Renew On Line (UK) 28

Extracts from the Sept-Oct 2000 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it

WREC North meets South

The World Renewable Energy Congress at Brighton attracted over 800 participants from 94 countries, including many from the developing world, and as many again toured the excellent linked Renewable Energy 2000 exhibition- the largest so far in the UK. From these two events it seems clear that around the world something of a shift has occurred in strategic thinking- away from an emphasis just on large centralised grid-linked renewable projects and on to 'dispersed' systems, based on 'locally embedded' generators. In some cases these are still linked in to the grid, but equally, with 2 billion people in the world unlikely ever to be on grids, stand-alone 'micro generation' systems are now seen as a key way ahead, especially for PV solar (see Worldwatch on Microgeneration- discussed in Renew 126)

However, this change is not just limited to the developing world. Although there is still a focus in the industrialised world on large grid linked systems, the smaller decentralised systems once seen as relevant primarily to developing countries are now being seen as equally relevant to the developed world- a point hammered home in Walt Pattersons presentation at WREC- and an idea that also emerged in a recent US report (see later).

In the UK, the transition to a more dispersed approach is however still being blocked by the slow development of 'net metering' arrangements, to allow small independent suppliers, and even domestic level generators, access to fair prices for their contributions. So far, the government seems unwilling to accept this (see Renew 125). TXU Europe has however gone ahead unilaterally with their SolarNet scheme (see Renew 126) for power from individual PV solar units- although it seems that so far there have only been a few takers. But other companies may follow- we hear that Power Gen is planning a similar scheme.

New Technology

PV solar is clearly the new kid on the block, but, as was evident at Brighton, the other new renewables are also coming up fast - wavepower and tidal current power in particular. On wave power, Wavegens new 500kW shoreline 'Limpet" oscillating water column project, currently being constructed on Islay, was featured strongly, as was Ocean Power Deliveries 750kW 'Pelamis' sea snake wave energy converter- both of these having got support under the Scottish Renewable Order. On tidal current power, there was IT Power's 300kW Marine Current Turbine, soon to be installed off the coast of Devon near Lynmouth, and the Active Water Column designed by the Northumbia based Engineering Business, a development of the OWC concept, with a fin arrangement transforming horizontal tidal flow energy into vertical motion. The Engineering Business have also developed another device, with a series of parallel fins, something like a vintage multi-wing aeroplane, called the Stingray. They want to build a 750kW unit. We'll be looking at it, and other tidal and wave devices, in Renew 128.

Offshore wave and tidal systems could be very useful in remote island sites in the developing world, but they clearly also have a role in the industrialised world, even if then there is the cost of making links to the main power grid. Against that though, is the likelihood that the environmental impact of offshore wave and tidal systems will be less than that for most land based renewables The same also goes for offshore wind and there was plenty of discussion about that, and wind power generally, at Brighton. The worlds overall wind generating capacity has now passed 14 Gigawatts, and there are ambitious plans for the future- for example India wants to have 6 GW installed by 2010.

KYOTO and the CDM

The Kyoto Climate Change Protocol was the focus of much discussion at Brighton. There was a special 'Millennium debate' on Kyoto at WREC, with the motion being 'the Kyoto protocol is a significant step towards the global use of renewables'. The debate turned on the word 'significant'. While everyone hoped that the Kyoto accord and the mechanisms for promoting it would provide a significant stimulus to renewables, there were clearly fears about the various loopholes in the agreement and the risk of co-option of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by nuclear and other non renewable interests. So much so that the conference voted, narrowly, against the motion.

A special session at WREC on the CDM highlighted some of the problems. Speakers from Chatham House and the DETR described the complex administrative mechanisms that were being developed to ensure proper accreditation of emission savings from projects supported under the scheme. But then a speaker from BP Amoco pointed out how difficult all this bureaucracy would be for small projects- such as a PV array on a village hut in a remote part of the world.

Clearly this could be a real problem. Individually the emission savings would be tiny, but collectively, if we really were going to try to provide power to the 2 billion people currently not on the grid, the sums would add up. However, we could hardly expect detailed emission assessments from each one. In which case, the CDM could end up being dominated by larger schemes, since they would be easier to assess and monitor. That after all was also where the big money would be. It is estimated that the CDM could lead to between £10-25 billion in international cash flows annually- and the big companies with big projects would obviously be keen to get on board. One table shown at the meeting indicated that nuclear projects might lead to14 - 29 million tonnes of carbon savings by 2010, large hydro 96-199mTc, while improvements in and switching between fossil fuel use might yield up to 121mTc - all on a business as usual approach. By comparison, renewables might only offer savings of 7-15mTC.

Fortunately, as we report later, there have been moves by the EU to try to keep nuclear out of the CDM and focus just on renewables and energy efficiency, but this issue has yet to be finally resolved. We await the outcome of COP-6 in Nov.

At WREC, the BP speaker suggested that small renewable schemes should be aggregated within the CDM- and the 'additionality' requirement be dropped for them. Under the current proposals, schemes had to prove that they were 'additional' to what would happen anyway, in order to get CDM support. One problem with this, quite apart from the difficulty on trying to prove 'additionality' for small projects, was that other types of development funding might be withdrawn if funding agencies thought that CDM support was going to be available- whereas it would be surely be better if the CDM funding was additional to existing ODA type funding.

The debate over funding mechanisms for projects in developing countries will obviously continue- it's a vital one if a sustainable energy future globally is to be reached. As WREC illustrated, the technology is there, mainly in the North, and the need is there, particularly in the South. Somehow, these two, and the enthusiasm so apparent at WREC, have to be brought together- and the CDM could be the key to technology transfer, if it can be simplified and targeted effectively.

We’ll be looking at WREC in more detail in Renew 128