Extracts from the News section of NATTA's bimonthly journal Renew, issue 108.
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.
Renew On-Line 9 (July-Aug 1997)
1. Biofuels -
slow growth?
The UK's first wood fired combined heat and power plant is to be built at Newcastleton, using wood from a local forest. Border Biofuels expect it to supply local customers with heat via a district heating network, at 50% of the costs of conventional supplies, and its electricity should also be 10% cheaper.
But otherwise biofuel developments in the UK seem painfully slow. Some power plants using forestry wastes exist (e.g.in Cornwall) but the big push to using specially grown energy crops, such as Short Rotation Coppicing (SRC) has yet to get fully underway.
Of course, getting SRC projects going is inevitably going to be a relatively slow process: it takes time for SRC plantations to grow.
The Non Fossil Fuel Obligation is helping, but so far, the ARBRE project at Eggborough (Yorkshire) appears to be the only NFFO-3 project making decent headway. Planning permission for the power station has been granted, and the construction contract is out to tender. But this means that the power station will be ready for business before the SRC. Forest residues from Northumberland will be used initially (instead of SRC) to commence generation late 1998 or early 1999. What seems to be needed, if more rapid developments are to occur, is for there to be a fundamental shift in the financial context - eg a revision of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy and its associated subsidy system for set aside land. That could well now be on the agenda given Labours election victory.
Technological developments could also help improve the situation: for example pyrolysis is beginning to look interesting as an alternative to combustion, since it provides a way to convert wood into an oily liquid, which is more convenient to transport than wood chips. The third round of the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation provided support for 3 wood chip gasification projects, with SRC powering gas turbines. NFFO-4 will support 7 more, and it includes support for pyrolysis. But as yet the economics of SRC are uncertain, although some progress seems to have been made in that the NFFO-4 SRC projects will get 5.51p/kWh as opposed to the 8.65p/kWh provided for the NFFO-3 projects.
Wind versus Willows?
It's interesting to look at wind power by way of contrast: it only takes a few weeks to install a wind farm - the whole thing can be up an running in a matter of months. So perhaps its not surprising that wind power is speeding ahead, while SRC is still only just getting going.
So is SRC doomed? It may be slow to get started, but energy crops like SRC are thought to have a vast potential in the UK and there is a lot of potential support from farmers. By contrast wind power has relatively poor industrial backing and it has faced planning battles over sites, something SRC may avoid. Of course its not really a competition. There is room for both wind and SRC - and also for solar photovoltaics, wave and tidal power. But for SRC enthusiasts the slow progress so far must be frustrating. Maybe that explains the reaction of the Council for the Protection of Rural England to the 65 new wind projects supported by NFFO-4: CPRE's Lili Matson commented 'Rather than swamping the countryside with wind turbines, the Government should be supporting a range of less damaging renewable energy technologies and acting vigorously to reduce the amount of energy we waste'.
There is clearly a case for careful control over how wind farms are deployed - and some of the 65 projects will no doubt get turned down. But it would be tragic if the various renewables - and conservation - were seen as rivals to be played off against each other ....
We need all the green options we can find - and to subject them all to careful scrutiny. For example although SRC may seem relatively benign, there could still be some environmental problems when and if it gets going.
See NATTA's free leaflet on the pro's and cons of SRC.
2. Green Pool
The 'Green pool' idea (see Renew 106) has come a step nearer with 40 generation companies meeting recently to discuss how, after the 1998 liberalisation of the electricity market, they could operate jointly via a retail pool for green electricity, supplying power direct to consumers.
Generation companies who were supported under NFFO-1 and 2 contracts, which run out in 1998, could be the main initial players, although some may find it hard to make the transition.
However although the cost to consumers might initially be higher, overall it could be that consumer demand for 'green energy' might in fact exceed supply: so there may be an expanding market if the generators can overcome the initial economic problems.
"We already sell all the renewable energy we get at standard market rates. With 1998, we anticipate a surge in demand". So said Martin Alder from the Stroud based Renewable Energy Company in Green Futures No. 4. The company is already trading around 10MW of electricity from landfill gas and hydro, and together with Green Electron (see Renew 105) they are the pioneers in what could be a major expansion of green energy marketing.
As Green Futures noted, at present 'apart from 1.4 Giga Watts of large scale hydro, all but 20 Megawatts or so of existing renewable energy is purchased by Regional Electricity Companies at a premium price under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation'.
However following the 1998 liberalisation of the electricity market, demand for green power could emerge directly from consumers. As noted above, projects that were supported under the first two rounds of the NFFO could be the first to step in to meet this demand - since their NFFO contracts come to an end in 1998. That represents 327MW of power from the 145 NFFO-1 and 2 projects - or 75% of the existing NFFO total. They include most of the waste combustion and wind projects.
David Porter from the Association of Electricity Producers told Green Futures 'Their contracts only began in 1991 and 1992 and some of them had problems getting up and running due to local planning objections. This has left them only a few years of premium prices and in some cases this had been insufficient to pay for their capital investment'.
The Renewable Energy Company and Green Electron are likely to be keen to buy in ex-NFFO capacity and quotas. Alder from REC told Green Futures 'When it starts to be released at the end of 1998, I expect to be in there buying all we can afford'.
The Green power market issue was the focus of Friends of the Earth's one day conference 'Shifting the Balance of Power: Energy Liberalisation and Sustainability' held in June in London .
Neil Evans from Energy for Sustainable Development noted, in a paper to the conference, that visible 'branding' of green power, along with the internalisation of environmental costs of the non renewable sources in the pricing system, could be the key to ensuring the success of green power as a consumer preference, thus helping to expand the green market and meet carbon dioxide emission reduction targets. Otherwise, if we just left it to the unstructured market and the NFFO, the renewable contribution was only likely to reach 2% of UK electricity requirements by 2010, rather than the 10% envisaged in Labours programme.
All sorts of other ideas were floated at the conference, including the establishment of a Sustainable Energy Trust modelled on the Energy Saving Trust and a 1% fuel levy to raise the necessary cash, but on the whole there was not a lot of debate about changes in economic structure, consumption patterns and lifestyles and the feeling overall seemed to be that market liberalisation was worth running with: it would happen anyway.
The Conference also saw the launch of the new FoE energy strategy , 'Power in Balance: Energy Challenges for the 21st Century', produced by Tim Jackson. This does look at structural change issues. We'll review it in Renew 109.
The Labour Manifesto included a commitment to launch 'a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy, and combined heat and power'. There was also support for 'a major push to promote energy conservation - particularly by the promotion of home energy efficiency schemes'.
John Battle MP is now the Energy Minister within the DTI. He's well known to be interested in housing issues- and told the Financial Times recently (6/5/97) that he felt strong links should be made between housing, environment and energy, and wants the Energy Saving Trust to play a major role. He also indicated that he felt that the role of OFFER and OFGAS, the Electricity and Gas Regulatory agencies, should change, with more emphasis being placed on consumer protection. Battle is also in charge of Science & Technology, so he will oversee the OST's Technology Foresight programme.
Robin Cooks radical position on Global warming should ensure that this bit of environmental policy maintains a high profile, even though Environmental Protection spokesman Michael Meacher did not get Cabinet status. The UK is likely to be pushing for a major commitment to carbon dioxide savings at the upcoming Climate change conference in Kyoto, Japan. The UK now has a 20% target, and wants the EU to accept 15%.
Meanwhile the UK renewable energy industry seems pleased with the change in political direction. In the election run up the main renewable energy trade groups (AEP, BWEA and so on) joined together to press Labour to confirm its support for renewables. They sent a 'round Robin' letter to Tony Blair, pledging to 'work closely' with the new Government to implement the targets set out in Labours 'In Trust for Tomorrow' i.e. a 10% from renewables by 2010 and 20% by 2025.
More recently the lobbying focus has moved on to the NFFO, with the Association of Electricity Producers calling for some movement on NFFO-5.
4. Wind Wars
Wind Potential and Limits
"The variability of the wind speed results in a variable electricity supply which progressively reduces the value of the marginal unit of capacity as total installed capacity increases. Due to its intermittency, it is considered that supplying more than about 10% of total electricity from wind energy would result in additional costs to the grid operating systems".
So said the Department of Trade and Industry recently. However they did also recognise that local wind projects could help strengthen weak grids and reduce transmission losses over long distances.
Peter Edwards, Chair of the British Wind Energy Association has put this locally embedded generation argument more forcefully:
"Many people do not realise that wind powered electricity is sent directly into local distribution networks" and this "saves on the cost of high voltage transmission and avoids electrical losses, bringing economic and environmental benefits" (Energy in Buildings and Industry March 1997).
The BWEA have also been making much of the cost reductions that wind farms have achieved - costs have fallen by 30% over the last two years. And overall windpower was now supplying the average electric power needs equivalent to a city such as Bristol - while avoiding the production of around 580,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.
However, as we have noted in past issues of RENEW, wind power developments have not gone without opposition. The latest contribution in the debate is from the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, which has produced a new report claiming that developers are exaggerating the output of windfarms and that windfarms are proliferating with insufficient control.
Alls Well that Ends Well?
The battle over the 300 kW ENERCON wind turbine that Western Windpower were trying to install 1.5 km from the village of Nympsfield near Stroud in Gloucestershire was one of the bitterest - with, at one stage, villagers taking direct action to try to halt the project.
Right from the start local opposition had been very strong, with Country Guardian playing a major role.
Ian Blair, spokesman for the Cotswold Protection Group commented:
'The vast majority of the village feels that the amount of electricity this turbine produces is trivial and does not justify it being built. We feel that unspoilt landscape is as much of a limited resource as coal, oil or gas and has to be protected'.
The local councillors rejected the planning application - against the advice of their planning officers - but after an appeal and a public inquiry, the rejection was over-ruled. Then however local objectors dug in - blocking access to the Midland Electricity Board to stop them making the power connection, in a week long action which got national media attention. But after the police intervened, in Dec. last year, the turbine became operational, and since then according to Windpower Monthly (Feb. 1997), although opposition continues, many locals have found that their fears were unfounded.
Dale Vince from Western Windpower claimed that Country Guardians' horror stories had not proved true and'there is a lot of anger now in the village among people who think they have been duped'. Some now say 'why only one?'
But some resentment still evidently remains, and the National Trust, who opposed the scheme since it is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, are now lobbying for the planning control system to be improved.
5. Alternatives in Amsterdam
The World Sustainable Energy Trade Fair at the RAI Centre in Amsterdam in May went off very well, attracting over 200 companies from around the world, covering renewable energy and sustainable transport.
Inevitably Novem, the Dutch Renewable Energy Agency and the main sponsor of the event, and Dutch and Danish wind power firms like Lagerwey, Nuon, Micon, Nordex, Bonus, and Nordtank, were well represented on the energy side, as were Enercon and Tacke from Germany. But the newly formed British Renewable Energy Federation also put up a good show, drawing together the various UK renewable energy trade associations, including the BWEA, and Mitsubishi also had a stand.
On the transport side Audi's diesel-electric hybrid car, the 'Duo', was much in evidence, as were the electric vehicles developed by Electric Fuel Ltd from Israel - and the UK's Mad Dog solar car, developed at Southbank University. We will be reporting on the vehicles side in Renew 109.
The parallel Sustainable Energy Congress was equally international in flavour, with, for example, a speaker from India reminding us that they now had the third largest wind energy programme in the world, after the USA and Germany. The US contribution was a bit less impressive: although they release twice the carbon dioxide per capita produced in Europe, in the US gas is cheap and institutional resistance to facing up to the global warming issue remains strong. With the Kyoto conference on climate change coming up in Dec. (see later) it will be interesting to see what happens.
20% from renewables?
Inevitably, given its location, the main focus of the debate was on policy developments in Europe. TERES II, the updated version of the 1994 European Renewable Energy Study (see Renew 90) has just emerged (we'll be reporting on it in Renew 109) and, with the EC's Green paper on renewables (see Renew 107) still on the table, discussions evidently rage within the EC and the Euro Parliament over the precise target that should now be set. But, Wolfgang Palz from DG XII told us, a 15% contribution from renewables by 2010 was now seen as desirable, and given sufficient political effort, it might be pushed up to 20%, creating many new jobs in the process and cutting carbon emissions by a similar amount: that might sound ambitious, but clearly the upcoming Kyoto conference was very much in mind.
EC support policies might include a 1% tax or levy on fuel use, coupled with measures to support specific options e.g support from biofuels in the revised Common Agricultural Policy, a bias in favour of biomass as a fuel for Combined Heat and Power/co-generation plants, and subsidies for users plus changes in the Building regulations to promote the use of photovoltaics.
Certainly Photovoltaics were very much the flavour of the month, with many projects on display both inside and outside the Amsterdam RAI Centre, including some reflecting the ambitious PV programme in Germany. The Berlin based Solar Polis group provided some interesting examples of local projects : details on: http://www.Solar.Polis.de/
There were also some PV powered boats in use on the adjoining canal. Back in the Congress, ex Greenpeace activist Jeremy Leggett described the Solar Century project he has launched (see our Technology section). He claimed that we could expect a 'big lift off' when and if volume production got underway, but warned that this required retargeting some of the $10-15 billion in subsidies that fossil fuels currently enjoy in Europe. Shell and BP Solar, who both had a presence at the event, no doubt took note!
Windpower was the most obvious of the current options on display in the exhibition, with Enercon, Tacke and Nordtank promoting their new 1.5 MW machines. But with land use issues in mind, interest in offshore wind is growing: some delegates visited Dutch projects. Greenpeace Nederland used the Congress to launch a campaign for a giant 10 gigawatt offshore wind farm, occupying 35 by 35 km, which, they noted, represented only 2% of the Dutch area of the north sea, and would supply about 40% of the countries power.
An even more ambitious scheme was proposed by the US based GENI group, As we reported in Renew 107, they are pressing for a global electricity grid linking major renewable schemes, including a 40GW hydro plant in central Africa. The global network would cross many time zones so that it would balance out supply and demand patterns- but its cost would be vast. Smaller inter-regional grids seem more likely.
Another major focus was geothermal energy: there was a special seminar backed by the US based Geothermal Energy Association. Currently, with more than 6 GW of electricity generating capacity now installed globally, geothermal ranks second only to hydro in the renewable field, although wind is catching up fast. As we report in our Technology section, work on Hot Dry Rock geothermal has more or less dried up in the UK and USA, but the use of heat pumps to extract ground heat has caught on - and there is also interest in using geothermal sites as interseasonal heat stores.
Wavepower was represented by the novel Dutch Archimedes device (see Renew 107) but sadly, although expected, ART, the Osprey developers, did not turn up. However the conference issue of the Sustainable Energy Trade Journal (No. 4) did report on their new shore line device, the Limpet. We'll be reporting in Renew 109.
Overall it was a useful survey of the state of play technically and politically. The UK made a respectable showing, with CAT being well represented and David Bellamy giving a lurid account of the eco-horrors that current approaches to energy use entailed and calling for a UNITAX to help fund alternatives. And, somewhat less dramatically, Godfrey Bevan from the DTI outlined the UK renewable programme, with the claim these days being that the UK had succeeded in delivering cost effective projects.
The Sustainable Energy Trade Journal issue 5 will report on the conference/fair , and in Renew 109 we will be reporting on the ambitious Dutch sustainable energy programme.
Continuing its campaign on photovoltaics (see Renew 105), Greenpeace recently took direct action and (temporarily!) installed twenty four solar electric panels on the new headquarters of the Department of the Environment in London.
According to Greenpeace this led John Gummer, then Environment Secretary, to state that the Government would shortly announce measures to stimulate greater use of solar energy (FT 19/2/97).
Greenpeace's challenge focused on what they saw as the Government's failure to take action on solar power. They contrasted this with the continuing high levels of support for fossil fuel. For while, Greenpeace noted, John Gummer had claimed on BBC television that as part of the UK's policy on climate change 'we have stopped subsidising fossil fuel', in fact Greenpeace pointed out, the Government was continuing to subsidise the fossil fuel industry through the DTI's Energy Research and Development Budget. In 1995-96 the DTI spent some £17.5 million on research into oil, coal and gas. The planned spend for three financial years 1996-7 to 1988-1999 is £41.6 million.
Greenpeace added that according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), between 1984 and 1995 the Government spent some £260 million from its energy research and development budget supporting fossil fuels. This averages out at some £21.5 m pa.
Of course some of this is for emission clean up technology, which must surely have a role in the future, but there is something of an imbalance in emphasis given that the total renewable R&D budget is now down to £13m (see Renew 103, 104) with solar pv receiving only around £1m pa from the DTI.
Greenpeace wants the subsidy of the fossil fuel industry to be discontinued and redirected to provide finance for solar.
Greenpeace's solar challenge
Greenpeace wants a Governmental commitment for 'a minimum solar programme for Britain which will result in 50,000 solar homes by 2010'. It claims that this solar programme can be delivered without increasing Government expenditure or raising the price of electricity if the tax payers money currently spent directly subsidising the fossil fuel industry is used to finance this solar programme.
It argues that Government investment of £16 million a year for the next 12.5 years would result in the installation of 50,000 solar home systems. Government finance would provide capital grants to cover 40% of the costs of a 2kW solar system (some £4,000). The recipients of the solar electric systems would contribute the remainder (some £6,000). Recipients of solar electric systems would include individuals, house builders, local authorities and housing associations.
Greenpeace adds 'a 2kW solar electric system installed on an average sized house would generate some 1,500 units of electricity per year; around 50% of the annual electricity requirements of an average home. Over the course of its lifetime the programme would avoid the release of some 1.26 million tonnes of C02, and avoid the generation of some 1.8 billion units of electricity'.
They claim that 'such a solar programme would transform the status of the British solar industry. The British solar industry have stated that if the Government committed to investing around £18 million a year up to 2010 they will invest £100 million into new manufacturing capacity. This in turn would result in new solar factories and, according to the British solar industry, create some 40,000 new British jobs. It would also increase British industry's share of the global market for solar electric from 9% to 15% and would generate annual sales of £750 m'.
Based on their 'Building Homes with Solar Power' study (see Renew 101) Greenpeace say that the current cost of power from pv installed on houses is '3-4 times the present cost of purchasing conventional electricity' but suggest that costs could fall three fold by the year 2000, assuming that the volume of production increases. Which is why they are pushing for a major UK effort to match the US, German and Japanese programmes.
Greenpeace take on BP
Not content with the guerilla tactic of solarising the DoE, Greenpeace then went on to installed 25 of British Petroleum's own solar panels on BP's office in Aberdeen.
Greenpeace sent a message to BP which included the following: 'Greenpeace is today offering you twenty five of your own solar panels by way of a gift. These are currently being installed on the roof of BP Exploration's office in Aberdeen. The total installed capacity of Greenpeace's solar gift is some 1.5kW. If permanently installed the solar system will generate some 1,125 kWh of electricity a year. Over the course of its lifetime the solar system, installed by Greenpeace today, will generate some 34,000 kWh of pollution-free electricity and prevent the emission of some 23 tonnes of carbon dioxide.'
They added, somewhat cheekily,'Greenpeace is willing at a later date to permanently connect the solar facade to the electricity supply of BP Exploration's office in Aberdeen thus enabling the building to generate clean electricity throughout the year .'
The catch was that , as Greenpeaces letter to BP pointed out,'as well as providing BP with a solar gift Greenpeace is today challenging BP to stop production and exploration for new oil in the Atlantic Ocean and to immediately invest £100 million in BP Solar to expand its UK operations. This should be targeted towards rapidly expanding BP Solar's production capacity through the construction of new British solar factories and developing a solar market for the UK. This level of investment will ensure BP Solar's continued status as a world leading solar company as well as generating new and long-term British jobs'.
Greenpeace made the point that BP has a profitable and expanding solar subsidiary, BP Solar, so that, 'compared to other major oil companies, BP is well placed to find profitable market-based alternatives to the continued extraction of oil'.
However, Greenpeace noted 'the vast majority of BP Solar's business activities are taking place outside the UK. This is symbolised by a decision made late last year to invest $7 million in a solar manufacturing plant in California. Greenpeace has estimated that BP Solar manufactured some 100,000 solar panels in 1995. As far as we are aware not one of these solar panels was made in Britain as all of BP manufacturing and assembly plants are based overseas. Greenpeace have also calculated that at most only 1% of BP Solar's production was actually sold in the UK'.
Meanwhile BP has so far invested some £826 million in the development of a new oil project at Foinaven 5. Greenpeace pointed out that 'this one development has already cost more than 12 times as much as BP have invested in the ten year history of BP Solar.'
Greenpeace say they have calculated that 'if the £826 million spent so far on Foinaven had been used for solar in UK it could have solarised some 100,000 homes.' They add 'These misplaced priorities are symbolised by BP's apparent failure to install any of its own solar panels on its UK offices.'
Something which Greenpeace evidently took great delight in remedying!
BP Shift Ground
It could be argued that it is a bit unfair to single out BP, since they are one of the few oil companies to have backed PV over the years.
And, more recently, BP has broken ranks with the rest of the 'Carbon Club' and accepted that global warming is a possibility to which they must respond.
In a speech at Stanford University on May 19th, John Browne, Group Chief Executive of BP America, noted that "The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part."
He added "We in BP have reached that point."
While asserting that oil and gas would continue to dominate in the energy equation, Browne saw solar PV as having a bright future: " I am convinced that we can make solar competitive in supplying peak electricity demand within the next ten years".
He announced a major new BP commitment to solar : BP aimed "to transfer our distinctive technologies into production, to increase manufacturing capacity and to position the business to reach $1 billion in sales over the next decade."
He concluded "The result is that gradually but progressively solar will make a contribution to the resolution of the problem of carbon dioxide emissions and climate change."
7. Nuclear News
Following the Socialist coalition victory in the French election, the future of the Superphenix Fast Breeder Reactor has been thrown in doubt. Socialist Party leader Lionel Jospin has publicly committed his party to the closure of the 1200 MWe FBR and to a ten year moratorium on new nuclear
plants. ( Source: NuclearFuel, 2 June p3) The agreement reached before the election with the Green Party also included a rethink on nuclear waste reprocessing and much more support for renewables : France has only just started developing its very large wind resource.
8.Down Memory Lane:
The UK Renewable Energy programme
NATTA's new report on the history of the UK renewable energy programme from 1974 to the present, provides some interesting insights into the policy formulation process and some wonderful quotes.
Thus in Sept 1980, just before the UK deep sea wave energy programme was wound up, John Moore, then an Energy Minister, had claimed at the opening of a wave energy test tank at Southampton , that 'whatever other problems our wave energy researchers may face, lack of Government support will not be among them'.
In 1982, an ETSU Strategic Review (ETSU report R-13) concluded that ' the Severn Barrage generally has the best economic prospects of all the renewable sources, bettered only by on-shore wind power on the latter's lower cost. In general, tidal power is roughly on a par with nuclear power in the benefit/cost ratios which it produces.'
The UK Renewable Energy programme was launched by the then Labour government in 1974, following the oil crisis. But it was not to escape criticism even in the early years.
In 1977 an all-party House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology commented that they were not convinced sufficient effort was being made. For example, the committee commented that it detected 'in the Department of Energy a certain complacency towards the development of new sources'.
Eight years later the situation seemed to have changed very little, with the 1984 report by the all-party House of Commons Select Committee on Energy commenting critically on the Department of Energy's handling of the renewables programme.
The main focus of these criticisms was the programme review carried out in 1982 by ACORD, the Government's Advisory Council on Research and Development, which led to the dramatic cut backs in the wave power programme and drastic cut backs in active solar and off-shore wind research, the overall annual budget being pegged at around £14 m.
The 1984 Select Committee on Energy commented:
The evidence on the wave energy programme hardly inspires confidence in the Department's sponsorship of renewable energy R D & D'.
The Select Committee on Energy continued to offer critical comments like this right up to 1992, when it was abolished, following the absorption of the bulk of the Department of Energy into the Department of Trade and Industry. The Select Committee's parting shot in 1992 was the comment that'it is difficult to regard the history of renewable R & D funding in the UK as other than a history of volte faces, premature judgements and plain errors.'.
Not the kind of obituary the Department would have liked no doubt. And as the new NATTA report suggests, perhaps also not an entirely jsutified comment - for over the years the Department and ETSU had done some excellent work. What faults there were might be related more to the overall policy context they were operating in, with the emphasis increasingly on short term market concerns.
With a new Labour administration now in power, it is useful to look back over what has gone before, and this new report certainly provides chapter and verse.
'Renewables Past, Present and Future: The UK Renewable Energy Programme', Dave Elliott, 74 pages, £10 or £5 to NATTA members.
9. Overview: the rest of Renew 108
The extracts above are from the News section of Renew 108, with some amendments.
This issue looks at progress on Local Agenda 21, focusing on sustainable energy projects. The main Feature looks at the Local Governments role in relationship to Local Agenda 21, while the Groups sections looks at energy projects in Milton Keynes, Bedford, Stroud and elsewhere.
The Technology section looks at the ambitious earth sheltered housing project in Hockerton and the prospects for geothermal energy.
In addition there are the usual Editorial, 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).
Back to RENEW ON-LINE INDEX page.
EERU Home page