Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive, said that Shell, the world's second-largest non-state-controlled oil company, was planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.
“I don't expect them to grow much at Shell from here, due to portfolio fit and the returns outlook compared to other opportunities,” he said, speaking at the Anglo-Dutch group's annual strategy briefing.
He said that instead Shell would focus its remaining renewable energy investments on biofuels, where it is conducting research into “second generation” fuels, so far with little commercial success.
Linda Cook, who heads Shell's gas and power business, said that wind and solar power “struggle to compete with the other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio”.
The announcement, which comes as Shell is fighting to maintain its commitments on dividends (which it will increase by 5 per cent this year) and its core oil and gas business in the face of a more than $100 slide in the price of crude since last summer, triggered a furious response from green groups.
John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said that Shell had “rejoined the ranks of the dirtiest, most regressive corporations in the world ... After years of proclaiming their commitment to clean power, they're now pulling out of the technologies we need to see scaled up if we're to slash emissions.”
A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change said: “We believe renewables have a strong future as part of the UK and global energy mix in the fight against climate change.”
Shell has invested $1.7billion on alternative energy in the past five years, compared with total capital expenditure of $32billion this year. It holds stakes in 11 wind power projects, mostly in the United States, with the capacity to generate 1,100 megawatts of electricity. It also operates research programmes into thin-film solar and hydrogen technology.
Shell also said that it will maintain its spending on carbon capture and storage projects in Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Australia and America - most of which also receive state support.
Source - The times
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Obama focuses on green economy in speech before Congress
Barack Obama raised the development of a green economy to the top of America's agenda tonight, calling on Congress to pass a law cutting the carbon emissions that cause global warming.
The president, in a rousing speech to both houses of Congress, tried to put to rest fears that the economic recession would force him to scale back ambitious plans for energy reforms.
Instead, he made it clear that he sees a direct link between America's long-term economic interests and the development of clean energy, budgeting additional funds for research into wind and solar power.
The president also pressed Congress to push ahead on a new law to cut greenhouse gas emissions, defying critics who say cap-and-trade measures could be a brake on economic recovery.
"To truly transform our economy, protect our security and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy," the president said. "So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America."
Barely a week after the passage of his $787bn economic rescue plan, Obama came back to Congress with plans for further green investment.
The recovery plan devoted more than $100bn to making private homes and government buildings more efficient, developing wind and solar power and spending money on public transport.
But the president promised even more tonight, saying his budget, which will be announced on Thursday, would allocate $15bn a year to develop wind and solar power and more fuel-efficient cars.
"We are committed to the goal of a re-tooled, re-imagined auto industry," he said. "The nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."
Obama also set out a plan to modernise the electric grid.
He said America needed to re-establish its leading role in the development of solar and other renewable energy technologies, after losing ground to China, Germany and Japan.
"I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders – and I know you don't either. It is time for America to lead again,"
The direct appeal for climate change legislation could re-energise efforts to produce legislation before global climate change talks get underway in Copenhagen next December.
White House officials admitted on Monday it was increasingly uncertain such legislation could pass in time, and that the deadline might slip to 2010.
Source - Theguardian
The president, in a rousing speech to both houses of Congress, tried to put to rest fears that the economic recession would force him to scale back ambitious plans for energy reforms.
Instead, he made it clear that he sees a direct link between America's long-term economic interests and the development of clean energy, budgeting additional funds for research into wind and solar power.
The president also pressed Congress to push ahead on a new law to cut greenhouse gas emissions, defying critics who say cap-and-trade measures could be a brake on economic recovery.
"To truly transform our economy, protect our security and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy," the president said. "So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America."
Barely a week after the passage of his $787bn economic rescue plan, Obama came back to Congress with plans for further green investment.
The recovery plan devoted more than $100bn to making private homes and government buildings more efficient, developing wind and solar power and spending money on public transport.
But the president promised even more tonight, saying his budget, which will be announced on Thursday, would allocate $15bn a year to develop wind and solar power and more fuel-efficient cars.
"We are committed to the goal of a re-tooled, re-imagined auto industry," he said. "The nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."
Obama also set out a plan to modernise the electric grid.
He said America needed to re-establish its leading role in the development of solar and other renewable energy technologies, after losing ground to China, Germany and Japan.
"I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders – and I know you don't either. It is time for America to lead again,"
The direct appeal for climate change legislation could re-energise efforts to produce legislation before global climate change talks get underway in Copenhagen next December.
White House officials admitted on Monday it was increasingly uncertain such legislation could pass in time, and that the deadline might slip to 2010.
Source - Theguardian
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Congress seen backing renewables standard
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - There is enough support in Congress to pass legislation requiring utilities to generate a portion of their electricity supplies from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said on Tuesday.
The committee held a hearing on draft legislation that would set a national renewable electricity standard, which would help meet President Barack Obama's goal to double renewable energy production over the next three years.
Under the bill, the amount of the U.S. electricity supply coming from renewable energy sources would gradually increase to 4 percent in 2011-12, 8 percent in 2013-15, 12 percent in 2016-18, 16 percent in 2019-20 and 20 percent in 2021-39.
"I think that the votes are present in the Senate to pass a renewable electricity standard. I think that they are present in the House," Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the energy committee's chairman, said. "I think that we need to get on with figuring out what we can pass and move forward."
Qualifying renewable energy sources under the bill would be wind, solar, ocean currents and waves, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas and incremental hydropower.
Creating a renewable electricity standard would reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuel sources that run power plants and cut those facilities' emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming and other pollutants, Bingaman said.
"This standard would also spur the development of a national green energy economy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, many in rural areas," he said.
However, power companies and regulators in southern states, where coal is popular for electricity generation, generally oppose a federal renewable standard. They argue not all states have abundant renewable energy resources like wind.
David Wright, commissioner of the South Carolina Public Service Commission, said a federal renewable standard "fails to recognize that there are significant differences among the states in terms of available and cost-effective renewable energy resources, and that having such a standard in energy legislation will ultimately increase consumers' electricity bills."
Source - Reuters
The committee held a hearing on draft legislation that would set a national renewable electricity standard, which would help meet President Barack Obama's goal to double renewable energy production over the next three years.
Under the bill, the amount of the U.S. electricity supply coming from renewable energy sources would gradually increase to 4 percent in 2011-12, 8 percent in 2013-15, 12 percent in 2016-18, 16 percent in 2019-20 and 20 percent in 2021-39.
"I think that the votes are present in the Senate to pass a renewable electricity standard. I think that they are present in the House," Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the energy committee's chairman, said. "I think that we need to get on with figuring out what we can pass and move forward."
Qualifying renewable energy sources under the bill would be wind, solar, ocean currents and waves, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas and incremental hydropower.
Creating a renewable electricity standard would reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuel sources that run power plants and cut those facilities' emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming and other pollutants, Bingaman said.
"This standard would also spur the development of a national green energy economy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, many in rural areas," he said.
However, power companies and regulators in southern states, where coal is popular for electricity generation, generally oppose a federal renewable standard. They argue not all states have abundant renewable energy resources like wind.
David Wright, commissioner of the South Carolina Public Service Commission, said a federal renewable standard "fails to recognize that there are significant differences among the states in terms of available and cost-effective renewable energy resources, and that having such a standard in energy legislation will ultimately increase consumers' electricity bills."
Source - Reuters
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)
