By Rebecca Bream
Published: January 26 2009 02:00
The aim of producing clean electricity in no way lacks public support from politicians and chief executives. After years of inaction, governments around the world are signing up to ambitious targets for raising the amount of energy coming from renewable sources and cutting carbon emissions, with the aim of slowing climate change.
But the question is how many of these targets will actually be met, and whether the current economic slowdown will hamper investment in cleaner forms of electricity generation.
After all, burning coal to produce electricity - which creates more CO 2 than any other method of power generation - is still the cheapest and most reliable option for most countries.
Burning natural gas is somewhat cleaner than coal, but as reserves of gas are more thinly distributed, a worldwide "dash for gas" looks unlikely.
Although the rapid growth of emerging economies such as China and India is now slowing, these regions will still need more generation capacity in the future and are unlikely to abandon coal. If climate change is to be reduced, however, they will have to embrace the idea of carbon capture and storage (CCS), which prevents the emissions from burning fossil fuels entering the atmosphere, and also invest in truly clean forms of power, such as wind, wave and solar.
Nuclear is another form of energy promoted as "clean". But the obvious problem is the hazardous radioactive waste produced as a by-product. Although scientists have credible solutions for how this waste can be safely stored and disposed of, the cost is likely to be enormous. And deciding where to site respositories for nuclear waste is controversial.
Many politicians and energy executives say that, to make a real dent in emissions, countries will have to invest in renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage projects, and that they should not be seen as rival causes.
Nevertheless, at a time when funds are harder to come by, it is common to hear the nuclear and fossil fuel industries undermining renewable energy, and for environmental campaigners to oppose "low carbon" energy such as nuclear and carbon capture for fear it would jeopardise wind and wave projects.
The issue of CCS is one of the most contentious in the electricity industry. Enthusiasts argue that, if the technology is proven to work on a commercial scale, it will provide a way of halting climate change while allowing countries to keep burning fossil fuels in the medium-term. But opponents say that pinning hopes on CCS lets energy companies off when it comes to investing in renewable energy.
Mike Farley, director of technology policy liaison at Doosan Babcock, which supplies CCS technology, says more investment in renewables will require more investment in conventional plants as back-up when weather conditions reduce the output of wind and solar projects.
He argues that coal- and gas-fired plants are better-suited to this than nuclear reactors. "Nuclear doesn't flex, it stays at a constant output. When output from renewables goes up and down, nuclear can't compensate in the way that fossil fuels can."
CCS is being pursued in Europe, North America and Australia, but has yet to gain much traction in emerging markets. Last year, the European Union passed directives on CCS, providing a framework for the regulation of the fledgling industry and outlining financial incentives to encourage projects. The aim is for between 10 and 12 CCS demonstration plants across Europe.
The UK government is offering funding for the country's first CCS demonstration project, with Eon, Scottish Power and a joint venture of RWE Npower and Peel Holdings competing for the cash. The government has stipulated that it will only fund a post-combustion CCS project, as it thinks this technology will have the widest international application. But other companies that have been promoting pre-combustion CCS projects, such as Centrica, Powerfuel and ConocoPhillips, may find that they are eligible for EU funding.
Mr Farley at Doosan Babcock says a consensus is forming among UK politicians that CCS will be one of the three main technologies - along with renewables and nuclear - needed to achieve "decarbonised electricity". He says: "What is emerging is the view that more needs to be done, and sooner."
He says that a big leap forward would be for the UK government to give consent only to new fossil fuel power plants that are "carbon capture-ready" - that is, suitable to have CCS technology fitted in the future.
"We need to recognise that CCS is going to be necessary and also be realistic that lots of power plants are going to be built before they can be fitted with CCS. So a good example to set would be to mandate that all new coal or gas plants should be carbon capture-ready."
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Monday, 26 January 2009
Obama to let states restrict emissions standards
By John M. Broder and Peter Baker
Published: January 26, 2009
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama on Monday will direct federal regulators to move swiftly to grant California and 13 other states the right to set strict automobile emissions and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said Sunday evening.
The directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and marks a sharp reversal from Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions is one of the most dramatic actions Obama can take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.
The presidential orders will require automobile manufacturers to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule. The auto companies had lobbied hard against the regulations and challenged them in court.
Obama will use the announcement of his latest directive to bolster the impression of a sharp break from the Bush era on all fronts. It follows his decisions last week to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, tighten limits on interrogation tactics by CIA officers, order plans to withdraw combat forces from Iraq and reverse Bush's financing restrictions on groups that provide or discuss abortion overseas.
Beyond the California waiver, officials said, Obama will announce that he is moving forward with nationwide regulations requiring the automobile industry to increase fuel efficiency standards, rules that the Bush administration decided at the last minute not to issue. He will also order federal departments and agencies to find new ways to save energy and be more environmentally friendly. And he will highlight the elements in his economic plan intended to create new jobs around renewable energy.
The announcements, likely to be made in the East Room, will kick off a week of efforts to get the economy plan through Congress. The White House hopes the Senate will confirm Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary on Monday, and Obama plans to travel to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to meet with both Senate and House Republican caucuses and lobby for his stimulus package. Obama's aides expect the House to vote on its plan on Wednesday.
In a White House announcement scheduled for Monday morning, Obama will also direct federal agencies to immediately begin work on making all government buildings more energy efficient, with an eye toward saving as much as $2 billion a year and reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for the warming of the planet.
He will also direct the Department of Transportation to immediately begin drafting automobile fuel-economy regulations to comply with a law enacted in December 2007. Former President George W. Bush delayed implementation of the law and left office saying there was not sufficient time to write the rules.
But the centerpiece of Monday's East Room announcement is Obama's directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately begin work on granting the so-called California waiver, which allows the state, a longtime leader in air quality matters, to set its own standards for automobile emissions. The Bush administration denied the waiver in late 2007, saying that allowing California and the 13 other states the right to set their own pollution rules would result in an unenforceable patchwork of environmental law. The automakers had advocated such a position, saying it would require them to produce two sets of vehicles, one to meet the strict California standard and another that could be sold in the remaining states.
Published: January 26, 2009
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama on Monday will direct federal regulators to move swiftly to grant California and 13 other states the right to set strict automobile emissions and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said Sunday evening.
The directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and marks a sharp reversal from Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions is one of the most dramatic actions Obama can take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.
The presidential orders will require automobile manufacturers to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule. The auto companies had lobbied hard against the regulations and challenged them in court.
Obama will use the announcement of his latest directive to bolster the impression of a sharp break from the Bush era on all fronts. It follows his decisions last week to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, tighten limits on interrogation tactics by CIA officers, order plans to withdraw combat forces from Iraq and reverse Bush's financing restrictions on groups that provide or discuss abortion overseas.
Beyond the California waiver, officials said, Obama will announce that he is moving forward with nationwide regulations requiring the automobile industry to increase fuel efficiency standards, rules that the Bush administration decided at the last minute not to issue. He will also order federal departments and agencies to find new ways to save energy and be more environmentally friendly. And he will highlight the elements in his economic plan intended to create new jobs around renewable energy.
The announcements, likely to be made in the East Room, will kick off a week of efforts to get the economy plan through Congress. The White House hopes the Senate will confirm Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary on Monday, and Obama plans to travel to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to meet with both Senate and House Republican caucuses and lobby for his stimulus package. Obama's aides expect the House to vote on its plan on Wednesday.
In a White House announcement scheduled for Monday morning, Obama will also direct federal agencies to immediately begin work on making all government buildings more energy efficient, with an eye toward saving as much as $2 billion a year and reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for the warming of the planet.
He will also direct the Department of Transportation to immediately begin drafting automobile fuel-economy regulations to comply with a law enacted in December 2007. Former President George W. Bush delayed implementation of the law and left office saying there was not sufficient time to write the rules.
But the centerpiece of Monday's East Room announcement is Obama's directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately begin work on granting the so-called California waiver, which allows the state, a longtime leader in air quality matters, to set its own standards for automobile emissions. The Bush administration denied the waiver in late 2007, saying that allowing California and the 13 other states the right to set their own pollution rules would result in an unenforceable patchwork of environmental law. The automakers had advocated such a position, saying it would require them to produce two sets of vehicles, one to meet the strict California standard and another that could be sold in the remaining states.
Obama Moves to Let States Set Own Rules on Emissions
By STEPHEN POWER and LAURA MECKLER
President Barack Obama plans to call on the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to consider allowing states including California to regulate automobile greenhouse-gas emissions, said people familiar with the administration's thinking.
The move will signal a major policy break from his predecessor on an issue that has divided key Democratic Party constituencies. Mr. Obama's announcement is almost certain to spark a war between two key Democratic constituencies: environmentalists and state officials who want power to set greenhouse-gas rules, and auto makers and unions who say such rules would exacerbate the industry's woes following the worst year of U.S. vehicle sales in more than a decade.
Mr. Obama also plans to direct the Department of Transportation to complete automobile fuel-economy standards by March so that they can take effect for the model year 2011. Mr. Bush's administration had pledged to take such a step before the end of his term but ultimately punted the issue to Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama's plans were described to The Wall Street Journal by three people familiar with the administration's thinking, including one administration official. Mr. Obama was expected to outline his plans in directives to the agencies to be released at a White House event Monday.
Mr. Obama's memorandum to the EPA wasn't expected to direct the agency to allow California to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, but rather to undertake the legal process to reconsider a 2007 decision by the EPA's then-administrator, Stephen Johnson, to block California from implementing its state-level curbs on such emissions. A final decision by the EPA isn't expected for several months.
The directive on fuel-economy standards won't change federal policy, which already calls for tougher mileage standards. But it assures that those new standards will be in place for the 2011 model year.
Environmental advocates welcomed the planned moves. "President Obama, with these actions, will have done more for oil independence in one week than George Bush did in eight years," said Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington.
Mr. Obama's directive to the EPA will set in motion a process that could ultimately require auto makers to produce cleaner-burning vehicles to sell in states that adopt the tougher standards. Seventeen states, including California, have already signaled that they want to adopt tougher standards, Mr. Weiss said.
The planned moves come less than a week after California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger formally asked the president to let California enforce a 2002 state law that its officials estimate would require that vehicles achieve mileage equivalent to 35 miles per gallon of gasoline by 2017 -- three years earlier than a 2007 federal law would require.
Mr. Obama expressed support during his campaign for California's bid to regulate automobiles' greenhouse-gas emissions, so called because they trap the sun's heat in the earth's atmosphere, contributing to global warming. But he had not said publicly how quickly his administration intended to act on the state's request.
Under a 2007 Supreme Court decision, Mr. Obama's administration must determine whether greenhouse-gas emissions "endanger" public health or welfare, the legal trigger for regulating them under the federal Clean Air Act.
Technically, both decisions will fall to the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson.
Ms. Jackson supported an effort to adopt an emissions law modeled on California's when she headed New Jersey's environmental agency from 2006 until 2008. At a Senate hearing last week, she promised to immediately revisit the 2007 decision that blocked California from implementing its law.
A decision in favor of the request would clear the way for more than a dozen other states to enforce laws they modeled on California's. But it also would risk antagonizing the United Auto Workers, which has complained that the law unfairly discriminates against companies whose product mix is skewed toward larger and less fuel-efficient pickup trucks, sport-utility vehicles and minivans.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com and Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com
President Barack Obama plans to call on the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to consider allowing states including California to regulate automobile greenhouse-gas emissions, said people familiar with the administration's thinking.
The move will signal a major policy break from his predecessor on an issue that has divided key Democratic Party constituencies. Mr. Obama's announcement is almost certain to spark a war between two key Democratic constituencies: environmentalists and state officials who want power to set greenhouse-gas rules, and auto makers and unions who say such rules would exacerbate the industry's woes following the worst year of U.S. vehicle sales in more than a decade.
Mr. Obama also plans to direct the Department of Transportation to complete automobile fuel-economy standards by March so that they can take effect for the model year 2011. Mr. Bush's administration had pledged to take such a step before the end of his term but ultimately punted the issue to Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama's plans were described to The Wall Street Journal by three people familiar with the administration's thinking, including one administration official. Mr. Obama was expected to outline his plans in directives to the agencies to be released at a White House event Monday.
Mr. Obama's memorandum to the EPA wasn't expected to direct the agency to allow California to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, but rather to undertake the legal process to reconsider a 2007 decision by the EPA's then-administrator, Stephen Johnson, to block California from implementing its state-level curbs on such emissions. A final decision by the EPA isn't expected for several months.
The directive on fuel-economy standards won't change federal policy, which already calls for tougher mileage standards. But it assures that those new standards will be in place for the 2011 model year.
Environmental advocates welcomed the planned moves. "President Obama, with these actions, will have done more for oil independence in one week than George Bush did in eight years," said Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington.
Mr. Obama's directive to the EPA will set in motion a process that could ultimately require auto makers to produce cleaner-burning vehicles to sell in states that adopt the tougher standards. Seventeen states, including California, have already signaled that they want to adopt tougher standards, Mr. Weiss said.
The planned moves come less than a week after California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger formally asked the president to let California enforce a 2002 state law that its officials estimate would require that vehicles achieve mileage equivalent to 35 miles per gallon of gasoline by 2017 -- three years earlier than a 2007 federal law would require.
Mr. Obama expressed support during his campaign for California's bid to regulate automobiles' greenhouse-gas emissions, so called because they trap the sun's heat in the earth's atmosphere, contributing to global warming. But he had not said publicly how quickly his administration intended to act on the state's request.
Under a 2007 Supreme Court decision, Mr. Obama's administration must determine whether greenhouse-gas emissions "endanger" public health or welfare, the legal trigger for regulating them under the federal Clean Air Act.
Technically, both decisions will fall to the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson.
Ms. Jackson supported an effort to adopt an emissions law modeled on California's when she headed New Jersey's environmental agency from 2006 until 2008. At a Senate hearing last week, she promised to immediately revisit the 2007 decision that blocked California from implementing its law.
A decision in favor of the request would clear the way for more than a dozen other states to enforce laws they modeled on California's. But it also would risk antagonizing the United Auto Workers, which has complained that the law unfairly discriminates against companies whose product mix is skewed toward larger and less fuel-efficient pickup trucks, sport-utility vehicles and minivans.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com and Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Nuclear ban could be sap on Scottish energy
The Sunday Times
January 25, 2009
Significant opportunities in the power sector may be lost because of the government’s current stance
John Penman
Scotland could miss out on significant opportunities in the power sector if the government sticks to its decision not to build nuclear power stations, research suggests.
A study by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) predicts that while deal activity in the power sector will prove more difficult in coming years, the revival of the global nuclear industry offers plenty of opportunities.
Last week Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Power owner Iberdrola jointly expressed an interest in participating in the UK government’s commitment to investing in new nuclear power generation. But while the UK government has announced plans to build up to 10 new nuclear power stations by 2020, involving tens of billions of pounds of investment, the Scottish government opposes any new stations.
Jason McBurnie, in corporate finance at Price Waterhouse Coopers Scotland, said Scottish firms could miss out on the nuclear bonanza.
“Nuclear power is undoubtedly a thorny topic. With the richness of nuclear expertise within British Energy and its supplier base, Scotland has much to offer — and to gain from — an expanding nuclear power industry,” he said. “The question for Scotland is whether its government’s policy statement of vetoing new nuclear generation capacity within Scotland will lead to the country missing out on a share of this activity and whether this is a price worth paying for a key Scottish government policy decision?”
McBurnie said the opportunities in the nuclear sector would undoubtedly spread to other businesses.
“The new investment programme could prompt a further round of mergers and acquisitions on a smaller scale, as the search to acquire deep nuclear skills in the consultancy, engineering services and construction sectors intensifies,” he said.
“Indeed, Scottish engineering business Weir Group benefited from this high demand for nuclear expertise when we advised the group last year on the strategic sale of its Strachan & Henshaw division.”
Research by PWC shows that while the number of power deals soared in 2008, the value of deals plummeted as companies faced the new reality of the financial crisis and, in key markets, adopted a “wait and see” approach to big acquisitions.
The latest edition of Power Deals, the annual review by PWC of global power-sector mergers and acquisitions, shows a 24% rise in worldwide power deals for 2008, up to 954 from 768 in 2007, but a 41% plunge in total deal value, down to US$205.6 billion (£151.3 billion) from its record level of US$372.5 billion in 2007.
McBurnie added: “The coming year will be one of obstacles and opportunities in the power sector. The constrained availability of finance will inhibit deal activity and, until that situation is eased, there is unlikely to be a revival in deal values.
“However, with some businesses running short of cash for essential expansion, or facing refinancing challenges, the need for liquidity may force the market, with businesses and assets becoming available for corporates with strong balance sheets and cash flows.”
SWEDEN’S Vattenfall may form a three-way consortium with Spain’s Iberdrola and Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) to build nuclear reactors in the UK.
Iberdrola, the owner of ScottishPower, and SSE have announced they will unite to bid for new sites. Vattenfall is understood to have held talks with the Scottish groups.
Iberdrola is thought to be open to the idea of Vattenfall taking a share in the stations, which will cost up to £5 billion each.
January 25, 2009
Significant opportunities in the power sector may be lost because of the government’s current stance
John Penman
Scotland could miss out on significant opportunities in the power sector if the government sticks to its decision not to build nuclear power stations, research suggests.
A study by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) predicts that while deal activity in the power sector will prove more difficult in coming years, the revival of the global nuclear industry offers plenty of opportunities.
Last week Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Power owner Iberdrola jointly expressed an interest in participating in the UK government’s commitment to investing in new nuclear power generation. But while the UK government has announced plans to build up to 10 new nuclear power stations by 2020, involving tens of billions of pounds of investment, the Scottish government opposes any new stations.
Jason McBurnie, in corporate finance at Price Waterhouse Coopers Scotland, said Scottish firms could miss out on the nuclear bonanza.
“Nuclear power is undoubtedly a thorny topic. With the richness of nuclear expertise within British Energy and its supplier base, Scotland has much to offer — and to gain from — an expanding nuclear power industry,” he said. “The question for Scotland is whether its government’s policy statement of vetoing new nuclear generation capacity within Scotland will lead to the country missing out on a share of this activity and whether this is a price worth paying for a key Scottish government policy decision?”
McBurnie said the opportunities in the nuclear sector would undoubtedly spread to other businesses.
“The new investment programme could prompt a further round of mergers and acquisitions on a smaller scale, as the search to acquire deep nuclear skills in the consultancy, engineering services and construction sectors intensifies,” he said.
“Indeed, Scottish engineering business Weir Group benefited from this high demand for nuclear expertise when we advised the group last year on the strategic sale of its Strachan & Henshaw division.”
Research by PWC shows that while the number of power deals soared in 2008, the value of deals plummeted as companies faced the new reality of the financial crisis and, in key markets, adopted a “wait and see” approach to big acquisitions.
The latest edition of Power Deals, the annual review by PWC of global power-sector mergers and acquisitions, shows a 24% rise in worldwide power deals for 2008, up to 954 from 768 in 2007, but a 41% plunge in total deal value, down to US$205.6 billion (£151.3 billion) from its record level of US$372.5 billion in 2007.
McBurnie added: “The coming year will be one of obstacles and opportunities in the power sector. The constrained availability of finance will inhibit deal activity and, until that situation is eased, there is unlikely to be a revival in deal values.
“However, with some businesses running short of cash for essential expansion, or facing refinancing challenges, the need for liquidity may force the market, with businesses and assets becoming available for corporates with strong balance sheets and cash flows.”
SWEDEN’S Vattenfall may form a three-way consortium with Spain’s Iberdrola and Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) to build nuclear reactors in the UK.
Iberdrola, the owner of ScottishPower, and SSE have announced they will unite to bid for new sites. Vattenfall is understood to have held talks with the Scottish groups.
Iberdrola is thought to be open to the idea of Vattenfall taking a share in the stations, which will cost up to £5 billion each.
Miliband steps up nuclear drive
By Mark LeftlySunday, 25 January 2009
Crunch talks on the UK's nuclear rollout programme will take place on Tuesday.
Ed Miliband, Energy and Climate Change Secretary, will host a conference at which it is thought he will push UK manufacturers to find ways of encouraging British engineers and designers to produce key components for nuclear stations. Under EU legislation a government cannot demand that its own companies have an involvement in such projects. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, part of the Health and Safety Executive, is also due to announce ideas for station design.
Scottish & Southern Energy and Iberdrola, the Spanish owner of Scottish Power, announced last week that they would set up a joint venture to build nuclear plants in the UK. British Energy's French owner, EDF, and German partnership E.ON and RWE have also said they intend to join the nuclear rollout programme. Between them, it is estimated that the trio could provide 15 gigawatts of nuclear energy.
Crunch talks on the UK's nuclear rollout programme will take place on Tuesday.
Ed Miliband, Energy and Climate Change Secretary, will host a conference at which it is thought he will push UK manufacturers to find ways of encouraging British engineers and designers to produce key components for nuclear stations. Under EU legislation a government cannot demand that its own companies have an involvement in such projects. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, part of the Health and Safety Executive, is also due to announce ideas for station design.
Scottish & Southern Energy and Iberdrola, the Spanish owner of Scottish Power, announced last week that they would set up a joint venture to build nuclear plants in the UK. British Energy's French owner, EDF, and German partnership E.ON and RWE have also said they intend to join the nuclear rollout programme. Between them, it is estimated that the trio could provide 15 gigawatts of nuclear energy.
Link-up for nuclear sites
SWEDEN’s Vattenfall may form a three-way consortium with Spain’s Iberdrola and Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) to build nuclear reactors in the UK.
Iberdrola, owner of Scottish Power, and SSE have announced they will unite to bid for new sites. Vattenfall is understood to have held talks with the Scottish groups.
Iberdrola is thought to be open to the idea of Vattenfall sharing costs in the stations, which will cost up to £5 billion each.
Iberdrola, owner of Scottish Power, and SSE have announced they will unite to bid for new sites. Vattenfall is understood to have held talks with the Scottish groups.
Iberdrola is thought to be open to the idea of Vattenfall sharing costs in the stations, which will cost up to £5 billion each.
Miliband faces energy dilemma
The Sunday Times
January 25, 2009
He is struggling to balance supply security with low emissions
Danny Fortson
It is not surprising that the past few months have been rocky for Ed Miliband. After all, Gordon Brown saddled him with one of the most difficult briefs in government when he appointed the 39-year-old former Cabinet Office minister in October to lead the newly created Department of Energy and Climate Change.
The government was being pilloried for its failure to rein in record-high household energy bills. The industry gave him little time to settle in, quickly criticising the new minister for not understanding the sector he was dropped in to oversee. Russia’s decision to cut gas supplies to Europe, meanwhile, stoked fresh concerns that Britain’s ageing infrastructure, much of it built in the 1950s and 1960s, would be shut down long before clean, reliable alternatives were built to replace it.
Yet Miliband - younger brother of the foreign secretary David - seems unbowed by the challenge. Indeed, he is set to take his nascent department into the most interventionist state role since the industry was privatised in the early 1990s.
“There are big opportunities here, but it does require a strategic role for government,” he said in an interview with The Sunday Times. “Part of it is what Lord Mandelson [the business secretary] has been talking about, which is having a more active industrial policy.”
It is up to Miliband to get the best out of the expected £100 billion that will be needed over the next decade to reshape Britain’s energy infrastructure for a low-carbon world. He is not convinced that, left to their own devices, companies will get it right.
“There are too many uncertainties associated with these investments for markets to do them on their own, even with a price on carbon, and that’s what we are working on,” he said.
This week he will make the first of a flurry of announcements that he says will keep Britain on track towards taming the three-headed hydra of energy security, pollution reduction and affordability.
Tomorrow he will unveil a short list of five proposals for the Severn Barrage, the controversial tidal scheme that has been knocking around for three decades but been repeatedly rejected over cost and environmental concerns. On Tuesday he will push ahead with Britain’s new nuclear building programme when he invites the industry to propose sites on which to build new nuclear reactors.
In recent weeks all the big six utilities have formed consortiums as they prepare to build what would be the world’s first new generation of nuclear reactors, outside France, in decades. The industry’s interest has been spurred largely by a concerted government effort to remove many of the obstacles that had for so long held back development here.
“We are not about subsidising new nuclear, but we are about breaking down the barriers,” said Miliband, referring to the recently passed energy and planning bills. “When you see the companies that are coming forward, there is a pretty clear enthusiasm that new nukes make economic sense for them.”
It is a model that Miliband hopes to replicate with the renewables industry. “The low-carbon future is in my view around nuclear, renewables and clean fossil fuels, but we need to create a top-down framework to incentivise the market,” he said. “We have shown on nuclear that we can deliver on these things, and we are seeking to do the same on renewables,” he added.
In the spring the Department of Energy will publish its low-carbon industrial strategy paper, detailing a comprehensive approach that will include subsidies for new technologies and that aims to create thousands of new “green” jobs.
But won’t all this lead to ever-higher household bills? Not necessarily, he argues. “The best answer to upward pressure on energy prices is energy efficiency and we are in the foothills of what we need to achieve in this area,” he said. “In the 1970s Britain converted to North Sea gas. I confess I don’t remember it that well - I was very young - but that sort of house-by-house, street-by-street programme is what we need to think about for energy efficiency.”
Yet, with roughly a third of Britain’s generating capacity set to close over the next 15 years, the industry has warned that renewables will not be enough and that without new fossil-fuel plants the country faces the real possibility of the lights going out.
It is in this context that Miliband will have to make what will surely be one of his most controversial decisions: whether to approve an application by Eon to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth, near Ashford in Kent.
The plant would be the first coal-fired station to be built in Britain for more than three decades. Eon has entered the project into a competition under which the government will award one company several hundred million pounds to build a carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant to demonstrate a technology that promises to strip carbon out of power-station exhaust and bury it underground.
Miliband refused to say if he would award the CCS money to Eon, or if he would approve the plant if it lost the competition. “It is very difficult to reconcile security of supply with our low-carbon obligations, but I don’t want to anticipate what I have to announce to parliament in the coming weeks and months on our approach to this issue because it is a very sensitive matter.”
He admitted, however, that he thinks “Britain should lead by example on CCS”. Giving the green light to a dirty new coal plant would not be seen as setting a good example.
January 25, 2009
He is struggling to balance supply security with low emissions
Danny Fortson
It is not surprising that the past few months have been rocky for Ed Miliband. After all, Gordon Brown saddled him with one of the most difficult briefs in government when he appointed the 39-year-old former Cabinet Office minister in October to lead the newly created Department of Energy and Climate Change.
The government was being pilloried for its failure to rein in record-high household energy bills. The industry gave him little time to settle in, quickly criticising the new minister for not understanding the sector he was dropped in to oversee. Russia’s decision to cut gas supplies to Europe, meanwhile, stoked fresh concerns that Britain’s ageing infrastructure, much of it built in the 1950s and 1960s, would be shut down long before clean, reliable alternatives were built to replace it.
Yet Miliband - younger brother of the foreign secretary David - seems unbowed by the challenge. Indeed, he is set to take his nascent department into the most interventionist state role since the industry was privatised in the early 1990s.
“There are big opportunities here, but it does require a strategic role for government,” he said in an interview with The Sunday Times. “Part of it is what Lord Mandelson [the business secretary] has been talking about, which is having a more active industrial policy.”
It is up to Miliband to get the best out of the expected £100 billion that will be needed over the next decade to reshape Britain’s energy infrastructure for a low-carbon world. He is not convinced that, left to their own devices, companies will get it right.
“There are too many uncertainties associated with these investments for markets to do them on their own, even with a price on carbon, and that’s what we are working on,” he said.
This week he will make the first of a flurry of announcements that he says will keep Britain on track towards taming the three-headed hydra of energy security, pollution reduction and affordability.
Tomorrow he will unveil a short list of five proposals for the Severn Barrage, the controversial tidal scheme that has been knocking around for three decades but been repeatedly rejected over cost and environmental concerns. On Tuesday he will push ahead with Britain’s new nuclear building programme when he invites the industry to propose sites on which to build new nuclear reactors.
In recent weeks all the big six utilities have formed consortiums as they prepare to build what would be the world’s first new generation of nuclear reactors, outside France, in decades. The industry’s interest has been spurred largely by a concerted government effort to remove many of the obstacles that had for so long held back development here.
“We are not about subsidising new nuclear, but we are about breaking down the barriers,” said Miliband, referring to the recently passed energy and planning bills. “When you see the companies that are coming forward, there is a pretty clear enthusiasm that new nukes make economic sense for them.”
It is a model that Miliband hopes to replicate with the renewables industry. “The low-carbon future is in my view around nuclear, renewables and clean fossil fuels, but we need to create a top-down framework to incentivise the market,” he said. “We have shown on nuclear that we can deliver on these things, and we are seeking to do the same on renewables,” he added.
In the spring the Department of Energy will publish its low-carbon industrial strategy paper, detailing a comprehensive approach that will include subsidies for new technologies and that aims to create thousands of new “green” jobs.
But won’t all this lead to ever-higher household bills? Not necessarily, he argues. “The best answer to upward pressure on energy prices is energy efficiency and we are in the foothills of what we need to achieve in this area,” he said. “In the 1970s Britain converted to North Sea gas. I confess I don’t remember it that well - I was very young - but that sort of house-by-house, street-by-street programme is what we need to think about for energy efficiency.”
Yet, with roughly a third of Britain’s generating capacity set to close over the next 15 years, the industry has warned that renewables will not be enough and that without new fossil-fuel plants the country faces the real possibility of the lights going out.
It is in this context that Miliband will have to make what will surely be one of his most controversial decisions: whether to approve an application by Eon to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth, near Ashford in Kent.
The plant would be the first coal-fired station to be built in Britain for more than three decades. Eon has entered the project into a competition under which the government will award one company several hundred million pounds to build a carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant to demonstrate a technology that promises to strip carbon out of power-station exhaust and bury it underground.
Miliband refused to say if he would award the CCS money to Eon, or if he would approve the plant if it lost the competition. “It is very difficult to reconcile security of supply with our low-carbon obligations, but I don’t want to anticipate what I have to announce to parliament in the coming weeks and months on our approach to this issue because it is a very sensitive matter.”
He admitted, however, that he thinks “Britain should lead by example on CCS”. Giving the green light to a dirty new coal plant would not be seen as setting a good example.
Severn Barrage plans revealed
The Sunday Times
January 25, 2009
Danny Fortson
ENERGY secretary Ed Miliband will unveil five proposals tomorrow for the Severn Barrage, the controversial tidal scheme that could become the country’s biggest source of renewable energy.
The announcement will be a step forward for a project that could generate up to 7% of Britain’s energy needs but which has failed to get off the ground since it was proposed after the 1970s oil shocks.
Several variations of a scheme to harness the strong currents of the Severn Estuary to generate electricity have been rejected over costs, possibly as high as £15 billion, or potential environmental damage.
Miliband told The Sunday Times, however, that the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions could finally make it viable.
“Climate change makes us want to look again at this kind of technology. This would make an important contribution to our renewable targets,” he said. “We can’t rule out anything when it comes to climate change.”
The Department of Energy and Climate Change will open a three-month public consultation on the proposals, which range from a 10-mile barrage between Brean Down, south of Weston-super-Mare, and Lavernock Point in Wales, to less-intrusive options such as an underwater tidal fence or lagoons.
Miliband will give fresh impetus to the new nuclear-building programme this week when he invites the industry to propose sites for new nuclear reactors. This will be based on criteria that the department will publish under its strategic-siting assessment.
January 25, 2009
Danny Fortson
ENERGY secretary Ed Miliband will unveil five proposals tomorrow for the Severn Barrage, the controversial tidal scheme that could become the country’s biggest source of renewable energy.
The announcement will be a step forward for a project that could generate up to 7% of Britain’s energy needs but which has failed to get off the ground since it was proposed after the 1970s oil shocks.
Several variations of a scheme to harness the strong currents of the Severn Estuary to generate electricity have been rejected over costs, possibly as high as £15 billion, or potential environmental damage.
Miliband told The Sunday Times, however, that the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions could finally make it viable.
“Climate change makes us want to look again at this kind of technology. This would make an important contribution to our renewable targets,” he said. “We can’t rule out anything when it comes to climate change.”
The Department of Energy and Climate Change will open a three-month public consultation on the proposals, which range from a 10-mile barrage between Brean Down, south of Weston-super-Mare, and Lavernock Point in Wales, to less-intrusive options such as an underwater tidal fence or lagoons.
Miliband will give fresh impetus to the new nuclear-building programme this week when he invites the industry to propose sites for new nuclear reactors. This will be based on criteria that the department will publish under its strategic-siting assessment.
Farmer's secret GM crop defies green rulebook
Calls for prosecution of agricultural 'saboteur'
Caroline Davies
The Observer, Sunday 25 January 2009
Environmentalists are calling for the prosecution of a farmer who claims to have sabotaged Wales's GM-free status by secretly planting and harvesting genetically modified varieties of maize and feeding them to local sheep and cattle.
In a political stunt that has infuriated the National Assembly for Wales, Jonathan Harrington, 53, an agronomist who advises farmers on how to grow crops, claims to have imported two varieties of GM maize from Spain, planted them on his land and given seeds away to two other farmers who also planted the banned crops. Wales has been GM-free since 2000 and markets its milk, meat and vegetables accordingly.
As the Welsh assembly considers its legal options, GM-free campaigners condemned Harrington as "grossly irresponsible". Plant scientist Brian John of GM Free Cymru said: "To plant it, then deliberately push it into the food chain is absolutely insane." Friends of the Earth Cymru said: "The concern is that it has entered the food chain without any control, traceability or labelling. Even if it is a small quantity, it means Wales is not GM-free any more."
An unrepentant Harrington said he had resorted to the secret planting after the Welsh assembly, which voted unanimously for GM-free status in 2000, refused to have any meaningful discussions over its policy. He said: "Out of frustration I went and bought some varieties of maize bred to be resistant to a pest called the European corn borer and which are grown widely in Spain, France, Germany and the Czech Republic."
The varieties he chose were on the EU common variety list, and as such it is legal to grow them anywhere in Europe.
The Welsh assembly admitted that despite its policy, which has otherwise been strictly adhered to throughout the principality, it has no actual legal power to ban GM crops in Wales.
However, anti-GM campaigners believe Harrington can be prosecuted for not complying with stringent regulations that require monitoring, labelling and traceability of GM crops.
Not only does he claim to have planted the maize at his farm at Tregoyd, near Hay-on-Wye; he claims two other farmers, whom he refuses to name, also planted the same maize.
"It was a poor summer, so they didn't do terribly well. But we did have enough for silage. So, it has been used in animal feed, for Welsh lamb and Welsh cattle," he admitted. "I've no qualms, no regrets at all. I am waiting for the backlash, and am very happy morally, ethically and legally, if need be, to defend my actions."
The assembly said in a statement: "The Welsh assembly government believes that the introduction of GM crops could undermine some of our achievements and future ambitions for Welsh agriculture. We are committed to close monitoring and control of any proposals for GM crops in Wales. However, we cannot legally ban GM crops in Wales because we have to work within a European legal framework.
"Our policy is to take a precautionary and restrictive GM crop policy stance which is in line with our commitment to sustainable agriculture. We believe it has broad public support and reflects the Welsh assembly government's legal duty to act responsibly within the UK and EU legislation."
Brian John condemned Harrington's stunt as political sabotage. "If he has, as he claims, planted it and it has entered the food chain, and he has no monitoring in place, then clearly he's broken the regulations and he should be prosecuted, absolutely," he said. "We think this is grossly irresponsible. Wales's GM-free status is very important."
Caroline Davies
The Observer, Sunday 25 January 2009
Environmentalists are calling for the prosecution of a farmer who claims to have sabotaged Wales's GM-free status by secretly planting and harvesting genetically modified varieties of maize and feeding them to local sheep and cattle.
In a political stunt that has infuriated the National Assembly for Wales, Jonathan Harrington, 53, an agronomist who advises farmers on how to grow crops, claims to have imported two varieties of GM maize from Spain, planted them on his land and given seeds away to two other farmers who also planted the banned crops. Wales has been GM-free since 2000 and markets its milk, meat and vegetables accordingly.
As the Welsh assembly considers its legal options, GM-free campaigners condemned Harrington as "grossly irresponsible". Plant scientist Brian John of GM Free Cymru said: "To plant it, then deliberately push it into the food chain is absolutely insane." Friends of the Earth Cymru said: "The concern is that it has entered the food chain without any control, traceability or labelling. Even if it is a small quantity, it means Wales is not GM-free any more."
An unrepentant Harrington said he had resorted to the secret planting after the Welsh assembly, which voted unanimously for GM-free status in 2000, refused to have any meaningful discussions over its policy. He said: "Out of frustration I went and bought some varieties of maize bred to be resistant to a pest called the European corn borer and which are grown widely in Spain, France, Germany and the Czech Republic."
The varieties he chose were on the EU common variety list, and as such it is legal to grow them anywhere in Europe.
The Welsh assembly admitted that despite its policy, which has otherwise been strictly adhered to throughout the principality, it has no actual legal power to ban GM crops in Wales.
However, anti-GM campaigners believe Harrington can be prosecuted for not complying with stringent regulations that require monitoring, labelling and traceability of GM crops.
Not only does he claim to have planted the maize at his farm at Tregoyd, near Hay-on-Wye; he claims two other farmers, whom he refuses to name, also planted the same maize.
"It was a poor summer, so they didn't do terribly well. But we did have enough for silage. So, it has been used in animal feed, for Welsh lamb and Welsh cattle," he admitted. "I've no qualms, no regrets at all. I am waiting for the backlash, and am very happy morally, ethically and legally, if need be, to defend my actions."
The assembly said in a statement: "The Welsh assembly government believes that the introduction of GM crops could undermine some of our achievements and future ambitions for Welsh agriculture. We are committed to close monitoring and control of any proposals for GM crops in Wales. However, we cannot legally ban GM crops in Wales because we have to work within a European legal framework.
"Our policy is to take a precautionary and restrictive GM crop policy stance which is in line with our commitment to sustainable agriculture. We believe it has broad public support and reflects the Welsh assembly government's legal duty to act responsibly within the UK and EU legislation."
Brian John condemned Harrington's stunt as political sabotage. "If he has, as he claims, planted it and it has entered the food chain, and he has no monitoring in place, then clearly he's broken the regulations and he should be prosecuted, absolutely," he said. "We think this is grossly irresponsible. Wales's GM-free status is very important."
Call for airport cull of Canada geese
A growing population of 10,000 birds near Heathrow has sparked fears of a new crash like that in the Hudson river
Rajeev Syal
The Observer, Sunday 25 January 2009
Canada geese will need to be culled in their thousands because they pose an increasing risk to aircraft, a leading government adviser has revealed. Dr John Allan, an expert in bird management, warned that the birds were large enough to "bring a plane down" if sucked into an engine. He said that in Britain the numbers of the species had now reached 120,000.
Allan, head of the bird management team at the Central Science Laboratory, a government agency, said intensive culling was necessary to ensure passenger safety. His words follow last week's life-saving crash landing of a US Airways jet in the icy waters of New York's Hudson river. Both engines failed after it flew through a flock of Canada geese, according to the crew.
"This particular species can cause a problem because of their size. If they are sucked into an engine, they can bring a plane down," said Allan. "Their numbers have greatly increased across Britain, and so they will have to be culled, moved or restricted.
"While a small bird which is sucked into an aircraft's engine will not cause a problem, these geese are large enough to bring the engines to a halt. This is of great concern."
Allan said that Britain's airport authorities were already spending millions of pounds ensuring that flocks of birds, and Canada geese in particular, were kept away from airports and flight paths. Collisions between aircraft and birds cost the world civil aviation industry around £1.2bn a year and have resulted in the loss of 88 aircraft and 243 lives.
Canada geese, or Branta canadensis, easily recognised by their distinctive black head and neck and white chin-strap, are widespread in Britain. As their name suggests, they originated in the Canadian tundra and many winter in the southern swamplands of the United States. Some scientists claim that they are now choosing to winter in Europe because of global warming.
In Britain, their numbers are increasing by nearly 8% a year. They tend to fly in groups of 10 or 12 and so could overwhelm even a large engine designed to withstand a bird strike. Heathrow has a particular problem because around 10,000 of the birds roost in lakes and quarries south of the airport and feed to its north, making them likely to fly across the runways.
Measures were introduced to control the population in 1998 after a flock collided with a Boeing 767 coming in to land, causing damage to the nose, wing and left engine. Radar is now used to detect any within a six-mile radius. Efforts are then made to scare, move or kill the birds.
Canada geese are one of 13 species of birds - including gulls, crows and pigeons - which can be legally culled in Britain. Many are shot. Another method of controlling their numbers is to locate their eggs and either prick them with a pin or cover them in oil.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that Canada geese posed no threat to native British birds, but recognised that they could pose a danger to air traffic. It backs the Wildlife and Countryside Act regulation that all humane methods of population control should be tried before culling is adopted.
The Canada Geese Conservation Society, based in Walthamstow, north-east London opposes a cull because the birds mate for life and can pine to death if a partner is killed.
The number of Canada geese in Britain is expected to rise to more than 200,000 by 2010, according to the British Trust for Ornithology, which monitors bird populations. That compares with just 3,600 in 1953.
Experts believe that the rapid increase began in the 1970s and 1980s after the birds were deemed to be gathering in excessive numbers in parks and lakes and were moved on.
Dr Graham Austin, the trust's senior research ecologist, said: "Councils and park keepers were unwittingly helping to spread their numbers. As a result, they are everywhere and can be quite a nuisance."
Rajeev Syal
The Observer, Sunday 25 January 2009
Canada geese will need to be culled in their thousands because they pose an increasing risk to aircraft, a leading government adviser has revealed. Dr John Allan, an expert in bird management, warned that the birds were large enough to "bring a plane down" if sucked into an engine. He said that in Britain the numbers of the species had now reached 120,000.
Allan, head of the bird management team at the Central Science Laboratory, a government agency, said intensive culling was necessary to ensure passenger safety. His words follow last week's life-saving crash landing of a US Airways jet in the icy waters of New York's Hudson river. Both engines failed after it flew through a flock of Canada geese, according to the crew.
"This particular species can cause a problem because of their size. If they are sucked into an engine, they can bring a plane down," said Allan. "Their numbers have greatly increased across Britain, and so they will have to be culled, moved or restricted.
"While a small bird which is sucked into an aircraft's engine will not cause a problem, these geese are large enough to bring the engines to a halt. This is of great concern."
Allan said that Britain's airport authorities were already spending millions of pounds ensuring that flocks of birds, and Canada geese in particular, were kept away from airports and flight paths. Collisions between aircraft and birds cost the world civil aviation industry around £1.2bn a year and have resulted in the loss of 88 aircraft and 243 lives.
Canada geese, or Branta canadensis, easily recognised by their distinctive black head and neck and white chin-strap, are widespread in Britain. As their name suggests, they originated in the Canadian tundra and many winter in the southern swamplands of the United States. Some scientists claim that they are now choosing to winter in Europe because of global warming.
In Britain, their numbers are increasing by nearly 8% a year. They tend to fly in groups of 10 or 12 and so could overwhelm even a large engine designed to withstand a bird strike. Heathrow has a particular problem because around 10,000 of the birds roost in lakes and quarries south of the airport and feed to its north, making them likely to fly across the runways.
Measures were introduced to control the population in 1998 after a flock collided with a Boeing 767 coming in to land, causing damage to the nose, wing and left engine. Radar is now used to detect any within a six-mile radius. Efforts are then made to scare, move or kill the birds.
Canada geese are one of 13 species of birds - including gulls, crows and pigeons - which can be legally culled in Britain. Many are shot. Another method of controlling their numbers is to locate their eggs and either prick them with a pin or cover them in oil.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that Canada geese posed no threat to native British birds, but recognised that they could pose a danger to air traffic. It backs the Wildlife and Countryside Act regulation that all humane methods of population control should be tried before culling is adopted.
The Canada Geese Conservation Society, based in Walthamstow, north-east London opposes a cull because the birds mate for life and can pine to death if a partner is killed.
The number of Canada geese in Britain is expected to rise to more than 200,000 by 2010, according to the British Trust for Ornithology, which monitors bird populations. That compares with just 3,600 in 1953.
Experts believe that the rapid increase began in the 1970s and 1980s after the birds were deemed to be gathering in excessive numbers in parks and lakes and were moved on.
Dr Graham Austin, the trust's senior research ecologist, said: "Councils and park keepers were unwittingly helping to spread their numbers. As a result, they are everywhere and can be quite a nuisance."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
