EERU Home pageRenew On-Line 11
Extracts from the news section of NATTA's bimonthy journal Renew, issue110, Nov- Dec 1997
NATTA is an independent information service based with the Energy and Environment Research Unit at the Open University. As with all NATTA publications the views expressed should not be taken to necessarily reflect those of EERU or the Open University. This material can be used freely as long as it not for commercial purposes, and as long as proper credit to NATTA is given.
Contents
Climate Change- the Road to Kyoto
1. Climate Debate Heats Up Globally
2. Clintons 1m Solar Roof' Plan
US Poll backs Action on Global Warming
3. Europe Pushes Ahead
4. EC Views: Euro-Green Paper: Renewable Permits
5. BP on Kyoto
6. Kyoto Lobbying
Sustainable Industry Lobby
Wind Lobby- EWEA
7. Greenpeace- 'Not Enough Sky'
GREENPEACE Campaign
100 Days of Action on Kyoto
8. FoE: ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE COULD CREATE 226,000 NEW JOBS
9. Nuclear Kyoto?
1. EUFORES
2. Green Power Consumers to Save the World
3.Green Industry Plan: £10m for Sustainable Technology
4. Battle on Sustainable Energy
Climate Change - the Road to Kyoto
1. Climate Debate Heats Up Globally
The international debate on what to do about global climate change has been heating up over the year - 1997 looks like being the hottest year for the debate, and also perhaps for the global climate, on record.
As noted in Renew 109, in June Tony Blair hit the UN Rio-II Summit hard, arguing that everyone had a responsibility to act - business, consumers, individuals.
He was batting on an easy wicket given that the UK had so far succeeded in reaching the carbon dioxide emissions target set at Rio (courtesy of the 'dash for gas'), whereas most other countries, Germany apart, had not.
The major problem areas were Canada, the USA and Australia. They, and Japan, had all continued to increase emissions. But the US administration seemed loath to respond - and Blair's call for lifestyle changes, quite apart from the EU proposal for a 15% C02 cutback for developed countries by 2010, was ignored.
In part the problem is the major oil, coal and car lobby, in the USA and elsewhere, coupled with the international financial system.
The US Institute for Policy Studies had claimed in a report released just before the UN and G7 summits, that oil, gas and coal projects financed by the World Bank since the Earth Summit will, over the lifetime of the projects, release more carbon dioxide than is now being produced each year by the entire planet.
"This is not only environmentally unsustainable, it is the height of hypocrisy for an institution entrusted with poverty alleviation, sustainable development and climate change mitigation" said the report's co-author, Daphne Wysham.
The report noted that the bank spends 100 times as much on fossil fuel developments as on the entire Global Environmental Facility budget intended for projects that "avert" greenhouse gas emissions.
In this context, the upcoming Climate Change Conference in Kyoto in Japan faces a difficult task.
It seems unlikely that the 15% reduction being sought by the EU will be accepted. Japan recently proposed just 5%, although this was widely criticised, not least by the UK Government, as being insufficient.
In July the US Senate passed a Resolution, by a vote of 95-0, recognising that climate change was indeed a problem, but insisting that the US should not commit itself to any specific agreement at Kyoto, unless the developing countries also made a commitment. Clinton obviously wants more, but maybe we will end up just with a 5% target and some 'emission trading' schemes.
And then,in Oct, in something of a surprise move, Cliton announced that, rather than negotiating on new post year 2000 tagets, the USA would simply be asking for the year 2000 deadline for the existing agreement, as negotiated at the Rio Earth Summit, to be postponed to 2008-2012. This led to widespread dismay around the world since it seemed to undermine the whole Kyoto rationale...
2. Clintons '1m Solar Roof' Plan
Although the USA seems to be dragging its feet in terms of making global commitments to emission targets, it is working on specific initiatives. Back in June, President Bill Clinton announced a 'Million Solar Roofs Program', part of his Administration's effort to cut global warming.
At the United Nations Earth Summit in June he outlined his plan, which includes assistance to developing nations for environmentally conscious energy use, strengthening of environmental standards for private investment projects in developing nations, a tripling of automobile fuel efficiency and a new solar photovoltaics initiative: "We will work with businesses and communities to use the sun's energy to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels by installing solar panels on one million more roofs around our nation by 2010. Capturing the sun's warmth can help us to turn down the Earth's temperature."
At a White House conference on climate change in July Clinton noted "it is obvious that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities to future generations unless we deal with our responsibility to the challenge of climate change", and added, quoting Vice president Gore, "... the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now a fact that global warming is for real."
He went on "And so what we are doing today is beginning a process in which we ask the American people to listen to evidence, to measure it against their own experience, but not to discount the weight of scientific authority if their own experience does not yet confirm what the overwhelming percentage of scientists believe to be fact today."
He concluded " I do want to say that I am convinced that when the nations of the world meet in Kyoto, Japan, in December on this issue, the United States has got to be committed to realistic and binding limits on our emission of greenhouse gases. Between now and then, we have to work with the American people to get them to share that commitment. We have to emphasize the flexible market-based approaches. We have to embrace research and development efforts in technology that that will help us to improve the economy - improve the environment while permitting our economy to grow."
However, the subsequent round of UN negotiations on climate change in Bonn, Germany did not make much progress. Next comes Kyoto.
For details of the US plan see http://www.eren.doe.gov/new/whats-new.htm
ONE RESPONSE to Clinton's comments on Climate Change at the White House conference in July was from Chrysler Corporation Chairman, President and CEO Robert J. Eaton:
"Instead of trying to put the U.S. on an energy diet by using taxes or some sort of rationing scheme, the U.S. should lead the way in a major push to develop breakthrough technologies that lead to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions".
US Poll backs Action on Global Warming
Americans are convinced that Global Climate Change is real, and believe that the problem can be solved without hurting the economy, according to an opinion poll conducted for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) The survey reveals that Americans, in surprising and overwhelming numbers, believe global warming is real and represents a serious threat. Conducted by The Mellman Group, the poll also shows the public rejects scientific "skeptics" who cast doubt on global climate change, strongly supports international efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and believes that strong measures can be taken without hurting the economy.
WWF new report, State of the Climate - A Time for Action, is a comprehensive account of the most current evidence and impacts of global warming across the world, including melting glaciers and permafrost, changes in animal and bird migrations, rising sea levels, drastic population declines among some species, and dying coral reefs.
Unlike the USA, the European Union seems to be adopting a fairly radical position on Climate Change and renewable energy these days. As we noted in Renew 108, there is talk of 15% or even 20% contributions. With figures like this being bandied about, it is important to be more specific about actually what is meant.
The 1994 Madrid Declaration, which emerged from Euro Conference in Madrid, called for renewables to substitute for 15% of conventional primary energy by 2010.
The Green Paper on Renewables produced as a discussion document by the European Commission last year (see Renew 107) proposed a target of a 12% contribution to EU energy consumption by 2010, which would result in a 20% reduction in energy imports to the EC.
The recently published TERES report (TERES II) which we mentioned in Renew 109 also sees renewables only supplying 12% of EC energy by 2010 - and 14% by 2020. However these figures are based on a slightly different method of statistical comparison, i.e. on actual energy use rather than on primary fuel use.
The 12% energy use figure converts to around 15% on a primary fuel substitution basis. Whatever the precise figures, the implication is that there will be a big expansion, since at present the total EC renewable energy contribution is only 5.4%. The next stage is the production of a EC White Paper.
The European Parliament is obviously keen to press ahead, to make it as radical as possible, and various lobbying groups are acting to support them, including EUFORES the European Forum for Renewable Energy Sources (see below).
Christos Papoutsis EC Commissioner responsible for Energy, was one of the supporters of 'The Declaration of Madrid', which set an objective to replace 15% of primary energy sources consumed in Europe with RES by 2010.
More recently, the Parliament adopted Peter Mombaur's report, which suggests the same objective. Is this realistic?
According to Papoutsis, interviewed in the EC 'Renewable Energy Journal' (No 5 - November 1996):
'This is not yet an official Commission objective but it could well be achieved, if the political will exists and the right policies are implemented at both Community and national levels. I entirely agree with Peter Mombaur, and I assure you that the Commission will soon implement an official action programme to reach this goal'.
Recent events make him even more confident:
'Following the recent more rapid penetration of wind energy in some Member States, and the joining of 3 new Member States to the EC, we have already achieved a 6% share of renewables in the overall energy supply in 1996'.
The three new members are Austria, Sweden and Finland, which joined to EU in 1995 and caused the share of renewable energies to increase from 3.6% to 5.1% overnight. These three new countries, already have a share of 30% of renewable energy sources in their primary energy demand - so they have already gone far beyond the target of 15% set for the European countries.
However the EC journal notes: 'the other 12 Members still wonder if they are able to reach the 15% target by the year 2010'.
Euro-Green Paper: Renewable Permits
The European Commission's Green Paper on renewables (see Renew 107) proposes that a specified percentage of a country's electricity requirements will have to be met from renewable sources and that each electricity supplier or utility will be given their own target, with the potential for trading in credits if the company is unable to satisfy its demand or has produced in excess and wants to sell on the surplus.
The Netherlands have a plan for such an obligation already. The idea is also supported by the renewables lobby in the European Parliament. Prominent Euro MP Eryl McNally wants renewables to have a higher profile and thus proposed the creation of a Eurenew Treaty to rival the Euratom Treaty launched in 1958. She also wants a Joint Renewables Research Centre established - with a 2 bn ecu budget. See Windirections Vol XVI No 4 July 1997.
We need to take precautionary action now' So said BP Chief Executive John Browne, discussing Climate Change at a recent meeting in Berlin.
'Developing the right policies to deal with that situation will be a complex process. The problem won't be solved by denying or restricting the economic expectations of the people of Asia, or Africa or Latin America. Nor will it be resolved by destroying the living standards of the world's developed economies. The first would be immoral the second unrealistic'
He added ' Kyoto is an important meeting but it is just one more step in a continuing process. I hope that some measure of agreement will be reached, and that it will lead to the involvement of the whole world.
That wide involvement is necessary to remove the concern, which is felt in different ways in both the developed and the developing world, that participation in the process will create a competitive disadvantage if others opt out.'
He then went on to outline 'three policy instruments which seem likely to be taken up by different governments ' - taxation, emission trading and joint implementation.
On taxation, he felt that 'the test of any proposed tax in this area should be its actual impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So called "green taxes" can't simply be a politically convenient means of raising revenue. In the UK we have long experience of petrol taxation. More than two thirds of the price of a gallon is now accounted for by tax of one sort or another. Those taxes raise a lot of revenue -but they don't change behaviour - consumption continues to rise. Those taxes don't create real incentives for change - because the choices available to consumers are too limited.
To be effective taxation designed to improve the efficiency of energy consumption would have to cover all industry sectors and to be based on a level playing field between fuels. It would need to be set at a rate which actually changed behaviour, with the revenue used to give manufacturers and consumers the opportunity as well as the incentive to reduce emissions - by changing the fuel mix or using improved technology.
In terms of emission trading he noted that the U.S. 'already operates two domestic permit trading systems, one aimed at curbing sulphur emissions, the other at phasing out ozone-depleting substances. The sulphur trading system has been hailed by many as a great success. Since it began in 1992, five auctions have taken place on the trading floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, seven million allowances have been sold and the price per allowance has fallen by almost 50%. The result has been a 5.6 million tonne reduction in sulphur emissions with the prospect of a further 4.4. million tonne improvement by 2010. On this basis the programme will meet its objective which is to cut sulphur emissions by 40 per cent from a 1980 baseline'.
And he seemed hopeful that carbon emission trading could build on this experience.
He saw Joint Implementation as 'doing the most effective things in the places where they have the greatest impact.' and again seemed quite keen.
Browne was even more enthusiastic on BP's new found strong commitment to solar PV. 'The trends in photovoltaics are very encouraging'.
However he warned that ' there are still large obstacles. The acceptability of solar to the consumer will determine whether we can achieve the economies of scale in production which are necessary, and the technology needs more work to bring down costs. Again I'm optimistic. By 2020 we believe up to 5 per cent of world energy could be supplied by renewable energies, including solar power. Within 50 years it could be as much as half.'
'We see Solar as a significant long term business opportunity. We continue to develop the technology and to build the market. We are testing what is possible by using Solar power on a series of our own retail sites. If those tests are successful we will look to extend these solar powered sites across the world.
We're also installing solar on bigger projects as well, including the site of the athletes village for the next Olympics in Sydney, Australia. That will be the largest concentration of solar powered homes connected to the grid anywhere in the world.
However he warned ' it is a long term process. Given the current economics, solar won't replace oil and gas as the prime source of energy supply in the lifetime of anyone in this room. But given the advances in medical science as well as in photovoltaics I think many people here will live to see solar playing a significant role in world energy supply.'
In effect responding to Greenpeace's campaign to halt exploration (see below), he claimed that oil and gas, 'will be required to meet the world's energy needs. That is why we continue to explore and develop new resources and why we are so committed to ensuring that they are used with maximum efficiency, and the minimum of emissions. We are determined to make a constructive contribution to that effort.'
Just about everyone is lobbying on Climate change at present in the run up to the Kyoto Conference in Dec.
The European Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future ('e5'), the International Cogeneration Alliance (ICA) and the US Business Council for Sustainable Energy, organisations representing the sustainable energy business, issued a statement noting that they believed that 'early and effective action is needed to limit climate change, increase geopolitical stability and promote economic development.'
They added 'the solutions to the climate change challenge are not technology constrained, but require changes in economic and regulatory frameworks.
Indeed, a wide number of technology solutions are available now at zero or negative cost (ie are profitable). Other technologies will become competitive with mass production. These technologies, if implemented early and gradually in a competitive market environment, will be positive for business and employment prospects worldwide.'
The three organisations recommend that Parties to the UN Framework Convention should:
- Agree on clear and near-term targets for emissions reduction of CO2 and, at least, a first target for annex I countries by 2005. After achievement of this commitment, there should be a full expectation of future targets for non-Annex I countries.
- Enact Joint Implementation only for energy-related projects and use emissions trading only between Parties with commitments.
- Reject borrowing from future emissions budgets and long-term budget periods in excess of 5 years as they send muddled signals to the marketplace.
Meanwhile the European Wind Energy Association made its views known at the Bonn Conference- the preparatory meeting for Kyoto. The EWEA pointed out that the installed wind energy capacity in Europe has increased by about 40 percent a year over the past six years. It added that wind energy projects across Europe produced enough electricity to meet the domestic needs of five million people. By the end of 1996, more than 3,400 megawatts of wind energy capacity had been installed in Europe. And the industry has set itself a target of 40,000 megawatts to be installed by 2010, which would provide electricity for about 50 m people.
7. Greenpeace- 'Not Enough Sky'
Not to be left out Greenpeace have produced a comprehensive scientific report on the global "Carbon Logic", showing why the Climate Convention requires governments to severely limit the amount of fossil fuels that can be burned - and why this is less than the total amount already identified as "reserves".
Chris Rose from Greenpeace explained their view: "In our estimation, to stay within ecological limits, fossil fuels have to be phased out within 30 - 40 years at present rates of use. We are at the start of a long term campaign to defend nature by accelerating human progress - into the 21st century and away from fossil fuels and towards, instead, solar power and other clean efficient renewable energies."
He went on "It has been said that all great truths begin as heresies - and the truth here is that there is not too little oil but too much, and there is instead, too little sky."
Greenpeace has also renewed its challenge to BP to make solar power affordable for ordinary consumers following revelations that a report co-ordinated by BP Solar proves this would be possible, despite claims to the contrary from the oil industry.
Greenpeace says a report co-ordinated by BP Solar in its possession details how a solar 'super-factory' could be built for £350 million - about half the cost of the oil company's current investment in the Foinaven field in the Atlantic Frontier.
"If we can put solar power within the reach of consumers' pockets, why aren't we doing it? " asked Greenpeace UK's Deputy Executive Director, Chris Rose. "Our campaign against oil exploration has been mounted to convince governments and oil companies to switch to solar power to save the climate. Now we have proof they know they can afford to do this and bring employment and prosperity for the UK as well."
For further Info contact Greenpeace on 0171 865 8255/6/7/8
According to Greenpeace support is growing for their campaign to prevent climate change by halting oil exploration and investing in solar power.
Over the summer almost 90,000 people signed a petition urging Tony Blair "to prevent climate change, by stopping new oil exploration in the Atlantic Frontier and investing in clean energy such as solar electricity."
This is backed up by a cross party group of nearly 90 MPs who have supported the campaign in some way including the signing of Early Day Motions calling for the re-direction of fossil fuel subsidies to sustainable energy technologies. The summer saw Greenpeace occupy the Stena Dee oil drilling platform in the Atlantic Frontier, and BP's subsequent legal attack, and then withdrawal.
Mewanwhile, a loose coalition of individual activists and groups has come together in the run up to the Kyoto Conference, aiming to highlight the need to phase out fossil fuels, by non-violent direct action.
Contact on 0171 865 8234 e-mail 100days@waveland.org
8. FoE: ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE COULD CREATE 226,000 NEW JOBS
Cutting carbon dioxide pollution - the main cause of dangerous climate change - could create almost a quarter of a million jobs for the UK economy according to new Friends of the Earth research.
It shows that meeting the Government's target of cuttingcarbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2010 will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs through the expansion of public transport, rapid development of renewable energy sources and big increases in energy efficiency.
The research forsees a range of policy measures including a $1 per barrel of oil equivalent carbon tax rising by $1 per year and a reduction of VAT on energy efficiency materials to 5%.
Industries that spend a certain percentage of total overheads on energy would be legally required to employ a professional energy manager.
According to Tony Juniper, Campaigns Director at Friends of the Earth, "the bottom line for credible action on climate change is cutting oil, gas, coal and petrol use. If the Government isn't doing that then it is not serious about the issue. That objective has so far been seen as too radical but it can be made popular and economically viable by promoting alternatives that not only protect the environment but create jobs too."
FOE Special Briefing Sheet: "CO2 CUTS = 226,000 NEW JOBS" based on modelling work by the independent consultancy Energy for Sustainable Development employing the SAFIRE model, previously used in work for the European Commission.
France's decision to close the Superphenix Fast Breeder Reactor (see Renew 109) will no doubt fuel the ongoing debate over the future of Japan's nuclear programme - and indeed the nuclear programme worldwide.
Japan is now the only country left with a major Fast Breeder programme - but the 300 MW demonstration FBR Monju has been offline since the sodium fire in 1995.
WISE NEWS communique 475 commented: "once the cornerstone of the Japanese nuclear programme, Monju is now symbolic of a Japanese nuclear industry crisis".
The nuclear power lobby may of course seek to use the Kyoto Climate Change Conference in a last ditch attempt to get nuclear power back in the game. Indeed, in what seems to have been a run up exercise, in July more than 50 nuclear experts from the U.S. and Japan met at a conference at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, to discuss the role nuclear energy could play in the growing concern over global climate change. Nuclear power was discussed as being a 'renewable energy source' that does not produce greenhouse gases or acid rain.
The Japanese evidently urged conferees to begin efforts to reinvigorate the nuclear power industry in the United States!
EUFORES, the European Forum for Renewable Energy Sources, held a special meeting in June on 'EU policy on renewable energy - opportunities for a growing market', at the Open University.
It was a very positive conference with an up tempo presentation for the UK energy minister John Battle and with contributors noting that both the UK and the EU now seemed to be taking renewables seriously at last.
Thus there was welcome talk of an 'accelerated R&D programme', and perhaps an EU-NFFO'.
The Energy for Sustainable Development team presented some of the results from TERES-II, the new review of European renewables. The prospects for the future looked very good: by 2020 renewables could be the largest single power source in Europe. Biofuels seemed to be the major focus, but wind would also expand.
Surprisingly TERES-II suggested that France would make a major contribution in the wind field as well as in biofuels, so that, despite its slow start, it would eventually rank second for wind in the EU, after Germany.
But this wasn't all going to be large scale stuff: much of it would be based on smaller scale local projects - and that meant interesting a wide range of local people in the commercial and employment potential of smaller scale renewables.
Meanwhile there was also the export potential - outside the EU. Godfrey Bevan from the DTI described the UK approach. The NFFO had been successful at 'industry forming' he said, with some 500 companies now being active. UK exports of renewable related equipment and services had expanded dramatically, from £1.5m worth traditionally to £100m/yr, and they should double again by 2000. The DTI has clearly tried hard to achieve export success and to alert the world to what the UK has to offer: see for example the new ETSU 'Guide to UK Renewable Energy Companies'.
Not everyone in the UK may be quite so confident about the success of UK companies and technology overseas, with windturbines being an obvious case in point. But, as ETSU's 'New Review' No 32 noted, the UK wind turbine blade manufacturer Taywood Aerolaminates of Southampton, have been expanding rapidly and taking orders from Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands.
As was noted at the EUFORES conference, the market for renewables is expanding rapidly around the world, and particularly in the Far East and Pacific, so it looks like a boom time all round. One contributor noted the wind industry had gone through a bad patch in the late 1980's, but now was expanding rapidly again in Denmark and elsewhere, with 20% growth rates being common. All of which was good news for climate change. It might even make it unnecessary to levy carbon taxes. Well maybe.....
With markets beginning to lift off, the best way to assist might be to focus on supplying specific renewable technologies rather than imposing carbon taxes on undesirable technologies.
2. Green Power Consumers to Save the World
As we noted in Renew 109, the 'green power market' idea has spread around the world - Green electricity is being offered to consumers at premium rates in the USA, Canada, Australia - and soon also in the UK.
Of course in a way the UK's NFFO pioneered this approach, although few consumers were aware that they were subsidising renewables (or for that matter nuclear) and it was not voluntary!
But from April next year they will be able to choose. So what exactly can they choose? Could, for example, they choose amongst the various green energy options? Could the consumer market be used to drive technological choice?
Some companies may, for example, explicitly avoid energy options that may be perceived as dubious - like waste combustion. Could the market be differentiated further, so you can choose wind or micro-hydro, landfill gas or biofuels, or even pv, wave or tidal stream power?
Accreditation
The key requirement, even if this degree of differentiation is not achieved, is that consumers are confident that what they are buying is genuinely green. So green energy companies will need to have their power sources accredited in some way - by an independent agency presumably.
WWF, the World Wide Fund for Nature, is already doing this for SWEB's Green Electron Programme, but there seems to be a need for a more comprehensive approach to green power accreditation - something akin to the green labelling/eco-labelling approach adopted(by the EU and others) for consumer products.
Actually there are several possible approaches. The services of green power companies could be accredited en block ('all their power is from green sources') or the companies energy source mix could be spelled out, so that consumers could judge the degree of greenness. After all some may prefer 'deep green' electrons while others may be happy to compromise.
That of course might present other problems. In the US some of the 'Qualifying Facilities' recognised as renewable suppliers under existing arrangements are allowed to 'blend' up to 25% of their renewable power with fossil power ...
New sources
Some of these issues were discussed at the 'Road to Kyoto' Conference organised by the World Wide Fund for Nature back in June. Dr Merylyn McKenzie Hedger from the WWF Climate Change campaign presented a paper on 'Green Electricity' which, echoing Alexi Clarke's point in Renew 105, noted that 'those who purchase existing renewable energy out of a fixed pool will undoubtedly leave the dirtier resources to their neighbours'.
Consequently 'any scheme has to include explicit provision for the development of new sources, or there will be a supply constraint on consumer demand which will soon block development'.
But it wasn't just renewables she thought should be emphasised - she also looked to energy efficiency.
'It may be necessary therefore to weave into a green electricity package, provision for incentives for consumers to use less electricity. If not, the package could be seen as part of a supply-side fix'.
There was also the question of avoiding double charging: all consumers currently pay for NFFO supported green power. That can't (or shouldn't) be re-sold at an extra premium - which is why the newly emerging green market looks like focusing on ex-NFFO or non-NFFO projects.
US Experience
In the USA, following re-regulation, green power marketing or 'green pricing' as they call it, is well underway particularly in California and New England - with mixed results, as companies jostle for green consumers.
Some companies are offering special packages (or 'bundles' as with computers) for example with free energy conservation vouchers, included as inducements to buy their power. Others are 'greening' their offerings by offering to make donations to green charities.
Some of this is obviously spurious marketing - although offering energy efficiency as an option alongside generation products has its attractions.
But mostly they are competing on the nature of their basic energy supply product - hydro or wind or solar and on their ethical/environmental avoidance of coal or nuclear - and in some cases large hydro. Pumped storage is also an issue - for in some cases this is based on excess nuclear electricity.
Consumer Choice
Of course it's well to remember that we are just talking about those consumers who are willing to buy green power, of whatever sort, at a premium price. And that's still a minority. Can even that minority really make proper choices? In the time honoured free market tradition, the belief is that they can- if given sufficient information. Hence the need for full disclosure of sources and proper accreditation.
But can consumers really drive the technology in this way? Shouldn't the state also play a role - running the accreditation system and issuing guidance to consumers? Maybe we might even see government 'health warnings' on power company sales blurbs - 'large hydro wrecks eco-systems', 'wind farms ruin views' as well of course as 'nuclear causes cancer'. More positively, we might have carbon dioxide/kwh figures quoted - a bit like mpg figures for cars.
Carbon Tax
A rival view is that all this product differentiation should be carried out (and for all consumers) via the pricing mechanism - with all prices reflecting avoided and/or actual environmental costs. But it is very hard to come up with reliable numbers for all (total life cycle) externalities, the cruder alternative being an across the board carbon tax (on all power sources) or failing that some form of direct emission control regulatory system.
The latter seems most straightforward: it doesn't require market assessment, but the market would have to respond. It is what is on the agenda at Kyoto. In a way what the 'Green Power' experiment is all about is an attempt to try to avoid this sort of top-down regulation of emissions by using consumer choice mechanisms instead. It will be interesting to see which - if any - approach succeeds.
For discussion see 'Disclosure and Certification: Truth and Labelling for Electric Power', Ed Holt, Renewable Energy Policy Project, Issue Brief No. 5 Jan 1997. University of Maryland, USA. Also see Holts 'Green Pricing Newsletter' edholt@igc.apc.org (207798 4588).
Green Energy : Renewable Energy Company
'The Renewable Energy Company has been selling green electricity in the 100 kW market for the last 15 months. The current source of that power is 10 MW of landfill gas, all of it new capacity built without NFFO support. The power is sold without a premium, to local customers.
In 1998 REC intends to offer power to the domestic market without a premium - if it is possible to do so and enable new capacity to be built. After all, any scheme that enabled only the sale of existing or ex-NFFO capacity would have no future. 100 kW-style competition in 1998 is one of the factors that could drive down domestic prices, however, and that would make life considerably harder. From an environmental perspective the last thing we need is lower electricity prices: this not only disadvantages renewable energy but damages energy efficiency measures.'
Dale Vince, from the Renewable Energy Company, in Wind Directions, EWEA, July 1997.
An action plan to help green industries boost exports and become more competitive was published recently by the Government's Joint Environment Markets Unit .
JEMU was established in 1992 following a recommendation from the second Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment. It is staffed jointly by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. In 1995, JEMU was charged with responsibility as a lead sponsor within Government for the environmental industry. In other words, it has responsibility for over-arching issues which affect the industry as a whole. The new plan is part of a consultative exercise.
Welcoming the JEMU consultation paper, John Battle, the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry said:
"Promoting competitiveness is a key plank of the Government's policy. Some of our green industries, such as environment consultancies and waste water treatment firms, are already world beaters and many others - for instance manufacturers of pollution monitoring equipment and green energy industries - have the potential to do just as well. These are the new technologies, industries and employers of the coming century and we ought to do all we can to back them."
The consultation paper has been put out as part of a year long review of JEMU's work and is aimed at ensuring its activities are properly focused and appropriate to the needs of the industry. It contains proposals for the next three to five years. These include:
• increasing the industry's knowledge of markets and encouraging it to exploit market opportunities
• looking at the interaction between the Government and suppliers
• improvement of dialogue between Government, users and suppliers of environmental technology
• ways to improve competitiveness including training and education, research and development, identifying suitable demonstration sites, promoting benchmarking and best practice.
• performance monitoring
• producing new publications and updating existing ones for example Market Opportunity Briefs and the UK Suppliers' Guides.
Michael Meacher, Minister for the Environment said:
"I welcome this paper and look forward to seeing a more effective dialogue between Government and the UK environmental industry. Thriving green industries are not only good for the British economy, but can also play a major role in improving the global environment. JEMU has an important part to play in helping the UK environmental industry to rise to the challenge and provide the goods and services which will allow manufacturers to meet the tough environmental standards now demanded by society."
£10m for Sustainable Technology
In a follow up to the UK's pioneering Technology Foresight exercise (see Renew 97) the Government has allocated £10m via the LINK Awards scheme for R&D on the key areas it identified, such as 'technologies for sustainable development'.
The aim is to support public-private partnerships, eg with academia and small businesses, so as to bring in a further £10-20m, giving up to £30m in all.
Announcing the awards DTI Minister Margaret Beckett said that, along with work on other new tech and new market areas, a key priority was technology that would lead to 'a cleaner, more sustainable, world - embracing pollution monitoring and control technologies, as well as technologies for conserving energy and natural resources'.
4. Battle on Sustainable Energy
"The greatest challenge facing the new administration on our use of energy -particularly fossil fuels - is how to meet our needs for diverse, secure and sustainable energy supplies while protecting the environment," Science, Energy and Industry Minister John Battle said launching the Governments 1997 Energy Report.
The Report, "Shaping Change", provides an overview of the energy industries and highlights issues with far-reaching impact on our use of energy.
Reflecting the Brundtland definition of sustainable development, Battle continued:
''Not long ago the question was 'would we run out of readily available energy'. Now, it is; 'what consequences will our use of energy have for our children and our children's children'. We must meet the needs of the present generation without jeopardising the prospects for future generations'.
For the first time, this Report includes papers form the Energy Advisory Panel whose advice is not normally published. Battle commented "They make an important contribution to the debates on energy and the environment - one paper on reduction of CO2 emissions shows that there are no easy answers."
However, he promised that the UK would "take the lead at the Kyoto conference on Climate Change in December by pressing for significant reductions of greenhouse gas' emissions, conditional on others making similar efforts.
"Although we are on course to meet our target of reducing CO2 emissions below their 1990 level by 2000, achieving our longer term targets will be difficult and is probably going to take radical change in the way we regard energy and its use. For example, coal-fired power stations have a conversion efficiency of some 40 per cent while gas-fired stations with efficiencies up to 60 per cent are being developed.
"Best of all, Combined Heat and Power (CHP) stations can achieve high fuel efficiency which is why the Government is campaigning to increase UK CHP take up to 10 GW capacity by 2010'.
He added "This Government is also committed to developing renewable forms of electricity generation and is reviewing policy including assessing options for achieving 10% of the UK's electricity needs from renewables by 2010. Alongside this, the Government will promote fundamental advances in energy efficiency and is currently working on the mechanics of programmes to secure real energy savings".
The Energy Report 1997, Volume 1, "Shaping Change" (ISBN 0115154302) is available from HMSO price £35. The Energy Report is published annually and sets out recent developments in markets and regulation. Labour's policy of a 20% carbon emission cut by 2010 was confirmed at the recent Party Conference.
The main Feature in Renew 110 looks at the Climate Change debate since the Rio Earth Summit, and at the idea of Emission trading and Joint Implementation. The Groups section looks, amongst other things, at some lobbying activities in relation to Kyoto, including those of the Scientists for Global Responsibility group, while the Reviews looks at some recent reports on Global Climate Change related issues, including NATTA's own report by Dean Anderson, 'Progress towards Energy Sustainability in the OECD Countries' (£7 from NATTA). The Forum section looks at the activities of the Global Commons Institute while, amongst other things, the Technology section looks at GCI/ SGR's views on the impact of air transport on climate change.
Renew is the 30 page bimonthly journal of NATTA, the Network for Alternative Technology and Technology Assessment. Renew is mailed free to all NATTA members. NATTA membership cost £18 pa waged, £12pa unwaged, £2 pa airmail supplement, £50 pa to organisations/libraries. Cheques in sterling to NATTA please. NATTA also publishes a range of reports: we can send a full list on request.
Contacts: NATTA c/o EERU, Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA UK
Phone: 01908 65 4638 (24 hrs) e-mail S.J.Dougan@open.ac.uk
Back to RENEW ON-LINE INDEX page.