Mark Milner, industrial editor
The Guardian, Wednesday August 20 2008
E.ON, the energy company whose plans for Britain's first new coal-fired power station for more than two decades have sparked fierce protests, said yesterday it was considering a £300m investment in building one of the country's biggest biomass power plants.
The company said it wanted to construct the 150 megawatt plant at the port of Bristol as part of its multimillion-pound investment programme in a range of generating technologies.
Paul Golby, the chief executive of E.ON UK, said the Royal Portbury Dock renewable energy plant would make a significant contribution towards helping the government meet its renewable energy targets.
"Schemes such as this, together with cleaner coal, gas and new nuclear, will help us to keep the UK's lights on, while reducing carbon emissions and ensuring energy is as affordable as possible for our customers," he said.
E.ON's investment programme in Britain includes one of the world's largest gas-fired power stations, at the Isle of Grain in Kent, as well as the gas-fired plant at Drakelow in Derbyshire; an offshore wind farm in the Solway Firth and plans for the Humber Gateway wind farm. It is also a partner in the London Array wind farm and has invested in marine energy projects in Cornwall and Pembrokeshire.
The company is also looking at the possibility of building at least two nuclear power stations.
But its proposal to replace its existing coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent with a £1.5bn coal plant has attracted fierce controversy.
Earlier this month environmental protesters held its week-long Climate Camp outside the existing Kingsnorth power station as part of the campaign of opposition against the new plant.
Yesterday Greenpeace's Jim Footner said that if E.ON wanted to be seen as one of the country's leading green generators it should drop its plans for the Kingsnorth power station, which dwarfed the planned biomass plant.
"E.ON does have investment in renewables and they are pushing forward this scheme. We want them to go down this road and use that expertise and technology and stop cancelling it out by pushing forward a coal-fired power station."
According to E.ON's statement outlining the proposals for the planned biomass plant, which has been issued to North Somerset council and the Department for Business and Enterprise, the plant would be able to generate enough electricity to supply 250,000 homes and would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 500,000 tonnes a year - the equivalent of taking 175,000 average-sized cars off the road.
The plant would burn some 1.2m tonnes of fuel, most of which will be wood chip, brought in by ship and supplemented by regionally sourced recycled wood.
As well as generating electricity, the biomass plant would be capable of supplying heat to neighbouring industrial establishments.
If the proposal does win approval, E.ON is hoping to start work in 2010, with the first power produced in 2013 and the plant coming into full operation in 2014.
The Portbury dock plant will be the company's third biomass development in Britain.
Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Business leaders: Make renewable energy cheaper
The Associated Press
Published: August 20, 2008
LAS VEGAS: Representatives from Google Inc. and General Electric Co. said Tuesday that widespread use of renewable energy in United States would be possible — if it were cheaper.
Renewable energy options will remain "boutique" industries unless their costs are cut to make them competitive with coal and other widely used power sources, said Dan Reicher, director for climate change and energy initiatives at Google.org, the company's philanthropic arm.
Reicher spoke to a group of politicians and energy experts at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas. The meeting's attendees said they hope to develop a national energy agenda to take to the Democratic and Republican parties at their upcoming conventions.
"There's a whole set of factors that go into the ultimate cost of energy," Reicher said after announcing a plan for Google to invest more than $10 million to develop "enhanced geothermal systems" technology to generate energy from rocks deep below the earth's surface.
Google's project replicates traditional geothermal systems deep below the Earth's surface by circulating water through hot rock and running the steam through a turbine that generates electricity.
Google said its goal was to produce one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity — enough to power a major city.
"These are all high-capital-costs projects," Reicher said.
One by one, speakers at the meeting touted the benefits of various energy-related initiatives, including how large-scale solar power could generate thousands of jobs and why wind power could lessen America's dependence on foreign oil. Extending tax credits, establishing caps on carbon emissions and modernizing the nation's electricity grid were also ideas that speakers said would be crucial to building a "green" economy.
General Electric chief executive Jeff Immelt did not attend, but said in a video presentation that the government and the business community need to move forward.
"The technology exists, the time is now," he said. "We need a call to action — not a call to go to another conference."
Former President Bill Clinton laid out a 10-point plan Monday that included expanded research for carbon dioxide storage and accelerating a shift toward plug-in hybrid electric cars.
Texas oil baron T. Boone Pickens also presented his plan to develop wind energy to generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity, then use natural gas to power cars until hydrogen or plug-in electric cars become widely available.
"I don't see many people from my party," said Pickens, a Republican. "I'm making new friends, and that's good."
___
On the Net:
National Clean Energy Summit: http://www.google.org/egs/
Published: August 20, 2008
LAS VEGAS: Representatives from Google Inc. and General Electric Co. said Tuesday that widespread use of renewable energy in United States would be possible — if it were cheaper.
Renewable energy options will remain "boutique" industries unless their costs are cut to make them competitive with coal and other widely used power sources, said Dan Reicher, director for climate change and energy initiatives at Google.org, the company's philanthropic arm.
Reicher spoke to a group of politicians and energy experts at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas. The meeting's attendees said they hope to develop a national energy agenda to take to the Democratic and Republican parties at their upcoming conventions.
"There's a whole set of factors that go into the ultimate cost of energy," Reicher said after announcing a plan for Google to invest more than $10 million to develop "enhanced geothermal systems" technology to generate energy from rocks deep below the earth's surface.
Google's project replicates traditional geothermal systems deep below the Earth's surface by circulating water through hot rock and running the steam through a turbine that generates electricity.
Google said its goal was to produce one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity — enough to power a major city.
"These are all high-capital-costs projects," Reicher said.
One by one, speakers at the meeting touted the benefits of various energy-related initiatives, including how large-scale solar power could generate thousands of jobs and why wind power could lessen America's dependence on foreign oil. Extending tax credits, establishing caps on carbon emissions and modernizing the nation's electricity grid were also ideas that speakers said would be crucial to building a "green" economy.
General Electric chief executive Jeff Immelt did not attend, but said in a video presentation that the government and the business community need to move forward.
"The technology exists, the time is now," he said. "We need a call to action — not a call to go to another conference."
Former President Bill Clinton laid out a 10-point plan Monday that included expanded research for carbon dioxide storage and accelerating a shift toward plug-in hybrid electric cars.
Texas oil baron T. Boone Pickens also presented his plan to develop wind energy to generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity, then use natural gas to power cars until hydrogen or plug-in electric cars become widely available.
"I don't see many people from my party," said Pickens, a Republican. "I'm making new friends, and that's good."
___
On the Net:
National Clean Energy Summit: http://www.google.org/egs/
Barbados considers Brazilian ethanol plant
The Associated Press
Published: August 20, 2008
BRIDGETOWN, Barbados: Brazil is partnering with a Barbados businessman in a proposal to build a US$36 million ethanol plant near the capital.
Etanol de Costa Rica SA says the plant would produce about 132 million gallons (500 million liters) of ethanol a year, refining ethanol imported from Brazil. Spokesman Fabio Chazyn says the fuel would be sold to the U.S. through Caribbean duty-free concessions not available to Brazil.
Planning officials are reviewing the proposal. Chazyn said Monday that if approved, construction could start in about five months.
Other Brazilian energy companies are investing in the Caribbean. Infinity Bio-Energy is boosting its ethanol production with help from Jamaica and the Dominican Republic.
Published: August 20, 2008
BRIDGETOWN, Barbados: Brazil is partnering with a Barbados businessman in a proposal to build a US$36 million ethanol plant near the capital.
Etanol de Costa Rica SA says the plant would produce about 132 million gallons (500 million liters) of ethanol a year, refining ethanol imported from Brazil. Spokesman Fabio Chazyn says the fuel would be sold to the U.S. through Caribbean duty-free concessions not available to Brazil.
Planning officials are reviewing the proposal. Chazyn said Monday that if approved, construction could start in about five months.
Other Brazilian energy companies are investing in the Caribbean. Infinity Bio-Energy is boosting its ethanol production with help from Jamaica and the Dominican Republic.
Morris and Spottiswood go green
MORRIS & Spottiswood – one of Scotland's leading housing fit-out and maintenance providers – has concluded the purchase of what will be its first dedicated "green office".
The company is to open the office, which will also be a "live showcase" for clients looking at their own green fit-outs, at the Gyle Business Park.The new 7500 sq ft office will be fitted out according to a high environmental specification using initiatives such as sustainable lighting, recycling technology and environmentally friendly furniture, materials, products and control systems. Craig Murie, the firm's business unit director, said: "We want to be proactive in our approach to climate change and environmental sustainability, and feel we should be taking a leading role in implementing sustainable practice."
How catching cold mountain air could save Europe's glaciers
By Tony Paterson in BerlinWednesday, 20 August 2008
Reuters
The Rhône glacier in the Swiss Alps is melting fast as a direct result of global warming
A German geography professor has developed a controversial system of mountain "wind-catching" screens which he claims could slow or even halt the dramatic rate at which Europe's glaciers are melting.
Glaciers across the globe are shrinking fast as a consequence of global warming. In Europe alone, some researchers have predicted that all its glaciers will have vanished by 2100.
However, Professor Hans-Joachim Fuchs from Germany's Mainz University claims to have found at least a partial answer to the problem. His technique involves capturing the power of cold mountain – so-called kabatic – air streams with wind-catching screens installed on melting glaciers.
The screens are designed to harness the dense kabatic air streams which flow downhill and deflect them directly on to the surface of the glaciers, thereby cooling them enough, it is hoped, to counteract the effects of global warming.
In early August, Professor Fuchs and a team of 27 student researchers from Mainz university travelled to the Rhône glacier in Switzerland. There they installed a 15 metre-long, 10 metre-high wind catching screen at an altitude of 2,280 metres on the glacier in the country's Valais region.
Monitoring has shown that the Rhône glacier is shrinking seven metres a year. However, Professor Fuchs insists that his wind- catcher will help to combat this. "We hope that our installations will bring about a net cooling of the area," he said in a statement. "If the meltdown is not stopped, we hope that it will at least be slowed down," he added.
Glacier experts say that wind-catching screens to stop ice melting are a completely new idea. Until now, the only part answer to the problem has been to cover sections of shrinking glaciers with giant reflective covers that help to cool the ice by deflecting sunlight.
Covers have been used mainly to help preserve Alpine ski slopes. A cover system was set up more than a decade ago at a ski resort on southern Germany's Zugspitze mountain. But it has proved effective only on small areas. It is impractical for entire glaciers, which cover dozens of square miles.
However, not all glacier experts are convinced that his screens will work. The idea has been dismissed outright by Swiss glacier scientists at Zurich's Technical Institute. "If you are trying to cool a glacier, wind screens are a crazy idea," said Martin Funk from the institute. Mr Funk maintains that glacier melt rates are far less influenced by wind temperatures than by the effects of the sun's rays and the atmosphere. "These are the main factors and that is why the covers are so effective," he said. "They reduce melting by about 80 per cent."
However, Mr Funk also agrees that covers are not the answer: "They are just for ski tourists."
Andreas Bauder, another of the Zurich Institute's glacier experts, argued that it would take years to alter measurably the development of a glacier.
Professor Fuchs insists that his project is just a "little test". He added: "We've got lots of sponsors. If all goes well, we shall go ahead with something larger."
Reuters
The Rhône glacier in the Swiss Alps is melting fast as a direct result of global warming
A German geography professor has developed a controversial system of mountain "wind-catching" screens which he claims could slow or even halt the dramatic rate at which Europe's glaciers are melting.
Glaciers across the globe are shrinking fast as a consequence of global warming. In Europe alone, some researchers have predicted that all its glaciers will have vanished by 2100.
However, Professor Hans-Joachim Fuchs from Germany's Mainz University claims to have found at least a partial answer to the problem. His technique involves capturing the power of cold mountain – so-called kabatic – air streams with wind-catching screens installed on melting glaciers.
The screens are designed to harness the dense kabatic air streams which flow downhill and deflect them directly on to the surface of the glaciers, thereby cooling them enough, it is hoped, to counteract the effects of global warming.
In early August, Professor Fuchs and a team of 27 student researchers from Mainz university travelled to the Rhône glacier in Switzerland. There they installed a 15 metre-long, 10 metre-high wind catching screen at an altitude of 2,280 metres on the glacier in the country's Valais region.
Monitoring has shown that the Rhône glacier is shrinking seven metres a year. However, Professor Fuchs insists that his wind- catcher will help to combat this. "We hope that our installations will bring about a net cooling of the area," he said in a statement. "If the meltdown is not stopped, we hope that it will at least be slowed down," he added.
Glacier experts say that wind-catching screens to stop ice melting are a completely new idea. Until now, the only part answer to the problem has been to cover sections of shrinking glaciers with giant reflective covers that help to cool the ice by deflecting sunlight.
Covers have been used mainly to help preserve Alpine ski slopes. A cover system was set up more than a decade ago at a ski resort on southern Germany's Zugspitze mountain. But it has proved effective only on small areas. It is impractical for entire glaciers, which cover dozens of square miles.
However, not all glacier experts are convinced that his screens will work. The idea has been dismissed outright by Swiss glacier scientists at Zurich's Technical Institute. "If you are trying to cool a glacier, wind screens are a crazy idea," said Martin Funk from the institute. Mr Funk maintains that glacier melt rates are far less influenced by wind temperatures than by the effects of the sun's rays and the atmosphere. "These are the main factors and that is why the covers are so effective," he said. "They reduce melting by about 80 per cent."
However, Mr Funk also agrees that covers are not the answer: "They are just for ski tourists."
Andreas Bauder, another of the Zurich Institute's glacier experts, argued that it would take years to alter measurably the development of a glacier.
Professor Fuchs insists that his project is just a "little test". He added: "We've got lots of sponsors. If all goes well, we shall go ahead with something larger."
Sending waste to China saves carbon emissions
· 4.7m tonnes of paper exported by UK each year· Advantage of recycling abroad over landfill can be tenfold
John Vidal
guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday August 19 2008 16:03 BST
Britain exports 500,000 tonnes of plastic bottles a year for recycling. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Sending old newspapers and plastic bottles 10,000 miles for recycling in China produces more carbon savings than landfilling it in Britain and making new goods, reveals a study from the government body charged with reducing UK waste.
In the last 10 years annual exports of paper, mainly to India, China and Indonesia, have risen from 470,000 tonnes to 4.7m tonnes, while exports of old plastic bottles have gone from under 40,000 tonnes to half a million tonnes.
Now the counterintuitive conclusions of the report from the Waste Resources Action Programme (Wrap) suggest that the advantage of recycling over landfilling is so great that it makes environmental sense to ship waste right round the world if it can be used again.
The journey taken by the waste involves travelling hundreds of miles within Britain to ports, then thousands of miles on some of the world's biggest ships to China, and then more road travel to recycling plants. But for paper, this odyssey incurs only a one third of the climate-warming emissions that are saved by recycling, the report says. For plastics, the report found it even more advantageous to export for recycling.
There is a further factor in favour of exporting the waste. The imbalance of trade between China and the UK means that the majority of container ships head back to China empty and produce CO2 emissions whether or not they are carrying cargo. "If you take this into account, the transport emissions are even smaller – less than one-tenth of the overall amount of CO2 saved by recycling," says Wrap.
The study estimated the transport emissions from exports to China and compared them with benchmark savings from recycling. It found that 1300kg-1600kg of CO2 was saved for each tonne of waste.
"The growth in exports is in part a success story, reflecting the rapid development of the UK's collection infrastructure and increase in recovery rates. Exports to China are bridging the gap between plastic bottle collections being established and the future development of domestic reprocessing capacity," says the report.
However, the report does not consider the environmental or social advantages of establishing a significant UK manufacturing industry to produce goods from the recycled waste and the authors stressed that it does not show that exporting waste was desirable.
Liz Goodwin, chief executive of Wrap, said: "It may seem strange that transporting our unwanted paper and plastic bottles such a distance would actually be better for the environment but that is what the evidence from this study shows."
"We do not have a manufacturing base here. Ideally, it would be dealt with here. But we would far prefer to see it recycled in China, where it is a resource, than landfilled in Britain", said a spokesman for Wastewatch, an independent group.
John Vidal
guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday August 19 2008 16:03 BST
Britain exports 500,000 tonnes of plastic bottles a year for recycling. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Sending old newspapers and plastic bottles 10,000 miles for recycling in China produces more carbon savings than landfilling it in Britain and making new goods, reveals a study from the government body charged with reducing UK waste.
In the last 10 years annual exports of paper, mainly to India, China and Indonesia, have risen from 470,000 tonnes to 4.7m tonnes, while exports of old plastic bottles have gone from under 40,000 tonnes to half a million tonnes.
Now the counterintuitive conclusions of the report from the Waste Resources Action Programme (Wrap) suggest that the advantage of recycling over landfilling is so great that it makes environmental sense to ship waste right round the world if it can be used again.
The journey taken by the waste involves travelling hundreds of miles within Britain to ports, then thousands of miles on some of the world's biggest ships to China, and then more road travel to recycling plants. But for paper, this odyssey incurs only a one third of the climate-warming emissions that are saved by recycling, the report says. For plastics, the report found it even more advantageous to export for recycling.
There is a further factor in favour of exporting the waste. The imbalance of trade between China and the UK means that the majority of container ships head back to China empty and produce CO2 emissions whether or not they are carrying cargo. "If you take this into account, the transport emissions are even smaller – less than one-tenth of the overall amount of CO2 saved by recycling," says Wrap.
The study estimated the transport emissions from exports to China and compared them with benchmark savings from recycling. It found that 1300kg-1600kg of CO2 was saved for each tonne of waste.
"The growth in exports is in part a success story, reflecting the rapid development of the UK's collection infrastructure and increase in recovery rates. Exports to China are bridging the gap between plastic bottle collections being established and the future development of domestic reprocessing capacity," says the report.
However, the report does not consider the environmental or social advantages of establishing a significant UK manufacturing industry to produce goods from the recycled waste and the authors stressed that it does not show that exporting waste was desirable.
Liz Goodwin, chief executive of Wrap, said: "It may seem strange that transporting our unwanted paper and plastic bottles such a distance would actually be better for the environment but that is what the evidence from this study shows."
"We do not have a manufacturing base here. Ideally, it would be dealt with here. But we would far prefer to see it recycled in China, where it is a resource, than landfilled in Britain", said a spokesman for Wastewatch, an independent group.
U.S. Appeals Court Overturns EPA's Pollution Rule
By IAN TALLEYAugust 20, 2008;
WASHINGTON -- In a blow to oil refiners, chemical makers and other polluting industries, a federal appeals court threw out a rule that prevented states from implementing tougher pollution-monitoring requirements.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could lead to higher compliance costs and give states, local authorities and environmentalists more data that could be used to prosecute polluters, environmentalists said.
The decision marks the latest instance in which a federal court has rejected the approach to regulating harmful emissions taken by the administration of President George W. Bush. "It is a pretty serious rebuke of the Bush administration's efforts to tie the hands of states at the behest of industry," said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. The court found the Environmental Protection Agency's rule under the Clean Air Act "is contrary to the statutory directive that each permit must include adequate monitoring requirements."
EPA spokesman Timothy Lyons said the agency "will determine an appropriate course of action" after it reviews the decision. Historically, the EPA has had little success in getting decisions from the appeals court reversed.
The American Petroleum Institute, whose members include Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips, was a party in the case in support of the EPA. API spokeswoman Cathy Landry said the organization's lawyers were "in the process of reviewing the decision to determine the impact on the industry."
Amendments to the Clean Air Act enacted in 1990 compelled industrial polluters to obtain state and local permits that identify all emission limits and include "monitoring...requirements to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions." Because the existing monitoring requirements didn't always assure compliance, some states wanted to add more requirements. The Bush administration rule prohibited state action.
The court's decision was one in a string of rulings scrapping Bush administration air-quality policies. Last month, the same court struck down the administration's signature air-quality program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule -- one of the few Bush administration efforts applauded by the environmental community. The regulation, announced in 2005 and covering more than two dozen states, sought to slash emissions that contribute to respiratory illnesses by instituting a "cap and trade" system in which companies that exceed their emissions caps can buy allowances from companies that do not.
The EPA had predicted the rule would prevent about 17,000 premature deaths a year. The court, in response to a suit brought by power companies, invalidated the regulation.
In February, the appeals court rejected the EPA's decision to remove mercury from a list of pollutants the agency is required to control at each power plant. Last year, a divided Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and that the Bush administration had wrongly refused to limit emissions of those gases.
WASHINGTON -- In a blow to oil refiners, chemical makers and other polluting industries, a federal appeals court threw out a rule that prevented states from implementing tougher pollution-monitoring requirements.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could lead to higher compliance costs and give states, local authorities and environmentalists more data that could be used to prosecute polluters, environmentalists said.
The decision marks the latest instance in which a federal court has rejected the approach to regulating harmful emissions taken by the administration of President George W. Bush. "It is a pretty serious rebuke of the Bush administration's efforts to tie the hands of states at the behest of industry," said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. The court found the Environmental Protection Agency's rule under the Clean Air Act "is contrary to the statutory directive that each permit must include adequate monitoring requirements."
EPA spokesman Timothy Lyons said the agency "will determine an appropriate course of action" after it reviews the decision. Historically, the EPA has had little success in getting decisions from the appeals court reversed.
The American Petroleum Institute, whose members include Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips, was a party in the case in support of the EPA. API spokeswoman Cathy Landry said the organization's lawyers were "in the process of reviewing the decision to determine the impact on the industry."
Amendments to the Clean Air Act enacted in 1990 compelled industrial polluters to obtain state and local permits that identify all emission limits and include "monitoring...requirements to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions." Because the existing monitoring requirements didn't always assure compliance, some states wanted to add more requirements. The Bush administration rule prohibited state action.
The court's decision was one in a string of rulings scrapping Bush administration air-quality policies. Last month, the same court struck down the administration's signature air-quality program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule -- one of the few Bush administration efforts applauded by the environmental community. The regulation, announced in 2005 and covering more than two dozen states, sought to slash emissions that contribute to respiratory illnesses by instituting a "cap and trade" system in which companies that exceed their emissions caps can buy allowances from companies that do not.
The EPA had predicted the rule would prevent about 17,000 premature deaths a year. The court, in response to a suit brought by power companies, invalidated the regulation.
In February, the appeals court rejected the EPA's decision to remove mercury from a list of pollutants the agency is required to control at each power plant. Last year, a divided Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and that the Bush administration had wrongly refused to limit emissions of those gases.
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Anaerobic digestion reduces waste and generates electricity
Nina Sweet: Commentary
For those of us who get excited about waste-treatment technology, anaerobic digestion really is the way forward — you put rubbish in one end and get valuable products out of the other.
Quite simply, we are running out of places suitable for burying the rubbish we generate and any initiative — whether it be new technology or changes in behaviour — has to be worth considering if it reduces the quantity of waste we throw away.
Anaerobic digestion is tried and tested on the Continent but we have been slow to take it up in Britain. Now, with local authorities having to meet targets to reduce the biodegradable waste that we send to landfill, and sustainability being such a hot issue, the technology is being given serious consideration.
Surprisingly, until recently little attention has been paid to reducing the vast quantity of food that is thrown away annually. It forms one of the biggest elements of landfill, yet only 3 per cent is sent for composting or to anaerobic digesters. Of the 6.7 million tonnes that is estimated to be binned each year by households, only 2.6 million tonnes could not have been eaten — the potato peelings, the apple cores, the eggshells and so on.
The rest is wasted, and a staggering proportion isn't leftovers — it is food that has been bought, allowed to go off and then thrown away without a single bit being taken. Shocking.
And that's just the waste in our homes. There's plenty more in other sectors of society, including an estimated 1.5 million tonnes that is put out by supermarkets because it is past its sell-by date.
A range of technological options to process the food that we throw away are being assessed, and anaerobic digestion has performed well. Thanks to the demonstration plant at Ludlow we can show that it works well in that type of location. The technology definitely is part of the solution to the challenge we face in getting food waste out of landfill.
It's a win-win-win scenario. You get rid of your food waste and at the same time you make good fertiliser and generate renewable electricity.
Dr Nina Sweet is a technical expert at the Waste Resources Action Plan
For those of us who get excited about waste-treatment technology, anaerobic digestion really is the way forward — you put rubbish in one end and get valuable products out of the other.
Quite simply, we are running out of places suitable for burying the rubbish we generate and any initiative — whether it be new technology or changes in behaviour — has to be worth considering if it reduces the quantity of waste we throw away.
Anaerobic digestion is tried and tested on the Continent but we have been slow to take it up in Britain. Now, with local authorities having to meet targets to reduce the biodegradable waste that we send to landfill, and sustainability being such a hot issue, the technology is being given serious consideration.
Surprisingly, until recently little attention has been paid to reducing the vast quantity of food that is thrown away annually. It forms one of the biggest elements of landfill, yet only 3 per cent is sent for composting or to anaerobic digesters. Of the 6.7 million tonnes that is estimated to be binned each year by households, only 2.6 million tonnes could not have been eaten — the potato peelings, the apple cores, the eggshells and so on.
The rest is wasted, and a staggering proportion isn't leftovers — it is food that has been bought, allowed to go off and then thrown away without a single bit being taken. Shocking.
And that's just the waste in our homes. There's plenty more in other sectors of society, including an estimated 1.5 million tonnes that is put out by supermarkets because it is past its sell-by date.
A range of technological options to process the food that we throw away are being assessed, and anaerobic digestion has performed well. Thanks to the demonstration plant at Ludlow we can show that it works well in that type of location. The technology definitely is part of the solution to the challenge we face in getting food waste out of landfill.
It's a win-win-win scenario. You get rid of your food waste and at the same time you make good fertiliser and generate renewable electricity.
Dr Nina Sweet is a technical expert at the Waste Resources Action Plan
Entergy deal good for shareholders; others wary
The Associated Press
Published: August 18, 2008
NEW ORLEANS: Power provider Entergy Corp. is advancing its plans to spin off nuclear plants that generate free-market electricity, a deal that may be a boon for shareholders but a potential burden for taxpayers, according to critics.
If approved by regulators, Enexus Energy Corp., to be based in Jackson, Mississippi, will become a separate, publicly traded company in the next several months.
Stockholders of New Orleans-based Entergy would receive Enexus shares on a pro-rata basis. The exact number has not been determined.
But there is concern over debts of as much as $4.5 billion that the new company would take on, including up to $3.5 billion paid to Entergy for the plants and other assets.
There is also the dismantling or mothballing of nuclear reactors at the end of their life spans, which critics say Enexus may be unable to pay. That could leave taxpayers with billions in cleanup costs should the company become insolvent. The plants range in age from 32 years to 37 years.
Plants have a life span of between 30 and 40 years, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, but can be retrofitted to last longer.
Enexus would control five nuclear plants: Pilgrim Nuclear Station near Plymouth, Massachusetts, the James A. Fitzpatrick station in Oswego County, New York, two units at the Indian Point Energy Center in Westchester County, New York, Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vermont, and Palisades Power Plant in Covert, Michigan.
All sell nonregulated power on the wholesale market, where prices can skyrocket as utilities try to cover shortfalls in peak-demand periods.
Entergy currently sells a mix of power in nonregulated and regulated regions. It has regulated utilities in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas which serve 2.7 million customers. The company purchased the wholesale reactors intended for Enexus between 1999 and 2007.
Chief executive Wayne Leonard says the wholesale reactors have focused on fixed-price, long-term delivery contracts for retail sellers rather than the spot market, where there is potential for greater profits, but also greater risk.
Yet prices on the spot market can fall as quickly as they can rise — which could lead to credit downgrades and higher interest costs for Entergy, Leonard said.
"These two companies don't belong together," he said.
The spinoff would be good for Entergy shareholders, according to analysts like Macquarie Research Equities.
As long-term contracts at below-market prices expire, Enexus plants should generate earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amoritization of $2.5 billion in 2012, up from the $800 million in 2007, Macquarie said.
Deutsche Bank said because of Entergy's plan for an extended stock buyback, per-share profits are only going up.
Others, however, are not so bullish on the payoff for consumers.
Under the Enexus plan, the plants would be owned by independent subsidiaries, each legally responsible for their own books and assets — including the cost of decommissioning plants.
Critics say that separation is a financial shield for Enexus.
Decomissioning can cost hundreds of millions. Plant owners are federally required to set aside funds to cover those costs.
When Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, the Entergy New Orleans unit, a subsidiary, filed for bankruptcy when faced with millions in damages and the loss of its customer base.
The unit was reorganized and received $200 million in federal relief funds. All creditors were paid in full.
Entergy said in 2007 that its decommissioning funds totaled $3.3 billion, up from $2.86 billion in 2006.
When the spinoff was approved in July, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected arguments that Enexus was taking on too much debt. Enexus agreed to put up $700 million toward operational and maintenance costs, plus a $1 billion line of credit for the plants.
The use of subsidiaries to shield a nuclear parent company from liability is becoming more common, according to the Nuclear Information and Research Service — a trend that could put taxpayer money at risk in the worst-case scenario.
"If you have an accident and cleanup costs and the decommissioning fund isn't full, who pays for it?" asked Michael Marriotte, executive director of the anti-nuclear group. "It could be the taxpayers as well as the ratepayers."
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has come out against the plan, and said the deal will cost the New York Power Authority, which sold Fitzpatrick and Indian Point 3 to Entergy in 2000 for $967 million, about $360 million in revenue sharing with Entergy.
The spinoff will cut away access to about 80 percent of the financial resources that Indian Point and Fitzpatrick currently have under Entergy ownership, Cuomo said.
Also, because of a plan for Entergy and Enexus plants to be joint partners in another company that will maintain and operate both Enexus plants and Entergy's regulated nuclear generators, Entergy would have "veto power" over the operation and maintenance of Enexus plants, while having "no responsibility for the consequences of that control," Cuomo said.
In Vermont, the other state where the law requires state regulators to sign off on the spinoff, lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year calling for the Public Service Board to require Entergy to make additional financial guarantees to a decommissioning fund before approving the spinoff.
But Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed the measure, saying Entergy might raise electric rates after its current contract expires in 2012.
Vermont also is the only state in which state law gives lawmakers an up-or-down vote on nuclear relicensing. The license for Vermont Yankee, the state's lone reactor, expires in 2012; the Legislature is expected to vote in the winter or spring of 2009 whether to approve relicensing.
Decisions on the deal are expected later this year in Vermont and by the New York Public Service commission. Entergy also must get the approval of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Published: August 18, 2008
NEW ORLEANS: Power provider Entergy Corp. is advancing its plans to spin off nuclear plants that generate free-market electricity, a deal that may be a boon for shareholders but a potential burden for taxpayers, according to critics.
If approved by regulators, Enexus Energy Corp., to be based in Jackson, Mississippi, will become a separate, publicly traded company in the next several months.
Stockholders of New Orleans-based Entergy would receive Enexus shares on a pro-rata basis. The exact number has not been determined.
But there is concern over debts of as much as $4.5 billion that the new company would take on, including up to $3.5 billion paid to Entergy for the plants and other assets.
There is also the dismantling or mothballing of nuclear reactors at the end of their life spans, which critics say Enexus may be unable to pay. That could leave taxpayers with billions in cleanup costs should the company become insolvent. The plants range in age from 32 years to 37 years.
Plants have a life span of between 30 and 40 years, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, but can be retrofitted to last longer.
Enexus would control five nuclear plants: Pilgrim Nuclear Station near Plymouth, Massachusetts, the James A. Fitzpatrick station in Oswego County, New York, two units at the Indian Point Energy Center in Westchester County, New York, Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vermont, and Palisades Power Plant in Covert, Michigan.
All sell nonregulated power on the wholesale market, where prices can skyrocket as utilities try to cover shortfalls in peak-demand periods.
Entergy currently sells a mix of power in nonregulated and regulated regions. It has regulated utilities in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas which serve 2.7 million customers. The company purchased the wholesale reactors intended for Enexus between 1999 and 2007.
Chief executive Wayne Leonard says the wholesale reactors have focused on fixed-price, long-term delivery contracts for retail sellers rather than the spot market, where there is potential for greater profits, but also greater risk.
Yet prices on the spot market can fall as quickly as they can rise — which could lead to credit downgrades and higher interest costs for Entergy, Leonard said.
"These two companies don't belong together," he said.
The spinoff would be good for Entergy shareholders, according to analysts like Macquarie Research Equities.
As long-term contracts at below-market prices expire, Enexus plants should generate earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amoritization of $2.5 billion in 2012, up from the $800 million in 2007, Macquarie said.
Deutsche Bank said because of Entergy's plan for an extended stock buyback, per-share profits are only going up.
Others, however, are not so bullish on the payoff for consumers.
Under the Enexus plan, the plants would be owned by independent subsidiaries, each legally responsible for their own books and assets — including the cost of decommissioning plants.
Critics say that separation is a financial shield for Enexus.
Decomissioning can cost hundreds of millions. Plant owners are federally required to set aside funds to cover those costs.
When Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, the Entergy New Orleans unit, a subsidiary, filed for bankruptcy when faced with millions in damages and the loss of its customer base.
The unit was reorganized and received $200 million in federal relief funds. All creditors were paid in full.
Entergy said in 2007 that its decommissioning funds totaled $3.3 billion, up from $2.86 billion in 2006.
When the spinoff was approved in July, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected arguments that Enexus was taking on too much debt. Enexus agreed to put up $700 million toward operational and maintenance costs, plus a $1 billion line of credit for the plants.
The use of subsidiaries to shield a nuclear parent company from liability is becoming more common, according to the Nuclear Information and Research Service — a trend that could put taxpayer money at risk in the worst-case scenario.
"If you have an accident and cleanup costs and the decommissioning fund isn't full, who pays for it?" asked Michael Marriotte, executive director of the anti-nuclear group. "It could be the taxpayers as well as the ratepayers."
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has come out against the plan, and said the deal will cost the New York Power Authority, which sold Fitzpatrick and Indian Point 3 to Entergy in 2000 for $967 million, about $360 million in revenue sharing with Entergy.
The spinoff will cut away access to about 80 percent of the financial resources that Indian Point and Fitzpatrick currently have under Entergy ownership, Cuomo said.
Also, because of a plan for Entergy and Enexus plants to be joint partners in another company that will maintain and operate both Enexus plants and Entergy's regulated nuclear generators, Entergy would have "veto power" over the operation and maintenance of Enexus plants, while having "no responsibility for the consequences of that control," Cuomo said.
In Vermont, the other state where the law requires state regulators to sign off on the spinoff, lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year calling for the Public Service Board to require Entergy to make additional financial guarantees to a decommissioning fund before approving the spinoff.
But Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed the measure, saying Entergy might raise electric rates after its current contract expires in 2012.
Vermont also is the only state in which state law gives lawmakers an up-or-down vote on nuclear relicensing. The license for Vermont Yankee, the state's lone reactor, expires in 2012; the Legislature is expected to vote in the winter or spring of 2009 whether to approve relicensing.
Decisions on the deal are expected later this year in Vermont and by the New York Public Service commission. Entergy also must get the approval of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Student unveils wind turbine made from scrap
A £20 wind turbine which can be created from recycled materials to help people in the developing world was unveiled yesterday. Max Robson, who has just been awarded a first-class degree in product design and modern materials from the University of Portsmouth, said he wanted to build an electricity generator which could be used together anywhere in the world. The turbine charges a battery which can run lighting for 63 hours or a radio for 30 hours. Robson, 22, from Greenwich, south-east London, said: "It cost me £20 to build the prototype and in the developing world it would be a lot less."Press Association
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
