Renew On Line 19

This material can be freely recycled for non commercial purposes, so long as credit is given to its source. However, the views expressed should not be taken to necessarily reflect those of EERU or of the OU.

Contents
1. DTI Consulation on Renewables?	BP on Climate Change
2. SRO 3	9. Innovation:
3. Danish Wave - and Wood	Foresight 2000
4. More UK and US Green Energy	DTI on Innovation
5. Fighting for the Sun: UKISES Conference	DETR on Green Products
6. CHP and MBM	Sustainable Waste Management
7. Euro quotas for Renewables	10. Nuclear Policy in Germany andthe UK.
8. Climate Change: COP-4	11. In the Rest of Renew 118
Greenpeace Wind Plan	12. Renew/NATTA subscription details.

The conclusions of the Department of Trade and Industry's review of renewables have still not emerged, in part it seems because the future of the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) was unclear, since the details of what is to replace the UK's electricity pool have still to be thrashed out. OFFER, the Office of Electricity Regulation, is scheduled to look at that in April.

However, to move things on, it seems the DTI is about to produce a consultation document 'New and Renewable Prospects for the 21st century' which, according to Windpower Monthy, will seek to gather views on two key points.

Firstly, given the demise of the pool, what reference price should be used in the NFFO/levy to calculate the level of 'excess' costs for renewables over conventional sources. Secondly, on whom should the obligation to supply fall, in whatever follows the NFFO, be placed- the regional electricity companies or the generators? So far its been on the REC's, but they are not the only suppliers these days.

These may seem relatively trivial financial and institutional issues, but they will shape the way the next phase of renewable projects develops, so hopefully the DTI will get some sensible responses. But there are many other issues that ought to be raised, some of which you might think are equally if not more important. For example, with the nuclear element removed from the NFFO and only renewables benefiting, the fossil fuel levy has shrunk. At its height, with nuclear on board, it was putting 10% on electricity consumers bills. But without the nuclear part, the levy reduced to 0.9%. And subsequently, since NFFO-1 and 2 projects are no longer getting support, and NFFO 3, 4 and 5 projects only lifting off slowly, its fallen to 0.7%. It's even worse in Scotland (see right), where the SRO levy has gone down to zero, essentially since so few projects have gone ahead and there is enough cash left over to cover this years outgoings .

The Government may welcome the opportunity to point to price cuts, but surely it was foolish not to try to retain more of the old levy, and retarget it to new renewable energy projects. Once it's gone down it will be hard to put up again.

At one time Labour had talked of retargetting at least some of the defunct nuclear part of the levy to sustainable energy - which, it seems, in their view, included gas fired CHP and even 'Clean Coal' technology. But it seems the electricity market/pool restructuring programme has had higher priority.

When and if NFFO 3, 4 and 5 projects begin to lift off, then the levy will gradually rise- up to maybe 1.5 %, bringing in around £150m, by 2002/3. (That’s evidently the current ceiling). But even if all these NFFO projects are successful (and in reality, failure rates seem to be increasing, in the main due to planning battles), there will still be a long way to go if we are to reach the '10% by 2010' target.

The green power market may lift off and create demand for new capacity (since it can’t make use of NFFO-supported projects) but even so, some extra funding could have helped pushed things on. Why can’t the NFFO levy be re- expanded, to say 5%?

The BWEA claim that wind could supply 6% of UK electricity by 2101, with 5GW offshore, while British Biogen claim that energy crops could put up 3% by then. What are we waiting for?

‘The government has set itself an heroic task, to produce 10% of UK electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Currently the UK obtains two percent of its electricity from renewables of which 15 percent is hydro and 81 percent bio-fuels i.e. landfill gas, wood, straw, refuse etc, the remaining 4% consists of wind, small hydro and solar; wind provides just 0.1% of the UK electricity. The prospect of a five - fold increase in renewable electricity within a decade is certainly daunting, particularly as there are few remaining sites for large-scale hydro. It will require some clever lateral thinking, considerable political will, and sizeable investment if a solution is to be found.' Prof. Ian Fells

He will be addressing this theme at a talk at the Institution of Electrical Engineers, Savoy Place, off the Strand, London WC2 at 5pm (for 5.30) Thursday 18th March. All welcome.

Denmark is moving into wave energy, with a good prospect of repeating its success in leading the world in manufacturing and selling wind turbines. David Ross reports on the EU wave energy conference held in Greece last Oct.

Denmark has decided to spend 20 million Danish krone (£2 million) as an initial investment for the next two years, followed by the same amount for a second two-year period if the results are promising. The news was given by the country’s leading wave energy researcher, Kim Nielsen, at a European Union wave power conference in Patras, Greece, last October.

He mentioned that more than half of the world’s installed capacity in wind turbines had been made in Denmark, providing 8,000 jobs and 1,000 million dollars’ worth of exports last year. Britain, which has at times led wave power research, despite the half-hearted support it occasionally gets from government, is of course lagging on development, just as it did with wind power. We have bought their wind turbines; soon we could be customers for their wavepower generators.

The Danes are planning to experiment with seven new concepts. Their leading device, the Waveplane (see Renew 115) has been tested by the Maritime Research Laboratory at Cork University (a key centre of EU activity on wave power). The conclusion was that the Waveplane could generate 1,800 megawatts in the North Sea and 7,000 MW off the British and Irish Atlantic coasts.

Other facts given by Nielsen were that Denmark, with a combination of renewables and conservation, has held its energy to a nearly constant total of around 800 PJ a year since the mid-seventies – at a time when gross production has increased by about 50 per cent. This, said Nielsen, illustrated a de-coupling of economic growth from growth in energy consumption. ( it also illustrates what a huge effort will be needed if, in the coming years, Britain and the rest of Europe wish actually to reduce energy consumption while promoting growth). Denmark’s efforts have been focussing until now on wind, biomass and solar heating for individual households and district heating. David Ross

For a country which has an ideal climate for growing wood to supply heating, the UK is decades behind Denmark. This is the conclusion of a group of experts and potential users of woodfuel heating systems, which visited Denmark as part of a European Community education programme.

Renewable energy experts North Energy Associates organised a visit to district heating plants in villages and a school, all heated with modern automatic woodfuel systems. One plant heats the 75 houses in Hogild village from waste from a nearby furniture factory. It also converts wood fuel into gas, which generates electricity. At Ulfborg, 778 houses are heated from a spotless, gleaming red yellow and blue Lego-lookalike plant. Fears that there would be nuisance from smoke or noise have proved groundless, and 95% of eligible local people have chosen to connect to the district heating.

The nearby Klosterhede forest supplies lop and top trimmings and bark which is processed into woodchips on site. The chips are transported to the plants. In the UK, such material is usually burned on site. This causes unnecessary pollution, and wastes potential fuel. The forest is also used for recreation and conservation.

The group then visited Staby boarding school, with an automatic system using small wood pellets made from sawdust and wood shavings. The boiler supplies all the school’s heat and hot water.

Nicola Smith, Director of NEA, was impressed with the efficiency and good organisation of the Danes. "The Danish tax system discriminates against fossil fuels. Thus renewable energy projects become economically viable. The Danes understand that growing wood in well managed forests and using waste from wood processes supports rural employment. It reduces pollution and need for landfill. The government there encourages communities to share ownership of local schemes. Compared to Denmark, we are in the dark ages."

The Danish tour is being repeated in April 1999. Contact North Energy Associates on 01670 516949 for information. North Energy Associates, Old Queen’s Head Yard, 7B Oldgate, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 1PY, UK Tel: (01670) 516949,

Green energy schemes continue to emerge in the UK, and although according to one report only about 1% of UK electricity consumers have initially signed up on one or other of them, the potential for expansion is considerable.

There are two types of scheme. First there are those in which retail companies offer to supply power to consumers and to buy in the equivalent amount of power from green sources, mostly so far biofuels, micro hydro and wind. In some a premium price is charged for this green power: 10-15% extra in South West Electricity's 'Green Electron' scheme, 8% in Yorkshire Electric's Green Tariff scheme - although, in the latter, YE is also offering a package of energy conservation measures which they say should balance out the extra cost (YE Contact: 0800 023 045)

However, the Stroud based Renewable Energy Company is offering 'Ecotricity' at standard prices. (Contact REC: 01453756111). In addition, Scottish Hydro Power are considering a scheme for retailing green power at standard prices- not surprisingly, given that much of its power comes from hydro which generates at around 1p/kWh.

Obviously, if green power is offered at standard prices, that should make it attractive to consumers, although, with all these schemes, you should check carefully what the final price of delivered power will be. For example, if you are not in the companies area you may get charged a little extra, and of course you can only get power sent to you if your area has been opened up to competition (although most will be by the summer).

The other schemes do not offer 100% green power directly, but invite consumer in effect to make a donation towards the development of new renewable energy projects, by adding extra to their electricity bills. Eastern Electricity's 'Eco Power' scheme invites consumers to add 5% or 15% extra, which will go in to special fund for new project development ( see Renew 117).

The company promises to add £500,000 pa itself, and to get 10% of its electricity from renewables by 2010. Scottish Power has a similar scheme, with a 5% or 10% surcharge and a segregated renewable energy development fund. Northern Ireland Electricity's 'Eco Energy' scheme also has a separate renewable development Trust, fed from a tariff set at 1.2p/kWh, although consumers can elect to pay proportionately less for a smaller involvement (e.g. 60p/kWh for 50%) Contact 01232 685061

Its early days yet with green power marketing in the UK, and it will take time before the picture clears. There are merits to each of the schemes.

Friends of the Earth's interim assessment last year put the Renewable Energy Company at the top of the list, and you can see why. But things are moving fast, as everyone jostles for a place in this new market.

More than 15 US Power utilities are offering electricity from renewable energy sources - with wind being increasingly favoured. In a useful paper from the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory, reprinted in the International Association for Energy Economics Newsletter (Fourth Quarter 1998) Brian Parsons notes that 'source disclosure' is a key issue for building consumer confidence and points to the 'Green-e' logo scheme in California. This certifies that at least 50% of the electricity is from renewable sources (excluding large hydro) while the other 50% cannot have produced more pollution than the average Californian power mix (16% coal, 32% gas, 27% hydro, 9% renewables). Pennsylvania (see below) have also joined the Green-e scheme.

The IAEE newsletter also reports that the wider process of market re-structuring in the USA seems to have gone somewhat slower than in the UK. Here more than 1 million consumers switched suppliers in the first few months after the market was opened and as more have opportunity to shop around so this should increase.

By contrast in the US consumers tend to have stuck with their existing suppliers, in part because, in the US restructuring led to automatic overall price reductions (of around 10%), whereas in the UK, although there has been some overall price reduction (of about 6%), you have to shop around to get really competitive prices. However, how well green power is fairing in this competitive UK market is not yet clear.

The state of Pennsylvania has recently deregulated its power market, following the lead of California, and there is some green power included in the power supplies that retailers are offering to consumers. Moreover consumers can not only choose renewable energy, but also have a few options as to what blend of renewables they pay for. Obviously as with all the various green power schemes, the actual electrons they receive may not come from these exact sources: the companies involved are simply contracting to feed the equivalent amount of renewable power into the system.

Eryl McNally, Euro MP for Milton Keynes, gave the Introductory speech to the UK Solar Energy Society conference held at the OU last November (see Groups in Renew 118 for a full report) .

She started by contrasting the responses by France and UK to the 1970's oil shock. While France had gone nuclear, it had also supported innovative renewables, like tidal and thermal solar, and now biomass and PVs. The UK had instead started, but then abandoned, promising technologies, like wave power.

Now fossil fuel were very cheap and there was the threat of global warming. The Labour Government had a great commitment to its target of a 20% reduction in CO2 by 2010, but policies were lacking and the "sums don't add up". The EC Committte, of which Eryl is a member, is pushing strongly for renewables but there is a pressing need to have tools, like:

An energy/carbon tax would be very helpful, but there is opposition form the UK, while France is very keen. However taxation has problems, such as deciding where to apply it (on primary or delivered energy) especially relevant for electricity. The VAT on energy was opposed in the UK because of its regressive effects on the poor. However there could be counter-measures, a hypothecated tax used for energy efficiency, such as the NFFO used to support nuclear and renewables. The tax could be fiscally neutral, with reductions in NI contributions. To the argument that energy taxation is anti-competitive, she responded that we already tax petrol highly, and there is already differential taxation amongst countries. "Those who fight against taxes are not from the most successful economies" she observed.

Eryl spoke out against fusion research under the Euratom Treaty. She wanted, along with many Euro MPs, to cut funding substantially but this was a matter for the Council of Ministers not the European parliament. If we had a treaty like Euratom for renewables, they would have an enormous push and achieve greater success. She concluded by saying that whilst many people from Northern Europe wanted renewables, there was still a failure by those in southern Europe, especially architects, to grasp the potential for renewables in new buildings. Energy efficiency and renewables should be part of architecture courses, with the EC providing harmonisation of standards. Horace Herring

Combined Heat and Power can make a vital contribution to meeting the UK's climate change targets according to Environment Minister Michael Meacher

Meacher noted that "The UK's CHP capacity has doubled in the last ten years to almost 4000 MW. It's now reducing energy costs by over £2 billion and cutting CO2 emissions by around 5 million tonnes of carbon a year. We want to at least double CHP capacity again in the coming decade, so that we enjoy even greater benefits."

He added "In our recent climate change paper, we estimated that CHP would account for at least half the 7 million tonnes of carbon savings we believe are achievable in industry."

However he warned that "achieving the UK's objectives for CHP is going to require further business investment of around £5 bn."

Where will this come from? In his report on 'Economic Instruments and the Business Use of Energy', Lord Marshall recommended that if a tax system were used to reduce energy demand (and emissions) the revenues should be recycled back to business, so CHP might benefit.

Fibrogen has been given a contract to burn meat and bone meal (MBM) derived from cows culled under the BSE reduction programme. 260 tonnes of MBM will be incinerated each day in Fibrogen’s Scunthorpe plant if the project gets planning permission. The MBM comes from cows culled under the ‘over thirty month’ scheme, which requires all cows over 21/2 years old to be slaughtered. That’s some 2.5 m cows in all. Those with BSE are treated separately, but there is a 340,000 tonne carcass mountain of unaffected cows to deal with – and it’s still growing at 70,000 tonnes a year.

The Fibrogen plant, designed primarily for chicken manure, will generate 13.5 MW.

We would be interested to hear what NATTA members felt about such schemes. On one hand the fact that this material can be converted into energy is perhaps the only good thing to have come from the BSE disaster, but on the other hand there may be objections to incinerating it, even given careful controls to avoid any dangerous emissions.

Sainsbury's are planning a major low energy retail outlet at Greenwich, which will, if planning permission is obtained, have a solar PV array and a small windturbine to provide power for some display signs. It will also have a CHP plant.

A draft directive from the European Commission was floated recently, proposing that all EU countries be required to get at least 5% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2005. The proposed quota is just below the 5.44% total average share of renewables in EU energy supply in 1995, and although quota is only for electricity, it would still require a significant increase in production in countries such as Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the UK (our energy share is currently only 0.7%)

But, according to Windpower Monthly, who first broke the news, the Commission has also proposed that the REFIT type fixed price premium subsidy schemes currently in operation in Germany and elsewhere are phased out via a "transition towards more competition and a trade-based system", this presumably being something more like the UK's competitive NFFO approach.

The problem is that, while the NFFO has been good at getting prices down, it has not be as effective as the REFIT type schemes in pushing ahead with the installation of large amounts of renewable energy capacity. So its hard to see how the new capacity quota could be reached. However, according to Windpower Monthly, countries with subsidy or price-fixing schemes would be allowed a transition period until 2010 to comply. Even so, this approach is not going to be accepted without a struggle - for it could actually slow down the expansion of renewables and setting unrealistic and unachievable targets could then discredit renewables.

The draft directive is basically about trying to harmonise 'green electricity' policies, so that national schemes are mutually acceptable in all EU countries. Clearly there are many ways in which pan EU support can be strengthened and barriers to grid access can be removed for renewables around Europe. But trying to impose a unified financial support system could be one step too far! We hear that, perhaps unsurprisingly, the draft Directive has now been downgraded to a ‘working paper’.

See also the EWEA’s journal Wind Directions Jan 1999 for a useful overview of the harmonisation issue.

The fudge and delay tactics that seemed to have been adopted at the climate change negotiations in Buenos Aires (COP4) at least seem to have allowed the US representative to sign up formally to the Kyoto Protocol - the 60th county to do so. However the treaty still has to be ratified by the US Senate and Congress and that could be hard. As Greenpeace pointed out,"Signing the Kyoto Protocol is rather like finally accepting the job offer, what really counts is showing up to work and getting the job done."

But, significantly, the US move was matched by commitments from some developing countries: Argentina announced that it would undertake a voluntary commitment to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases. Kazakstan later followed suit.

Even so, according to the Institute of Global Futures Research, what COP 4 lacked was 'a global emissions profile which defines how much emissions will have to be reduced and in what timeframe in order to avoid dangerous climate change, and an allocation system which equitably divides acceptable emissions levels amongst all nations'

But they added 'Possibly this is expecting too much too soon. First we must get countries to firmly commit to recognising the problem. Then each successive COP can gradually bring countries closer to the difficult goals required. What is important now is strengthening the commitment (eg a legally-binding minimum) and a framework for workable mechanisms of implementation, verification etc.'

The Climate Action Network (CAN) had approached the negotiations hoping to try to get recognition that the emission reduction targets in the Kyoto Protocol were inadequate, with a view to seeking improvement on them at subsequent meetings - eg at COP 6 in 2001. That's still a possibility, as is discussion of the Contract and Converge idea. But progress seems agonisingly slow. They also wanted to get the issue of CO2 emissions from aircraft on the agenda. Aircraft emissions are likely to triple in the next two decades, and occur at altitudes where the effect on global warming is exacerbated, with a potential impact greater than the total Annex B reduction commitment! However, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has so far not acted on commitments under article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol.

So what happens now? While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommends a 60-80% reduction in CO2 emissions, the World Energy Council (WEC) has forecasts a 50-70 % increase in energy demand (with current trends) by 2020.

Our friends at the Institute of Global Futures Research (see below) have suggested that there are three possible solutions:

They note that Weizsacker of the Wuppertal Institute states that a 400% increase in energy efficiency could be achieved by a mere 3% increase over 45 years. They add 'extrapolating the WEC forecast over 45yrs (instead of 25yrs mentioned above) the energy efficiency required would need to be in the order of 510-1275% or 3.7-5.8% per annum. If global emissions were cut by 60% and shared equally among 11 billion people, each person in a rich country would be allowed to emit only 5.5% of their current emissions (the US perhaps down to 2.7% !).

Pressure is building up for emission trading schemes around the world - despite the fact that no agreements were reached at Buenos Aires on mechanisms for this.

The Institute of Global Futures Research report that ’Japan wishes to fund Clean Development Mechanism projects using Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) (current total $10b/an). But this assistance needs to be repaid, meaning that Japan would be credited for projects it has not even paid for (merely loaned for). The World Bank is also suggesting that ODA financing of their Prototype Carbon Investment Fund (PCF) should receive emission credits as is the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) with its Energy Efficiency Equity Fund. The World Bank expects to make 5% or US$100m/an on US$2b in transactions via the PCF.

Credits from ODA could undermine incentive to provide grants (ie not repaid) to earn CDM credits. On the other hand, they could greatly increase capital available for CDM projects. Perhaps such arrangements could receive CDM credits on a greatly reduced scale, and only after the developed country has allocated a minimum level of grants.

Since the World Bank, EBRD and other International Finance Institutions (IFIs) were already greening their portfolios and helping to reduce carbon emissions without receiving credits, the current targets will be undermined somewhat. This is an argument to push for more substantial targets (eg 20% reduction by 2015).'

As we noted in Renew 117, we have arranged to share some material with the Australian based Institute of Global Futures Research. Their electronic newsletter, from which some of the above is drawn, is an excellent source of up to date information on environmental policy issues.

Contact igfr@peg.apc.org IGFR Box 263E Earlville, QLD 4870,Australia Fax: 617 4033 6881. Their annual sub is £16.

We hear that there were around 150 nuclear lobbyists at the Buenos Aires Climate Change Conference - nearly as many as the countries represented there! But to no avail it seems. As it stands nuclear power seems unlikely to make much of a contribution to greenhouse gas reduction - by 2020 around half the nuclear plants in the USA will be closed.

By contrast, the prospects for renewables are looking very good. As BP has put it ‘It could well be that the first country to seriously address the issues of creating a market for renewables would become the central location for a major new international business sector - with all the positive consequences that carries in terms of economic activity and employment. There is great scope in all of this for government and business to work together to build the right conditions for renewables.' See our report later.

As we noted in Renew 117, an international study was launched by Greenpeace, the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) and the Danish Forum for Energy and Development at the international climate negotiations in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The study ‘10 per cent of the world's electricity consumption from wind energy. Is that target achievable?’ by BTM Consult Aps, the leading authority on wind energy development, concludes that: 844,000 MW of wind power can be installed worldwide by the year 2017. This would produce 10 % of global electricity, 2,071 Terrawatt hours (TWh) in 2017, and result in annual savings of 232 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2010, and 1.889 billion in 2020. And it claimed that this target could be achieved at the same cost as fossil fuel options and is based on current market trends.

The report states that "to realise the goal, governments need political will to support the development - not so much with money, but by establishing the institutional framework". This, it said, means a regulatory framework for access to the grid, fair payment and adherence to the Kyoto protocol. The organisations called on Ministers, to ensure that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), outlined in the Kyoto Protocol promoted renewable energy technologies and excludes nuclear power or "clean coal"- which they saw as a 'misleading label'. If climate negotiators agreed to back renewable technology, then they argued the wind power plan could roughly equal the equivalent of the entire 1995 electricity consumption of Latin America, Asia, India and the Middle East.

"Clean energy is within governments grasp; and is essential to prevent dangerous climate change. Failure to adopt obvious practical solutions like wind power would be against the spirit of the Kyoto protocol," said Corin Millais of Greeenpeace International. "In some countries wind energy growth rates exceed the expansion of the mobile phone market" said Christophe Bourillon, Chief Executive of the EWEA. "This industry is only 20 years old, developing a single coal power station sometimes takes longer than this. What makes wind power so attractive especially in the developing world is the combination of clean energy, cost efficiency and fast implementation which allows for maximum flexibility to changing energy needs. Today we are already approaching 10 per cent of wind power in Denmark and the official target for wind in Denmark is 50 % electricity consumption by 2030" said Hans Bjerregard, Chairman of the Danish Forum for Energy and Development, who commissioned the study. "This report proves that we can replicate the success of the Danish model if governments will step up the promotion of renewable energies."

The report notes that current global windpower installed at the end of 1997 reached 7,600 Megawatts (MW). This is 35,000 turbines across the world producing 15.3 Terrawatt hours (TWh), about 0.11% of the world demand for electricity and points out that the "estimate of the global wind resource is put at 53,000TWh, over 25 times the target of 10% of the worlds' electricity from wind power by 2017"

It suggests that the costs of wind power will reduce to 2.7cents/kwh by 2025, compared to 5c/kWh as at present, and that by 2010 the programme would represents 30% of the total Kyoto Protocol target (5.2% reduction by 2010). It would provide the equivalent of the current electricity consumption of approximately 500 million European households.

It concludes that 'by comparison with other technological developments it is likely that the growth rates can be met through an expansion of today's industry. The industry has, in the early phase, demonstrated growth rates even higher than those required for to fulfill the penetration of the scenarios. But it is obvious that a strong globalisation and transfer of manufacturing competencies to the different regions has to be accomplished. Windpower technology is a technology ready for take off for big growth, and its modality makes its possible to gain benefits immediately.'

The Buenos Aires Climate Change talks were a bit of a damp squib (see Renew 117), so much so that Worldwatch spokesman Chris Flavin even suggested that it 'may be time to break the deadlock with a group of nations, such as the more progressive European countries, acting independently without the US' (New Scientist 14 Nov. 1998)

Certainly the EU seems far more active - with the UK often taking a lead. For example, Energy Minister John Battle recently called for a specialist Task Force on renewable energy, to complement work on energy efficiency, and put these areas at the top of an integrated European energy and environment agenda.

Speaking at a meeting of the Energy Council in Brussels, Mr Battle reported that "following the initiative begun at the Cardiff European Council during the UK Presidency, we are looking at how we can integrate environmental protection into other policy areas. Climate change has never been higher on the EU and world agenda and energy use accounts for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries. Sustainable development makes environmental and economic sense, particularly by drawing on new technologies and best practice in the way we use energy. We need to maintain the momentum in these areas. I believe that action on promoting renewable energy can be carried forward by creating a Task Force of experts from Member States."

He added "It is important that Member States should co-ordinate efforts, exchange experiences and share problems. A Task Force for renewables will help keep us on track to achieving our shared goals."

Greenpeace had already challenged John Battle to modernise the UK energy industry and avoid climate change by establishing a UK based Task Force to promote renewable energy, a move that was backed by Leaders from the UK's renewable energy industry, and Liberal Democrat Energy Spokesman, Andrew Stunell MP, who commented "I fully support Greenpeace's call for a renewable energy Task Force. There are opportunities for the environment and opportunities for employment which are going begging at the moment. We need action from the Government and we need it now".

Focussing on offshore wind, Lord Melchett had a similar view "Every day's delay threatens the loss of a potential new industry and jobs for the UK. Without real leadership from our Government, these jobs will go to other countries, such as Denmark and Germany, which are looking towards the future. It will clearly be the Treasury's responsibility if this happens."

* In recent opinion polls, 70% of MPs said they believe that Government should invest in a renewable based industry, 72% of the public would rather Government develop offshore renewables than continue licensing new oil.

Rodney Chase, Deputy Group Chief Executive Officer and Chief Executive of BP Oil, outlined BP's views on Climate Change at a meeting at the Royal Institute of International Affairs recently

He started by indicating that, 'for the oil and gas industry, this is the dominant issue of public policy' .and that although the science of climate change is not proven, 'it would be dangerous to ignore the mounting evidence and concern'.

Consequently he saw the UN Climate Change Conferences at Kyoto and Buenos Aires as very important, 'not because the participants reached formal and final agreement but because they have established a viable process of discussion'.

While he admitted that 'expectations for what could be achieved at Buenos Aires were not high' , there were some positive results - notably the Action Plan setting the year 2000 as the limit for reaching agreement and provides deadlines for agreeing on rules for Emissions Trading, Joint Implementation & the Clean Development Mechanism. He also noted that ’two contentious issues - the development and transfer of technology, and financing for developing countries to help them respond to climate change challenges were put on the agenda.'

Chase noted 'In themselves these steps may not be momentous, but the US has notably withheld its commitment to Kyoto until now and the moves by Argentina and Kazakstan provide a way forward for developing countries to become partners in the process.'

He added 'It seems that a number of other countries are seriously considering similar moves, even if they shy away from the language of "voluntary commitments",' although he admitted that ‘reaching international agreement on these issues is going to be a very long and gradual process'. He felt that the best historical comparison was probably 'the process of trade liberalisation which began in the post war period', a strange comparison you might think, given the low prority given to environmental concerns by free market agencies like GATT and the WTO

As far as BP was concerned, their goal was to reduce their own emissions of greenhouse gases by 10 per cent from a 1990 baseline over the period to 2010. While he agreed that 10 % sounds quite conservative he noted that 'in fact if you take account of the growth of our business activity it means that in reality we’ll be cutting something like 40 per cent from the emissions level we would have reached if we’d done nothing.'

Emission trading was the other big issue. 'Carbon dioxide is ideal for trading. Unlike other pollutants, where there are local health or environmental impacts, carbon dioxide has none. So although we need to reduce global levels carbon dioxide it does not matter where we do it - the effect is the same if emissions are reduced in Pittsburgh or Portugal, the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico.'

BP, he said, now has an internal emissions trading system in place. 'The system will operate internationally and the initial pilot scheme will include a number of business units here in the UK including sites at Grangemouth, Hull, and the Forties Fields in the North Sea. The first trade has was between two UK business units. One of our developing fields, Foinaven has bought 100 permits - which represents 10,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide - from the Forties Pipeline System. And the price? $17 per tonne of carbon dioxide. Of course this is a price based on a single trade and we shouldn’t read too much into it. But it does give an indication.'

In addition BP are investing in solar power 'pushing the technology forward to create a business which we hope will be able to compete commercially with non renewable energy sources within the next 10 or 15 years. Over time we believe power generated from photovoltaic cells and from other renewable sources of supply could meet a substantial proportion of world demand'.

BP wasn't the only company that was voluntarily adopting a green approach. Chase noted that 'the European Automobile Manufacturers have committed themselves to reduce CO2 emissions from new passenger cars by 25% over the next ten years. And Eurelectric plan, through an "energy wisdom" programme, to see reductions of CO2 of 5.6% by 2010.'. In addition,'the members of the Chemical Industry Association have volunteered to reduce energy consumption per tonne of product by 20% of 1990 levels by the year 2005.'

This voluntary approach was being adopted because it is 'the prudent thing to do- because it anticipates and prepares us for the moment when Governments put the force of law behind the Kyoto targets. In that sense what we and others are doing is precautionary - though it is entirely voluntary because we’re not waiting to be told what to do.'

He added 'now the challenge is to engage the energy and creative drive of the whole of the corporate sector and that will require a set of incentives which encourage companies to explore the limits of the possible.'

However, there were limits to the voluntary approach: eventually government had to intervene. But Chase wanted the focus to be on positive incentives rather than negative constraints. ‘So called green taxes can’t simply be a politically convenient means of raising revenue. In this country and elsewhere we have long experience of petrol taxation. More than 2/3 of the price of a gallon is now accounted for by tax of one sort or another. Those taxes raise a lot of revenue but in terms of changing behaviour there may be more effective instruments. But they don’t change behaviour. These taxes don’t create real incentives for change, because the choices available, and therefore the ability to change, are too limited.'

Rather than imposing tight taxes and prescriptive legislation, it was 'better to set the target and to let the users and producers of energy find the way to meet that target than to tell them in the most minute detail exactly what they should do'.

For example 'rather than a tax increase, we could experiment with a tax reduction. Perhaps we should experiment with a reduced rate of corporate taxes for companies which could demonstrate they were meeting a target of reducing emissions by say 1 per cent a year from an agreed baseline.'

He was also keen on the idea of ‘establishing incentives for the development of renewable energy supplies - not by subsidy but by helping to create a market which is material in scale' .

He went on 'One way of doing this is to ensure that a small percentage of electricity supplies has to come from renewables. If that can be done for nuclear and in many countries for coal, why can’t it be one for solar power and other renewables. Of course the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation or NFFO here in the UK does just that- but at present solar is excluded. If it was decided that the NFFO is the appropriate tool then this could be easily remedied. Conversely the removal of disincentives for the use of renewable energy will also encourage growth. '

BP has installed 250 solar cells at petrol stations in Bedford and Milton Keynes. These are the first such projects in the UK - BP already has 17 others around the world. The PV cells, which cost around £100k, only produce 25%of the power needed to run the petrol station, and it’s fed to the grid, but the symbolic value of this Sunflower pilot project is clear. There is an interpretation board explaining the idea, which also includes a record of the power produced: they expect to generate 27MWh pa at each site.

Foresight 2000, the next round of the UK's Technology Foresight programme, which starts in April, will concentrate on 'building links between business and Britain's excellent knowledge base, promoting the innovative ideas of today and turning them into the commercial successes of tomorrow'.

According to the DTI "the Government's vision is to put the future on Britain's side. We want to see a revolution in the UK's competitiveness and our quality of life. Foresight is central to that objective. It brings together business, the science base, Government and the voluntary sector to look at the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead, helping us to identify those areas where we must act now if we are to reap the rewards of tomorrow."

The next round will have a broader focus than before. The work will be taken forward through ten sectoral panels covering key economic areas, and three thematic panels. Associate Programmes will be run by professional institutions and other organisations, working closely with the Office of Science and Technology.

Sectoral panels: Built Environment and Transport; Chemicals; Defence; Aerospace and Systems; Energy and Natural Environment; Financial Services; Food Chain and Crops for Industry; Healthcare; Information, Communications and Media; Materials; Retail and Consumer Services.

Thematic panels: Ageing Population; Crime Prevention; Manufacturing 2020. Underpinning themes: Education, Skills and Training; Sustainable Development.

There will be many avenues for participation, with particular emphasis on involving young people.

An Internet-based Knowledge Pool will provide a resource to support Foresight participants and promote widespread debate on emerging results and conclusions.

The panels will start work in April 1999. Initial conclusions are likely to be available for debate from later in 1999 onwards. The final reports will be published in November 2000, to be followed by an overarching report by the Foresight Steering Group, which is chaired by the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, Sir Robert May.

Copies of the blueprint for the next round of Foresight are available from the Office of Science and Technology, Fax: 0171 271 2015. http://www.foresight.gov.uk

The ability to turn scientific discoveries into successful commercial products and processes is vital in the knowledge driven economy', said Peter Mandelson, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, launching the DTI's new Innovation Budget, which will be increased to some £220 million to refocus DTI's resources on innovation, technology access and partnership between UK industry and the nation's science and technology knowledge base.

This is in addition to the £1.4 billion boost for science, funded by the Government and the Wellcome Trust to reinvigorate the UK's science base.

The key proposals as outlined in the White Paper 'Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy' are:

'Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy' can be obtained from The Stationery Office Ltd. ISBN 0-10-141762-4. Price £8.95. A summary is available at www.dti.gov.uk/comp/competitive

Manufacturers must reduce the environmental impacts of the consumer goods they produce, Environment Minister Michael Meacher said at the launch of a consultation paper on consumer products and the environment.

The DETR consultation paper sets out how the Government and business can work together to help consumers choose, use and dispose of products sustainably and provides out a blueprint for an integrated approach to products and the environment, targeted towards the most significant products and issues, and drawing on a range of measures to push forward the market for those products.

The paper challenges to industry sectors to come forward with initiatives for reducing the impact of the goods they produce and outlines options for new environmental labels and awards for the UK domestic market. It also makes suggestions for industry standards to set minimum levels for products' environmental performance and discusses methods to encourage the takeup of the "green claims code" and international standards on product information. And it looks at the potential for working with European partners on improving the effectiveness of the European energy labelling and eco-labelling schemes.

A new advisory panel - which Mr Meacher announced last July that - will play a key role in helping the Government to set priorities and ensure proper coordination.

Speaking at a B & Q Environment Conference, Michael Meacher said: "Sustainable development is one of the most difficult challenges facing us today. We all want the prosperity and comfort that comes with economic development, and we want that to be shared widely and fairly. But those benefits are compromised if there are other costs to our quality of life. Our role is to promote and help accelerate the changes needed to reduce the environmental impacts of production and consumption. Changes of this kind can take time to work through, but the process has to be started now, and it needs to be kept moving."

The consultation paper, ‘Consumer Products and the Environment’, is available from the DETR, Consumer Products Consultation, Zone 6/D11, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria St, London SW1E 6D ( 0171 890 6575 )

Industry and Energy Minister John Battle has thrown out a challenge to business leaders to recognise that sustainability is a key business issue both now and for the future.

Speaking at a major environmental conference in Bradford, he said: "We are about to go through a 'sustainability revolution' that will rival the agricultural and industrial revolutions in the way it will transform society - that will mean new thinking."

The Minister was giving the keynote address at the Trans-Atlantic Environmental Conference, an event bringing together industry leaders from both sides of the Atlantic to develop an environmental strategy for the future.

He laid out the Government's vision of sustainable development for business. "We are building an economy for the long term in which sustainable development will be regarded as economic common sense. Sustainable development will be the key economic driver, introducing new processes and products. Innovation and creativity will be the way in which we can meet the challenge of competitiveness.

"Business will need to be at the forefront of these changes. Firms will have to find ways to get more from less. Production and distribution systems will have to change to reduce emissions, resource use and waste. Competitive companies will be the ones that pay active attention to the social dimension of their activities."

Mr Battle focused on the even bigger challenge facing industry in the future as it moves towards sustainability.

"Eco-design - that is, producing more and better with less - presents huge opportunities. Not only does it tackle the idea of reducing environmental impact, but it also has the potential of creating new markets and bolstering economic growth, job retention and creation.

"The challenge of using sustainable design to create higher quality products, reduce material costs and energy consumption and cheaper packaging, transport and storage, presents business with some very real opportunities. Eco-efficiency can simultaneously enhance both a company's competitive and environmental performance."

The UK Government has been carrying out a consultative exercise on sustainable Waste Management, and plans to issue a draft of its new waste strategy shortly for further consultation. The final version of the new waste strategy for England and Wales will then be published and adopted before the end of 1999. In parallel the Environment Select Committee has also been looking at this issue and published a report last year. In his response on behalf of the Government, the Minister, Mr Meale, indicated that he was pleased that many of the Committee's recommendations were in line with the proposals in 'Less Waste: More Value'- the Governments initial consultative document. However the Committee had it said also identified some problem- chiefly concerning the lack of detailed data on on waste, and the absence proper justification for Governments waste reduction targets.

In response to the first problem, Meale pointed to the latest Municipal Waste Management survey, covering the year 1996-97, and noted that the Environment Agency has embarked on a major survey of industrial and commercial waste, which 'will not only inform the strategy, but also provide baseline data for us to compare our performance against in future years.'

"Secondly, the Select Committee criticises the Making Waste Work targets as lacking scientific justification and material support. We agree, and we stated in ‘Less Waste: More Value’ that any targets set in the new waste strategy should be challenging but achievable, underpinned by a clear course of action and capable of proper measurement and public explanation. Targets will also need to be justified against the Government's principles of good regulation: accountability, transparency, targetting, consistency and proportionality."

He added"One area that particularly impressed the Select Committee was the enthusiasm across the board to promote recycling and composting. Indeed, the Select Committee welcomed the Government's commitment to composting. As we say in our response, successful waste policy, for composting as for other areas, cannot be handed down from the national level, but has to be developed and implemented in partnership."

He concluded "Finally, there is one area where the Government has to disagree with the Select Committee, namely on the professionalism and commitment of Environment Agency staff. While the Government agrees with the Select Committee on the importance of placing a high priority on training for Agency staff, we do not accept the picture the Report paints of waste facility inspections being carried out by inexperienced and underqualified staff. We believe the Agency, as waste regulators, have a high level of professionalism and commitment to the environmental objectives of the waste management licencing system. Their work is important, and should be better recognised."

Lloyds Bank may be using a windfarm image in its publicity, but up in Lancashire this idea may not be so popular. Local MP Nigel Evans, who is vice-president of the County Guardian anti- wind farm group, has called for a total halt to the spread of 'ugly and unwanted' windfarms. In particular he called for a halt to plans for 15 wind turbines in his Lancashire constituency. His response came after Trade and Industry Minister Kim Howells, whose constituency is in Wales, had noted that ‘merely to reach the 10% (renewable energy) target, we have to produce five GW of electricity, and if that means covering Wales in windturbines, I for one will not have it'

Evans added his voice saying that, 'if that goes for Wales, it should be the same for the rest of Britain as well' and called on the Government to carry out an overhall of energy policy and boost energy conservation, which he claimed was a better way to reduce emissions.

Germany should begin to shut down its nuclear reactors, which currently generate 30% of the country's power, within the next four years, that was the viw of environment minister Trittin, who stressed his determination to carry out the nuclear phase-out agreed by the new SPD-Green government "as soon as possible". He also emphasised his intention to stop all transports of irradiated fuel elements across Germany, and to reprocessing plants in France and the UK.

As a first step, the government is planning new legislation requiring nuclear operators to establish interim storage facilities at or near their nuclear power stations. Obrigheim, Germany's longest serving nuclear plant, has just been granted a permit to use an external on-site storage facility for spent nuclear fuel, making it the country's first to comply with the new requirements.

The basic aim of the new approach is to halt nuclear waste transports across Europe, but given that most of Germany nuclear plants only have limited storage facilities on site for waste, this is tantamount to calling for a phase out. Given that at several plants the existing storage ponds are nearly full, this new legislation provides a bit of an escape route. Otherwise plant closures would have to start very soon - and that's evidently a bit too much at this stage in the political cycle. Certainly, despite Trittin's clear commitment to rapid change, the government has not set a formal date for a phase-out. Detailed discussions started in January, chaired by chancellor Gerhard Schröder, to resolve these issues and develop an "energy consensus", although that difficult task was not eased by the announcement that Germany wanted to reneg on the reprocessing contracts with the UK and France. With a £1.2 bn contract at stake BNFL was outraged. So was Cap la Hague- 20% of their business comes from Germany. The UK threatened to send the German spent fuel back. and/or claim full compensation for the contract default.

For their part, the German utilities released estimates of the effects of a phase-out on national air emissions levels. If all reactors were shut down by 2004, an extra 1.8m tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) would, they claim, be emitted by 2030 due to substitution by coal and gas. And according to a recent forecast by the German branch of Esso, Germany will not meet its domestic target of cutting CO2 emissions by 25% of 1990 levels by 2005, even without shutting down its nuclear reactors.

The end result was that the German government climbed down, and is stalling on the implementation of the phase out programme. Even so, its only a matter of time: the policy still stands.

Meanwhile Belgium, following Germany's lead, has also decided to give up reprocessing nuclear fuel, which is further bad news for the Cap la Hague plant, which has most of the contracts. Things are looking grim for the nuclear industry, and were not helped by a report from the European Court of Auditors, that over £600 m of EC monies allotted to repairing and making safe old reactor technology in the old Soviet bloc has been lost, wasted, embezzled or not spent. (Guardian,18 Nov) ..

The nuclear part of the UK’s Non Fossil Fuel Obligation, which last year was still running at 51% of the £279m overall fossil fuel levy, has now been wound up, so renewables will henceforth be the only beneficiaries, albeit of a reduced levy.

That’s not to say there is not a need for more money to sort out the left over nuclear mess. Maybe BNFL should cut its losses and look at the Australian idea for converting nuclear waste into a stone-like material (Observer 4/10/98). Evidently this technique ensures that radionuclides stay safely bonded for much longer, and more securely, than the current glasification technique.

Unabashed by the various problems facing it, not least the potential loss of reprocessing work from Germany, British Nuclear Fuels has put in an application to use a £300 million plant at Sellafield in Cumbria to make Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) from its large inventory of plutonium- for export. There is evidently some 45 tonnes of plutonium stored at Sellafied, as a result of reprocessing spent fuel, and MOX might be one way to thin it out. The UK certainly does not need it, and its unclear if anyone else does. Indeed the Guardian (Oct 23) ran an article claiming that the whole exercise could be an economic disaster- potentially loosing £70 m during its 20 year life. That’s hardly surprising since MOX is much more expensive than fresh uranium fuel - and for the moment there is plenty of the later.

The Environment Agency, which is looking at the application, is none too keen. It has suggested that the most optimistic prediction was that BNFL would get £230m in contracts. According to the Guardian, the Agency admitted that few contracts had been signed and the rest were ‘letters of intent’ which covered less than 10 of the plant's 20 year design life.

Meanwhile its not just Germany that is facing nuclear transport related problems. Although the reactions from the UK public have not been on the massive scale seen in Germany, it’s not an issues which will go away. Particularly since it seems that BNFL want to use sidings at Cricklewood, in North London, for trains bringing fuel from three power stations - Sizewell, Bradwell and Dungeness on their way to reprocessing at Sellafield. Not surprisingly local residents are very concerned. Linda Hayes, head of a local residents group co-ordinating the opposition told the Independent on Sunday (1/11/980): "BNFL wants to bring three trains and place them at the bottom of our gardens for 15 hours. All the residents are up in arms. This is borough-wide and we have had so much support it is becoming London-wide"

John Reid, the Transport minister told Independent on Sunday "I am aware of public concern on this issue and, as part of our ongoing programme of independent checks on the effects of the transportation of radioactive material on health and the environment, we will be sponsoring independent checking of contamination levels on radioactive packages, concentrating on irradiated fuel flasks."

And finally, just in case you thought that nuclear technology was on its last legs, what with the European strongholds France and Germany now turning away from it, and 1998 being the first year when overall global nuclear capacity decreased (by 3.2 GW, according the the 500th issue of the WISE Communique), it’s worth remembering that support for nuclear fusion remains quite strong.

The 1997/98 R&D allocation for fusion in the UK was £17m, as against only £11m for all the renewables. But fusion not doing that well: the USA has withdrawn from the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) progamme. But it will it seems limp along: Japan, Europe and Russia will continue to support the project until July 2001, although it may be scaled down.

With the UK's second Foresight exercise getting underway, Renew 118 takes a look at Technology Foresight comparing it with Technology Assessment.

The Technology section looks at some recent developments in tidal stream power and at fuel cells, while Groups reports on a new low energy housing project being developed at the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales and at the recent UK Solar Energy Society Conference held at the OU. .

The Reviews section looks at the various governments reports and consultation documents from the DTI, DETR, and at sustainable housing.

The full printed 30 page (plus) bimonthly Renew journal can be obtained from NATTA, the Network for Alternative Technology and Technology Assessment, on subscription for £12 pa for students/unwaged (including T265 students), otherwise its £18pa, payable to 'NATTA'.

Further details from NATTA, c/o EERU, Open University, Milton Keynes, MK 7 6AA Tel: 01908 65 4638 (24 hrs) Fax: 01908 65 4052 (24 hrs). Also see http://www-tec.open.ac.uk/eeru/natta/rol.html