The long awaited conclusion to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) consultation on renewables finally emerged in February, confirming that the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation is to be replaced by a new Renewables Obligation scheme.

Under the provisions of the Utilities Bill, (see report later) which was published in January, there will be be an obligation on electricity supply companies to buy a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources, so that by 2010 they would be obtaining 10% of their electricity from renewables. Companies would be able to trade their obligation to buy green power, via a system of permits, certified by OFGEM, the ‘Office of Electricity and Gas Regulation’ so that there would be some flexibility- and a new market in permits.

All renewable sources would be eligible, except, possibly, large (over 10MW) hydro, since this was well established. Existing NFFO orders, some of which run for 15 years, would still be honoured via a transitional arrangement, and fed into the new scheme. Similar changes would apply to Scotland- there will be a Renewables (Scotland) Obligation, and transitional arrangements for the SRO, the Scottish version of the NFFO.

The new system means there will be a shift from competitive contracts, as in the NFFO and SRO, to a long term obligation- with the DTI suggesting that this new scheme should be kept in place until at least 2025, to provide security for companies to plan ahead. The costs of meeting the obligation can be passed on to consumers, but the DTI will impose a price cap and is consulting with interested parties on what the level should be. The current charge from the NFFO, which has fallen off significantly in recent years, is 0.7p/kWh. Energy Minister Helen Liddell said that she ‘will ask the consumer bodies whether an increase building up to about 2% by around 2010 (about £1.35 on a typical quarterly electricity bill) would be acceptable for greener power’.

The renewable energy industry reacted with some concern to the new plan. The British Wind Energy Association argued that the percentage obligation approach would be likely to lead to an emphasis just on the most economically attractive renewables- unlike the NFFO, which had separate tranches for each different type of renewable, there would be no incentive for the newer, currently less developed, options. Certainly, as it is, there will now have to be separate new support schemes if the newer renewables, like offshore wind and wavepower, were to develop.

Greenpeace said that the new scheme would ‘encourage the use of cheap, dirty "renewable" technologies like waste incineration and excludes offshore wind, wave and solar power’ and talked of ‘broken promises’, pointing out that ‘the offshore wind industry has for two years been pinning its hopes on a promise by John Battle, the previous Energy Minister, to provide financial support for 4-8 offshore wind farms off the coast of the UK’.

Certainly policy seems to have shifted. At the BWEA Conference, in Sept. 1998, John Battle, then Energy Minister, spoke about developing ‘arrangements for a first offshore wind band in future NFFO arrangements’, and he ‘especially welcomed the BWEA's view that a series of offshore orders could see the establishment of a domestic turbine and manufacturing and supply base, involving perhaps 5,000 engineering jobs and some 19, 000 jobs in all. I expect to see early progress in job creation on this scale.’

Ministers come and go, and, as far as extra support for new projects are concerned, the new DTI report simply points to the money that is expected to be raised each year, from the Climate Change Levy, which under the revised scheme (see later) should raise £150m. However, not much of that would actually be available for renewables- most of it seems to be earmarked for energy conservation, leaving only part of the initial £50m to be shared between renewables and energy efficiency projects.

The DTI has expanded the renewable Research and Development budget - from £11.5 for 1999/2000 up to £14m in 1999/2000 and then £18m for 2001/2002. But, even ignoring inflation, that’s still much less that renewables used to get during the 1980's when it reached £24m pa, and its unlikely to be sufficient to support offshore wind, much less wave or tidal stream projects.

So, we are not that much further forward, despite a review that started in 1997. But at least we do now have a 10% obligation, which, although flexible and even, it seems, negotiable, will be quite challenging for some of the electricity companies. Eastern had already made a commitment to that target, but for some of the others it will mean some catching up.

The DTI does not specifically mention the green power market, but presumably any capacity contracted for green power retail schemes will be eligible for inclusion under the requirements of the new obligation. In parallel, the Climate Change levy should stimulate demand for green power from business users. So one way or another, there’s going to be a hunt on for new capacity to meet both demand and the obligation.

The new DTI report adds ‘rural development’ to the list of the aims of the renewable programme and also mentions the proposed new regional target setting and strategy development process, designed, along with increased public participation, to help ease local planning problems. That could be the key issue as demand for new projects grows.

The Energy Saving Trust has revised its Future Energy green power accreditation scheme, adding two new schemes (see below), bringing the current total to twelve - see the chart. However, surprisingly, Easterns Eco-power was dropped off the list - temporarily, as it turned out.

Current List of Electricity Tariffs & Offerings Accredited under Future Energy

Details as of 18/11/99                                  'Future Energy' is an Energy Saving Trust accreditation scheme endorsed by the Government.

It was not immediately clear why Eastern fell foul of the EST criteria - one possibility could have been that they were not deemed to have supported sufficient renewable projects from their Eco-power fund. It seems there hasn’t been a massive response from consumers to make donations, so there was presumably not that much money to allocate in any case. But it seems, the real reason for loosing accreditation was more prosaic, an error in filling out some forms, and Eco-power is now back on the list.

However, there could still be problems for eco-fund donation schemes like Eco-power, since they will not be exempted from the Climate Change levy (CCL). As Piers Bisson of the HM Treasury put it at a recent PRASEG meeting on the CCL,‘exemption was for power generated now’, as against projects in the future. So eco-fund schemes may be downgraded in future.

The two new EST accredited schemes both involve Scottish and Southern Energy. One of them, RSPB Energy, is fronted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), who will receive £10 for every customer who signs up (£20 if they also sign up for the parallel gas scheme) and a further £5 (£10) for each subsequent year of enrolment. The money will be used to deal with the impacts of Climate Change on birds. The scheme itself involves a package selling hydropower, wind, landfill gas, energy from waste and other renewables at standard prices i.e. without a premium. That is possible presumably because the hydropower element comes from large existing hydro plants in Scotland, which have long since amortised their debts and can produce power very cheaply- the cheapest power in the UK. So it’s not a bad deal : see http://www.rspb.org.uk/

Suppliers can have up to a 50% contribution from large hydro in Future Energy accredited schemes, but the output from large existing hydro has not been excluded from the Climate Change Levy, so there could be problems ahead. However, it seems that RSPB Energy uses extra capacity released from these plants by their more efficient operation, so maybe this ‘virtual’ new hydro will be eligible for exemption from the Climate Change levy after all. We'll have to wait to see.

Exemption from the climate change levy is obviously attractive to all the the green power retailers, since it will add 0.43 pence per kilowatt hour to the value of renewable generation. This is expected to give business customers a real incentive to purchase green power - although, given that big energy using companies would get an 80% exemption from the CCL, demand for green power may not be as high as initially expected.

Of course, if the RSPB scheme does loose the exemption advantage, this may not matter- since hydro is so cheap, they may still be able to keep prices competitive. That in turn is likely to worry the other green power retailers- who may argue that its not fair to trade power from traditional large hydro. There’s also the point that this approach does nothing to expand renewable capacity. For their part Scottish and Southern have indicated that they will use some the the income to fund the development of new renewable capacity, so they are apparently aware of the issue.

The revised version of the Climate Change Levy with renewables exempted, was generally welcomed, even by major energy users, but the the Confederation of Renewable Energy Associations commented that ‘uncertainties remain for renewable energy industry’.

CREA noted that ‘the environmental effectiveness of the scheme has been increased, whilst the levy itself is lower. The changes could deliver an additional 2.5 million tonnes of carbon savings per year by 2010 ‘. However, CREA add, ‘the new electricity trading arrangements stand to severely disadvantage renewable generators and the expected announcement of future renewable policy has been repeatedly delayed.’

The World Wide Fund for Nature were also worried about the impact of NETA and the lack of incentives in the Climate Change Levy for small businesses to switch to green supplies.

Speaking at a session of PRASEG, the Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group, Paul Jeffings, Head of Policy at Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was however fairly positive, arguing that green taxes provide a good means to reduce the effects of climate change, and are "more cost efficient than regulation by switching the cost over all users". The Climate Change Levy will "yield significant environmental benefits, boosting energy efficiency and therefore savings to industry". He also stated that the RSPB "very warmly welcomed" the exemption for renewables, and good quality CHP. But he did raise the question of what ‘good quality’ actually means. Another concern was raised over the proposed negotiated agreements on emissions with businesses in return for Levy exemption. The problem is, he argued, that the agreements are based on energy efficiency and not on emissions reductions. Agreements are also too lenient, and there are too many of them. He concluded that the way forward was for "a proper carbon cap", with a cap and trade system introduced, "sooner than later".

The governments new Utility Bill, published in January, is designed primarily to achieve 'a fairer balance between interests of consumers and shareholders', by toughening up the powers given to regulators. Previously the main function of the regulators (OFFER, OFFGAS etc.) was to ensure that the markets worked fairly, in the belief, championed by the previous administration, that competition would be ultimately in the interests of consumers-by cutting prices. The Labour administration clearly still believes that, and 10% cuts to consumer bills are predicted, but it is also perhaps more sensitive to other concerns. So the new Bill includes a new primary duty for regulators to 'exercise their functions in the manner best calculated to protect the interests of consumers, wherever possible and appropriate through promoting effective competition' in particular taking into account 'the interests of low income consumers, the chronically sick, the disabled, pensioners and consumers in rural areas'.

The new Bill also imposed 'a duty on each of the regulators, in the exercise of their statutory functions, to have regard to guidance issued by Ministers on the social and environmental objectives relevant to their sector.' Previously there was a general duty to take note of environmental concerns, but now it seems that the regulators will be provided with more direction by their political masters. In particular the Bill says that, in the energy sector, there should be 'broad enabling powers for Ministers to make regulations to promote energy efficiency, and the generation of electricity from renewable sources'.

Perhaps less welcome is the proposal for 'legislation to underpin the New Electricity Trading Arrangements’ (NETA). That's likely to be the focus of major conflicts as the Bill goes through Parliament, with renewable energy interests being worried that the proposed new four hourly balancing mechanism, with price penalties for failing to match supply to demand, will favour larger conventional suppliers at the expense of sometimes intermittent and generally smaller scale renewable options. To compensate they will be arguing that special provisions must be made to recognise the benefits of local embedded generation- that is, the value of electricity produced and used locally via the local area network, without the need for distribution over long distances via the National Grid.

For its part, the government seemed to have recognised some of the problems facing small projects and renewables, and the DTI has invited responses to a consultation paper, designed to find ‘ways to improve access to regional distribution networks for smaller generators’ and in particular ‘renewable energy plants and combined heat and power (CHP) installations’.

Launching the new paper, Helen Liddell, Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, commented "Developers and operators of environmentally friendly embedded plant such as CHP and renewables are entitled to fair access to the distribution network at fair prices. I intend to reduce the burden of regulation faced by these plants. We must also make the access and charging regime fairer and more transparent. Consumers are increasingly demanding green-sourced electricity. At the same time, cost-effectiveness of smaller generation plants is improving all the time. The consultation is designed to seek a new balance between embedded and conventionally generated electricity. We are anxious to help the embedded generators overcome some of the difficulties they have faced in securing effective access to the electricity network, and in getting clear information on charges."

The consultation will consider and invite comment on the present rules governing requirements for electricity generation or supply licenses; and whether these should change. The range of network access and charging issues is also to be addressed by a proposed joint OFGEM chaired Industry and Government working group.

Copies of the consultation accessed via the DTI Web Site on : http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/netman.htm   (network access and charging) and: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/propamend.htm   (licence exemptions)

Biomass may be getting off the ground at last- but not very far. Chris Pym reports on the Wood Fuel conference held in Harrogate last year.

After the near-disaster of all three NFFO-3 energy crops projects almost failing to get off the ground, the position today is much better. The ARBRE wood chip combustion plant in Yorkshire will be commissioned shortly. Planning permission has been granted for a new railhead there. ARBRE aims for 1500 hectares of short rotation coppice (SRC) by 2002, but will rely substantially on forest residues for the time being.

The other two failing NFFO 3 projects were taken over by Ambient and are making some progress at last. One project will be on a site at Eye adjacent to Fibropowers plant. The other will strive to start at Kingshill Farm, Cricklade (A419). North Wiltshire is not great for forest residues, but is being talked up as a good location for SRC planting within a 40 mile radius.

Meanwhile Border Biofuels, who have won a contract with Carlisle for a 20MW (£45 millions) project, are now marketing themselves as The Electric Tree Company and claim to have 7 projects in the pipeline worth 69MW. There is some scepticism about whether they will actually be able to deliver power at the contracted price unassisted. However, it seems likely that they will make some progress on the back of the Carlisle project e.g. their 15MW proposal for Newbridge in Wales may now get looked at more favourably from the planning point of view. Previously it was stalled. Other projects are planned for Consett, Ryedale and Hexham and they seem to have adopted a bullish approach generally.

The Ely straw plant (Energy Power Resources) is expected to go live in September 2000. EPR had to half- bury the buildings 8 metres below the flat East Anglian landscape to satisfy planners. It took 3 months to dig the hole. The plant will be modified so as to accept other fuels on a trial basis. This will allow experiments with miscanthus to take place from the nearby miscanthus research station. EPR are also hoping to do a poultry litter project at Fife, a collaborative waste-to-energy plant with SITA at Redhill and a pyrolysis system for scrap tyres in the West Midlands.

The DTI still has the clearest vision on renewables, while other government departments are perceived to be dragging their feet. The DETR is producing a Rural White Paper shortly but its not clear that there would be anything on energy crops in it. Regional targets for renewable energy will be established by 2001 using existing resource studies. MAFF is still "looking at" the use of grasslands for energy crops and is to produce a Rural Development Plan for England for consideration in Brussels by midsummer 2000.

Meanwhile, ARBRE is still the only project receiving the locational supplement to help farmers. At the time of writing, planters have still not been told if they will get short rotation coppice grants for the year 2000. Unless grants are confirmed quickly they will refuse to plant any electric trees at all!- see report 7 below.

My opinion is that in the UK energy crops such as short-rotation coppice are still in the doldrums. The projects moving towards fruition rely heavily on other biofuels. Associating SRC with projects dependent on forest residues long-term smacks of spin-doctoring. I can't see coppicing as a credible alternative for achieving renewables or carbon reduction targets in the UK - not at the moment anyway. Meanwhile, British Biogen tries all the time to get the DETR, DTI and MAFF to work more closely together. Well done, British Biogen!

When revamping of the Climate Change Levy proposals last year, the government announced its intention to treble its support for energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. The increase to £150m will allow for the introduction of a system of enhanced capital allowances for energy saving investments to be introduced alongside the £50m originally announced under the climate change levy package in Budget 99. Businesses and other interested parties have being asked for their views as to how they can best use the extra £150m available to help improve their energy efficiency in a consultation launched by the DETR and DTI.

The main focus is the proposed new business energy efficiency programme and the qualification criteria for an Enhanced Capital Allowances (ECAS) tax relief scheme for energy saving investments. But renewables can also share in the new funding.

Energy Minister Helen Liddell commented "New and Renewable Energy technologies will play an important role in reducing carbon emissions and helping the UK to meet its Kyoto commitments. This will also create jobs and boost exports. The intention to allow some of the funds raised by the climate change levy to support renewable energy."

It is planned to introduce both the enhanced capital allowances and the energy efficiency money alongside the climate change levy in April 2001.

Details Tel: 0171 890 3333; E-mail: press@detr.gov.uk  

There have been fears that governments financial support for short rotation coppice (SRC) projects, which has helped get some SRC plantations going, was being withdrawn. A report in Biomass Farmer and User (No.22) quoted a Ministry of Agriculture spokesman as saying that farmers should treat the coming spring as the last in which to plant SRC willow with government support.

Given that the flagship ARBRE wood chip combustion project in Yorkshire should be starting up soon, this cut back looked like very bad news- and very strange timing. What else might be available as far as funding is concerned beyond the year 2000 planting season? MAFF has been consulting on the revision of CAP the Community Agricultural Policy via a consultation paper entitled 'Agenda 200 CAP Reform: A New Direction for Agriculture' and a MAFF spokesman has commented that 'any future scheme resulting from Agenda 2000 is dependent on energy crops being included in the Rural Development Plan, ' but there was some uncertainly about when or if this support would materialise. So, as Chris Pym reports (see left), for a while the prospects for SRC looked a little grim.

A quarter of all UK carbon emissions into the atmosphere could be saved by the end of the next decade through the development and use of low-carbon technology, according to a recent report by the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment (ACBE).

The report "Carbon Trusts - Exploiting the Potential of Low Carbon Technology" indicates that up to 50 million tonnes of carbon, or some 25 % of all UK emissions into the atmosphere, could be saved by 2010.

The ACBE report sets out critical measures for government and business to reduce carbon emissions through faster take-up of low carbon technology. Probably the most significant recommendation to come out of the report is the development of a Climate Change Technology Centre that would help to bring promising climate change technology research quickly to the attention of the business community as well as co-ordinating existing national and international climate change technology efforts.

The report includes an illustration of how a trust-funded Low Carbon Technology Centre might work, saving at least between two and three million tonnes of carbon annually for around £3 million recycled tax revenues. It says that there should be a stronger business focus on energy efficiency and carbon saving. While it welcomes voluntary approaches, the report sees regulation as a key requirement and also calls for a Carbon Tax. However it says that ‘if adopted, such a tax must be part of a comprehensive programme of measures and introduced on the basis that it does not lessen UK business competitiveness, that is revenues are fully recycled by encouraging low carbon technology and by being otherwise revenue neutral, that it is targeted to achieve changed behaviour and should not fall exclusively on business’.

In parallel it is keen on flexible international mechanisms such as ‘Emission Trading’ and ‘Joint Implementation’.

On specific technologies the ACBE says that the Government should take action to ensure that the regulatory barriers to the wider use of Combined Heat and Power CHP continue to be tackled. It also proposes that there should be a new voluntary Business Commitment to Renewable Energy, set at 1% rising progressively to 10% by 2010, providing Government maintains and increases NFFO funding, and providing the cost of such energy is and remains competitive with prices currently obtainable.

Government and the Regulator should, it says, also increase incentives for domestic take-up of solar power, for example through the Regulator allowing domestic PV installers to sell surplus electricity back to the grid at the same price as they have been charged for non PV purchases.

Last December the Environmental Forum 'eco:librium' organised a conference at Church House, Westminster entitled "A Landfill Tax That Works?". It was attended by 170+ people, including a sprinkling of MPs and a Treasury Minister. Christopher Pym reports.

The landfill tax & associated credit scheme has been very popular, given that it supports a range of environmental projects, but it’s also been somewhat chaotic, with a rather eclectic set of projects getting funded. There are no strategic performance criteria for evaluating the landfill tax/credit scheme, so there is no value-for-money scrutiny.

A range of Environmental Bodies (EBs) have been established, by environmental groups and by some Universities, to process grant applications, tapping into landfill gas credits. However, there are large unspent balances in EBs and the spend take-up on the credit scheme as a whole is well below 100%.

The Landfill tax is claimed to be 'hypothecation', but only 20% of the tax goes back as credit. The other 80% disappears into the Treasury, where it funds a tiny reduction in employers national insurance contributions, thus making the package financially neutral- in theory. There was a strong call on government to increase the 20% substantially and to improve the scheme generally.

One of the rules of the scheme is that credits must not be used for operators' commercial gain. This is an important probity rule and it seems that misuse is on the increase. In Somerset County Council, for example, the award of a waste contract was influenced towards a particular contractor because of the landfill gas/credit element within it. In this way a contractor gained commercial advantage- and this is not an isolated case.

It was not thought surprising that more than half the landfill tax credit cash is being spent on cuddly community projects such as church roofs and village halls. It was proposed that part of the funds be ring-fenced to support national demonstration projects in new technologies in the waste-to-energy or other relevant fields.

Another proposal was that EBs should either opt in to local projects or opt out (of local projects) into national projects. The whole process at the moment is voluntary, private sector and deals with funds which may seem like public money but which are not actually public money.

It was also argued that there are too many EBs. Some are single-project EBs. Others are NIL project EBs. About 70% of the cash is going to about 20 EBs. The national body ENTRUST is not strong enough to give EBs the support they need. Evaluation and dissemination of results from projects is patchy or non-existent.

Despite the lack of reliable statistics, it was claimed that there is more waste going to landfill now than before the landfill tax started. My conclusion would be that the whole thing is chaotic, but with undeniable local benefits being seen right across the country. There are on average 230 new project proposals every month.

With Scotland and Wales now having their own political establishments, some aspects of energy policy have been devolved. PRASEG, the Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group, recently reviewed the state of play. Lee Potiphar reports.

Martin Mathers from WWF opened the session, describing Scotland’s devolution and the opportunities this raises for "challenging targets" for CO2 emissions and 10% renewable energy target by 2010. He was very pleased to say that devolution meant that Scotland was no longer constrained by decisions made in Westminster (i.e. the 20% and 10% targets) but that there was a possibility of exceeding these targets. He thought that there was a favourable all party consensus on renewables in Scotland. Interestingly he gave his opinion that, with the potential renewable resources in each country being different, it would be beneficial to all if there were regionally set targets. He then mentioned the current buzzword floating around at the moment, i.e. "joined up government". As to climate change, the Scottish Parliament is to have a "clear working arrangement with Westminster" with Sarah Boyack MSP and Minister for Transport and the Environment agreeing any targets, using ‘firm and positive action’. What positive and firm action means, he did not say.

Ian Taylor from Greenpeace strongly advocated wave power as the renewable technology for Scotland. He considered that, in Scotland, the main motivation for wave technology stems from massive amounts of natural and industrial resources - ship building, and other industries well adapted to wave and marine technology. He was "very happy" that Greenpeace was organising business seminars in Scotland and in particular that it had helped set up the commission for wave power ( see Renew 123). He thought that the renewables future was "extremely positive" in Scotland, and compared it to Denmark, with in this case wave instead of wind.

Tim Kirby, Managing Director of Eco Energy and a resident in Wales for the past 20 years was first to speak on Wales. He considered that the Welsh Assembly and devolution, while not being taken to heart quite so much as in Scotland, was "going strong on sustainability". He cited, as an example, two renewable debates that have already taken place in the Assembly: see Renew 122 . Wales, he considered is the "right size" for renewable energy, and that it is "easier to do renewables in Wales" (rather than in England and Scotland, presumably) as it has a low population with plentiful possible land use. However, he did mention that, although a large number of projects have been undertaken, they have faced a number of hurdles, the main one being planning permission.

He considered that Wales was placed at a disadvantage by being constrained by England and was sceptical of NETA, with its focus on large schemes. He saw a "tremendous opportunity" in re-renovating old hydro, but felt that "the arrangements do not seem geared to this". He ended by saying that "maybe" Wales could take on more than the 10% target.

After a period of discussion, Martin Jones, a Welsh MP, rounded off, fielding a few questions on windfarm and local planning. He said that he did not like wind farms, but that he "would prefer to have a wind turbine on every house". This was met with surprised silence. He considered that renewables had a "unique opportunity in Wales" and that it was "excellent that sustainable development was written into legislation". This he believed would gives the Welsh Assembly both responsibilities and opportunities. On the problems of planning permission and how this related to sustainable development in Wales, he commented "Appeals go through the First Secretary, so he must take into account planning. Planning guidelines are decided by the Welsh Assembly not by Westminster"

The worlds climate may change even faster than was thought, if the predictions coming from the Met Office’s Hadley Centre prove correct. According to the results of a 5 year study of microbe activity in soil and the die back rate for tropical rain forests, it now thought that, unless emissions are cut, by the end of the century most of the Amazon rain forest could disappear releasing millions of tons of carbon dioxide. Average global temperatures could rise by 8 degree C (14 F) over some landmasses like central Europe by the end of the century.

As we reported in Renew 123, the Hadley Centre had already issued a warning that, by 2080, unless emissions were reduced:

* global temperatures will rise by about 3°C

* large parts of northern South America and central southern Africa could lose their tropical forests

* some 3 billion people could suffer increased water stress; Northern Africa, the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent will be worst affected

* around 80 million extra people could be flooded each year due to rising sea levels: Southern Asia, South East Asia and island states in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean will be most at risk

* about 290 million extra people could be at risk of malaria - China and central Asia will be most affected

* the risk of hunger in Africa will increase due to reduced cereal yields.

Sobering stuff. And on top of that comes news from a German study, reported in Scientific American, that there could also be a massive outgassing of methane from undersea methane hydrate reserves. Methane hydrate is a white ice like crystalline material trapping vast quantities of methane and has been discovered recently in a variety of locations, mostly in deep ocean beds and in permafrost. There is considerable interest in it as a potential new fuel. However there are fears that attempts to get access to it for collection purposes could cause uncontrolled release of methane- one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

Denmark has been engaging in an ambitious and praiseworthy programme of supporting environmental projects in central and eastern Europe. So far around 800 projects have been supported, including some renewable energy projects. One of the arguments used was that it was far more effective in environmental terms to use Danish taxpayers money to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the eastern European countries, where pollution levels were generally very high, than to spend it on projects in Denmark, where less impact could be made. So it was only partially an altruistic effort - since Climate Change was a global problem some of the benefits would also be shared eventually by Denmark.

Unfortunately however, all has not gone well with some of the wind power projects. Four wind projects were supported, involving a total of 11 windturbines. The project in the Czech Republic met difficulties in that the wind regime was less than had been expected- only 30% of what was predicted- and there were problems with selling electricity at the price originally planned. These problems seem to be due to poor communication amongst the developers, backers and supporters, and efforts are now being made to redeem the situation -possibly by moving the windturbines. However this episode led to some poor publicity for Denmark's Environmental Assistance programme. Let’s hope they learn form their mistakes and that other such programmes, like Shells ambitious new Sustainable Energy support programme (see Renew 122), avoid similar problems.

There have recently been attempts to allow nuclear power to benefit from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is the mechanism proposed at the Kyoto Climate Change conference in 1997, designed to support the transfer of clean energy technology to the developing world. For example, Canada recently requested that carbon credits be received for exporting the CANDU reactor technology to developing countries. Many other countries with nuclear technology for sale would also no doubt welcome the opportunity to earn some emission credits in this way - and push their nuclear wares.

In a resolution tabled at its General Conference last Sept., the International Atomic Energy Agency noted "the importance of the transfer of nuclear technology to developing countries" and pointed to the "great potential of nuclear power for meeting energy requirements in many countries and the need to protect the environment and recognizing that many countries consider nuclear power, being a climatically benign source of energy, to be an eligible option under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol."

Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden questioned this resolution, saying that they did not consider nuclear energy an option for the CDM.

Unfortunately, it was fully backed by Belgium, Germany, Finland, Switzerland and the Netherlands. This sounds like a charter for dumping a technology that no one will buy in the West on to developing countries. There have been no new nuclear plants ordered in the USA for decades and most of Europe has now abandoned nuclear development plans. Even the World Bank states on its web site: "The issues surrounding nuclear power go beyond economic costs alone. Nuclear energy is not acceptable in many parts of the world because of concerns of reactor safety, disposition of nuclear wastes and proliferation of fissile materials..."

In its commentary on the fifth gathering of the Conference of parties to the UN Climate Change negotiations (COP-5) held last year in Bonn, CAN, the Climate Action Network argue that ‘eligible technology dissemination under the CDM must follow those criteria that prioritise decentralised and easy-to-implement technologies. For nuclear, a country needs at the very least a sophisticated safety infrastructure and skilled engineering personnel to avoid accidents. However, the recent accident at Tokaimura in Japan showed that even one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world cannot handle nuclear technology safely. These risks and infrastructural requirements do not exist with solar, wind and sustainable biomass technologies. If countries do not want to kill the environmental integrity of the CDM, they had better insist on leaving nukes out of the deal. For NGOs, ensuring that the CDM's design is environmentally sound from the start is one of the key priorities for COP 5.’

Fortunately, CAN reports, at COP-5, many countries, including Austria, Italy, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Ireland, Nauru, Singapore, Sweden, and Tuvalu, rejected nuclear power as eligible for credit under the CDM, although the issue is still open. It will no doubt be raised at COP-6 in Nov in the Hague, although , according to WISE (Communique 521), it may in the end be left to individual cases and/or countries to decide whether nuclear projects are a viable option for CDM .

The newly emerging green power market means that, on green power customers behalf, retail companies are buying in green power to substitute for power that would have come from a mixture of fossil and nuclear sources. On average, using the typical UK fuel mix, this will avoid the production of about 0.45kg of carbon dioxide per kWh. But of course, offsetting the nuclear part of this mix would not result in any net CO2 emission reduction. So does that mean that, during day time, when power demand is low and most of the power used comes from base load nuclear plants, green power users will be mainly offsetting nuclear power (which may please them) but won't actually be saving any CO2 emissions?

Its complicated: the precise amount of carbon dioxide saved by green power users depends on the complex and continuously changing pattern of supply and demand. Regional Electricity Companies (REC's) buy in power from a mix of sources (coal, gas and nuclear chiefly) from the 'pool' on the basis of half hour spot price contracts, so the mixture varies all the time and the buying pattern must also respond to the hourly pattern of consumer demand. This peaks during the early evening, and is low during the day and overnight. Nuclear plants try to run as continuously operating 'base load' plants', and the REC's have been required under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) system to take whatever nuclear electricity is available. So during the low demand periods, most power being sold via the pool is likely to come from nuclear plants. But that doesn't mean that during this period green power users will not be saving extra carbon dioxide emissions. Since the REC's can't offload the nuclear electricity, any green power used during this period will substitute for any fossil power that would have been used, thus saving emissions.

Of course, you might ask what would happen when and if the scale of the demand for green power rises so that it challenges the fixed nuclear element? Won't it have to yield? The answer seems to be yes, eventually. It looks like the old NFFO arrangements, including those for nuclear, will be abandoned under the mechanisms proposed for NETA, the New Electricity Trading Arrangements, so in future the nuclear element may not be protected and green power users will be substituting for nuclear.

So far, while they are implicitly saying that they are substituting for fossil fuels, the green power retailers have not included 'getting shot of nuclear' in their list of benefits, presumably because, as explained above, at present that's not what is happening, but it soon could be. Then the premium price being asked for by most green power retailers could be justified in terms of getting rid of nuclear as well as in terms of saving carbon dioxide emissions - although, as we’ve seen, the former would reduce the latter.

Finally, it may be worth noting that we've just been through a period when consumers were required (non optionally) to pay a 10% premium price for having to use nuclear electricity. With the demise of the nuclear part of the NFFO levy, that surcharge has now been removed. And now, even if the Energy Saving Trust would give them accreditation under its 'Future Energy' scheme, it seems unlikely that the nuclear industry could sell its electricity direct to consumers as 'green power', even without a premium price. Carbon-free it may be, but there are many other problems with nuclear which make it unlikely to become a consumer choice. Instead, when NETA, and the Climate Change levy, begin to bite, nuclear could begin to be squeezed out.

The Millennium Bug may not have turned out to be much of a problem- except for a few isolated cases, including faults in the safety monitoring system in a Japanese nuclear plant- but some more conventional nuclear bugs from the old Millennium have been carried over.

British Nuclear Fuels face a difficult future following the further unravelling of the problems with the Mixed Oxide (MOX) plutonium-uranium fuel that it had fabricated for Japan - and elsewhere. As we mentioned in Renew 123, last year it was found that some shipments for Japan had not been properly checked and that quality assurance paperwork had been falsified- three Sellafield workers were sacked initially as a result, and two more followed. The Japanese were far from happy and there was talk of the whole of Sellafields Japanese contract being threatened- with Japan's Industry Ministry (MITI) saying that no more MOX fuel would be accepted from British Nuclear Fuel unless quality assurance could be given and Kansai Electric, a Japanese power utility, announcing that it was going to abandon plans to use MOX fuel from BNFL.

Back in the UK, the Energy Minister Helen Liddell sought an explanation of the mess from BNFL - whose application to start up the new £300m MOX fabrication plant began to look increasingly insecure: around 120 staff from the MOX programme were sent home on full pay while the issue was investigated and Greenpeace claimed that ‘the whole rationale behind reprocessing Japanese fuel at Sellafield has now collapsed.’

Initially, BNFL claimed that the suspect fuel had not yet gone to Japan, but it seems that in fact some had been shipped. And it was not just Japanese shipments that were suspect. The nuclear safety authority in Switzerland also discovered faults in Mox fuel assemblies supplied by BNFL in 1996 - after they had been loaded into a Swiss reactor. It now seems that Germany may also have experienced similar problems with MOX from BNFL.

Add to all this a critical report on the 'safety culture' at Sellafied, from the UK's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, and BNFL is clearly facing problems.

Meanwhile, hardly noticed by the media, one of the three workers irradiated last year in the accident at the Tokaimura Nuclear fuel processing plant in Japan died recently - after 11 weeks, Hisashi Ouchi succumbed to his injuries. As you may remember the three workers were exposed to massive radiation doses when they tried to short circuit the fuel fabrication process using buckets to transfer material. The result was not just Japans worst nuclear accident so far, with around 100 local people having received more than the allowed annual radiation dose, but also the further destabilisation of the Japanese nuclear programme.

Given NATTA upcoming national conference on Local Renewables (see details in section 16 below) Renew 124 includes a lot of material on this topic, including a Feature article by Tam Dougan on the role of renewables in rural regeneration. There's also further discussion of Dave Tokes new NATTA report on local community ownership of wind projects, and reports from a variety of local renewable energy projects, including a overview by ECOTEC..

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.

The development of wind farms in the UK has slowed to a crawl- due to local opposition, and yet wind power, and the other renewables, such as energy crops, could provide the basis for local economic renewal in many rural areas.

Community ownership whether directly by co-ops or more indirectly by local investment, is often seen as the best way forward for wind- converting opposition to support and turning a problem into a solution. And yet so far there are few locally owned schemes. Locally owned enterprises could also play a key role in producing Energy Crops to feed to local power plants.

This conference will look at the case for local ownership- which, in the case of wind, some observers like Dave Toke believe should be the only type of development now allowed. ( See his new NATTA Report 'Community Ownership: the only way ahead for UK wind?', £3 from NATTA , £2 NATTA members)

Toke will be on hand to present his views as will representatives from ECOTEC, the AAT community wind project in Wales and the Fenland wind project.

There will be workshop sessions to allow participants to discuss the changes that would be needed in terms of financial support, planning, and corporate/ co-operative structures to allow community ownership to prosper in the UK, as it has elsewhere.

There will also be opportunities to discuss the local development potential of other renewables in the urban environment.

The conference will be on Saturday April 8th 2000 at Parsifal College ( OU Regional Centre) 527 Finchley Road, London NW3 10.30am -5pm.

Buses (or walk) from Swiss Cottage Tube

Conference fee £10, £5 for NATTA members

Advanced booking is recommended, but some tickets should be available on the door. Lunch can be obtained in local cafes/ pubs.

For further details contact NATTA, c/o EERU, Open University, Milton Keynes. MK7 6AA 01908 65 4638 (24 hrs) Fax: 01908 65 4052 (24 hrs).  S.J.Dougan@open.ac.uk

Also see http://www-tec.open.ac.uk/eeru/natta/rol.html

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

Renew-on-line posted on 24/2/00 by s.p.forrest@open.ac.uk