Monday, 8 June 2009

Gocycle: an electric commuter bike fit for James Bond



With a threatened tube strike set to paralyse London for two days this week many people will be looking for alternative ways to get to work. I've stumbled across Richard Thorpe's British-made GoCycle, which could well do for bicycles what Sir James Dyson has done for washing machines.

By Richard Tyler Published: 5:51PM BST 07 Jun 2009

The result is a stunningly attractive set of wheels, that is portable, assembles easily will motor along at up to 15mph
Thorpe, a former McLaren design engineer with a specialist knowledge of carbon-fibre composite components, has taken what he learnt making supercars and applied them to – a bike for commuters. The result is a stunningly attractive set of wheels, that is portable, assembles easily and, at the press of a James Bond-like button, will motor along at up to 15mph.
Carbon fibre is too expensive for the mass market, so Thorpe used a new technique of injection moulding magnesium called Thixomoulding, more commonly used for mobile phone and laptop casings.

The innovation cut the GoCycle cost to a fifth of the carbon-fibre equivalent but meant he had to invest in bespoke robotic tooling and conduct a global search for investors (successful), strategic partners (fruitless so far) and suppliers (successful).
The first few thousand bikes have now been produced by two companies in Britain and the initial reception has been positive – the GoCycle ranked in the top five new products in April's Gadget Show.
The price is steep at £1,158 online, but Thorpe's company, Karbon Kinetics Limited, has set up a government-approved tax-free "cycle to work scheme", which lowers the price to £599 – if you can get your employer to sign up.
http://www.gocycle.com/

Todd Stern to press China on climate change in run-up to Copenhagen

The Times
June 8, 2009
Tim Reid in Washington

America’s leading climate change negotiator will urge China to make a commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions during meetings in Beijing this week, as the US seeks to avoid the collapse of the next global warming treaty.
Todd Stern and a number of the Obama Administration’s senior climate experts travelling with him are intent on boosting co-operation between the US and China to convince developing countries to back a new global climate treaty due to be approved in Copenhagen in December. More than 180 nations are working to endorse a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Mr Stern travelled to Beijing with the White House science adviser John Holdren and David Sandalow, the Assistant Energy Secretary. Last week Mr Stern said that he did not expect a written agreement from the trip, but he wanted the visit to help to set the tone with the developing world.
Together, China and the US are responsible for 40 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. China’s contribution has skyrocketed in the past two decades and is expected to be twice that of the US by 2030.

During a visit to China last month, John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that “Copenhagen will be defined by what the US and China agree on in the next few weeks”.
China has avoided setting targets or timetables for limiting emissions, but it has some of the most stringent vehicle emission standards in the world and is investing heavily in alternative and renewable energy sources. In the past decade, it has become the world’s largest generator of wind energy. The US Congress is looking at legislation to cut emissions by 17 per cent, from 2005 levels, by 2020 — but Mr Stern said that such action by the US would be futile without firm commitments from China.

U.S. Foresees a Thinner Cushion of Coal





Every year, federal employee George Warholic calculates America's vast coal reserves the same way his predecessors have for decades: He looks up the prior year's coal-reserve estimate, subtracts the year's nationwide production and arrives at a new official tally.
Coal provides nearly one-quarter of the total energy consumed in the U.S., and by Mr. Warholic's estimate, the country has enough in the ground to last about 240 years. A belief in this nearly boundless supply has led officials to dub the U.S. the "Saudi Arabia of Coal."
But the estimate, recent findings show, may be wildly overconfident.
New Outlook for Coal Production?
As coal extraction becomes more difficult and expensive, recent studies are questioning government estimates of the U.S. supply of coal.

While there is almost certainly as much coal in the ground as Mr. Warholic's Energy Information Administration believes, relatively little of it can be profitably extracted. Last year, the U.S. Geological Survey completed an extensive analysis of Wyoming's Gillette coal field, the nation's largest and most productive, and determined that less than 6% of the coal in its biggest beds could be mined profitably, even at prices higher than today's.
"We really can't say we're the Saudi Arabia of coal anymore," says Brenda Pierce, head of the USGS team that conducted the study.
No one says the U.S. is facing a coal shortage. But the emerging ranks of "peak coal" theorists argue that current production levels may be unsustainable and, if anything, create a false sense of security. David Rutledge, an electrical-engineering professor at the California Institute of Technology who has studied global coal production, figures the U.S. has about half as much recoverable reserves as the government says, which would work out to about 120 years' worth.
The Energy Information Administration, part of the Department of Energy, says it is reassessing its coal tally in light of the new Geological Survey data. It intends to create a new coal baseline from which it will begin its annual subtraction "as soon as we can," says William Watson, a member of the energy analysis team at EIA in Washington, D.C.

In the field, challenges are becoming more apparent. Mining companies report they have to dig deeper and move more earth to extract coal from aging mines, driving up costs. Utilities have grown skittish about whether suppliers can ship promised coal on time. American Electric Power Co., the nation's biggest coal buyer, says it has stepped up its due diligence to make sure its suppliers can make deliveries after some firms missed shipments last fall. It even bought a mine to lock down supplies.
"We are very much concerned, and it's getting worse," said Tim Light, senior vice president for AEP.
Coal mines began appearing in America in the early 1740s in Virginia. A century later, as the nation's railroads branched out, coal provided fuel for steamships on the Mississippi and blast furnaces that made steel. The U.S. came to rely on abundant coal to generate electricity, too. About half of the electric power in the U.S. still is produced by coal combustion, more than in most other industrialized nations.
The country's coal supplies have been seen as a bulwark of energy security. In 1979, as the U.S. was reeling from an oil shock, President Jimmy Carter pushed for projects to create liquefied gas from America's vast coal reserves. Today the U.S. produces 1.1 billion tons of coal annually, more than any nation but China.
Concerns about supplies are out of the spotlight now, masked by what could be a short-term lull in the appetite for coal.
Recession has reduced demand from the two biggest users of coal, electricity producers and steelmakers. A proposed law capping greenhouse-gas emissions could make coal-generated electricity -- currently one of the cheapest power sources -- significantly more expensive. At the same time, the country has found itself awash in cleaner-burning natural gas after recent big discoveries, prompting some power companies to pull the plug on proposed coal plants and shift toward gas-fueled power generation.
Experts expect coal production to drop this year by 5% to 10%, or as much as 100 million tons. Prices for coal from Wyoming's Powder River Basin are down nearly 30% from a year ago, to about $8.50 a ton. (Prices of Eastern coal, which burns hotter and typically doesn't have to be transported as far to customers, have also fallen.)
Coal is down but hardly out. It remains the electric-power industry's dominant fuel. Emerging "clean coal" technology could help improve coal's environmental profile. And coal remains an energy ace in the hole, available to substitute for other fuels if shipments are disrupted.

Some in the coal industry believe concerns about future supplies are overblown. Coal advocates argue that improved technology could increase the amount of coal that can be extracted profitably. Coal "is certain to remain an enormously competitive energy resource by virtually any conceivable measure," says Kim Link, spokeswoman for Arch Coal Inc., which produced about 12% of the nation's coal last year.
The U.S. isn't the only nation employing improved drilling data and computer modeling to reassess its supplies. Germany cut its proven hard-coal reserve estimates by more than 99% in 2004 as it explored reducing mining subsidies, which would make coal more expensive to extract. Overall, assessments of total world reserves dropped by half from 1980 to 2005, according to a study by Energy Watch Group, an independent group based in Germany.
The U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of the Interior's science agency, attempted to get a clearer picture of the nation's coal supplies beginning in 2004. Its full study of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana will be completed next year.
The agency began with the Powder River's rich Gillette coal field, an 80-mile-long strip in northeastern Wyoming that contains the nation's 10 top-producing mines. About one-third of all coal in the country is produced there. Some 1.2 million short tons leave the field daily, a river of coal filling more than 75 trains of 125 to 150 cars each.
For the Gillette study, USGS engineers, geologists and economists spent three years analyzing data from 10,200 drill holes, the most comprehensive study ever attempted of the region. The team concluded there are 201 billion short tons of coal in the Gillette field. Environmental rules and physical challenges put much of that out of reach, leaving what they figured were 77 billion short tons of recoverable coal.
Little is presently worth mining. Analyzing coal beds that contained 82% of the Gillette deposits, the team determined that with coal selling for $10.50 a ton, the prevailing price two years ago, less than 6% of the coal could be extracted profitably enough to leave mining companies an 8% rate of return.
If Powder River prices were to hit $60 a ton in current dollars, as much as 47% could be extracted. But at that price, coal would have a tough time competing with other fuels and technologies.
By adding an economic component, the study broke ground. Jim Luppens, an industry veteran who is now chief of the coal-assessment project for USGS, says policy makers often confuse the total coal resource -- which he describes as the "blood, guts and feathers" number -- with coal reserves, which he likens to the edible meat. "They mix up the R-words," he says.
The findings are percolating through the coal and power industries. "USGS made a leap forward with this study," says Vic Svec, spokesman for Peabody Energy Resources, the U.S.'s biggest coal company. He adds that when his company plugs in prices as the USGS study did, it reaches similar conclusions.
Modern estimates of the U.S. coal resource began in 1907, with field geologists reporting on outcroppings -- places where coal stuck out of the ground -- and mines. Based on consumption at the time, the USGS concluded there were three trillion tons of coal, enough to last 5,000 years. By the 1950s, armed with more mining data, the USGS and the now-defunct U.S. Bureau of Mines reduced their estimate of the total resource to 500 billion tons.
The federal method for calculating U.S. coal reserves has changed little in 35 years. In 1974, the Bureau of Mines established a baseline reserve level, considered good for its era. Each year since, the government -- currently, the DOE's Energy Information Administration -- has subtracted each coal region's production and mine waste to get a new estimate of what's left in the ground.
In 2007, the EIA said the U.S. had a "demonstrated reserve base" of nearly 500 billion tons of coal. It regarded 267 million tons of that as "economically recoverable," enough for 240 years.
Even Mr. Warholic, the EIA analyst, says he's skeptical about the results. "It's kind of crazy" to postulate how long U.S. reserves will last, he says. "It could be 110 years or 225 years or something completely different. It all depends on your assumptions."
After many decades of mining, some of the country's coal fields are showing their age. "What's left to mine is not as easy as what we mined even 10 or 20 years ago," says Janine Orf, spokeswoman for Patriot Coal Corp. in St. Louis. "The seams are getting thinner and there are more limestone intrusions."
Even at the Gillette field, where surface mining started around 1924 and production still is buoyant, obstacles are emerging.
Coal at its Gillette's eastern edge lies mostly close to the surface but the seams generally slope downward in a westerly direction, forcing miners to dig progressively deeper to extract it. At Arch Coal's Black Thunder mine, five pits are moving westward and will intersect the main Burlington Northern-Santa Fe railroad line at some point. Arch then will have to move heavy equipment to the other side of the tracks and dig a new pit down several hundred feet, which it says could cost $100 million or more.
Coal's big buyer, the power industry, has grown increasingly nervous about securing reliable suppliers for power plants that often have a useful life of 50 or 60 years. Plants fine-tune their equipment to burn the coal they expect to receive and to remove its particular pollutants from the waste stream. That makes it problematic to switch suppliers.
Last fall, production problems caused some coal producers in the East to struggle to fulfill contracts. Utility executives say the delays were a wake-up call.
American Electric Power has 9,100 railroad cars and 2,480 river barges dedicated to keeping its power plants furnished with coal. In May, AEP, together with a partner, Cleco Corp., bought a coal mine in Louisiana after a coal source faltered that had been furnishing fuel to a power plant they own together.
Buying the mine outright, says AEP's Mr. Light, was the best way to understand -- and control -- how much coal the power company could expect to receive. "We don't know what the future holds," he said.
Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com

Energy Audits Vex Austin's Home Sellers

By TOM BENNING

The city of Austin, Texas, has begun requiring homeowners to conduct energy-efficiency audits before they can sell their house, a move it says provides a model for cities and states seeking ways to push energy conservation.
With its new law effective last week, Austin joined at least two other U.S. cities -- San Francisco and Berkeley, Calif. -- that require the audits, which can include a review of a home's air-conditioning and heating systems, insulation and air-tightness, and generally cost owners from $200 to $300.

Municipalities across the country are forging policies to encourage more energy-efficient buildings, particularly in new construction. Voluntary energy audits are increasing, too, often as part of government-subsidized "green" renovation programs that are expected to grab a chunk of a $3.2 billion federal stimulus grant devoted to energy conservation.
Austin Mayor Will Wynn expects the audit program to be a hot topic at the U.S. Conference of Mayors next week. The Canadian province of Ontario passed a law in May requiring home sellers to obtain an energy audit, but regulations have yet to be written. City leaders in San Antonio are closely following Austin's experience with its new law and plan to consider a policy on energy audits.
The Austin ordinance requires residents selling single-family homes more than 10 years old to obtain an audit and provide the information to potential buyers. While San Francisco and Berkeley, where audits became mandatory in the 1980s, require owners to make recommended upgrades, Austin doesn't. The Austin Board of Realtors agreed to support the audits after that provision was removed.
Critics of the measure, including homeowners and real-estate professionals, worry that listing all a home's energy-related flaws could drive down prices and even sabotage some sales. The number of homes sold in April was down 18% from the same month last year, according to the Austin Board of Realtors.
Sellers who refuse the audit are subject to being charged with a misdemeanor, a penalty some home sellers and real-estate agents call excessive. Austin city councilman Mike Martinez said the criminal tag shows the city is serious.
Angela Whitaker-Williams, a designer for an architecture firm, plans to list her 2,400-square-foot, 47-year-old home for $319,000 later this month. Her audit recommended doubling the amount of attic insulation, recaulking around plumbing pipes and fixtures and resealing the duct system to reduce a 19% air leakage -- improvements that could cost as much as $1,800 before rebates, experts said.
Ms. Whitaker-Williams is dismayed by the thought that a buyer might use the audit to try to negotiate a lower price, especially because the new law doesn't require buyers to follow through with improvements.
"If a buyer wants $20,000 knocked off the price for energy upgrades, would I do it? In this market, I might have to," she said.
Nate Kredich, who runs the U.S. Green Building Council's residential development program, said the Austin audits will be a trial run for other municipalities evaluating energy-efficiency policies.
The National Association of Realtors said it opposes government-mandated energy efficiency for homeowners and supports an incentive-based approach. Austin Energy, the city-owned utility, offers rebates and low-interest loans to homeowners who make energy-efficient upgrades.
City leaders say the required audits would help keep Austin from having to build a 700-megawatt power plant by 2020 by alerting residents to energy- and money-saving options.
In more than 300 audits already completed, Austin Energy found that, on average, homes had duct systems that leaked more than double what was recommended and attic insulation that was six inches thinner than ideal, said spokesman Ed Clark.
Bill Lanfer, chief executive of Avalar Austin Real Estate, said some sellers are confused about the differences between a home inspection and an energy audit. With a pre-inspection of her home already in hand, Austin art dealer Susan Sklar was surprised to learn she needed an energy audit to sell her 2,500-square foot home after June 1. Listed at $290,000, it was already receiving little interest from buyers. Ms. Sklar complied but not happily.
"Could they do anything else to make it harder to sell a house?" she said.
Write to Tom Benning at tom.benning@wsj.com

Film about overfishing launched

Conservationists have urged consumers to watch the first major film about overfishing.

Published: 12:01AM BST 08 Jun 2009

The End of the Line will be premiered at cinemas across the country in time for World Ocean Day today (Monday June 8th).
The film depicts the plight of species such as bluefin tuna, which is in danger of dying out. Already it has prompted celebrities including model Elle Macpherson and actor Stephen Fry to condemn restaurants like Nobu for continuing to serve the fish.

Closer to home, the film claims 88 per cent of EU stocks are overfished.
The Marine Conservation Society (MCS) said individuals can help reverse the decline by only eating fish that is sourced from sustainable fisheries. The charity have a pocketbook guide that people can easily carry in their wallets or information online.
Dr Simon Brockington, MCS Director, said consumers must take responsibility for the future of the oceans.
“In the UK the fisheries industry has taken big steps towards improving sustainability. However there is still more to be done, and everyone has a part to play – especially the seafood consumer,” he said.
Dr Brockington is also calling for a network or marine reserves to help recover “exhausted seas” as part of the Marine Bill that is currently going through Parliament.
“We now urgently need to safeguard our special places – protection of our seas and the wonderful life they support does go hand in hand with better stewardship of its resources. Our seas have taken a battering over the last century, but they may be amazingly forgiving,” he said. “By offering much needed protection to important areas of our seas now, we could still ensure a diverse and productive future”.
However Seafish, that represents the fishing industry in the UK, said consumers believe fishing is a vital part fo the economy.
John Rutherford, Seafish Chief Executive, said a recent survey showed many people are concerned about food security and believe fishing is key.
“The British public are rightly concerned that this nation must retain the ability to catch, process and distribute seafood products – not just for the economic benefits, but also to ensure that we can provide food for ourselves as the world’s population rises and demand for all foodstuffs, including seafood, grows higher.”

Sunday, 7 June 2009

Pret A Manger will no longer be selling tuna

The Sunday Times
June 7, 2009
Co-founder removes tuna and cucumber sandwiches from stores after being shocked by environmental film The End of the Line

The tuna fish sandwich will disappear from the shelves of a high street food outlet because the chain’s boss was horrified by a film outlining the dangers of intensive fishing methods.
Pret A Manger’s co-founder Julian Metcalfe has removed tuna and cucumber sandwiches from the 190 Pret stores across the UK.
The entrepreneur, who launched the sandwich chain 23 years ago, is making the protest after seeing the hard-hitting environmental documentary The End of the Line. Inspired by a book written by the journalist Charles Clover, the film charts the plight of the bluefin tuna and describes how modern fishing is destroying the oceans’ ecosystems.
Metcalfe told the film’s producers: “Much as a result of your film, we took tuna out of Pret sushi entirely. No tuna in the box at all . . . so more in the sea, where they belong.”
He added: “We no longer sell the tuna and cucumber sandwiches at Pret. We do sell the Alaskan salmon, which is sustainable.”
Pret prides itself on an enlightened image. The chain actively helps homeless charities by distributing unsold food to the needy, supports social centres for underprivileged youth and concentrates
on selling sustainable ingredients.
Sales of bluefin tuna, a fish which conservationists claim is now as endangered as the panda and the tiger, have landed celebrity restaurant Nobu in trouble with its upmarket clientele.
The campaign against the London restaurant’s refusal to remove the endangered species from its menu has attracted widespread celebrity support. Greta Scacchi, star of White Mischief, is one of several stars who have posed naked with fish. She said: “I had my photograph taken with a dead cod. The point I was making is that it came from sustainable stocks.”

Bottle vs tap grudge match hots up

The Sunday Times
June 7, 2009

Sick of being accused of harming the environment, the bottled-water companies are fighting back with campaigns attacking tap water

Danny Fortson

Hildon is one of the poshest bottled waters. Captured at its source under the chalk hills of Hampshire, it isn’t sold in supermarkets, only at upmarket venues such as the Savoy, Royal Opera House and the House of Commons.
Yet last month Hildon lost its cool and took a 20-page trade magazine advertisement attacking tap water. On one page under the headline “Is it safe?” it wrote: “Cancer drugs found in tap water”, adding further down: “Is there anything else they are not telling us?”
Some thought is was over the top. Sue Pennison at the Drinking Water Inspectorate described the ad as “scare-mongering”. “If they have concerns, they should bring them to us,” she said.
Hildon’s outburst may have been extreme but it is not isolated – the bottled-water industry is under siege. Environmentalists have been saying for years that the £1.5 billion-a-year business is an eco-catastrophe, creating millions of tonnes of emissions and plastic to contain, transport and sell something that flows freely out of the tap. Phil Woolas, a former environment minister, has labelled it “immoral”.

Yet for decades sales rose, providing billions in revenue for the drinks industry. Now that has gone into reverse. At the end of March bottled-water sales in the UK were down 12% on the year, according to TNS Worldpanel, the research firm. Since 2006, sales have fallen more than 18%.
This has stirred the industry into action. Last autumn, Britain’s biggest water bottlers launched the clinical-sounding Natural Hydration Council (NHC). Backed by Highland Spring, Danone UK, Evian, Buxton and NestlĂ© among others – but not Hildon – the NHC was created to give a “dedicated voice to the bottled-water industry”, according to director Jeremy Clarke.
“There has been a lot of criticism and chatter that has been unchallenged. The debate is misguided, emotive, subjective and misses the point,” he said.
So how does he propose to rehabilitate an industry that is sliding? By “reshaping the debate”, he said.
When criticism first arose, companies lashed out at tap water. They pointed out that, unlike their pure water from natural sources, tap water is loaded with chlorine, fluoride and other chemicals to make it drinkable. There were mentions of septic tanks and the tap-water industry’s poor record on leakage. Indeed, it loses more water through leaky pipes in one day than the bottlers produce in a year.
But bottled water seems to have lost that battle. Sales have continued to fall. Part of it is economic. A litre of bottled water, about £1 or so, costs about 500 times more than water from the tap. That’s a hard sell in tough times.
So Clarke is attempting to pull off a heroic rebranding. Bottled water and tap water are, he said, entirely different. Instead of looking at its merits relative to tap water, bottled water should be compared with fizzy drinks and juices. “This is the comparator group. In that context bottled water is the greenest, healthiest drink on the shelf,” he said. “It’s wrong to compare bottled water with tap water.”
The NHC recently launched a nationwide ad campaign to spread the message. It portrays bottled water as everything from an aid to dental hygiene and antiobesity elixir to an aid to brain function – “Your brain is about 85% water, so it’s not surprising that it’s one of the parts of your body that’s most sensitive to dehydration,” said one ad.
Jane Griffin, former nutritionist to the British Olympic Association, has been drafted in to cajole us into more “natural hydration”.
Clarke needs to be careful when attacking sugary drinks. Nestlé and Danone, after all, make many of the sugary drinks the NHC blames for rising obesity and bad teeth.
Reed Paget at Belu Water, a nonprofit bottled-water group, said the industry was merely tinkering round the edges when what was necessary was a fundamental shake-up.
“It’s like the oil industry saying there is no climate change and hiring PR agencies to confuse the public. What we need is a concerted effort to invest in better practices.”
It is true that bottled water generates a fraction of the emissions that come from juices or fizzy drinks. A litre of bottled water leads to the creation of about 165g of greenhouse gases. That’s about a third of those created for a bottle of fizzy drinks and an eighth of those from juice. Yet compared with tap water, bottled water produces nearly 400 times more carbon dioxide per litre.
And of the 13 billion plastic bottles of all types sold in Britain last year, only about a third were recycled. This means that billions of new ones, made primarily from petroleum feedstocks, are made each year and then dumped in landfill sites or incinerated.
Clarke argues that there simply aren’t enough recycled bottles to provide for the bottled-water industry. “We would like to get to 100% recycling but there is just not the security of supply. It’s something we need to get better at,” he said.
Belu has come up with a compostable bottle derived from corn. Paget said that if the bottled-water industry was serious about going green it should follow suit. “They cost more, which is why they haven’t been introduced.”
Safety is another concern.
Hildon, in its ad in Caterer and Hotelkeeper, the hospitality industry’s trade magazine, highlighted a case last year in which Anglian Water imposed a “boil water notice” after 22 people fell ill in Northamptonshire due to traces in tap water of cryptosporidium, a parasite that can cause gastroenteritis.
Pennison at the Drinking Water Inspectorate said Britain’s water system was among the best in the world and that 99.96% of drinking water supplies met minimum standards. Most of the other 0.04% was down to aesthetics, she said, where a burst main might cause some discoloration. Nobody has died from drinking bad water in Britain in modern times, she said.
Ironically, one winner from the spat appears to be the fizzy-drinks industry. Supermarket sales of colas have risen 4.5% in the past year, according to TNS.
Clarke said: “With obesity at the levels they are, that can’t be good. Drinking water is a good thing and people are not doing enough of it.”
What is certain is that with so much money at stake, there is plenty more PR spin and mud-slinging to come. Hildon ended its ad by calling for an “open and fair discussion”. It declined several requests to comment.

Higher oil price gives renewables a boost

The Sunday Times
June 7, 2009
Danny Fortson

AFTER a year of swings, the oil price is moving toward a stable middle ground that will benefit not just the oil industry but the struggling renewables sector as well, experts say.
Brent crude closed at $67.82 a barrel last week - nearly double the $35 it plumbed in February but still less than half the record $146 a barrel it touched last summer.
Barclays Capital predicts it is now heading toward the $75 to $85 “Goldilocks” range - not so high that governments aggressively seek alternatives but enough for oil-producing nations to make a comfortable return on more exotic endeavours such as deep-sea drilling and tar sands.
After a year of extremes the market will welcome some stability. There are several reasons for the recovery. One is that fears about the recession deepening have subsided. Few are willing to call the bottom, but there is a growing consensus that the prospects for the world’s biggest customers, America and China, are not as dire as predicted.

Amrita Sen, an analyst at Barclays Capital, said: “There are signs that the worst is probably behind us so the market is less focused on demand as a factor. Now it has begun looking at supply, and it doesn’t look great on the nonOpec front.”
Part of the reason the oil price reached $147 last year was the worry that oil producers would not be able to meet rising demand. But when the world economy slumped, so did the oil price. Opec, the cartel of oil-producing nations led by Saudi Arabia, reacted by slashing production by about 3.5m barrels a day, equal to about 4% of the total global consumption of 85m barrels.
Between them Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates control about 85% of the world’s spare capacity - fields that are lying dormant but can be turned on if need be. To a large degree, they control where the price goes from here.
“Saudi Arabia has maintained throughout that $70-$80 a barrel is a sustainable level for them,” said Sen.
At that level many of the oil prospects that were becoming unviable when the price sank now look better. Andy Cox, energy partner at KPMG, said: “The oil companies are breathing a sigh of relief.”
The rise is also helpful for the renewables sector, where clean-energy projects already dependent on subsidies looked even more questionable next to a low oil price.
Cox said: “When the price collapsed real questions were asked about the economics for renewable versus conventional power.” The rising carbon price gives a further boost.

Weeds damage homes as the climate warms

Paul Kelbie
The Observer, Sunday 7 June 2009

A combination of a warmer climate, increased rainfall and a ban on the use of chemicals has created an epidemic of weeds causing hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage to homes and public buildings.
Homeowners are facing large bills due to weeds damaging pipes and buildings as climate change produces an explosion in plant life.
According to Peter Brownless, horticulturalist at the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, long periods of warm and wet weather combined with increasing volumes of detritus in gutters and drains is encouraging plants to grow out of control at a faster rate than ever before.
"A recent change in European legislation means there are far less herbicides available for local authorities and home gardeners to use to control weeds," he said.
According to Brownless many problems are caused by alien species which are thriving in Scotland's increasingly mild climate. "One plant that's causing quite a bit of concern at the moment is the New Zealand waterweed which established itself on Duddingston Loch in Edinburgh a few years ago and has out-competed many of the native plants.
"It only takes a few more degrees of warmth for some plants to self-seed and survive through the winter."
Michael Dymock, who works for Dyno-Rod drain services in Glasgow, said: "A lot of the damage can't be seen until it's too late. In the west of Scotland particularly there are thousands of miles of old clay and cast-iron pipes underground.
"These old, often Victorian, pipes are now starting to break as the roots of trees and plants find their way into the cracks and cause major blockages which result in waste water and sewage backing up into houses."

Could the Sahara’s sun save us?

The Sunday Times
June 7, 2009

David MacKay examines the possibilities of Britain importing the clean energy that it needs

Our present lifestyle cannot be sustained on Britain’s own renewable energy resources unless we are prepared to cover huge areas of land and sea with wind turbines, tidal farms or solar cells.
So what are our options if we wish to wean ourselves off fossil fuels? We can balance the energy budget either by reducing demand or by increasing supply, or both.
And these reductions in demand and increases in supply must be big. Don’t be distracted by the myth that “every little helps”. If everyone does a little, we will achieve only a little. We must do a lot.
“But surely,” people say, “if 60m people all do a little, it will add up to a lot?” No. This “if everyone does it” concept is just a way of making something small sound big.

Take power. We all use it. So to achieve a “big difference” in total power consumption almost everyone has to make a “big” difference to their own power consumption.
Demand for power could be reduced in three ways: by reducing our population, changing our lifestyle, or by keeping our lifestyle but reducing its energy intensity through efficiency and technology. My goal is not to pick winners but to present honest, quantitative facts about the options.
Hydrogen-powered vehicles, for one, are a disaster. Most prototypes use more energy than the fossil-fuel vehicle they are designed to replace. The BMW Hydrogen 7 uses 254kWh per 100km while the average fossil car in Britain uses 80kWh per 100km. In contrast, prototype electric vehicles use 10 times less energy: 20kWh per 100km or even 6kWh per 100km. Electric vehicles are far better than hybrid cars. Today’s hybrid cars, which are typically at best about 30% better than fossil-fuel cars, should be viewed as a brief, helpful stepping stone on the way to electric vehicles.
Decentralised combined heat and power (CHP) is another looming mistake. Yes, combined heat and power (that is, putting individual power stations in each building, generating local electricity and heat to keep the buildings warm) can be a slightly more efficient way of using fossil fuels than the standard way but they are only about 7% more efficient. And they use fossil fuels. Isn’t the goal to get off fossil fuels?
The fact is there is a much better way to generate local heat: heat pumps. These are back-to-front refrigerators. Powered by electricity, they pump heat into the building from the outside – either from the air or from the ground.
The best heat pumps, recently developed in Japan, have a coefficient of performance of 4.9. This means that using 1kWh of electricity, the pump delivers 4.9kWh of heat in the form of hot air or hot water.
This is a far more efficient way to use high-grade energy for heating than simply setting fire to high-grade chemicals, which achieves a coefficient of performance of only 0.9. Recent trials of heat pumps in Germany have confirmed that ground-source and air-source heat pumps can deliver hot air and hot water with an average coefficient of performance above 3.0.
Demand is only one side of the equation. We also need to increase supply, which could be done in three ways.
One would be investing in clean-coal technology. Oops. Coal is a fossil fuel. Well, never mind – let’s take a look at this idea. Britain is estimated to have seven billion tonnes of coal left. If we share this between 60m people, we get just over 100 tonnes a head. If we want a 1,000-year solution, this corresponds to 2.5kWh of energy per day per person.
In a power station performing carbon capture and storage, this sustainable approach to UK coal would yield 0.7kWh per day per person. For comparison, Britain’s total energy consumption today is 125kWh per day per person. Our conclusion is clear: clean coal is only a stop-gap.
We could invest in nuclear fission. The average British person consumes about 16kg of fossil fuels per day – 4kg of coal, 4kg of oil, and 8kg of gas.
That means that every single day an amount of fossil fuels with the same weight as 28 pints of milk is extracted from a hole in the ground, transported, processed and burned somewhere on your behalf.
In contrast the amount of natural uranium required to provide the same amount of energy as 16kg of fossil fuels in a standard fission reactor is two grams; and the resulting waste weighs one quarter of a gram. But the fact that the nuclear waste stream is small doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem.
The third option would be to buy, beg or steal renewable energy from other countries – bearing in mind that most will be in the same boat as Britain and will have no renewable energy to spare. If we import renewable energy from other countries to avoid building plants the size of Wales in the UK, someone will have to construct those facilities on their own land.
One idea is that “all the world’s power could be provided by a square 100km by 100km in the Sahara”. Is this true?
Concentrating solar power in deserts delivers an average power per unit land area of roughly 15 watts per square metre. So the power delivered in such a square would be 150GW. This is not even near current world electricity consumption, which is 2,000GW. Total world power consumption today is 15,000GW.
So the correct statement about power from the Sahara is that today’s consumption could be provided by a 1,000km by 1,000km square in the desert, completely filled with equipment designed to concentrate solar power. And that is four times the area of the UK.
And what area would be needed in the north Sahara to supply everyone in Europe and North Africa with an average European’s power consumption? Taking the population of Europe and North Africa to be a billion, the area required drops to 340,000 sq km, which corresponds to a square of almost 600km by 600km. This area is equal to one Germany or 1.4 UKs.
Whatever mix of technologies we choose, decarbonising Britain’s energy system requires a lot of building.
If we find dependence on Saharan sunshine unpalatable, or if we don’t like the idea of building 60 new nuclear power stations, we can revisit our attitude to big renewable facilities in Britain. For every nuclear power station we remove, we must find somewhere to put 2,000 wind turbines. We needa plan that adds up.
Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air, by David MacKay, is published by UIT Cambridge, priced £19.99. Copies can be ordered for £17.99 with free postage and packing from The Sunday Times Books First on 0845 271 2135