EERU Home
page
Renew On-Line 13
Extracts from the news section of NATTA's journal RENEW, issue 112 (March-April 1998).
The views expressed should not be taken to necessarily reflect those of EERU or of the OU.
Contents1. DTI REVIEW
The Department of Trade and Industry has been reviewing its policy to identify what would be necessary and practicable to achieve ten percent of the UK's electricity needs from renewables by 2010.
As DTI Energy Minister John Battle put it at the PRASEG Conference last year:
"To achieve that target would require approximately doubling our existing capacity to generate electricity from renewables. Today, about 2% of our electricity comes from renewables, mostly from large scale hydro. NFFO orders already laid or in train will add about 3% by around 2002 or 2003. So far 533 NFFO projects have been awarded contracts with a total capacity of 2094 MW. However, we still need to add to that a further 5% in the following six or seven years if a target of 10% of electricity from renewables by 2010 is to be achieved."
The story so far
The current state of play is that, following the last 20 years or so of assessments, the DTI has defined a ‘shopping list’ - as outlined most recently in Energy Paper 62. This contains three categories.
First there are the ‘near market’ technologies, which are ready to run, like: on land wind, waste combustion, micro-hydro, landfill gas and (some) energy crops. These are being supported by the NFFO. Then there is a smaller group which are seen as candidates for assessment, as possible new entrants - notably photovoltaics, fuel cells and active solar. Finally there are the long shots - including wave energy, geothermal and tidal power: all of which are seen as too expensive or risky. Offshore wind used to be in this third classification but seems to have been elevated to the first - and given some NFFO support in NFFO-4.
However, otherwise, it seems hard to change categories. The DTI seems to see them as fairly fixed. This conclusion is based in part on an analysis of the potential for significant cost reductions. Thus for tidal barrages it is claimed that there is very little scope for cost reductions regardless of how much R&D funding is allocated. Basically, barring major conceptual breakthroughs, only small incremental cost cuts would be likely since it is a relatively mature technology.
Strangely however this same logic is applied to wavepower - which can hardly be said to be a ‘mature’ technology. Instead it is at the beginning of the ‘learning curve’. And yet the DTI seem convinced that the economics of wavepower are well enough understood to say that, barring major breakthroughs, no significant cost reductions are likely.
The DTI keep category three technologies under review in a ‘watching brief’ classification, but basically all they are looking for is breakthroughs - i.e. radical new technologies. Otherwise the category is a dead end.
Breakthroughs?
But how do you identify breakthroughs? Surely it is silly to judge technologies on the basis of cost estimates when they are just being developed; its too early to say anything sensible. Can you really predict the eventual cost?
Tidal stream technology is a good example. It looks like a technical breakthrough, but the DTI/ETSU assessment is that it will be expensive, so its ignored.
As we will be reporting in Renew 113, there are a whole pile of wave energy ideas which may yet breakthrough - the Dutch Archimedes Swing device (see Renew 107) being just one.
It will be interesting to see what the new DTI review makes of all this. Will it stick with the old system of assessment, or adopt a more progressive approach?
New PV SURVEY
The Government has allocated £58,000 for a survey of the market potential for solar photovoltaic technology, to be carried out by ECOTECH, ECD and the Newcastle Photovoltaic Applications Centre.
Announcing the study DTI Energy Minister John Battle noted that "Solar power has the potential to become a major energy source in the future. However, because PV technology is in its infancy, it is still a relatively expensive form of electricity generation. The most effective way Government can help to bring the costs down is to try to stimulate a market for PV technology."
He went on "One of the most promising and exciting applications for PV is its integration into building design. Several PV building products are now on the market, such as solar roof tiles and solar glazing panels, which can replace conventional materials in the fabric of a building. They have similar structural and visual properties to their traditional alternative, but also generate power that can be used in the building or exported to the grid."
The aim of the new study is to find out more about the attitudes of architects, builders and construction workers to these new materials in order to determine which products have the greatest potential.
Battle added 'The information which comes out of the survey will enable the DTI to target its programme where it will produce the greatest benefit to buildings professionals, the wider building industry and building owners."
He concluded "We are currently carrying out a review of renewable forms of energy to see what is necessary and practicable to achieve ten percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by the year 2010. I firmly believe that solar energy has an important part to play in developing clean, sustainable and diverse energy supply into the next century".
As we mentioned in Renew 111, bidding for projects under the fifth round of the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation was launched last November by DTI Energy Minister John Battle.
Battle noted that "Government policy is to secure additional generating capacity from renewables in order to help them enter the commercial generating market. I am currently carrying out a review of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10% of the UK's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010. NFFO-5 will therefore become the first step in our new and strong drive for renewables and I expect NFFO-5 to contribute substantially to reducing greenhouse gases and encouraging internationally competitive industries".
NFFO-5 will, as before, have 15 year contracts plus a 5 year implementation period. There will be separate bands for new generating capacity from: Landfill Gas from existing licensed sites where tipping was being carried out prior to 25 November 1997; Municipal and Industrial Waste, including the use of non-gaseous sewage matter (up to 10% on a dry-weight basis); Municipal and Industrial Waste using combined heat and power (CHP), including the use of non-gaseous sewage matter (up to 10% on a dry-weight basis); Small Scale Hydro from stations with a total capacity of less than 5 MW; Onshore Wind Energy, which may be split into separate bands for small-clusters and single-machines, with the split-point at 1.0 MW or less and; other windfarms not included above. But there was no specific mention of offshore wind, and no mention of energy crops.
Battle said he expected the NFFO-5 competition to 'stimulate further reductions in the electricity prices contracted under NFFO', although he did not expect such a rapid rate of fall in prices as has happened in earlier rounds.
He went on "I expect projects to demonstrate high standards of environmental performance. This will require developers to consult widely on their project proposals so that their projects meet the concerns of the community likely to be affected. For example, I expect energy from waste projects to encourage an integrated approach to waste management and so demonstrate that they provide environmental benefits beyond those available from alternative methods of waste management. Award of a NFFO contract does not confer any special privilege in the planning approval process which must be carried out in the normal way".
Finally he looked forward to the DTI Review: "From work undertaken so far it seems that the achievement of 10% of the UK's electricity from renewables by 2010 would almost certainly require bringing forward technologies in addition to those proposed to be supported under NFFO-5, including offshore wind energy and energy crops".
Reactions
Most renewable energy supporters were pleased with the NFFO announcement.
The British Wind Energy Association was positively gushing. They welcomed what they saw as Battles 'thumbs up' for renewables, and noted that 'although we have the best wind resource of any European country, we've barely dabbled, up until now' . But now 'we are on the way to seeing a return to the Golden age of windmills in the UK. It will have taken around a hundred years for windmills to re-appear in large numbers in the UK but they'll be doing so for good reasons. The electricity they generate is cheap, clean and sustainable'.
The Confederation of Renewable Energy Associations were delighted that the Government was 'keeping the momentum of the NFFO going' and noted that 'the cost of renewables has come down so much that it is now one of the most cost effective ways of protecting against climate change'.
They noted that the average price of projects in NFFO-4 was 3.46p/kWh, which was less than the average electricity purchase costs paid by regional electricity companies in 1997: OFFER has put the average cost of the generation component of electricity at 3.52p/kWh.
They were a little less positive about the exclusion of offshore wind and energy crops from NFFO 5, but , looking to the DTI review, they put a bold face on it. They were 'optimistic that offshore wind and energy crops will be stimulated after the review'.
What is the NFFO?
The Government provides support for electricity generated from renewable sources principally through the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (known as the NFFO) in England and Wales, the Scottish Renewables Obligation (SRO) in Scotland and the Northern Ireland NFFO. The NFFO requires RECs to purchase specified amounts of electricity from renewable sources. Support for NFFO and SRO is funded through the Fossil Fuel Levy on electricity sales.
The first NFFO-1 order was made in September 1990 for 75 contracts and 152 MW capacity, NFFO-2 was made in October 1991 for 122 contracts and 472 MW capacity, NFFO-3 was made in December 1994 for 141 contracts and 627 MW capacity and NFFO-4 was made in February 1997 for 195 contracts and 843 MW capacity. This latest announcement makes proposals for a fifth NFFO order which is expected to be made in late 1998. The Scottish Office are expected to make an announcement in respect of proposals for a third Scottish Renewables Order, SRO-3, shortly.
The current rate of the Fossil Fuel Levy is 2.2% in England and Wales (about half of which is likely to be spent on renewables) and 0.7% in Scotland
As we noted in Renew 109, the Government has proposed a Bill to extend the coverage of the fossil fuel levy to include nuclear power, which otherwise would not have to pay the levy, since it has now been removed from the NFFO payment scheme. It also means that imported French nuclear electricity will be charged.
However, it seems it is also proposed to include some renewables for levy, notably those which have moved beyond the NFFO (eg large-scale hydro and certain wind projects) That is seen by many renewable enthusiasts as a contradiction in terms and a threat to renewables.
SRO-3 : Wavepower arrives
The third round of the Scottish Renewables Obligation includes a proposal that, in addition to supporting wind, small hydro, waste -to- energy and biomass projects as in previous rounds, it should also ' make limited capacity available to small wind schemes and wave power projects.'
Announcing this proposal, Brian Wilson MP, Minister for Industry at The Scottish Office, commented 'I hope that community-based projects will take advantage of this opportunity'.
The first two SRO orders led to 56 renewables projects with a combined capacity of 189 MW securing contracts with Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric, although, Wilson noted, 'many of these have not yet been commissioned.'
But he was 'very keen to see SRO3, which will come into force in early 1999, again attracting technically sound yet innovative projects which must be extremely competitive on price, with the downward trend in prices seen under SRO-2 being continued in so far as that is possible.'
The new SRO is the culmination of the current programme in Scotland, and should be for around 110-120MW in total capacity, i.e. about the same size as SRO-2.
With Ireland also now developing wave power, at long last it seems to have broken through, even if only on a small scale. We'll be looking at wave energy in more detail in Renew 113.
After the NFFO: Green Power
The Liberalisation of the UK electricity market, originally planned to start in April, has been postponed until Sept, since it seems, the detailed arrangements were not ready. We will be reporting in detail in Renew 113.
But a number of companies have begun to get ready to offer green power when the new market does open.
With NFFO-1 and 2 contracts now coming to a close, the majority of projects that had benefited from them have grouped together to form the Renewable Generators Consortium. It has around 270MW of capacity to offer the green power market.
Meanwhile, Eastern Electricity have come up with a new‘ Eco-power’ scheme designed to let consumers support renewable energy - by paying between 5-10% extra on their electricity bills. The money raised by Eco-power subscribers will be put in a special fund, matched by up to £0.5m p.a. from Eastern Electricity, and used to support new renewable energy projects. Eco-power consumers will receive six-monthly reports on how the independent fund is progressing.
East Electricity covers East Anglia and uses mainly coal plants and some combine cycle gas turbines, plus 286MW from renewables under the NFFO scheme: it plans to get 10% of its power from renewables by 2010, and 10% from CHP.
It has a strong commitment to environmental protection and works closely with the Forum for the Future and the Environment Council. See its annual environmental progress reports.
Eastern’s Environment Business Unit is at Wherstead Park, PO Box 40, Wherstead, Ipswich, IP92AQ
The reactions to the Kyoto agreement were predictable. Some greens saw it as a small step forward, but others saw it as rather pathetic. Greenpeace claimed that 'when all loopholes are considered, (the agreement) will result in no real reductions from 1990 levels'.
By contrast William O'Keefe, Chairman of the US based Global Climate Coalition industry lobby said the agreement 'represents unilateral economic disarmament. It is a terrible deal and the President should not sign it. If he does, business, labour and agriculture will campaign hard and will defeat it. For the first time in history, the United States would allow a foreign body dominated by developing countries to restrict and control the economy of the United States. UN bureaucrats would decide where business would invest, where jobs will be developed. US sovereignty has been surrendered. Since the President believes this is a good deal for America he should promptly submit it to the Senate for ratification. Peoples 'constitutional right should not be subverted.'
The Washington Times of 11 Dec. carried an advert over a picture of the Japanese surrender to the US in 1945 with the headline: 'The USA has signed many treaties but never a treaty of surrender! And we should not start now!'
The European reaction was completely different. The European Parliament had already called on the EU to cut its own greenhouse gas emissions by 15% by 2010 regardless of the outcome of the climate change conference in Kyoto- and there has been pressure subsequently to maintain this position.
In a resolution adopted by a large majority, just before the Kyoto Conference started, MEPs urged EU ministers to adopt a "tougher, binding commitment" to reduce greenhouse gases immediately after Kyoto. The call followed the Commission's publication of a policy paper on climate change in which it was stated that "the EU proposal is a negotiating position, not a unilateral commitment."
MEPs also called on the Council of Ministers to adopt a "stronger package of measures to meet its 15% target" as rapidly as possible. This should include "fiscal measures - such as an energy tax - to reverse global warming, an increase in the share of renewables to be equivalent to 15% of fossil fuel-derived energy and the removal of legislation contradictory to greenhouse gas emission reduction". The resolution specifically rules out increased use of nuclear power as an option. (See ENDS Daily 16 September).
However, subsequently, the line seems to have softened. After the Kyoto Conference was over, EU environment commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard welcomed the new Kyoto protocol as and an "important first step" in efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and argued that the 8% cut based on six gases, as agreed in the protocol, was equivalent to a 13% cut in emissions of the three gases originally proposed by the EU. "The outcome now is close to the original EU position and must be regarded as satisfactory".
(For details see http://www.europarl.eu.int)
The UK however seems to be sticking to its 20% cutback target, and the DTI has been negotiating with specific industries e.g. chemicals, to get agreements on cuts.
EC White Paper on Renewables
In the run up to Kyoto, the European Commission produced a Renewable Energy White Paper which called for a significant switch to renewables.
The White Paper outlined a specific EU Renewable Energy Action Plan which calls for a doubling to 12 per cent of the contribution made by renewable energies, by 2010, to EU energy needs. If implemented, this would deliver around one third of the CO2 emissions reductions needed to meet the EU's formal target proposal of a 15% reduction in CO2 and other greenhouses gases by 2010.
The paper calls for a half million solar roofs programme in Europe by 2010 and for a half million solar homes system for the developing world. It includes proposals for 10,000 MW of European wind farm capacity, as part of a 40GW target, and 10,000 MW of biofuels capacity.
This shift to renewables would create up to 1.2 million new jobs within the EU and generate a multi-billion dollar export industry, and although the 12% target would require an extra total net investment of 5.7 billion ECU per year, that is less that half of the 12.5 billion ECU (US$13.8 billion) that the EU currently gives to the fossil fuels and nuclear power industries. Only a fraction of this 5.7 billion ECU is to be provided by public funds. For example the Commission has calculated that public funds of only 300 million ECU (US$ 330 million) a year would be needed to implement the "Campaign for takeoff". This is designed to "assist a real take off of renewables and large-scale penetration and make progress towards the [12%] objective". In itself, this Campaign would achieve 10% of the 400 million tonnes of CO2 attributed to renewable energies.
The White Paper's Million Solar Home Programme proposal follows the announcement in June last year that the US will install a million solar roofs by 2010 and seeks to match the Japanese solar programme. It represents one third of the EU target of 3,000 MW of PV installed by 2010.
This 3000 MW total represents a 100 fold increase in the amount of solar installed throughout Europe in 1995. On top of the million homes worldwide, the remainder will be deployed on homes, buildings and solar power stations sized up to 5MW. The solar photovoltaic programme alone would create 50,000 jobs. See our Review section for details.
The White paper was enthusiastically received by environmental groups. Greenpeace EU Spokesperson Aphrodite Mourelatou commented "It proves that the EU has the practical capacity to cut greenhouse gases by switching to solar and to other renewable technologies and shows precisely how it can be done."
Kyoto-What Next
The difficulty delegates to the global warming conference in Kyoto encountered in reaching agreement on reducing greenhouse gases is likely to pale beside the trouble Republicans have promised the Clinton administration when it seeks ratification of the newly negotiated international treaty.' So said the Washington Post on the eve of the agreement. It reported that some key Senate Republicans had declared the accord "dead on arrival".
That may be to overstate the case, but there is certainly a long way to go before the consensus agreed at Kyoto can be turned into a legally binding agreement. That won't occur until the Treaty is formally signed. It will be available for signature at United Nations headquarters in New York from March 15, and once a country signs, it still has a year to ratify the pact. And there are other ways in which countries like the USA could stall. So it could well be after the next round of negotiations, at COP-4 in Argentina in Nov, before the dust settles on the Kyoto agreement.
Certainly, given the pressure currently being put on him and public opinion by the barrage of anti- Global Warming propaganda, you can see why Clinton might want to stall.
On the other hand the US will be under a lot of international pressure to get on with it. And beyond that, the US might actually miss out on some of the economic benefits that can be reaped from responding to Climate Change. For while the opposition has focused on the costs of cutting carbon emissions, the change in approach can also be seen as offering opportunities, as has been argued by a new US report on Energy Innovation: see our Reviews section.
Dr Phillip Webber, from Scientists for Global Responsibility summed it all up well in a speech at Kyoto, in which he said "Enlightened global corporations see renewables as the future'.
He went on "The US industries' vested interests may in fact constitute another crucial factor in the gradual decline in world influence of the US in geopolitical terms. Much as the USSR clung to an outdated power in the dying days of the Cold War, so now the US clings to its traditional, wasteful and entirely unsustainable ways of life and technology. They simply haven't yet fully realised that being unsustainable means just that - your efforts will fail. One cannot help but be reminded of
Honecker' s famous "last words" concerning the Berlin Wall, uttered a few days before the infamous Iron Curtain came down: "It will stand for another 100 years yet".
Like Japan, The European Union and the United Kingdom are ready and poised to embrace the world of the future in a new alliance of vision for necessary CO2 emission reductions. The danger for us all, if the US does not act for planetary survival, lies in the fact that their economy will be further damaged in the longer term and that this will further destabilise the world economic system."
Paul Ekins made a similar point in "Green Futures' No. 8:
'Three countries- Germany, Japan and the US- currently dominate the environmental technology sector, one of the fastest growing sectors in the old industrial countries. A common factor to all is strict environmental regulation dating back to the 1970's, which stimulated domestic capacity in environmental technologies ahead of other countries. Sizeable trading surpluses have been the result.
The US has just walked away from the opportunity to repeat this achievement with the next generation of technologies- energy technologies- which will dwarf the non-energy environmental technologies in importance, simply because energy is at the heart of the economy of every country in the world.'
The Kyoto Agreement
As we noted in Renew 111, the agreement reached by consensus at Kyoto involves differentiated national emissions targets for industrialised countries, averaging 5.2%, by 2008-2012, but no mandatory cuts for developing countries. The EU, Switzerland and some central and eastern European countries must cut by 8%, the USA by 7%, and Canada, Hungary, Japan and Poland by 6%. Russia, New Zealand and Ukraine must stabilise emissions, while Norway can increase them by 1%, Australia by 8% and Iceland by 10%. The EU may achieve its aggregate target through differentiated national emission reductions.
The emissions cuts are to be for six greenhouse gases, measured as carbon dioxide equivalents: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide (measured against a base year of 1990), and hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride(measured against either a 1990 or a 1995 baseline). Greenhouse gas "sinks," such as forests, will be counted in the equation as well as emission sources.
An international emissions trading system will be discussed at the next conference, COP-4, allowing industrialised countries to buy and sell excess emissions credits amongst themselves. However emission trading was not included formally in the protocol since there had been much opposition to it- particularly given the potential for 'hot air trading' (see Renew 111). The delay may provide an opportunity for a rethink on how to avoid this problem.
A version of Joint Implementation, known as the "clean development mechanism" was however agreed. Under this scheme industrialised countries may finance emissions reductions projects in developing countries and receive credit for doing so. JI type projects need not just involve energy generation - they could also be energy conservation projects, or even energy saving transport projects.
The Kyoto protocol will enter into force when it has been ratified by at least six countries representing 55% of total 1990 emissions from industrialised countries. But as we noted earlier this could take some time.
Contacts : UN Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat , tel: +49 228 815 1000 Web: http://www.unfccc.de
Not a Green Isle
Irish greenhouse gas emissions set to rise
It isn't just the USA that has problems with its emissions. Unless the government changes its policies, Irish emissions of greenhouse gases will be 28% above 1990 levels in 2010, according to a report by the official Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI). This is twice earlier official forecasts.
According to the ESRI, unless further measures are taken to restrain them, carbon dioxide emissions from road transport will rise 115% from 1990 levels to 10.5m tonnes in 2010. Carbon dioxide from power generation will rise by 74% to 18.5m tonnes. Its forecast does not include a planned cement factory that could increase national emission.
Nevertheless, the ESRI predicts that Ireland could meet the 15% growth target without significantly slowing economic growth if the "burden of adjustment is spread over all sectors of the economy".
Greatly increased investment in public transport would be needed, it says, but warns that this will not be enough and that taxes "must play a vital role in traffic management". The ESRI suggests a greenhouse gas tax should be levied on all polluters, including agriculture and industry. It says that whilst voluntary agreements initially seem attractive, they are "unlikely to suffice to reduce emissions to the required levels".
The ESRI report also suggests a system of quotas that could be traded between EU countries. The "worst case scenario," it says, "would be a rigid system of EU quotas which could not be traded".
Even if the initial quotas seemed generous, the difficulty of predicting long term economic growth "could make them a constraint on growth in the Irish economy". Source: END's Daily 7/11/97
The environment minister Noel Dempsey has said that a major review of ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be published shortly. He urged companies to see global warming as an opportunity to develop new products and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And subsequently, the Irish Wind Power Association has called for a target of 1000MW of wind energy capacity.
Contacts: Economic and Social Research Institute, tel: +353 1 667 1525; Irish environment ministry, tel: +353 1 679 3377. References: "The Costs to Ireland of Greenhouse Gas Abatement."
4. UK Sustainable Energy Policy
With the Department of Trade and Industry carrying out its new review of UK renewables policy in the context of the UK Government's plan for a 10% contribution and a 20% CO2 saving by 2010 - just about everyone is pushing forward their view as to what sustainable energy can achieve. NATTA's views were published in Renew 111.
As we also mentioned in Renew 111, the one day conference organised by the Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group (PRASEG) held in London in November, provided a focus for many other contributions.
PRASEG noted that, overall, sustainable energy technologies - that is energy efficiency, combined heat and power and renewable energy technology - could help the UK cut carbon dioxide emission by 52% of the 33 Million Tonnes (MtC) per annum target for 2010. So they would cut overall CO2 emissions by 10%.
The break down was as follows:
• Energy efficiency: the Energy Saving Trust's report "Energy efficiency and environmental benefits - annual savings to 2010" shows that 5.6 MtC could be saved annually from domestic energy efficiency alone. This does not include the significant savings which could be made from the industrial, commercial and public sectors. 5.6 MtC equals 17% of the Government's target for carbon dioxide emission reduction (contact the Association for the Conservation of Energy 0171 359 8000 for details).
• Combined Heat and Power: The Government's target of 10 gigawatts of combined heat and power plant to be installed by the year 2010 will deliver an emission reduction of 6 MtC or 18% of the Government's target for carbon dioxide emission reduction ( details available from The Combined Heat and Power Association 0171 828 4077).
• Renewable Energy (including wind, biomass, landfill gas, energy from waste and small scale hydro - not including large scale hydro-electricity): the Government's provisional target of 10% of UK electricity being generated renewables by 2010 would require the installation of a further 5.6 gigawatts of renewable plant, which would reduce carbon emissions by 5.5MtC per year or 17% of the Government's target. (Further details from The Confederation of Renewable Energy Associations c/o the British Wind Energy Association on 0171 402 7102).
• Total savings that can be delivered by sustainable energy industry on the government's current targets: 17.1 MtC per annum or 52% of the government's target of 33 MtC per annum. Note, this does not include the substantial savings available from energy efficiency in the commercial and industrial sectors.
The Parliamentary Renewable & Sustainable Energy Group, is at 31 Pitfield Street, London, N1 6HB, tel/fax 0171 490 4642, email praseg@dial.pipex.com
DTI Energy Reveiw
The Renewable Energy Review being carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry (see earlier) will presumably feed into the wider 'medium to long term' review of 'energy sources for power stations' being carried out by the DTI. This is looking in particular at 'fuel diversity, sustainable development and the role of coal' and in the interim the Government has deferred giving licences any new oil or gas fired power stations between 10 and 50MW- effectively halting the 'dash for gas', albeit only temporarily. Unfortunately this has also halted some CHP projects.
ETSU
ETSU, the Energy Technology Support Unit, presented its own estimates, including those for industry and transport .
Interestingly they see renewables as only saving 2.7 Mtc, or 8% of the 33 Mtc target, but otherwise have adopted quite a radical line.
Summary of some of ETSU's key recommended actions
• Fiscal measures (e.g. energy or carbon taxes or levies) should be used to internalise environmental costs and sent the right price signals to energy users.
• A strategic initiative should be set up to raise awareness of the potential for energy efficient design, passive solar design, renewable energy technologies and CHP at the planning stage for new domestic and commercial building developments.
• There should be an expansion of financial support and advice for retrofitting of existing housing to improve energy efficiency, e.g. via the HEES and EST.
• Energy efficiency standards and labelling for electrical appliances, vehicles and buildings should all be promoted and backed by information campaigns directed at both customers and retailers.
• A new programme should be set up to provide an integrated approach to best practice in the transport sector, covering technical, behavioural and land-use planning issues for commercial freight, public transport and private car use.
• A new integrated programme of support for renewable energy should be implemented including a NFFO-type price support scheme with a shift of emphasis from price convergence to volume deployment. This should be backed by additional support for technologies at the pre-commercial demonstration phase and at the post-NFFO market entry stage.
• The recent severe declines in government funded R&D on energy efficiency and renewable energy should be reversed in order to drive down costs and thus increase uptake of existing technologies, and to provide the next generation of technologies which will be required for a sustainable future beyond 2010.
Source: D Carless. ETSU. November 1997.
Lib Dems go for 30%
Not to be outdone by the Labour Government's 20% target for CO2 cuts, the Liberal Democrats have put forward a 30% target and has backed it up with a detailed report - 'Living in the Greenhouse'.
This was passed at last years party conference, as was a 2p (extra) increase in petrol prices, and a £1bn pa levy on electricity and gas bills to fund the Energy Saving Trust. And even more radically, there was a proposal that a carbon tax replace National Insurance - on the 'tax pollution not jobs' argument.
The Lib Dem approach is very much one of promoting energy conservation rather than just fuel switching. However, as things stand, the Energy Saving Trust is struggling on without levy support, although thankfully it recently won a reinstatement (to £19m) of its core funding which had been cut from £25m in 1996, to £20m in 1997 and was planned to be only £14.5m this year.
In addition there is a lot that could be done without spending much money. Energy in Buildings and Industry reported recently that a key area for cutting waste and carbon dioxide emissions was still not being tapped: there are no regulations covering small boilers (less than 50MW) although a voluntary scheme, the European Manufacturers Quality Label was being discussed.
5. Shell International Renewables
As we noted in Renew 111, the Royal Dutch/Shell Group has established a fifth 'core business' - Shell International Renewables (SIR), with plans for an initial investment of more than half a billion US dollars over the next five years in renewable energy.
Shell International Renewables will bring together the Group's current activities in solar, biomass and forestry, and will sit alongside the existing business sectors - exploration and production, oil products, chemicals, and gas and coal.
Speaking at the launch of SIR in London, Group managing director, Jeroen van der Veer said: "Renewable energy is an energy solution for the future and Shell aims to be a key player." He said Shell was stimulating its existing renewables activities into "huge and fast growth".
Shell will continue to produce and supply fossil fuels but, he noted, Shell believes renewable energy sources could provide between 5 and 10 per cent of the world's energy by the year 2025, possibly rising to over 50 per cent by mid-century.
Shell International Renewables will focus on commercial viability and competitiveness. "The challenge of changing from dependence on fossil fuels to substantial use of renewable energy is so huge that no government could underwrite it. It has to be undertaken by private enterprise, and driven by market forces. It will happen gradually, as technologies and economics enable new sources to become commercially viable for the supplier, and 'buyable' for the customer."
He noted that some alternative energy sources - biomass, photovoltaics and wind power - were already starting to become more competitive and that by the year 2000 production costs of photovoltaic panels could have come down by 40 %. Between 2005 and 2010, a KiloWatt hour (KWh) of electricity generated from photovoltaic panels was expected to be at least 70 % cheaper than at present.
Shell believes that much of the contribution of these 'new' renewables - photovoltaics, biomass and wind power - will be in electricity consumption. Currently biomass is contributing 32 TerraWatt hours (TWh) in a market worth 1-2 billion US dollars. By 2010, this is likely to have grown to 190 TWh worth 13 billion dollars; and by 2020 to 1,800 TWh worth 90 billion dollars. Currently photovoltaics are contributing 0.8 TWh worth about 1 billion US dollars. By 2010 this could be 16 TWh worth 5 billion dollars; and by 2020, 165 TWh worth 25 billion dollars. Shell aims to capture between 10 and 20 per cent of these markets.
Wind power is today contributing 18 TWh worth 4-5 billion US dollars. By 2010 this could have grown to 560 TWh worth 25 billion dollars; and by 2020 to 2,950 TWh worth 133 billion dollars. Shell could capture between 5 and 10 per cent of this market.
Shell say they will develop both biomass and photovoltaics, two renewable energy sources with a common goal - converting sunlight into marketable energy. Its immediate aim is to capture 10 per cent of the expanding solar energy market before 2005.
In photovoltaics, Shell has opened a new solar cell manufacturing line at Shell Nederland's Helmond factory, which will produce one million solar cells a year. A team is working on a 'turnkey' production plant which can be installed anywhere in the world. Shell Solar plans to attack a photovoltaic panels market predicted to be worth 6 billion US dollars worldwide by 2010, through aggressive efforts to cut production costs, looking at new technologies, and considering acquisitions.
In biomass, Shell say they will expand the existing tree plantation business and develop the growing of trees for heat and power generation. It aims to install 4 small-scale systems in 1998 and 20 in 1999, begin implementing a large-scale project in 1998, and grow the business by 15 per cent a year. SIR believes that biomass, already an established source of energy in some parts of the world, will become increasingly competitive for power generation as technologies improve and wood becomes available from sustainable plantations.
SIR is also actively investigating wind power, and believes it will play a profitable and significant part in the business portfolio.
Jim Dawson, president of Shell International Renewables, said the half-billion US dollar investment in renewables over 5 years might look relatively modest beside investment in the Group's other core businesses, currently about 10-11 billion dollars a year. But he said it was appropriate, and based on what the economics are likely to support in that period. He said: "It will be reviewed, and could be increased if the technologies develop faster than we have foreseen."
He concluded: "We're investing now to build a viable commercial enterprise for the 21st century, and it's a big step for the future."
Germany's windpower programme continues to expand - nearly 5000 wind turbines have now been installed and the installed capacity is around 2000MW. And this despite the collapse of Tacke, one of Germany's main wind companies. Meanwhile India looks set to become the next largest windpower user - by 2000 it hopes to have 2000MW installed.
However in the UK opposition continues to new wind farms - notably in Wales. For example a proposal by Micron for six 600 kW machines at Para Cynog has been rejected by Carmarthenshire County Council, and a Wind Energy Group plan to expand the Cemmaes Windfarm by adding six extra machines, was 'called in' by the Welsh office - despite having got approval from the Powys County Council. The original windfarm at Cemmaes was the focus of the UK's first Public Inquiry on a wind farm and local residents seemed to favour it, but now views seem to have changed - 600 objections were received, and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales has been opposing further developments.
However expansion is underway in Scotland - National Windpower's 17MW Novar wind farm near Evanton in the Highlands is now fully operational, supported by the Scottish Renewable Order.
The 300kW Enercon windturbine 1.5km from the village of Nympsfield in the Cotswolds was initially the focus of much local opposition (see Renew 108), since it was felt it would destroy the view. However it now seems to have become a tourist attraction. More than 20,000 people visited it during its first year of operation, 2,000 of them in a single day last August.
*Sweden is pushing ahead with its 5 turbine offshore Gotland windfarm, while Holland is looking at the 32km Afslutdijk dam north of Amsterdam as a possible site for 60 windturbines.
The Energy Saving Trust has produced a new report on Energy Efficiency and Environmental Benefits to 2010 exploring the potential energy and carbon dioxide emission saving that could realistically be achieved by 2010, through the increase of domestic energy efficiency. It also sets out to give some indication of the increase in the size of the energy efficiency market and the scale of public funding which would be required to support these savings.
EST uses a "bottom-up" approach based on the current energy efficiency market, and shows that, by the year 2010, annual energy savings of over 85 TWh could be achieved, together with over 5.6 million tonnes of carbon and over 20.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, just through domestic energy efficiency. This would also mean that savings of over 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide could be achieved over the lifetime of these measures.
As EST note, domestic energy efficiency, if funding is available to build the market, could achieve savings in carbon dioxide emissions of 4%, against 1990 emission levels, by 2010. In turn this would mean an 18% reduction in domestic energy use and a 14% reduction in domestic carbon dioxide emissions.
However EST remind us that "to achieve savings of this kind a significant increase in the energy efficiency industry will be required from the present levels of £320 million a year to around £800 million a year. We also estimate that over 20,000 jobs could be created by increasing the energy efficiency market to this extent. This increase will not happen on its own and will require an increase of public funding to pump prime and market energy efficiency. Our initial estimates are that such programme costs would be around £600 million above existing programmes costs, spread over the next thirteen years. This would mean an increase in public funding for these measures from around £100 million today to around £170 million per year. Therefore we conclude that the public funding required, whether from a levy on energy use or directly from the Government, would be equivalent to less than 2% of that currently spent by the domestic sector on fuel and power."
For further information contact the EST on 0171 931 8401.
Energy Efficiency in Europe Slumps
The Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE) has found out from some little-publicised European Commission documents that Europe has been getting less energy efficient during the 1990s.
Between 1976 and 1985, the EC succeeded in improving its overall "energy intensity" (gross energy consumption divided by GDP) by 20%, continuing the positive trend of the previous three decades. The European Council of Ministers set a target of another 20% improvement for the decade 1986-1995. However, the relevant figures prove to be no cause for celebration: in the specified period, the 15 EU countries managed to improve their collective energy intensity by just 5.8%. Any efficiencies that did take place occurred entirely in the 1980s, while from 1990 onwards, Europe became less efficient overall. This brings into question the effectiveness of Europe's efforts to meet its commitments made at Kyoto
ACE, 2A Prebon Street, London, N1 8PT. Tel: 0171 359 8000.
France has abandoned its fast breeder reactor programme and currently has a moratorium on new nuclear developments. But could it go further and actually phase out nuclear power? The answer is yes, according to a recent report by an environmental group, which claims that France could phase out 70% of its nuclear plants within 2 years. That's the startling conclusion of a study by GSIEN - Groupment des Scientifiques Pour L'Information sur L'Energie Nucleaire.
More than 77% of France's electricity comes from 57 nuclear plants, with 60 GW installed - so this is a really dramatic claim. How is it possible? To start with 15 reactors are producing solely for export or for the nuclear industry itself. 19% of France's nuclear electricity is exported, mainly to the UK and Italy. So 10 reactors could be shut down immediately with no energy less to France - just an income loss. Interestingly the UK is just about to impose the NFFO levy on imported French nuclear electricity, so the benefits to France will be reduced in any case. It should be remembered that France capitalised its vast nuclear programme by borrowing money on the international markets rather than by passing on the cost to its consumers - and then found it had massively overestimated demand. So it is selling off power cheap to try to keep the interest payment on the loan up.
The French nuclear industry itself uses 4.5 GW (7-8% of total national consumption), chiefly at the Cap de Hague reprocessing plan and the Perrelatte enrichment plant - the equivalent to the output of five more 900 MW reactors.
To complete the 70% phase out, GSIEN propose a temporary restart of some of France's thermal plants - many of which are at only 17.5% of their capacity on a peak load basis. But this would only be a temporary measure, tiding France over while an ambitious renewables and energy conservation programme was put in place. This would allow the rest of the nuclear plants to be phased out within two years and then, five years later, all the thermal plants to be closed.
The GSIEN scenario is reported in the French environmental journal Silence Issue 222 September 1997. Silence actually say the phase out could be even quicker - since they feel that renewables and energy and efficiency could make a larger and earlier contribution. For example a 40% energy saving is seen as feasible - equivalent to 7 reactors worth - and the potential for wind, solar, biomass and hydro is seen as very large.
It all sounds a little thin on details e.g on costs, and very ambitious, but if a phase out can even theoretically be considered in France, then that means it can be phased out anywhere.
Source: WISE News Communique 477, Sept. 12, 1997. Silence is at 9 rue Dumerge, 69004 Lyon (Tel: +33 47839 5533). The GSIEN report is by Roger and Bella Belbeoch, Sto-Nogent, c/o Nature et Progress, 49 rue Raspail, 93100, Montrevil, France. Tel: +331 4293 9625.
The main theme of issue 112 is Sustainable Technology. In addition to Editorial, Letters , groups and reviews sections , Renew 112 includes features looking at the limits of the 'green design' approach to sustainable technology development, and at the UK's renewable energy programme. The Technology section looks at PV, base load windpower, solar thermal and Fuel Cells.
The full printed 30 page bimonthly Renew journal can be obtained from NATTA, the Network for Alternative Technology and Technology Assessment, on subscription for £12 pa for students/unwaged, otherwise its £18pa, payable to 'NATTA'.
Further details from NATTA, c/o EERU, Open University, Milton Keynes, MK 7 6AA
Tel: 01908 65 3197 (24 hrs) Fax: 01908 65 4052 (24 hrs)
Back to RENEW ON-LINE INDEX page.