Today the Dutch Rural Energy Foundation received the prestigious EU Sustainable Energy Award 2010 for its SolarNow program from EU Energy Commissioner Gunther Oettinger.
Rural Energy Foundation facilitated during the past three years access to solar energy to 330.000 off-grid Africans. Access to energy is an important condition for development. People save a considerable amount of oil, batteries and candles, while their productivity increases and children can do homework after sunset.
The foundation is praised because of the high cost-effectiveness and sustainability of its approach. The costs related to providing access to solar energy to an off-grid African are only EUR 4.
Most rural households in Africa largely depend on kerosene lamps. Besides poor quality of light, this is expensive and polluting. Most people have not heard of solar energy; there are hardly any shops selling and servicing solar home systems in rural areas.
The SolarNow program supports local entrepreneurs to start a business in solar energy household solutions. The program thus far supported 200 entrepreneurs in nine sub-Saharan African countries.
In addition, the program organizes awareness campaigns to promote the use of solar energy. Finally, as many households do not have the cash available to meet the upfront investment, SolarNow facilitates access to end-user credit schemes.
Director Willem Nolens reacts enthusiastically: "Great that the EU recognizes that small-scale renewable energy solutions in Africa are more efficient than large-scale infrastructural energy projects.
Africa faces an attractive opportunity to leapfrog the carbon-intensive development path that industrialized countries followed". The Foundation receives financial support from the Dutch Postcode Lottery and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Source - Rural Energy
Showing posts with label eu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eu. Show all posts
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Clean Energy Cashback will benefit early installers most
Most countries in the EU now use guaranteed price Feed-In Tariffs (FIT) to support renewable energy projects, with different prices being fixed for each type of technology.
The FITs have proved to be very effective at getting capacity installed rapidly at relatively low costs. For example, Germany has installed 25 Gigawatt (GW) of wind generation capacity so far under a FIT scheme , whereas the UK, with its competitive Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) trading scheme, has only achieved 4 GW, with some of that actually being supported by grants (for offshore projects). And this in a country with a far better wind regime than Germany.
With the UK committed to getting 15% of is total energy from renewables 2020, which means they would have to supply maybe 30% of its electricity, something had to be done. The UK governments remains wedded to the market-orientated ROC system, and it has made some changes to it – e.g. creating ‘technology bands’ with different numbers of ROCs for each type of technology. That may help to some extent – making it a bit more like a FIT. But the government eventually conceded that a fixed-price FIT system might be better for small-scale projects. There was some debate about how small ‘small’ should be, but a ceiling of 5MW was chosen- large enough to include some small community projects.
The governments proposals were for a fixed ‘Clean Energy Cashback’ payment from the electricity supplier for every kilowatt hour (kWh) generated (the “generation tariff”); i.e. for self-generated power you use, plus a guaranteed minimum payment additional to the generation tariff for every kWh exported to the wider electricity market (the “export tariff”). The export tariff will be market determined – it’s currently at £0.05/kWh, for electricity delivered to the grid. Proposed generation tariff levels were set at 36.5p/kWh for retrofitted PV solar systems up to 4kW; and 28p/kWh for systems up to 10kW, while wind projects would get 30p/kW for turbines below 1.5kW and progressively less for larger units, down to 4.5p/kWh for wind turbines between 500kW and 5MW. Hydro projects would get 4.5-17p/kWh depending on size. Anaerobic digestion and biomass were also eligible (getting up to 9p/kWh), so was AD fired combined heat and power (11p/kWh), but not landfill gas or sewage gas, which are deemed already commercially viable.
As with the German FIT, UK FIT prices will be reduced, or ‘degressed’, in annual stages to reflect expected reductions as the technology develops and the market for it builds. But only for some of the technologies. The annual degression was set at 7% for all solar PV projects, 4% for wind turbines below 1.5kW, 3% for those in the 15-50KW range. The rest would have no price degression.
Source - Environmental Research
The FITs have proved to be very effective at getting capacity installed rapidly at relatively low costs. For example, Germany has installed 25 Gigawatt (GW) of wind generation capacity so far under a FIT scheme , whereas the UK, with its competitive Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) trading scheme, has only achieved 4 GW, with some of that actually being supported by grants (for offshore projects). And this in a country with a far better wind regime than Germany.
With the UK committed to getting 15% of is total energy from renewables 2020, which means they would have to supply maybe 30% of its electricity, something had to be done. The UK governments remains wedded to the market-orientated ROC system, and it has made some changes to it – e.g. creating ‘technology bands’ with different numbers of ROCs for each type of technology. That may help to some extent – making it a bit more like a FIT. But the government eventually conceded that a fixed-price FIT system might be better for small-scale projects. There was some debate about how small ‘small’ should be, but a ceiling of 5MW was chosen- large enough to include some small community projects.
The governments proposals were for a fixed ‘Clean Energy Cashback’ payment from the electricity supplier for every kilowatt hour (kWh) generated (the “generation tariff”); i.e. for self-generated power you use, plus a guaranteed minimum payment additional to the generation tariff for every kWh exported to the wider electricity market (the “export tariff”). The export tariff will be market determined – it’s currently at £0.05/kWh, for electricity delivered to the grid. Proposed generation tariff levels were set at 36.5p/kWh for retrofitted PV solar systems up to 4kW; and 28p/kWh for systems up to 10kW, while wind projects would get 30p/kW for turbines below 1.5kW and progressively less for larger units, down to 4.5p/kWh for wind turbines between 500kW and 5MW. Hydro projects would get 4.5-17p/kWh depending on size. Anaerobic digestion and biomass were also eligible (getting up to 9p/kWh), so was AD fired combined heat and power (11p/kWh), but not landfill gas or sewage gas, which are deemed already commercially viable.
As with the German FIT, UK FIT prices will be reduced, or ‘degressed’, in annual stages to reflect expected reductions as the technology develops and the market for it builds. But only for some of the technologies. The annual degression was set at 7% for all solar PV projects, 4% for wind turbines below 1.5kW, 3% for those in the 15-50KW range. The rest would have no price degression.
Source - Environmental Research
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Obama must pass climate laws ahead of Copenhagen, Danish minister warns
American leadership on climate change will be undermined if the Obama administration does not swiftly pass laws to reduce carbon pollution, according to Denmark's minister for climate and energy.
Connie Hedegaard said Obama must move from promises to action and push through global warming legislation ahead of the climate change summit in Copenhagen this December. Without that she said it would be hard for the US to exercise a credible leadership role at the summit.
"We can postpone anything but we have been postponing things for many years. We must come from this era where we talk about what to do and instead come to the era where we actually do things. We must come to that now," Hedegaard told the Guardian.
"The deadline set — 2009 — is actually set also by the former Bush administration. It is not just Denmark or Europe or somebody who set that deadline. It is set also by the United States. We must deliver on that deadline and I can see no better alternative than having cap and trade."
Hedegaard was the most forceful among a group of visiting foreign dignitaries in Washington this week who have been trying to build momentum ahead of the Copenhagen talks.
Also in Washington were Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, Jim Prentice, Canada's environment minister, Yvo de Boer, the UN's environment minister and Tony Blair. The EU environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, is due to visit Washington next week.
Blair said it was important for America to show the developing world it was serious about enacting measures at home on climate change — but stopped short of saying it needed to introduce a carbon cap and trade regime.
"People have to know that America is committed. Whether it is necessary to have that done legislatively — I don't know," he said.
Hedegaard, in remarks to Congress on Tuesday, returned to her theme that much preparation remained for the Copenhagen talks to make progress.
"We all have a load of homework before Copenhagen but the world is looking towards the United States to provide leadership," she said.
She said: "We know what we are going to do. We will have to set targets. We will have to come up with financial means. We will have to find ways and means to disseminate technologies faster and to help the least developed countries adapt to the climate change they are already experiencing. Those are the major issues on the table."
The visiting officials broadly see Obama as a positive force for climate change negotiations — a sea change from George Bush who had refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement, which the Copenhagen meeting will seek to replace.
Obama, who campaigned on a promise to green America's economy, added to those expectations by investing $100bn in environmental measures in his economic recovery plan earlier this month.
But Hedegaard said that move had to be followed up by climate change legislation. That could be difficult for Obama. An attempt last year to put a cap on carbon struggled to get even Democratic support before it was defeated.
Todd Stern, the state department's lead climate negotiator, agreed that the prospects for a successful outcome at Copenhagen would be improved if the US could pass climate legislation in advance.
"The optimum would be legislation that is signed, sealed and delivered," he said. "I think nothing would give a more powerful signal to other countries in the world than to see a significant, major, mandatory American plan."
However, he admitted that may not happen — although Democrats in Congress say they will take up legislation by the summer.
Some Democrats are pushing for Congress to take up other energy issues, such as mandating greater use of wind and solar power, before dealing with carbon caps.
But Hedegaard said that such actions would not be considered effective substitutes.
"Could we just put some taxes and things? Well then you will not be sure that we actually reduce the level of emissions and that is important if we are going to stick to what science tells us."
The US was also facing pressure to set interim targets — as a stepping stone towards reducing emissions by 80% in 2050.
But Stern told Congress, that America would not meet the short-term target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40% by 2020.
"I don't think it's necessary, and I do know it's not possible," he said.
The European Union committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 late last year. But it said it would increase the cut if other industrialised states get on board. Obama has committed to reducing emissions by 20% on 2005 levels by 2020.
Hedegaard and others believe that interim targets are essential.
"It's always easy for politicians to set targets that are 41 years away," she said. "We also need ambitious action by the United States in the short- to medium-term."
Source - The Guardian
Connie Hedegaard said Obama must move from promises to action and push through global warming legislation ahead of the climate change summit in Copenhagen this December. Without that she said it would be hard for the US to exercise a credible leadership role at the summit.
"We can postpone anything but we have been postponing things for many years. We must come from this era where we talk about what to do and instead come to the era where we actually do things. We must come to that now," Hedegaard told the Guardian.
"The deadline set — 2009 — is actually set also by the former Bush administration. It is not just Denmark or Europe or somebody who set that deadline. It is set also by the United States. We must deliver on that deadline and I can see no better alternative than having cap and trade."
Hedegaard was the most forceful among a group of visiting foreign dignitaries in Washington this week who have been trying to build momentum ahead of the Copenhagen talks.
Also in Washington were Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, Jim Prentice, Canada's environment minister, Yvo de Boer, the UN's environment minister and Tony Blair. The EU environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, is due to visit Washington next week.
Blair said it was important for America to show the developing world it was serious about enacting measures at home on climate change — but stopped short of saying it needed to introduce a carbon cap and trade regime.
"People have to know that America is committed. Whether it is necessary to have that done legislatively — I don't know," he said.
Hedegaard, in remarks to Congress on Tuesday, returned to her theme that much preparation remained for the Copenhagen talks to make progress.
"We all have a load of homework before Copenhagen but the world is looking towards the United States to provide leadership," she said.
She said: "We know what we are going to do. We will have to set targets. We will have to come up with financial means. We will have to find ways and means to disseminate technologies faster and to help the least developed countries adapt to the climate change they are already experiencing. Those are the major issues on the table."
The visiting officials broadly see Obama as a positive force for climate change negotiations — a sea change from George Bush who had refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement, which the Copenhagen meeting will seek to replace.
Obama, who campaigned on a promise to green America's economy, added to those expectations by investing $100bn in environmental measures in his economic recovery plan earlier this month.
But Hedegaard said that move had to be followed up by climate change legislation. That could be difficult for Obama. An attempt last year to put a cap on carbon struggled to get even Democratic support before it was defeated.
Todd Stern, the state department's lead climate negotiator, agreed that the prospects for a successful outcome at Copenhagen would be improved if the US could pass climate legislation in advance.
"The optimum would be legislation that is signed, sealed and delivered," he said. "I think nothing would give a more powerful signal to other countries in the world than to see a significant, major, mandatory American plan."
However, he admitted that may not happen — although Democrats in Congress say they will take up legislation by the summer.
Some Democrats are pushing for Congress to take up other energy issues, such as mandating greater use of wind and solar power, before dealing with carbon caps.
But Hedegaard said that such actions would not be considered effective substitutes.
"Could we just put some taxes and things? Well then you will not be sure that we actually reduce the level of emissions and that is important if we are going to stick to what science tells us."
The US was also facing pressure to set interim targets — as a stepping stone towards reducing emissions by 80% in 2050.
But Stern told Congress, that America would not meet the short-term target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40% by 2020.
"I don't think it's necessary, and I do know it's not possible," he said.
The European Union committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 late last year. But it said it would increase the cut if other industrialised states get on board. Obama has committed to reducing emissions by 20% on 2005 levels by 2020.
Hedegaard and others believe that interim targets are essential.
"It's always easy for politicians to set targets that are 41 years away," she said. "We also need ambitious action by the United States in the short- to medium-term."
Source - The Guardian
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Climate change rhetoric spirals out of control
It was another bad week for the "warmists", now more desperate than ever to whip up alarm over an overheating planet. It began last weekend with the BBC leading its bulletins on the news that a "leading climate scientist" in America, Professor Chris Field, had warned that "the severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed". Future temperatures "will be beyond anything predicted", he told a Chicago conference. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had "seriously underestimated the size of the problem".
The puzzle as to why the BBC should make this the main news of the day only deepened when it emerged that Prof Field was not a climate scientist at all but an evolutionary biologist. To promote its cause the BBC website even posted a video explaining how warming would be made worse by "negative feedback". This scientific howler provoked much amusement and derision on expert US blogs, such as Anthony Watts's Watts Up With That – since "negative feedback" would lower temperatures rather than raise them. The BBC soon pulled its video.
This was followed on Sunday by yet another outburst from the most extreme of all the scientists crying wolf on global warming, Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In The Observer he launched his most vitriolic call yet for the closing down of the coal-fired power stations which are the world's main source of electricity, repeating his claim to a British court last year that the new coal-fired plant at Kingsnorth will alone be responsible for "the extermination of 400 species".
"Coal-fired power plants are factories of death," wrote Hansen, "the trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains". This deliberate echo of the trains carrying Jews to Nazi death camps recalled how the more extreme warmists like to equate sceptics on climate change with "Holocaust deniers". But such overheated language seemed somehow at home in the newspaper which in 1996 solemnly predicted that by 2016 half a million Britons would be dying each year from having eaten BSE-infected beef.
Later in the week sceptics were struck by an admission from Professor William Schlesinger, a lead author for the IPCC. Since one of the enduring myths of our time is that the case for global warming is supported by "the world's top 2,500 climate scientists" on the IPCC, Schlesinger was asked in a public debate how many of its contributors are in fact climate experts. The best he could come up with was that "something on the order of 20 per cent have had some dealing with climate". (This will not of course stop the BBC calling any old evolutionary biologist or economist who supports its views a "leading climate scientist").
Finally there was the strange case of the vanishing Arctic ice. Just how far Arctic sea-ice is melting or growing is one of the issues which arouses most passionate interest in the global-warming debate. Observers were therefore startled last week to see the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing a very dramatic drop in sea-ice cover, 500,000 square kilometres of ice suddenly disappearing in the depths of the Arctic winter.
When this was queried by a puzzled Anthony Watts, the NSIDC somewhat shamefacedly admitted that a problem had developed with one of its satellites. The data for the previous 45 days was found to be so faulty that it had been withdrawn. But inevitably this provoked the question as to why quality control seemed to be so poor on one of the world's leading official sources of climate data that it had taken an outside observer to point out that something was wrong,
This is by no means the first time that data on which the official case for global warming rests have had to be corrected, some of the more notorious instances involving temperature data supplied by Dr Hansen's GISS. Yet this is one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC itself relies. When politicians plan measures to "combat climate change" costing tens of trillions of dollars, we can at least expect them to ensure that their figures are halfway believable.
Chinese pull a fast one in space race as EU’s 'pigs with gold trotters’ remain earthbound
There has been another wondrously bizarre twist to the unending farce of the EU’s favourite vanity project, Galileo. This is the multi-billion euro programme designed to give the EU its own rival to the US GPS satellite system, which provides a free positioning fix to ships, aircraft, Satnav owners and other users all over the world.
Although I have regularly reported on this joke project since 2001, almost the only time it has excited much media interest in Britain was when, in 2007, the late Gwyneth Dunwoody described it as “not one pig flying in orbit, this is a herd of pigs with gold trotters, platinum tails and diamond eyes”. The Commons Transport Committee, of which she was chairman, had produced a report suggesting that Galileo would cost British taxpayers at least £1.7 billion, and was so pointless that it might as well be scrapped.
No episode in the story was more curious, however, than the deal signed in October 2003, whereby the Chinese government agreed to pay 200 million euros for a 20 per cent share in Galileo, to be spent on developing infrastructure and ground stations based on European technological know-how. The EU was over the moon, thinking that this would cement in China as its partner in a project always partly intended for military use, allowing it both to operate independently of the US.
A first sign that all was not well came when the Chinese, having got on with their part of the deal, using EU know-how, were shut out from top-level management of Galileo on security grounds. But, having obtained the technical information they wanted, they have powered ahead with a satellite system of their own, Compass. They are now so far advanced, and Galileo has slipped so far behind schedule, it seems certain that the Chinese satellites will be in place long before the EU system.
Furthermore the Chinese now plan to operate on the same wavelengths that the EU had earmarked for Galileo. Since their satellites will get there first, they will be able to lay claim to ownership of them. The EU would thus only be able to use the wavelengths with Chinese permission.
Having robbed the Common Agricultural Fund of €1 billion in a desperate effort to pay the soaring bill for Galileo, the Europeans are said to be “very angry”, since this removes just about the last conceivable excuse for proceeding with their absurd project. The Americans, having followed the whole saga with bemused irritation, are said to be laughing themselves silly.
MEPs prove not at all the president’s men
As an eloquent and drily humorous Euro-sceptic, the Czech President Vaclav Klaus is making the most of his country’s six-month presidency of the EU. In the European Parliament on Thursday he delivered what my Daily Telegraph colleague Bruno Waterfield called on his blog “a storming speech – the best I have ever heard in that place”. Having spent much of his life under Communism, Klaus courteously questioned the way in which the EU, like any other one-party state, has no place for opposition and is fiercely intolerant of dissenting views. The fact that his remarks were greeted with boos and jeers, followed by 200 MEPs walking out, neatly confirmed his point.
Marks & Spencer fail to go green
In a bid to earn “Greenie points”, Marks & Spencer last week announced a plan to source all its electricity from “renewables”. As a next step, nPower is to supply it with “2.6 terawatt hours” of electricity from windfarms and other renewable sources over six years. A quick sum shows that this equates to 40 per cent of the entire current annual output of Britain’s 2,000 wind turbines. Pretty impressive, until one realises that the electricity will in fact be supplied by the National Grid, most of it made from “dirty” coal, carbon-intensive gas and “nasty” nuclear. In other words, this not just a load of cobblers, this is M & S cobblers.
Source - Telegraph
The puzzle as to why the BBC should make this the main news of the day only deepened when it emerged that Prof Field was not a climate scientist at all but an evolutionary biologist. To promote its cause the BBC website even posted a video explaining how warming would be made worse by "negative feedback". This scientific howler provoked much amusement and derision on expert US blogs, such as Anthony Watts's Watts Up With That – since "negative feedback" would lower temperatures rather than raise them. The BBC soon pulled its video.
This was followed on Sunday by yet another outburst from the most extreme of all the scientists crying wolf on global warming, Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In The Observer he launched his most vitriolic call yet for the closing down of the coal-fired power stations which are the world's main source of electricity, repeating his claim to a British court last year that the new coal-fired plant at Kingsnorth will alone be responsible for "the extermination of 400 species".
"Coal-fired power plants are factories of death," wrote Hansen, "the trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains". This deliberate echo of the trains carrying Jews to Nazi death camps recalled how the more extreme warmists like to equate sceptics on climate change with "Holocaust deniers". But such overheated language seemed somehow at home in the newspaper which in 1996 solemnly predicted that by 2016 half a million Britons would be dying each year from having eaten BSE-infected beef.
Later in the week sceptics were struck by an admission from Professor William Schlesinger, a lead author for the IPCC. Since one of the enduring myths of our time is that the case for global warming is supported by "the world's top 2,500 climate scientists" on the IPCC, Schlesinger was asked in a public debate how many of its contributors are in fact climate experts. The best he could come up with was that "something on the order of 20 per cent have had some dealing with climate". (This will not of course stop the BBC calling any old evolutionary biologist or economist who supports its views a "leading climate scientist").
Finally there was the strange case of the vanishing Arctic ice. Just how far Arctic sea-ice is melting or growing is one of the issues which arouses most passionate interest in the global-warming debate. Observers were therefore startled last week to see the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing a very dramatic drop in sea-ice cover, 500,000 square kilometres of ice suddenly disappearing in the depths of the Arctic winter.
When this was queried by a puzzled Anthony Watts, the NSIDC somewhat shamefacedly admitted that a problem had developed with one of its satellites. The data for the previous 45 days was found to be so faulty that it had been withdrawn. But inevitably this provoked the question as to why quality control seemed to be so poor on one of the world's leading official sources of climate data that it had taken an outside observer to point out that something was wrong,
This is by no means the first time that data on which the official case for global warming rests have had to be corrected, some of the more notorious instances involving temperature data supplied by Dr Hansen's GISS. Yet this is one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC itself relies. When politicians plan measures to "combat climate change" costing tens of trillions of dollars, we can at least expect them to ensure that their figures are halfway believable.
Chinese pull a fast one in space race as EU’s 'pigs with gold trotters’ remain earthbound
There has been another wondrously bizarre twist to the unending farce of the EU’s favourite vanity project, Galileo. This is the multi-billion euro programme designed to give the EU its own rival to the US GPS satellite system, which provides a free positioning fix to ships, aircraft, Satnav owners and other users all over the world.
Although I have regularly reported on this joke project since 2001, almost the only time it has excited much media interest in Britain was when, in 2007, the late Gwyneth Dunwoody described it as “not one pig flying in orbit, this is a herd of pigs with gold trotters, platinum tails and diamond eyes”. The Commons Transport Committee, of which she was chairman, had produced a report suggesting that Galileo would cost British taxpayers at least £1.7 billion, and was so pointless that it might as well be scrapped.
No episode in the story was more curious, however, than the deal signed in October 2003, whereby the Chinese government agreed to pay 200 million euros for a 20 per cent share in Galileo, to be spent on developing infrastructure and ground stations based on European technological know-how. The EU was over the moon, thinking that this would cement in China as its partner in a project always partly intended for military use, allowing it both to operate independently of the US.
A first sign that all was not well came when the Chinese, having got on with their part of the deal, using EU know-how, were shut out from top-level management of Galileo on security grounds. But, having obtained the technical information they wanted, they have powered ahead with a satellite system of their own, Compass. They are now so far advanced, and Galileo has slipped so far behind schedule, it seems certain that the Chinese satellites will be in place long before the EU system.
Furthermore the Chinese now plan to operate on the same wavelengths that the EU had earmarked for Galileo. Since their satellites will get there first, they will be able to lay claim to ownership of them. The EU would thus only be able to use the wavelengths with Chinese permission.
Having robbed the Common Agricultural Fund of €1 billion in a desperate effort to pay the soaring bill for Galileo, the Europeans are said to be “very angry”, since this removes just about the last conceivable excuse for proceeding with their absurd project. The Americans, having followed the whole saga with bemused irritation, are said to be laughing themselves silly.
MEPs prove not at all the president’s men
As an eloquent and drily humorous Euro-sceptic, the Czech President Vaclav Klaus is making the most of his country’s six-month presidency of the EU. In the European Parliament on Thursday he delivered what my Daily Telegraph colleague Bruno Waterfield called on his blog “a storming speech – the best I have ever heard in that place”. Having spent much of his life under Communism, Klaus courteously questioned the way in which the EU, like any other one-party state, has no place for opposition and is fiercely intolerant of dissenting views. The fact that his remarks were greeted with boos and jeers, followed by 200 MEPs walking out, neatly confirmed his point.
Marks & Spencer fail to go green
In a bid to earn “Greenie points”, Marks & Spencer last week announced a plan to source all its electricity from “renewables”. As a next step, nPower is to supply it with “2.6 terawatt hours” of electricity from windfarms and other renewable sources over six years. A quick sum shows that this equates to 40 per cent of the entire current annual output of Britain’s 2,000 wind turbines. Pretty impressive, until one realises that the electricity will in fact be supplied by the National Grid, most of it made from “dirty” coal, carbon-intensive gas and “nasty” nuclear. In other words, this not just a load of cobblers, this is M & S cobblers.
Source - Telegraph
Friday, 2 January 2009
UK Energy gap that could lead to blackouts
A TENTH of the UK’s power plants could be forced to close by the spring of 2013 – two-and-a-half years ahead of schedule, new research shows.
The revelation will stoke fresh concern that the government has not done enough to head off a looming energy generation gap that could lead to blackouts across the country.
Under an EU directive, companies operating old coal and oil-fired plants were given the option to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to upgrade them to comply with tougher pollution standards.
Those that “opted out” of the programme - nine plants representing about 15% of UK power supply - were given 20,000 hours to operate, starting from January last year through to the end of 2015. Based on research from the energy-consultancy group Utilyx, several of these plants have been running at historically high rates that would put them out of commission much sooner than originally thought.
The coal-fired plants at Kingsnorth in Kent, owned by Eon, Scottish Power’s Cockenzie plant, RWE-owned Npower’s stations at Tilbury and Didcot, and Scottish & Southern’s Ferrybridge plant will all be decommissioned by the spring of 2013 if current patterns continue. The stations generate some 7.6GW of electricity - 10% of the UK’s total capacity.
The first of them, Scottish Power’s 1.2GW plant at Cockenzie, which generates enough power for 1m homes, will close as early as September 2010 based on current rates. The research was based on analysis of running patterns at the plants from January 1 this year to the end of October.
“It is likely that a significant proportion of the UK’s opted-out coal plant will close earlier than 2015, with the impact felt around 2013,” said Kevin Akhurst, managing director of generation at Npower.
When companies decided whether to comply with the EU’s so-called Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) four years ago, those plants that opted out were envisaged as “peaking plants” to be used only at time of maximum consumption and power prices. Most of them, it was thought, would easily last until 2015.
Chris Bowden, chief executive of Utilyx, said that because of the price of coal relative to record high prices of electricity and rising power demand, the opposite has happened. “When companies made the decision to opt out it was a very different world. The idea was that they would be peaking plants but now they are running as base-load providers,” he said. “The technology of some of these power stations would make them like classic cars, but now they are ready for the scrapheap.”
The data will add to fears about UK energy security after the Russian gas giant Gazprom threatened to cut off supplies to Europe due to a row with Ukraine.
Next year is critical for the UK energy industry. In January, Ed Miliband, the secretary for energy and climate change, is expected to decide on Eon’s controversial proposal to build a new 2GW plant to replace the Kingsnorth facility. It would be the UK’s first coal-fired power station in more than three decades and is an acid test of the government’s stance on coal and supply security.
New energy and planning bills will also come into effect in April, which the industry hopes will pave the way for swifter building and planning permission for new projects, one of the biggest obstacles to the construction of plants.
Source - The Times
The revelation will stoke fresh concern that the government has not done enough to head off a looming energy generation gap that could lead to blackouts across the country.
Under an EU directive, companies operating old coal and oil-fired plants were given the option to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to upgrade them to comply with tougher pollution standards.
Those that “opted out” of the programme - nine plants representing about 15% of UK power supply - were given 20,000 hours to operate, starting from January last year through to the end of 2015. Based on research from the energy-consultancy group Utilyx, several of these plants have been running at historically high rates that would put them out of commission much sooner than originally thought.
The coal-fired plants at Kingsnorth in Kent, owned by Eon, Scottish Power’s Cockenzie plant, RWE-owned Npower’s stations at Tilbury and Didcot, and Scottish & Southern’s Ferrybridge plant will all be decommissioned by the spring of 2013 if current patterns continue. The stations generate some 7.6GW of electricity - 10% of the UK’s total capacity.
The first of them, Scottish Power’s 1.2GW plant at Cockenzie, which generates enough power for 1m homes, will close as early as September 2010 based on current rates. The research was based on analysis of running patterns at the plants from January 1 this year to the end of October.
“It is likely that a significant proportion of the UK’s opted-out coal plant will close earlier than 2015, with the impact felt around 2013,” said Kevin Akhurst, managing director of generation at Npower.
When companies decided whether to comply with the EU’s so-called Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) four years ago, those plants that opted out were envisaged as “peaking plants” to be used only at time of maximum consumption and power prices. Most of them, it was thought, would easily last until 2015.
Chris Bowden, chief executive of Utilyx, said that because of the price of coal relative to record high prices of electricity and rising power demand, the opposite has happened. “When companies made the decision to opt out it was a very different world. The idea was that they would be peaking plants but now they are running as base-load providers,” he said. “The technology of some of these power stations would make them like classic cars, but now they are ready for the scrapheap.”
The data will add to fears about UK energy security after the Russian gas giant Gazprom threatened to cut off supplies to Europe due to a row with Ukraine.
Next year is critical for the UK energy industry. In January, Ed Miliband, the secretary for energy and climate change, is expected to decide on Eon’s controversial proposal to build a new 2GW plant to replace the Kingsnorth facility. It would be the UK’s first coal-fired power station in more than three decades and is an acid test of the government’s stance on coal and supply security.
New energy and planning bills will also come into effect in April, which the industry hopes will pave the way for swifter building and planning permission for new projects, one of the biggest obstacles to the construction of plants.
Source - The Times
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
Friday, 12 December 2008
Europe agrees energy targets for 2020
Targets for 20 per cent of Europe’s energy to come from renewable sources by 2020 were agreed after EU countries decided to reduce the role of biofuels over concerns about the impact of growing crops for fuel in developing countries.
In concessions to smooth the deal EU states that cannot afford to meet their own individual renewable energy targets will be able to outsource some of their efforts by sponsoring green projects in other countries or buying credits from those countries that have exceeded the goal.
Instead of a parallel target proposed last year for 10 per cent of transport fuel to come from biofuels, this goal will now include all methods of sustainable transport such as electric cars and trains, while aviation will be exempt, meeting concerns from Britain that fuel technology would not be ready in time.
Renewable energy targets are a major part of the EU’s massive climate change package, due to be signed off by leaders from the 27 nations at a summit in Brussels later this week. Each country will have its own share of the overall goal, with Britain obliged to move to 15 per cent of renewable energy from 3 per cent this year — a target expected to mean that more than 30 per cent of electricity will have to come from renewable sources, with thousands more wind turbines needed.
The only outstanding point of disagreement on the renewables package is Italy’s demand for a full review in 2014, which will be debated by EU leaders at their summit on Thursday and Friday. In another concession, EU countries that exceed their individual renewable target will be able to sell the premium to an EU member struggling to meet its own target.
But fierce wrangling is still going on over another key plank, the emissions trading scheme, with a group of eastern EU countries heavily dependent on coal power, led by Poland, arguing for big subsidies from western European nations.
Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, said that he hoped for a comprehensive deal including emission trading, which could then be extended to include North America. “If we reach agreement this week, we should propose a transatlantic emission market which should be the basis for a global carbon market,” he said.
In Poznan, Poland, where UN climate talks are under way, green groups were broadly content with the EU deal on renewable energy but voiced alarm at another part of the 2020 climate package to be agreed at the Brussels summit, so-called effort sharing.
This sets energy use reduction targets for sectors, accounting for 55 per cent of EU emissions, that are not covered by trading in carbon emissions, including agriculture, transport and households.
A coalition of environmental groups called this a farce because polluters could offset as much as two-thirds of their emissions by investing in clean-technology projects in poor countries.
“This proposal, steered by the self-interest of EU member states, sets the bar far too low,” said the coalition, called the Climate Action Network .
Source - The times
In concessions to smooth the deal EU states that cannot afford to meet their own individual renewable energy targets will be able to outsource some of their efforts by sponsoring green projects in other countries or buying credits from those countries that have exceeded the goal.
Instead of a parallel target proposed last year for 10 per cent of transport fuel to come from biofuels, this goal will now include all methods of sustainable transport such as electric cars and trains, while aviation will be exempt, meeting concerns from Britain that fuel technology would not be ready in time.
Renewable energy targets are a major part of the EU’s massive climate change package, due to be signed off by leaders from the 27 nations at a summit in Brussels later this week. Each country will have its own share of the overall goal, with Britain obliged to move to 15 per cent of renewable energy from 3 per cent this year — a target expected to mean that more than 30 per cent of electricity will have to come from renewable sources, with thousands more wind turbines needed.
The only outstanding point of disagreement on the renewables package is Italy’s demand for a full review in 2014, which will be debated by EU leaders at their summit on Thursday and Friday. In another concession, EU countries that exceed their individual renewable target will be able to sell the premium to an EU member struggling to meet its own target.
But fierce wrangling is still going on over another key plank, the emissions trading scheme, with a group of eastern EU countries heavily dependent on coal power, led by Poland, arguing for big subsidies from western European nations.
Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, said that he hoped for a comprehensive deal including emission trading, which could then be extended to include North America. “If we reach agreement this week, we should propose a transatlantic emission market which should be the basis for a global carbon market,” he said.
In Poznan, Poland, where UN climate talks are under way, green groups were broadly content with the EU deal on renewable energy but voiced alarm at another part of the 2020 climate package to be agreed at the Brussels summit, so-called effort sharing.
This sets energy use reduction targets for sectors, accounting for 55 per cent of EU emissions, that are not covered by trading in carbon emissions, including agriculture, transport and households.
A coalition of environmental groups called this a farce because polluters could offset as much as two-thirds of their emissions by investing in clean-technology projects in poor countries.
“This proposal, steered by the self-interest of EU member states, sets the bar far too low,” said the coalition, called the Climate Action Network .
Source - The times
Sunday, 16 November 2008
UK energy blackouts warning
UK Energy experts asked by BBC News warn the UK could face an unacceptable risk of major blackouts in less than 10 years unless policy is improved.
They said the government has dithered for too long over policies vital to energy security and climate security.
But they added that forecasts of an imminent power crisis were far-fetched.
The possible energy gap is being created because of the impending closure before 2015 of nine of our major coal and oil-powered plants.This is due to an EU directive on acid rain. The issue is compounded by the closure of four ageing nuclear plants during the same period.
We do not claim our questionnaire of 30 experts is definitive. But its findings do help to map out the scale of the huge challenge facing the new secretary of energy and climate change.
Experts were, for example, asked: “Under current policies there is an unacceptable risk of major blackouts in the next 10 years?” A total of 13 agreed, nine disagreed, six were undecided and three gave no answer.
Some of the experts surveyed in our questionnaire said any short-term energy gap would be filled by burning gas, which undermines our ambitions on climate change.
Another option would be to lobby the EU to keep the coal stations open, which is also harmful to the climate and, experts say, is a case of throwing good money after bad.
But others said there was an unacceptable risk of blackouts as key elements of policy appeared paralysed or compromised.
Of the 31 experts who took part in our questionnaire, there was a feeling that the government’s long-term ambitions on nuclear won’t be achieved due to a lack of industrial capacity.
And many warn that government renewables targets are unlikely to be hit thanks to a combination of a lack of political will and engineering challenges for offshore wind.
The experts demanded much more urgent action on carbon capture and storage from coal, on which the government is due to make a decision soon.
They also said the UK had to move much more quickly to improve storage of gas in depleted gas fields.
Source - BBC News
They said the government has dithered for too long over policies vital to energy security and climate security.
But they added that forecasts of an imminent power crisis were far-fetched.
The possible energy gap is being created because of the impending closure before 2015 of nine of our major coal and oil-powered plants.This is due to an EU directive on acid rain. The issue is compounded by the closure of four ageing nuclear plants during the same period.
We do not claim our questionnaire of 30 experts is definitive. But its findings do help to map out the scale of the huge challenge facing the new secretary of energy and climate change.
Experts were, for example, asked: “Under current policies there is an unacceptable risk of major blackouts in the next 10 years?” A total of 13 agreed, nine disagreed, six were undecided and three gave no answer.
Some of the experts surveyed in our questionnaire said any short-term energy gap would be filled by burning gas, which undermines our ambitions on climate change.
Another option would be to lobby the EU to keep the coal stations open, which is also harmful to the climate and, experts say, is a case of throwing good money after bad.
But others said there was an unacceptable risk of blackouts as key elements of policy appeared paralysed or compromised.
Of the 31 experts who took part in our questionnaire, there was a feeling that the government’s long-term ambitions on nuclear won’t be achieved due to a lack of industrial capacity.
And many warn that government renewables targets are unlikely to be hit thanks to a combination of a lack of political will and engineering challenges for offshore wind.
The experts demanded much more urgent action on carbon capture and storage from coal, on which the government is due to make a decision soon.
They also said the UK had to move much more quickly to improve storage of gas in depleted gas fields.
Source - BBC News
Thursday, 30 October 2008
UK energy supply has entered into terminal decline
In recent years, the UK has become increasingly dependent on natural gas as its primary energy source. This strategy may soon be found to be based upon poor assumptions/perceptions regarding development of domestic and neighbouring natural gas reserves and, in general, regional and global supply capabilities.
1. UK marketable nat gas production (also gross) peaked in 2000 close to 110 Gcm/a.
2. During the last three years, UK nat gas production has declined at an annual rate of 8 - 10 %, which many energy analysts expect will continue.
3. Nat gas constituted more than 38 % of the UK primary energy consumption in 2007.
4. Several analyses expect UK to import 80 % of their nat gas consumption by 2020.
5. UK was a net exporter of nat gas for a brief period.
In 2007, more than 38 % of the UK’s primary energy consumption came from nat gas. Of the EU/OECD countries, only Italy has a higher portion of nat gas consumption. In comparison, the USA gets 25 % of its primary energy consumption from natural gas; France, 15 %; and Germany, 24 %.
In general, high nat gas usage is primarily found among countries with huge nat gas reserves like Russia, where nat gas amounted to more than 57 % of primary energy production in 2007. Russia is the world’s largest exporter of nat gas and second largest exporter of oil, so this high domestic usage frees up oil for export. Since oil generates more income than nat gas, based on units of energy exported, this approach maximizes export revenue.
The UK and Continental Europe have both benefitted from the bidirectional Interconnector that since 1998 has allowed for increased flexibility in nat gas supplies. Due to the decline in UK indigenous supplies and a tighter supply situation on Continental Europe, the importance of the Interconnector is expected to slowly diminish unless future Russian supplies are shipped through the system to UK.
Nat gas production within EU was on a plateau from 1996 to 2004 and has now entered into terminal decline. Increased nat gas production from Norway (which is not a full EU member) has slowed the decline. The balance of consumption within EU has been secured through increasing imports, primarily from Russia, North Africa and LNG. The diagram above suggests that imports into EU will need to grow quickly, from 200 Gcm/a at present to projected 400 Gcm/a by 2020, to fill the rapidly growing gap between declining supplies and projected growth in consumption.
If projected growth in EU nat gas consumption by 2020 is to be met, it will be necessary to double present imports of 200 Gcm/a from Russia, North Africa and LNG, a challenging task. With the ongoing credit crisis still unfolding, an increase in imports that allows maintenance of present EU consumption levels may turn out to be a major accomplishment.
As of 2007, 25 % of EU’s nat gas consumption was imported from Russia. Russian nat gas exports to the EU grew substantially after the completion of pipelines between Western Siberia and Europe by the mid 80’s.
There are good reasons to believe that the Russians (meaning Gazprom) planned their exports to the EU based upon available official data and forecasts from amongst others, EU members and Norway. This is of course a sensible thing to do if the goal is to maximize the profits from the Russian resource base and to optimize the allocation of investment funds. Why invest in expansions of production and infrastructure, if these investments are likely to contribute to an oversupply and a subsequent downward pressure on prices?
Perhaps what is needed is an energy czar. I think it was Matt Simmons who first used the expression “energy czar”, perhaps with a hidden meaning that Russians leaders far better understand the strategic nature of energy than their western counterparts, even though their access to data is not as good.
In 1995 - 1998, the UK exported nat gas to Ireland. In 1998, the Interconnector, the bidirectional pipeline between Bacton in UK and Zeebrugge in Belgium, started to flow. After that, the UK became a moderate exporter of nat gas to Continental Europe.
EU production of natural gas has peaked, and is expected to decline. EU exclusive of UK nat gas production peaked in 1996. Since then, natural gas production has been in a general decline and is expected to continue to decline. Recently Dutch authorities confirmed that their nat gas production is set to decline. These milestones were passed without much attention. For the next several years, projected increases in Norwegian nat gas production are expected to partly offset declines in production in the EU, but the overall production trend is expected to remain downward.
UK has for some years had an important role in securing a unique flexibility with respect to the EU nat gas supply chain. The combined effect of the declining nat gas production in UK and the rest of the EU has already tightened the supply situation for EU (ref the recent price growth within the liberalized UK market), and has the potential to develop into a severe nat gas supply crunch. Such a supply crunch could have cascading effects, and may affect other energy systems. These interrelationships seem to be poorly understood among those responsible for developing energy supply strategies.
Source - The Oil Drum
1. UK marketable nat gas production (also gross) peaked in 2000 close to 110 Gcm/a.
2. During the last three years, UK nat gas production has declined at an annual rate of 8 - 10 %, which many energy analysts expect will continue.
3. Nat gas constituted more than 38 % of the UK primary energy consumption in 2007.
4. Several analyses expect UK to import 80 % of their nat gas consumption by 2020.
5. UK was a net exporter of nat gas for a brief period.
In 2007, more than 38 % of the UK’s primary energy consumption came from nat gas. Of the EU/OECD countries, only Italy has a higher portion of nat gas consumption. In comparison, the USA gets 25 % of its primary energy consumption from natural gas; France, 15 %; and Germany, 24 %.
In general, high nat gas usage is primarily found among countries with huge nat gas reserves like Russia, where nat gas amounted to more than 57 % of primary energy production in 2007. Russia is the world’s largest exporter of nat gas and second largest exporter of oil, so this high domestic usage frees up oil for export. Since oil generates more income than nat gas, based on units of energy exported, this approach maximizes export revenue.
The UK and Continental Europe have both benefitted from the bidirectional Interconnector that since 1998 has allowed for increased flexibility in nat gas supplies. Due to the decline in UK indigenous supplies and a tighter supply situation on Continental Europe, the importance of the Interconnector is expected to slowly diminish unless future Russian supplies are shipped through the system to UK.
Nat gas production within EU was on a plateau from 1996 to 2004 and has now entered into terminal decline. Increased nat gas production from Norway (which is not a full EU member) has slowed the decline. The balance of consumption within EU has been secured through increasing imports, primarily from Russia, North Africa and LNG. The diagram above suggests that imports into EU will need to grow quickly, from 200 Gcm/a at present to projected 400 Gcm/a by 2020, to fill the rapidly growing gap between declining supplies and projected growth in consumption.
If projected growth in EU nat gas consumption by 2020 is to be met, it will be necessary to double present imports of 200 Gcm/a from Russia, North Africa and LNG, a challenging task. With the ongoing credit crisis still unfolding, an increase in imports that allows maintenance of present EU consumption levels may turn out to be a major accomplishment.
As of 2007, 25 % of EU’s nat gas consumption was imported from Russia. Russian nat gas exports to the EU grew substantially after the completion of pipelines between Western Siberia and Europe by the mid 80’s.
There are good reasons to believe that the Russians (meaning Gazprom) planned their exports to the EU based upon available official data and forecasts from amongst others, EU members and Norway. This is of course a sensible thing to do if the goal is to maximize the profits from the Russian resource base and to optimize the allocation of investment funds. Why invest in expansions of production and infrastructure, if these investments are likely to contribute to an oversupply and a subsequent downward pressure on prices?
Perhaps what is needed is an energy czar. I think it was Matt Simmons who first used the expression “energy czar”, perhaps with a hidden meaning that Russians leaders far better understand the strategic nature of energy than their western counterparts, even though their access to data is not as good.
In 1995 - 1998, the UK exported nat gas to Ireland. In 1998, the Interconnector, the bidirectional pipeline between Bacton in UK and Zeebrugge in Belgium, started to flow. After that, the UK became a moderate exporter of nat gas to Continental Europe.
EU production of natural gas has peaked, and is expected to decline. EU exclusive of UK nat gas production peaked in 1996. Since then, natural gas production has been in a general decline and is expected to continue to decline. Recently Dutch authorities confirmed that their nat gas production is set to decline. These milestones were passed without much attention. For the next several years, projected increases in Norwegian nat gas production are expected to partly offset declines in production in the EU, but the overall production trend is expected to remain downward.
UK has for some years had an important role in securing a unique flexibility with respect to the EU nat gas supply chain. The combined effect of the declining nat gas production in UK and the rest of the EU has already tightened the supply situation for EU (ref the recent price growth within the liberalized UK market), and has the potential to develop into a severe nat gas supply crunch. Such a supply crunch could have cascading effects, and may affect other energy systems. These interrelationships seem to be poorly understood among those responsible for developing energy supply strategies.
Source - The Oil Drum
Solar panels needed to hit 2020 targets
The Government must explore increasing energy efficiency, renewable heat generation and solar panels as well large scale renewable electricity projects if the UK is to meet European renewable energy targets, an influential group of Lords has claimed.
The UK must produce 15% of its total energy demand from renewable sources by 2020 under EU wide energy targets - in 2005 it managed only 1.3%.
The House of Lords European Union Committee on Friday claimed that wholesale changes were needed in the Government’s approach to energy policy if the target was to be met.
A statement by the Committee said it was concerned that the Government has not included energy efficiency as a central part of the Renewable Energy Strategy.
It points out that witnesses speaking to the Committee estimated that around a fifth of the 15% reduction target could be achieved by ‘aggressive demand reduction policies’.
Energy efficiency measures, therefore, should form the starting point for the Government to meet its 2020 targets. The Committee calls on the Government to set a 20% energy reduction target by 2020.
The Committee’s report also points out that 41% of the UK’s energy use is for heating and cooling. The Committee stresses that renewable heat technologies and solar panels should be as important a part of meeting the UK’s renewables target as large-scale electricity generation.
It calls on the Government to increase existing solar panels grants and to introduce a system of renewable heat grants to ensure individuals have an economic incentive to explore options for micro-energy generation at home.
Source - New Civil Engineer
The UK must produce 15% of its total energy demand from renewable sources by 2020 under EU wide energy targets - in 2005 it managed only 1.3%.
The House of Lords European Union Committee on Friday claimed that wholesale changes were needed in the Government’s approach to energy policy if the target was to be met.
A statement by the Committee said it was concerned that the Government has not included energy efficiency as a central part of the Renewable Energy Strategy.
It points out that witnesses speaking to the Committee estimated that around a fifth of the 15% reduction target could be achieved by ‘aggressive demand reduction policies’.
Energy efficiency measures, therefore, should form the starting point for the Government to meet its 2020 targets. The Committee calls on the Government to set a 20% energy reduction target by 2020.
The Committee’s report also points out that 41% of the UK’s energy use is for heating and cooling. The Committee stresses that renewable heat technologies and solar panels should be as important a part of meeting the UK’s renewables target as large-scale electricity generation.
It calls on the Government to increase existing solar panels grants and to introduce a system of renewable heat grants to ensure individuals have an economic incentive to explore options for micro-energy generation at home.
Source - New Civil Engineer
Monday, 27 October 2008
Solar panels have the potential to be mainstream
While a range of technologies exist that offer clean, sustainable renewable energy, one technology is largely neglected and ignored despite its strength in some markets and its considerable potential. It is high time that solar thermal emerges into the light, says Petri Konttinen.
As professionals in the renewable energy industry, we all know that renewable resources are critical to the future of our planet. With the pressure on fossil fuels, it is increasingly fashionable for the mainstream media to talk about wind power, biofuels and photovoltaic energy as solutions to the finite energy reserves and rising fuel prices.
But do the mainstream media — and, for that matter, those of us working in the industry — ever take a step back and consider those technologies that have not yet fulfilled their potential?
I strongly believe that, while photovoltaic is a wonderful technology fully deserving of the levels of investment it attracts, there is a second, equally viable solar technology — solar thermal. This is a technology which is largely neglected in articles, passed over by experts and ignored by the mainstream media — an oversight I passionately believe should be redressed.
I have a vision of a world where it would be as unthinkable to design a building that couldn’t harvest solar energy as it would be to design it without windows or doors. Solar thermal energy has the potential to be as mainstream and commonly accepted as fireplaces were a hundred years ago and radiators are today. I would love to see architects and builders select solar thermal collectors in the same way as they do every other core component of the build — it really could be that simple.
A solar partnership with great potential
Photovoltaic has traditionally been the dominant of the two solar technologies and I firmly believe in its potential — as long as it is utilized for the right purpose. This technology is on the brink of a huge leap forward in the field of renewable energy and it really proves its worth in generating electricity. However, it is not nearly as efficient to use photovoltaic systems for heating as it is to use solar thermal. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean it needs to be a case of ‘either/or’ for these two solar technologies. Solar thermal and solar photovoltaic can work in perfect synergy with each other and, together, they could almost provide a total solution for powering and heating our buildings using renewable energy.
A brief look at the latest statistics from the European Solar Thermal Technology Platform confirms this. In the EU, 20% of the energy consumed is turned into electricity and 31% is used for transport. That leaves 49% of energy being consumed in heating and cooling (mainly of buildings). Much of this could be provided by solar thermal energy.
This is a powerful and significant statistic. Solar thermal technology is currently used in only a small percentage of European buildings, mostly for heating water and mostly in private houses. But almost half our energy needs could actually be supplied by solar thermal energy. It also has many advantages over other renewable energies such as wind power, biofuels and photovoltaics.
Often when wind farms are planned ‘NIMBY-ism’ becomes an issue with local opposition groups declaring that the turbines blight the landscape. Equally, using biofuels for energy production is not without challenges. As food prices continue to rise due to global shortages of wheat, there are increasing calls to halt the devotion of land to biofuel production. Solar thermal collectors do not share these issues as they are discreet, cannot be perceived to endanger wildlife and, as they are installed on the buildings they serve, have no impact on land use.
We are all familiar with the solar photovoltaic panels on the roofs of buildings. Solar thermal collectors, however, can be a more architecturally desirable solution since they do not have the same immediate visual impact. The solar thermal collector system can be designed so that no additional roofing is needed in the panel area. Instead, the joints of the collector’s glass can blend seamlessly with a copper roof. The copper heat transfer elements of the solar collector have excellent efficiency and durability properties.
The collectors have an annual solar energy yield of around 4 MWh per 10 m² per year (depending on the building’s location and orientation), with the best results achieved on a south-east or south-west facing roof. Expressing that in more tangible terms, at a peak energy price of 18.8 pence ($0.37) per kWh from utility suppliers (source: www.ukpower.co.uk, 2008), this equates to an energy cost of £752 ($1489) to a home owner per year.
Solar thermal systems traditionally have an efficiency rate of 30%-50%, which means that up to half the sun’s energy hitting every collector will be used to heat water for the building. This is several times more efficient than solar photovoltaic systems. With 219,000 TWh of energy available from the sun every year, the potential for solar thermal systems is immense — even allowing for the inevitable rain in Helsinki, fog in London and snow in Moscow.
Approximately 10 GWth of solar thermal capacity was in operation in Europe in 2005 and this could be set to increase to at least 200 GWth by 2030. We have the ability to harness the power of the sun and, at the moment, we are only capturing a tiny amount of what is out there. Imagine solar thermal technology providing heating and cooling to buildings all over Europe. Imagine if this were adopted globally! I can see future generations looking back on the early part of the 21st century and scratching their heads, wondering why it took us so long to break away from our dependence on fossil fuels and really start to exploit the natural resources that fall on the Earth every day.
Why is more efficient solar thermal being ignored?
So why does solar thermal not get the recognition it deserves? I believe the biggest disadvantage that solar thermal energy faces is that it is not being championed by industry or opinion-formers. As a result, it is virtually absent from public awareness. According to MEP Claude Turmes from the Green Group, over 90% of the discussion on renewable energy at the European Parliament is focused on electricity, not heating.
This was confirmed by the omission of solar thermal from the International Energy Agency (IEA) report to the G8 group of countries published in June this year. This report, which formed the basis for a high profile global discussion on climate change, detailed three scenarios for the future of renewable energy — none of which prominently featured solar thermal as a key technology.
That is not to say that I disagree with all the IEA’s recommendations. I fully support the call for drastic action to be taken to address the world’s future energy needs and I do, of course, recognize the key role that photovoltaic technologies will play in achieving this. However, I feel the report reflected a tendency — long prevalent in Europe — to focus heavily on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, with photovoltaic electricity generation as the solution to global energy problems at the expense of other viable technologies.
This is because electricity is easy for the person in the street to understand, easy to control and has the strong lobby of the electricity providers behind it. A puzzling situation when we recall that electricity accounts for only 20% of energy requirements in Europe, while heating is nearly 2.5 times this. Surely more of our attention needs to turn to solutions for heating?
Or maybe it is because we still have a child-like fascination with novelty. We will clamour to investigate the next exciting thing to come along while abandoning a tried and tested technology, like solar thermal. There are many new developments in industry all the time and the mainstream media are quick to pick up on them. After 30 years of development, solar thermal energy is already well established. Perhaps that is why it no longer gets the column inches it deserves.
As each one of us is an opinion-former of some influence (even if it is just among our peers), we have an opportunity to change public perception and communicate the facts about renewable energy sources. According to the European Solar Thermal Technology Platform: ‘Turning solar thermal energy into a major energy resource for heating and cooling in Europe by 2030 is an ambitious but realistic goal provided the right mix of research and development, industrial growth and consistent market deployment measures is applied.’ I firmly believe this, but solar thermal energy has become the poor relation in the renewable energy family. Much work still needs to be done to ensure it receives the attention it deserves.
The world is heading for a huge crisis as global consumption continues to increase at an alarming rate while finite global resources diminish and the huge potential of renewable resources is not fully realized. The only way to tackle this is globally, with far greater co-operation between governments and companies sharing information at the research and development level.
We also need significant investment in manpower, resources, research and development to make the most viable technologies become solutions for the future.
We all know that renewable energy is the future — after all, we wouldn’t be doing the jobs we are doing if we didn’t passionately believe that it would change our world forever. But we also all need to play our part in making sure the world knows this, because only then can it start to become a reality.
Source - Renewable Energy
As professionals in the renewable energy industry, we all know that renewable resources are critical to the future of our planet. With the pressure on fossil fuels, it is increasingly fashionable for the mainstream media to talk about wind power, biofuels and photovoltaic energy as solutions to the finite energy reserves and rising fuel prices.
But do the mainstream media — and, for that matter, those of us working in the industry — ever take a step back and consider those technologies that have not yet fulfilled their potential?
I strongly believe that, while photovoltaic is a wonderful technology fully deserving of the levels of investment it attracts, there is a second, equally viable solar technology — solar thermal. This is a technology which is largely neglected in articles, passed over by experts and ignored by the mainstream media — an oversight I passionately believe should be redressed.
I have a vision of a world where it would be as unthinkable to design a building that couldn’t harvest solar energy as it would be to design it without windows or doors. Solar thermal energy has the potential to be as mainstream and commonly accepted as fireplaces were a hundred years ago and radiators are today. I would love to see architects and builders select solar thermal collectors in the same way as they do every other core component of the build — it really could be that simple.
A solar partnership with great potential
Photovoltaic has traditionally been the dominant of the two solar technologies and I firmly believe in its potential — as long as it is utilized for the right purpose. This technology is on the brink of a huge leap forward in the field of renewable energy and it really proves its worth in generating electricity. However, it is not nearly as efficient to use photovoltaic systems for heating as it is to use solar thermal. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean it needs to be a case of ‘either/or’ for these two solar technologies. Solar thermal and solar photovoltaic can work in perfect synergy with each other and, together, they could almost provide a total solution for powering and heating our buildings using renewable energy.
A brief look at the latest statistics from the European Solar Thermal Technology Platform confirms this. In the EU, 20% of the energy consumed is turned into electricity and 31% is used for transport. That leaves 49% of energy being consumed in heating and cooling (mainly of buildings). Much of this could be provided by solar thermal energy.
This is a powerful and significant statistic. Solar thermal technology is currently used in only a small percentage of European buildings, mostly for heating water and mostly in private houses. But almost half our energy needs could actually be supplied by solar thermal energy. It also has many advantages over other renewable energies such as wind power, biofuels and photovoltaics.
Often when wind farms are planned ‘NIMBY-ism’ becomes an issue with local opposition groups declaring that the turbines blight the landscape. Equally, using biofuels for energy production is not without challenges. As food prices continue to rise due to global shortages of wheat, there are increasing calls to halt the devotion of land to biofuel production. Solar thermal collectors do not share these issues as they are discreet, cannot be perceived to endanger wildlife and, as they are installed on the buildings they serve, have no impact on land use.
We are all familiar with the solar photovoltaic panels on the roofs of buildings. Solar thermal collectors, however, can be a more architecturally desirable solution since they do not have the same immediate visual impact. The solar thermal collector system can be designed so that no additional roofing is needed in the panel area. Instead, the joints of the collector’s glass can blend seamlessly with a copper roof. The copper heat transfer elements of the solar collector have excellent efficiency and durability properties.
The collectors have an annual solar energy yield of around 4 MWh per 10 m² per year (depending on the building’s location and orientation), with the best results achieved on a south-east or south-west facing roof. Expressing that in more tangible terms, at a peak energy price of 18.8 pence ($0.37) per kWh from utility suppliers (source: www.ukpower.co.uk, 2008), this equates to an energy cost of £752 ($1489) to a home owner per year.
Solar thermal systems traditionally have an efficiency rate of 30%-50%, which means that up to half the sun’s energy hitting every collector will be used to heat water for the building. This is several times more efficient than solar photovoltaic systems. With 219,000 TWh of energy available from the sun every year, the potential for solar thermal systems is immense — even allowing for the inevitable rain in Helsinki, fog in London and snow in Moscow.
Approximately 10 GWth of solar thermal capacity was in operation in Europe in 2005 and this could be set to increase to at least 200 GWth by 2030. We have the ability to harness the power of the sun and, at the moment, we are only capturing a tiny amount of what is out there. Imagine solar thermal technology providing heating and cooling to buildings all over Europe. Imagine if this were adopted globally! I can see future generations looking back on the early part of the 21st century and scratching their heads, wondering why it took us so long to break away from our dependence on fossil fuels and really start to exploit the natural resources that fall on the Earth every day.
Why is more efficient solar thermal being ignored?
So why does solar thermal not get the recognition it deserves? I believe the biggest disadvantage that solar thermal energy faces is that it is not being championed by industry or opinion-formers. As a result, it is virtually absent from public awareness. According to MEP Claude Turmes from the Green Group, over 90% of the discussion on renewable energy at the European Parliament is focused on electricity, not heating.
This was confirmed by the omission of solar thermal from the International Energy Agency (IEA) report to the G8 group of countries published in June this year. This report, which formed the basis for a high profile global discussion on climate change, detailed three scenarios for the future of renewable energy — none of which prominently featured solar thermal as a key technology.
That is not to say that I disagree with all the IEA’s recommendations. I fully support the call for drastic action to be taken to address the world’s future energy needs and I do, of course, recognize the key role that photovoltaic technologies will play in achieving this. However, I feel the report reflected a tendency — long prevalent in Europe — to focus heavily on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, with photovoltaic electricity generation as the solution to global energy problems at the expense of other viable technologies.
This is because electricity is easy for the person in the street to understand, easy to control and has the strong lobby of the electricity providers behind it. A puzzling situation when we recall that electricity accounts for only 20% of energy requirements in Europe, while heating is nearly 2.5 times this. Surely more of our attention needs to turn to solutions for heating?
Or maybe it is because we still have a child-like fascination with novelty. We will clamour to investigate the next exciting thing to come along while abandoning a tried and tested technology, like solar thermal. There are many new developments in industry all the time and the mainstream media are quick to pick up on them. After 30 years of development, solar thermal energy is already well established. Perhaps that is why it no longer gets the column inches it deserves.
As each one of us is an opinion-former of some influence (even if it is just among our peers), we have an opportunity to change public perception and communicate the facts about renewable energy sources. According to the European Solar Thermal Technology Platform: ‘Turning solar thermal energy into a major energy resource for heating and cooling in Europe by 2030 is an ambitious but realistic goal provided the right mix of research and development, industrial growth and consistent market deployment measures is applied.’ I firmly believe this, but solar thermal energy has become the poor relation in the renewable energy family. Much work still needs to be done to ensure it receives the attention it deserves.
The world is heading for a huge crisis as global consumption continues to increase at an alarming rate while finite global resources diminish and the huge potential of renewable resources is not fully realized. The only way to tackle this is globally, with far greater co-operation between governments and companies sharing information at the research and development level.
We also need significant investment in manpower, resources, research and development to make the most viable technologies become solutions for the future.
We all know that renewable energy is the future — after all, we wouldn’t be doing the jobs we are doing if we didn’t passionately believe that it would change our world forever. But we also all need to play our part in making sure the world knows this, because only then can it start to become a reality.
Source - Renewable Energy
Sunday, 26 October 2008
PV solar panels and feed-in-tariffs
Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK, said yesterday in a presentation to the House of Lords that he intends to amend the current energy bill that goes before the Houses of Parliament next week. The amendment should see the inclusion of a feed-in-tariff for the micro-generation of renewable energies.
The newly-formed Department of Energy and Climate Change was created by the Prime Minister on the 3rd of October to “give an even greater focus to solving the twin challenges of climate change and energy supply.”
Ed Miliband said in his speech to Parliament, “…but having heard the debate on this issue, including from many colleagues in this House, I also believe that complementing the renewables obligation for large-scale projects, guaranteed prices for small-scale electricity generation, feed-in-tariffs, have the potential to play an important role, as they do in other countries.”
The UK has signed on to the EU directive to produce 20% of all energy through renewable sources by 2020. However, the UK government has come under much criticism over the past few years for doing little to achieve this goal. Should the current scheme of ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates) remain as it is, then the UK will only achieve 5% by 2020.
The move by the Prime Minister to create the new department has been met with wide approval from such industry associations as REA (Renewable Energy Association) and the STA (Solar Trade Association). The amendment was lobbied for by REA acting on behalf of over 35 organisations including Sharp UK, Schott UK and Solar Century.
The UK energy market was the equivalent of 232.1 million tons of oil in 2006. Currently, less than 2% of energy is produced by renewables.
There are three crystalline module manufacturers in the UK: Sharp in Wales, a company that converted their VCR factory, GB SOl and Romag. G24i is working with thin films and PV Crystalox is the only ingot manufacturer in the UK.
The UK renewable energy strategy consultation document outlines a possible feed-in tariff system.
Source - PV Tech
The newly-formed Department of Energy and Climate Change was created by the Prime Minister on the 3rd of October to “give an even greater focus to solving the twin challenges of climate change and energy supply.”
Ed Miliband said in his speech to Parliament, “…but having heard the debate on this issue, including from many colleagues in this House, I also believe that complementing the renewables obligation for large-scale projects, guaranteed prices for small-scale electricity generation, feed-in-tariffs, have the potential to play an important role, as they do in other countries.”
The UK has signed on to the EU directive to produce 20% of all energy through renewable sources by 2020. However, the UK government has come under much criticism over the past few years for doing little to achieve this goal. Should the current scheme of ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates) remain as it is, then the UK will only achieve 5% by 2020.
The move by the Prime Minister to create the new department has been met with wide approval from such industry associations as REA (Renewable Energy Association) and the STA (Solar Trade Association). The amendment was lobbied for by REA acting on behalf of over 35 organisations including Sharp UK, Schott UK and Solar Century.
The UK energy market was the equivalent of 232.1 million tons of oil in 2006. Currently, less than 2% of energy is produced by renewables.
There are three crystalline module manufacturers in the UK: Sharp in Wales, a company that converted their VCR factory, GB SOl and Romag. G24i is working with thin films and PV Crystalox is the only ingot manufacturer in the UK.
The UK renewable energy strategy consultation document outlines a possible feed-in tariff system.
Source - PV Tech
Thursday, 14 August 2008
Future of UK’s energy supply is bleak
With every week that goes by it becomes clearer that, within a few years, Britain will face an unprecedented crisis, thanks to the shambles the Government has made of our energy policy.
After years of dereliction, when only a crash programme of measures could keep our lights on and our economy functioning, our policy has become so skewed by blinkered environmentalism and diktats from the EU that we are fast heading for the worst of all worlds - a near-total dependence on foreign sources of energy which will not only be astronomically expensive but which can in no way be guaranteed to supply all the electricity we need.
What are the hard facts?
Between now and 2015 we shall lose 40 per cent of the generating capacity we currently require to meet maximum demand (still rising), due to the phasing out of almost all our obsolescent nuclear reactors and the closure of nine of our major coal- and oil-fired power stations under an EU “anti-pollution” directive.
Gordon Brown talks about building a new generation of nuclear power plants, for which we would have to rely on the French - having two years ago sold off Westinghouse, the only British-owned firm capable of constructing them.
But even if the French play ball, which seems less likely since the collapse of Brown’s plan to sell off British Energy to France’s EDF, the new plants could still not be built in time to plug the gap.
The only short-term remedy will be to build yet more gas-fired stations, at a time when we are fast running out of our own gas supplies and when gas prices are shooting through the roof, reducing us to dependence on countries such as Mr Putin’s Russia or Qatar, both of which have recently announced caps on future exports.
Our best bet might seem to invest urgently in a dozen more coal-fired power stations, which still supply more than a third of our electricity.
But own coal industry is so run down - though we still have more than 100 years of reserves - that barely a quarter of the 62 million tons of coal we used last year was British.The rest had to be imported, including 22 million tons from Russia and 12 million tons from South Africa.
At a time when rocketing world demand for coal has already doubled prices in a year, we should again be dependent on unreliable foreign sources, to generate electricity by means which excite almost as much fury from environmentalists as nuclear power - as we saw with last week’s demonstrations against plans by German-owned E.On to build a new “clean coal” station at Kingsnorth in Kent.
With this colossal crisis fast approaching, our ministers are still lost in the cloudcuckooland of Mr Brown’s £100 billion “green energy” plan, to meet our EU target of generating a third of our electricity from renewables by 2020.
Not an energy expert in the country says this is remotely feasible. Our present 2,000 wind turbines supply just 1.5 per cent of our power, and even if Mr Brown’s 7,000 additional turbines could in practice be built, we would still be more than 200 per cent short of our EU target.
Worse still is the fact that our electricity investment market is now so skewed by the various subsidy and “carbon savings” schemes adopted to meet our various EU targets that these are now uselessly soaking up more than £5 billion a year which should otherwise be urgently invested in proper generating capacity.
Our major power companies can now make so much money from “renewables” subsidies and other “planet saving” schemes that they have much less incentive to risk capital on those which might keep our lights on.
Our energy policy is now so constrained and distorted by EU requirements that, even if we had a government with the knowhow and will to sort out the mess, we should soon be breaking EU laws all over the place.
Tragically, no one seems to remain in more blissful ignorance of all these harsh realities than our Conservative opposition which, when the crisis arrives, may well be in power.
Not only will those at the top of the Tory party, on present showing, have no idea why the lights are going out, but they will have even less idea of what to do about it - because by then it will be too late.
Source: The Telegraph
After years of dereliction, when only a crash programme of measures could keep our lights on and our economy functioning, our policy has become so skewed by blinkered environmentalism and diktats from the EU that we are fast heading for the worst of all worlds - a near-total dependence on foreign sources of energy which will not only be astronomically expensive but which can in no way be guaranteed to supply all the electricity we need.
What are the hard facts?
Between now and 2015 we shall lose 40 per cent of the generating capacity we currently require to meet maximum demand (still rising), due to the phasing out of almost all our obsolescent nuclear reactors and the closure of nine of our major coal- and oil-fired power stations under an EU “anti-pollution” directive.
Gordon Brown talks about building a new generation of nuclear power plants, for which we would have to rely on the French - having two years ago sold off Westinghouse, the only British-owned firm capable of constructing them.
But even if the French play ball, which seems less likely since the collapse of Brown’s plan to sell off British Energy to France’s EDF, the new plants could still not be built in time to plug the gap.
The only short-term remedy will be to build yet more gas-fired stations, at a time when we are fast running out of our own gas supplies and when gas prices are shooting through the roof, reducing us to dependence on countries such as Mr Putin’s Russia or Qatar, both of which have recently announced caps on future exports.
Our best bet might seem to invest urgently in a dozen more coal-fired power stations, which still supply more than a third of our electricity.
But own coal industry is so run down - though we still have more than 100 years of reserves - that barely a quarter of the 62 million tons of coal we used last year was British.The rest had to be imported, including 22 million tons from Russia and 12 million tons from South Africa.
At a time when rocketing world demand for coal has already doubled prices in a year, we should again be dependent on unreliable foreign sources, to generate electricity by means which excite almost as much fury from environmentalists as nuclear power - as we saw with last week’s demonstrations against plans by German-owned E.On to build a new “clean coal” station at Kingsnorth in Kent.
With this colossal crisis fast approaching, our ministers are still lost in the cloudcuckooland of Mr Brown’s £100 billion “green energy” plan, to meet our EU target of generating a third of our electricity from renewables by 2020.
Not an energy expert in the country says this is remotely feasible. Our present 2,000 wind turbines supply just 1.5 per cent of our power, and even if Mr Brown’s 7,000 additional turbines could in practice be built, we would still be more than 200 per cent short of our EU target.
Worse still is the fact that our electricity investment market is now so skewed by the various subsidy and “carbon savings” schemes adopted to meet our various EU targets that these are now uselessly soaking up more than £5 billion a year which should otherwise be urgently invested in proper generating capacity.
Our major power companies can now make so much money from “renewables” subsidies and other “planet saving” schemes that they have much less incentive to risk capital on those which might keep our lights on.
Our energy policy is now so constrained and distorted by EU requirements that, even if we had a government with the knowhow and will to sort out the mess, we should soon be breaking EU laws all over the place.
Tragically, no one seems to remain in more blissful ignorance of all these harsh realities than our Conservative opposition which, when the crisis arrives, may well be in power.
Not only will those at the top of the Tory party, on present showing, have no idea why the lights are going out, but they will have even less idea of what to do about it - because by then it will be too late.
Source: The Telegraph
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
A new eira for solar panels
Homeowners are to be offered extra financial incentives to fit their properties with solar panels and wind turbines in an ambitious green energy programme to reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.
At the heart of the £100 billion renewable energy strategy, due to be unveiled this week, is a proposal to encourage householders to generate their own power.
They will be able to sell back surplus electricity at premium prices to the national grid. At present it can be sold only at market rates.
Other proposals to ensure Britain hits its EU target of generating 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 are the building of 3,500 onshore wind turbines. About 2,000 are currently operational. John Hutton, the energy secretary, announced plans to build 7,000 offshore wind turbines last year.
Large areas of the countryside could also be planted with woodland and crops to be burnt in a network of smaller power stations. It is estimated the renewable revolution detailed in the consultation document could create 160,000 jobs and cost £100 billion over 12 years.
Gordon Brown hopes oil-producing countries may invest in greener energy schemes in Britain. As he headed to Jeddah for a summit on oil prices, the prime minister said it was in the interests of the oil-producing nations to fund more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Leonie Greene, spokeswoman for the Renewable Energy Association, said: “We can hit the target, but there needs to be action and urgency. The political impetus on renewable energy is coming from Europe and we’re playing catchup.”
The government’s new strategy will fail unless homeowners install alternative energy sources and fit proper insulation. Ministers envisage up to 7m solar heating systems by 2020, compared with 90,000 now.
While installing domestic solar panels can cost between £5,000 and £10,000, the government has been accused of failing to provide big enough grants. Environmental groups also complain about the lack of campaigns to persuade households to go green.
According to the strategy document, there could be a 90% increase in the use of ground source heat pumps, which heat homes by harnessing the warmth in the earth. Homeowners will also be encouraged to install wind turbines.
A generous package of grants and financial incentives will be needed to persuade householders to insulate their homes and use sustainable energy sources. Ministers will also look at the German system in which homeowners can sell surplus electricity to the grid at premium rates.
To date, most Britons who have converted their homes to green power have been motivated by concern for the environment. Some schemes can take more than 20 years to recoup the investment.
Donnachadh McCarthy, who lives in London and is author of Saving the Planet without Costing the Earth, said: “I’ve installed solar electric, solar-heated water, a wind turbine, a water harvester and a woodburner. It’s cost around £22,000.
“I got £400 in grants, so Gordon Brown has made a huge profit out of me. Having spent so much, I’ve a lot of catching-up to do. The woodburner is by far the best thing. I use waste wood from my local area, so it is completely carbon neutral.”
The government may also have to ease planning restrictions. When David Cameron, the Tory leader, first installed a wind turbine at his London home it had to be removed because it breached planning rules.
Perhaps the most controversial part of the government’s plans is the building of 10,500 wind turbines. Of those, 3,500 are onshore and are likely to face strong opposition.
Among proposals that have already been scrapped is a plan for a 27-turbine wind farm in the Lake District. Kyle Blue, who campaigned against the scheme, said: “The countryside round here was far too special to be ruined by wind turbines.”
The difficulty of hitting the 15% renewable target is illustrated by the fact the government wants to include the Severn Barrage – a tidal power station across the Severn estuary – in the official renewable figures for 2015. The scheme will not be completed until well after 2020.
The strategy says nearly 6% of electricity could be generated by bio-energy – the burning of wood and plants to generate electricity. It suggests nearly 880,000 acres could be turned over to bio-energy crops.
There are, however, concerns about the impact of a large increase in the use of bio-fuels on the environment and on food prices.
One of the dividends of a green energy revolution would be a reduction of more than 5% in oil use by 2020. It would also significantly reduce the UK’s carbon emissions.
The government’s renewable energy strategy was welcomed yesterday by environmental campaigners. John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: “If this plan becomes a reality, Britain will be a better, safer and more prosperous country.
“We’ll create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and use less gas, and in the long run our power bills will come down.”
Source - The Times
At the heart of the £100 billion renewable energy strategy, due to be unveiled this week, is a proposal to encourage householders to generate their own power.
They will be able to sell back surplus electricity at premium prices to the national grid. At present it can be sold only at market rates.
Other proposals to ensure Britain hits its EU target of generating 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 are the building of 3,500 onshore wind turbines. About 2,000 are currently operational. John Hutton, the energy secretary, announced plans to build 7,000 offshore wind turbines last year.
Large areas of the countryside could also be planted with woodland and crops to be burnt in a network of smaller power stations. It is estimated the renewable revolution detailed in the consultation document could create 160,000 jobs and cost £100 billion over 12 years.
Gordon Brown hopes oil-producing countries may invest in greener energy schemes in Britain. As he headed to Jeddah for a summit on oil prices, the prime minister said it was in the interests of the oil-producing nations to fund more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Leonie Greene, spokeswoman for the Renewable Energy Association, said: “We can hit the target, but there needs to be action and urgency. The political impetus on renewable energy is coming from Europe and we’re playing catchup.”
The government’s new strategy will fail unless homeowners install alternative energy sources and fit proper insulation. Ministers envisage up to 7m solar heating systems by 2020, compared with 90,000 now.
While installing domestic solar panels can cost between £5,000 and £10,000, the government has been accused of failing to provide big enough grants. Environmental groups also complain about the lack of campaigns to persuade households to go green.
According to the strategy document, there could be a 90% increase in the use of ground source heat pumps, which heat homes by harnessing the warmth in the earth. Homeowners will also be encouraged to install wind turbines.
A generous package of grants and financial incentives will be needed to persuade householders to insulate their homes and use sustainable energy sources. Ministers will also look at the German system in which homeowners can sell surplus electricity to the grid at premium rates.
To date, most Britons who have converted their homes to green power have been motivated by concern for the environment. Some schemes can take more than 20 years to recoup the investment.
Donnachadh McCarthy, who lives in London and is author of Saving the Planet without Costing the Earth, said: “I’ve installed solar electric, solar-heated water, a wind turbine, a water harvester and a woodburner. It’s cost around £22,000.
“I got £400 in grants, so Gordon Brown has made a huge profit out of me. Having spent so much, I’ve a lot of catching-up to do. The woodburner is by far the best thing. I use waste wood from my local area, so it is completely carbon neutral.”
The government may also have to ease planning restrictions. When David Cameron, the Tory leader, first installed a wind turbine at his London home it had to be removed because it breached planning rules.
Perhaps the most controversial part of the government’s plans is the building of 10,500 wind turbines. Of those, 3,500 are onshore and are likely to face strong opposition.
Among proposals that have already been scrapped is a plan for a 27-turbine wind farm in the Lake District. Kyle Blue, who campaigned against the scheme, said: “The countryside round here was far too special to be ruined by wind turbines.”
The difficulty of hitting the 15% renewable target is illustrated by the fact the government wants to include the Severn Barrage – a tidal power station across the Severn estuary – in the official renewable figures for 2015. The scheme will not be completed until well after 2020.
The strategy says nearly 6% of electricity could be generated by bio-energy – the burning of wood and plants to generate electricity. It suggests nearly 880,000 acres could be turned over to bio-energy crops.
There are, however, concerns about the impact of a large increase in the use of bio-fuels on the environment and on food prices.
One of the dividends of a green energy revolution would be a reduction of more than 5% in oil use by 2020. It would also significantly reduce the UK’s carbon emissions.
The government’s renewable energy strategy was welcomed yesterday by environmental campaigners. John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: “If this plan becomes a reality, Britain will be a better, safer and more prosperous country.
“We’ll create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and use less gas, and in the long run our power bills will come down.”
Source - The Times
Sunday, 20 April 2008
The cost of green tinkering is in famine and starvation
Farewell the age of reason, welcome the idiocracy. Only George Orwell could have invented - and named - the government's Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) that came into operation yesterday. It is the latest in a long line of measures intended to ease the conscience of the rich while keeping the poor miserable, in this case spectacularly so.
The consequences of the RTFO have been much trumpeted on these pages. It says enough that one car tank of bio petrol needs as much grain as it takes to feed an African for a year, or that a reported one-third of American grain production is now subsidised for conversion into biofuel. Jeremy Paxman pleaded the cause of this latest green wheeze on Monday's Newsnight, while the United Nations food expert, Jean Ziegler, screamed for it to stop: "Children are dying ... It is a crime."
The transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, said this week: "The government has consistently stressed that biofuels are only worth supporting if they deliver genuine environmental benefits." Yet she must know that, at present, the opposite is the case. Kelly pleaded that rescinding her policy might impede investment and "weaken our influence over the direction of EU policy". She did not mention biofuels' threat to rainforests, food self-sufficiency and global warming generally, through needing costly fertiliser and road transport. Nor did she mention the role in her decision of such lobbies as the British Association for Biofuels and Oils, and the National Farmers' Union.
The RTFO is the latest in a series of policies, proselytised by the green movement and then commandeered by commercial lobbies, which fit a pattern of irrationality worthy of Moral Re-Armament. Until recently, most greenery has seemed no more than a feelgood parlour game. Now it is getting serious.
I have tried to follow the global warming debate, and will admit that it has changed my mind on occasions. I was once a sceptic on nuclear power and genetically modified foods. Security made the former expensive, and ignorance made the latter suspect, vulnerable to such greed-motivated cul-de-sacs as the "terminator gene" (increasing output but for just one harvest). I could also see the virtue of harnessing wind and waves, and seeking new ways of using the sun's rays, either directly or through plant photosynthesis.
Source - green tinkering famine and starvation
The consequences of the RTFO have been much trumpeted on these pages. It says enough that one car tank of bio petrol needs as much grain as it takes to feed an African for a year, or that a reported one-third of American grain production is now subsidised for conversion into biofuel. Jeremy Paxman pleaded the cause of this latest green wheeze on Monday's Newsnight, while the United Nations food expert, Jean Ziegler, screamed for it to stop: "Children are dying ... It is a crime."
The transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, said this week: "The government has consistently stressed that biofuels are only worth supporting if they deliver genuine environmental benefits." Yet she must know that, at present, the opposite is the case. Kelly pleaded that rescinding her policy might impede investment and "weaken our influence over the direction of EU policy". She did not mention biofuels' threat to rainforests, food self-sufficiency and global warming generally, through needing costly fertiliser and road transport. Nor did she mention the role in her decision of such lobbies as the British Association for Biofuels and Oils, and the National Farmers' Union.
The RTFO is the latest in a series of policies, proselytised by the green movement and then commandeered by commercial lobbies, which fit a pattern of irrationality worthy of Moral Re-Armament. Until recently, most greenery has seemed no more than a feelgood parlour game. Now it is getting serious.
I have tried to follow the global warming debate, and will admit that it has changed my mind on occasions. I was once a sceptic on nuclear power and genetically modified foods. Security made the former expensive, and ignorance made the latter suspect, vulnerable to such greed-motivated cul-de-sacs as the "terminator gene" (increasing output but for just one harvest). I could also see the virtue of harnessing wind and waves, and seeking new ways of using the sun's rays, either directly or through plant photosynthesis.
Source - green tinkering famine and starvation
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
EU reveals energy plan of action
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has announced "historic" plans to make Europe "the first economy for the low-carbon age".
He said Europeans wanted "a vision and a plan of action" against climate change and the measures would cost 3 euros (£2.10) a week for every citizen.
The aim would be a 20% cut in the EU's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, which could rise to 30% with a global deal.
He told the European Parliament there was a cost, "but it was manageable".
'Not a bad deal'
Mr Barroso put the figure at 60bn euros a year until 2020: "a real commitment, but not a bad deal." It would mean a rise in electricity prices of 10-15% but there would be less reliance on energy imports.
He said work had to start to cut global emissions in half by 2050 and he said Europe could lead the way.
Addressing business critics who have complained that the proposals might drive industry away from the European Union, the commission president said energy-intensive industries would be given emission allowances free of charge.
He told MEPs the package was "not in favour of the environment and against the economy".
"We don't want to export our jobs to other parts of the world," he said.
Carbon allowances
Environmental groups believe the commission should be planning for the higher target of 30%.
"Scientists warn that a cut of at least 30% is required to prevent a climatic catastrophe," said Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth UK.
"The solutions already exist. What we lack is political ambition and courage."
EU'S 20/20/20 VISION: KEY AIMS AND POTENTIAL CHALLENGES
"Zero emission" house. Image: PA
AIM: reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020
AIM: reduction in energy imports, saving money and increasing energy security
AIM: world leadership in renewable energy technology
CHALLENGE: government and companies may try to weaken their emissions targets
CHALLENGE: some countries likely to find renewables targets very ambitious
CHALLENGE: wrangles likely over technicalities of ETS
Nations' reaction
Test your energy levels with our climate change quiz
The commission's proposals would see the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) extended to include more industrial sectors in the years between 2013 and 2020.
Apart from a few exempt industries, the power sector would lose the right to free emission allocations and have to buy all its permits at auction from 2013. Aviation and other industries would move gradually to a full auction.
Companies' carbon allowances would be decided at European level, replacing the current system where nations submit bids to the commission.
The aim would be to reduce allowances so that by 2020, emissions from the sectors included would be about 21% below the level they were when the ETS started in 2005.
For emissions not covered by the ETS, such as transport, buildings and agriculture, the commission has proposed national targets.
Richer nations would have to cut their emissions: the target for Denmark and the Irish Republic is a 20% reduction and the UK's is 16%. The poorest would be allowed to increase emissions, Bulgaria by 20% and Romania by 19%.
Carbon savings
Each country has been given a national target for renewable energy.
The UK's is 15%. Sweden which already has a thriving renewables industry has been given a tougher figure of 49%.
Graph showing greenhouse gas reduction targets
Countries would be allowed to trade investment in renewables facilities.
The target of powering 10% of Europe's road transport with biofuels has been retained.
But the Commission has drawn up a set of criteria designed to ensure the fuels used bring carbon savings of at least 35% compared to petrol or diesel, without causing other environmental problems
Before the commission's proposals are adopted, they will have to be endorsed by MEPs and member states. The final package might not come into force before the end of 2009.
Source - bbc
He said Europeans wanted "a vision and a plan of action" against climate change and the measures would cost 3 euros (£2.10) a week for every citizen.
The aim would be a 20% cut in the EU's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, which could rise to 30% with a global deal.
He told the European Parliament there was a cost, "but it was manageable".
'Not a bad deal'
Mr Barroso put the figure at 60bn euros a year until 2020: "a real commitment, but not a bad deal." It would mean a rise in electricity prices of 10-15% but there would be less reliance on energy imports.
He said work had to start to cut global emissions in half by 2050 and he said Europe could lead the way.
Addressing business critics who have complained that the proposals might drive industry away from the European Union, the commission president said energy-intensive industries would be given emission allowances free of charge.
He told MEPs the package was "not in favour of the environment and against the economy".
"We don't want to export our jobs to other parts of the world," he said.
Carbon allowances
Environmental groups believe the commission should be planning for the higher target of 30%.
"Scientists warn that a cut of at least 30% is required to prevent a climatic catastrophe," said Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth UK.
"The solutions already exist. What we lack is political ambition and courage."
EU'S 20/20/20 VISION: KEY AIMS AND POTENTIAL CHALLENGES
"Zero emission" house. Image: PA
AIM: reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020
AIM: reduction in energy imports, saving money and increasing energy security
AIM: world leadership in renewable energy technology
CHALLENGE: government and companies may try to weaken their emissions targets
CHALLENGE: some countries likely to find renewables targets very ambitious
CHALLENGE: wrangles likely over technicalities of ETS
Nations' reaction
Test your energy levels with our climate change quiz
The commission's proposals would see the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) extended to include more industrial sectors in the years between 2013 and 2020.
Apart from a few exempt industries, the power sector would lose the right to free emission allocations and have to buy all its permits at auction from 2013. Aviation and other industries would move gradually to a full auction.
Companies' carbon allowances would be decided at European level, replacing the current system where nations submit bids to the commission.
The aim would be to reduce allowances so that by 2020, emissions from the sectors included would be about 21% below the level they were when the ETS started in 2005.
For emissions not covered by the ETS, such as transport, buildings and agriculture, the commission has proposed national targets.
Richer nations would have to cut their emissions: the target for Denmark and the Irish Republic is a 20% reduction and the UK's is 16%. The poorest would be allowed to increase emissions, Bulgaria by 20% and Romania by 19%.
Carbon savings
Each country has been given a national target for renewable energy.
The UK's is 15%. Sweden which already has a thriving renewables industry has been given a tougher figure of 49%.
Graph showing greenhouse gas reduction targets
Countries would be allowed to trade investment in renewables facilities.
The target of powering 10% of Europe's road transport with biofuels has been retained.
But the Commission has drawn up a set of criteria designed to ensure the fuels used bring carbon savings of at least 35% compared to petrol or diesel, without causing other environmental problems
Before the commission's proposals are adopted, they will have to be endorsed by MEPs and member states. The final package might not come into force before the end of 2009.
Source - bbc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
