The green power market in the UK now has quite a range of retailers offering green power packages of various sorts. In July eleven schemes were awarded the right to use the Energy Saving Trust's new Future Energy logo. Accreditation by the EST is designed to assure customers that what customers get is what the companies promise: see later for details.

The schemes fall into two classifications. First there are the various green tariff supply schemes- retailers with whom you can contract to supply green power: they promise to buy in the equivalent of amount of power sold to you from renewable suppliers. In most cases a premium price is charged to cover the extra cost of renewables, and most schemes are offered nationwide. The other set of schemes involve consumers making a donation to an eco - fund or Trust, by adding extra to their bills to support renewable projects.

Most of the schemes are run by distribution companies like SWEB, MEB i.e Regional Electricity Companies (which now includes PowerGen, who have taken over EMEB). The exception is WRE, the new UK offshoot of a German energy company, now run in partnership with the UK consultancy Energy for Sustainable Development. Their scheme is due to launch in Sept.

In a surprise development, the Renewable Energy Company (REC) in Stroud, which was one of the first in this market, failed the EST accreditation. REC differ from the rest in that they do not charge a premium price, in part because initially they used local landfill gas sources and supplied power locally, thus avoiding major distribution charges. Now however, as reported in Renew 119, they have joined up with Thames Water Utilities who are using power from sewage gas, but also power from a waste combustion plant (the Edmonton Incinerator). Despite being cheap, most retailers have evidently felt that consumers would not be happy with this source. London Electricity is, it seems, the only other retailer using this source. Certainly Fiends of the Earth were not happy with REC's new move. They told Green Futures 'We oppose municipal waste incineration and feel it is wrong the classify it as renewable capacity. Not only is incineration polluting in its own right, but it provides a disincentive to more sustainable waste management practices'.

REC were unrepentant. 'We have to balance the idealistic argument with our commercial need and our bigger agenda, which is to bring about a mass market for greener electricity. Waste to energy is a way of kick-starting that process because it allows us to build our commercial activities, using it as a stepping stone to a greener energy mix' . A slippery stepping stone maybe? But, as it happens, for the moment, the new 60MW Thames Water Utility -REC "Ecotricity" scheme is only be offered to larger, business/company, users (i.e. above 100kW) in the Thames area, rather than individual domestic customers generally, and they may not be so fussy.

REC will also supply 120MW of mixed conventional and renewable power to Thames waters sites, which might be seen as an even more slippery stepping stone, although REC see this mixed-fuel business deal as simply underpinning their ability to develop green power. REC have been able to support a new windproject at Swaffam in Suffolk, the first outside the NFFO, so their strategic commercial argument clearly carries some force. (REC contact 0145 375 6111)

However, mixed fuel options seem to have led to some consumer confusion in the USA where a wide range of schemes are on offer with varying amounts of renewable content, and back in the UK, the Renewable Energy Company's decision to offer mixed fuel seems to have been the reason why they failed the EST accreditation test.

Like REC, many of the other green tariff supply companies, and also some of the eco-fund schemes, are focusing increasingly on the business end of the green power market: exclusively in the case of PowerGen and London Electricity. Obviously it's easier to deal with a few large business customers rather than many individual domestic consumers, and of course, if and when renewables are exempted from the planned Climate Change Levy on business use of energy, then business demand could boom.

However Yorkshire Electricity, and WRE are covering both markets. Yorkshire offers an 8% premium price green tariff - backed up, for domestic consumers, by an energy conservation package, including a free CFL low energy light bulb, which should cancel out the extra cost. Customer details on 0800 073 43 43. Details of the WRE scheme have yet to be announced.

Scottish Power/MANWEB are also offering its eco-fund donation scheme to both markets. But some companies are sticking just to the domestic sector - SWALEC's eco-fund for example, and South West Electricity's Green Electron 10-15% premium price tariff scheme (0345 419484).

As noted earlier, with the 'eco-fund' schemes, consumers do not get green power directly, they are simply invited to add 5% or 10% extra to their bills and this money is put in a fund used to support renewable energy projects of various sorts. Eastern Electricity's Eco Power scheme is supporting a range of small scale community projects- and Eastern has promised to match consumers donation pound for pound up to £500,000 each year for two years (contact 0345 626513). The community projects are not seen primarily as leading to power for the grid, but Eastern have set a target of getting 10% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010, and have a (separate) investment programme to that end, which has led to some wind power projects in Devon (see report below). Seabords scheme will be similar - equivalent to £15 pa with the company matching the income up to £0.5m pa.

As noted above Scottish Power/ Manweb also has a donation / ecofund scheme (0845 272 7111), as does Northern Ireland Electricity (01232 685061), see details later.

Finally there's the MEB's new £5pa Evergreen donation scheme- the proceeds of which will go to the Marshes Energy Agency in Shropshire.

Hybrids: SWALEC is offering a combined green tariff supply/ eco-fund scheme and, although it did not get accredited by the EST, Northern Electric are developing a hybrid scheme, with green power being offered at a 5% premium, but some of the income also going to a fund for new capacity. ( Tel: 0800 269 695).

Southern Electricity's Acorn scheme (mentioned in Renew 120) did not get EST accreditation

For its Future Energy accreditation exercise, the Energy Saving Trust has adopted the definition of renewables used by the DTI, so all schemes of the type supported by the NFFO are allowed, but only 50% of pre-1990 hydro capacity can be considered. The implicit inclusion of waste incineration projects produced a rebuke from Friends of the Earth, who said that the scheme was 'a sham' which 'blew smoke in the publics face'. WWF were also unhappy with the inclusion of waste as a renewable fuel. But otherwise it seemed to be fairly well received- not least by John Battle, then still Energy Minister, who said it was good to see that the market could be shaped to meet what the future needs. The DTI has provided £200,000 over 3 years to support the Future Energy exercise.

Under EST's rules, new entrants need only match 70% of demand from 'green' sources in the first year, rising to full matching within 3 years. In general suppliers must cover at least 90% of sales in any given year and must make up the shortfall the next year, so that there is a full matching of 'green' supply and demand on a 2-year rolling average basis.

As noted earlier, the rules about the 'qualifying capacity' excluded the Renewable Energy Company's Ecotricity scheme. That certainly raised a few eyebrows. The Renewable Energy Company was after all one of the pioneers- and emerged in Stroud as a small locally based organisation. You might think it looks bad that only the large conventional Regional Electricity Companies got accredited. On the other hand, why did the Renewable Energy Company insist in running with a mix power scheme when it was clear that this would fall foul of the EST's rules? After all, you'd think that the fact that it was the only company offering 100% green power was its main asset - all the other schemes were from regional electricity companies who only offer a tiny amount of their total output under the green power label. Their main business was selling dirty 'brown' power. For its part the Renewable Energy Company no doubt feels that this imbalance made their exclusion by the EST even more unfair, since they were only adding in a few percent of 'brown' power to an otherwise totally green output.

Under EST's rules, there could also be problems for some of the eco-fund schemes - if they defer investment in new renewable projects for more than five years: see the report on the Northern Ireland scheme below.

Of course, in the end it is consumers who do the final accreditation - by buying into schemes, or not! So far, the companies involved have not yet released details of the numbers of subscribers, but several thousand domestic users seem likely to have signed up already, and on top of that, there are the various commercial and company subscribers.

Green Power may still be small in the UK, but it could grow. Certainly, if green power schemes are exempted from all or even part of the Climate Change business tax, then the business sector of the market will boom dramatically. And, by creating demand for a lot more capacity, that would help drive down prices, so that the domestic green power market could really accelerate ahead.

Northern Ireland Electricity say their new Eco-Energy green power tariff is unique in that it is directly linked to the development of new renewable contracts rather than just to existing renewable output. Customers will be offered the choice of having 10%, 50% or 100% of their consumption supplied by Eco-Energy. For the average customer this would equal between 8p and 80p per week. NIE has promised to match Eco-Energy users' consumption with an equivalent amount of 'new' renewably generated electricity fed into the grid. And, crucially, in the initial period before new renewable generating stations can be constructed, the premium collected will be 'amassed' into an independent Trust Fund to which NIE will also contribute.

Alan Gaston, Managing Director, NIE Supply said: "For as little as 8p a week, customers can make a very real and positive contribution to protecting the environment. We also hope that this extension to our product range, which is a direct response to customer demand, enhances the developing market for renewable power generation."

Friends of the Earth endorsed the scheme:"Choosing Eco-Energy can help in the fight against climate change and will boost the development of renewable energy projects in Northern Ireland. Eco-Energy is a step in the right direction."

However there could be a problem with the idea of 'amassing' cash for new projects over long periods.

The Energy Saving Trusts rules requires all such money to be invested within five years. The fact that NIE is also offering to sell portions of 'green'power to consumers rather than 100% might also have been seen as a problem. But evidently the EST were in the end happy with the scheme and NIE got its accreditation.

While some observers remain optimistic about the longer term (see Renew 119), for the moment, the green power market in the USA seems to have hit problems. As we noted in Renew 118, following the liberalisation (or rather, 'deregulation', as they say in the USA) of the electricity market in the Spring last year, not many people have switched suppliers- chiefly because there was little incentive since deregulation led to significant price falls. About half of those who did switch, did so for altruistic environmental reasons, and contracted with premium price green power schemes of various sorts- paying significantly more for their power by choice. But the overall numbers remain quite low, perhaps only 70,000 in California by the end of the first year. For most, green power was 'gucci power'- only for the rich and trendy. You will remember that Alexi Clarke raised this issue in Renew last year-arguing that it was unfair to expect a few altruistic consumers to pay for clean power in effect subsidising the rest who carried on using dirty power.

Interestingly, Windpower Monthly has now come round to the same view, commenting in its Editorial (March 1999) that 'only a few are willing to let everyone else free ride on their munificence'. Evidently, a survey carried out by the New Mexico Utility found that, although 25% of those consumers asked said they would be willing to pay $4 a month more for green power, 80% said they would prefer everyone to have to share the burden (which then worked out at $2 a month more each).

But there is worse to come. There are 30 or more green power schemes in the USA and they are very varied. Most offer a mix of sources, including, in some cases, non- green options, and, despite the huge advertising campaign (costing up to 70% of the premium price in some cases) the result has been confusion on the part of consumers as to exactly what was on sale- was it really green at all? In some cases the answer might be 'no'. The Green- e logo has helped to some extent, but, as we noted in Renew 118, in a report entitled 'Green Buyer Beware' the US consumer pressure group Public Citizen has pointed out that much of the information available to consumers was 'hyped' and misleading, with 'green' being little more than a marketing label. At worst the green power market has become simply a dumping ground for expensive electricity of dubious environmental merit pushed by heavy marketing campaigns.

Perhaps though that is overstating the case: some of the schemes are worthwhile and, given time, the new market should settle down with consumers learning to separate the good from the bad- helped by proper accreditation schemes. That's certainly what we are trying for in the UK- hopefully learning from the US experience- they did start six months ahead of us. As the technology improves, the price differentials should in any case disappear, so the basic problem will be gradually removed. Already there are schemes in the USA and in the UK that are offering power at standard prices. For example, the San Jose, "Clean 'n' Green" EcoSave scheme is retailing at prices slightly lower than utility power- as is the Commonwealth Energy Corporation in LA.

If green power schemes do expand then they may also help bootstrap the process- helping it to expand by creating enough surplus capital to build more green power plants. This has, it seems, already happened in the USA. For example, following a $20m promotion campaign, Green Mountain Energy Resources has signed up enough consumers in California to be able to build two new 750kW wind turbines. But raising money in this way is a relatively slow process-and if renewables are to expand significantly, other funding mechanisms will also have to be in operation. In the USA there is some enthusiasm for the Renewable Portfolio Standard 'obligation' approach - with (to simply a complex scheme) minimum levels of renewable generation being specified at State level. But it's far from clear what will happen next.

Back in Europe, we are still fighting it out between REFIT and NFFO type approaches, although there are moves towards some sort of percentage obligation approach coupled possibly with emission permit trading. It's a complex and disputed area- and one where feelings can run high. For example, in Denmark there was effectively a strike over the issue of whether the existing REFIT type subsidy scheme should be replaced by a market driven 'green credit' system: resisting the change, the Danish turbine owners association initially called on members not to invest in new projects. See 'REFIT Stranded' later.

Meanwhile, adopting a very different approach, the UK's National Wind Power (NWP) and the Dutch company Energie Noord West (ENW) have agreed on a trade in green credits with NWP selling the green credit due for some of the power from its windfarm to ENW, who are operating within the Dutch green credit market. Windpower Monthly saw it as trading in virtual renewables:' while the the kilowatt hours will go to UK consumers, their environmental value added component will be sold on to ENW's Dutch customers. For its part NWP loses the right to market the renewable component on the UK's emerging green power market'

Leaving aside the pro's and con's of these various often very complicated, mechanisms, the key point is that renewables are trying to find ways to push ahead in markets still heavily defined by the price structure created by the non-green energy sources and industries. Liberalisation may have broken up some parts on the monopoly structure, and thereby pushed conventional prices down, but that hasn't helped renewables much- indeed it has hindered them, making them look expensive. Tinkering with green marketing and altruistic consumers goodwill can't change that much. Interim subsidies are the only real (and equitable) answer, until the new technologies mature and can compete head on. Unless, that is, the playing field can be properly levelled so as to reflect the full environmental benefits of renewables as against the conventional sources. The Climate Change Levy in the UK could have done that, and it still can if it is revamped to exempt renewables. Then the vast and lucrative non-domestic power market would also come on board since renewables would then be really cheap- and renewables could really lift off.

• The Eastern Group has announced that it plans to invest around £3.9m in three small 'community scale' wind projects in north Devon. Working with Farm Energy, who have secured NFFO contracts, Eastern hope to install a single wind turbine at Clawson near Holsworthy and two wind clusters at Braton Down and Hoare Down near Ilfracombe. This is part of Easterns programme of obtaining 10% of its power from renewable resources by 2010. In parallel but separately, Eastern Electricity's Eco Power green tariff scheme is feeding donations from consumers direct to local community projects.

BP Amoco have announced that around 200 of its service stations, world-wide, are to incorporate photovoltaic solar power - the largest single project of its kind ever undertaken.

Solar electricity will help meet the power needs of all new service stations to be built in the UK, Australia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Japan, Portugal and Spain. Solar installations will also be incorporated into prototype sites in France and the US as part of an extended pilot programme.

The first phase of the two-year programme will see up to 400 solar panels installed on each canopy at some 200 service stations across eleven countries in a $50 million, 3.5 megawatt project, saving around 3,500 tonnes of CO2 emissions every year. As a result of this project, BP Amoco will become one of the world's largest users of solar power. It is already one of the world's largest manufacturers of solar cells and modules.

The level of power generated will vary from site to site. But at each, the solar panels on the canopy above the pumps will generate more clean energy than is consumed by the site's lighting needs and the power requirements of the pumps below. The installations, which will be connected to the local electricity networks, will allow any excess electricity to be exported during the day and the shortfall imported at night. The announcement follows a successful pilot programme at 19 sites in Europe (including two in the UK - at Bedford and Milton Keynes), Australia, Malaysia and the US.

"Our own use of solar power is an example of BP Amoco's commitment to tackling the issue of climate change," says BP Amoco chief executive Sir John Browne. "Not only will BP Amoco be one of the largest producers of solar photovoltaic cells in the world, but it will also be one of the largest single users of solar power. By installing solar panels at such a large number of sites across the world we will also learn and add to expertise in handling issues of grid connection, contribute to the standardisation of equipment and drive down costs for all of our solar customers."

BP Amoco managing director Chris Gibson Smith and Patrick Lambert, head of the renewable sources of energy unit at the European Union, celebrated the launch of the project by switching on the solar installation at the company's latest 'solar station' at Perivale, West London. "This shows how simple it is to use solar power", said Chris Gibson Smith. "It's quiet, reliable and ideal for generating clean electricity for our homes, factories and offices. It's also especially suited to urban environments."

"We enthusiastically welcome this project which is very much in line with and supports the EU's strategy to increase significantly the role of renewable energy sources," said Patrick Lambert. "It will make an important and timely contribution to the Campaign for Take-off designed to accelerate the take up of key renewable energy technologies in the early years of our strategy."

A 40kW solar system will also be installed at three new office buildings as part of the redevelopment of BP's site at Sunbury, UK. BP is also sponsoring rural solar electricity projects in Africa and South America.

Tel: +44 1932 779543 Fax: +44 1932 762533.

BP's conventional petrol stations also have some nice leaflets expounding on the merits of solar power ('Solar Electricity: Brilliantly Simple') which they say could provide all of Europes electricity by 2050. And there's a info contact no: 0800 402 402

Not to be outdone Shell also now has PV on some of their petrol stations- two in Germany and two in the Netherland, with 8 more planned in Germany. At the Hamburg stations, customers can charge electric vehicles from them. The rest of the power goes to the grid. But the PV power is used directly in the Netherland stations. One of the German units has a solar tracking system- which increases output by 30%.

After a phase when the prospects for on land windpower in the UK looked poor, with most planning applications being turned down, the wind industry has taken heart from two positive planning decisions. The first concerned the Cemmaes windfarm in Wales, which was one the UK's first, with 24 Wind Energy Group MS-3 windturbines - the two bladed design. Now, following a planning inquiry, permission has been given for six more machines to be added.

The second breakthrough was in Cumbria - like Wales, the scene of some fierce battles over windfarms recently. As we noted in Renew 119, the project, is being overseen by Power Gen, and involves seven machines on an old open cast mining site at Lowca. It had been called in for a public inquiry. However, the planning inspector dismissed the local councils claim, commonly used by Country Guardian, that the contribution from the wind farm was too small to justify the local impact, and argued that ' Merely because a scheme would produce only a small fraction of the total electricity needs, does not in my view mean that it would not be worthwhile, since, if this were to be the case, no small wind schemes would be likely to go ahead' and that was 'clearly not part of the governments renewable energy strategy'

Local Labour MP Jack Cunningham, a key member of the government as well as a strong supporter of nuclear power, had earlier opposed the wind project- but presumably not government policy

These decisions are good news for the UK wind industry. As ETSU put it in R122, its back-up report to the DTI's renewable review 'if the recent failure rate of sites seeking planing consent were to continue, then the ability of onshore wind energy to make a significant contribution to the control of greenhouse gas emissions would be severely limited'.

In which case, we'd have to go offshore. Mind you there are troubles brewing there, at least in Sweden, which has temporarily backed off its ambitious plans for 400MW of offshore capacity after an intervention which raised the issue of the relative costs of one of the key projects. Wind power is already subsidised (at 15%) in Sweden and the new offshore project did not seem to need more than the maximum amount available under this scheme, but evidently not everyone was happy to launch into the new technology without more thought.

However, over in the Republic of Ireland things are looking better. ESB, the Irish Electricity Supply Board, Power Gen and other companies are planning a 250MW offshore windfarm, to be located 10km off the coast from Dublin. The 254 euro project will involve around 100 turbines

Meanwhile in Northern Ireland, the renewable energy company B9 Energy, have bought three electric vans, with assistance from the Energy Saving Trust, and are running them off power from the own windturbine and from the power obtained under Northern Ireland Electricity's Eco Energy green tariff scheme.

The big news in wind though is from Germany- where there is now a plan to build a giant offshore windfarm rated at 1.2GW. Details in Renew 122.

In May, there was a House of Commons debate on renewable energy led by Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) who pressed the case for solar power strongly. He praised the DTI's consultative paper,which he said'lays the ghost of the belief that renewable energy is the province of dreaming cranks. Scientific advances have made the contemplation of substantial energy generation by renewables a real and economically feasible prospect'.

However he said it was 'disappointing to read in the otherwise excellent consultative document that photovoltaics is regarded as a long-term prospect at best and does not feature strongly as a leading likely source of renewable energy.'

He added'That is particularly disappointing because, of the leading sources of renewable energy, photovoltaics has, perhaps, recently enjoyed the most spectacular scientific development as a viable technology, but it is, possibly, why PV remains a marginal contributor, in the UK at least. It is possible that received thought still believes that PV involves slinging huge, clunking solar panels on to the side of buildings, thereby offending passers-by and planning committees alike. It is possible also that the deeply ingrained British myth that it rains here most of the time, and when it does not, it is foggy, creates a belief that PV is fine in equatorial Africa but is not for the likes of us. On the contrary, modern PV installations work well with light, and do not need bright sunshine. Thin-film technology means that typical PV installations need be no more obtrusive than the normal tiles on the roof of a house. Technological development is proceeding rapidly in, among other places, the sustainable energy research group at Southampton university in my constituency.'

He noted that 'the UK currently has 10 percent of the world's photovoltaics market, but almost all installations built or researched by UK companies are not in the UK. The photovoltaics industry in the UK employs about 400 people only. The lack of a mass production market in the UK leads to continuing high costs for PV installations, which in turn damps down demand further'.

By contrast 'Germany currently has embarked on the 100,000 roofs programme, which is designed to establish that number of individual PV installations by 2004. Japan aims to supply 4,600 MW from PV installations - an output equivalent to that of four fossil-fuelled power stations - by 2010. The USA plans for 1 million roofs to be powered by PV by 2010. All those schemes are supported by a form of underwriting in the first instance, through regulation of the purchase regime for energy or through installation grants'.

For its part 'Britain has just announced an experimental programme, which is welcome in context, to underwrite PV installations on 100 roofs, at a cost of £1 million'. It was not surprising then that BP Solar, was 'moving most of its activities to where the market is- the USA- following the company's takeover of Amoco'.

Nevertheless, he sees great potential for PV in the UK. 'Other forms of renewable energy require fast-flowing streams, windy headlands or set-aside land on which to grow willow. One cannot develop those technologies in urban areas, but 80 percent of us live in towns and cities, under that great unexploited resource of the modern age: the urban roof. The average south-facing roof can sustain PV tiles that can generate upwards of 2,000 units of electricity per annum, when the consumption of the average household runs only to about 2,500 units a year. In other words, one's own roof, doing nothing but staying where it is, can replace 80 per cent. of one's electricity requirement year in, year out.'

Although he admitted that it would cost about £8,000, he was doing it himself out of personal commitment, but wanted the government to develop a 'net metering' approach to make the costs less onerous on other individuals who followed suit. And he wanted more support to be given to PV- including an NFFO tranche - perhaps 10 per cent. of the total. That was a subsidy but he felt 'we need to recognise that our energy supply is heavily subsidised, and has been over a long period. Between 1990 and 1995, £4.6 billion went to subsidise fossil fuel and an astonishing £11 billion went to subsidise nuclear power. During the same period, only £0.3 billion, or only 2 percent of all subsidies, went to renewables. A modest redirection of short term subsidy - perhaps aimed at solar mortgages at reasonable rates, installation grants or value added tax reductions on installations- would give a cost-effective push to the establishment of clean energy in a way that subsidies to energy production have signally failed to provide to date'.

Responding, John Battle, then still Energy Minister, welcomed the debate and Alan Whitehead's advocacy of PV, but said that he was 'absolutely sure, however that I will not be able to give him all that he asks for.'

Although Battle urged him to continue to champion PV, he did not want 'to set one renewable energy source against another. Energy from wind, water, biomass and waste, and solar energy can blend in local communities to provide precisely the mixture that is needed for the future'

He noted that Labour had 'doubled the budget for PV to £1 million', but argued that

The key question he saw as 'how we get it into homes, such as the terraced houses in my area, at a price that people and the Government can afford'. He didn't think the NFFO was the best way, and said he would consider Whiteheads idea of solar mortgages. He was also ' more than happy to look again at the question of two-way net metering'.

So he was certainly not dismissive, but in the end his conclusion remained that for the moment PV solar was 'too expensive for general application in the United Kingdom, although I think that it will make a significant contribution in the future'.

Meanwhile the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities published its report on renewables, which suggested that the governments targets were unlikely to be met without more support. It was also unsure about PV. Details in Renew 122

The Review of the Electricity Trading Arrangements currently underway in the UK has given rise not only to a new acronym (RETA), but also to a lot of misgivings within the renewable energy community. Thus the British Wind Energy Association commented in its evidence to the DTI's renewable consultation, 'we have deep and profound reservations about the reform of electricity trading. It is our belief that the system being designed is one that favours the existing generation and is not one designed for the 90%/10% split envisaged for 2010 and subsequently.'

They went on 'whilst we welcome the Minister's public statements and reassurances to the effect that the regulators and others are under instruction to accommodate renewables, we do not detect concrete evidence of this and are concerned that the ambition indicated in the consultation may be frustrated by actions being undertaken elsewhere. It will be necessary for all the stakeholders with a role to play in achieving the national target to understand their responsibilities in this regard'.

They added 'The resources of the renewables industries alone are insufficient so that an 'open and enabling market' can be guaranteed. The intelligence that we have gained during the evolving reform arrangements suggests that at best, integrating renewables and in particular the intermittent sources, will not be achieved without positive intervention. In preparing trading arrangements for ten years hence (and presumably thereafter), a system designed around a growing renewables supply must be the key consideration. Commercial trading arrangements appear to be taking precedence over the supply itself'.

As we report in Groups, SERA felt somewhat similarly about RETA. Let's hope that the DTI, and the Treasury, take note.

Denmark aims to double its share of renewable energy by the end of 2003 under a reform of the country's electricity sector approved by the parliament recently. It also voted for a system of carbon dioxide emissions quotas for electricity generators.

In line with the EU's push towards competition, the current direct subsidy system will be replaced by an obligation on consumers and electricity suppliers to source a minimum proportion of electricity from renewable sources. By the end of 2003, the minimum proportion will be 20%, double the current contribution of renewables. However, responding to objections from the existing renewable energy suppliers, subsidies will be continued for ten years after commissioning for any renewable energy plant built up to 2002. A green certificate system will be introduced at the end of 2003 designed to stimulate competition between renewable energy suppliers, particularly wind projects.

Under the new scheme, power firms will receive carbon dioxide emissions quotas from next year, and face extra taxes if they breach them. They will be entitled to bank or trade emissions permits if they emit less than their individual quota.

The reforms are meant to help Denmark meet its commitment under the Kyoto protocol of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 21% by 2008-2012.

The Green Alliance has launched a new report, "New Policies for Renewable Energy". It's a joint response from environment and industry groups to the DTI's consultation paper on renewable policy . A version of their proposals was also included in the British Wind Energy Associations submission to the DTI- the BWEA being one of the new reports backers.

Like several of the other submissions to the consultation, the Green Alliance proposes a 'percentage obligation' mechanism for securing renewables a place in the market. This would require suppliers to buy an increasing proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. Suppliers would have the option of meeting this obligation through trading in a market for renewable certificates, which should help them reduce costs. The paper also proposes, a longer-term contract mechanism - a system of awarding long-term contracts to a wide range of technologies, to ensure ongoing support for technologies that might not otherwise be supported in the market for renewables that will be created by the percentage mechanism. The cost of supporting this mechanism would be met by a requirement on all electricity suppliers to purchase the renewable certificates relating to the output from the contracts. These renewable certificates would then be counted towards the suppliers' overall percentage obligation.

The report is the result of a major consensus building exercise on renewable energy policy, and is being supported by a wide range of environmental and industry groups including: British Biogen, British Wind Energy Association, Energy from Waste Association, Forum for the Future, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace , and WWF-UK

Battle rages over the plan to move away from fixed price subsidy structures to a more competitive market orientated approach to renewable development in Europe. As we noted in Renew 120, a coalition of green groups, including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WWF, argued that there is a need for change. They called on the EC to look again at the draft directive which had been withdrawn earlier this year, after strong reactions from, in particular, German wind developers- who had benefited from the REFIT Renewable Feed-in Tariff system. Under this, the government set prices for power from renewable suppliers, which the utilities had to pay. The result has been rapid expansion of wind power in Germany, to nearly 3GW.

The draft directive had called for a Europe wide shift to competitive mechanisms - in effect, like the UK's NFFO- on the argument that this ensured price convergence and innovation. But the opponents argued that price reductions had been achieved in the UK at the expense of the expansion of windpower- only about 300MW of wind capacity has been installed so far in the UK. Furthermore, the small UK wind power industry had not been able to be anywhere near as innovative as the wind companies benefiting from REFIT subsidies. Indeed the UK wind manufacturing industry now hardly existed, illustrating that it was capacity growth that drove success, not competition. Finally, if the Kyoto Climate Change emission cut backs are to be achieved, then it's capacity that is need, not competition.

Faced with these arguments, the EC temporarily backed off, but issued a lower key 'working paper', a version of which has now been put back on the political agenda. This still pushes for competitive mechanisms, and argues that the objections have been studied but that the EC had concluded that 'there is no basis in fact to support them'. Rising to the challenge, BWE, the German wind lobby, responded 'It is an attempt to undermine the successful German renewable energy support scheme, which for us is incomprehensible'.

The European Wind Energy Association is formally in favour of the new approach, despite the fact the BWE is a constituent member (interestingly, the BWE recently denied rumours that it wanted to separate out). The British Wind Energy Association, also a member, has backed the competitive approach, arguing that liberalisation was inevitable and so wind had to get used to living without subsidies. 'Feed-in tariffs cannot go on for ever' Nick Goodall from BWEA told Windpower Monthly (April 1999). The draft Directive had proposed a ten year phasing in process but the new working paper shortens this to five years, so the issue is an urgent one. The proponents of competitive approaches argue that, if wind developers are nor careful, as the power markets get liberalised and prices drop, wind projects will become 'stranded', having got used to subsidies- much as is happening to nuclear plants.

Windpower Monthly adopts a similar line, arguing that there is no way to retain the old system and backing the latest unilateral approach being adopted by Denmark - which has developed a green credit trading scheme. Part of the subsidy given to wind companies is replaced by 'green certificates' and the electricity retail companies, who will be obliged to obtain a set amount of their power from green sources, will buy these green credits to make up any shortfall, thus creating a competitive market: see our report earlier.

So where are we now? The EC working document argues that the fixed payment REFIT system jeopardises public support for renewables And yet one of the main criticisms of the NFFO has been that its emphasis on competition has forced developers to invade environmentally sensitive high wind sites- and precipitated a public backlash.

The opponents to the competitive approach also argue that the real problem is that the big utilities can, because of their size and the huge subsidies they get for coal and nuclear, compete unfairly- and block access by smaller developers and suppliers to the grid. The EC says it will deal with the grid access issue and it also seems to be thinking in terms of maintaining a protected market for renewables within which competition occurs. So maybe all will be right in the end- certainly that's what the green coalition are working for. But there is still the fear that the green power markets, which are meant to be one of the sources of commercial support for renewables, will not prosper as much as is hoped, and that removing subsidies will kill renewables off.

Certainly the evidence on green power markets is mixed. It's gone quite slowly in the UK so far (and even slower in the USA) but in Holland things have moved the other way- 9% of the residents of the city of Eindhoven have signed up for premium price green power from a local distribution company. As for subsidies, well, renewables ought to mature gradually and be able to compete, but in the end it all depends on your attitude to competitive markets- are they really the best way to stimulate renewable uptake so as to cut emissions? And if so, shouldn't we at least be trying to reflect the environmental costs of each source in the prices? The EC has talked about carefully regulated markets, and that's obviously to be welcomed. But it's interesting in this context that the German government has recently imposed a new energy tax (a DEM 0.02/kWh 'ecotax'), which, like the UK's proposed Clean Energy Levy, does not exclude renewables. But to compensate for this, the German government has agreed to provide DEM 300m pa in subsidies for renewables. When it comes down to it, in practice government still seem to want to operate via taxes and subsidies, rather than market regulation....

Electricity market liberalisation has not been without its problems as the idea spreads across Europe. In Austria, despite opposition from the nationalised grid owner Verbund, Vienna Power used the new EU market harmonisation rules to purchase cheaper power from a coalition of utilities, including producers from the neighbouring German state of Bavaria.

One of Vienna Powers customers, Greenpeace, who were unhappy with this change, "cancelled" its electricity supply contract and agreed instead to pay the owner of a 500 KW capacity wind turbine some 20 km north of Vienna for the 25,000 kWh per year that its office consumes. Simultaneously, the group offered to pay Vienna Power transmission costs of AS31 (euros 0.025) per kWh instead of the firm's normal tariff of euros 0.065/kWh.

The group is pushing for the introduction of new rules that would keep retail prices for "green" electricity at the same level as "normal" power, through the introduction of reduced transmission charges for green power. Nevertheless, there is little that Vienna Power can do to accede to the demand, since Austrian transmission charges are tightly regulated and have to be calculated according to a complex scheme laid down under law. According to the firm, unless Greenpeace pays for its power, it will eventually have little option but to cut off the supply.

In parallel with the renewables review the government has been carrying out a review of the options for 'clean coal'. The result has been the go ahead for a £12m R&D programme, designed as former Energy Minister John Battle put it. 'to kick-start a £60 million high-tech drive to develop cleaner coal technologies'

The plan is outlined in a new Energy Paper on 'cleaner coal'. Launching the new report Battle commented 'We are allocating £12 million over the next three years towards a research and development drive on cleaner coal technologies. We expect this "seed-corn" money to generate some £60 million over the next three years, for joint industry and university projects also supported by the Government's science budget and EU funds. This in turn will contribute to kick-starting the five year R&D programme proposed by the industry-led Foresight Task Force'.

He went on "Our policy aim is to maintain strong support for R&D in pursuit of the Foresight Task Force's technology targets and recommendations, and so to achieve the significant contribution to future UK wealth creation that the Task Force identified could come from cleaner coal technology."

The Foresight Energy Panel had identified cleaner coal technology's ability to make a significant contribution to UK wealth creation and export opportunities dependant on undertaking significant R&D. The general consensus was that cleaner coal technologies will not become widespread on a commercial scale until 2010.

Not everyone thinks that developing new 'clean coal' technology like pressurised fluidised bed combustion systems is the best use for scarce R&D funds - while they can reduce sulphurous emissions, this approach hardly produces any reduction in carbon dioxide, the key greenhouse gas emissions. It's also likely to be expensive and, within the UK at least, it could be argued that since it's carbon dioxide reduction we are after, it makes more sense to focus on renewables

However, like it or not, coal use worldwide is likely to grow significantly over the next ten years in countries such as China and India: its forecast to have doubled by 2020. The current view is that some 38% of the world's electricity will be still generated from coal by 2020, and coal reserves are likely to last for many years.

Maybe these figure can be reduced by proper emphasis on renewables and conservation, but even so it looks like we would do well to have some clean coal technology to hand.

Battle put it a bit more positively: 'Efficient and environmentally friendly cleaner coal technology must play a bigger role in sustainable development worldwide. It is in all our interests that this technology is developed at a rapid pace to help reduce emissions in the next century.'

Interestingly he added that the new programme 'would also be examining the opportunities offered by coal bed methane and underground coal gasification to contribute to the diversity and sustainability of the UK's future energy supply. This will be undertaken in collaboration with the Coal Authority and the coal industry."

It's also interesting that the programme will not involve demonstration projects, so the new funding will not relieve the problems facing the coal industry by providing a new plant and orders for coal. The DTI says that it concluded that 'funding the construction of currently available clean coal plant (which may have already been demonstrated at commercial scale elsewhere) whether by way of a direct grant or some kind of electricity levy would not constitute value for money at present, particularly since there is an excess of coal-fired plant in the UK, which could be displaced by new coal-fired plant. The Task Force identified a case for cleaner coal demonstration around 2005 and the Government's position will be reviewed in a few years time.'

Copies of the Energy Paper are available from The Stationery Office, PO Box 276, London SW8 5DT. Tel: 0171 873 9090, fax: 0171 873 8200. ISBN 0115154620; price £29.95.

The European Commission's Campaign for Take Off, first outlined in the 1997 EC White paper on Renewables, is designed to kick start renewables and a plan for raising 30bn euro's by 2003 has now emerged, with the aim being to help reach the EU target of providing 12% of EU energy needs from renewables by 2010.

The Campaign will coordinate national and EU efforts and partnership arrangements to trigger private sector funding of large-scale renewable energy projects in four key sectors. It is hoped that up to 23bn euros will be available for wind, solar and biomass projects, plus a programme for 100 community self generation schemes, aimed at 100% local renewable supply.

Although involvement in the campaign will not be a legal requirement, most of the EU country's seem to be enthusiastic, and the remaining 7bn euros will come from public funding from member states and the rest from EU structural and research and development funds.

The overall aims are to install one million photovoltaic systems using 15m square metres of solar collectors; to build 10,000MW-worth of wind turbine capacity; and to provide biomass fuel heating for one million dwellings. The Commission's main role in achieving these targets will be to provide marketing, promotional and project development support through its Altener programme.

The European Union seems to have come up with a compromise solution to the issue of responses to Climate Change. Faced with opposition by the USA to the emission reduction levels agreed at Kyoto, the EU seems, initially against Dutch opposition, to have shifted to a more flexible approach - suggesting that countries should try to achieve at last half of their agreed national reduction targets by domestic means and make up the rest by means of international emission trading. The latter is what the USA wants- although it seems to want this element to much more than 50%.

Emissions trading certainly has won over a lot of corporate interests. The UK government is planning a trial programme.

And BP Amoco is planning to extend its own 'internal' pilot greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme to the entire group by the middle of the year 2000, after promising early results form the first 12 schemes.

• The US based World Resource Institute has come up with its own proposal for breaking the deadlock over implementing the Kyoto Protocol globally. It suggests that developing countries be asked to accept targets for overall carbon efficiency (measured in carbon produced per dollar of GNP) rather than strict emission targets, which would stifle growth.

In October the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process picks up again with another 'Conference of Parties'- COP-5 in Bonn. The last one COP-4 in Buenos Aires left many things unresolved from the previous round at Kyoto, where a Protocol was established but not fully ratified. In the run up to COP-5, the USA still seems to be dragging its feet. With Congress still hostile, there was talk of delaying the attempt to get ratification of the Kyoto Protocol until 2001- after the US elections, despite the fact that, according to a poll by the National Environmental Trust, 57% of Americans think global warming is happening or will happen, and 84% want action now to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

At the preliminary meeting in Bonn in June, the nuclear lobby was once again very active, trying to get nuclear power seen as a solution to Climate Change. As the Climate Action Network commented in its coverage in their Eco Newsletter 'Armed with an annual budget of $28.5 million, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the nuclear industry's trade association, has spent the past year priming the public consciousness for a nuclear comeback. The nuclear industry is avidly fishing for carbon credits, regardless of whether or not their activities are actually additional'

( ie extra to existing sources).

The reality however is that nuclear is on the decline. CAN note that 'between now and the year 2010, licenses of 17 US power plants will expire, the retired plants will not be replaced, and several other reactors will have been prematurely closed for economic and safety reasons. Since the 1978 Three Mile Island accident, not one new plant has been ordered in the US, and since 1974 about 50% of the reactors ordered by utilities have been canceled. Worldwide, the US Department of Energy (DOE) projects that in the next twenty years global nuclear capacity will fall by half'.

CAN conclude 'Nuclear power is a technology whose time has come - and gone'

Eco 6: Climate Action Network, June 9 1999.

The UK still has no idea what to do with its growing inventory of nuclear waste. Yet we are still taking in more fuel for reprocessing from other countries, thus increasing the waste problem. And it gets even worse - we may have to start shifting some of it back to where it came from.

Greenpeace recently pointed out that when former Environment Minister John Gummer rejected Nirex's plans to build the first stage of Britain's underground nuclear waste dump near Sellafield, he also rejected BNFL's plans to keep foreign intermediate-level nuclear wastes (ILW) in Britain. They added 'Nuclear waste fuel (spent nuclear fuel) from Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands is imported to Britain and reprocessed at Sellafield. Foreign intermediate-level wastes that would have been dumped by Nirex will now have to be returned to these countries. Under existing Government policy, about seven nuclear transports will have to go back for every two transports sent. Because reprocessing greatly increases volumes of nuclear waste, the amount of waste in Britain will also increase.'

Greenpeace concluded ''It is wrong to dump this waste in Britain, but it is also madness to allow more nuclear waste fuel to be sent here when many of these countries have nowhere to put the waste when it goes back'.

Most environmentalists feel that the issue of where to put long lived nuclear waste cannot be resolved until agreement has been reached not to continue to produce more of it- which means at the very least a halt to reprocessing. Greenpeace say that instead of reprocessing spent fuel from power stations, it should be dry stored on site- and kept above ground where it can be monitored easily. Deep burial of long lived high level waste separated out during reprocessing is seen as riskier- an out of sight out of mind option.

For its part however, the House of Lords committee on Science and Technology, which recently published a report on this issue, favoured deep disposal, and there is speculation as to where it might go: there don't seem to be many options left. The industry would no doubt prefer to use one of its own sites, since that might make it easier to get planning permission. Sellafield or Dounreay (unlikely after their recent problems), Sizewell, or Harwell? The government is due to publish a Green Paper on the issue later this year.

Meanwhile there are plans for a partial sale of BNFL - privatising nuclear waste, as SHE put it!

While we are scratching round looking for somewhere to store the left overs from fission, nuclear fusion continues to attract large scale funding. For example, it was allocated 788 m ecu under the latest round of the European Union's Framework R&D programme- representing about a quarter of the overall allocation for research on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development.

And yet, as a recent report by POST ( the Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology), notes 'recent years have seen technical developments but also continued debate and uncertainty over whether fusion will ever be economics an energy source'.

The report is entitled "Nuclear Fusion Update", (POST Note 120, Nov. 1998) and can be viewed at:

Food irradiation has been allowed in the UK since 1991, for certain foods- such as spices. A renewal license has recently been issued to Isotron PLC, Swindon for a further three years to irradiate herbs and spices.

According to the MAFF press release'food irradiation has the potential to offer benefits in reducing the risk from harmful micro-organisms such as Salmonella, while helping to prevent food spoilage and waste.'

It adds 'The Government is committed to ensuring that consumers are able to choose for themselves whether or not they want to buy irradiated food'.

Under the provisions of the 1996 Food Labelling Regulations, all foods, or listed ingredients of foods, which have been irradiated, have to carry a clear indication of the treatment using the specified words "irradiated" or "treated with ionising radiation".

Isotron is licensed to irradiate to a maximum overall average dose of 10 kiloGray for: a seasoning blend, the principal ingredients of which are pepper, onion powder, garlic powder, beef powder and salt the following dried spices and condiments: allspice, aniseed, arrowroot, basil, bayleaves, caraway seeds, cardamom, cassia, celery, celery seed, chervil, chilli, chives, cinnamon, cloves, coriander, coriander seeds, cumin, dill, fennel, fennel seeds, fenugreek, garlic powder, garlic salt, ginger, mace, marjoram, methi, mint, mustard powder, black and white mustard seed, nutmeg, onion powder, onion salt, oregano, paprika, parsley, black and white pepper, peppermint, pimento, poppy seeds, rosemary, saffron, sage, savory, sesame seed, spearmint, thyme, turmeric, and any mixture of these individual spices and condiments.

Isotron plc's Swindon plant remains the only licensed food irradiation premises in the UK.

7,200 sheep have been taken off the list, but some 40,400 Scottish sheep still remain subject to the controls on sale imposed after the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. An even larger number number exist in Wales, where 250,000 were initially effected.

Meanwhile, a recent report indicated that the Arctic is seriously contaminated with radioactivity from past atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and nuclear reprocessing activities. Although it has fallen off since the atmospheric Test ban Treaty in the late 1980's, the report noted that the health impact of the contamination was still significant given the unique ecology of the arctic.

Reindeer meat in northern Norway was found to contain 500-2,500 becquerel (Bq) of cesium-137 per kilogram, whereas the Japanese government has set 370 Bq per kg as the maximum tolerable level of radioactive cesium in food. The radioactive intake of effected indigenous people in the Arctic was found to be about 50 times above the norm.

Source: Coverage by Kyodo, (Tokyo) of the Arctic pollution assessment report compiled in 1998 by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, an Oslo based project, backed by eight arctic-rim nations.

Renew 121 looks at sustainable safety- arguing, in a Feature, that it is vital to take this into account, and that providing the necessary maintenance is a key requirement. There are also articles on careers in renewables and on novel wave power and hybrid wind power systems. And there's more coverage of some of the submissions to and responses from the DTI's renewables review, plus all the usual Groups news and reviews., including a review of ECOTEC's new report on community level renewables.

Renew is the bi-monthly 30 plus page newsletter of NATTA, the Network for Alternative Technology and Technology Assessment. NATTA members gets Renew free. NATTA membership cost £18 pa (waged) £12pa (unwaged), £6 pa airmail supplement.

Details from NATTA, c/o EERU, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA Tel: 01908 65 4638 (24 hrs)