Extracts from the May-June 2003 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it

2. White Paper Inputs and Outputs

Sustainability: a way to go

Just before the White Paper emerged, the Sustainable Development Commission produced an audit of the Government’s Climate Change Programme, which it claimed was in danger of failing to deliver on its key goal, a of a 20% cut in carbon dioxide emission by 2010. According to the Commission, the UK is unlikely to achieve even two-thirds of that reduction, and maybe less than half, since the appropriate measures were simply not in place. It noted that the emissions reductions from the 10 year transport plan are particularly at risk- energy demand in the transport sector is roaring ahead. In particular, international air travel, not even included in the calculations or the goal, threatens to blow away all the good work in industry and other sectors. New Statesman also produced an interesting Supplement on Energy- replete with BNFL plugs/sponsorship.

See: www.newstatesman.com/pdf/energysupplement.pdf

Strategy Unit Review

Another input to the White Paper process was the report prepared last year for the Prime Ministers Strategy Unit (which is what the Performance and Innovation Unit is now called) by ICCEPT, the Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology. ICCEPT was commissioned to analyse the potential of low carbon technologies for delivering deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 50 years and it concludes that it is technologically and economically feasible to move towards a near-zero carbon future. It highlights the technologies available now, or in the pipeline, and assesses the capacity of each to contribute towards climate change mitigation, under three broad headings:

• Low carbon sources of primary energy.
• Technologies for improving efficiency, energy conversion and use.
• New energy systems and facilitating technologies.

It highlights the most promising options for delivering deep carbon emission reductions as renewable energy technologies (including the marine options), efficiency in energy production, consumption and use, and hydrogen for transport and electricity generation. The hydrogen part is particularly good and brings together a lot of new material.

The report can be accessed from the Cabinet Office’s website at www.strategy.gov.uk

It was launched in Washington DC in February by Margaret Beckett. It seems that the idea was to try to show the Americans that the UK was adopting a progressive approach to new energy technology, which they ought to copy. She quoted Tony Blair’s view that ‘Economic growth and protecting the environment can be compatible, but we need a step change in our understanding of the science and technology capable of doing it’.

The timing seemed to be good, although interpretations of this message can differ. Thus when, a few days later, President George W. Bush launched his hydrogen fuel initiative, he mentioned biomass but seemed to see coal and nuclear, and even fusion, as the main sources of power for producing hydrogen for vehicles. He called for a $1.2 bn national commitment over the next five years ‘to take hydrogen fuel cell cars from the laboratory to the showroom’, thereby reducing the USA’s reliance on imported oil. More in Renew 144.

Meanwhile, the Royal Society published a plea by a group of eminent scientists who, with the White Paper in mind, recommended that the UK should build more nuclear plants. They claimed that ‘in the short to medium term, it is difficult to see how we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels without the help of nuclear power’. They added ‘most experts agree that the UK target of generating 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010 is already very ambitious. Higher levels of investment would be required to allow adequate development of renewables and energy-efficiency measures to completely make up for the shortfall in energy supply resulting from the closure of nuclear power stations.’ Well, most of us would no doubt agree with that last bit!

Certainly a big expansion in support for renewables and energy efficiency was called for in the Green Party’s ‘Alternative Energy Review’, which emerged in April as their response to the White paper, which they depict as ‘greenwash’. The Greens want Local Councils to be funded to play much more of a role. More in Renew 144.

Carbon Trust - £70m

In parallel with the publication of the White Paper, Tony Blair has announced the Carbon Trust’s first portfolio of projects which he said would amount to £70m in combined public-private investment. Projects include:

• Carbon Vision: a £14m R&D fund (jointly with the EPSRC) for universities for work on low carbon buildings, industrial processes and fuel cells.
• Portico Software: a Welsh-based part-funded research and development project of £340,000 on energy analysis and monitoring tools to provide more effective energy management for process industries such as steel and glass.
• European Marine Energy Centre: £6.7m in support for the publicly-funded marine test centre on the Orkneys for companies involved with wave and tidal power devices.
• Usher: support for a £4.5m demonstration project to link PVs to hydrogen production, storage and use in fuel cells.
• University of Glamorgan: £76,000 research project for producing sustainable hydrogen from starch for fuel cells.
• Part-funding for B9 Energy Biomass: Northern Ireland company developing biomass CHP plant.
• IT Power: £160,000 for a PV installation training project.
• Bowman Power: £16m for advanced gas turbine CHP systems.

The Carbon Trust will be making further project announcements soon. More info: www.thecarbontrust.co.uk

Response to the RCEP

In the Government’s formal response to the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, ‘Energy- The Changing Climate’, published by DEFRA at the same time as the White Paper on Energy, the Government reiterates its commitment, as outlined in the White Paper, to the RCEP’s recommendation of a target of a 60% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 and deals with all the other RCEP’s recommendations in turn. On most, it can report some progress, e.g. on renewable energy targets and energy efficiency measures, but on some it is less forthcoming. For example, it argues that the Contraction and Convergence policy for emission reduction based on a per capita reductions globally, as promoted by Aubrey Myers, is only one of several possible approaches. It is also fairly dismissive of the idea of a carbon tax. It also repeats the conclusion in the White Paper that tidal barrages are not currently an attractive option. But on the rest of the renewables, like the White Paper, it is very positive.

Select Committee on R&D

The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology has been working, in parallel with the Energy Review, on a major review of R&D priorities for non fossil energy technology. Its report, now out, is pretty damning of the governments approach. It found that ‘the sums invested in public RD&D lack focus and are wholly insufficient in helping the UK meet its renewables targets, in absolute terms and in comparison with the UK's competitors.’ It also says that ‘there is a superabundance of funding bodies, resulting in fragmentation of effort and confusion in academia and industry’ and proposes a Renewable Energy Authority to provide drive and direction, plus a targeted carbon tax . More in Renew 144.