The views expressed should not be taken to necessarily reflect those of EERU or of the OU.

It was perhaps not very surprising that the initial opening of the UK's liberalised electricity market has been delayed - until September. Developing the administrative structure for billing and power control is a complex exercise- with, as OFFER, the Office of Electricity Regulation, put it 'a number of detailed change being required to enable company IT systems to integrate properly with each other'. It added 'The rate of testing IT systems in some initial elements of national testing has been slower than expected.'

The liberalisation process was always going to be carried out in stages- only some of the regional electrictity company areas would have been opened up in April. On the new plan, the first four areas will be opened up in September 1998, with four further areas opening in October, and the remaining six areas opening in December. In each area a controlled market start up of six months is planned. This means the market will be fully opened with all customers by June 1999.

As far as the green electricity market is concerned the delay may give time for new supplies to be found. If consumer demand for green electricity rises as much as some people predict, then it will outstrip supply. Basically, for the moment, the only supplies available, apart from a few independent non NFFO projects, are the ex - NFFO 1 and 2 projects. Even when money starts flowing in to the green power market, so that investment capital and business confidence in renewables materialises, it will take time to get new projects on line.

Writing in Energy Policy (Vol 26, No 1) Roger Fouquet, from Imperial College, noted that if green power supplies are limited, then prices will inevitably rise, which could set back up-take. Worse still, since liberalisation would pressumably reduce the price of conventional electricity, then the gap between that and green power would widen.

There's no question that the new liberalised power scheme will involve some complicated administration and billing systems- even leaving aside any problems associated with including green power in the scheme. At present, if a generation company is in the same local area network as the customer, the company can supply power to the consumer directly, using the local power cables. But after liberalisation this will be possible on a regional basis i.e. over the whole area covered by the relevant Regional Electricity Company (REC). The power flows will however have to be monitored and metered appropriately, so that charges can be levied on consumers for the use of the REC's distribution system for transmission of power from independent suppliers.

Another approach is to deliver a mix of power from various sources, including green power, nationally, via the mainstream power system. Rather than supplying local or regional consumers directly with 100% green power, renewable generators could feed their power to the pool for nation wide distribution, along with power from other sources. That's what happens with the NFFO at present- power from NFFO projects simply gets mixed into the national pool, with the REC's adding a surcharge for selling it. But, after liberalisation, independent companies can also offer mixed power like this, via the national pool, with, if they wanted, power from non-NFFO projects added in. Consumers would then have to decide on the mix they wanted and choose a supplier accordingly, with a billing system then tracking the flow through the network.

Verification of the sources would, of course, be important, so that consumers were confident that they really were getting the stipulated amount of Green Power. That's what's been happening in the USA already, via the 'Green-e' labelling system (see Renew 111) which requires at least 50% of the power to be from renewable sources.

In his Energy Policy paper, Roger Fouquet argues that, given the novelty of the system, consumer reactions are uncertain, but are likely to be shaped by their experiences during the first contact with the system. Given its complexity and the potential for initial technical and admin problems, perhaps its just as well that the scheme has been delayed a bit!

There has been a good (10% so far) response to the questionnaire on the green energy market mailed out with Renew 111.

Most respondents said they would be happy to buy in just about any type of renewably generated electricity, even if it did cost 10% more. However, about 60% of respondents were concerned about, or would not buy, power from waste combustion plants. About 42% and 50% respectively reacted similarly to large scale hydro and large tidal barrages. 81% thought power from landfill gas was OK, as long as it wasn't used to justify landfill as opposed to other waste reduction/recycling strategies.

'The time has come to move up a gear on Local Agenda 21 and all local authorities must produce strategies now to ensure sustainable communities into the next millennium', so said Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott at the Local Government Association Conference Local Agenda 21: The Corporate Challenge.

He launched a joint central and local government report providing guidance on how to develop Local Agenda 21 strategies - Sustainable Communities for the 21st century, which he noted was designed 'to show local authorities why and how to produce a Local Agenda 21 strategy - how to deliver sustainable local communities.'

He added 'The document we are launching is based on the best UK local practice that has been developing since the Rio Earth Summit. Last June's UN Special Session and the Kyoto Climate Change conference in December marked a change of pace and change of approach. We are moving from voluntary action to commitment.'

As we reported in Renew 108, Agenda 21 was the overall action plan for the next century endorsed at the Earth Summit- the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. It set out a framework of objectives and activities for environmental protection and sustainable development necessary to see us into the 21st Century.

It also set out a framework for action by governments and international organisations, voluntary groups, businesses, local authorities and individuals.

In particular it encouraged local authorities to adopt a Local Agenda 21 for their community by 1996. Many Local Councils in the UK got involved, and although not all of them met the 1996 deadline, a lot of local involvement was stimulated, and some interesting local coucil plans, proposals and projects have emerged.

Local communities have been involved with developing these plans and projects, via Local Roundtable meetings, Forums and so on, with local environmental groups playing a major role. The overall Local Agenda 21 programme is managed by a Steering Committee drawn from the Local Government Association and representatives of other sectors with whom key partnerships are essential. It is serviced by the Local Government Management Board (LGMB). Details on http://www.lgmb.gov.uk/

The LGMB reported on progress to the session of the UN Special Session on the Environment in June 1997 that (as of November 1996) as follows:

70% of UK local authorities are committed to Local Agenda 21:

70% have established internal working groups on Local Agenda 21 issues;

55% of authorities are preparing sustainable development strategy documents;

50% have organised training and awareness programmes for elected members;

42% are implementing environmental management systems (based on the UK's adaptation of the European Union EMAS scheme for local Government);

30% of authorities are working with their local communities on development of local sustainability indicators.

At the UN Special Session on the Environment last year, the so-called Earth Summit II, the Prime Minister called on all UK authorities to adopt Local Agenda 21 strategies by the year 2000 and this call has now been reinforced by John Prescott.

The new DETR/ Local Government report 'Sustainable Local Communities for the 21st Century' is available free of charge from DETR, The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Publications Despatch Centre, Blackhorse Road, London SE99 6TT

NATTA is doing what it can to help in the shape of a new video on Local Agenda 21, called 'Green Energy: Acting Locally, Thinking Globally'.

Produced by NATTA and Ambit Communications in conjunction with the South Midlands Renewable Energy Advice Centre, this looks at local energy projects and initiatives in the Milton Keynes, Cambridge, Bedford, Oxford, and Leicestershire region.

Its approx 30 mins long and VHS video copies can be bought from NATTA for £24.95. NATTA members can rent it for £5 per week.

After a long campaign to reverse the decline in its funding, the Energy Saving Trust (EST) has won a commitment from the Government to maintain the Trust's budget at £19 million for 1998/99. Under the previous Government's spending plans, the Trust's budget was set to fall to £13.5 million. The new plan therefore represents a 40% increase on the planned level of spending.

Dr Eoin Lees, EST's Chief Executive, commented "The Energy Saving Trust's remit is to reduce CO2 emissions. Coming at a time when the Government is under considerable financial restraints, this move is a considerable demonstration of their commitment to the environment. Having shown firm leadership on climate change to the world at the Kyoto Summit, it is clear that the Ministerial team of John Prescott, Michael Meacher and Angela Eagle also intend to demonstrate that same leadership at home."

Dr Lees added "the increased funding, and the millions of pounds of geared funding it will attract, will enable the Trust and its many partners in industry, local authorities and elsewhere, to build on our achievements of the past few years in reducing the UK's CO2 emissions and providing warmer homes."

EST's latest report 'Energy efficiency and environmental benefits to 2010' argues that increased investment in energy saving measures can produce significant reductions in CO2 emissions, reduce energy bills and create jobs.

The Energy Saving Trust is a non-profit distributing company set up in 1993 by the Government and major energy companies. Its objective is to promote the efficient use of all forms of energy in the UK by domestic customers and small businesses, leading to an overall reduction in environmental emissions, including the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.

Energy efficiency and environmental benefits to 2010' is the first in a series of papers to be published by the Energy Saving Trust, looking at how the Government's carbon dioxide reduction targets could be achieved. Further papers will be published looking at domestic appliances, CHP and Transport.

Energy Saving Trust, 11-12 Buckingham Gate

London SW1E 6LBF Tel: 0171 592 1506

The European Commission has been re-negotiating the funding allocations under the Joule R&D support scheme, following the controversy that arose during the initial round of allocations ( see Renew 100) when it was alleged that renewables had been 'sold short' by up to 20%, with funding originally meant for renewables going instead to fossil fuel.

In the revised allocations for Joule III, which runs up to 1998, renewables have done quite well, attracting some 98 million ecu. Windpower and PV get 25m ecu (european currency units), biomass gets 20m ecu, energy in buildings 14m ecu, geothermal 2.5 m ecu. Energy storage and 'other options' get 7m ecu- and that category includes 3 wave energy projects.

The Rational Use of Energy budget, covering energy efficiency in buildings, industry and transport, is the largest- at 66m ecu. By contrast fossil fuels only get 28m ecu in total - mainly for work on clean combustion technology.

Joule stands for 'Joint Opportunities for Unconventional or Long term Energy'. As this implies, it is meant to support R&D on novel technologies. In parallel there is the EC's Thermie demonstration scheme, designed to provide a follow up for commercially viable ideas.

DTI Minister John Battle has been very positive about renewable energy: indeed he seems to have become something of a champion for the sustainable technology cause. However, given Labours policy of constraint on public sector spending, there could be problems ahead, not least with respect to the proposal in the European Unions White Paper on Renewables for doubling the amount of energy obtained from renewables.

As we noted in Renew 112, the aim was for the EU to get 12% of all its energy, not just of its electricity, from renewable sources by 2010. To achieve this dramatic expansion, the White paper outlined a programme costing around £110 billion over the next decade. While much of this would hopefully come from the private sector, their would also be a significant public sector requirement.

On 23rd March, the Independent ran an article entitled "Britain Fights shy of EU plan for 'green' power", claiming that the UK would oppose the plan.

It quoted Battle as saying that the plan 'would add to existing pressures on the Community budget and UK public expenditure.' Battle had, the Independent noted, told the House of Commons European Legislation Committee, that while 'the UK government will show enthusiasm for the Commissions initiative,' it will be 'tempered with a dose of realism'. He added 'whilst supporting the principle of action to promote renewables, and the adoption of a more strategic approach, the UK will argue against the endorsement of any unrealistic targets and the adoption of measures which would impose disproportionate costs on consumers, industry or the taxpayer'.

The Independents' article evidently ruffled a few government feathers, and Battle indicated subsequently that there was no question of opposition from the UK: he told a seminar on renewables organised by the Fabian Society that he strongly supported the EU programme. What really seems to be the issue is the exact scale of the UK contribution- and its cost. The Independent quoted Battles estimate of £1-3bn per annum, but really that depends on the size of the programme.

The UK's current target, a 10% electricity contribution from renewables by 2010, translates to only about a 4% energy contribution, a third of the European target. So, although some people see the UK target as ambitious, in fact, we would be falling behind the average.

However, it is not necessarily the case that every country in the EU would have to meet the 12% target: some are in the position to do better than others. For example, the White paper noted that in 1995, Austria obtained around 24% of its energy from renewable resouces, Sweden 25%, Finland 21% and Portugal 16%. Despite having one of the EU's largest renewable resources, the figure for the UK was just 0.7%.

In part, the large difference is because countries like Austria and Sweden have already made extensive use of their large 'traditional' renewable resources- such as hydro and biomass, whereas the UK has only just started to exploit is very large renewable energy resources- focusing on the newer renewable sources, like windpower. Even so, given the huge UK potential, you'd think we could do better than 4% by 2010 .

The European Commission has noted that the response to the White Paper's plan during the consultation process was 'overwhelmingly positive' and says the 12% target is 'ambitious but realistic'. Indeed there has been strong pressure for an even more radical strategy, including a call from the European Parliament for the renewable contribution to be increased to 15% of fossil fuel delivered energy.

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is carrying out a review of UK renewable energy policy as well as a wider review of energy policy: see Renew 111. In addition the DTI has also been seeking consumers views on the electricity trading arrangements in England and Wales, via a series of open meetings, consultation papers, educational workshops and public seminars, organised by OFFER, the Office of Electricity Regulation. Given that Scotland has a separate market with a very different electricity trading structure, it will not be included in this review although the DTI say 'the effects of it on Scottish trading arrangements will be assessed'.

The focus of the review will be on the electricity trading arrangements in England and Wales, the role of the National Grid Company, governance issues, possible arrangements for trading inside and outside an electricity pool, and the French and Scottish interconnectors.

Science, Energy and Industry Minister John Battle commented: "We need to build an electricity market which people trust and is responsive to consumer demands. For it to work efficiently, prices need to be transparent as does the operation of the market. It also needs to be a durable structure capable, in rapidly changing energy markets, of sustaining long term competition well into the next century."

Responses to consultation documents, inputs to the consultation process, and reports provided to the review will also be made public.

Battle said he wanted the outcome of the consultation exercise to be 'new arrangements for trading electricity in England and Wales which will give a better deal for large and small consumers'.

He added 'The new structure must be sustainable in the constantly changing energy market place' and 'should ensure that supply is adequate to meet demand. In the longer term the market should also ensure that investment in generation and transmission is sufficient to meet expected demand in a timely way'.

He concluded 'The review of electricity trading arrangements will play an important part in ensuring we achieve diverse, secure, sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices and ensuring that there is a level playing field for energy sources.'

To bring additional expertise, and to ensure the independence of the review, the DTI has also appointed a panel of Independent Senior Advisors drawn form industry and academia.

NATTA has already submitted evidence to the renewable energy review, via SERA (see Renew 111), and Dave Elliott from NATTA has produced a new report for the OU Technology Policy Group analysing 'Electricity Liberalisation and the UK Green Energy Market'. NATTA can provide copies for £5, or £2 to NATTA members. We'll be reporting on it in Renew 114.

Wind can now be cheaper than gas - at least in some sites in the UK.

Energy Consultant David Milborrow told the European Wind Energy Association's annual conference in Dublin that Windpower was now competitive with gas in the UK. Wind - at 3.75 ecu cents/kWh for the lowest priced Scottish wind project compared to 3.3 - 3.8 ecu cent/kWh for large British gas-fired power stations. And if wind prices are compared to small gas plants, below 50MW, then wind is clearly cheaper.

'For wind to get within the price band of generation from gas is amazing' said Milborrow.

The Country Guardian's anti wind farm group faired very badly at the seminar on windpower organised recently by the Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group in the House of Commons. Indeed their case was more or less flattened simply by a recital by Nick Goodall from the British Wind Energy Association and others present of some of their rhetorical excesses, so much so that one wonders why they set themselves up to be so easily refuted. Thus speaker after speaker pointed out that, no, windturbines did not sound like tractors. No they didn't frighten horses. No they didn't keep sheep awake.

It fell to Frank Cook MP to try to soften what otherwise was a complete defeat for the Country Guardians representative, Ann West, who had bravely stepped in to replace Nigel Evans MP, Country Guardians Vice President. Cook suggested kindly that they 'have a rethink' - and most of the 100 or so people present seemed to agree.

It was important, indeed vital, to take notice of minority views, but the use of obviously fallacious arguments did no one any good. As Goodall from the BWEA put it 'reasoned argument is OK, but we are not dealing with reasoned argument'. He called instead for 'pride not prejudice' in dealing with the UK's excellent windpower potential - which could mean that the UK could be obtaining 10% of its electricity from wind by 2025, with maybe half of this coming from offshore sites.

Ms West from Country Guardian nevertheless kept repeating that many people, locally, hated windturbines and that although Country Guardian only had 200 members they were not alone - the Ramblers Association, the National Trust and many others were also concerned about windpower.

In a way it was rather sad that the Country Guardian's position was so easily flattened.

For there is a need for a strategic debate over how to develop sustainable energy systems - for example concerning the right balance between renewable supply options of various sorts and energy conservation/demand side options. The current approach is still too much shaped by short term competitive market pressures.

Than can distort developments. And it can also produce poorly sited and designed projects.

So you need counter pressures to back up the planning and decision making system. If Country Guardian didn't exist, maybe we would have to invent something similar - but then perhaps we could come up with a more coherent organisation that could contribute to the debate more effectively.

The meeting was useful in reminding us that minority local opposition to windfarms won't go away: there will always be people who simply do like windturbines and are not interested in 'improved planning controls': they just want NO WIND TURBINES.

It was also useful to be reminded that this sort of opposition, amplified by Country Guardian, and relayed by the media, was stopping the development of windpower - and also, as Fanny Calder from PRASEG noted, casting a shadow on renewables generally. Was that really what Country Guardian wanted. No said Mrs West - they supported renewables in general.

In the end it was all brought in to a common sense focus by a Local Councillor from Stroud, who reported on the history of the battle over Nympsfield windturbine (see Renew 108)

Feelings had run high with Country Guardian playing a role, but she now felt that the project was acceptable, if not accepted, and wind was after all a much better option than nuclear power. One wonders if Sir Bernard Ingham would agree?

• Now that the European Union has adopted the EWEA's old target of 40,000 MW for wind power by 2010, in its White Paper on Renewables (see Renew 112), the European Wind Energy Association has moved on to set a target of 100,000 MW for 2020. The EU windpower total as of December 1997 was 4,425 MW, with 2,000 MW of this being in Germany and only 312 MW in the UK. Denmark exported 1 GW worth of wind turbines last year.

EWEA (and BWEA) are at 26 Spring Street, London W2 1JA. Tel: 0171 402 7122 Fax: 0171 402 7125. email: ewea@compuserve.com

The appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the three wind turbines proposed by Yvonne and John Miller for Lowick beacon in Cumbria, was, sadly, turned down.

As we reported in Renew 105, they were awarded an NFFO contract in 1994 - one of the few projects by private individuals to get supported. Their aim was to use the earnings from the wind turbines to set up a trust fund to preserve wildlife in the area. However after agitation by Country Guardian, the Local Council refused planning permission in August 1996. The Millers appealed and a Planning Inquiry was held - but the Secretary of State has now confirmed the refusal, on the grounds of visual intrusion.

The Millers were saddened. They told Windpower Monthly 'we are only ordinary people trying to do some good for the world. We thought we had got a perfect solution: two ways of helping the environment'.

As we report in our Technology Section new wave energy ideas have emerged in Holland, Denmark and Australia. And after years in the doldrums in the UK, wave power may be making a small comeback here too, as David Ross reports.

The British Government has decided to return to wave energy, four years after the contentious issue was consigned to oblivion by the last government. The resurrection was formally but discreetly announced by the Scottish Office in December.

This came after John Battle, the Energy Minister, had written to me to say that wave power would be included in the energy review he was conducting. An extremely well-informed source told me: "Scotland has slightly jumped the gun. Under the old Conservative policy, wave was in the also-ran category but Scottish Ministers have concluded from the renewables review that wave should be brought into a market-stimulation category. So you are succeeding - the wave lobby is succeeding."

The Scottish announcement (see Renew 112) came in a statement to Parliament by Brian Wilson, Minister for Industry at the Scottish Office. He announced the details of the Scottish Renewables Obligation, the Scottish version of NFFO, under which selected renewable sources are subsidised. He listed all the technologies which were eligible to apply for the subsidy to enable them to be, as Wilson, put it, "extremely competitive on price." He said: "I am minded that the third order should cover wind, small hydro, waste to energy and biomass projects, and that it should also make limited capacity available to small wind schemes and wave power projects."

This was the first mention of wave power from a government source since Tim Eggar, when Energy Minister, said on March 31 1994 that "no further commitments" would be undertaken because wave energy "has limited potential to contribute commercially in the next few decades." Wave energy engineers and scientists, such as Professor Stephen Salter, inventor of Salter's Duck, concluded that there was no prospect of support from Whitehall until Tim Eggar had gone.

New projects

On the Scottish order, applications are being prepared by Allan Thomson on behalf of a new version of his OSPREY which was launched and sank in the summer of 1995; and by Professor Trevor Whittaker of Queen's University, Belfast who has built a wave power station on Islay in the Inner Hebrides, where it has survived on the edge of the Atlantic for eight winters and who now wants backing to build a larger model on a more exposed site directly facing the Atlantic rollers.

Wave power was omitted from the English and Welsh list of NFFO projects issued by the DTI in London as candidates for subsidy on the grounds that there were no proposals for projects around the English coast. This is true - just. There would be proposals if potential applicants had reason to expect government support and this may materialise following the energy review.

The Cockerell Raft is one such - it was designed by Sir Christopher Cockerell, the Hovercraft inventor, and consists of a pair of articulated rafts which flip up and down in the waves, driving hydraulic fluid with their movement. Another, backed up by Ove Arup, the consulting engineers and architects, looks like a floating air mattress.

The Government is being spurred on by the action of the Irish Government in offering £1 million towards a wave power station in Irish waters. British applicants are applying for it. The competing projects are being judged at Harwell (as previously reported in Renew 111), where the British wave energy programme was organised from 1976. The Government spent £15 million on it and would look foolish if Ireland, which has some of the world's most fruitful waves around its shores, scooped up the benefit from Britain's research effort, while Britain itself did nothing.

However, including wave energy in a review is not the same as allocating money and we have still to see what it produces in practice. Wave energy has been on the brink of major developments many times and then the government has backed away. The gas, oil and nuclear lobbies are still powerful inside government and they will not admit a new competitor without a fight.

"The fear...that free markets would lead to rampant capitalism of the worst kind, is an outmoded line of thought, preventing entry into a liberalised future of opportunity'.

So went the editorial in Windpower Monthly last October, launching a debate on the liberalisation of energy markets.

Liberalisation, privatisation or (in the USA) de-regulation, is certainly sweeping the world, but as Windpower Monthly noted, it 'gives rise to a deal of "conscientious objection" in much of the renewables community', not least since it will undermine the various 'fixed price' arrangements that have emerged to support renewables, e.g. in Germany and Denmark.

Earlier attempts for example by the European Union, to impose a carbon tax on fuel use so as to reflect environmental costs, were beaten back, and the emphasis these days is on what might be seen as a compromise 'half-way house' - trading in emission permits.

Rather than trying to control markets directly via taxes or general regulations, the idea is to create a new market for emission permits. This concept was debated at the Kyoto Climate Change Conference - but fell foul of concerns about 'hot air' trading (see Renew 111). Nevertheless interest continues in the idea - and the European Union and has proposed 'renewable energy credit' tradable between generation companies.

The European Wind Energy Association is supporting this idea and sees 'environmental credits' as a way to support the development of renewables. Each EU member country would specify 'a percentage renewable obligation' and generation companies would be obliged to meet their share. Those that overachieved could sell their 'credits' to those who 'undershot', trading credits via a pool. Basically it would be a regionalised version of the emission trading idea discussed at Kyoto, and counting it in terms of positive 'renewable credits', rather than in 'pollution permits' has its advantages.

As local 'green power pools' have begun to emerge, following deregulation in North America, this idea has already lifted off. For example, in Canada, ENMAX, a Calgary based utility, has been buying up the credits certified by the Government's Environmental Choice programme, that have resulted from the operation of a local windfarm run by Vision Quest Windelectric.

It all sounds wonderful - except for the fact that, as we noted above, liberalisation will presumably sweep away the various existing support mechanism, such as Germany Electricity Feed Law (EFL) which is based on the concept of a Renewable Feed in Tariff, or REFIT, and the Danish Windmill Law, under which prices which utilities have to pay are set centrally by government. These laws have provided a secure market for generators and have been very effective at stimulating the growth of renewables, particularly windpower. But inevitably the utilities do not like them. The issue has come to a head particularly in Germany, where the 'feed law' has been challenged strongly by those favouring liberalisation. Against them, five thousand renewable energy supporters converged on Bonn last September - calling for the retention of the full REFIT premium payment scheme for renewables. Clearly there are some conflicts - as the debate in Windpower Monthly reflected.

Mike Grubb from the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs presented a case for liberalisation and internally traded permits in the October issue. Gaynor Hartnell and David Milborrow responded with a critique in the November edition, arguing that while 'tradable credits' may be the next best thing if we cannot have full internalisation of external costs but under a 'percentage obligation' system there would be an emphasis on the cheapest and easiest renewable options - and no incentive to invest in the longer term development of renewables. As far as wind power went, a percentage obligation 'would have a devastating effect on diversity - unless it was sub-divided between offshore, small scale projects, community developments and larger share projects'.

The debate over liberalisation will no doubt continue. Some people claim that competition will stimulate the growth of renewables, others argue that renewables - especially the new options - need special support to become fully established. No one is asking for feather bedding, most simply want a 'level playing field' - although it is also sometimes argued that environmental priorities should mean that renewables should be given the advantage.

Withdrawal of the fixed tariff subsidy structure at this point in time, in preference for market competition, or even tradable permits, could be disastrous for the development of renewables - especially new renewables. Indeed, Birger Madsen, a Danish consultant, argued in Windpower Monthly last November, that, REFIT styled fixed tariff schemes should be introduced everywhere in Europe.

What about the UK? The NFFO is a subsidy but it is not a fixed tariff scheme - prices are set within each technology band by a competitive bidding mechanism, and, although there have been problems, it seems to have delivered price convergence (with conventional fuel prices). However there are no more rounds of the NFFO planned and R&D funding is still very low, so the prospects for the next wave of 'new' renewables is uncertain: even if it expands, the green power market in the UK, as elsewhere, seems unlikely to provide support for the novel but untried options. The result could be that the green pool will dry up - drained but not re-filled by market pressures.

With the UK currently having the Presidency of the European Union, John Prescott has been busying himself on the post Kyoto process- in readinness for the next round of Climate Change negotiation in Buenos Aires in November.

' We have set ourselves three main objectives, and they are challenging ones. First, we aim to secure agreement on how to share out the EU's 8% legally-binding target amongst Member States. Second, we want to identify which policies and measures should be taken forward on a European basis to complement the national measures that Member States will be putting in place. Third, we will be preparing the EU position for Buenos Aires and in particular for the preparatory official meeting that will be taking place in Bonn in June.

This gives us a very big agenda to consider in the follow up to Kyoto. We cannot solve everything at Buenos Aires but we must make progress and move the process forward.'

As we noted in Renew 111, the World Energy Council was fairly pessimistic about the prospects for meeting the existing carbon emission reductions proposed for 2000 and was even less convinced about the proposals for post 2000 reductions put forward by the European Commission.

Speaking at the 1997 European Wind Energy Conference in Dublin, WEC's Michael Jefferson commented, proposals for 'even a 15% reduction by 2010 are far removed from what is politically and socially feasible'.

Instead of rushing into binding commitments now, WEC, he said, wanted to plan over a longer term time scale - 100 years or so. But he was not a Contrarian: indeed WEC had concluded that the IPCC had underestimated the likely extent of global warming by 2100.

'Sustainable energy is not achievable without nuclear power' was the message from a Conference organised by the Uranium Institute recently, with Dr Hans Blix, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency commenting 'it may seem puzzling that the nuclear option is largely ignored at a time when there is ever greater worry that the burning of fossil fuels might lead to global warming, and when it seem clearly unrealistic to expect that greater energy efficiency or greater use of renewables will go very far to help us retrain CO2 emissions'. (EPE Oct 1997)

The Conference was no doubt pleased to note that, with Sizewell 'B' now fully on stream and the productivity of the other UK nuclear plants at an all time high, the nuclear contribution had risen to 36% of UK's electricity requirements in the second quarter of 1997 - although you have to remember that nuclear is 'base load' which means that its share is high during warm weather (as in the Spring of 1997) when other sources are run down.

Nevertheless, its not a small contribution. Given that no new plants are planned this percentage will of course gradually diminish, as the MAGNOX and AGR's are decommissioned, leaving just Sizewell. But of course that means we have to find alternative non-fossil supplies if CO2 emissions are not to be increased.

The current renewable programme will just about do that - indeed it should overtake the diminishing nuclear output sometime around 2015; but purely in CO2 terms, it's one step forward and one step back. And safety issues aside, there would clearly be CO2 reduction advantages in extending the lifelines of, say, the AGR's - thus also putting off the cost of closure and decommissioning. And there have even been calls for replacement nuclear plants. The idea of using nuclear to meet all or at least a large part of the 20% CO2 saving target was looked at, purely as an exercise in speculation, by the Governments Energy Advisory Panel (see Renew 110).

However, quite apart from it being against Government policy, the Panel found that it would be impossible to build sufficient new nuclear plants to achieve anything like that by 2010: the Panel said it would require 12 Sizewell B sized reactors which was it said 'clearly not feasible'.

Nevertheless, the nuclear industry seems to have tried to revive itself by climbing on board the 'Climate Change' bandwaggon. At a pre-Kyoto conference in Brussels, the nuclear lobby tried to enlist support from the renewable community for a joint campaign - but, according to Windpower Monthly (December 1997) this approach was rebuffed. The European Wind Energy Association commented 'There is no way we want any kind of association with the nuclear industry'.

It does seem like a last ditch attempt to get back in the game. As Liam Salter from Climate Network Europe noted 'In none of the energy markets currently in the process of liberalisation was the nuclear option being given serious consideration'.

A recent study by the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University suggested that the cost of decommissioning the UK's nuclear plants could be much more than the official estimates - £70 billion instead of £42 billion.

And some of this could fall on the taxpayer, since the newly privatised nuclear companies might not be able to cope. The taxpayer will in any case have to come up with £23.4 billion for decommissioning the Magnox reactors - which stayed in the public sector; they were recently taken over by the newly merged BNFL - Magnox Electric).

British Energy, which took on the Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors and the Sizewell PWR, puts aside £16m pa into a segregated fund to meet its long term nuclear liabilities, but SPRU say this might not be sufficient to cover shorter term liabilities as well - waste reprocessing and disposal for example.

Interestingly, British Energy has also got into gas turbines these days. Maybe that will help it earn enough to pay for nuclear decommissioning!

• For a review of the nuclear state of play from the industry's point of view see the special issue of the IEEE's journal 'Spectrum' Vol. 34 No 11.

The nuclear industry has of late been making much of its new helium cooled reactor using gas turbine technology - which it claims could be safe and cheap. See the Engineer, January 8, 1998

A 1980 advisory referendum-primarily a response to safety concerns-called for phasing out nuclear power in Sweden by 2010. Sweden's parliament recently approved a plan to begin the phase out, with the first plant closure scheduled for July 1998. Sweden relies on nuclear power for about half of its electricity; the remainder comes mainly from hydropower. The opponents to the phase out say it will cost too much to find replacements- and this view is echoed in a new book by William Nordhaus, published by Resources for the Future (RFF).

Its an important issue. For as Nordhaus say "although Sweden is a small country producing but a tiny fraction of the world's energy and output, it plays a large role on the stage of world opinion."

He adds "The world is watching Sweden's redesign of the welfare state, and it will also pay close attention to how Sweden manages its nuclear power industry."

He estimates the cost of a nuclear phaseout, if implemented evenly from 2000-2010, to be about $15 billion (in discounted 1995 dollars). Nordhaus notes that this amounts to $2100 per Swedish citizen. With the country's gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010 estimated to be around $340 billion, this $15 billion cost amounts to nearly 5% of its GDP."A nuclear phaseout will hardly bankrupt Sweden," Nordhaus writes, "but it represents a loss in real income and wealth that is substantial by any account."

Unsurprisingly, he finds that if nuclear is replaced by coal-based or oil-based technologies then there could be a significant deterioration in health and environmental conditions. It would also undermine Swedens commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

What about developing renewables? Expansion of hydro may be unpopular for environmental reasons, but Sweden has a huge biomass resource- and, given its long heating season, a good solar potential, even without interseasonal energy storage. It has been estimated by the International Energy Agency, that solar photovoltaics could supply between 5-10 GWp ( see the IEA's PV Power Newsletter No. 8 Nov. 10997). Until PV costs come down, that would of course be expensive, and for the moment direct solar heating is a more attractive option: interseasonal heat stores have already been developed to make it even more attractive. Finally there's windpower. Until recently, Sweden has rather dragged its feet on windpower development, but that is now getting underway- with an offshore project. So there are some clear renewable energy possibilities - and of course there is also energy conservation. Although most Swedish buildings are well insulated, there is still potential for energy savings via the use of energy efficient devices in all sectors of the economy.

But for Nordhaus the future seems to be to stay with nuclear: "Sweden is unique in having a well-managed nuclear power industry, producing at low cost, and having found a political resolution to the thorny issues of siting and disposal of nuclear wastes," Nordhaus writes. "How is the world to read the message of shutting this industry down in the prime of its economic life? Sweden should recognize that its actions will be read internationally as an important message about the viability of nuclear power as a future energy source."

The Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food has issued a public warning not to handle, kill or eat feral pigeons within 10 miles of the Sellafield reprocessing complex after high levels of caesium-137 and caesium-134 were found in the birds. Hundreds of pigeons are being killed and the garden top soil from a house used as a bird sanctuary for pigeons in the village of Seascale is being removed as it is contaminated with radiation. Sellafield operators BNFL says surrounding houses and gardens are safe, although further monitoring will be carried out. Analysis of the pigeons has, it seems, shown that anyone eating the breasts of about six pigeons would receive the permitted annual radiation dose for the public.

In addition to its usual coverage of all thing renewable, including a review of some new wave energy devices, Renew 113 carries reports contrasting the 'contrarian' reaction to the global warming thesis, with the 'deep green' views of some eco-fundamentalists. It also reviews some of the problems associated with genetic modification of food.

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'. T265 students can subscribe for £12 pa.

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)