Extracts from the News section of NATTA's bimonthly journal Renew, issue 107.
NATTA is an independent information service based with the Energy and Environment Research Unit at the Open University. As with all NATTA publications the views expressed should not be taken to necessarily reflect those of EERU or the Open University. This material can be used freely as long as it not for commercial purposes, and as long as proper credit to NATTA is given.
Details of how to subscribe to the full Renew journal are given below.
Full steam ahead
The full list and locations of the 195 renewable energy projects awarded contracts under the fourth, and very large, Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Order, NFFO-4, emerged in March. It included a massive 70 landfill gas projects, but only 16 based on waste combustion, although they are novel technologically in that 10 are based in Combined Heat and Power, and 6 on fluidised bed combustion. Most of these are in urban areas. In addition there are 6 farm gas powered projects using farm wastes, and 31 micro- hydro projects.
There are also 65 new wind projects - including, for the first time, two offshore wind schemes. The Dutch Windmaster project mentioned in Renew 106 has now been confirmed- it is rated at 12.8 MW Declared Net Capacity and will be on Gunfleet Sands off the coast at Clacton in Suffolk. The other, smaller, offshore project, rated at 723 kW, is an extension of Border Winds causeway project with two new turbines half a mile offshore from Blyth Harbour in Northumberland. However there was no sign of the offshore wind farm proposed by Power Gen for Scroby Sands near Gt Yarmouth (see Renew 104).
As far as the on land wind projects go, the Wind Energy Group has won some major projects including one for a 10 MW windfarm in Cumbria, while Ecogen has a giant 34MW project at Humble Hill near Hexham in Northumbria. New player Eastern Windfarms has 6 windfarm projects in Yorks and Lancs, and
Windjen Power Ltd has 6 of the 18 new wind projects in Wales.
Interestingly there are also two windfarms in Devon- so far a county which has resisted wind projects. But both are small. One is a 1 MW scheme at Tiverton, on the Somerset border. The other, backed by Atlantic Energy, is only 761 kW and falls in the small wind subsection of the NFFO. It is at Bradworthy on the border with Cornwall. There are 16 other projects in the small wind category, including one for 94kW at the Earth Centre in Yorkshire (see Renew 106), three from the Wind Company in Yorkshire, and six from Econet Ltd in Norfolk and Suffolk.
There are seven new projects based on energy crops, using wood chip gasification/pyrolysis and gas turbines, including one rated at 6MW in Northumbia from Ecogen and three from Northern Electric Generation Ltd (two 10MW projects and one 6MW project). Incetec Ltd has a 20MW project in Cumbria and Emisary Ltd has a 15MW project in Powys.
Announcing the detailed project allocations, Richard Page, then a DTI energy minister, commented:
"The NFFO4 Order is a major step forward for greener energy supplies. I congratulate the renewables electricity industry on moving within striking distance of the market price for electricity generated by conventional means. The average price they have achieved for these 195 projects is 3.46 pence per kilowatt hour, almost one penny better than the 4.35 pence achieved in the previous round, NFFO3. It means that our aim of bringing about convergence with real market prices is clearly now within reach.
Our strategy to develop renewables-based technologies will help to secure diversity of energy supplies and an internationally competitive industry. I expect this to pave the way for people to buy 'green' electricity produced from sustainable forms of energy with all the environmental benefits this brings.
Successful generators will now need to obtain planning permission in the normal way for their projects if they have not already done so. I expect generators to develop their projects with care and sensitivity and so ensure the long-term prosperity of their industry."
As we noted in Renew 106, OFFER, the Office of Electricity Regulation, had earlier spelt out details of the overall economics of the renewable energy projects likely to be supported by the new non-fossil fuel obligation - NFFO-4. It indicates that around 100MW of wind capacity could be obtained for 3.5p/kWh or less but that at 4p/kWh this expands dramatically.
For short rotation coppice the price threshold is higher, but even so at 5.5p/kWh theres 50MW available - and at 6.3p it jumps up to 250MW. So perhaps its not surprising that NFFO-4 includes quite large wind and SRC allocations - along with more conventional waste and landfill.
Not all of these projects will succeed. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has built in an expectation that some will not be pursued in the event, or will fail. So the 843MW allocation may only yield around 400MW of actual operational projects. Looking back to the original 1995 DTI announcement on NFFO-4 (see Renew 99) that's roughly what was expected.
In its report to the DTI on NFFO-4, OFFER suggested that up to 50% of waste combustion energy crop/SRC wind projects might be expected to fail, but that 95% of the landfill gas projects were likely to succeed. With NFFOs 1-3 perhaps achieving at best 600MW total, when all the NFFO-3 projects that survive come on time, and NFFO-4 perhaps adding 400MW, that leaves at least 500MW of generation capacity to be attained by NFFO-5, if the target of 1,500MW DNC is to be reached. So the NFFO-5 order would have to be of a similar scale to NFFO-4, i.e. at least 800MW. Given this context, its perhaps not surprising that NFFO-4 was so large.
What happens next? OFFER, has confirmed that each of the 12 Regional Electricity Companies (RECs) in England and Wales has complied with the Order by signing contracts with the developers of the 195 projects. The NFFO-4 contracts will run for almost 20 years from 1 May 1997 and enable RECs to offer renewable electricity generators premium payments for up to 15 years, following a lead-in period of up to five years for commissioning of the plant.
The premium price is the difference between the NFFO contract price and the electricity pool price, and is reflected in electricity bills. Around £94 million was paid in 1995/6 under the NFFO arrangements for renewables. By 1999/2000 it should rise to around £150m.
The full list and a map showing the locations of NFFO 4 projects is available from the Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU) Enquiries Bureau, Harwell, Didcot, Oxon. OX11 0RA.
Following on from NFFO-4 for England and Wales, the new Scottish Renewable Order (SRO-2) was finally announced, after some delay, in March.
Like NFFO-4, it is larger than was originally expected: 112 megawatts instead of 70-80MW. And like NFFO-4, waste into energy contracts dominate, with 55 MW of landfill, tyre burning and municipal waste combustion projects. However wind did quite well, with 7 projects totalling 44MW, although this is slightly down on SRO-1 which involved 12 projects and 45.6 MW. Hydro fell back even further, with 9 projects, totalling 11MW, compared with 15 projects and 17.5 MW in SRO-1. And there was, surprisingly, only one biomass project- for 2MW.
On the economic side, as Safe Energy 112 reports, there has been some concern expressed about the use of the marginal cost of coal fired generation(around 1.1-1.3p/kWh) as the base price for the SRO, instead of the 'pool' price (around 2.5p/kWh) as with the NFFO. This may make projects look cheap but it also makes it hard for smaller entrants to compete.
We will be looking into that issue in Renew 108.
During the election run up, Labour leaders spelt out a range of policies on energy. Michael Meacher, then shadow spokesman on Environmental Protection told the SERA Conference(see Renew 106) that Labour will soon launch our proposals for a nationwide, self-financing, home energy efficiency scheme:
'Eight million households in the UK suffer fuel poverty, and as many as three quarters of a million elderly people are at risk of hypothermia. Improving domestic energy efficiency will improve the building stock and provide a permanent solution to fuel poverty. It will benefit the environment through reduced emissions. It will create many jobs in the insulation industry, and it will cut bills on hypothermia and cold-related illnesses, which cost the NHS £1 billion a year.'
He added Action on energy efficiency must of course be combined with action on renewable energy sources. We must increase our use of renewable energy. We cannot continue to use fossil fuels at the current level indefinitely. Nuclear power has been proved not to be answer to our fuel needs, and its contribution to our energy needs will continue to decline under a Labour Government.
We aim to generate 10% of Britains electricity needs through renewable sources by 2010, and 20% by 2025.
If renewable sources of energy are to be expanded sufficiently to meet these ambitious targets, all forms will need to be rapidly developed. At present, Britain has 40% of Europes potential wind power but uses less than 1% of it, so there is considerable scope here. We must also look carefully at the future of solar power, combined heat and power schemes and other renewable sources.
Robin Cook, then Shadow Foreign Affairs spokesman, used the SERA conference to look at global issues:
The global dimension is awesome. Miners used to take canaries down the pit, on the basis that the expiry of the canary was a warning that the environment was unsafe for humans. In the short five years since the Earth Summit, another 40,000 species have become extinct. Humanity is receiving multiple warnings from the fate of other species that our eco-system is under severe and accelerating stress. Labour will bring a sense of urgency to the international debate on how to save our globe.
He went on to announce a Green Globe Task Force to 'sharpen the policies Labour has prepared in Opposition into a blueprint for action in office'.
The Green Globe Task Force will he said 'provide a forum for dialogue between Labour and Green NGOs in order that we can draw on their experience and advice both before and beyond the election.
I want their help to ensure the greening of our foreign policy and the preparation of our negotiating stance for the forthcoming global summits on sustainable development and climate change'.
He added "This is crunch year for negotiations to cut emissions in carbon dioxide. For three years the world community has put off agreement on targets beyond the year 2000. I want the advice of the Task Force on how Britain can help break the stalemate. Labour already has a commitment to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by a fifth by 2010, and we want to know how best to turn that domestic commitment into an international agreement".
He finished with the following nice bit of rhetoric:
"Over the past week, we have all read how the Millennium Project has been rescued. I am glad that we are to have a stately pleasure dome in Greenwich. But one dome cannot shelter all mankind from the stress we are imposing on the climate around it. The real millennium project is to rescue the global environment so that it can sustain life for another thousand years.
This is an heroic challenge. Labour does not pretend that we can face it alone. We appeal to everyone who cares about their environment to join with us.
And we give them a pledge that if they help us deliver a Labour Government, then that Labour Government will put Britain at the front of crusade to rescue the global environment".
The reality behind the rhetoric is of course what matters, and Labours subsequent decision not to support a key amendment designed to get VAT reduced on energy conservation materials ( so as to make it cheaper to save energy than to buy it) raises some queries about what might happen in practice. However it could be that this amendment was seen as unnecessary or at least mis-timed, since Labour had made a commitment to reducing VAT on fuel, when and if it came to power, so that this anomaly could be sorted out then.
Labour certainly seemed keen on energy conservation - both at the end use stage and at the point of production, eg via Combined Heat and Power.
Thus John Battle MP, then Shadow Energy Minister speaking at the Combined Heat and Power Association's national conference, said:
"Labour will positively promote CHP as a means of ensuring diverse secure and sustainable energy supplies. Labour has set a clear target for CHP of 10,000 MW by the year 2010, doubling the present Government's target. CHP will make a significant contribution to tackling greenhouse gases; every 1MW of CHP cuts UK carbon emissions by 1250 tonnes. CHP schemes, at 80-90 % of thermal efficiency, contribute massively to reducing energy bills and using primary supplies efficiently. Not only do CHP schemes generate employment but they are part of the new environmental technology of the future which will win markets at home and abroad."
Renewable energy technology has developed rapidly in recent years, but future development could be slowed if attention is not paid to supporting the necessary research needed on the newly emerging options. That one was of the messages that emerged from a meeting of the all party Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group held just before the Parliamentary dissolution.
The meeting was called to hear details of European Union Renewable Energies Centres new study of 'The Future of Renewable Energy Technologies' (see our report in Renew 106). The EUREC report, now published in book form by James and James, looks at eight areas for development and reviews the state of play so far. It is very positive, especially on the economic side. For example, wind energy costs have fallen by a factor of 10 in 10 years, while PV solar costs have dropped by a factor of 2 in 5 years. But much of this has been the result of a continuing R&D effort and more was required, with biomass gasification being one of the next areas of activity in line.
Unfortunately however, R&D budgets seem to be thinning out, particularly in the UK, where the renewable R&D budget has been cut by 30% since 1992/93, and continues to drift downwards: it now stands at £13m pa. Instead the emphasis is on near market applications. Thus is particularly clear in the case of photovoltaic solar. There is some money for demonstration projects and applications (e.g. via the SCOLAR scheme) but very little for fundamental R&D.
The PRASEG meeting also heard about the problems facing one of EUREC's partner groups, IT Power, in its attempt to press ahead with its novel TIDEMILL technology. As we have reported in Renew (see Renew 103 for the most recent account) IT Power have been developing a submerged wind turbine like device designed to take power from tidal streams.
At the EUREC meeting Peter Fraenkel from IT Power reported on a recently completed EU supported study, carried out under the JOULE programme, which indicated that offshore tidal currents in Europe might supply around 48TWh pa from an installed capacity of 12.5 GW, chiefly based on the use of 100 or so locations off the UK and French coast.
Initial cost estimates were in the range 5-8p/kWh from first generation machines. And yet no money has been forthcoming from the UK government for the development of this technology. IT Power did manage to build and test a small 15kW prototype, with support from Scottish Nuclear and NEL, but so far they have not been able to obtain support for follow up hardware work.
This seems foolish: tidal stream technology has some unique advantages. Tidemills can be built on a piecemeal modular basis: you dont have the vast cost of constructing a huge barrage. Since water is so much more dense that air, and the energy fluxes are so much higher, tidal turbine rotor diameters can be much smaller that the equivalent wind turbine rotor: see the figure. Tidal streams are usually strongest near to shore, so the power generated by turbines mounted in the flow can be returned to shore reasonably easily: by contrast offshore wave energy devices need to be far out to sea to capture the large power fluxes in the deep water.
Obviously there are also problems to overcome, for example the devices will have to be designed to ensure that they can survive in the undersea environment. But that's just the sort of thing that R&D is all about. Its the same story as with wave energy: the UK seems destined to miss out on some interesting offshore technologies, which you would think we, as a maritime nation with a lot of offshore engineering expertise, would be keen to develop.
EUREC links up 40 groups around Europe involved with renewable energy research. It can be contacted via Geert Palmers, Kapeldreef 75, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium Tel: +32-16-281-522/523; Fax +32-16-281-510; e-mail: palmers@imec.be http://www.imec.be/eurec/
As noted above, Wave energy is another area where R&D is clearly required if further progress is to be made. The IEE held a seminar on wave energy in London recently, which heard from most of the key people in the UK wave energy research community. Most are involved with small scale inshore devices these days, notably the OSPREY. But the OSPREY developers A.R.T are also backing a new enlarged version of the ISLAY device: sadly the original device is now being demolished.
NATTA member David Ross, who was at the seminar, tells us that one of the points that emerged was that there was a need for some sort of information and contact centre for wave energy people in the UK.
Public opposition to windfarms has been one of the factors shaping the UK wind programme of late, but according to WindPower Monthly, hopes that the media tide may be turning in favour of a balanced debate on wind energy were strengthened by the even-handed approach adopted by the BBCs Country File TV programme, which gave both sides air time (WPM November 1996). Even so, the presenter did claim that across the country the wind industry was losing the war adding that the majority of its applications are being turned down. Unless a truce is called wind power may not have a future at all' (Rachel Morgan, Country File, 13th October 1996).
As we report in our Feature (Renew 107) Country Guardian, the anti-wind farm group, is gleeful about the British Wind Energy Associations estimate that 77% of recent wind farm applications have been turned down.
· Windpower Monthly was a little perturbed by the fact that Germany has been switching subsidies from wind to solar/pv. That might even begin to happen in the UK - possibly in the next NFFO. Even so, windpower is far from really being threatened. Worldwide there is now nearly 6 GW of wind capacity installed - and it is still expanding.
Jonathan Porritt from the Forum for the Future and Sir Bernard Ingham, Vice Chair of Country Guardian, battled it out in the Guardian recently (3/2/97) - putting the case for and against wind farms.
For Ingham, wind farms were wrecking our upland landscapes were uneconomic and unable to supply much reliable power. The average wind farm of 15 turbines does not generate enough juice to move an Intercity train out of the sidings. For Porritt, windpower was now cheaper than nuclear, getting very close to coal though still much more expensive than gas. However it was getting cheaper and 'once the price of fossil fuels rises to take account of the huge environmental losses their use imposes on us then subsidies would no longer be needed. Ingham would have none of this. Wind technology was he said being ditched as useless across the world, which, by contrast, was how Porritt saw nuclear power.
And so they ended up trading insults God save us from visionary greens like Porritt the Polluter versus which country do you aspire to be the guardian of? Certainly not the UK. The debate continues.
The World Energy Council has issued a warning against energy complacency in its 1997 message to members.
It notes that, “even with big improvements in energy efficiency, the world will consume much more energy in the coming decades. The WECs work indicates at least a doubling by 2050 in most scenarios.”
WEC calls for a truly global effort led by the industrialised countries to ensure the reconciliation of economic and social development based on increased energy use and the protection of the environment.
The WEC advocates:
· Creating, above all, rapid and effective measures to raise global efficiency by
- greater efforts on national education and publicity campaigns;
· Expanding institutional action to improve the transfer of state of the art energy and environmental protection technologies between nations.
The last item may be a little contentious, but. the real issue is - will any one act on these recommendations?
Source: WEC Journal, Dec 1996.
The extracts above are from the News section of Renew 107.
The main Feature looks at the UK Windfarm debate, with an article by Peter Harper from the Centre for Alternative Technology explaining 'why he hates windfarms but wants more of them', and a review of some anti-wind farm reactions from the Country Guardian organisation.
The Technology section looks at Waste Combustion and the Dioxin issue, and at the need to keep the surface of photovoltaic solar cells clean if performance is to be maintained. There's also a critique of the Meyers Water Fuel Cell - an invention which recently attracted some bad publicity after the Meyers organisation was convicted of fraud by an Ohio court.
In addition there are the usual Editorial, Groups, Reviews and Letters sections, plus news of NATTA activities.
Renew, NATTA's 30 page bimonthly journal, can be obtained on subscription from NATTA at the special concessionary rate of £12pa for unwaged people. Otherwise it is £18 pa for individuals or £50 pa for organisations. Airmail supplement is £3pa.
Contact NATTA c/o EERU. Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK.
( Tel 01908 65 4638 Fax: 01908 65 4052, e-mail: S.J.Dougan@open.ac.uk).
Renew On Line can also be accessed via the EERU World Wide Web site at http://www-tec.open.ac.uk/eeru/ You will find a complete set there i.e. from issue 1 onwards.
Back to RENEW ON-LINE INDEX page.
EERU Home page