‘Emissions have increased for the second year
running, above levels when the government first came into office (1997)
and this is largely due to increased coal-burn,’
according to Colin Godfrey, of CLG Energy Consultants.
The government's target of cutting emissions by
23% on 1990 levels by 2010 is partly based on the assumption electricity
producers would continue to opt for clean-burning gas fired power stations.
But the ‘dash for gas’ has stalled because of increased wholesale gas
prices, and with electricity prices falling, electricity generators
are turning to cheaper but dirtier coal. Government figures show that
in the first quarter of 2001 coal consumption rose 17.4% against 3.6
% for gas. In 2000 the amount of coal burned in power stations rose
15% compared with 1999 levels. In contrast gas use rose only 0.7 %.
Burning coal to produce electricity currently works
out at about £12 a megawatt hour against about £12.5 when burning gas.
Coal plant is also a more flexible than gas-fired generation, an attribute
that has become more prized following the introduction of the NETA.
But coal produces about double the amount of carbon dioxide per kWh
of electricity produced compared with gas.
Nevertheless, according to the FT, Powergen is bringing
a 485 MW coal-fired unit back into use at its Kingsnorth power station-
it had been out of operation since 1996. And it is planning to mothball
a 450 MW gas-fired unit at Killingholme power station in April 2002.
Innogy has brought back a 340 MW coal-fired unit at its Tilbury power
station, which had been off line for three years, and, the FT says,
there are rumours that International Power may mothball its 500MW gas-fired
Deeside plant and rely on output from its recently acquired 1,000 MW
Rugeley coal-fired station.
* In its new report Cambridge Econometrics also
concludes that "he achievement of
the government's own 20 % reduction target looks increasingly unattainable",
in part due to the gas price rises, but
also since NETA has cut electricity prices and encouraged consumption,
so that far from falling below their 1990 levels, CO2 emissions from
households will be 19% higher in 2010.
10.Ups and downs in Europe
Europe’s PV sunrise
A boom in the installation of photovoltaic
(PV) solar panels has been forecast by the 47 company strong European
Photovoltaic Industry Association, which met in Switzerland, last Sept.,
with growth targets of 3 gigawatts of installed capacity by 2010 expected
to be exceeded.
The installation of photovoltaic systems is growing
by about 30 % a year, and up to 100,000 new jobs could be created in
the industry as a result, the meeting heard. However, warnings were
also sounded that the price of the technology needed to be trimmed if
it is to break through to a substantially larger market share. More
information: www.epia.org
But Clouds ahead?
Meanwhile, German solar firms are optimistic
despite rumblings from the EU about the REFIT renewable feed in subsidy-
and possible R&D cut backs. Germany is the EU market leader, and,
globally, is number three after Japan and the U.S.A. in terms of installed
capacity of photovoltaic technology. Germany’s solar sector depends
on the Renewable Energy Law (EEG) that allows solar power producers
to charge 99 pfennigs/(kWh for solar-generated electricity fed into
the grid compared with costs for conventional electricity of 6 pf/kWh.
However, according to Reuters, EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti
has repeated his opposition to the EEG as a government subsidy, while
German Economics Minister Werner Mueller said last summer that he wanted
a cut in the research budget for renewables. With Germany’s red-green
governmental coalition shaken by disagreements over support for U.S.
policy in the middle east, it is not clear which way it will go, but
the renewable advocates are still optimistic that renewables will win
through.
For example, Hermann Scheer, president of the European
solar energy association Eurosolar has argued that the high cost of
PV should not deter the promotion of solar energy, which, along with
other renewable energies like wind, biomass and geothermal, will, he
said, eventually replace the conventional centralised supply system.
"Some 80% of conventional electricity costs cover distribution,
while renewable energies do not need long-distance transmission lines
and will save on this huge transport cost."
See our Reviews and Technology Sections in Renew
136 for more on PV.
Sweden tightens up
Sweden’s Society for Nature’s Conservation
is sharpening its criteria for green electricity from renewable energy
sources, so as to boost environmental awareness and improve product
standard. The group sells the label "Bra Miljoval" to companies,
aiming to assure customers that products, ranging from electricity to
washing powder, have been produced with methods that harm nature as
little as possible. "Bra Miljoval" is, together with the U.S.
label "Green-e", one of the oldest tags for renewable energy
such as solar, wind, biomass and hydropower. The new restrictions focus
on hydropower and stipulate that producers invest money in a fund to
choose from a list of measures to protect the environment for animals
and plants near hydropower stations. "The criteria for hydropower
were not tough enough so there was room to make changes as part of our
perpetual work to boost environment awareness", Fredrik Lindberg,
spokesman at the society, told Reuters. Some of the alternatives involved
regulation of the water stream at water reservoirs. Power producers
would no longer be allowed to cut the water flow entirely to get the
maximum price. Lindberg said "It is
very harmful to nature if you cut the stream totally".
Lindberg said it was still unclear how costly the
new restrictions would be to companies but argued that there was leverage
to increase the fees on green hydropower which is a relatively cheap
energy source. "Companies make large profits from green hydropower
and therefore I don’t think it's more than right that nature should
gain something out of that", he said. Biomass and windpower
criteria also became tougher as the agency has sought to curb harmful
tree felling and forbid the construction of wind turbines in nature
reserves.
Major Danish Cuts
Denmark may now
get 12% of its electricity from wind turbines, but things are looking
grim for the future. On January 29, 2002, the newly elected liberal/conservative
Danish government presented the draft budget for 2002 and beyond. As
a result, it seems, most of the R&D programmes, financial support,
committees, and government agencies that have been crucial in the development
of renewables will immediately be cancelled or dissolved. Many other
environmental projects and overseas aid programmes will also be cut.
The government will spend the 20m euro saved on hospitals, senior citizens
and a 1yr maternity leave programme. It appears from the draft budget
that most of the funding of renewables has been eliminated- and the
new government has the parliamentary majority to implement its plans.
Needless to say, most people see this as a disaster for many Danish
innovative institutes, companies, inventors, investors, and organisations
involved with renewables.
Fortunately, the Risø State Laboratory will
still have public support in the future, and the budget of its wind
energy department will be go up from 70m DKK in 2001 to 112m in 2002.
But it should be noted that the Danish installation of wind energy dropped
from 600 MW in 2000 to 10 MW in 2001. The government has also cancelled
plans for large scale off shore wind power. The power companies are
no longer obliged to continue the off-shore programme; no public funding
or guaranteed tariffs are available.
Why has all this happened? The Danish Folkcentre
for Renewable Energy, which also lost its funding, suggest that,
after having lost over 50% of their market share in power production
to non- utilities (wind power, biogas, small scale CHP) in W. Denmark,
‘the central utilities have lobbied strongly
to bring a stop to the successful decentralised renewable energy development.
The government has followed the desires of the old energy sector that
now is promising energy at low market prices’.
There are also evidently indications that the new government may reintroduce
plans for nuclear energy in Denmark, despite nuclear having been ruled
out in 1985.
* To add to the crisis, as noted in Renew 134, the
Danish scheme for supporting renewable energy via the issuing of green
certificates has been having problems. Now, apparently, the Danes are
going to pull out of the new approach - which is of a similar type to
the UK’s new Renewables Obligation. Sales in Denmark have been abysmal
since the new mechanism was set up. Whilst it’s not yet clear what will
be the alternative, staying with the current REFIT mechanism seems favourite,
particularly given the period of remission that the ECJ gave the German
REFIT.
Details at www.windpower.dk/articles/onice.htm
