Extracts from the news section of
NATTA's journal Renew,
issue 138, July-August 2002
The full 32 (plus) page journal can be obtained on subscription (details below). The extracts here only represent about 25% of it.
This material can be freely used as long as it is not for commercial purposes and full credit is given to its source.
The views expressed should not be taken to necessarily reflect the views of all NATTA members, EERU or the Open University.
The Department of Trade and Industry has launched a new initiative to help schools, offices and housing developments in England play a part in reducing the effects of climate change. The £1.6 million Community Renewables initiative will set up local support teams in 10 areas covering half of England. The support teams will help local people and organisations devise renewable energy schemes suited to their area. The aim is to not only create environment friendly developments but to enable community groups to directly benefit from the income generated. The local support teams, which are made up of local councils, energy experts, government bodies and other specialists will provide advice and training on feasibility studies, funding, technology issues, planning, environmental assessment and public participation.
£1.6m is not exactly major funding, but the DTI did point out that the community schemes can draw upon the Government’s:
- £20 million major solar photovoltaic (PV) demonstration programme which will include support for community projects and individual households. See details later.
- £10 million programme for renewable energy schemes with strong local community or household interest
- £5 million renewable energy budget for fuel poor households that are off grid or without mains gas connections.
Examples of the types of projects the initiative hopes to develop include: Turning waste from farm and food waste into natural gas to generate electricity for community buildings; Using wood fired boilers to heat schools; Harnessing solar energy to power hospitals. It sounds very worthwhile - if the familiar practical and bureaucratic obstacles can be overcome.
Brian Wilson, Minister for Energy, said: ‘This initiative could lead to schools powered by small scale wind turbines, hospitals with solar rooftops and houses with wood chip fired boilers. Everyone can play a part in increasing the amount of renewable energy the UK uses. Educating people is the key to helping people develop their own renewable energy ideas. I am determined to no longer waste the will and determination of local groups to produce green electricity. These new projects will bring educational opportunities and local jobs as well as the obvious environmental benefits. Potential for employing manufacturing skills is an important part of the case in favour of developing our renewables. Another key aspect of this initiative is that it will give a further source of income to the communities involved in such schemes. Innovative ideas like this could be the key to regenerating some our more deprived areas. The support teams will also provide innovative ways of providing cheap and efficient power to those who live in tough social conditions. Crucially, they may be able to help set up renewable energy schemes for households which aren’t connected to the mains gas supply.’
Countryside Agency Board member Tony Hams said that the ‘Cabinet Office Energy Review called for public involvement in renewable energy. This is exactly the role of the Countryside Agency’s Community Renewables Initiative. It will help people devise renewable energy developments suited to their own locality, that they can benefit from.We are delighted with the support we've received from fellow Government departments. Now we must work together and help people get environmentally sensitive renewables projects on the ground.’
The initiative is a joint scheme between the Countryside Agency,The Energy saving Trust, DTI, DEFRA and the Forestry Commission. For details see: www.countryside.gov.uk/communityrenewables For the local contacts see our groups section. Scotland is to have a similar scheme.
The debate on the Performance and Innovation Unit’s Energy Review continues to rumble on, with the DTI’s consultation paper providing a new focus. Some of the issues were identified in a House of Commons debate on the PIU report in March, although this turned into a pro and anti nuclear exchange. The antis were ably led by Dr. Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton). ‘We must remember the awful history of the early 1980’s. Research into renewables, in which this country then led the world, was stopped, and more nuclear capacity was built. It is reasonable to suggest that to maintain the nuclear option, the possibility of renewables was set back 20 years. This country was ahead in wind power, but Denmark stepped in and took over world leadership. Wave power was coming along nicely, but it was stopped dead in its tracks and only now is it reaching the point it had reached 20 years ago. If we are not careful, the nuclear option could be developed at the expense of renewables.’
The pro-nuclear view was put strongly by another Labour MP Dr. Ashok Kumar (Middlesborough, S and Cleveland, East) who welcomed the pro nuclear statement that had been made by the Chief Scientific Advisor, Prof David King and pointed to the Trade and Industry Committee, of which he was a member, on the security of energy supplies, which concluded: "the Government should make a clear statement on the future of nuclear energy as quickly as possible".
He went on, ‘we have not at this moment in time developed the technology for renewables...we must recognise what is providing electricity at the present, whatever the process. I do not have any objection to renewables and other developments, but they would not be ready in time because the technology that is required would still be in a primitive state in 20 or 30 years’ time. Nobody can take that risk because the lights will go out. Hon. Members should remember what happened in California. In order to ensure that that does not happen, we should remember that this technology works’.
That didn’t leave much for the Conservatives energy spokesman Robert Key (Salisbury) to add- as he put it, he ‘hardly dare intrude on Labours private grief’ in relation to its internal debate on nuclear policy. Fortunately, there was also some coverage of renewables. For example Dr. Desmond Turner commented that ‘the most baffling feature of the (PIU) report is that although it recognises the enormous power-producing potential of marine renewables- wave and tide- it makes little reference to them thereafter, save to suggest that although they might be making a major contribution by 2050, but they will be making only a small, unspecified contribution by 2020.
We’ll review the debate in full in Renew 139.
Following the PIU Energy Review (see Renew 136), the Government has produced a consultation paper seeking comments on UK Energy Policy, prior to producing its promised White Paper on Energy ‘around the turn of the year’. It’s quite short, and asks for responses on issues such as the 20% by 2020 target for renewables proposed by the PIU, and the idea of keeping the nuclear option open. Comments are required by Sept.13th. The paper is at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/developep/index.htm
The DTI has allocated £4m to support its Large Scale Building Integrated PV Field Trial for Public Buildings - part of its £20m PV solar programme. The funding will support 18 new projects around the UK, in public buildings including Schools, galleries, church halls and sport centres. The total capacity would be around 1.14 MWpeak.
The funding has been awarded following a bidding process which opened last Nov. £3m was originally made available but so many good quality schemes came forward that a further £1m has been awarded for 7 more developments on top of the original 11.
Brian Wilson, Minister for Energy, said: "This £4 m will put these very visible public projects in the front line of our commitment to solar energy. It is a major boost for that brand of renewables. This follows on from support given earlier this year to develop an initial 400 UK based solar powered households. These schemes will provide important learning experience before the UK embarks on a much larger installation programme."
He added "The Government has already set aside £20 million for the first phase of that major programme, which will involve large numbers of houses and public buildings. I want to see thousands of roofs covered by solar panels every year. We have a lot of catching up to do if we are to aspire to the same kind of programmes in Japan and Germany". He’s certainly right e.g. Japan installs 100 every year.
It’s taken a while to get recognition of PV in the UK. In Feb, 2001, the Enterprise, Skills and Innovation White Paper announced that "We will embark on a major initiative with industry and others to achieve a UK solar photovoltaic demonstration programme in line with those four main competitors". Following a favourable report from the joint Government-Industry PV Group, an initial £1m was allocated to the First Phase of the Major PV Demonstration Programme (MDP) by the DTI in March 2001. The Prime Minister also announced that a share of his £100m Renewables Fund would also go to PV, depending on the recommendations of the Cabinet Office review of renewable energy. Their report was published in Nov. 2001, and a further £10m was allocated to the MDP over the next 3 years. It is expected that the total £20m budget, dispersed via an average 50% capital grant, will result in at least 3,000 homes and 140 larger non-domestic buildings receiving solar PV systems. But not everyone is convinced this will be enough. Writing in the PRASEG journal Power House(15), Jeremy Leggett from Solar Century has pointed out that Japan should have 370,000 solar roofs by 2005, and Germany 14,000. By contrast the UK will only have at most 6,000.
Details of the18 new projects will be in Renew 139.
* Meanwhile homeowners can get 50% grants for PV: see www.est.org.uk/solar and our Technology section
In addition to Combined Heat and Power being at long last given full exemption from the Climate Change Levy, bowing to pressure, Brian Wilson, the energy minister, has proposed reforms of the NETA, the New Electricity Trading Arrangements, to help green energy projects. Ideas being discussed include new grants for the preparation of applications for small generators, and a revised cost system for accessing the National Grid, skewed in favour of green generators. Wilson told The Independent: ‘It is increasingly clear that some forms of generation have been adversely affected. CHP is suffering, though Neta is not the only factor. There is no point in having targets if what is happening in the real world is driving investment away. That is not joined-up Government.’ But he added ‘We still have to find a balance with Neta, which helps bring the price of electricity down, and other government objectives such as future investment in new generation and meeting our environmental targets’.
Meanwhile OFGEM has announced a package of short and long term measures aimed at providing a fair and transparent regulatory regime for distributed generation- smaller combined heat and power (CHP) generators and renewable generators. The proposals for immediate action include allowing generators the option of spreading the cost of connecting to the distribution network; making it easier for domestic Combined Heat and Power customers, who have a heating system which can generate its own electricity, to connect to the networks by establishing a standard set of procedures, and providing full and comprehensible information for prospective distributed generators
Copies of the document "Distributed Generation: price controls, incentives and connection charging. Further discussion, recommendations and future action" (26/02) are available from the Ofgem website at www.ofgem.gov.uk/projects/embedgen_index.hm
Maybe all will be resolved by the newly proposed ‘British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements’ (BETTA) which are meant to create ‘a fully-competitive, British-wide wholesale market for the trading of electricity generation’- and draw Scotland fully into the scheme. Under the proposals, a single body would be created to operate the high-voltage electricity transmission system throughout Britain. At the moment, the separate Scottish system is run by Scottish Power and Scottish & Southern Energy. National Grid looks after transmission in England and Wales, and the two systems are joined by an interconnector. But they are very different. The Scottish companies were privatised as vertically-integrated concerns covering the whole process, from generation through transmission to supply. Assuming the necessary legislation is passed during the 2002/03 parliamentary session, the new scheme will operate from April 1 2004. OFGEM told the Scottish Herald that the proposed changes would give renewable generators in Scotland better access to the Anglo-French interconnector, making it easier to sell in continental Europe.
RO bites but may not deliver enough
The Renewables Obligation, imposed in April, requires electricity supply companies to obtain 3% of their power from renewables sources by 2003 and 10% by 2010/11. If they can’t they will in effect be fined 3p/kWh. That means that renewable electricity is attractive to them if even it cost up to 3p/kWh more than conventional power i.e., roughly 5p/kwh at current prices. This 5p/kWh price ceiling has been imposed to stop prices to consumers escalating - the extra cost is passed on the consumers, as with the NFFO, but the aim is the keep the overall price increase down to 3% by 2010. 5p/kWh may be just about high enough to allow some offshore wind projects to go ahead, but it may not allow enough capacity to be installed to meet the 10% by 2010 target. David Byers, chief executive of the Renewable Power Association, has rather wryly claimed that ‘The whole system is actually designed so we’re always short to stimulate green electricity and to attract investment’. But will it stimulate investment in the newer renewables like wave and tidal current energy? It will take time for them to get below 5p/kWh ...
Wave Boost
The DTI has awarded Wavegen £ 2.3m for three new inshore wave devices. Allan Thomson, managing director of Wavegen, said: ‘Marine renewable energy is the next big opportunity in the electricity market. There is potential along the west coast, particularly Scotland and the West Country.’
More in Renew 139
Scotland to go for 30% by 2020?
Not content with its ambitious target of an 18% contribution from renewables by 2010, the Scottish executive is considering setting a target of obtaining 30% of Scotland electricity from renewables by 2020. More in Renew 139
National Wind Power’s Lambrigg wind farm in Cumbria is very popular, according to an opinion survey carried out by independent consultants RBA Research. They found that 74% of local people asked supported it, including 37% who said they supported it strongly. Opposition was very low, with only 8% of residents saying they opposed it. 18% of respondents expressed no opinion. The survey also suggested that people who were more informed about wind farm, were more in favour - support amongst those who had visited on foot went up to 87%. Overall 24% of residents felt it made the scenery ‘more interesting’, 29% felt it ‘spoilt the scenery’.
... but not here
Meanwhile, in Wales opposition continues, as we report on the next page. It has certainly given rise to some colourful reactions. According to the Independent (April 2/02) the as yet only hypothetical windfarm at Cefn Croes in mid Wales attracted the comment from the Church of Englands environment spokesman John Oliver, the Bishop of Hereford, that it was an act of vandalism equivalent to the Talibans destruction of the ancient Buddhist statues of Bariyan in Afghanistan.
Wind Battles in Wales
Energy Minister Brian Wilson has given the go-ahead for a major new wind farm at Cefn Croes in central Wales. But despite the local Ceredigion council having overwhelmingly approved the project, some local people are against it, and are unhappy that, under the planning rules, large projects like this are considered by the DTI, without the option of Public Inquiry if there is significant concern. Martin Wright, who heads the Cefn Croes campaign, a group of local people opposed to further windfarms in the area, and specifically to a plan to plant 39 turbines on the slopes of Plynlimon mountain above the village of Cymystwyth, told the Guardian (Feb.20). ‘This land is under threat. Wales has 44% of all the turbines in Britain, and the majority are in mid-Wales, which has done more than any other area in Britain for renewables.’
The Cefn Croes site, he said, is in the heart of a designated environmentally sensitive area and a special landscape area; it is next to one of the largest sites of special scientific interest in Wales; and it will undermine the cultural and spiritual inheritance of Wales. Moreover, he added, it will not benefit local people and is being imposed on the community by Enron Wind, a subsidiary of the collapsed US multinational.
According to John Vidal in the Guardian, Wrights objections are echoed by the Wales Green Party, the Conservatives, and, especially, by influential conservationist and preservationist groups, including the Welsh Assembly’s statutory advisers, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW), the Snowdonia Society, the National Trust and the Council for National Parks. The groups have appealed to Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State a the DTI, to re-consider the decision. Their objection is that the scheme went over the head of local community councils and "has made a travesty of democracy"- although in fact it has been through the standard process, including thorough impact surveys, consultations, and debate. Clearly though, there are strong pressures coming from government these days to press ahead with wind farms, and the opponents argue that mid-Wales is being sacrificed to meet renewable energy targets. Further down the line the government has proposed significant changes in the town and country planning rules that will make it harder for local groups to object to projects of any kind, so this conflict is seen as something as a test case.
The changes proposed in the Planning Green Paper amount to some of the most radical reforms of the planning system in half a century. The aim is to avoid high profile and lengthy public inquiries by introducing a new fast track procedures for major projects of national significance, with planning permission being decided by Parliament. Although wind farms might benefit, there are worries that the proposed changes will reduce public participation in the planning process to the detriment of local democracy and environmental protection. Potentially controversial planning decisions relating to new airport capacity, new roads, the building of nuclear plants and radioactive waste storage sites could be swept through by Parliament. Also, only individuals with a property interest in a proposal would have the right to be heard at a public inquiry. This could result in business concerns taking precedence over wider social and environmental issues.
In a way it would be rather unfortunate if it falls to the wind farm objectors and parochial interests to be in the front line of resistance to these changes. As John Vidal commented ‘the reality is that they routinely object to almost every sustainable energy scheme proposed. Small-scale hydro power, biomass schemes, community windfarms, and even minute ones planned by enterprising hill farmers needing to diversify to survive, have all been blocked.’
Peter Hinson, the British Wind Energy Association's representative in Wales, who has worked on many Welsh schemes, told the Guardian that the objecting groups were undemocratic, irrational, out of step with the mood of the times, and irresponsible to the communities to which wind farms can bring work and rental money. "They claim to represent local communities, but they don't. And they could affect the long-term development of the Welsh countryside. Their view is that the landscape should be untarnished. They seem to want a landscape with no one living in it. But the key point is, whose landscape is it? Is it the property of a few unelected groups of preservationists or of communities? I talk to local councillors. They like wind farming, as long as it abides by planning law. Rural communities keep saying: ‘Give us jobs, bring us economic development’."
The conflict is likely to deepen given the new plan, by the Camddwr Community Trust, for 165 wind turbines of up to 120m in a 48 square mile area just 15 miles away from Cefn Croes. Merfyn Williams, head of the CPRW , told the Guardian "It is nothing less than a declaration of war on the Cambrian Mountains landscape and on the integrity of the heart of rural Wales".
* SERA, Labours Environmental lobby group, has proposed that one way out of this sort of planning impasse, is to ensure that, while there should be a general presumption in the planning guidelines in favour of environmentally-beneficial schemes such as renewable energy, there should also be a presumption against environmentally-damaging proposals such as an airport extension. However, that begs the issue - some people clearly see wind farms as environmentally undesirable. See our Groups section for further discussion - with coverage from both sides of the debate.
Brownfield wind site
Corus, the UK steel company, and AMEC Wind, have applied for planning permission for a 47.5 MW wind farm with nineteen 2.5 MW turbines on the south bank of the River Tees, on a major ex-industrial ‘brown field’ site on land owned by Corus. A subsequent phase in the £30m project could increase the number to 30, with the total capacity then being 70 MW.
* Meanwhile, patterns of ownership continue to shift. Innogy, the npower offshoot, who own National Wind Power (and also Yorkshire Electricity and Regenesys) was recently taken over, in a £5.2bn deal, by the German utility RWE.
Offshore Wind starts Scroby Sands gets go ahead
The government has given approval for the UK’s first commercial offshore wind farm - 38 turbines with a total capacity of 76 megawatts, at Scroby Sands 2.5km off Great Yarmouth. "This development marks a significant step forward for the wind industry", said Energy Minister Brian Wilson. The scheme, to be installed by Powergen, is the first of 18 sites currently being considered for development to win approval. It should start generating in 2003. The 60m tall turbine are likely to be built by Denmark’s Vestas.
The go ahead was announced at the Offshore Wind 2002 conference organised by the British Wind Energy Association which heard that the overall goal is to have 4000 MW of offshore wind power by 2010. However Gordon Shearer, a BWEA board member and vice president of Shell WindEnergy, noted that "we need an early start if we are to make this target", and there were calls for the governments consultation process to be speeded up, so that the next round of offshore licenses could be awarded in October instead of early next year as planned. Then there was the issue of funding. The government has set aside £74m in competitive grants for offshore wind projects, and the first grants are to be awarded in June, with a maximum of £14 m per project, a figure which rises to £30 m for later rounds in December and June 2003. But Wilson told the conference the government had received bids for capital grants for wind offshore schemes of £160m, so some contenders will obviously be disappointed. But it does show there is enthusiasm for offshore projects .
As Wilson noted ‘A real momentum is building for offshore renewables and not just for wind but wave and other marine based technologies such as wave and tidal’.
Solway Firth
While most of the UK’s proposed offshore wind farms are south of the border, there is one proposed in Scottish waters- on Solway Firth. The Public consultation process began on that recently - on both shores of the Firth. TXU, which owns English electricity suppliers Eastern and Norweb, and Offshore Energy Resources Ltd, released photo montages showing 60 130m-tall wind turbines in the Firth, clearly visible from both shores. Capable of generating 180 MW - about 25% of Scotland’s 2010 Kyoto target - they would be in Scottish waters, meaning the Scottish Executive will be the planning authority, although the electricity would flow south. The £200m wind farm would interconnect with the United Utilities distribution network in Cumbria, via a sub-sea cable. The turbines would be built on Robin Rigg, a shallow sandbank approximately 6.4 miles from the Scottish coast and 7.1 miles from the English coast.
They would supply about 160,000 homes, equating to 75% of Cumbrian households or more than one and half times the domestic energy requirement for Dumfries and Galloway. Construction would last around 18 months and bring more than 100 contracting jobs to the area. Several leading turbine and tower manufacturers, including Vestas at Campbeltown, are thought to be in the running for the construction work.
Welcoming the plan, Richard Dixon, of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "Offshore wind turbines are going to be extremely important to the UK. It is a shame only one seabed license has been granted for Scotland."
Based on a Report in the Herald
www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/10-4-19102-23-55-48.html
UK offshore delays
Offshore wind farm developers trying to progress the 18 projects currently being considered face a wait of up to eight months to get the various official consents needed to push ahead with their schemes, according to the Marine Consents and Environment Unit at DEFRA. Offshore schemes are not expected to face the planning hurdles encountered by onshore wind farms but companies need to spend at least a year studying environmental impacts before they apply for the permits. They have to get at least seven consents from central government and local authorities. Planning lawyers have also warned that in theory anyone can use common-law navigation rights to protest against projects within 12 miles of the coastline. So developers might have to apply for Transport and Works Act orders to avoid such action. This takes time and money. Colin Palmer, technical director of SeaScape Energy, which is planning a scheme off the Merseyside coast, told the Financial Times that he had been advised a Transport and Works Act order would take 12-15 months to obtain, rather than four to six months under the normal process. And, as we’ve noted before, a number of onshore and offshore wind farms are also threatened by Ministry of Defence concerns about their impact on radar and low-flying aircraft.
For more details see www.mceu.gov.uk
The DTI has launched a £66 million support scheme for bio-energy projects. The money will support the establishment of up to six power stations to produce electricity from burning fast growing crops such as straw, willow or miscanthus (elephant grass), and up to a hundred smaller power and heat plants. The Bioenergy Capital Grants Scheme, jointly funded by DTI and New Opportunities Fund, will support power generation and combined heat and power projects using energy crops and other biomass. It is expected to lever in approximately £200 million of private sector investment.
Energy Minister Wilson emphasised the potential benefits to the rural economy of crops-for-energy. "Biomass projects up to now in the UK have been mainly small. This scheme, the first initiative of its kind, will stimulate this technology. Rural communities have much to gain from the growth of this industry, in terms of jobs and farm incomes. Harvesting and transport will provide employment throughout the difficult winter months - when most energy crops-management takes place. At the same time, the Government has already put in place support for the establishment of energy crops through DEFRA’s Energy Crop Scheme, worth an additional £29 million over the next 6 years."
He added "A key reason for DTI funding of this programme is to bring forward advanced technologies - such as pyrolysis and gasification and to develop supply chain networks. We have also recognised within the Renewables Obligation, the supporting role co-fired power stations can play in helping to develop biomass and energy crops, and in delivering renewable energy capacity quickly and at relatively low cost."
Advanced Biomass combustion
The DTI has already provided a £2.9m grant to develop the next generation of biomass-fuelled technology. The grant, which is the largest awarded by the DTI Renewables Programme for a biomass project, will support a £7.3m development programme involving Alstom Power UK Ltd and First Renewables Ltd. The project aims to push forward the development of the technology that is available to generate electricity from energy crops and other fuels from farming and forestry. The project consortium will work on extending the technology and techniques that will eventually lead to commercially viable, grid-connected power stations that will help the UK reach its renewable energy and greenhouse gas targets. The industry estimates that around a 1,000 MW of new biomass projects will be required to contribute to the achievement of the 10% renewables target by 2010 and it is hoped that the use of biomass fuels in the form of traditional forestry, energy crops and crop residues will provide a much needed boost for the agricultural sector.
Speaking at an Alstom International Association dinner in London, Wilson said: "The Government is committed to bringing green energy from the margins into the mainstream. This project will help us reach that goal and is a good example of business responding to the challenge of climate change. I want to see more investment from British industry into these new and emerging technologies."
The project will build upon the ARBRE (Arable Biomass Renewable Energy) project, the first commercial wood-fired power station to utilise high-efficiency gasification technology in Europe. The ARBRE project team, including Alstom Power UK Ltd., is led by First Renewables Ltd. and this investment is seen as the ideal platform from which to build the 2nd generation programme.
Project Details
The new project is a collaborative effort between ALSTOM Power UK Ltd in Lincoln, First Renewables in Leeds and Cambridge University. The industrial partners have made a strong start on developing the technology at the 8 MW Project ARBRE in Eggborough, N Yorks. This new research project will build on the advances already made at ARBRE and will develop the techniques and technologies needed to move closer to commercial implementation. It will scale up the design by a factor of five, improve the performance of the concept and develop a gas turbine adapted specifically for the application.
ALSTOM Power in Lincoln has been closely involved in the development of gas turbine technology for advanced power generation from coal and biomass for two decades. The gas turbine aspects of the project build on the success of the ALSTOM 4.5 MW Typhoon turbine supplied to the ARBRE project, and earlier to the Varnamo project in Sweden. This work will enable ALSTOM's new, larger 13 MW Cyclone gasturbine to be developed to operate commercially in this application. First Renewables, the developers of project ARBRE, will carry out the work on process and project development including value engineering and process design work. This will include the implications of using a wider range of biomass fuels and evaluating the environmental aspects including a fuel supply chain that will have 6,000 ha of willow short rotation coppice.
Biomass grows
The UK opened the world’s largest and most efficient straw fired power station earlier this year. The £60 m power station, developed by EPR Ely and based in Sutton near Ely, uses new techniques to burn surplus straw to generate electricity. The 36 MW plant will generate over 270 GWh of electricity a year; enough power to heat and light 80,000 homes. The electricity will feed directly into the National grid via an 11 km connection to a nearby substation. The power station will consume around 200,000 tonnes/year of straw collected from farms within a 50 mile radius. The plant comprises of 18 metre high straw barns flanking a 25 metre high central boiler. To blend in with the surrounding business park, the design had to resemble the existing warehouse building.
At the launch, Brian Wilson, Minister for Energy, said ‘The opening of this power station represents a milestone in the Government’s drive for renewable energy. It is the UK’s first power station to use any agricultural crop as its fuel. The power station’s fuel supply, logistics, projects development and financing were all UK based. The rapid development of energy crops, not only reduces the effects of climate change, but creates employment opportunities in manufacturing, construction, plant operation and servicing. The potential for a green manufacturing industry is an important part of the case in favour of developing our renewables energy. The development of bio-energy will also help maintain rural employment during winter when most energy crop harvesting takes place. It will also provide farmers with new market opportunities with growth potential and bring neglected woodland back into production to keep money in rural economies’.
He added ‘the DTI is providing substantial support for energy crops. Power stations using biomass will be eligible under the soon to be introduced renewables obligation. Also, the Government is providing planting grants for farmers and capital grants for new power stations to convert these crops into electricity. Over a three year period the DTI will give a boost to bio energy worth almost £85m.’
Wilson particularly praised the company EPR Ely, who he said deserved congratulations ‘for their sympathetic development of the Ely site which, by sensitive landscaping and architecture have helped to overcome community concerns. Care and imagination can help new facilities blend in with their local surroundings and this is an example for the whole renewables community.’
The project was developed by EPR Ely, a partnership between Energy Power Resources (EPR) and Cinergy Global Power.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry recently produced a report on its review of Energy Security, asking whether the high level of diversity and security of supply, with electricity generating capacity currently exceeding demand by more than 30%, would continue as demand rose and as we attempted to move away from fossil fuels. Interestingly, on demand, they took a side swipe at the Performance and Innovation Unit, commentating that ‘we are at a loss to find any statistical basis for the PIU’s assumed growth in energy demand of 2% per annum, given that the rate of growth has been 0.5% for the past 20 years’.
Perhaps they were converted to the idea of demand management? Certainly they noted that ‘it seems to be widely accepted that the least costly way to achieve greater security of supply than market forces can deliver is by reducing energy use’.
However, they did not follow this up with a detailed review of demand side measures which might keep growth down. They simply reported that the Government ‘want to slow the growth in demand and eventually to reverse the growth’, and briefly surveyed some of the associated issues. This despite the fact that some witnesses gave impressive estimates as to how much reduction in demand might be feasible: for example an estimate by the Environment Agency was 50% by2050.
Instead their main concern seemed to be on the supply side, looking in some detail at each source in turn. They noted that gas holds a key position, and that some commentators predict that gas could form the energy source for 70% or more of the UK’s electricity generation needs by 2020, ‘not only because it has been cheap and easy to obtain, but also because it is not clear that alternative fuels will be available’. They noted that, on the basis of the DTI's projections, gas imports would rise to more than 63 Mtoe (or 58% of demand) by 2010, and to 110 Mtoe (90%) by 2020. The primary sources of UK gas imports were seen as being likely to be to be Norway,the Netherlands, Russia, Libya and the Middle East. There was also the option of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG). ‘LNG storage could increase reliability of gas supply for the winter peak demands. It can be shipped in from as far afield as Australia, Qatar, Malaysia and Indonesia, but supplies to the UK would most likely be sourced from North Africa and the Caribbean’.
Nuclear energy production was, they noted, predicted to decline over the next 15 to 20 years ‘unless circumstances, including Government policy towards that energy source, change’; with its share of generating capacity falling from the current level of about 21% to possibly less than 17-18% by 2010 and to 7-8% by 2020. We look at some of the evidence they took later in this section.
The still significant contribution to energy needs from coal-fired electricity generation ‘will become increasingly difficult to reconcile with the Government’s environmental targets’. They noted that ‘unless urgent action is taken to sustain it, coal-fired generation will end in this country’, and suggested that, in terms of security of supply, it ‘would be unwise to allow any fuel source to disappear by default’. Moderate Government investment in a clean coal demonstration plant was therefore seen as sensible. They were also, sensibly, keen on coal-bed methane sequestration.
Although they noted that renewable sources and waste incineration currently contribute only 2.8% of the UK’s electricity requirements, they recognised that the present Government was committed to a target of 10% of UK electricity supplies from renewables, excluding non-biodegradable waste, by 2010, ‘provided the costs to consumers are acceptable’.
However, while generally supporting renewables, they noted that ‘unlike other forms of generation discussed so far, most renewable power plants are small-scale. The creation of a large number of small-scale plants, possibly replacing fewer, bigger power stations, will have repercussions for the electricity transmission and distribution networks’. They added ‘A critical feature of most renewables is that they are energy sources and not fuels. The difference lies in availability. Fuels are always available for use when required, albeit at a price determined by the market. Energy sources are usually intermittent, but are free.’
The main focus of the report however was on the way the whole UK energy system was run, planned and integrated, and on the impact of NETA: see below. Overall it is an interesting report, highlighting the need to keep options open and steer the system towards sustainability, but noting that this would be expensive- something which consumers might not be prepared for.
System planning
The Select Committee noted that the Government’s view that it was for the market to determine the mix of fuel and that most of the witnesses called to give evidence also stated firmly that they were opposed to the Government’s trying to dictate a fuel mix, adding that ‘even those interest groups faced with possible extinction of coal and nuclear power, while arguing that the current mix was probably the best one for achieving security of supply, did not suggest that the Government should impose that mix. Instead, they pleaded for Government intervention to keep options open, while leaving the final determination of fuel mix to the market’.
The Committee, unsurprisingly, agreed. ‘We consider that security of energy supply can be improved by retaining a capacity to use a variety of different fuels to generate electricity. Even if the exact mix of fuels is left to market forces, it is arguable that the Government should, at the very least, take no action that closes off options, and perhaps should be prepared to make adjustments to its policies to keep options open’.
One way to increase the range of viable options is of course to strengthen the transmission grid system, so that supply and demand can be balanced more effectively around the country by a range of sources. The Committee noted that the DTI had recently announced a feasibility study of proposals to run a submarine cable from North West Scotland down the West coast of Great Britain to provide a transmission system for offshore and other renewable energy generation. They commented that ‘this would appear to have great potential to alleviate the problems caused by the North-South transmission bottleneck and would provide a significant boost to the development of renewables such as offshore wind and wavepower’ but, warned that ‘it seems to us that the installation of hundreds of kilometres of cable in areas of some of the most hostile seabed and surface conditions around the UK would be a severe engineering test and could prove to be very cost-intensive’. They reported that ‘Greenpeace had suggested that the cable should be paid for by the Government, on the grounds that existing, land-based power generating companies had benefited from the earlier creation of the transmission/ distribution networks using public money, and that providing offshore renewable power generators with a similar infrastructure was only fair’. But maybe that was expecting too much....
NETA- No One in Control
The real substance of the Select Committees report was in the coverage of NETA, the New Electricity trading Arrangements. They noted that there was broad agreement that NETA has reduced electricity prices, but that it has clearly undermined renewables and CHP.
Ofgem believed that consolidation, so that the administrative costs and the financial risks of balancing could be shared, would counteract most of the disadvantages suffered by small-scale generators, and it wished to concentrate on promoting this rather than making alterations to NETA. The system was gradually settling in anyway. But most of the generators disagreed. In effect, renewables generators already pooled risk because, they were unable to deal with the expense and complexity of trading themselves. David Milborrow for the British Wind Energy Association told the Committee that ‘even if you aggregated wind over the whole of the country you would still get a significant penalty [for imbalance risk] in the order of £3-5/MWh’. Both the Renewable Power Aaaociation and the CHPA supported the argument that those who cause imbalances of supply should pay for them, but they still believed that NETA unfairly discriminated against small-scale generators, who had not caused the problems of the previous ‘Pool’ trading system in the first place. ‘The reforms have been based around trying to address a large generator problem. The inevitable casualty of that seems to have been that the impacts upon the smaller generator have been somewhat overlooked in the process of implementation.’
As well as putting forward arguments about whether any individual wind farm affects the balancing of the system, the RPA stated that in practice NGC ignored the output of small generators (of less than 50 MW) in trying to balance the system, both on a de minimis principle and because if it tried to take into account predictions from so many small market participants it would suffer from "information overload". Instead, it "forecasts demand net of embedded generation and utilises the information provided by large generating units in planning for system operation". NETA made small generators comply with complicated and expensive administrative arrangements designed to keep the system in balance when in practice their contribution was ignored by those actually planning how to balance supply and demand. The RPA concluded that it would not disrupt the balancing of the grid if NETA were adapted to relieve the burden on small generators.
The Committee did not come down on the side of any particular solution, but simply expressed the hope that the the DTI and OFGEM would resolve the problem speedily.
The reason for the urgency became even clearer when the Committee looked at the impact of NETA on investment in new generation capacity, and on the role of standby and ‘mothballed’ capacity. In terms of having sufficient capacity to meet demand, the DTI implied that at present there was no cause for concern; the recent Seven Year Forecast made by the National Grid Company predicted that generating capacity margins would remain in excess of 25% over the period to 2007-08, taking into account the withdrawal of the Magnox plants "as well as other closures". Ofgem pointed out that the margin had been lower than 30% many times without causing any significant problems in meeting demand; and it was confident that if the margin did fall, market forces would come into play "as that capacity margin comes down we would expect the forward price for electricity to increase and to give people an incentive to invest". However, Innogy argued that, as currently designed, NETA did not provide sufficient reward for spare capacity that was used only for short periods. Because such "bursts of generation" could not be guaranteed to cover both the fixed and marginal costs of the plant plus an allowance for a reasonable profit, it was increasingly unattractive to invest in such spare capacity.
Moreover, currently owners of power stations have to give the NGC only six months’ notice of plant closures and no notice of mothballing.
Some witnesses suggested that market signals, and particularly the premium which NETA places on flexibility, were leading to inefficiencies and harm to the environment. Mr Byers of the RPA said that there was probably five gigawatts of spinning reserve, so that generators could quickly meet any expected imbalance in the system. ‘Before NETA we had about one gigawatt, now we run five gigawatts just in case.’ David Milborrow from the BWEA attributed this excess to the fact that NETA forced operators to run mini-balancing systems, ‘mini national grids almost, ... each with their own standby plant to balance out when supply does not meet demand’. Mr Latif of the Gas Forum expressed concern that because NETA was requiring generators to be switched on and off more frequently to balance the system, the life of generating plant was being physically reduced.
The DTI told the Committee that ‘following the introduction of [NETA] there are no longer any security standards relating to generating capacity’. However, it also noted: "A margin in excess of 20% is usually considered to be healthy". The Committee asked the Regulator whether Ofgem had any target, however loose, for the margin of capacity over demand, given that one of the requirements on the Regulator was to ensure security of supply, and guaranteeing a comfortable but not excessive plant margin would seem to be an element in fulfilling that duty. The Committee said that they ‘were rather startled to learn that Ofgem has no such target: it regards its task as being limited to monitoring generating capacity and publishing this information for the benefit of the market, so that the market can then act to meet any shortage. Ofgem clearly did not believe that it should take a view as to when capacity might be so low as to run the danger that demand would not be met in the event of a breakdown of large generating units’.
The Committee commented that ‘this relaxed attitude is acceptable in many markets, where alternatives to the desired products exist and where shortages can be met quickly, but we do not accept that electricity falls within this category. It is too important to both domestic and business customers; practicable alternatives do not exist for many people; there is no guarantee that the current level of mothballed plant will continue or be employable; and new generators require a considerable lead-time for planning, construction and commissioning before they come into use. At the very least, any shortage in capacity could lead to quite severe short-term price shocks, especially if UK suppliers had to try to meet demand by buying electricity on Continental spot markets. We have not yet heard any evidence that leads us to believe that the market is sufficiently far-sighted to guarantee enough reserve generating capacity without some element of planning by Government or one of its agents. This does not mean that we believe that Government should try to dictate to the market; simply that someone, whether the Department (which we would prefer) or Ofgem should take a strategic view about what level of reserve capacity is necessary presumably, slightly more than 20%, and should be prepared to use market mechanisms to encourage the construction of extra capacity if necessary’.
Planning
One of the other major problem limiting the ability of the energy industry, and the renewables industry in particular, to develop new generation projects was the current planning system. The Committee recognised that the Government was considering substantial changes to the planning system in England and Wales to reduce delays and uncertainties for major schemes. However, they noted that ‘most on-shore renewables schemes are not large-scale and do not raise so starkly the question of general public interest versus the rights of local people as to fall under the revised planning system currently under discussion. The problem is cumulative: no individual planning refusal for a renewables scheme has a substantial effect on the achievement of Government policy, but the fact that at present approximately 30% of schemes in England and Wales are refused planning permission has a huge effect, not least because it appears to have a major disincentive on schemes being brought forward.’
The Committee reported that witnesses had differing views about how to cope with the problem, some more prescriptive than others. The Association of Electricity Producers suggested that Government should either set regional targets for renewable generation developments, which county councils would be required to take into account in their planning of land use; or require councils to produce separate renewables or general energy plans during the structure plan process, in a similar form to minerals planning. The RPA was more cautious, and stated that it did not advocate a dictatorial approach. Its preferred option seemed to be to provide clearer planning guidance to local authorities (though it did not state how the guidance should be enforced). A number of witnesses commented enviously on the situation in Denmark where, they suggested, renewable developments were seen by local communities to be a good thing, as their own source of ‘green’ energy. These witnesses conceded that, for historical and cultural reasons, it might be impossible to reproduce this sense of community ownership in the UK, but they felt that more might be done to explain to local residents the advantages of renewable developments. The RPA believed that Government public information campaigns about renewable power would be helpful.
Interestingly the Committee noted that, to date only 11% of planning applications for schemes under the Scottish Renewables Order (the Scottish version of the NFFO) have been denied. This is similar to the average rate of refusal for all planning applications, but a large proportion of those rejected have been wind farm proposals. In response, the Scottish Executive has introduced National Planning Policy Guidelines (NPPG 6), intended to support an increase in renewable energy (RE) development in Scotland. This document details the steps to be taken in gaining planning permission. NPPG 6 policy is based on ‘the principle that RE developments should be accommodated throughout Scotland where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental impacts can be addressed satisfactorily’. This means that the onus of making a case has now shifted from the developer to the objector.
The Committee concluded that ‘Planning problems so strongly recurred in the evidence given to us that we conclude that the planning system currently forms a major obstacle to the Government’s achieving its energy policy in respect of both security of supply and environmental objectives. We concur with those who thought that formal requirements to plan for energy developments would be over-prescriptive, would potentially cause local hostility, and might even be counter-productive in terms of raising land prices if certain plots of land were identified for development. We believe that a better way of proceeding would be considerably to strengthen planning guidance in favour of granting permission to energy developments, and for the Government to be prepared, if necessary, to call in more planning applications to enforce the guidance’.
Conclusions
So where do we go from here? Is our energy future safe? Will we be able to develop the new generation capacity needed to support ourselves sustainably?
The Committee looked at whether or not the Government would be able to meet its target of securing 10% of UK electricity supplies from renewable sources, excluding non-biodegradable waste, by 2010, and reported, unsurprisingly, that there was some disagreement about this, with NETA being one of the main uncertainties. There were also suggestions that Government policies such as the Climate Change Levy and the Renewables Obligation were failing to support environmentally-desirable developments or even, in some cases, actively hindering them. By contrast, the Energy Saving Trust suggested that small-scale wind and biomass plants could, on their own, probably generate about 10% of the UK energy supply by 2020; and in the long term technologies like micro-CHP and fuel cells had the capability of delivering the whole of the electricity supply for the domestic sector (which it estimated as 30% of total demand). The WWF cited the recent study published by Forum for the Future which estimated that, even with a number of constraints, by 2020 30% (148TWh) of electricity could come from renewables generation at less than 4.5p per kWh. Mr McCarthy of Ofgem implied that he was cautious about the potential for renewable power in the short-term. However, he noted that the position of renewables would be revolutionised by proposals for electricity storage now coming forward. Faced with this range of views, the Committee commented rather laconically ‘While not questioning the Government’s commitment to increasing the share of electricity generation provided by renewables, we do not know how the Government reached a figure of 10% as the target for 2010 and we would like the reasoning clarified’.
But they noted that the National Grid Company and the distribution companies as represented by the Electricity Association, seemed confident that a 10% target would not cause insuperable problems for the network. Clearly though the Select Committee felt that it was not sufficient just to leave things to market forces, even modified by the CCL and RO, and, as we have seen, they adopted a surprisingly interventionist stance. As we report later, it also called for an early decision on nuclear power.
Perhaps inevitably, the final issue raised by the Committee was the institutional one. There had been plenty of evidence of problems with the existing Departmental set up. For example, they were told that DEFRA had been considering a scheme to award electricity from biomass two ‘green certificates’ per kWh, one for its renewables content, the other to recognise its agricultural benefit (a ‘rural development certificate’), but this had failed because of a divergence of approach between DEFRA and the DTI.
However the Committee was not convinced the creation of a strategic energy authority would solve problems like this, although, somewhat ritually, they strongly urged the Government ‘to put in place a more transparent structure for the formal co-ordination of energy policy development and implementation across Government’.
Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett has warned of that the impact of climate change may happen sooner and be much worse than has been expected- based on a new UEA/Hadley/Tyndell Centre report ‘Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom’ which suggested that top temperatures, in summers, in the UK may rise to highs of 40 degreesC by the 2080s, especially in the SE, with many more "very hot" days contrasted by wetter, but warmer, snow-free winters and drier spring and autumn seasons .
Mrs Beckett warned that ‘increased risk in the UK of droughts, heavy rainfall and floods, could have major consequences for land use, planning, water resources, infrastructure, insurance, tourism and many other sectors across society. Climate change must be factored into everyday decisions by organisations and individuals now. People must not be caught on the back foot. Even at the lower end of the range of uncertainty they will have a huge impact on all our lives.’
However, although the Gulf Stream may weaken in future, the report concludes that it is unlikely to completely ‘switch off’, or lead to a cooling of the UK climate within the next 100 years. Lets hope that’s right!
California – 3.5 GW of new green power
California is to support 3,500 MW of sustainable energy capacity by 2006, including 2,400 MW of renewable energy generation capacity, according to the California Consumer Power & Conservation Financing Authority. It says that "there are sufficient economic resources of Clean Energy - energy efficiency, load management, renewables and clean decentralized generating resources - to meet future reserve capacity needs". Work will start immediately to develop 1,800 MW of new capacity at a cost of US$2 billion.
CPA was created last August to respond to the energy crisis in California. It can float up to $5 billion in bonds to finance projects, which would be repaid from the sale of electricity to investor-owned utilities.
The CPA says that "There are significant benefits to California from investing in clean growth: adequate reserves; a more secure energy system; more job creation and economic development; increased fuel diversity; cleaner air and environmental justice. The proposed CPA Portfolio will cost less than most Californians currently pay for the generation of electricity. The level of reserves California has today is inadequate to remove concerns about blackouts and price spikes. California needs to add conservation and renewables to its system over the next two years. The CPA’s ability to accelerate the use of clean resources to enhance reserves provides good insurance for the State’s electricity reliability."
For more information: http://www.capowerauthority.ca.gov/EnergyResourceInvestmentPlan/ERIP.pdf
In the run up to the recent elections, French government announced that is was planning to boost investment in renewable energy and reduce energy demand to prevent electricity shortfalls, as coal plants are withdrawn. A target of a 21% contribution from renewables has been set for 2010, with up to 14GW wind capacity being planned. Renewables currently supply 15% of France’s electricity.
The future for nuclear power, which supplies 76% of French electricity, remains uncertain. The nuclear issue figured quite strongly in the recent election, with the greens, who were part of the government coalition, calling for a phase out. However, to put it mildly, in the event, other issues dominated and its not clear whether different policies will now emerge.
Portugal is expecting the generation of electricity from renewables to increase by about 40 % by 2010. A report on the Portuguese newspaper Diario de Noticias web site on 22 January, noted that there had been around 500 applications from producers of electricity from natural sources seeking to connect to the national grid, including around 7000 MW of wind power. There were also bids for172 MW of mini-hydroelectric plants, 341 MW of co-generation plants and 70 MW of other renewable energy forms. If all these projects went ahead, they could supply 70% of Portugals electricity. However, the paper reported, Jorge Borrego, of the Energy Directorate, warned that ‘in practice, it will only be possible to expand the electricity network by some 3,500 to 4,000 MW’. Portugal imports 87% of the energy it needs.
Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) plans to oblige power retailers to obtain 3.2% of the energy they sell from energy generated by solar, wind and other types of renewable sources by April 2003. If the proposed legislation is passed, an annual target will have to be set by each company, and the ministry will fine them up to 1 million yen if they fail to comply with the law. METI will set the aggregate targets for the use of new energy in the coming eight years as the basis for annual target calculations by each firm. Each firm will be required to report to the ministry its specific target for the coming year and results from the preceding year. As with the UK’s Renewables Obligation, now in force, the firms would be able to achieve their targets either by generating new energy with their own facilities; buying electricity from these authorized new energy generators, or buying surplus from other retailers. The surplus will be made exchangeable as METI will issue certificates, effective for two years, for every MWh of renewable energy generated. A company failing to meet its target in the initial year may submit to METI the following year an amount of certificates equivalent to its annual target plus the first-year shortage.
The 1997 Kyoto accord required Japan to cut greenhouse gases by 6% from the 1990 level in the 2008-2012 period. However, the latest data showed carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption rose 1.1% in 2000, 10.2% above the1990 level.
Source: EyeforEnergy Newsdesk at http://www.eyeforenergy.com
The Irish government has approved £400m in renewable energy projects that will generate electricity for 250,000 homes. Forty companies bid in an open process for 15-year contracts under the 5th round of the Alternative Energy Requirement Programme. This provides access to power purchase contracts with the Electricity Supply Board, which purchases the output at guaranteed prices for 15 years, thus generating sufficient confidence for investors to secure finance which would not otherwise be provided. The latest applications will double the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy sources. 225 MW was originally sought in the bidding round, but almost 370 MW was tendered. Ireland generates 7% of its electricity from renewables, but plans to move to 12% by 2005. The European Commission Renewables Directive targets Ireland to generate 13% by 2010. As we noted in Renew 137, the government has given the private company, Eirtricity, approval to build a £640m windfarm that, at 520 MW, would be the largest offshore facility in the world, supplying 10% of Eires power.
Green (and blue and yellow) Swiss
Geneva is the first Swiss canton to allow customers to choose the source of their electricity, with the extra twist that the default energy will be 100 % renewable hydro.
The new system, called SIG Vitale, offers four colour-coded kinds of electricity - three of them entirely ecological. The default option, which is 100 per cent hydroelectric, will be Blue. Yellow is power produced in the canton. The more expensive Green choice offers a combination of renewable sources - solar, wind, as well as water. The fourth option, dubbed SIG Mix, is the electricity currently in use, i.e. a combination of renewable and non-renewable sources.
Leading experts on U.S. green energy development have expressed confidence that, with improved marketing techniques, a dramatic growth in participation in U.S. green energy programs is likely to occur over the next several years, resulting in penetration levels viewed highly improbable just one year ago. The remarks were made at The Growing Green Power Demand Conference, the first green power conference devoted to the tools, tactics and metrics of selling green power sponsored by XENERGY in co-operation with the Center for Resource Solutions. Green energy programs, which typically involve customers paying a premium to cover the incremental cost of the additional renewable resources, have shown steady growth over the last 5 years, with programs now in existence in 31 states. However, some believed that the demand for such services had begun to level off, with participation rates of most programs in the range of 1 to 5%.
"A 10% participation rate in a green energy program was, until recently, viewed as the industry’s three-minute mile, a goal considered virtually unachievable," said Julie Blunden, vice president at XENERGY. However, tools, tactics and metrics shared at conference indicate that this rate could be achieved within the next five years. "Surveys consistently reveal customer preference for green power," said Blair Swezey, Principal Policy Director at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "There are important marketing lessons to be gleaned from these utilities that are having the most success with their green power programs. Leading organizations around the country - including Fortune 500 companies, major cities and universities - are starting to buy green power, recognizing it as the next step in environmental responsibility," said Kurt Johnson, Director of EPA’s Green Power Partnership. "We believe today’s forum is a microcosm of what is occurring industry wide," said Keri Bolding, Communications Director at the Center for Resource Solutions. "Green marketers are improving their ability to identify likely buyers of green energy and creating targeted marketing efforts to translate consumers’ desire for green energy into sales. This is an exciting time for providers of green energy with substantial growth likely in the next several years."
XENERGY (www.xenergy.com/) is an energy consulting, information technology and energy services firm with headquarters in Burlington, Massachusetts, with offices across the United States and in Canada. The Center for Resource Solutions is a non-profit organisation, based in San Francisco, dedicated to promoting renewable energy and economic and environmental sustainability. CRS administers national and international programs that preserve and protect the environment through the design of sustainable energy strategies and technologies.
More information on CRS is available at http://www.resource-solutions.org From PR Newswire
Global Growth
The market for renewable energy around the world will grow at 12%a year for the next two decades, according to Frost & Sullivan, the consultant company. And the installed capacity of renewables in member nations of the EU will exceed 109 GW by 2010, excluding large hydroelectric facilities, with wind power making much of the running. The main drivers are seen as government incentives and subsidies, the spread of green certificates and tariffs, and the decline in installation and generation costs.
The bi-annual World Renewable Energy Congress, this year held in Cologne, attracted a record turnout - over 1000 people came from all over the world to hear over 700 papers on all aspects of renewables and visit the parallel Renewable Energy Trade exhibition. Along with the usual coverage of wind, biomass and PV/solar,WREC participants heard some interesting papers on wave power and tidal current technology, and a series of pioneering studies on the hydrogen economy and fuel cells. We’ll report in Renew 139.
COP-7, the Seventh Conference of Parties to the UN climate change accord, as originally agreed at Kyoto, met last year in Marrakesh, and thrashed out some of the ground rules for how the various Kyoto mechanisms are to work (see Renew 135, p14). But there are still a lot of details to sort, and that will be the task of COP-8 later this year. It may seem very bureaucratic, but that’s the way international agreements are organised. So now we have MOP’s (Meetings of Parties) to go alongside COP’s, and Supervisory Committees, to oversee Joint Implementation (JI) projects, and Executive Committees for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) plus new rules on emission trading, the third main Kyoto mechanism. That all goes along with the rest of the Kyoto lexicon- Additionality, Baseline, Supplementary, Fungability, etc.- and now there are yet more- AAUs, ERU’s,CERs and RMUs- for the various types of carbon saving.
As Stephen Peake from EERU, writing in ReFocus (Jan/Feb 2002), explains ‘The reduction of one tonne of CO2 of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere (or absorption from the atmosphere) has the same impact on the climate no matter how its done or what mechanism facilitated it. However, a combination of politics and methodological issues in the climate regime has resulted in distinctions being made between emissions reductions achieved domestically and through each of the three Kyoto mechanisms. Reductions under each of the mechanisms have even been given their own labels. It’s a bit like having several different currency units but all with the same value. The central currency is the assigned amount unit (AAU). This is how the Kyoto targets are specified and it is against the totting up of AAUs that compliance with the Protocol will be determined. Emission Trading involves the direct debiting and crediting of assigned amount units (AAUs). JI projects produce emission reduction units (ERUs), while CDM projects produce certified emission reduction units (CERs). Marrakesh produced a further unit, removal units (RMUs) that apply to sinks projects.’
The EU formally ratified the Kyoto accord in May, and it should be ratified by sufficient countries to make it binding in time for the World Summit on Sustainable Development ("Rio+10") Aug 26 - Sept 4, 2002, in Johannesburg. See next page. Then comes UNFCCC COP8 in October 28 - November 8, 2002.
For a summary see: www.climatenetwork.org/578%20final.pdf
‘Ten years after the Rio Earth Summit, we are still far from ending the economic and environmental marginalisation that afflict billions of people,’ says Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin. ‘Despite the prosperity of the 1990s, the divide between rich and poor is widening in many countries, undermining social and economic stability. And pressures on the world’s natural systems, from global warming to the depletion and degradation of resources such as fisheries and fresh water, have further destabilized societies.’
Views like this will be common amongst those assembling in Johannesburg for the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in August. Worldwatch has dedicated the 2002 issue of their annual State of the World reports to this conference. In the report Foreword, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan notes that "all of us should understand not only that we face common threats, but also that there are common opportunities to be seized if we respond to this challenge as a single human community."
The report highlights a number of social and environmental advances since Rio, including declining deaths from pneumonia, diarrhea, and tuberculosis and the phasing out of production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in industrial countries.
But many other important trends continue to worsen. Deaths from AIDS increased more than six-fold over the 1990s; global emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide climbed more than nine percent; and twenty-seven percent of the world’s coral reefs are now severely damaged, up from 10 % at the time of Rio. Worldwatch point to several significant impediments that have slowed progress towards building a sustainable world:
* Environmental policies remain a low priority: The growing number of international environmental treaties suffer from weak commitments and inadequate funding.
* The U.N. Environment Programme has struggled to maintain its budget of around $100m p.a. At the same time, global military expenditures are running at more than $2 bn a day.
* Foreign aid is stagnating: Despite a 30% plus expansion in global economic output since Rio, aid spending has declined substantially, falling from $69bn in 1992 to $53 bn in 2000.
* Third world debt is worsening: Despite pledges at Rio to reduce it, the total burden in developing and transition countries has climbed 34% since Rio, reaching $2.5 trillion in 2000.
Increased financial and political support for international social and environmental programs is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success in the transition to a sustainable world, Worldwatch argue, and the active involvement of other powerful international actors, such as NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) and the business community, will also be essential. NGO’s have, they say, ‘activated millions of people in a series of important campaigns in the 1990s, including the Kyoto Protocol on climate change’.
Worldwatch say that ‘in the absence of a credible alternative, the Kyoto Protocol remains the best way to achieve global action on climate change’ and they call for early ratification.
Lets hope this is more than just another international junket which produces sonorous sounding recommendations, but little action. Action is, after all, not impossible. As Worldwatch note "South Africa is living proof of the power of people all over the world working together to bring about change. The demise of apartheid is an inspiring example of a rapid transformation that was almost unimaginable beforehand."
Worldwatch Institute 1776 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 452-1999 Fax: (202) 296-.7365
e-mail: worldwatch@worldwatch.org website: www.worldwatch.org
State of the World 2002 is US$15.95 plus $5 handling outside US.
President Bush has announced a ‘Clean Skies & Global Climate Change Initiative’, which, along with proposals to cut emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury by around 70% through a market based cap-and-trade approach, includes a proposal to link the USA’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the growth rate of the US economy. By index linking emissions in this way, the US can continue to have economic growth and also continue to increase emissions. Launching the plan earlier this year he said ‘America and the world share this common goal: we must foster economic growth in ways that protect our environment. We must encourage growth that will provide a better life for citizens, while protecting the land, the water, and the air that sustain life’. He went on ‘This new approach is based on this common-sense idea: that economic growth is key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies’. By contrast, ‘the approach taken under the Kyoto protocol would have required the United States to make deep and immediate cuts in our economy to meet an arbitrary target. It would have cost our economy up to $400 billion and we would have lost 4.9 million jobs.’
However, he reaffirmed the USA’s ‘commitment to the UN Framework Convention and it’s central goal, to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate. Our immediate goal is to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy. My administration is committed to cutting our nation’s greenhouse gas intensity - how much we emit per unit of economic activity - by 18 percent over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, to stop and then reverse the growth of emissions.’
He set a target of reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18 % by the year 2012, which he said ‘will prevent over 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from going into the atmosphere over the course of the decade. And that is the equivalent of taking 70 million cars off the road.’ In addition the USA will ‘promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology, as well as nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse gas emissions. And we will work to safely improve fuel economy for our cars and our trucks. Overall, my budget devotes $4.5 bn to addressing climate change - more than any other nation's commitment in the entire world. This is an increase of more than $700 m over last year's budget.’ This will include $588m for R&D on energy conservation technologies and $408m for R&D on renewables. Bush added that his energy plan, provides $4.6 bn over the next five years in clean energy tax incentives to encourage purchases of hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, to promote residential solar energy, and to reward investments in wind, solar and biomass energy production. And, he noted, ‘we will look for ways to increase the amount of carbon stored by America's farms and forests’. He promised that, if, by 2012, ‘our progress is not sufficient and sound science justifies further action, the US will respond with additional measures that may include broad-based market programs as well as additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to accelerate technology development and deployment’.
Finally, with Jo’burg no doubt in mind, he said ‘the US will not interfere with the plans of any nation that chooses to ratify the Kyoto protocol. But I will intend to work with nations, especially the poor and developing nations, to show the world that there is a better approach’.
A mixed package then, with some funding gains, but also some evasions- basically a voluntary system based on tax concessions and trading incentives, which will allow US emissions to continue to rise, as long as their rate of growth is below the rate of economic growth. So, according to the NRDC, emissions could actually rise by 14 % by 2012.
In its report on Energy Security (see earlier in this section) the Select Committee on Trade and Industry looked at the prospects for nuclear power. Would new build ever become economic enough to be a contender in the private sector? The British Nuclear Industry Forum (BNIF) summarised the problems: ‘The principal drawbacks [the City] see are the very large up-front capital costs, lengthy and uncertain periods of planning and construction, uncertainties about back-end issues like waste management, anxieties about public opinion and regulatory risk, relatively low levels of profitability at present UK electricity prices, and over-capacity in the generating market’.
BNIF’s chief concern was prices: these were, they said, currently 30% lower than they were when British Energy (BE) was privatised, ‘a totally unexpected level of decline’. The Committee was told that even a fall of 5% had been sufficient to reduce BE’s dividend. Although BE’s plants were operating at about 1.8p/kWh, which was competitive with the cost of gas-generated electricity, the waste liabilities inherited by the older Magnox stations added to their costs and converted nuclear-generation from being profitable to loss-making. New types of nuclear plant currently being licensed and which would be ready for commissioning in about ten years’ time (presumably the AP1000) would have generating costs of between 2.2 and 3p/kWh, the difference depending on whether the station was a one-off project (in which case the higher end of the range would apply) or, say, the eighth in a series, when the price would be lower because development and licensing costs would be spread over the series, and there would be economic benefits from experience in construction.
The Committee were told that these prices included the cost of management of the radioactive waste produced, and any extra costs associated with modifications to protect against terrorist attack. The estimates also reflected improvements in design and construction techniques (fewer components, shorter construction times and a dramatic reduction in the volume of buildings) which reduced the overall capital costs to maybe half of those of Sizewell B. They also reflected the smaller quantity of nuclear waste produced by modern reactors. But, despite these comparatively low costs, the industry still felt that nuclear power was at a disadvantage compared with other fuels, particularly gas. Even after the recent rises in the price of wholesale gas (to about 20p/ therm in mid-Nov 2001), gas-fired power stations could still produce electricity at about 2.3p/kWh. In the view of the BNIF, the lower cost and greater ease of constructing gas-fired plants would encourage a continued ‘dash for gas’ whenever electricity prices rose sufficiently to warrant further construction of generating capacity.
The Committee noted that there were also planning and public acceptability problems with nuclear plants. But on one of the key issues, waste, the industry’s view was that storage of radioactive waste no longer presented any technical problems (techniques such as using concrete blocks and vitrification were suitable methods of storage for centuries, if need be, and for ultimate disposal); the difficulty therefore resided in public reluctance to accept the safety of these techniques and to permit suitable sites to be found and used. The industry’s view was also that changing public perception required Government action: a statement in favour of nuclear power, together with some practical assistance in paying for the establishment of rock laboratories to prove the reliability of storage techniques, were required. If these resulted in an alleviation of public anxieties about nuclear power, financiers would be more likely to invest in new plant.
The Committee asked the witnesses whether reforms to the planning system, Government pronouncements in support of the nuclear industry and other confidence-boosting measures (such as minimising regulatory pressures and risks) would, on their own, be sufficient to encourage the market to build new nuclear plant. The answer was a rather equivocal "No". The industry pointed out that all these sorts of disadvantages simply increased investment risk: if the financial reward were great enough, that would largely counterbalance planning difficulties and so on. The irreducible problem was the gap between the electricity price of 1.8p/kWh and the cost of new nuclear generated electricity of about 2.5p/ kWh. What was required was some sort of financial assistance to bridge that gap, preferably one that would provide a subsidy of about 1p/kWh - which they justified as reflecting the benefits of nuclear as a carbon-free energy source, and as being a cheaper means of replacing the 25% capacity lost when the old nuclear stations closed than renewable power would be. They would not specify the mechanism for this: it could be done by means of some kind of levy or tax, or by way of emissions trading. They did, however, say that exemption from the Climate Change Levy would not be enough - it would only reduce costs by 0.4p/kWh.
The BNIF gave evidence before the proposal to transfer waste management liabilities to a Liabilities Management Authority (see Renew 137). But the Committee felt that this transfer ‘should decrease the cost of nuclear generation, at least as far as the British Nuclear Fuels fleet is concerned’. However, it added that it remained to be seen ‘whether relieving the industry of these liabilities will actually change public perception of the industry and encourage investment in it’. You can say that again!
In conclusion, the Committee noted that ‘for reasons of security and diversity of energy supply, many witnesses referred to the desirability of retaining the option for nuclear generation. They said that action needs to be taken in the short term if a commercial option to build new nuclear plant is to be sustained.’ But, deferring to the PIU perhaps, the Committee avoided recommendations, other than to say that it was ‘essential that there be no further delay in government decision-making; the Government should make a clear statement on the future of nuclear energy as quickly as possible’.
British Energy (BE) has found it cannot extricate itself-at least for the time being-from its advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) fuel reprocessing contracts with BNFL, despite BE’s strong protests last year about the "crippling reprocessing costs" which it said were ruining profitability to the extent that BE might eventually be forced to abandon its U.K. nuclear generation business and move abroad. BE had called for a moratorium on reprocessing AGR spent fuel, in preference for dry storage. It noted that reprocessing also added unnecessarily to the U.K.’s civil separated plutonium stockpile, around 2.5 tonnes so far.
But BNFL would not budge on the contracts- pointing to the stiff penalties it could invoke for defaulting, and BE has now backed off. Executive Chairman Robin Jeffrey commented ‘we have both recognized that at a time when our industry is under the microscope, it makes a lot of sense to work together on co-operative ventures which could lead on to benefits for both our companies and also electricity customers,’ and BNFL and BE are working on a feasibility study of the AP1000 (see Groups).
Nuclear Fuel (4/3/02 ) also noted that BE’s threat to take BNFL to the Office of Fair Trading over the reprocessing contract was ‘off the agenda,’ at least at ‘this point of time’, and the companies are having "constructive" discussions, e.g. on the idea of using higher burn up fuel, although BE say they have no plans to use MOX in AGRs. It later transpired that BE may take over running some MAGNOX from BNFL, which, if the liabilities were excluded, could help BE balance the books. (See Observer 5/5/02, FT 6/5/02)
Calder Hall, the UK’s oldest nuclear plant, has closed due to safety concerns relating to radiation induced distortion in the graphite, which has evidently caused the charge pans on the reactor top to tilt. Opened by the Queen in 1956, and claimed to be the worlds first commercial nuclear electricity plant, its main task was actually to produce plutonium for weapons, and latterly, with the current glut of plutonium, it has just provided power for the Sellafield site. The four old Magnox reactors at Chapelcross, which were used for military purposes, have also been closed. But BNFL, which runs all these reactors, is seeking permission to restart them, although they are scheduled to close finally in 2006 and 2008 respectively, so that expensive repairs seem likely to be hard to justify. ( later on it was decided not to bother -ed)
Many of the subsequent fleet of commercial MAGNOX reactors are now being decomissioned- Berkely went first and the others are following. But, back at Sellafield, there have been problems with cleaning up the UK’s first atomic pile- the infamous Windscale Pile 1, which is the one that caught light in 1957. The £60m dismantling programme being carried out by the UKAEA has been halted due to fears that the graphite core, which is packed with melted nuclear fuel, may catch fire if it is exposed to air, despite plans to fill the space with inert argon gas. The reactor, which was built to produce plutonium for the UK’s A bomb, was sealed up after the accident in 1957. It looks like it may have to stay that way- although it can’t remain like this indefinitely since the containment buildings will deteriorate. The total cost of cleaning up all the various old plants on the Sellafield site has been put at at least £24bn.
In its submission to the PIU energy review, British Energy which it seems has been losing money on its nuclear operations, called for nuclear power to be given a subsidy to help it compete, on the grounds that it was an important option for avoiding the emission of CO2. They proposed something akin to the Renewables Obligation for nuclear capacity - a ‘Carbon Free Obligation’, with a 1p/kWh buy out price, plus the writing off of BE’s £8bn historical liabilities (for decommissioning old plant built until public sector ownership). The PIU seems to have ignored this, suggesting instead that nuclear power be left as an insurance option, in case renewables, CHP and efficiency improvement didn’t not yield enough emission savings.
A ‘leave the nuclear option open for later review’ option was clearly also supported by the major ‘World Energy Assessment’ carried out in 2000 by the UN Development Programme, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the World Energy Council. It concluded that ‘if the energy innovation effort in the near term emphasises improved energy efficiency, renewables, and the decarbonised fossil energy strategies, the world community should know by 2020 or before, much better than now, if nuclear power will be needed on a large scale to meet sustainable energy goals’.
To be fair, the nuclear lobby has received a boost from Finlands decison to build a new plant, the USA’s plans for nuclear expansion , and from the European Parliaments’ inclusion of nuclear power as one way to cut greenhouse gas emissions. This was in the EP’s long-awaited response to the Green Paper on security of energy supply, a Paper that was adopted by the European Commission the year before last. But all the new EC policy involves is a commitment to ‘removing legislative and fiscal obstacles.’ Otherwise, it sounds like nuclear power has missed the boat in the EU, at least for now. Nevertheless, as noted in Renew 136, BE and BNFL still have aspirations for a revival, via the AP100 and perhaps the CANDU, as replacements for the AGR’s- in ten years time.
See Groups for reactions from the environmental organisations.
Plans for building the first prototype Pebble Bed Modular Reactor are emerging, after a delay due to design problems. A PBMR spokesman recently said the aim was to develop the test plant in 2003,with the preferred site being Koeberg outside Cape Town.
As described in Renew 135, the PMBR uses billiard ball - sized spheres of uranium coated in silicon carbide instead of the rods used in conventional plants, and helium gas at high temperature for heat extraction. Proponents say that it will be cost effective and proof against meltdown, and that the small size of the plants will make them suitable for remote rural areas.
The PMBR project is backed by, amongst others, BNFL but the major US utility Exelon (who had a 12.5% share) pulled out from its $22m investment in April. Even so, if has been suggested that, if all goes well, the US might eventually build up to 40 of the reactors. It has also figured in proposals put out by British Energy and BNFL in the UK. And, if all goes well, the South Africa utility Eskom has said that it might order 10 PBMR plants to provide power to coastal regions, remote from the the country’s coalfields in the north.
Environmentalists are however opposed to the project. The community-based action group Earthlife Africa told the AFP News service "The most appalling part of the strategy is that they’re going to develop this in rural areas, remote from scrutiny, and could bury the stuff on site". There was also the issue of why this unproven technology was being developed in South Africa, rather than in the USA. Earthlife Africa has evidently told the Pretoria government that if it "insists on this foolish path of investing in nuclear power, there should certainly be equivalent investment into renewables" such as wind, wave, solar and small-scale hydro power. Source: Space Daily, Jan 15.
See http://www.spacer.com/news/nuclear-civil-0b.html
Also www.saep.org/subject/nuclear/pbmr/pbmr.htmland
The UK tried to develop a high temperature helium cooled reactor, somewhat similar to the PBMR, back in the 1960’s- the Dragon project at what was then the UKAEA’s reactor test site at Winfrith in Dorset. It was a small prototype, which evidently had problems, and was not followed up.
Chernobyl Myths
According to Anthony Brown, writing in the Observer (6/1/ 02) a new study of ‘the Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident’ produced by the UN ‘is a challenge to those who seek to highlight the dangers of nuclear energy’ since it concludes that "the medical effects of radiation are far less than was thought" and "the biggest damage to health has instead come from hypochondria and well-meaning but misguided attempts to help people", such as relocation, which have added to stress levels. Brown’s rendition of the still to be published UNDP/ UNICEF report was subsequently challenged as giving a "wholly misleading impression of its findings" in a letter published in the Observer (13 Jan) by Patrick Gray, one of the UN assessment team. He added ‘the suggestion that the only health consequences are likely to be 41 deaths from radiation sickness, together with cases of childhood thyroid cancer ‘totaling 1,800in all’, is indefensible. In fact the draft report says that on conservative estimates, a further 8,000 cases of thyroid cancer can be expected’.
In another bumper 36 page issue, the Feature looks at Fuel cells, how they work, what they can be used for and the way ahead, while our Technology section includes a look at Waste Combustion, Building-Integrated wind turbines and Alternative Transport fuels . Our Reviews section looks at some contrarian views on subsidies, climate change and nuclear power. And our extensive Groups section includes coverage of the Wind battles in Wales, the new Hockerton windturbine and the return of nuclear opposition- an issue also discussed in the Forum section
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)
E-mail: S.J.Dougan@open.ac.uk
Also see http://eeru.open.ac.uk/natta/rol.html
NATTA has produced a new compilation of reports on nuclear power drawn from back issues of Renew. ‘Nuclear Power- back from the grave?’ is available from NATTA for £4,
£3 to NATTA members.
- Also see our new web review (with streaming videos!) of LA21 energy projects, produced for the Earth Summit: http://eeru.open.ac.uk/greenenergy
Back to RENEW ON-LINE INDEX page.
Renew-on-line posted on 01/07/01 by s.p.forrest@open.ac.uk