The good news for Britain’s energy supply is that the sheer scale of the recession has cut our electricity demand and carbon emissions. An impending energy security crunch has been postponed.
The bad news is that the recession will almost certainly delay investment in Britain’s energy infrastructure and encourage complacency.
Energy security is no longer something that we can take for granted. This week more than 100 people were arrested in Nottingham over a suspected plan to disrupt a nearby power station. Will there will be more disruptions at other coal-fired power stations or against new nuclear developments now that we know more about where they will be sited?
For the past two decades we have had ample reserves to absorb the shocks: now the margins are beginning to wear thin. Many of the existing power stations were built in the 1970s or earlier. All the coal-fired stations are more than 30 years old, as are most of the nuclear ones. They are all coming to the end of their lives and their reliability is inevitably beginning to suffer. Although significant numbers of gas power stations have been added, North Sea gas and oil supplies have been depleted at breakneck speed. After decades as an energy exporter, Britain now relies increasingly on imports of gas and coal.
Fast-forward to 2015 and the energy position could be precarious. By then the remaining coal power stations will be facing closure because of the pollution control requirements of the EU directive on large combustion plants. By then all except one of the existing nuclear stations will also be closed or facing closure. Having to replace so much coal and nuclear capacity in such a short period is unprecedented – except perhaps in wartime.
And at the same time because of the EU Renewables Directive the Government has committed itself to a crash programme to increase wind’s share of electricity generation from the current 5 per cent to perhaps 35 per cent by 2020. But not only will wind power do little to combat global climate change (the big issue is the projected increases in coal burn in China, India and developing countries), it is also expensive and may even reduce the security of supply. It is uncertain too. Few think that wind supply on this scale will be achieved – though, unsurprisingly, few politicians will admit this in public.
What will fill the gap and at the same time back up the intermittent wind? The answer appears to be gas, gas and more gas. We will be lucky if even a single new nuclear station comes on stream by 2020. The carbon emissions from new coal stations will need to be sequestrated underground, and that technology is not likely to be commercially available until well after 2020. So before 2020 it would have to be “unabated” coal – which sits uncomfortably with the climate change objectives.
The chances of enough gas stations being built on time are not looking good, so the gas will have to be imported, and at a time when across Europe everyone is dashing for gas too. The Russians are not increasing investment in new gas resources and doubts remain about their ability to meet Europe’s demand. Liquefied natural gas will be used to plug this gap, but the sources of supply are quite limited and again lots of other countries (especially the US and Japan) will want it too.
The scale of the investment required to plug the energy gap while pursuing renewables is enormous. The cost of building not only power stations, but also new transmission networks and gas storage facilities, fitting smart meters, developing an offshore wind industry and implementing energy efficiency measures will run to tens of billions, possibly more than £100billion in the next decade. Though the recession has brought a breathing space on the demand side of the equation, it has markedly worsened investment on the supply side. The credit crisis has made it harder and more expensive to finance investment; just when the investment is needed, finance has dried up.
This matters not only for customers – though they are likely to be paying a lot more. The rest of the economy depends on energy supply. Have a bit too much and we pay a small premium. Have too little and we pay a lot. These costs are the real burden on the economy and they are felt long before any physical interruption in supply. We should worry less about the lights going out and more about the costs to the economy of running our energy system on the edge.
Russia’s interruptions of its gas supplies to Europe for three weeks in January was another warning, as well as performance failures at our existing nuclear power stations. These may be isolated instances, but our vulnerability to such events indicates that all may not be entirely well with our energy systems.
Source - The Times
Showing posts with label recession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recession. Show all posts
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Empire State Building gets a green makeover to cut CO2 emissions
The Empire State Building, the symbol of New York's pre-eminence that held the title of the world's tallest skyscraper for 41 years, is seeking to pierce through the pall of economic gloom that has descended on Manhattan by turning itself green.
The owners of the building announced yesterday they were investing an additional $20m to reduce its carbon footprint and energy consumption. The retrofit is being added to a renovation of the art deco structure that starts this summer already costing half a billion dollars.
It takes a certain pluck to announce such a substantial investment in the middle of a recession. But then the Empire State Building was born in hard times.
Work on the site in midtown Manhattan began in January 1930, months after the Wall Street crash. It went up as the New York and US economies went down.
Now the current owners of the 102-storey office block, Wien & Malkin, hope to buck the economic trend again by improving the building and charging higher rents. Part of the hard sell to potential new clients will be its "greenness" once the work is completed in 2013.
The plan aims to cut the use of energy by almost 40%, which would in turn reduce the emissions of CO2 from the building by some 105,000 metric tonnes a year. That is no easy feat, bearing in mind that the Empire State has some 6,500 windows, 73 elevators and a total floorspace of 2.6 million square feet.
All the windows will have an extra layer of insulation added by secreting a coated film between two glass panes - done in situ to avoid pollution caused by transporting the glass from an outside destination. Insulation will be added behind radiators, and the cooling system in the basement will be replaced with new more efficient machines.
Individual workers in the office spaces will be encouraged to take responsibility for their own emissions by being given access through their computers to monitors which will tell them how much energy is being expended in their part of the building.
None of the changes though will be visible to the outside world. The owners have decided that the famous coloured lights - the top of the Empire State turns green, for instance, on St Patrick's day and was a patriotic red, white and blue for several months after 9/11 - will remain intact, arguing they are responsible for relatively little energy consumption.
Source - The Guardian
The owners of the building announced yesterday they were investing an additional $20m to reduce its carbon footprint and energy consumption. The retrofit is being added to a renovation of the art deco structure that starts this summer already costing half a billion dollars.
It takes a certain pluck to announce such a substantial investment in the middle of a recession. But then the Empire State Building was born in hard times.
Work on the site in midtown Manhattan began in January 1930, months after the Wall Street crash. It went up as the New York and US economies went down.
Now the current owners of the 102-storey office block, Wien & Malkin, hope to buck the economic trend again by improving the building and charging higher rents. Part of the hard sell to potential new clients will be its "greenness" once the work is completed in 2013.
The plan aims to cut the use of energy by almost 40%, which would in turn reduce the emissions of CO2 from the building by some 105,000 metric tonnes a year. That is no easy feat, bearing in mind that the Empire State has some 6,500 windows, 73 elevators and a total floorspace of 2.6 million square feet.
All the windows will have an extra layer of insulation added by secreting a coated film between two glass panes - done in situ to avoid pollution caused by transporting the glass from an outside destination. Insulation will be added behind radiators, and the cooling system in the basement will be replaced with new more efficient machines.
Individual workers in the office spaces will be encouraged to take responsibility for their own emissions by being given access through their computers to monitors which will tell them how much energy is being expended in their part of the building.
None of the changes though will be visible to the outside world. The owners have decided that the famous coloured lights - the top of the Empire State turns green, for instance, on St Patrick's day and was a patriotic red, white and blue for several months after 9/11 - will remain intact, arguing they are responsible for relatively little energy consumption.
Source - The Guardian
Recession takes bite out of organic product sales
Official confirmation that the organic revolution has stalled came today as the leading industry body admitted sales of many popular and premium products fell last year.
The Soil Association, which certifies about eight out of ten products on sale in UK shops, said the value of sales in 2008 rose by 1.7% to a little over £2bn, but inflation in food prices masked a slump in sales by volume.
The rise in income compared to a 7% increase in overall food prices, said the organisation. "We're inferring from this 7% rise that volume has probably gone down," said a spokeswoman.
Hardest hit were premium brands and prepared foods, such as frozen meals, while popular fruit and vegetables - two of the three biggest selling organic lines - both saw declines.
However, some products appeared to be riding out the recession, especially those linked to high-profile TV shows highlighting animal welfare problems, said the association. The celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's series Hugh's Chicken Run may have contributed to a 17.7% increase in poultry sales, while organic milk and cheese sales both rose more than 10%. Textiles and health and beauty products sales increased strongly, although they make up a tiny part of the total market.
Previous reports suggested sales of organic produce have fallen even more steeply: retail research specialist TNS said that at the end of January annual volume sales of bread were 29% lower, fruit 20% lower, eggs 12% lower and vegetables 8% lower.
Martin Cottingham, author of the Soil Association report, said it was "impossible" to predict yet when the organic market would recover because this would be closely linked to the economy.
However, he said there were tentative signs that the market was stabilising after a particularly sharp drop in confidence during the last few months of last year. "October, November and December was something like panic non-buying ... because suddenly it was a recession," said Cottingham. "Some of the people have told me they experienced a demand dip at that time [but] some have said they have either levelled off or modestly picked up in the new year."
The report also said there was a "core" of shoppers who would continue to buy organic and said that long term, the industry should benefit as the UK needed to cut greenhouse gases, including emissions from chemical fertilisers used in intensive farming.
Source - The Guardian
The Soil Association, which certifies about eight out of ten products on sale in UK shops, said the value of sales in 2008 rose by 1.7% to a little over £2bn, but inflation in food prices masked a slump in sales by volume.
The rise in income compared to a 7% increase in overall food prices, said the organisation. "We're inferring from this 7% rise that volume has probably gone down," said a spokeswoman.
Hardest hit were premium brands and prepared foods, such as frozen meals, while popular fruit and vegetables - two of the three biggest selling organic lines - both saw declines.
However, some products appeared to be riding out the recession, especially those linked to high-profile TV shows highlighting animal welfare problems, said the association. The celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's series Hugh's Chicken Run may have contributed to a 17.7% increase in poultry sales, while organic milk and cheese sales both rose more than 10%. Textiles and health and beauty products sales increased strongly, although they make up a tiny part of the total market.
Previous reports suggested sales of organic produce have fallen even more steeply: retail research specialist TNS said that at the end of January annual volume sales of bread were 29% lower, fruit 20% lower, eggs 12% lower and vegetables 8% lower.
Martin Cottingham, author of the Soil Association report, said it was "impossible" to predict yet when the organic market would recover because this would be closely linked to the economy.
However, he said there were tentative signs that the market was stabilising after a particularly sharp drop in confidence during the last few months of last year. "October, November and December was something like panic non-buying ... because suddenly it was a recession," said Cottingham. "Some of the people have told me they experienced a demand dip at that time [but] some have said they have either levelled off or modestly picked up in the new year."
The report also said there was a "core" of shoppers who would continue to buy organic and said that long term, the industry should benefit as the UK needed to cut greenhouse gases, including emissions from chemical fertilisers used in intensive farming.
Source - The Guardian
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Warning over renewables as economic crisis leaves funding gap
Scant aid, too much hype and unrealistic targets threaten climate-change pledges by Terry Macalister and David Adam.
Green power companies are heading for "crisis" and Britain should no longer rely on them to meet its energy security and climate change obligations, some industry experts are warning.
The difficulties - triggered by the credit crunch, recession and a collapse in the carbon price - have led to new demands this weekend to ministers from companies warning that their renewables schemes are at risk without more financial aid.
Over the past week alone, the previously fast-growing renewable energy sector has seen Shell decide to stop building wind and solar schemes worldwide, the wave company Pelamis hit by technical and financial troubles, and EDF Energy warn that UK renewables targets would not be realised and should be scaled back to achievable levels.
In addition, a group of more than 40 businesses has taken the unique step of writing collectively to Joan Ruddock, the energy and climate change minister, warning her of the threats to a host of projects unless something is done.
"I think it's heading towards a crisis," said Andrew Mill, who sits on the government's Renewables Advisory Board. "The government has done a lot in terms of policies and targets, but the reality is that it was always going to take a lot of money to make it happen. And that money is not coming through quickly enough."
The situation could be worse because green industry figures often suggest that everything is fine, argues Mill. "A lot of the [renewable companies] can't afford to talk about it as they need to be seen as a good investment. If they don't give out a good story then they can't raise money."
The problems stretch across the industry, he said, from small marine energy companies to large-scale investments in offshore wind farms that are expected to form the cornerstone of ambitious plans to generate 15% of Britain's energy from renewable sources by 2020. "The big utilities are struggling to raise project finance for inshore wind farms, and they were supposed to be the easy projects."
"There is a serious problem," agrees John Constable, head of policy at the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF). "I warned a year ago that the industry was being set up for a fall and now it has happened. There has been too much hype and the government was always far too unrealistic about what could be achieved."
David MacKay, a Cambridge University professor and author of a new book, Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air, also agrees. "It may well be that renewables has been overhyped and there is a backlash against it ... There is a big, big problem compared with a year ago. I know a number of people who are unable to get investment for the kind of new technology we need for a low-carbon future."
Leading companies such as BT, Marks & Spencer and United Utilities have told Ruddock that they are "concerned over the current barriers to renewable energy investment and generation by the corporate sector".
The British Wind Energy Association, which usually paints an unfailingly upbeat picture and which has just wrung a series of new subsidy concessions from ministers, will demand in a budget submission to be unveiled in two weeks' time more help for an industry hit by a shortage of bank finance, the plunging value of the pound and mounting equipment costs.
The London Array, potentially the biggest offshore wind farm in the world, is already known to be under threat because of the changed economic conditions. Shell pulled out last year and Centrica and E.ON have both voiced major concerns about the prospects for big wind schemes, which are essential if the UK is to meet its targets for renewable power.
The Carbon Capture & Storage Association has also written to the chancellor, Alistair Darling, saying government hopes of meeting carbon-reduction targets using CCS are doomed "without a serious and urgent commitment to funding from the UK government".
The REF says that some of the £1bn annual subsidy that already goes into green schemes through the Renewable Obligations Certificates should be used to bolster the "utterly disgraceful" low levels of research and development funding.
Constable also believes that Britain could be left having to use more gas or even coal plants to keep the lights on, accepting that even the "super-critical new efficient coal plants like the one E.ON wants to construct at Kingsnorth would leave us breaching our carbon-emission targets".
Source - The guardian
Green power companies are heading for "crisis" and Britain should no longer rely on them to meet its energy security and climate change obligations, some industry experts are warning.
The difficulties - triggered by the credit crunch, recession and a collapse in the carbon price - have led to new demands this weekend to ministers from companies warning that their renewables schemes are at risk without more financial aid.
Over the past week alone, the previously fast-growing renewable energy sector has seen Shell decide to stop building wind and solar schemes worldwide, the wave company Pelamis hit by technical and financial troubles, and EDF Energy warn that UK renewables targets would not be realised and should be scaled back to achievable levels.
In addition, a group of more than 40 businesses has taken the unique step of writing collectively to Joan Ruddock, the energy and climate change minister, warning her of the threats to a host of projects unless something is done.
"I think it's heading towards a crisis," said Andrew Mill, who sits on the government's Renewables Advisory Board. "The government has done a lot in terms of policies and targets, but the reality is that it was always going to take a lot of money to make it happen. And that money is not coming through quickly enough."
The situation could be worse because green industry figures often suggest that everything is fine, argues Mill. "A lot of the [renewable companies] can't afford to talk about it as they need to be seen as a good investment. If they don't give out a good story then they can't raise money."
The problems stretch across the industry, he said, from small marine energy companies to large-scale investments in offshore wind farms that are expected to form the cornerstone of ambitious plans to generate 15% of Britain's energy from renewable sources by 2020. "The big utilities are struggling to raise project finance for inshore wind farms, and they were supposed to be the easy projects."
"There is a serious problem," agrees John Constable, head of policy at the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF). "I warned a year ago that the industry was being set up for a fall and now it has happened. There has been too much hype and the government was always far too unrealistic about what could be achieved."
David MacKay, a Cambridge University professor and author of a new book, Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air, also agrees. "It may well be that renewables has been overhyped and there is a backlash against it ... There is a big, big problem compared with a year ago. I know a number of people who are unable to get investment for the kind of new technology we need for a low-carbon future."
Leading companies such as BT, Marks & Spencer and United Utilities have told Ruddock that they are "concerned over the current barriers to renewable energy investment and generation by the corporate sector".
The British Wind Energy Association, which usually paints an unfailingly upbeat picture and which has just wrung a series of new subsidy concessions from ministers, will demand in a budget submission to be unveiled in two weeks' time more help for an industry hit by a shortage of bank finance, the plunging value of the pound and mounting equipment costs.
The London Array, potentially the biggest offshore wind farm in the world, is already known to be under threat because of the changed economic conditions. Shell pulled out last year and Centrica and E.ON have both voiced major concerns about the prospects for big wind schemes, which are essential if the UK is to meet its targets for renewable power.
The Carbon Capture & Storage Association has also written to the chancellor, Alistair Darling, saying government hopes of meeting carbon-reduction targets using CCS are doomed "without a serious and urgent commitment to funding from the UK government".
The REF says that some of the £1bn annual subsidy that already goes into green schemes through the Renewable Obligations Certificates should be used to bolster the "utterly disgraceful" low levels of research and development funding.
Constable also believes that Britain could be left having to use more gas or even coal plants to keep the lights on, accepting that even the "super-critical new efficient coal plants like the one E.ON wants to construct at Kingsnorth would leave us breaching our carbon-emission targets".
Source - The guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
