Reuters, Wednesday April 29 2009
SYDNEY, April 29 (Reuters) - Australian electricity generator Loy Yang Power has entered into a landmark deal to hedge some of its carbon emissions, ahead of the country's planned introduction of a carbon-trading system next year, Loy Yang said on Wednesday.
Loy Yang, part owned by AGL and Tokyo Electric Power Co <9501.t>, said it had entered into a certified emission reduction (CER) trade with local energy trader Arcadia Energy Trading, the first between two Australian counter-parties.
The deal covers 100,000 tonnes of carbon, deliverable in December 2011.
(Reporting by Mark Bendeich; Editing by Bruce Hextall)
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
How 'smart fridges' could slash UK CO2 emissions and help renewables
Instead of spikes in demand and coal-fired solutions, fridges and washing machines may soon be available that can regulate their own energy usage. Mark Anslow reports on a new generation of electrical appliances that 'listen' and learn. From The Ecologist, part of the Guardian Environment Network
Mark Anslow
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 10.38 BST
"What do you think was happening here?"
Jon Fenn, electricity operations manager for National Grid, is standing pointing at a jagged graph projected on to the wall of his ofice in the grid's electricity control centre in Berkshire.
The graph shows the nation's total electricity demand during the first round 2006 World Cup match between England and Sweden. Demand steadily falls throughout the first half, followed by a sudden spike at half-time, followed by another steady fall, then another spike and a plateau at the end of the match. Fenn is pointing to the lowest point of demand, right at the end of the game's first half.
He asks: "What do you think we were looking for?"
I look blank. "We were looking to see if there was going to be any extra time played," he explains patiently.
For the controllers who staff the National Grid's control room 24 hours a day, extra time in a national football match means something very significant. They are waiting for hundreds of thousands of kettles to be boiled at half-time, countless fridge doors to be opened and a multitude of kitchen lights to be flicked on. At half-time in 2006, electricity demand soared by almost two gigawatts in a matter of minutes – equivalent to suddenly needing the combined output of nearly two Dungeness B nuclear power plants. Twenty minutes later, as everyone sat back down in front of the TV, the demand had disappeared.
To anticipate this sort of spike in demand, the grid engineers quickly need to bring extra power plants online. Extra time played in the game could mean they bring the power on too early, risking tripping fuses on the grid. Bring it online too late, however, and blackouts could result.
It's a fine balancing act, and also highly expensive and polluting. A key component of being able to match these sudden spikes in demand is what is known as 'spinning reserve' – essentially keeping a power station running but only using a part of its output, ready to ramp up to full power at a moment's notice.
Because this kind of use is unsuited to nuclear power plants, which take days to come on- or offline, and can potentially damage the more modern and sensitive natural gas plants, it tends to be the workhorse coal power stations that fulfil this 'balancing' role. One estimate suggests that more than 2.1 million tonnes of CO2 are produced every year simply keeping these power stations 'ticking over', waiting for us to flip the kettle on.
It's not just football matches that generate these spikes in demand, however. In fact, every winter's day our demand for electricity soars from a night-time low of around 35 to almost 60 gigawatts during the evening rush hour. In the summer, that profile is different still – flatter, but with different peaks when air conditioning equipment is switched on in the heat of the day. Fenn can point to little spikes in our electricity demand during the middle of the night when night storage heaters suddenly trip into life.
"We're students of collective public behaviour," he admits.
A cool innovation
Endearing as it may be, however, our electrical behaviour is becoming increasingly problematic. The current reliance on coal power plants to balance out demand will come to end as a result of the 2007 Large Combustion Plant Directive – legislation that regulates the non-CO2 emissions from coal and oil plants, and which will force several to close by 2015. And on the flip-side, as more wind energy is brought online the variability of the grid will increase. Although wind energy is not 'unpredictable' as some critics suggest – it can be accurately forecast hours in advance – it does prove a problem for the current grid setup, where supply has to be matched to demand at all costs. Wind may blow strongly in the middle of the night, when the demand is low, but slacken off during the evening rush hour.
What's clearly needed is some way of matching not only supply to demand, but also demand to supply – some sort of what the industry likes to call 'demand management'.
"Don't say demand management!" hisses David Hirst when we first meet. "Say demand. Only the electricity companies would be so arrogant as to talk about "managing" their customers."
A former IT expert and the inventor of a technology that might help even out the variability on the grid, Hirst has developed a small, cheap piece of electronics that could be built into all new home fridges and freezers. Currently being marketed by British company RLtec, the device would constantly 'listen' to the frequency of the grid – a direct indication of whether the grid is over- or underpowered. If the grid frequency drops then the fridge would know that lots of consumers had suddenly increased their electricity demand – perhaps for the half-time cuppa – and that operators in the grid control room would be about to open the throttle on a series of coal-fired power plants. In response, the fridge could switch its cooling unit off until the grid frequency had returned to a normal level – in effect reducing 'non-essential' demand until the grid operators had managed to balance the system again, hopefully without resorting to too much coal.
"The fridges would only remain off for between 15 and 30 minutes," Hirst says. "Any longer than half an hour, and the fridges would say to themselves, "stuff this for a laugh", and start working again. Food preservation is paramount."
Some good scientific modelling work has been done on this, which suggests that if each of the three million domestic fridges sold in the UK every year were fitted with this technology (known as 'dynamic demand'), then the equivalent electrical response of all these units would be 35 megawatts – the size of a small wind farm. If, however, all of the UK's 40 million fridges were eventually replaced with dynamic demand units, then the response level would rise to between 728 and 1,174 megawatts – a level that RLtec claims would make an entire spinning reserve power plant obsolete.
It's an attractive idea, and one that National Grid welcomes.
"Evening-out demand would make things very much simpler for us," Fenn says. "There's a great opportunity for technology here."
There is, however, also a great shrugging of shoulders when it comes to deciding who will pay for installing the dynamic demand equipment in the fridges. In theory, the rapid-response service provided by the fridges is worth a fair amount of money to National Grid – between £4.40 and £34.10 per fridge, in fact, according to Government commissioned research. This is because it offsets expensive charges made by coal power plant operators for their usual balancing services. National Grid, though, is reluctant to commit to funding the fridges without knowing exactly how effective they will be in aggregate. There is also talk of using money from the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) energy eficiency levy on the power companies – the tax that explains why your utility is throwing energy-saving light bulbs at you and offering to lag your loft. As yet, everyone is waiting for the result of a larger smart fridge trial, due to report back in 2010.
Fridges are only the tip of dynamic demand iceberg, however. For a start, Hirst says, they essentially only allow the grid to 'borrow' power for half an hour – after that, they all need cooling back down again. Where things get more exciting, though, is when you look at the possibility of shifting the 'on' times of other appliances, such as dishwashers.
Hirst calculates that if the UK's 10 million dishwasher owners were to load up the machines with crockery and then, rather than switch them on immediately after dinner, set the machines simply to have the load washed between 11pm and 7am, then the grid would effectively have 10 gigawatt hours (Gwh) of flexible storage. This vast amount is equivalent to the capacity of the Dinorwig pumped storage plant in Wales, which pumps water up into a huge reservoir when electricity is cheap and then lets it roar through turbines when demand surges in the evening. It could also save a considerable amount of CO2 often produced during the evening peak by gas power stations.
As electric-car ownership increases, so will electricity demand. It makes sense to charge cars at night when demand is low, but linked into smart meters, cars could charge whenever electricity is cheap – when the wind is strong, for example. They could also feed power back to the grid at times of high demand, like a giant battery.
The list goes on. Immersion heaters in our hot water tanks are, like fridges, currently a law unto themselves, tripping on when their thermostats tell them to. As long as water is hot for morning showers or evening baths, however, the exact time at which these devices run is not especially important to us – but very important in terms of running a low-carbon electricity system. Similarly, certain spaceheating systems, such as storage heaters or underfloor heating could become more flexible. What's needed is a way of bringing these appliances together so that they know when is the most eficient time to power up.
Enter the smart meter – the only part of the much-vaunted 'smart grid' that the householder will ever see. A smart meter is essentially a meter that allows two-way communication: the electricity company can read the meter remotely and the householder can see both how much power they are using, and how much it costs. Unfortunately, that's about where consensus on smart meters stops. Some would like the meters simply to give customers information on energy usage; others see the display part of the meters – sited in the house – as a tool to discourage householders from using energy at peak times; still others would like to see the meter communicate remotely with appliances in the house, allowing them to operate at the most efficient times of day.
Joe Short, an expert in the field and founder of the charity Dynamic Demand, warns that a mistake with smart meters at this early stage could spell disaster for developing truly energy efficient ways of running our homes.
"We need to be very careful that the smart meter agenda is not driven by the agenda of the large energy suppliers," he says. "The big players are interested in smart metering because of the automatic meter-reading element, but we need a signal to get into the house – either a carbon or price signal. We need not to miss the opportunity of all these smart meters."
David Hirst is worried about the influence of the energy companies on smart metering for a different reason.
"Do you really want someone to be able to control the appliances in your house? Least of all the electricity companies?" he asks, voicing a concern already raised by consumer groups.
Hirst has a different model for smart meters, one that explains why he insists on referring to demand 'participation' rather than 'management'. He wants to see smart meters tune into future price broadcasts from the electricity companies, sent out every few minutes. A high electricity price would indicate high demand on the grid (and hence, high CO2 emissions), while a low price would indicate either low demand or an abundance of wind or solar energy. Appliances – laundry machines, dishwashers and even electric cars – would calculate when would be cheapest to run and plan to wait until the best time to switch themselves on.
"It would mean you, and your appliances, would have a choice," Hirst says. "Occasionally, you may simply say, 'I need it urgently – I'll pay the extra'. That's participation."
The future of smart meters – and smart appliances – is yet to be written. A recent trial in the District of Columbia, US, saw 1,400 customers fitted with smart meters coupled to their air conditioning units. With the householder's day-to-day permission, the electricity company was able to deactivate the home's air conditioning system at times of peak electricity demand, and give customers a rebate on their bill as a result. The UK's own trials, conducted by Ofgem, have been disappointing, dogged by equipment problems. But elsewhere in Europe – notably in Italy, where almost 30 million meters have been installed – the response has been positive.
'Smart' appliances and demand-responsive fridges are, of course, only bits of kit. If householders and tenants fail to engage with the new devices – and in one of the UK trials a quarter of those using energy monitors didn't even bother to replace the batteries when they ran out – then no amount of technical wizardry will help. The purpose of all these devices is simple: in the words of Jessica Strömbäck of the VaasaETT Global Energy Think Tank at a 'demand response' conference in January: "It is important in the long run that customers change their view of electricity from a natural human right to the costly resource that it is".
Mark Anslow
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 10.38 BST
"What do you think was happening here?"
Jon Fenn, electricity operations manager for National Grid, is standing pointing at a jagged graph projected on to the wall of his ofice in the grid's electricity control centre in Berkshire.
The graph shows the nation's total electricity demand during the first round 2006 World Cup match between England and Sweden. Demand steadily falls throughout the first half, followed by a sudden spike at half-time, followed by another steady fall, then another spike and a plateau at the end of the match. Fenn is pointing to the lowest point of demand, right at the end of the game's first half.
He asks: "What do you think we were looking for?"
I look blank. "We were looking to see if there was going to be any extra time played," he explains patiently.
For the controllers who staff the National Grid's control room 24 hours a day, extra time in a national football match means something very significant. They are waiting for hundreds of thousands of kettles to be boiled at half-time, countless fridge doors to be opened and a multitude of kitchen lights to be flicked on. At half-time in 2006, electricity demand soared by almost two gigawatts in a matter of minutes – equivalent to suddenly needing the combined output of nearly two Dungeness B nuclear power plants. Twenty minutes later, as everyone sat back down in front of the TV, the demand had disappeared.
To anticipate this sort of spike in demand, the grid engineers quickly need to bring extra power plants online. Extra time played in the game could mean they bring the power on too early, risking tripping fuses on the grid. Bring it online too late, however, and blackouts could result.
It's a fine balancing act, and also highly expensive and polluting. A key component of being able to match these sudden spikes in demand is what is known as 'spinning reserve' – essentially keeping a power station running but only using a part of its output, ready to ramp up to full power at a moment's notice.
Because this kind of use is unsuited to nuclear power plants, which take days to come on- or offline, and can potentially damage the more modern and sensitive natural gas plants, it tends to be the workhorse coal power stations that fulfil this 'balancing' role. One estimate suggests that more than 2.1 million tonnes of CO2 are produced every year simply keeping these power stations 'ticking over', waiting for us to flip the kettle on.
It's not just football matches that generate these spikes in demand, however. In fact, every winter's day our demand for electricity soars from a night-time low of around 35 to almost 60 gigawatts during the evening rush hour. In the summer, that profile is different still – flatter, but with different peaks when air conditioning equipment is switched on in the heat of the day. Fenn can point to little spikes in our electricity demand during the middle of the night when night storage heaters suddenly trip into life.
"We're students of collective public behaviour," he admits.
A cool innovation
Endearing as it may be, however, our electrical behaviour is becoming increasingly problematic. The current reliance on coal power plants to balance out demand will come to end as a result of the 2007 Large Combustion Plant Directive – legislation that regulates the non-CO2 emissions from coal and oil plants, and which will force several to close by 2015. And on the flip-side, as more wind energy is brought online the variability of the grid will increase. Although wind energy is not 'unpredictable' as some critics suggest – it can be accurately forecast hours in advance – it does prove a problem for the current grid setup, where supply has to be matched to demand at all costs. Wind may blow strongly in the middle of the night, when the demand is low, but slacken off during the evening rush hour.
What's clearly needed is some way of matching not only supply to demand, but also demand to supply – some sort of what the industry likes to call 'demand management'.
"Don't say demand management!" hisses David Hirst when we first meet. "Say demand. Only the electricity companies would be so arrogant as to talk about "managing" their customers."
A former IT expert and the inventor of a technology that might help even out the variability on the grid, Hirst has developed a small, cheap piece of electronics that could be built into all new home fridges and freezers. Currently being marketed by British company RLtec, the device would constantly 'listen' to the frequency of the grid – a direct indication of whether the grid is over- or underpowered. If the grid frequency drops then the fridge would know that lots of consumers had suddenly increased their electricity demand – perhaps for the half-time cuppa – and that operators in the grid control room would be about to open the throttle on a series of coal-fired power plants. In response, the fridge could switch its cooling unit off until the grid frequency had returned to a normal level – in effect reducing 'non-essential' demand until the grid operators had managed to balance the system again, hopefully without resorting to too much coal.
"The fridges would only remain off for between 15 and 30 minutes," Hirst says. "Any longer than half an hour, and the fridges would say to themselves, "stuff this for a laugh", and start working again. Food preservation is paramount."
Some good scientific modelling work has been done on this, which suggests that if each of the three million domestic fridges sold in the UK every year were fitted with this technology (known as 'dynamic demand'), then the equivalent electrical response of all these units would be 35 megawatts – the size of a small wind farm. If, however, all of the UK's 40 million fridges were eventually replaced with dynamic demand units, then the response level would rise to between 728 and 1,174 megawatts – a level that RLtec claims would make an entire spinning reserve power plant obsolete.
It's an attractive idea, and one that National Grid welcomes.
"Evening-out demand would make things very much simpler for us," Fenn says. "There's a great opportunity for technology here."
There is, however, also a great shrugging of shoulders when it comes to deciding who will pay for installing the dynamic demand equipment in the fridges. In theory, the rapid-response service provided by the fridges is worth a fair amount of money to National Grid – between £4.40 and £34.10 per fridge, in fact, according to Government commissioned research. This is because it offsets expensive charges made by coal power plant operators for their usual balancing services. National Grid, though, is reluctant to commit to funding the fridges without knowing exactly how effective they will be in aggregate. There is also talk of using money from the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) energy eficiency levy on the power companies – the tax that explains why your utility is throwing energy-saving light bulbs at you and offering to lag your loft. As yet, everyone is waiting for the result of a larger smart fridge trial, due to report back in 2010.
Fridges are only the tip of dynamic demand iceberg, however. For a start, Hirst says, they essentially only allow the grid to 'borrow' power for half an hour – after that, they all need cooling back down again. Where things get more exciting, though, is when you look at the possibility of shifting the 'on' times of other appliances, such as dishwashers.
Hirst calculates that if the UK's 10 million dishwasher owners were to load up the machines with crockery and then, rather than switch them on immediately after dinner, set the machines simply to have the load washed between 11pm and 7am, then the grid would effectively have 10 gigawatt hours (Gwh) of flexible storage. This vast amount is equivalent to the capacity of the Dinorwig pumped storage plant in Wales, which pumps water up into a huge reservoir when electricity is cheap and then lets it roar through turbines when demand surges in the evening. It could also save a considerable amount of CO2 often produced during the evening peak by gas power stations.
As electric-car ownership increases, so will electricity demand. It makes sense to charge cars at night when demand is low, but linked into smart meters, cars could charge whenever electricity is cheap – when the wind is strong, for example. They could also feed power back to the grid at times of high demand, like a giant battery.
The list goes on. Immersion heaters in our hot water tanks are, like fridges, currently a law unto themselves, tripping on when their thermostats tell them to. As long as water is hot for morning showers or evening baths, however, the exact time at which these devices run is not especially important to us – but very important in terms of running a low-carbon electricity system. Similarly, certain spaceheating systems, such as storage heaters or underfloor heating could become more flexible. What's needed is a way of bringing these appliances together so that they know when is the most eficient time to power up.
Enter the smart meter – the only part of the much-vaunted 'smart grid' that the householder will ever see. A smart meter is essentially a meter that allows two-way communication: the electricity company can read the meter remotely and the householder can see both how much power they are using, and how much it costs. Unfortunately, that's about where consensus on smart meters stops. Some would like the meters simply to give customers information on energy usage; others see the display part of the meters – sited in the house – as a tool to discourage householders from using energy at peak times; still others would like to see the meter communicate remotely with appliances in the house, allowing them to operate at the most efficient times of day.
Joe Short, an expert in the field and founder of the charity Dynamic Demand, warns that a mistake with smart meters at this early stage could spell disaster for developing truly energy efficient ways of running our homes.
"We need to be very careful that the smart meter agenda is not driven by the agenda of the large energy suppliers," he says. "The big players are interested in smart metering because of the automatic meter-reading element, but we need a signal to get into the house – either a carbon or price signal. We need not to miss the opportunity of all these smart meters."
David Hirst is worried about the influence of the energy companies on smart metering for a different reason.
"Do you really want someone to be able to control the appliances in your house? Least of all the electricity companies?" he asks, voicing a concern already raised by consumer groups.
Hirst has a different model for smart meters, one that explains why he insists on referring to demand 'participation' rather than 'management'. He wants to see smart meters tune into future price broadcasts from the electricity companies, sent out every few minutes. A high electricity price would indicate high demand on the grid (and hence, high CO2 emissions), while a low price would indicate either low demand or an abundance of wind or solar energy. Appliances – laundry machines, dishwashers and even electric cars – would calculate when would be cheapest to run and plan to wait until the best time to switch themselves on.
"It would mean you, and your appliances, would have a choice," Hirst says. "Occasionally, you may simply say, 'I need it urgently – I'll pay the extra'. That's participation."
The future of smart meters – and smart appliances – is yet to be written. A recent trial in the District of Columbia, US, saw 1,400 customers fitted with smart meters coupled to their air conditioning units. With the householder's day-to-day permission, the electricity company was able to deactivate the home's air conditioning system at times of peak electricity demand, and give customers a rebate on their bill as a result. The UK's own trials, conducted by Ofgem, have been disappointing, dogged by equipment problems. But elsewhere in Europe – notably in Italy, where almost 30 million meters have been installed – the response has been positive.
'Smart' appliances and demand-responsive fridges are, of course, only bits of kit. If householders and tenants fail to engage with the new devices – and in one of the UK trials a quarter of those using energy monitors didn't even bother to replace the batteries when they ran out – then no amount of technical wizardry will help. The purpose of all these devices is simple: in the words of Jessica Strömbäck of the VaasaETT Global Energy Think Tank at a 'demand response' conference in January: "It is important in the long run that customers change their view of electricity from a natural human right to the costly resource that it is".
BP solar profits slump
BP's renewables unit suffers as overall profits crash by two-thirds
Tim Webb and Graeme Wearden
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 17.12 BST
BP has reported a slump in sales of solar panels and falling profits at its alternative energy division. Overall, BP group profits fell by almost two-thirds in the first three months of the year compared with the same period last year. The company mainly blamed lower oil prices and higher taxes at its Russian subsidiary TNK-BP.
Earlier this month the oil group said it was axing 620 jobs at its solar energy division in the US and Spain because of an oversupply of solar equipment in the market and the recession. The job cuts are equivalent to more than a quarter of the workforce.
BP said today its solar sales during the quarter would generate 15MW of power, down from 34MW in the same period in 2008. BP said this reflected "ongoing weak demand in the market".
Losses from the unit, which covers its alternative energy operations – also including wind farms and biofuels – totalled $800m (£547m). That compares with $193m of losses in the same period last year, although the unit now includes more overhead costs than it did before.
Overall, BP reported profits today of $2.39bn (£1.64bn) in the first three months of this year, down from $6.23bn a year ago. It blamed the fall in the price of oil, which fluctuated between $35 and $50 a barrel during the quarter; a year ago a barrel cost more than $100.
With profits also lower than in the last three months of 2008, when BP made $2.59bn, the company is now planning to spend less on finding and developing new oil and gas reserves. It warned it would spare less than $20bn for capital expenditure this year, down from an earlier target of $20bn-$22bn.
The cut in spending could have long-term consequences for BP's growth. It is not clear which projects will be affected by the cutbacks, but environmentalists are likely to welcome them, given the controversy over projects such as BP's recent investment in oil sands in Canada.
Shareholders will receive a dividend of 14 cents a share, the same as in the last quarter and nearly half a cent more than a year ago.
Earlier this year, Shell angered environmentalists when it said it was scrapping investment in solar and wind power to focus on developing biofuels and carbon capture and storage.
The former chief executive Lord Browne rebranded BP as "Beyond Petroleum" signalling that the group would seek to expand beyond fossil fuels. But the current chief executive Tony Hayward is thought not to share his predecessor's enthusiasm for renewables.
BP's total wind capacity stands at 678MW, almost four times the amount it had built this time last year. A spokesman declined to comment on plans to build any more wind farms.
Tim Webb and Graeme Wearden
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 17.12 BST
BP has reported a slump in sales of solar panels and falling profits at its alternative energy division. Overall, BP group profits fell by almost two-thirds in the first three months of the year compared with the same period last year. The company mainly blamed lower oil prices and higher taxes at its Russian subsidiary TNK-BP.
Earlier this month the oil group said it was axing 620 jobs at its solar energy division in the US and Spain because of an oversupply of solar equipment in the market and the recession. The job cuts are equivalent to more than a quarter of the workforce.
BP said today its solar sales during the quarter would generate 15MW of power, down from 34MW in the same period in 2008. BP said this reflected "ongoing weak demand in the market".
Losses from the unit, which covers its alternative energy operations – also including wind farms and biofuels – totalled $800m (£547m). That compares with $193m of losses in the same period last year, although the unit now includes more overhead costs than it did before.
Overall, BP reported profits today of $2.39bn (£1.64bn) in the first three months of this year, down from $6.23bn a year ago. It blamed the fall in the price of oil, which fluctuated between $35 and $50 a barrel during the quarter; a year ago a barrel cost more than $100.
With profits also lower than in the last three months of 2008, when BP made $2.59bn, the company is now planning to spend less on finding and developing new oil and gas reserves. It warned it would spare less than $20bn for capital expenditure this year, down from an earlier target of $20bn-$22bn.
The cut in spending could have long-term consequences for BP's growth. It is not clear which projects will be affected by the cutbacks, but environmentalists are likely to welcome them, given the controversy over projects such as BP's recent investment in oil sands in Canada.
Shareholders will receive a dividend of 14 cents a share, the same as in the last quarter and nearly half a cent more than a year ago.
Earlier this year, Shell angered environmentalists when it said it was scrapping investment in solar and wind power to focus on developing biofuels and carbon capture and storage.
The former chief executive Lord Browne rebranded BP as "Beyond Petroleum" signalling that the group would seek to expand beyond fossil fuels. But the current chief executive Tony Hayward is thought not to share his predecessor's enthusiasm for renewables.
BP's total wind capacity stands at 678MW, almost four times the amount it had built this time last year. A spokesman declined to comment on plans to build any more wind farms.
Waxman Delays Action on Climate Bill
By IAN TALLEY
WASHINGTON -- House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman delayed until next week further action on his big climate bill, amid sharp divisions among committee Democrats.
The delay indicates that the House Democratic leadership is having difficulty rounding up votes to move the bill forward, amid disagreements over which industries and regions of the country should bear the burden for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. Democrats from industrial and coal-dependent states have expressed concerns that the climate bill would sharply raise energy costs and hurt the economy in their states.
"The hearings have spurred productive discussions between members on the legislation, which are continuing this week," Rep. Henry Waxman (D, Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a memo to members.
Mr. Waxman and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D, Mass.), had scheduled to mark up the American Clean Energy and Security Act this week. The main provision of the bill would mandate major greenhouse-gas-emission cuts and require emitters to buy and sell the right to emit gases such as carbon dioxide. It would also require a rising percentage of power to come from renewable-energy sources.
Messrs. Waxman and Markey left out one of the most controversial elements that will determine how much cutting emissions will cost, buying time for negotiations.
While the Obama administration and Democratic leadership want to auction off all the rights to emit -- called allowances -- representatives from regions heavily reliant on the coal industry, fossil-fuel generation and energy-intensive industries want the government to give out the emission credits to those sectors to soften the fiscal impact.
Last week, nearly a dozen moderate Democrats needed by leadership to pass a bill out of committee recommended weakening the emission-reduction targets in the early years of the program and giving out around 60% of the allocations to industries that would be hardest hit.
Under the proposal led by Virginia Democrat Rick Boucher, two-thirds of those allocations would go to the electric industry, one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the economy. While a majority of those valuable emission credits would be given to local distribution companies to offset rising energy costs for consumers, a share would be given directly to coal-generation firms.
Although Messrs. Waxman and Markey have said there will be free allocations to the power industry -- primarily through the retail-distribution side to prevent windfall profits for the generators -- they are concerned that giving away too many emission credits may undermine the program.
The division between the moderate and more left-leaning Democrats broke out into the open late last week when influential Rep. John Dingell (D, Mich.) gave the GOP fodder for their attacks against the bill by declaring it "a tax, and it's a great big one."
The GOP, meanwhile, said the mark-up delay would give Democratic leadership time for "arm-twisting and vote buying."
Write to Ian Talley at ian.talley@dowjones.com
WASHINGTON -- House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman delayed until next week further action on his big climate bill, amid sharp divisions among committee Democrats.
The delay indicates that the House Democratic leadership is having difficulty rounding up votes to move the bill forward, amid disagreements over which industries and regions of the country should bear the burden for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. Democrats from industrial and coal-dependent states have expressed concerns that the climate bill would sharply raise energy costs and hurt the economy in their states.
"The hearings have spurred productive discussions between members on the legislation, which are continuing this week," Rep. Henry Waxman (D, Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a memo to members.
Mr. Waxman and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D, Mass.), had scheduled to mark up the American Clean Energy and Security Act this week. The main provision of the bill would mandate major greenhouse-gas-emission cuts and require emitters to buy and sell the right to emit gases such as carbon dioxide. It would also require a rising percentage of power to come from renewable-energy sources.
Messrs. Waxman and Markey left out one of the most controversial elements that will determine how much cutting emissions will cost, buying time for negotiations.
While the Obama administration and Democratic leadership want to auction off all the rights to emit -- called allowances -- representatives from regions heavily reliant on the coal industry, fossil-fuel generation and energy-intensive industries want the government to give out the emission credits to those sectors to soften the fiscal impact.
Last week, nearly a dozen moderate Democrats needed by leadership to pass a bill out of committee recommended weakening the emission-reduction targets in the early years of the program and giving out around 60% of the allocations to industries that would be hardest hit.
Under the proposal led by Virginia Democrat Rick Boucher, two-thirds of those allocations would go to the electric industry, one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the economy. While a majority of those valuable emission credits would be given to local distribution companies to offset rising energy costs for consumers, a share would be given directly to coal-generation firms.
Although Messrs. Waxman and Markey have said there will be free allocations to the power industry -- primarily through the retail-distribution side to prevent windfall profits for the generators -- they are concerned that giving away too many emission credits may undermine the program.
The division between the moderate and more left-leaning Democrats broke out into the open late last week when influential Rep. John Dingell (D, Mich.) gave the GOP fodder for their attacks against the bill by declaring it "a tax, and it's a great big one."
The GOP, meanwhile, said the mark-up delay would give Democratic leadership time for "arm-twisting and vote buying."
Write to Ian Talley at ian.talley@dowjones.com
Al Gore calls on world to burn less wood and fuel to curb 'black carbon'
Soot from engines, forest fires and partly burned fuel is collecting in Arctic and causing north pole to warm at alarming rate
John Vidal in Tromso
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 17.48 BST
The world must burn less diesel and wood, Nobel peace prize-winner Al Gore said yesterday, as the soot produced is accelerating the melting of ice in polar and mountainous regions.
Gore, backed by government ministers and scientists, said that the soot, also known as "black carbon", from engines, forest fires and partially burned fuel was collecting in the Arctic where it was creating a haze of pollution that absorbs sunlight and warms the air. It was also being deposited on snow, darkening its surface and reducing the snow's ability to reflect sunlight back into space.
"The principle [climate change] problem is carbon dioxide, but a new understanding is emerging of soot," said Gore. "Black carbon is settling in the Himalayas. The air pollution levels in the upper Himalayas are now similar to those in Los Angeles."
The impact of the soot is as significant as it is surprising — it was not mentioned as a warming factor in the UN's major 2007 report on climate change. A study this month indicated that soot from industry, cars, farming and wood fuel burning has been responsible for half the total temperature increases in the Arctic between 1890 to 2007. Temperatures there are rising twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet, making it the region worst affected by climate change.
Gore warned that all the world's icy regions were experiencing rapid and dangerous global warming. "The cryosphere – the frozen water part of the Earth – is disappearing. Global warming is causing the permafrost to thaw. It contains more carbon than anywhere else and the risk is that it releases methane. That has the potential to double the global warming potential in the atmosphere," he said.
Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Store said action on black carbon was even more urgent than that on CO2: "Even if we turn the rising curve of greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years, the reduction will not occur quickly enough to preserve the polar and alpine environments. We must address short lived climate pollutants such as black carbon."
Glaciologists working in Latin America, Nepal, China and Greenland all reported at the meeting in Tromso that glaciers were losing ice more rapidly and becoming less thick as a result of global warming.
Dorthe Jensen, from the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark, said: "In the last five years we have seen many ice streams double in speed. Their floating snouts have moved back 30km. We never imagined the ice discharge would change so much."
Glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan plateau, from which 40% of the world derives its fresh water, are retreating fast, said Yao Tandong, a researcher with the Chinese academy of sciences. "This is causing severe social problems as lakes get bigger and people are forced to move. Himalayan glaciers are mostly retreating at an accelerating rate."
The meeting also heard, in a new report from the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (Amap), that climate change was now affecting every aspect of life in the Arctic. Norwegian, Canadian, Russian, US and other polar scientists reported that, in the last four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface waters in the Arctic ocean have warmed and permafrost is in some areas rapidly thawing, releasing methane.
The report's main findings are:
Land
Permafrost is warming fast and at its margins thawing. Plants are growing more vigorously and densely. In northern Alaska, temperatures have been rising since the 1970s. In Russia, the tree line has advanced up hills and mountains at 10 metres a year. Nearly all glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels as the water drains to the ocean.
Summer sea ice
The most striking change in the Arctic in recent years has been the reduction in summer sea ice in 2007. This was 23% less than the previous record low of 5.6m sq kilometres in 2005, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. New satellite data suggests the ice is much thinner than it used to be. For the first time in existing records, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free in summer 2008. However, the 2008 winter ice extent was near the year long-term average.
Greenland
The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at sea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.
Warmer waters
In 2007, some ice-free areas were as much as 5C warmer than the long-term average. Arctic waters appear to have warmed as a result of the influx of warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic. The loss of reflective, white sea ice also means that more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.
John Vidal in Tromso
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 17.48 BST
The world must burn less diesel and wood, Nobel peace prize-winner Al Gore said yesterday, as the soot produced is accelerating the melting of ice in polar and mountainous regions.
Gore, backed by government ministers and scientists, said that the soot, also known as "black carbon", from engines, forest fires and partially burned fuel was collecting in the Arctic where it was creating a haze of pollution that absorbs sunlight and warms the air. It was also being deposited on snow, darkening its surface and reducing the snow's ability to reflect sunlight back into space.
"The principle [climate change] problem is carbon dioxide, but a new understanding is emerging of soot," said Gore. "Black carbon is settling in the Himalayas. The air pollution levels in the upper Himalayas are now similar to those in Los Angeles."
The impact of the soot is as significant as it is surprising — it was not mentioned as a warming factor in the UN's major 2007 report on climate change. A study this month indicated that soot from industry, cars, farming and wood fuel burning has been responsible for half the total temperature increases in the Arctic between 1890 to 2007. Temperatures there are rising twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet, making it the region worst affected by climate change.
Gore warned that all the world's icy regions were experiencing rapid and dangerous global warming. "The cryosphere – the frozen water part of the Earth – is disappearing. Global warming is causing the permafrost to thaw. It contains more carbon than anywhere else and the risk is that it releases methane. That has the potential to double the global warming potential in the atmosphere," he said.
Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Store said action on black carbon was even more urgent than that on CO2: "Even if we turn the rising curve of greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years, the reduction will not occur quickly enough to preserve the polar and alpine environments. We must address short lived climate pollutants such as black carbon."
Glaciologists working in Latin America, Nepal, China and Greenland all reported at the meeting in Tromso that glaciers were losing ice more rapidly and becoming less thick as a result of global warming.
Dorthe Jensen, from the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark, said: "In the last five years we have seen many ice streams double in speed. Their floating snouts have moved back 30km. We never imagined the ice discharge would change so much."
Glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan plateau, from which 40% of the world derives its fresh water, are retreating fast, said Yao Tandong, a researcher with the Chinese academy of sciences. "This is causing severe social problems as lakes get bigger and people are forced to move. Himalayan glaciers are mostly retreating at an accelerating rate."
The meeting also heard, in a new report from the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (Amap), that climate change was now affecting every aspect of life in the Arctic. Norwegian, Canadian, Russian, US and other polar scientists reported that, in the last four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface waters in the Arctic ocean have warmed and permafrost is in some areas rapidly thawing, releasing methane.
The report's main findings are:
Land
Permafrost is warming fast and at its margins thawing. Plants are growing more vigorously and densely. In northern Alaska, temperatures have been rising since the 1970s. In Russia, the tree line has advanced up hills and mountains at 10 metres a year. Nearly all glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels as the water drains to the ocean.
Summer sea ice
The most striking change in the Arctic in recent years has been the reduction in summer sea ice in 2007. This was 23% less than the previous record low of 5.6m sq kilometres in 2005, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. New satellite data suggests the ice is much thinner than it used to be. For the first time in existing records, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free in summer 2008. However, the 2008 winter ice extent was near the year long-term average.
Greenland
The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at sea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.
Warmer waters
In 2007, some ice-free areas were as much as 5C warmer than the long-term average. Arctic waters appear to have warmed as a result of the influx of warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic. The loss of reflective, white sea ice also means that more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.
Climate change hitting entire Arctic ecosystem, says report
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme study tells of profound changes to sea ice and permafrost, among others
John Vidal in Tromso, Norway
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 13.18 BST
Levels of summer sea ice in the Arctic have drastically reduced since 2005
Extensive climate change is now affecting every form of life in the Arctic, according to a major new assessment by international polar scientists.
In the past four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface waters in the Arctic ocean have warmed and permafrost is in some areas rapidly thawing.
In addition, says the report released today at a Norwegian government seminar, plants and trees are growing more vigorously, snow cover is decreasing 1-2% a year and glaciers are shrinking.
Scientists from Norway, Canada, Russia and the US contributed to the Arctic monitoring and assessment programme (Amap) study, which says new factors such as "black carbon" – soot – ozone and methane may now be contributing to global and arctic warming as much as carbon dioxide.
"Black carbon and ozone in particular have a strong seasonal pattern that makes their impacts particularly important in the Arctic," it says.
The report's main findings are:
Land
Permafrost is warming fast and at its margins thawing. Plants are growing more vigorously and densely. In northern Alaska, temperatures have been rising since the 1970s. In Russia, the tree line has advanced up hills and mountains at 10 metres a year. Nearly all glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels as the water drains to the ocean.
Summer sea ice
The most striking change in the Arctic in recent years has been the reduction in summer sea ice in 2007. This was 23% less than the previous record low of 5.6m sq kilometres in 2005, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. New satellite data suggests the ice is much thinner than it used to be. For the first time in existing records, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free in summer 2008. However, the 2008 winter ice extent was near the year long-term average.
Greenland
The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at sea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.
Warmer waters
In 2007, some ice-free areas were as much as 5C warmer than the long-term average. Arctic waters appear to have warmed as a result of the influx of warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic. The loss of reflective, white sea ice also means that more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.
Black carbon
Black carbon, or soot, is emitted from inefficient burning such as in diesel engines or from the burning of crops. It is warming the Arctic by creating a haze which absorbs sunlight, and it is also deposited on snow, darkening the surface and causing more sunlight to be absorbed.
John Vidal in Tromso, Norway
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 13.18 BST
Levels of summer sea ice in the Arctic have drastically reduced since 2005
Extensive climate change is now affecting every form of life in the Arctic, according to a major new assessment by international polar scientists.
In the past four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface waters in the Arctic ocean have warmed and permafrost is in some areas rapidly thawing.
In addition, says the report released today at a Norwegian government seminar, plants and trees are growing more vigorously, snow cover is decreasing 1-2% a year and glaciers are shrinking.
Scientists from Norway, Canada, Russia and the US contributed to the Arctic monitoring and assessment programme (Amap) study, which says new factors such as "black carbon" – soot – ozone and methane may now be contributing to global and arctic warming as much as carbon dioxide.
"Black carbon and ozone in particular have a strong seasonal pattern that makes their impacts particularly important in the Arctic," it says.
The report's main findings are:
Land
Permafrost is warming fast and at its margins thawing. Plants are growing more vigorously and densely. In northern Alaska, temperatures have been rising since the 1970s. In Russia, the tree line has advanced up hills and mountains at 10 metres a year. Nearly all glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels as the water drains to the ocean.
Summer sea ice
The most striking change in the Arctic in recent years has been the reduction in summer sea ice in 2007. This was 23% less than the previous record low of 5.6m sq kilometres in 2005, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. New satellite data suggests the ice is much thinner than it used to be. For the first time in existing records, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free in summer 2008. However, the 2008 winter ice extent was near the year long-term average.
Greenland
The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at sea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.
Warmer waters
In 2007, some ice-free areas were as much as 5C warmer than the long-term average. Arctic waters appear to have warmed as a result of the influx of warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic. The loss of reflective, white sea ice also means that more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.
Black carbon
Black carbon, or soot, is emitted from inefficient burning such as in diesel engines or from the burning of crops. It is warming the Arctic by creating a haze which absorbs sunlight, and it is also deposited on snow, darkening the surface and causing more sunlight to be absorbed.
Green zeal fades
By Fiona Harvey
Published: April 29 2009 03:00
Businesses are losing their enthusiasm for environmental issues, just as the government is ramping up its efforts to combat global warming, a new poll suggests, Fiona Harvey reports .
More than eight in 10 companies think the government's targets of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 are unattainable, according to a survey of 300 UK businesses by RWE npower, the energy company. The poll was carried out before the Budget when ambitious emission cuts were set out.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: April 29 2009 03:00
Businesses are losing their enthusiasm for environmental issues, just as the government is ramping up its efforts to combat global warming, a new poll suggests, Fiona Harvey reports .
More than eight in 10 companies think the government's targets of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 are unattainable, according to a survey of 300 UK businesses by RWE npower, the energy company. The poll was carried out before the Budget when ambitious emission cuts were set out.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Clean coal can avert an energy crisis
Britain has enough coal reserves to last up to 300 years – so let's expand our mining and stop relying on unstable supplies abroad
Peter Lazenby
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 11.30 BST
The debate on the development of "clean" coal technology needs to accept a key point. Britain is already dependent on coal-fired electricity. Use of coal-fired power stations continued despite the devastation of the mining industry after the strike against pit closures of 1984-85, and coal still provides 33% of Britain's electricity.
Britain simply stopped burning British coal and bought coal from overseas. Last year 43m tonnes of coal were imported, mainly from Russia, Poland and Australia.
Yet Britain has enough known coal reserves to meet the nation's needs for 200 to 300 years. Why not mine those reserves – resume and expand major coal mining in Britain, and to hell with reliance on foreign imports?
The need for investment in clean coal technology is paramount, both to end the damage being done by current coal burn and to make expansion of coal use environmentally viable.
First look at the background to Britain's looming energy crisis.For a quarter of a century the National Union of Mineworkers and others hammered home the argument that energy policy (or lack of it) under successive Conservative and Labour governments was driving Britain towards a future dependent on fuel from overseas.
The Thatcher government encouraged the "dash for gas", in which Britain's North Sea gas was burned in enormous quantities to make electricity. Had the gas been saved for domestic and community use – heating homes, hospitals, schools and the like – it would have lasted for centuries.
The result is a Britain dependent on gas supplies that come from, or travel across, some of the most unstable regions in the world.
Britain in the 1980s and 1990s had the most efficient, and safest, deep-mined coal industry in the world. Today it is even more efficient. At Kellingley colliery in Yorkshire, one of the handful of pits still open, 2,000 men used to mine 1m tonnes of coal annually. Today at Kellingley, 500 men produce more than 2m tonnes.
Britain was also making some of the greatest advances in research into clean coal technology. The Tories cost Britain almost two decades of practical research into solving the environmental problems surrounding the burning of coal by closing the coal industry's research centre at Grimethorpe in Yorkshire.
Had that not happened, carbon capture might be at a far more advanced stage of development. But it is not too late. The support of the climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, for a new wave of carbon-capture coal-fired power stations points the way ahead.
Britain should be opening more mines in tandem with rapid and substantial investment in clean coal technology research. About 20 new pits employing collectively 10,000-plus miners could meet current coal needs. More pits could be sunk to increase Britain's independent energy source. Britain could even become an energy exporter.
If the private sector is unwilling or unable to invest, let it be publicly funded. The future of Britain's energy supplies, indeed the country's very survival as an industrial nation, merits that investment.
Peter Lazenby
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 11.30 BST
The debate on the development of "clean" coal technology needs to accept a key point. Britain is already dependent on coal-fired electricity. Use of coal-fired power stations continued despite the devastation of the mining industry after the strike against pit closures of 1984-85, and coal still provides 33% of Britain's electricity.
Britain simply stopped burning British coal and bought coal from overseas. Last year 43m tonnes of coal were imported, mainly from Russia, Poland and Australia.
Yet Britain has enough known coal reserves to meet the nation's needs for 200 to 300 years. Why not mine those reserves – resume and expand major coal mining in Britain, and to hell with reliance on foreign imports?
The need for investment in clean coal technology is paramount, both to end the damage being done by current coal burn and to make expansion of coal use environmentally viable.
First look at the background to Britain's looming energy crisis.For a quarter of a century the National Union of Mineworkers and others hammered home the argument that energy policy (or lack of it) under successive Conservative and Labour governments was driving Britain towards a future dependent on fuel from overseas.
The Thatcher government encouraged the "dash for gas", in which Britain's North Sea gas was burned in enormous quantities to make electricity. Had the gas been saved for domestic and community use – heating homes, hospitals, schools and the like – it would have lasted for centuries.
The result is a Britain dependent on gas supplies that come from, or travel across, some of the most unstable regions in the world.
Britain in the 1980s and 1990s had the most efficient, and safest, deep-mined coal industry in the world. Today it is even more efficient. At Kellingley colliery in Yorkshire, one of the handful of pits still open, 2,000 men used to mine 1m tonnes of coal annually. Today at Kellingley, 500 men produce more than 2m tonnes.
Britain was also making some of the greatest advances in research into clean coal technology. The Tories cost Britain almost two decades of practical research into solving the environmental problems surrounding the burning of coal by closing the coal industry's research centre at Grimethorpe in Yorkshire.
Had that not happened, carbon capture might be at a far more advanced stage of development. But it is not too late. The support of the climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, for a new wave of carbon-capture coal-fired power stations points the way ahead.
Britain should be opening more mines in tandem with rapid and substantial investment in clean coal technology research. About 20 new pits employing collectively 10,000-plus miners could meet current coal needs. More pits could be sunk to increase Britain's independent energy source. Britain could even become an energy exporter.
If the private sector is unwilling or unable to invest, let it be publicly funded. The future of Britain's energy supplies, indeed the country's very survival as an industrial nation, merits that investment.
Economy blows ill wind for renewable energy
Green energy faces setbacks as Shell, BP and others halt renewable projects
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 16.17 BST
This year has not been a good one for renewable energy, despite promises by politicians all round the globe to make it the centrepoint of economic recovery.
Vestas chief executive Ditlev Engel began 2009 by warning that the economic downturn had left it with a 15% excess in global manufacturing capacity – though he was optimistic about Gordon Brown's promises to create thousands of new jobs in Britain and China's pledge to invest $70bn (£58bn) on electricity grid connections.
A year-long study for the department for energy and climate change worked out that another 5,000-7,000 wind turbines could be built off the coast of Britain by 2020, generating 25GW of energy, equivalent to 25 large coal-fired power stations. The new capacity would be on top of 8GW already being built or in planning, making a total of 33GW.
Analysts at Goldman Sachs, however, were already warning that "the most important theme in 2009 within the alternative energy space will be a move from severe under-supply to one of at least a more balanced market and potentially serious oversupply."
The first big hurdle for wind cropped up in March, with oil company Shell pulling out of wind, solar and hydro power because it felt they were not economic. It said it would concentrate instead on cleaner ways of using fossil fuels, such as carbon capture and sequestration technology.
BP cut 620 jobs at its solar division, Siemens cut 400 jobs from its wind operations in Denmark and Iberdrola, owner of ScottishPower, cut investment in renewables by almost half so far this year.
A month later, developers of the London Array, a project to build the world's largest offshore wind farm in the Thames estuary, approached the European Investment Bank for a bailout, putting the future of the project in doubt.
This week the Guardian revealed that one of the country's most efficient wind farms, at Haverigg in Cumbria, could be dismantled to make way for a new nuclear power station.
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 16.17 BST
This year has not been a good one for renewable energy, despite promises by politicians all round the globe to make it the centrepoint of economic recovery.
Vestas chief executive Ditlev Engel began 2009 by warning that the economic downturn had left it with a 15% excess in global manufacturing capacity – though he was optimistic about Gordon Brown's promises to create thousands of new jobs in Britain and China's pledge to invest $70bn (£58bn) on electricity grid connections.
A year-long study for the department for energy and climate change worked out that another 5,000-7,000 wind turbines could be built off the coast of Britain by 2020, generating 25GW of energy, equivalent to 25 large coal-fired power stations. The new capacity would be on top of 8GW already being built or in planning, making a total of 33GW.
Analysts at Goldman Sachs, however, were already warning that "the most important theme in 2009 within the alternative energy space will be a move from severe under-supply to one of at least a more balanced market and potentially serious oversupply."
The first big hurdle for wind cropped up in March, with oil company Shell pulling out of wind, solar and hydro power because it felt they were not economic. It said it would concentrate instead on cleaner ways of using fossil fuels, such as carbon capture and sequestration technology.
BP cut 620 jobs at its solar division, Siemens cut 400 jobs from its wind operations in Denmark and Iberdrola, owner of ScottishPower, cut investment in renewables by almost half so far this year.
A month later, developers of the London Array, a project to build the world's largest offshore wind farm in the Thames estuary, approached the European Investment Bank for a bailout, putting the future of the project in doubt.
This week the Guardian revealed that one of the country's most efficient wind farms, at Haverigg in Cumbria, could be dismantled to make way for a new nuclear power station.
Closure of turbine factory takes the wind out of Britain's low-carbon sails
• Environment Company boss blames 'nimbys' for sales slump• Budget measures seen as last glimmer of hope
Tim Webb
The Guardian, Wednesday 29 April 2009
Britain's only wind turbine manufacturing plant is to close, dealing a humiliating blow to the government's promise to support low-carbon industries.
Vestas, the world's biggest wind energy group, said yesterday it would close its Isle of Wight plant, which employs about 600 people and makes blades for windfarms in the US.
Announcing the move, the boss of the Danish company delivered a scathing attack on "nimbys" and the planning system, blaming them for holding up projects and causing paralysis in the industry. The company also pointed to "a lack of political initiatives [to support the wind industry]" and the weak pound. "It is extremely time-consuming and extremely complicated. Some of our developers, customers, will tell you it is so difficult. In the UK nimbyism is a huge challenge," Ditlev Engel told the Guardian.
The group had planned to convert the factory in Newport in June to make blades for the British market, but said yesterday that orders had ground to a halt. The low demand could not justify the investment, Engel said.
He said the group would consult workers for the next two to three months, and investment in the plant may still go ahead if orders picked up soon.
Engel said last week's budget, which increased subsidies available for offshore windfarms, as well as recent moves to free up the sluggish planning process, could boost the industry but it was too early to say whether orders would pick up enough to rescue the plant.
"The government has tried to improve the situation," he said. "Whether it's enough I don't know."
But the company's financial statement for the first quarter, released yesterday, blamed the credit crunch, a depreciation of sterling and "a lack of political initiatives" for the planned job losses.
The TUC called on the government to do more to protect "green jobs and skills". The union body's general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: "The loss of these jobs on the Isle of Wight would not only be a blow to the emerging green sector, but would also be a personal tragedy for the hundreds of workers affected locally."
Engel admitted that if Vestas makes its workers redundant it would be harder to reopen the plant if orders pick up, because it would have to find a new skilled workforce.
Vestas is also cutting just under 1,300 workers in Denmark. The group, which after the cuts will employ about 20,000 people worldwide, reported yesterday that profits had more than doubled in the first quarter of the year, to €76m (£68m). While scaling back operations in Britain and Denmark, Vestas said it was expanding manufacturing in the US and China where it said demand was higher.
In early March, Gordon Brown convened a low-carbon industrial summit aimed at finding ways to help the sector's manufacturers lead Britain out of recession. Vestas representatives attended.
Engel said the group was in "constant dialogue" with the government and had informed it of yesterday's move. He admitted that no aid or assistance had been offered by the government to try to save the plant. But he reserved his fiercest criticism for local politicians and "nimbys" who he said were holding up projects, particularly onshore, giving Britain one of the lengthiest planning processes for windfarms anywhere in the world.
"Since last summer, the order intake in the UK market has dropped significantly. Therefore it would be very difficult to substantiate the investment as we had already planned.
"The UK has large wind resources and it's a priority for the government but the orders didn't move. That's why we're telling employees that we're not reinvesting there.
"We are waiting to see in the coming period if the government initiative announced last week will get the market to move again. At least it gives some hope but it's too early to tell."
Engel said the weakness of the pound had also had an effect, making it more expensive to build windfarms in Britain, but the main problem lay in planning applications.
"People talk about big offshore parks. Why not put in onshore parks? The cost of installation is half compared to offshore."
The Isle of Wight facility will stop making blades in June. The R&D department, which employs about 150 people, will remain open.
Tim Webb
The Guardian, Wednesday 29 April 2009
Britain's only wind turbine manufacturing plant is to close, dealing a humiliating blow to the government's promise to support low-carbon industries.
Vestas, the world's biggest wind energy group, said yesterday it would close its Isle of Wight plant, which employs about 600 people and makes blades for windfarms in the US.
Announcing the move, the boss of the Danish company delivered a scathing attack on "nimbys" and the planning system, blaming them for holding up projects and causing paralysis in the industry. The company also pointed to "a lack of political initiatives [to support the wind industry]" and the weak pound. "It is extremely time-consuming and extremely complicated. Some of our developers, customers, will tell you it is so difficult. In the UK nimbyism is a huge challenge," Ditlev Engel told the Guardian.
The group had planned to convert the factory in Newport in June to make blades for the British market, but said yesterday that orders had ground to a halt. The low demand could not justify the investment, Engel said.
He said the group would consult workers for the next two to three months, and investment in the plant may still go ahead if orders picked up soon.
Engel said last week's budget, which increased subsidies available for offshore windfarms, as well as recent moves to free up the sluggish planning process, could boost the industry but it was too early to say whether orders would pick up enough to rescue the plant.
"The government has tried to improve the situation," he said. "Whether it's enough I don't know."
But the company's financial statement for the first quarter, released yesterday, blamed the credit crunch, a depreciation of sterling and "a lack of political initiatives" for the planned job losses.
The TUC called on the government to do more to protect "green jobs and skills". The union body's general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: "The loss of these jobs on the Isle of Wight would not only be a blow to the emerging green sector, but would also be a personal tragedy for the hundreds of workers affected locally."
Engel admitted that if Vestas makes its workers redundant it would be harder to reopen the plant if orders pick up, because it would have to find a new skilled workforce.
Vestas is also cutting just under 1,300 workers in Denmark. The group, which after the cuts will employ about 20,000 people worldwide, reported yesterday that profits had more than doubled in the first quarter of the year, to €76m (£68m). While scaling back operations in Britain and Denmark, Vestas said it was expanding manufacturing in the US and China where it said demand was higher.
In early March, Gordon Brown convened a low-carbon industrial summit aimed at finding ways to help the sector's manufacturers lead Britain out of recession. Vestas representatives attended.
Engel said the group was in "constant dialogue" with the government and had informed it of yesterday's move. He admitted that no aid or assistance had been offered by the government to try to save the plant. But he reserved his fiercest criticism for local politicians and "nimbys" who he said were holding up projects, particularly onshore, giving Britain one of the lengthiest planning processes for windfarms anywhere in the world.
"Since last summer, the order intake in the UK market has dropped significantly. Therefore it would be very difficult to substantiate the investment as we had already planned.
"The UK has large wind resources and it's a priority for the government but the orders didn't move. That's why we're telling employees that we're not reinvesting there.
"We are waiting to see in the coming period if the government initiative announced last week will get the market to move again. At least it gives some hope but it's too early to tell."
Engel said the weakness of the pound had also had an effect, making it more expensive to build windfarms in Britain, but the main problem lay in planning applications.
"People talk about big offshore parks. Why not put in onshore parks? The cost of installation is half compared to offshore."
The Isle of Wight facility will stop making blades in June. The R&D department, which employs about 150 people, will remain open.
Wind turbine maker to axe 600 jobs
By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
Published: April 29 2009 03:16
One of the biggest renewable energy manufacturers in Britain announced on Tuesday it is to cut more than half its UK jobs – blaming the government for failing to support the sector.
In a grave blow to the government’s ambitions to create a “green” export industry, Vestas, the world’s biggest maker of wind turbines, will axe about 600 of its 1,100 UK employees, probably closing its factory in the Isle of Wight and cutting jobs elsewhere in the UK.
Ditlev Engel, chief executive of Vestas, told the Financial Times: “We had been planning additional investment in the UK [because of government targets to increase renewables]. But the UK is probably one of the most difficult places in the world to get permission [for wind projects]. We can’t afford to keep on this capacity.”
The blow comes less than a week after Alistair Darling trumpeted the role of low-carbon industries in job creation, announcing new funding for renewables in his Budget.
Mr Engel said the cuts were not the result of the recession – the company’s order book had recovered and he predicted 20 per cent growth in 2009. The reason was rather the inability of the government to deliver the conditions needed for renewables growth.
“There are two sets of politicians, Whitehall politicians and local politicians,” Mr Engel said. While the former group encourages renewables, which bring new jobs, local politicians tend to oppose wind farms, meaning few are built.
Green zeal fades
Businesses are losing their enthusiasm for environmental issues, just as the government is ramping up its efforts to combat global warming, a new poll suggests.
More than eight in 10 companies think the government’s targets of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 are unattainable, according to a survey of 300 UK businesses by RWE Npower, the energy company. The poll was carried out before the Budget when ambitious emission cuts were set out.
Exchange rates, which have made imports of wind turbine components from Europe more expensive, also played a part in Vestas’ decision, Mr Engel said. “The UK currency has dropped significantly against the euro, which has made things difficult.”
But the main reason, he said, was the problem with building renewable energy in the UK. Although the UK has the best wind resource and the most generous subsidy system in Europe – paid for by electricity consumers – it has failed to generate the volumes of electricity necessary to meet European Union targets, which will require 35-40 per cent of electricity to come from renewables by 2020, against about 5 per cent today.
Mike O’Brien, minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, sought to play down the significance of the job cuts. He said: “It’s clear that Vestas recognises the potential of the UK wind market. Measures set out in the Budget will offer renewed support to the wind industry and help move potential projects towards construction, which could mean more business for Vestas.”
He said the government would be offering support to those affected by the redundancies.
But, making clear that he believed Vestas would continue to retain a production base in the UK, he added: “Vestas have indicated the steps we have taken [in the Budget] will have a positive influence on the possibility of them producing blades in the UK.”
Blades are the single component of turbines that Vestas makes in the UK. Other parts are imported.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: April 29 2009 03:16
One of the biggest renewable energy manufacturers in Britain announced on Tuesday it is to cut more than half its UK jobs – blaming the government for failing to support the sector.
In a grave blow to the government’s ambitions to create a “green” export industry, Vestas, the world’s biggest maker of wind turbines, will axe about 600 of its 1,100 UK employees, probably closing its factory in the Isle of Wight and cutting jobs elsewhere in the UK.
Ditlev Engel, chief executive of Vestas, told the Financial Times: “We had been planning additional investment in the UK [because of government targets to increase renewables]. But the UK is probably one of the most difficult places in the world to get permission [for wind projects]. We can’t afford to keep on this capacity.”
The blow comes less than a week after Alistair Darling trumpeted the role of low-carbon industries in job creation, announcing new funding for renewables in his Budget.
Mr Engel said the cuts were not the result of the recession – the company’s order book had recovered and he predicted 20 per cent growth in 2009. The reason was rather the inability of the government to deliver the conditions needed for renewables growth.
“There are two sets of politicians, Whitehall politicians and local politicians,” Mr Engel said. While the former group encourages renewables, which bring new jobs, local politicians tend to oppose wind farms, meaning few are built.
Green zeal fades
Businesses are losing their enthusiasm for environmental issues, just as the government is ramping up its efforts to combat global warming, a new poll suggests.
More than eight in 10 companies think the government’s targets of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 are unattainable, according to a survey of 300 UK businesses by RWE Npower, the energy company. The poll was carried out before the Budget when ambitious emission cuts were set out.
Exchange rates, which have made imports of wind turbine components from Europe more expensive, also played a part in Vestas’ decision, Mr Engel said. “The UK currency has dropped significantly against the euro, which has made things difficult.”
But the main reason, he said, was the problem with building renewable energy in the UK. Although the UK has the best wind resource and the most generous subsidy system in Europe – paid for by electricity consumers – it has failed to generate the volumes of electricity necessary to meet European Union targets, which will require 35-40 per cent of electricity to come from renewables by 2020, against about 5 per cent today.
Mike O’Brien, minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, sought to play down the significance of the job cuts. He said: “It’s clear that Vestas recognises the potential of the UK wind market. Measures set out in the Budget will offer renewed support to the wind industry and help move potential projects towards construction, which could mean more business for Vestas.”
He said the government would be offering support to those affected by the redundancies.
But, making clear that he believed Vestas would continue to retain a production base in the UK, he added: “Vestas have indicated the steps we have taken [in the Budget] will have a positive influence on the possibility of them producing blades in the UK.”
Blades are the single component of turbines that Vestas makes in the UK. Other parts are imported.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
