NFFO-5, the largest order under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation so far, was announced in September. If all the 261 new projects are successful that will provide some 1,177 MW, from landfill gas, waste, hydro and both large and small wind farms.

It is also the cheapest NFFO so far. The average price of power expected to be generated is only 2.71 p/kWh, compared with the electricity pool price of 2.67 p/kWh. This is down from 4.35p/kWh under NFFO3.

Energy Minister John Battle commented ‘I expect NFFO-5 to become the first step in our new and strong drive for renewables. Government policy is to secure additional generating capacity from renewables so that they can contribute substantially to reducing greenhouse gases and encouraging internationally competitive industries across a wide range of new energy sourcing options.’

He added ’When I launched the competition for NFFO-5, I expected some further price reductions from those seen under earlier Orders. However, the price reductions have exceeded my expectations and reflect well on an industry determined to make renewables competitive with other sources of energy.’

Certainly the price reductions are significant. For example, the average price paid under NFFO-3 was 4.35 p/kWh, under NFFO-4 was 3.46 p/kWh and under NFFO-5 is 2.71 p/kWh. For comparison the average pool price ( i.e for a conventional electricity) for the 12 months to 31 March 1998 was 2.67 p/kWh.

So the extra premium needed to pay for NFFO-5 will be decreased, despite its size. Some £116 million was paid in 1997/8 under the NFFO arrangements- with around 538 MW of capacity from NFFO-1,2,3&4 schemes generating on 31 July 1998. But NFFO-5 is expected to only cost about £16-23m pa when all 730 MW of projects that are expected to actually be commissioned are generating.

The Governments review of renewable energy policy, has still not emerged but Battle noted that ‘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 supported under NFFO-5, including offshore wind energy and energy crops.’

Speaking to the British Wind Energy Association in Cardiff in September, Energy Minister John Battle launched a consultation document on arrangements for incorporating the development of offshore wind energy into Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Order (NFFO) process.

Mr Battle said offshore wind was one of the UK's greatest and as yet untapped natural, sustainable and pollution-free resource. "The main objective of supporting offshore wind energy under the NFFO is to make a substantial and cost-effective contribution to future electricity needs. How much of a contribution will depend primarily on the environmental acceptability of offshore wind projects and the technology's cost in comparison to other renewables. This consultation is mostly concerned with the arrangements for a first offshore wind band in future NFFO arrangements. I expect this to lay the foundation for future success by establishing offshore wind as a dependable and environmentally sound technology.

NFFO Orders in the past have been based on competitive bidding, a policy that has proved highly successful. I believe that the competition-based approach is the best and fairest way achieving our longer term sustainability goals."

He added that if we wanted to obtain 10% of our electricity supplies from renewable sources by 2010 that "will require a further sizeable contribution from the UK's huge onshore wind resource, at least as much again as has been contracted under NFFO to date. My confidence in the further successful expansion of onshore wind has been boosted by the degree of interest shown in the latest round of the NFFO. The demand to develop onshore wind farms is clearly enormous, with 117 bids received. I have been impressed by the extraordinarily low price bid, reflecting the seriousness of the bids, and the imminence of onshore wind energy competing in the open market."

He concluded by looking to the longer term "The Government's 10% renewables review is not just about achieving a target for renewables. It also looks beyond 2010, to provide a framework for helping achieve secure, economic and above all sustainable energy supplies. That means creating an innovative and efficient economy, with a highly skilled and well-rewarded workforce, and firms that can compete against the best in the World. The keen interest in developing onshore wind projects under NFFO 5, and the eager call to develop offshore windfarms tells me that - even before we have announced a 10% renewable target - the UK wind industry can achieve that high expectation."

In an interesting footnote, the DTI's press release added that ‘It has become clear that achieving 10% of the UK's electricity supplies will rely principally on contributions from the main NFFO technologies: energy from wastes, wind energy onshore, wind energy offshore, and energy crops.’ . So now offshore wind is formally on the agenda.

Prior to the announcement of fifth Non Fossil Fuel Order (NFFO5), Stephen Littlechild, Director of OFFER, the Office of Electricity Regulation provided advice to the Government on its make up, and seemed to imply that renewables were basically too expensive to be much use in cutting carbon dioxide emissions. With OFFER shortly to combine with OFGAS, and Prof Littlechild departing, perhaps this was his ‘goodbye’ swansong message.

If so, it certainly ruffled some feathers.

Commenting on the Governments proposed target of obtaining 10 per cent of the UK’s electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010, he noted that ‘such a target might be achieved by continuing NFFO support for some technologies, including on-shore wind, off-shore wind and energy crops. However, the cost of meeting the target in these ways might amount to some £11 to £15 bn requiring a Levy rate of between 6 and 8 per cent over about 15 years. It is for consideration whether the benefits of renewable energy justify incurring costs on such a scale.’

He buttressed this comment by the following analysis of the options for NFFO-5. There were some 408 projects submitted under NFFO-5, with a total capacity of 2579 MW. The average level of bid price was significantly lower than under NFFO-4, ranging from 2.63p/kWh to 4.43p/kWh. Littlechild estimated that an 850 MW renewable energy order similar to NFFO-4 in scale could be made up by ‘selecting the 72 projects with the lowest bid prices. This selection would comprise 46 municipal and industrial waste projects, 20 landfill gas projects, four municipal and industrial waste with combined heat and power projects and two wind projects. No hydro projects would be included. The additional cost to customers, paid through the Fossil Fuel Levy, might be about £160m over the next 15 years.’

He added that ‘an alternative means of meeting an Order would be to include fewer municipal and industrial waste projects, many of which are profitable without NFFO support. An Order involving 166 projects in total could instead include 114 more landfill gas projects (264 MW), 39 wind projects (446 MW), 11 municipal and industrial waste projects (186 MW) and 2 waste with CHP projects (10 MW). No hydro projects would be included as the bid prices are only slightly lower than in NFFO 4 and are on average higher than for other technology bands. This possible Order would give an expected effective capacity of about 600 MW after allowing for some projects failing to go ahead. The average bid price would be 2.73p/kWh which is about 26 per cent lower than the NFFO 4 average contract price. would cost £275m. The additional cost to customers, which would be paid through the Fossil Fuel Levy, might be about £75m over the next 15 years’.

The Confederation of Renewable Energy Associations was not amused with OFFER’s analysis - arguing that it all depended on the reference price you used.

Currently the pool price was 2.6p/kWh, which is what Littlechild had used, but earlier this year, in his proposals for changes to the electricity trading arrangements, he suggested that the average purchase costs of Public Electricity Suppliers might be a suitable reference price. This would be around 3.5 pence per unit.

If 3.5 pence were used as a reference price, then instead of costing the electricity consumer £275 million over the next 15 years, it could save the electricity consumer £425 million! Moreover, CREA added, OFFER assumed that ‘pool prices will fall (which they haven't been doing), but does not assume that renewable energy prices will do the same (and they have)'.

Exponents of Small Hydro Power, or SHP as its being called these day, were also quick to respond. As NATTA member Robin Cotton put it ‘To achieve 10% of electricity from renewables, new capacity will come from burning rubbish and from on-shore wind with a small contribution from other renewables. The remainder, equating to about 3/5 of the required new capacity, will come from off-shore wind and biofuels - the price of which is likely to be between 5 and 6p/kWh by 2010. Therefore, all SHP under say 5p/kWh must, by definition, be included in a ‘least cost’ scenario’.

He added that the target in the EU White Paper on renewables is 4,500MW of new SHP capacity in Europe. and that, according to International Water power and Dam Construction, hydropower world-wide is set to double from 2530TWh/year in 1996 to nearly 5000TWh by 2020, resulting in an annual growth of 2.5%. It will provide 25% of global electricity demand by 2020, tripling output from 1990 to 2020, of which a substantial part will come from micro and mini hydropower according to the FT Report: Investing in Hydropower. Although costs of SHP are not falling significantly in the UK at present, Cotton argues that ‘the rapid expansion of SHP in Europe and elsewhere will result in significant cost reductions and this will inevitably filter through to the UK, if an industry still exists’. And although the capacity for SHP in the UK is usually said to be limited, ‘there have been a steady stream of projects, averaging about 10MW per NFFO tranche. Several studies have indicated that the actual capacity in the UK may be substantially greater than figures used by the DTI and that similar levels of SHP development could be maintained or increased for many decades to come’.

SHP provided added value embedded power and after the NFFO support ended, projects could then compete on the open market, and were excellent long term investments. But without continued NFFO support, ‘many small companies who have invested considerable time, effort and expense in applying under NFFO will close and we will effectively see the end of all SHP development in the UK for a generation.’'

The liberalisation of the UK electricity market is now well underway. The first areas to be opened up to competition were those with the following post codes:

CT Canterbury, Margate, Dover - Seeboard

CH Chester, Mold, Holywell - Manweb

HU Hull, Hornsea, Beverley - Yorkshire

ML Motherwell, Airdrie, Lanark - S.Power

NR Norwich, Fakenham, Lowestoft, Cromer- Eastern

So some consumers will have already have had an opportunity to choose their source of power and the rest will be able to join in over the next few months. Launching the scheme back in Sept, Energy Minister John Battle called on the retail companies to ‘adopt a responsible approach to doorstep selling’ and to give full details of tariffs, but predicted that ‘as customers become used to finding the best deal on electricity in the same way as they look for the best deal on gas, groceries or insurance, suppliers will have to be on their toes to deliver the best possible service and prices. This will be a consumer led revolution in energy.’

Some will choose green power from REC etc. To help them, the government is introducing an accreditation scheme, aiming to reassure green electricity consumers that the product is genuine. It should be in operation at the beginning of next year.

However the Confederation of Renewable Energy Associations says that the scheme does not go far enough "Green consumers want to make a difference," says Nick Goodall, CREA’s Chair. "They want to contribute to a reduction in the amount of pollution generated from fossil fuels and nuclear power. This will only happen if new renewable energy plants get built. The proposed scheme will leave it up to individuals to decide whether companies selling renewable electricity will use the profits generated to invest in new plant. I advise any customers considering a green tariff to satisfy themselves that the scheme will deliver extra renewable electricity."

CREA has suggested that consumers ask potential suppliers the following questions:

1. What is being sold, units of electricity actually generated by existing r enewable power plants or a promise to build plants in the future?

2. How much will/does the electricity from these schemes cost in comparison with other supplies?

3. What renewable power stations have already been built or are planned as a direct result of this scheme ?

4. Does your company have a target for renewables?

Details of the Governments new accreditation scheme can be found in ‘Designing and developing an accreditation scheme for renewable energy with full consultation of interested parties. Business Plan for the scheme.’ Environmental Resources Management, REF ETSU K/BD/00181/00/REP. 1998.

A group of more that 100 renewable energy companies whose projects were supported under NFFO 1 and 2 have joined together to form a Renewable Generators' Consortium (RGC) and are now set to feed their power to the liberalised electricity system.

Over 40 members of the consortium have now signed contracts to supply collectively 120 MW of electricity in the open market after 1 January 1999, about one fifth of the capacity up and running so far as a result of the Government's Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) policy. It marks the generators move out of the protected market from which they have previously benefited under the first and second rounds of NFFO. NFFO-1 and NFFO-2 contracts end on 31 December 1998, after which date generators must sell their electricity in the open market.

The Renewable Generators' Consortium (RGC) was formed under the leadership of Fibrowatt and with support from the DTI, to enable NFFO-1 and NFFO-2 generators to negotiate collectively to sell their electricity in the open market. With support from the DTI's new and renewable energy programme, RGC has undertaken a programme of negotiations with electricity suppliers and has obtained prices for renewable generators which include a renewable premium. RGC has secured offers from electricity suppliers for all 116 members of the Consortium - representing 312MW of capacity- from one or other of nine electricity suppliers. Around 40 generators have so far accepted the offers made to them, mainly accepting offers from Power Gen, Yorkshire and Southern.

Those generation firms control around 120MW - about one fifth of the capacity up and running as a result of the NFFO. The RGC believes a significant proportion of the remaining RGC generators will accept ‘suppliers’ offers before the end of the year.

Energy Minister John Battle said that this development marked "an important point in the history of renewable energy development in this country. Some renewable energy schemes up and running - mainly large hydro in Scotland and Wales - were built before NFFO. I know that some schemes have been built outside NFFO. Today, however, sees many schemes making the transition from the protected market offered by NFFO to the open market".

He added, "In its scale, this is a first - and is important to us both because it marks the success of the NFFO policy in allowing renewable energy technologies to develop more quickly in a protected market niche and because it shows that permanent support under NFFO is not needed - renewable energy projects can make the transition from NFFO to the open market".

There have been some major political battles going on in the USA over funding for renewables- in effect reflecting the hostility to the Kyoto accord on Climate Change felt by many republicans- with cuts being proposed. An umbrella group of the solar industry, Solar Unity Network, has been fighting back, calling proposed Senate cuts "the most serious attack on renewable energy in a decade," while the Congressional directive against the Million Solar Roofs Initiative was "mean-spirited, misleading and anti-solar."

In the event the cuts were fought off and, indeed, reversed, but the battle evidently goes on, with cuts in some ancillary budgets imminent, and overall it looks like a running battle to defend renewables.

Meanwhile, although it's gone rather slowly, there are some signs that Electricity Competition in California has helped Renewables.

It seems that about 10% of the power sold in California is purchased from new electric service providers, and according to an official of Green Mountain Energy Resources, one of the green energy retailers, "tens of thousands of households have already made the switch to renewable power, and sign-ups are accelerating each month. Green power has unleashed the demand for cleaner energy sources, and price is not the only factor. Our lowest-priced power product is our least popular; people want to buy cleaner electricity."

Source: from the excellent electronic Renewable Energy News Service run by Bill Eggertson from the Canadian Earth Energy Association, 1050, 130 Slater, Ottawa K1P 6E2 (613) 230-2332 (fax) 237-1480

<ceea@earthenergy.org><eggertson@earthenergy.org>

Several companies have been offering ‘green power’ in the newly deregulated electricity market in California. Some of the key schemes are listed below, with the sources used and prices (extra over current rates).

Edison Source:

Earth Source 2000 (3.4 cents/kWh)

90% from existing hydro, geothermal and biomass (but not municipal solid waste).

10% from new renewables (wind) when the first 300 customers sign up.

Green Mountain Energy Resources:

Wind for the Future (2.1c/kWh)

65% existing hydro, geothermal and biomass (again not MSW)

25% large hydro, 10% will come from new windpower

PG&E:

Clean Choice 50 (1.6c/kWh)

37% existing wind hydro, biomass and geothermal

13% new renewables (geothermal, wind, biomass, excluding MSW). 50% large hydro (with natural gas if needed).

Clean Choice 100 (2.3c/kWh)

As above but 75% existing renewable, 25% new renewables.

Sacremento Municipal Utility District: Greenergy Community Solar (1c/kWh) 100% photovoltaics.

Greenergy Renewable Energy Option (1c/kWh)

100% geothermal.

The price range of 1-3.4 cents over current price is equivalent to a range of about10% more to about 30% more net. All but the SMUD PV scheme have 'green-e' accreditation.

Source: Natural Resource Defence Council

We mentioned the geothermal powered MacDonalds in Westland, Michigan in Renew 111. Now it's opened. Its the first MacDonald's restaurant heated and cooled with the assistance of geothermal energy. The 3600 square foot, 65-seat fast-food restaurant may be the prototype for future restaurants in the 22,000 facility chain.

The geothermal system includes a ground-loop heat exchanger comprised of 32 boreholes drilled 195 feet in depth. The system increases the efficiency of the three 11 ton rooftop natural gas fired heat pump units by 20% and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 50% compared with a conventional gas fired system.

Despite the claim by Country Guardian that large machines would be resisted even more than small ones, Enercon has obtained planning permission for the UK's first 1.5 MW windturbine, on a site near Swaffam in Norfolk.

And according to the British Wind Energy Association, the level of objections is falling off generally- judging by a survey of anti-wind letters in the press, whereas letters in favour are holding steady.

However, opposition still continues, with Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales linking up with the Ramblers Association, the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, in a campaign for the better protection of vulnerable areas.

They claim that large wind farm schemes are in danger of turning some of Britains finest landscape into semi industrial areas. They point to the DTI's estimate that on land wind will supply 3.6% of UK electricity by 2010, as part of the overall 10% target, and suggest that ‘since we already have 744 on-shore turbines and only generate 0.2% of our supply from wind power, this is an alarming prospect’. Instead they want a ‘full review of the financial subsidies provided for the industry’ and strengthening of the planning controls.

Meanwhile Scottish Natural Heritage has also called for a review. ‘We believe people have to decide whether the benefits really justify spoiling special countryside’.

By way of contrast, the July issue of Wind Directions, the BWEA's journal contained an interesting report on local wind co-ops in Germany by editor Crispin Aubrey. There are evidently now around 100,000 Germans involved with local ownerships schemes of various sorts.

The environmental enthusiasm of the local community based wind farm owners comes over clearly. As one put it ‘I'm doing this to stop the human race from committing suicide’. It's good to see practical idealism like this...

Sales of solar cells expanded more than 40 percent in 1997, according to a new report from the Worldwatch Institute, making solar power the world's second fastest growing energy source: wind is the first.

"World solar markets are growing at 10 times the rate of the oil industry, whose sales have expanded at just 1.4 percent a year since 1990," say the report's authors, Christopher Flavin and Molly O'Meara. "Solar energy may now join computers and telecommunications as a leading growth industry in the 21st century."

Currently there is more than 800 megawatts of solar power capacity now in place, and Worldwatch claim that "in the longer run, solar power has the potential to become a major contributor to the world's energy supplies-along with other energy sources such as wind power and hydrogen-powered fuel cells."

Photovoltaic solar energy looks like it will be making a strong bid as the millennium energy technology - with a whole range of innovative PV projects on the way -including a solar canopy at the Earth Centre near Doncaster, and a major new PV project at the Newcastle United Football Stadium.

England may not have won Euro-98, but BP Solar and Newcastle United football club,will build the world's largest solar-powered sports stadium in Newcastle-on-Tyne. BP photovoltaic panels at the redeveloped 51,000 seat facility at St. James Park will generate 350kW of electricity.

The solar system will provide 10% of the electricity needed for the facility during events. At other times a grid connection will provide electricity for the city. Newcastle would like to generate 1% of its electricity via solar by 2010.

In addition the UK has won the contest to host the 16th European PV Conference against tough opposition from Germany. The Millennium Conference will take place in Glasgow from 22-26 May 2000.

BP Solar also will be supplying 500 solar systems for the athletes' village for the Olympic games in Sydney, Australia in 2000. Nearer to home, BP and Ove Arup built a special solar pavilion for the G8 summit in Birmingham this summer, with a 15 kW peak grid linked photovoltaic cell array on the roof, it is seen as a prototype for systems for use on other sites. Mind you its tiny compared to the 1MW PV array on the roof of the Trade Fair centre in Munich..

Visit BP Solar at www.bp.com/bpsolar/index.html.

Meanwhile, back in the UK, the Intersolar Group, who are supporting the SCOLAR PV programme, has attracted £3.5 m in investment to help them expand manufacture of PV cells - they are the UK's only cell manufacturer. Details on 01494 452945.

The Government has allocated an extra £254m to the Environment Protection Programme for the next three years, the bulk of it going to support work on energy efficiency.

Thus there will be an extra £150 million added to the existing £75 million a year expenditure on the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. Michael Meacher, Minister for Environmental Protection, noted that this would create ‘a new expanded fuel poverty programme to help another 1,000,000 vulnerable households whose homes cannot be heated to the minimum level for good health.’

Proposals to make energy ratings on all new homes in England and Wales freely available to prospective buyers and tenants are set out in a recent DETR consultation paper.

Current Building Regulations already require that an energy rating be calculated for all new dwellings, but, at present, they only have to be notified to the relevant building control authority, but the new proposal goes further and could make the indexes more visible and more widely used by intending house purchasers.

Construction Minister Nick Raynsford pointed out that ‘the Government is committed to reducing CO2 emissions, and any means by which this can be promoted is to be encouraged. About 30% of national CO2 emissions come from dwellings of which about two thirds arises from the ordinary needs for heating and hot water.

It is already a requirement for an energy rating, known as a SAP rating, to be calculated for all new dwellings. What is missing is the requirement for these to be made readily available to prospective purchasers or tenants at the very time when they are making the decision to buy or to rent.’

Brenda Boardman, from the Oxford University Environmental Change Unit, and also incidentally an ex- student of the OU, was awarded the Melchett Medal by the Institute of Energy this summer. This prestigious award was to honour her research work on fuel poverty and energy efficiency over the last 15 years, and comes on top of her being awarded an MBE in the recent Queen's Birthday Honours.

She was presented with the medal by Professor John Chesshire, the President of the Institute of Energy (and her former PhD supervisor at SPRU) before an audience of 200-300 people at the Royal Geographical Society, London. Brenda then gave the her lecture, illustrated with many graphs and tables, entitled ‘Energy, efficiency and equity’. She argued that the more efficient use of energy is an important way of achieving an equitable distribution of resources, between rich and poor people in a country, between the rich and poor countries and generations.

She outlined the need to stabilise global CO2 emissions and to produce a convergence between rich and poor countries of an emission of 1 tonne Carbon/capita by the year 2030. This could be achieved by improvements in energy efficiency which could buy time for introduction of renewables (the Greenpeace scenario).

After outlining the global picture she turned to the UK, and fuel poverty issues that affect up to 7 million households. These could be overcome by insulation and appliance replacement schemes (at a cost of about £2500 per household). The main obstacle is lack of capital investment; however there could be a further ‘levy/tax’ on electricity and gas to raise the money. This could be done, without consumers suffering, as market competition is resulting in lower prices.

Brenda gave details on the energy efficiency potential in domestic appliances, and also some interesting results from her rural travel surveys. These found that half of rural car pollution come from top quintile (20%) of drivers, the bottom quintile produced only 3%. Many people, particularly the old, the sick and the unemployed, do not have access to a car, with 22% of rural households not owning a car, and 14% of rural adults having no driving license. The equitable answer, she proposed was better public transport and, best of all, improved provision of local facilities.

Brenda saw hopeful signs for the future. Global sales of energy efficient bulbs, the CFLs, have gone up five fold in seven years, and wind power capacity has grown from zero in 1980 to 7.6 GW in 1996. Finally three times as many bicycles are produced as cars. Brenda concluded her talk with the playing of 'When I'm 64' by the Beatles. Perhaps as an example of frugal living?

In the questions that followed Brenda said she was in favour of regulation, as long as sufficient warning was given of its introduction, so that manufacturers could reduce any adverse effects. On the question of energy taxation, John Chesshire pointed out that energy supply receives far more favourable tax treatment, in the form of tax relief, than energy demand.

Finally Mayer Hillman argued that there were dangers in relying just on energy efficiency to reduce emissions. The only way was to change our lifestyle to a less energy intensive one; meaning far less car use and hardly any plane travel. He pointed out that only three people had come by bike to this lecture, and how many of us had flown in the last year.

Brenda admitted her energy ‘gluttony’ and John quipped ‘She may have a medal but she doesn't have a halo’.

Not everyone thinks OFFER, the Office of Electricity Regulation, is wonderful, and there are plans to combine it with OFGAS, but a review by the National Audit Office, Parliaments independent watchdog, has concluded that OFFER and the 14 local electricity companies in England, Scotland and Wales have done well in introducing a £1 per customer energy efficiency scheme- which had helped cut energy use and saved consumers money. But, the NAO added, there was scope to achieve even more within current resources, and possibly to increase the net financial benefit of the scheme for customers by up to £40 m pa.

OFFER introduced the scheme in England and Wales in 1994 and in Scotland in 1995. Under the scheme, OFFER require all 14 local electricity companies to provide energy efficiency goods and services (e.g. installing low-energy light bulbs and insulation) to their customers so as to meet energy savings targets set by OFFER. This work costs the companies some £26 million a year, which they raise by charging their 26million customers an average of £1 a year each, which is included within electricity prices. The benefits of the scheme are energy savings, and lower bills and warmer homes for customers.

The NAO examined the progress made by the scheme by March 1998. They found that:

*customers will save energy. Total energy savings over the life of the energy efficiency goods and service supplied to customers up to 31 March 1998 are expected to total some 6.8 billion units of electricity (kilowatt hours), 12 per cent more than the total of the targets set for companies by OFFER. These savings are equivalent to around 11/2 per cent of the electricity used by domestic customers since the start of the scheme;

*the bills of three million customers will be reduced. The bills of the 3 million customers that have benefited from the scheme will be reduced by an average of around £120 each;

*customers will benefit from warmer homes. Insulation installed through the scheme will provide some 173,000 customers with extra warmth. Low-income customers have benefited particularly from the scheme - half of expenditure has gone to help such customers; and

*the environment will also benefit. By saving electricity, the scheme is helping to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by power stations by around six million tonnes over the life of the energy efficiency goods and service supplied to customers. This amount is equivalent to around 1/4 per cent of UK carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the scheme.

What Next?

Projects that save cheap off-peak electricity by insulating electrically heated homes are normally the most cost-effective at saving energy. But they can be less effective at reducing customers' bills than projects that save the more expensive electricity used for other purposes, such as lighting and operating appliances.

The NAO concluded that there is scope for the scheme to achieve more for customers in the future:

* energy savings for customers, and reductions in bills, might increase by about 15 per cent, equivalent to insulating the homes of an additional 14,000 customers a year, if companies could reduce the cost of projects to the level actually achieved in the most cost-effective 50 per cent of projects; and

* if OFFER changed the objectives and rules of the scheme, and allowed companies to concentrate resources, for the remainder of the current programme, on either insulation projects or low-energy lighting, to the exclusion of the promotion of energy efficient appliances and other types of project, companies might either, increase energy savings by up to around 9%, by concentrating exclusively on insulating customers' homes, equivalent to insulating the homes of an extra 8,000 customers a year; and/or, increase the net financial benefit of the scheme for customers by up to about 57 %, broadly equivalent to some £40 m pa by concentrating exclusively on low-energy lighting.

The scope for better, more efficient domestic appliances - saving the consumer money and helping the environment - is being explored by the Government. Launching the latest DETR discussion paper, in the Government's Market Transformation Programme, Angela Eagle, then still Energy Efficiency Minister, said everyone wants better products that save money and don't harm the environment.

"It costs, on average, about £70 a year to run a washing machine, dishwasher and tumble dryer. In the UK, these appliances already account for 1.6 million tonnes of Carbon emissions - a major contributor to climate change.

Energy consumption by consumer products is rising. In theory we could all save about a third by using more cost-effective and efficient appliances. We need to agree how we can put theory into practice."

This is the second in a series of review papers which will build a clearer picture of what Government, business and consumers can do to achieve more sustainable levels of consumption and avoid long term environmental problems. The first was on lighting (see Renew 115). Similar review papers are planned over the coming months covering office equipment, electronics, heating and cooking.

The DETR discussion paper shows that, in the UK, electricity consumption is responsible for 32% of UK CO2 emissions. "Wet" goods (washing machines, tumble dryers, combined washer-dryers and dishwashers) account for 12 TWh (4%) of UK electricity consumption and about 1% of UK CO2 emissions. Expert opinion is that theoretically emissions could be reduced by over 10% by yr 2010 by encouraging technically improved products and less wasteful use by consumers.

‘

Alternative Traffic in Towns - ALTER

ALTER was launched at a major Convention of European Cities in Florence in October.

The ALTER project aims to ensure that a sufficient number of European cities will agree that from a given target date - such as 2001 - only vehicles which meet zero or near-zero emission standards will be permitted in defined areas of those cities. The current lead cities include Athens, Florence, Barcelona, Lisbon, Stockholm, Chester and Oxford.

The project is local - each city will decide for itself how the programme will apply in its own area. But its effects will be Europe-wide and should have a macro-economic impact. The idea is that if sufficient cities take part, vehicle manufacturers will get a clear message that demand will be great enough to justify moving from research and development to mass production, thus lowering costs and increasing the attraction of ‘clean traffic’ alternatives.

Through the ALTER project, the cities hope to work in partnership with the industry, transport operators and the unions and to build an ‘European demand profile’ of the range and quantities of vehicles required, and of the employment implications.

As the organisers put it ‘In turn this local action to change European demand would have implications for the global competitiveness of the vehicles industry in Europe, giving Europe a competitive edge on other regions in the world economy. It should also give a lead to other economies, both newly-industrialising and industrialised, that non-polluting traffic makes economic sense. Some will produce their own alternative vehicles. Others should be encouraged to enter into joint ventures with European companies to produce their own non-polluting systems'.

They add ‘Changing demand by joint action will be the key to real change. Regions and cities across Europe will need to plan for the future to make the new technologies viable. Targets will need to be set for individual categories of transport from the launch date - cars, buses, delivery vehicles, and emergency and public service vehicle fleets. The decisions on how and where to apply the policy, for which category of transport, will be for each city government to make according to its local circumstances.

Cities would also have to decide on what provision to make for improved public transport and Park-and-Ride facilities and for local freight transhipment on the assumption that not all vehicle users outside the designated ‘clean areas’ would necessarily switch to alternative transport. New refueling points would need to be sited for electric or alternatively-powered traffic, including such options as hydrogen or compressed air fueling. The interface between city and inter-urban traffic systems would also have to be addressed.'

The ALTER organisers are clearly hopeful, but add that:

On their part the cities will indicate their forecasts of the need for differently powered traffic both for transport within their control, such as public service vehicles and public transport, as well as estimates for private transport gaining access to the scheduled areas of cities.’

Finally they note that trade union involvement will also be central to the project. ‘At a time when the private vehicle industry in Europe is facing the challenge of global competition and excess capacity, trade unions will be keen to support alternative vehicles production. Unions would also have an indispensable input into how the project would work in practice - both as producers and also as users, for example as drivers and operators’.

The project will seek to ensure on cohesion grounds that employment in existing plant and factories is maintained or increased. Emilio Gabaglio, General Secretary of the ETUC, has already expressed strong support for the project.

ALTER will liaise and work closely with environmental and alternative traffic pressure groups, who have also expressed interest in the project both on its merits and as a model of building for global change from local bases.

For further information contact;

Stephen Marks +44 (0)1865 724441 phone or fax

Stuart Holland +44 (0)171 733 5829 phone

+44 (0)171 274 9659 fax

ALTER-EUROPE, 22 Hans Place, London, SW1X 0EP Tel: +44 (0)171 733 5829 or 171 225 3503

Fax: +44 (0)171 274 9659 email: newtoned@demon.co.uk

The World Renewable Energy Conference in Florence in September went off very well - attracting 850 people from 140 countries. 650 papers were presented covering the complete range of renewables, with newcomers offshore wind and tidal streams being particularly welcomed.

On the policy side there were fears, relayed from the World Energy Conference in the USA just prior to WREC, that the Kyoto emission reduction targets might not be met, even with the rapid growth of renewables around the world, and while some saw market liberalisation as a boon, not everyone was convinced.

We will be reporting in full on the conference in Renew 117.

‘We ought to consider the possibility that we might need more nuclear power plants in the next two decades’. So said the House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry in its report on Energy recently (see Reviews).

Given the Dounreay debacle and the continuing problems at Sellafield, it perhaps had chosen the wrong time to make this claim. But it seemed confident that nuclear waste problems could be dealt with, although it recognised that there was a public credibility problem!

What are we to make of this new nuclear push? Surely it can no longer be justified on economic grounds: next time someone claims that renewables aren't competitive, and you want to remind them that the ‘playingfield’ is not level, point out that in 1996 British Energy was given the brand new Sizewell 'B' PWR (construction cost £2bn plus) plus the Advanced Gas Reactors for just £1.4 billion. No wonder the company has been running at a profit .....

Which leaves us with ‘diversity’ and possibly, carbon dioxide emission saving. But here the ‘opportunity cost’ argument comes into play. Nuclear is expensive, you would surely get more carbon saved - and more diversity - by other types of energy investment - i.e. renewables and conservation. Indeed nuclear may actually be less effective at carbon saving than you might think.

Certainly that's what FoE Scotland say in their briefing on nuclear power and climate change, see below.

The ‘Climate Change Briefing’ produced by Friends of the Earth Scotland recently pointed out that while electricity generated from nuclear power entails no direct emissions of CO2, the nuclear fuel cycle does release CO2 during mining, fuel enrichment and plant construction.

According to calculations by the Öko-Institute, 34 grams of CO2 are emitted per generated kWh in Germany. The results from other international research studies show much higher figures - up to 60 grams of CO2 per kWh. In total, a nuclear power station of standard size (1,250MW operating at 6,500 hours/annum) indirectly emits between 376,000 million tonnes (Germany) and 1,300,000 million tonnes (other countries) of CO2 per year. In comparison to renewable energy, nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced taking account of the whole fuel cycle.’

And they add ‘that with its long development time a nuclear power programme offers no short-term possibility for reducing CO2 emissions.’

Greenpeace has proposed a ‘ten-point programme’ for phasing out nuclear power in Germany by the year 2005. According to the plan, nine reactors must leave the grid by the end of the year. All other nuclear power plants would be taken off the grid, one after another, as soon as the cooling ponds for spent fuel rods on the power plant site are full. Spent fuel rods are stored temporarily in the cooling ponds before being transported away. In Greenpeace's plan this nuclear waste will stay on-site and not be moved right across Europe to be reprocessed.

With a new government now in power in Germany, with strong Green Party links, it could be that radical changes like this might be considered: according to a report in Der Speigal (7/9/98) ‘the SPD wants the quickest phase out that can be achieved subject to judicial, energy industry, and ecological requirements.’

A temporary halt has in fact been made to shipping nuclear waste because of the furor over irradiated flasks. The annual change of fuel rods is due at the Stade plant next Spring, but the storage ponds are full. Greenpeace say that this means Stade must be shut down as a matter of urgency. ‘Politicians and the nuclear industry must at last see that, on ecological grounds and grounds of safety, and in order to establish a sound policy on energy, nuclear reactors have to be abandoned in Germany. The next German Government must at last set a course for energy to be supplied in a way that is ecologically sound and oriented towards the future, and where the proportion of renewable energy sources used is high.’

To underscore the point, fifteen Greenpeace activists climbed the dome of the nuclear power plant at Stade near Hamburg, and installed a giant, 25 ft on-off lever.

The next round of the post Kyoto UN Climate Change negotiation, COP-4 in Buenos Aires, is taking place after a summer dominated by massive weather disruptions- including an unprecedented heatwave in the USA. The hottest July for 600 years, was how Gore put it. But the conservative anti-climate change agreement lobby was unmoved, and has it seems even been trying to block discussion on the issue. For our part we have tried to open it up - see Technology section.

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'.

S.J.Dougan@open.ac.uk

Back to RENEW ON-LINE INDEX page.    EERU Home page