Debt-Laden Turbine Maker Grapples With Weak Sales Growth, More Production Problems as It Tries to Raise Cash
By TOM WRIGHT
India's Suzlon Energy Ltd., one of the world's largest producers of wind turbines, faces new blade-production problems, according to people familiar with the matter.
Associated Press
Suzlon is contending with troubles on a Chinese project. Above, Suzlon turbines lined a Minnesota road in May.
The new concerns come as Suzlon is trying to raise funds, including through selling a stake to private-equity firms. The company may be at risk of breaking debt covenants and has to pay €205 million, or about $275 million, over the next six weeks to complete an acquisition.
The latest issues concern blades for a project in China's Shandong province. Early last year, Suzlon won a contract with Germany's REpower Systems AG to produce blades for 75 turbines for the China project and an option on 75 more. But REpower rejected Suzlon's prototype for the initial blades for not meeting REpower's quality standards and obtained them from other suppliers, according to people familiar with the matter.
Suzlon owns 74% of REpower but must manage the company at arm's length because of German corporate law protecting minority shareholders. REpower said that German law regarding related-party transactions requires that Suzlon pay REpower for any losses stemming from business dealings between the two companies. REpower lost at least €6 million on the first 75 turbines by having to ship stand-in blades to China from Europe, one of the people familiar with the matter said.
"New blades for any new customer take time," said Suzlon Chief Operating Officer Sumant Sinha. "Our products are good and reliable." He said any penalties relating to the REpower blade issue wouldn't be material to Suzlon.
Suzlon said Wednesday that the China issues related to late delivery, not technical capabilities. The company said it is "working vigorously" on blade-prototype testing for the remainder of the China project, after which it hopes to move to full-scale production.
The problems come at a difficult time for the Pune-based company. Suzlon already is spending $100 million to fix blade cracks on its turbines in the U.S., Europe and Brazil. Suzlon's export-order backlog was down 38% at the end of last year from a year earlier.
Suzlon forecasts that net sales will rise 10% to 15% for the fiscal year that ends next March. That's down from about 70% growth, to $2.7 billion, for fiscal 2008. Suzlon said new orders from customers in the U.S., China and Australia indicate confidence in the company.
Suzlon remains saddled with debt from a rapid expansion begun two years ago. Suzlon founder Tulsi Tanti sought to build a global wind-turbine manufacturer that could take advantage of India's low-cost labor. A major plank of that expansion was taking on debt to finance the 2007 deal to acquire REpower for $1.7 billion and to build new factories in the U.S., China and India.
Mr. Tanti, who is Suzlon's chairman and chief executive, wasn't available for comment.
New financing has been hard to come by, and as a result, Suzlon may be in danger of breaching its debt covenants, according to analysts and one of the people familiar with the matter.
Credit Rating Information Services of India estimated that the $2.2 billion of net debt Suzlon reported for the end of last year was 1.5 times its equity at that time. But Suzlon's debt covenants with its lenders say that so-called gearing ratio can be no larger than 1.0.
Suzlon could have breached that requirement at the end of last month, when the company was required to establish that it is meeting various debt ratios. Mr. Sinha said data on whether the company met its covenants at the end of March won't be ready until late next month.
If Suzlon breaches its covenants, it could sell major assets to raise cash to pay back the banks, analysts said. One possibility is off-loading a stake in its Hansen Transmissions International NV unit, a Belgian industrial-gearbox maker, analysts said.
Even if Suzlon breached its covenants, its lenders might not exercise their rights to seek payment. Suzlon's chief lenders, ABN Amro and Deutsche Bank AG, declined to comment.
Other recent efforts to raise capital haven't borne fruit. Suzlon shelved a $360 million rights issue late last year because its stock price had fallen sharply. Its shares Wednesday were off 79% from a 52-week high reached last May, putting the company's market value at $2.1 billion. Suzlon also has been attempting to sell a stake to private-equity firms.
Meanwhile, Suzlon has to pay €30 million this month and €175 million in May to complete the purchase of a further 17% stake in REpower from Martifer SGPS SA of Portugal.
Suzlon said it is "exploring multiple financing options" and trying to increase the efficiency of its supply network, which could reduce its capital requirements.
Suzlon transferred money from its Spanish unit despite owing money to creditors in Spain, according to a Feb. 11 letter to the head of Suzlon's European arm from Felipe Garcia-Mina, a director of Suzlon's Spanish unit.
In the letter, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Garcia-Mina also said Suzlon's actions potentially left him personally liable to creditors under European Union law.
He wrote that he understood Suzlon's cash-flow situation and was prepared to assume some risk if he could control it, "but I do not believe that Suzlon is asking the managers to assume [an] unlimited risk and without any control."
Mr. Garcia-Mina referred calls to Suzlon. Mr. Sinha, Suzlon's operating chief, said the letter referred to "normal correspondence between two of our subsidiaries" that has been resolved.
Write to Tom Wright at tom.wright@wsj.com
Thursday, 16 April 2009
UK biofuels target creating more emissions, environmentalists claim
The government's scheme to introduce biofuels to cut CO2 on roads has actually increased carbon emissions through deforestation, study finds
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 April 2009 11.11 BST
The government's scheme to introduce biofuels as a way to cut carbon emissions from road transport has led to extra emissions equivalent to putting 500,000 more cars on UK roads, according to environmentalists.
A new study shows that producing the amount of biofuels required to meet the government's targets in the past year could have inadvertently doubled the overall emissions of CO2 compared with the standard fossil fuels they have replaced. The extra emissions come from forest destruction tied indirectly to growing energy crops.
Biofuels are, in theory, carbon neutral because they only release the carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere by a plant as it grows. But many recent studies have suggested that the indirect effects of producing biofuels can have a negative overall impact.
In several parts of the world, for example, growing biofuel crops such as soy competes for land with food crops, which are then often displaced on to land that has been cleared of forests. A new analysis, carried out for Friends of the Earth (FoE) by environmental consultants Scott Wilson, has estimated the amount of CO2 emitted as a result of this deforestation.
The researchers calculated that the overall carbon cost of clearing forests for biofuels was equivalent to an extra 1.3m tonnes of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere since April last year. That was when the government's Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) was introduced, which mandated fuel suppliers to include at least 2.5% biofuel in their petrol or diesel. Today that requirement rises to 3.3%.
"Until ministers can do their sums properly and can prove that biofuels are actually saving emissions, they do need to put them on hold," said Nick Davies, a biofuels campaigner at FoE.
Soy crops from the US, Argentina and Brazil are used in the most common UK biodiesels and all contribute to the deforestation problem. The FoE study assumed that 10% of the food crops displaced by biofuels would be pushed on to land created by clearing forests.
The researchers allocated this additional land to various agricultural uses and calculated the resulting amount of extra emissions using established models. For example, clearing one hectare of the Amazonian rainforest can release up to 1,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, according to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The FoE's concerns were also raised in a government-sponsored review of biofuels published by Ed Gallagher last year. In the study, he recommended that the introduction of biofuels to the UK should be slowed until more effective controls were in place to prevent the inadvertent rise in greenhouse gas emissions caused if, for example, forests are cleared to make way for biofuel production.
Gallagher's report said that if these displacements are left unchecked, current targets for biofuel production could cause a global rise in greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in poverty in the poorest countries by 2020.
His main recommendation, accepted by the government at the time, was to slow down the introduction of the RTFO so that, starting from a base of 2.5% biofuel mixed into petrol and diesel in 2008-09, manufacturers had to increase the proportion by only 0.5% per year. He further added that anything beyond 5% biofuel after 2013-14 should only be agreed by governments if the fuels are demonstrated as sustainable, including avoiding indirect effects such as change in land use.
"Gallagher has slowed down the rate of increase but we don't think that's an adequate response," said Davies. "He raised some serious concerns and, at the moment, they're not being addressed."
A spokeswoman for the Department for Transport acknowledged that the evidence around biofuels was still evolving. "What is not in dispute is the need to develop new, cleaner fuels and break our dependence on oil if we are to tackle climate change," she said.
"Some biofuels have the potential to help us achieve this. So whilst there is no case for pushing forward indiscriminately on those that may do more harm than good, it would be foolish to ignore any potential they do have.
"We have always been clear that biofuels can only make a useful contribution to mitigating climate change if they are sustainably produced. That is why we commissioned an independent review and following its recommendation we agreed to continue to proceed but to do so more cautiously until we are clearer about their wider effects on the environment.
"We believe this strikes a balanced approach based on the best possible science and evidence as it currently stands."
Davies said that, instead of focusing on ramping up biofuels, the government should encourage more proven methods to reduce transport emissions. "They should be investing in first-class public transport systems and smarter cars that actually save on fuel, and more provision for cyclists and pedestrians.
"They are proven to work and don't have the negative side-effects in terms of raising food prices and chopping down the rainforest. We need to put the biofuels obligation on hold until they can show biofuels are actually saving emissions."
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 April 2009 11.11 BST
The government's scheme to introduce biofuels as a way to cut carbon emissions from road transport has led to extra emissions equivalent to putting 500,000 more cars on UK roads, according to environmentalists.
A new study shows that producing the amount of biofuels required to meet the government's targets in the past year could have inadvertently doubled the overall emissions of CO2 compared with the standard fossil fuels they have replaced. The extra emissions come from forest destruction tied indirectly to growing energy crops.
Biofuels are, in theory, carbon neutral because they only release the carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere by a plant as it grows. But many recent studies have suggested that the indirect effects of producing biofuels can have a negative overall impact.
In several parts of the world, for example, growing biofuel crops such as soy competes for land with food crops, which are then often displaced on to land that has been cleared of forests. A new analysis, carried out for Friends of the Earth (FoE) by environmental consultants Scott Wilson, has estimated the amount of CO2 emitted as a result of this deforestation.
The researchers calculated that the overall carbon cost of clearing forests for biofuels was equivalent to an extra 1.3m tonnes of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere since April last year. That was when the government's Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) was introduced, which mandated fuel suppliers to include at least 2.5% biofuel in their petrol or diesel. Today that requirement rises to 3.3%.
"Until ministers can do their sums properly and can prove that biofuels are actually saving emissions, they do need to put them on hold," said Nick Davies, a biofuels campaigner at FoE.
Soy crops from the US, Argentina and Brazil are used in the most common UK biodiesels and all contribute to the deforestation problem. The FoE study assumed that 10% of the food crops displaced by biofuels would be pushed on to land created by clearing forests.
The researchers allocated this additional land to various agricultural uses and calculated the resulting amount of extra emissions using established models. For example, clearing one hectare of the Amazonian rainforest can release up to 1,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, according to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The FoE's concerns were also raised in a government-sponsored review of biofuels published by Ed Gallagher last year. In the study, he recommended that the introduction of biofuels to the UK should be slowed until more effective controls were in place to prevent the inadvertent rise in greenhouse gas emissions caused if, for example, forests are cleared to make way for biofuel production.
Gallagher's report said that if these displacements are left unchecked, current targets for biofuel production could cause a global rise in greenhouse gas emissions and an increase in poverty in the poorest countries by 2020.
His main recommendation, accepted by the government at the time, was to slow down the introduction of the RTFO so that, starting from a base of 2.5% biofuel mixed into petrol and diesel in 2008-09, manufacturers had to increase the proportion by only 0.5% per year. He further added that anything beyond 5% biofuel after 2013-14 should only be agreed by governments if the fuels are demonstrated as sustainable, including avoiding indirect effects such as change in land use.
"Gallagher has slowed down the rate of increase but we don't think that's an adequate response," said Davies. "He raised some serious concerns and, at the moment, they're not being addressed."
A spokeswoman for the Department for Transport acknowledged that the evidence around biofuels was still evolving. "What is not in dispute is the need to develop new, cleaner fuels and break our dependence on oil if we are to tackle climate change," she said.
"Some biofuels have the potential to help us achieve this. So whilst there is no case for pushing forward indiscriminately on those that may do more harm than good, it would be foolish to ignore any potential they do have.
"We have always been clear that biofuels can only make a useful contribution to mitigating climate change if they are sustainably produced. That is why we commissioned an independent review and following its recommendation we agreed to continue to proceed but to do so more cautiously until we are clearer about their wider effects on the environment.
"We believe this strikes a balanced approach based on the best possible science and evidence as it currently stands."
Davies said that, instead of focusing on ramping up biofuels, the government should encourage more proven methods to reduce transport emissions. "They should be investing in first-class public transport systems and smarter cars that actually save on fuel, and more provision for cyclists and pedestrians.
"They are proven to work and don't have the negative side-effects in terms of raising food prices and chopping down the rainforest. We need to put the biofuels obligation on hold until they can show biofuels are actually saving emissions."
Greener fuels will add to cost of motoring, oil companies say
The Times
April 16, 2009
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
The cost of motoring will rise under a European Union plan to force oil companies to add more biofuel to petrol and diesel, the industry has claimed.
An analysis by the UK Petroleum Industry Association said that drivers of cars built before 2000 would be worst hit because they may have to buy a more expensive type of fuel to avoid damaging their engines.
All drivers will have to fill up more often because biofuels produce fewer miles per gallon.
The Government is also removing the fuel duty discount for biofuel from next year and this is expected to add about 2p a litre to pump prices.
Oil companies have had to spend more than £100 million in the past year on adapting refineries and storage facilities to cope with biofuels. The costs of complying with the EU directive will increase sharply over the next five years and most of the cost will be passed on to drivers.
Biofuel made from crops such as soya, oilseed rape and palm will, in theory, reduce greenhouse gas emissions because the plants absorb carbon as they grow. However, a Friends of the Earth report this week said that biofuels could increase emissions because forests were being cut down to clear land for crops.
The association said that it was planning a publicity campaign next year to educate drivers about the risks of using biofuels. It said that manufacturers’ warranties could be invalidated if drivers bought petrol or diesel with more than 5 per cent biofuel.
Presently, diesel contains about 5 per cent biofuel and petrol 1 per cent. Fuel retailers do not have to reveal the biofuel content if it is 5 per cent or less. Lack of information means many drivers do not realise that they already have some biofuel in their tanks.
The association said that 2.7 per cent of fuel sold at the pumps last year was biofuel, slightly more than the Government’s target for 2008-09 of 2.5 per cent.
Last summer Britain responded to concerns about sustainability by reducing the rate of increase of biofuel consumption in road transport. But all EU countries must comply with a directive requiring 13 per cent of fuel to be biofuel by 2020. The association said that a new EU standard allowing 10 per cent of petrol to be biofuel would be introduced next year.
Malcolm Watson, its technical director, said that drivers of older cars would have to buy “super unleaded”, a higher octane fuel that costs about 6p more per litre, or £3.60 extra to fill a 60-litre tank.
He said that oil companies were planning to increase the biofuel content of ordinary unleaded to 10 per cent while keeping super unleaded at a maximum of 5 per cent.
Mr Watson said that new cars had fuel systems able to cope with higher levels of biofuel but there could be problems with older cars.
The AA said that ethanol, the biofuel added to petrol, could perish rubber seals, corrode metal components and block filters. It said the first sign of a problem would be the engine spluttering, possibly followed by a complete loss of power. Paul Watters, its head of transport policy, said: “Government and industry have failed to explain how much extra people will have to pay and what the risks are to their cars.
“We would urge drivers even now to look at the vehicle log books and check on fuel specifications.”
April 16, 2009
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
The cost of motoring will rise under a European Union plan to force oil companies to add more biofuel to petrol and diesel, the industry has claimed.
An analysis by the UK Petroleum Industry Association said that drivers of cars built before 2000 would be worst hit because they may have to buy a more expensive type of fuel to avoid damaging their engines.
All drivers will have to fill up more often because biofuels produce fewer miles per gallon.
The Government is also removing the fuel duty discount for biofuel from next year and this is expected to add about 2p a litre to pump prices.
Oil companies have had to spend more than £100 million in the past year on adapting refineries and storage facilities to cope with biofuels. The costs of complying with the EU directive will increase sharply over the next five years and most of the cost will be passed on to drivers.
Biofuel made from crops such as soya, oilseed rape and palm will, in theory, reduce greenhouse gas emissions because the plants absorb carbon as they grow. However, a Friends of the Earth report this week said that biofuels could increase emissions because forests were being cut down to clear land for crops.
The association said that it was planning a publicity campaign next year to educate drivers about the risks of using biofuels. It said that manufacturers’ warranties could be invalidated if drivers bought petrol or diesel with more than 5 per cent biofuel.
Presently, diesel contains about 5 per cent biofuel and petrol 1 per cent. Fuel retailers do not have to reveal the biofuel content if it is 5 per cent or less. Lack of information means many drivers do not realise that they already have some biofuel in their tanks.
The association said that 2.7 per cent of fuel sold at the pumps last year was biofuel, slightly more than the Government’s target for 2008-09 of 2.5 per cent.
Last summer Britain responded to concerns about sustainability by reducing the rate of increase of biofuel consumption in road transport. But all EU countries must comply with a directive requiring 13 per cent of fuel to be biofuel by 2020. The association said that a new EU standard allowing 10 per cent of petrol to be biofuel would be introduced next year.
Malcolm Watson, its technical director, said that drivers of older cars would have to buy “super unleaded”, a higher octane fuel that costs about 6p more per litre, or £3.60 extra to fill a 60-litre tank.
He said that oil companies were planning to increase the biofuel content of ordinary unleaded to 10 per cent while keeping super unleaded at a maximum of 5 per cent.
Mr Watson said that new cars had fuel systems able to cope with higher levels of biofuel but there could be problems with older cars.
The AA said that ethanol, the biofuel added to petrol, could perish rubber seals, corrode metal components and block filters. It said the first sign of a problem would be the engine spluttering, possibly followed by a complete loss of power. Paul Watters, its head of transport policy, said: “Government and industry have failed to explain how much extra people will have to pay and what the risks are to their cars.
“We would urge drivers even now to look at the vehicle log books and check on fuel specifications.”
Possibility of new nuclear power plants in Lake District sparks eco concerns
Two sites close to Lake District National Park among potential locations for new generation of nuclear power stations
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 April 2009 12.46 BST
Two sites close to the Lake District National Park have been listed as potential locations for a new generation of nuclear power plants by the government today.
Braystones and Kirkstanton in Cumbria have already attracted strong local opposition to being nominated by German company RWE Power but have been included alongside existing atomic sites such as Sizewell in Suffolk and Wylfa in Anglesey.
The proposals form part of government plans to replace ageing nuclear power stations and highly polluting coal plants in an attempt to beat an energy supply crunch and lower carbon emissions.
Members of the public are being given one-month consultation period to express their opinion on a form of energy generation that is back in fashion with politicians after losing public confidence due to accidents such as those at Chernobyl in the Ukraine and Tree Mile Island in America.
"This is another important step towards a new generation of nuclear power stations," said energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband. "I want to listen to what people have to say about these nominations and I encourage people to log on to our website, read the information and let us have their comments. Nuclear power is part of the low-carbon future for Britain."
The full list of potential locations is: Dungeness in Kent; Sizewell in Suffolk; Hartlepool in Cleveland; Heysham in Lancashire; Sellafield in Cumbria; Braystones in Cumbria; Kirksanton in Cumbria; Wylfa Peninsula in Anglesey; Oldbury in Gloucestershire; Hinkley Point in Somerset and Bradwell in Essex.
The sites have been nominated by the energy giants EDF, Eon and RWE, and by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which owns some nuclear sites. None are in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
The Nuclear Industries Association, which represents companies in the sector, said publication of a list of potential sites for nuclear development was an important step for new build in Britain.
"The announcement of sites shows that we're making strong and tangible progress towards building new nuclear power stations, which will help keep the UK's lights on and drive down our carbon emissions," said Keith Parker, chief executive of the NIA.
Local authority leaders also welcomed the move. Isle of Anglesey council leader Phil Fowlie said the announcement was "very good news" for the local economy, pointing out that 1,000 people are employed at the existing Wylfa power station or at related businesses nearby.
"In these economic times it is so, so important for us to secure the future of nuclear power in Anglesey. In the short term, it will create thousands of construction jobs as the new power station is built and in the long term it will secure work for those already employed at Wylfa and nearby," said Fowlie.
But anti-nuclear campaigners made clear they would fight hard to prevent any new power stations being built. "The government is going down the wrong path in proposing that we should have more nuclear power stations," said Charles Barnett, chairman of the Shutdown Sizewell Campaign in Suffolk.
"They are not safe. With the heightened risk of terrorism, it's foolhardy to build more. They are very expensive and they leave a legacy of dangerous waste. We shall be resisting the plans. The way forward is benign energy forms – wind, waves, solar and biomass."
Martin Forwood, campaign co-ordinator for Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE), said any new nuclear installations would be disastrous for Cumbria.
"If the government was to get the go-ahead, I think it would be the kiss of death for any chance for Cumbria to diversify its economy away from its dependence on the nuclear industry, something it has been dominated by for the last 50 years. It will seal its fate. It would become the Lake District Nuclear Park and sit very uncomfortably alongside the Lake District National Park. It doesn't need to become a nuclear park, West Cumbria has so much more to offer."
Friends of the Earth's energy campaigner, Robin Webster, said "breathing new life into the failed nuclear experiment" was not the answer to the UK's energy problems. She added: "Nuclear power leaves a deadly legacy of radioactive waste that remains highly dangerous for tens of thousands of years and costs tens of billions of pounds to manage.
"And building new reactors would divert precious resources from developing safe, clean renewable power: nuclear firms are already lobbying ministers to water down UK renewable energy targets."
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 April 2009 12.46 BST
Two sites close to the Lake District National Park have been listed as potential locations for a new generation of nuclear power plants by the government today.
Braystones and Kirkstanton in Cumbria have already attracted strong local opposition to being nominated by German company RWE Power but have been included alongside existing atomic sites such as Sizewell in Suffolk and Wylfa in Anglesey.
The proposals form part of government plans to replace ageing nuclear power stations and highly polluting coal plants in an attempt to beat an energy supply crunch and lower carbon emissions.
Members of the public are being given one-month consultation period to express their opinion on a form of energy generation that is back in fashion with politicians after losing public confidence due to accidents such as those at Chernobyl in the Ukraine and Tree Mile Island in America.
"This is another important step towards a new generation of nuclear power stations," said energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband. "I want to listen to what people have to say about these nominations and I encourage people to log on to our website, read the information and let us have their comments. Nuclear power is part of the low-carbon future for Britain."
The full list of potential locations is: Dungeness in Kent; Sizewell in Suffolk; Hartlepool in Cleveland; Heysham in Lancashire; Sellafield in Cumbria; Braystones in Cumbria; Kirksanton in Cumbria; Wylfa Peninsula in Anglesey; Oldbury in Gloucestershire; Hinkley Point in Somerset and Bradwell in Essex.
The sites have been nominated by the energy giants EDF, Eon and RWE, and by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which owns some nuclear sites. None are in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
The Nuclear Industries Association, which represents companies in the sector, said publication of a list of potential sites for nuclear development was an important step for new build in Britain.
"The announcement of sites shows that we're making strong and tangible progress towards building new nuclear power stations, which will help keep the UK's lights on and drive down our carbon emissions," said Keith Parker, chief executive of the NIA.
Local authority leaders also welcomed the move. Isle of Anglesey council leader Phil Fowlie said the announcement was "very good news" for the local economy, pointing out that 1,000 people are employed at the existing Wylfa power station or at related businesses nearby.
"In these economic times it is so, so important for us to secure the future of nuclear power in Anglesey. In the short term, it will create thousands of construction jobs as the new power station is built and in the long term it will secure work for those already employed at Wylfa and nearby," said Fowlie.
But anti-nuclear campaigners made clear they would fight hard to prevent any new power stations being built. "The government is going down the wrong path in proposing that we should have more nuclear power stations," said Charles Barnett, chairman of the Shutdown Sizewell Campaign in Suffolk.
"They are not safe. With the heightened risk of terrorism, it's foolhardy to build more. They are very expensive and they leave a legacy of dangerous waste. We shall be resisting the plans. The way forward is benign energy forms – wind, waves, solar and biomass."
Martin Forwood, campaign co-ordinator for Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE), said any new nuclear installations would be disastrous for Cumbria.
"If the government was to get the go-ahead, I think it would be the kiss of death for any chance for Cumbria to diversify its economy away from its dependence on the nuclear industry, something it has been dominated by for the last 50 years. It will seal its fate. It would become the Lake District Nuclear Park and sit very uncomfortably alongside the Lake District National Park. It doesn't need to become a nuclear park, West Cumbria has so much more to offer."
Friends of the Earth's energy campaigner, Robin Webster, said "breathing new life into the failed nuclear experiment" was not the answer to the UK's energy problems. She added: "Nuclear power leaves a deadly legacy of radioactive waste that remains highly dangerous for tens of thousands of years and costs tens of billions of pounds to manage.
"And building new reactors would divert precious resources from developing safe, clean renewable power: nuclear firms are already lobbying ministers to water down UK renewable energy targets."
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Spain's cherished beach bars face axe in environmental crackdown
Giles Tremlett in Madrid
The Guardian, Tuesday 14 April 2009
For decades they have provided paella, sangria and shade to tourists visiting Spain's beaches, but the traditional beach bar restaurants face eviction from the sand. Campaigners have denounced moves by the environment ministry to close down the thousands of chiringuito restaurants that spring up on beaches at the beginning of summer.
Some 30,000 summer jobs and a cherished tradition of eating with sand between your toes are under threat, according to the campaigners, who want the chiringuitos to be treated as part of Spain's cultural heritage.
The crackdown comes as part of the environment ministry's response to criticism that Spain's beaches are over-developed and under-protected. It has dusted off its "law of coasts", which bans building on the sand, and told the chiringuitos to move inland - on to concrete seafront walks or past the first line of asphalt.
"We have been here on the sand ever since tourism reached Malaga in the 1950s," Servando Cidoncha, who runs a bar on the Costa del Sol beach at Guadalmar, told the ABC newspaper. "If they take us inland we will stop being a chiringuito and become just another restaurant. The English and Germans come to us attracted by a sense of tradition. Moving us would destroy that."
Politicians from all parties have thrown their support behind moves to save the chiringuitos, which jointly turn over some €900m (£810m) a year.
"They are not in any way an aggression against the environment," Javier Arenas, leader of the opposition People's party in Andalucia, said. "And this is not a moment to be throwing away income and jobs."
"We socialists are not going to stop until the future of the chiringuitos is assured," said Miguel Ángel Heredia, an MP for Spain's ruling party, representing the southern Costa del Sol.
The beach bars are to ask customers to sign a petition this summer urging the ministry to rethink. "Chiringuitos have existed for centuries, far longer than we have had ministries," Norberto del Castillo, of Andalucia's association of beach businesses, said.
The Guardian, Tuesday 14 April 2009
For decades they have provided paella, sangria and shade to tourists visiting Spain's beaches, but the traditional beach bar restaurants face eviction from the sand. Campaigners have denounced moves by the environment ministry to close down the thousands of chiringuito restaurants that spring up on beaches at the beginning of summer.
Some 30,000 summer jobs and a cherished tradition of eating with sand between your toes are under threat, according to the campaigners, who want the chiringuitos to be treated as part of Spain's cultural heritage.
The crackdown comes as part of the environment ministry's response to criticism that Spain's beaches are over-developed and under-protected. It has dusted off its "law of coasts", which bans building on the sand, and told the chiringuitos to move inland - on to concrete seafront walks or past the first line of asphalt.
"We have been here on the sand ever since tourism reached Malaga in the 1950s," Servando Cidoncha, who runs a bar on the Costa del Sol beach at Guadalmar, told the ABC newspaper. "If they take us inland we will stop being a chiringuito and become just another restaurant. The English and Germans come to us attracted by a sense of tradition. Moving us would destroy that."
Politicians from all parties have thrown their support behind moves to save the chiringuitos, which jointly turn over some €900m (£810m) a year.
"They are not in any way an aggression against the environment," Javier Arenas, leader of the opposition People's party in Andalucia, said. "And this is not a moment to be throwing away income and jobs."
"We socialists are not going to stop until the future of the chiringuitos is assured," said Miguel Ángel Heredia, an MP for Spain's ruling party, representing the southern Costa del Sol.
The beach bars are to ask customers to sign a petition this summer urging the ministry to rethink. "Chiringuitos have existed for centuries, far longer than we have had ministries," Norberto del Castillo, of Andalucia's association of beach businesses, said.
Helsinki has all its hot water on tap
The Times
April 15, 2009
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
A driver leans out of his car and swipes a card to open an unmarked steel door. Blasted from the bedrock, a road descends steeply into a long cavern, bristling with machinery, banks of lights and high-tech equipment.
This is not the lair of a criminal mastermind in a James Bond story, but the nerve centre of the world's most sophisticated coal-fired central heating system.
From here, a 1,350km network of tunnels, pipes and pumping stations supplies hot water to more than half a million people in Helsinki, one of the world's coldest capital cities.
“It's a fantastic system,” says the newly arrived driver, Marko Riipinen, director of district heating for Helsingi Energia, the municipal utility that operates the system.
“It's highly efficient, environmentally friendly and the price of heat is comparatively low.”
In Helsinki, where winter temperatures often plunge to -30C (-22F), hardly anyone owns a domestic heating boiler. Instead, water is heated centrally at combined heat and power (CHP) plants to 115C and piped directly to tens of thousands of homes and public buildings.
“We can handle the whole system from a single control room,” Mr Riipinen says, placing his hand on a metre-thick pipe. More than 90 per cent of the total heating needs of Helsinki, including hot tap water and heat for homes, offices and factories, comes from the same shared network.
It is a vastly more efficient use of energy than in Britain, where 50 per cent of the energy produced in power stations burning coal and gas is routinely lost as heat, usually emitted directly into the air via chimney flues. In contrast, at Helsingi Energia's gleaming CHP plant in the suburb of Vuosaari, up to 93percent of the energy produced is converted into either electricity or hot water for district heating. That makes it the most efficient power station in the world, says Mr Riipinen.
“To us [the British system] seems very wasteful,” he says. “Finland doesn't have any of its own coal, gas or oil so we have to import everything from Russia or Poland. So we have really learnt that we have to use it in the best way possible.”
It is a model system that Britain, which aims to slash emissions of carbon dioxide by 80per cent by 2050, would do well to emulate. But Mr Riipinen says the problem for countries trying to copy Finland's system is the need to build the pipeline infrastructure, an effort that in Helsinki began in the 1950s and is continuing.
“You need that distribution network,” says Mr Riipinen, who adds that the system can switch between being powered by coal, gas or oil.
The system is supplemented by the world's largest underground coal storage facility, where 250,000cu m of the fuel can be stored in caverns lying 124m below sea-level.
Britain has been trying to encourage the development of CHP and district heating for years, but progress is slow, in part because of the high cost and complexity of fitting the country's ageing housing stock with the necessary equipment.
The big six energy companies, which operate lucrative domestic boiler servicing businesses, also appear lukewarm on the development of such a scheme. Nevertheless, the Government is keen to do more and a new subsidy arrangement is due to come into effect in 2011. It is also conducting a consultation on the subject, which is scheduled to end next month.
April 15, 2009
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
A driver leans out of his car and swipes a card to open an unmarked steel door. Blasted from the bedrock, a road descends steeply into a long cavern, bristling with machinery, banks of lights and high-tech equipment.
This is not the lair of a criminal mastermind in a James Bond story, but the nerve centre of the world's most sophisticated coal-fired central heating system.
From here, a 1,350km network of tunnels, pipes and pumping stations supplies hot water to more than half a million people in Helsinki, one of the world's coldest capital cities.
“It's a fantastic system,” says the newly arrived driver, Marko Riipinen, director of district heating for Helsingi Energia, the municipal utility that operates the system.
“It's highly efficient, environmentally friendly and the price of heat is comparatively low.”
In Helsinki, where winter temperatures often plunge to -30C (-22F), hardly anyone owns a domestic heating boiler. Instead, water is heated centrally at combined heat and power (CHP) plants to 115C and piped directly to tens of thousands of homes and public buildings.
“We can handle the whole system from a single control room,” Mr Riipinen says, placing his hand on a metre-thick pipe. More than 90 per cent of the total heating needs of Helsinki, including hot tap water and heat for homes, offices and factories, comes from the same shared network.
It is a vastly more efficient use of energy than in Britain, where 50 per cent of the energy produced in power stations burning coal and gas is routinely lost as heat, usually emitted directly into the air via chimney flues. In contrast, at Helsingi Energia's gleaming CHP plant in the suburb of Vuosaari, up to 93percent of the energy produced is converted into either electricity or hot water for district heating. That makes it the most efficient power station in the world, says Mr Riipinen.
“To us [the British system] seems very wasteful,” he says. “Finland doesn't have any of its own coal, gas or oil so we have to import everything from Russia or Poland. So we have really learnt that we have to use it in the best way possible.”
It is a model system that Britain, which aims to slash emissions of carbon dioxide by 80per cent by 2050, would do well to emulate. But Mr Riipinen says the problem for countries trying to copy Finland's system is the need to build the pipeline infrastructure, an effort that in Helsinki began in the 1950s and is continuing.
“You need that distribution network,” says Mr Riipinen, who adds that the system can switch between being powered by coal, gas or oil.
The system is supplemented by the world's largest underground coal storage facility, where 250,000cu m of the fuel can be stored in caverns lying 124m below sea-level.
Britain has been trying to encourage the development of CHP and district heating for years, but progress is slow, in part because of the high cost and complexity of fitting the country's ageing housing stock with the necessary equipment.
The big six energy companies, which operate lucrative domestic boiler servicing businesses, also appear lukewarm on the development of such a scheme. Nevertheless, the Government is keen to do more and a new subsidy arrangement is due to come into effect in 2011. It is also conducting a consultation on the subject, which is scheduled to end next month.
David Attenborough to be patron of Optimum Population Trust
The Times
April 14, 2009
Parminder Bahra, Poverty and Development Correspondent
Sir David Attenborough said yesterday that the growth in global population was frightening, as he became a patron of an organisation that campaigns to limit the number of people in the world.
The television presenter and naturalist said that the increase in population was having devastating effects on ecology, pollution and food production.
“There are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes only a mere 56 years ago,” he said, after becoming a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) think-tank.
“It is frightening. We can’t go on as we have been. We are seeing the consequences in terms of ecology, atmospheric pollution and in terms of the space and food production.
“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. Population is reaching its optimum and the world cannot hold an infinite number of people,” Sir David, who has two children, said.
The OPT counts among its patrons the environmentalist Jonathon Porritt and the academic Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta. However, Sir David’s appointment has already been criticised. Austin Williams, author of The Enemies of Progress, said: “Experts can still be stupid when they speak on subjects of which they know little. Sir David may know a sight more than I do about remote species but that does not give him the intelligence to speak on global politics.
“I have a problem with the line that people are a problem. More people are a good thing. People are the source of creativity, intelligence, analysis and problem-solving. If we see people as just simple things that consume and excrete carbon, then the OPT may have a point, but people are more than this and they will be the ones to find the solutions.” Sir David said that the OPT was drawing attention to the issue of population and being a patron seemed a worthwhile thing to do.
Roger Martin, the chairman of the trust, said that the appointment would put pressure on organisations to face up to the issue of population: “The environmental movement will not confront the fact that there is not a single problem that they deal with which would not be easier with fewer people.”
The trust campaigns for global access to family planning and for couples to be encouraged to stop having more than two children. In Britain it wants to stabilise the population by bringing immigration into balance with emigration and making greater efforts to reduce teenage pregnancies.
Mr Martin said that the UK population must be reduced to a sustainable level because Britain was already the most overcrowded country in Europe.He said the world could not increase production to meet the needs of a growing population: “We can’t feed ourselves with some of the most intensive agriculture in the world — we’re only 70 per cent self-sufficient.”
Mr Martin said that Britain could not rely on the world food market because, when food runs short, exporters do not export it: “Last year, we saw India and China banning exports of rice when there was a shortage.”
A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH
The first scholar to bring overpopulation to the fore was the Rev Thomas Malthus. His academic work in the late 18th and early 19th centuries outraged and inspired succeeding generations (Tim Glanfield writes).
Malthus grew up in Guildford, Surrey, the youngest of eight siblings, and during his childhood encountered some of the great minds of his age. His father was a friend of the philosophers David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the young Malthus needed little encouragement to study mathematics at Cambridge.
He made his name with a landmark text, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions between 1798 and 1826 and underlined by strong scepticism for future human generations.
Malthus believed that all previous generations had included a “poor” underclass created by an inherent lack of resources in the world that would continue if population growth were not addressed. His theory is summarised by his assertion that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in Earth to produce sustenance for Man”.
He saw two significant variables in the world, those that are positive and raise the death rate — famine, disease and war — and those that are preventive and lower the birthrate — birth control, abortion, celibacy and postponement of marriage.
In practising the preventive measures and gradually reducing poor laws, Malthus argued, society would no longer “create the poor which they maintain”.
The expectations of population growth outlined in his essay had a significant influence on Darwin’s evolutionary theories and many modern political theses, but Malthus remains a controversial and much vilified scholar. Shelley branded him “a eunuch and a tyrant”, Marx as “the principal enemy of the people” and Lenin called his work a “reactionary doctrine”.
April 14, 2009
Parminder Bahra, Poverty and Development Correspondent
Sir David Attenborough said yesterday that the growth in global population was frightening, as he became a patron of an organisation that campaigns to limit the number of people in the world.
The television presenter and naturalist said that the increase in population was having devastating effects on ecology, pollution and food production.
“There are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes only a mere 56 years ago,” he said, after becoming a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) think-tank.
“It is frightening. We can’t go on as we have been. We are seeing the consequences in terms of ecology, atmospheric pollution and in terms of the space and food production.
“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. Population is reaching its optimum and the world cannot hold an infinite number of people,” Sir David, who has two children, said.
The OPT counts among its patrons the environmentalist Jonathon Porritt and the academic Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta. However, Sir David’s appointment has already been criticised. Austin Williams, author of The Enemies of Progress, said: “Experts can still be stupid when they speak on subjects of which they know little. Sir David may know a sight more than I do about remote species but that does not give him the intelligence to speak on global politics.
“I have a problem with the line that people are a problem. More people are a good thing. People are the source of creativity, intelligence, analysis and problem-solving. If we see people as just simple things that consume and excrete carbon, then the OPT may have a point, but people are more than this and they will be the ones to find the solutions.” Sir David said that the OPT was drawing attention to the issue of population and being a patron seemed a worthwhile thing to do.
Roger Martin, the chairman of the trust, said that the appointment would put pressure on organisations to face up to the issue of population: “The environmental movement will not confront the fact that there is not a single problem that they deal with which would not be easier with fewer people.”
The trust campaigns for global access to family planning and for couples to be encouraged to stop having more than two children. In Britain it wants to stabilise the population by bringing immigration into balance with emigration and making greater efforts to reduce teenage pregnancies.
Mr Martin said that the UK population must be reduced to a sustainable level because Britain was already the most overcrowded country in Europe.He said the world could not increase production to meet the needs of a growing population: “We can’t feed ourselves with some of the most intensive agriculture in the world — we’re only 70 per cent self-sufficient.”
Mr Martin said that Britain could not rely on the world food market because, when food runs short, exporters do not export it: “Last year, we saw India and China banning exports of rice when there was a shortage.”
A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH
The first scholar to bring overpopulation to the fore was the Rev Thomas Malthus. His academic work in the late 18th and early 19th centuries outraged and inspired succeeding generations (Tim Glanfield writes).
Malthus grew up in Guildford, Surrey, the youngest of eight siblings, and during his childhood encountered some of the great minds of his age. His father was a friend of the philosophers David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the young Malthus needed little encouragement to study mathematics at Cambridge.
He made his name with a landmark text, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions between 1798 and 1826 and underlined by strong scepticism for future human generations.
Malthus believed that all previous generations had included a “poor” underclass created by an inherent lack of resources in the world that would continue if population growth were not addressed. His theory is summarised by his assertion that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in Earth to produce sustenance for Man”.
He saw two significant variables in the world, those that are positive and raise the death rate — famine, disease and war — and those that are preventive and lower the birthrate — birth control, abortion, celibacy and postponement of marriage.
In practising the preventive measures and gradually reducing poor laws, Malthus argued, society would no longer “create the poor which they maintain”.
The expectations of population growth outlined in his essay had a significant influence on Darwin’s evolutionary theories and many modern political theses, but Malthus remains a controversial and much vilified scholar. Shelley branded him “a eunuch and a tyrant”, Marx as “the principal enemy of the people” and Lenin called his work a “reactionary doctrine”.
US drive to close electric car gap
By Bernard Simon in Toronto
Published: April 14 2009 22:29
A US-French joint venture plans to build North America’s first lithium-ion battery cell plant as part of a belated drive by the US public and private sectors to close the competitive gap with Asian electric-car technology.
Johnson Controls, based in Wisconsin, and France’s Saft, which opened a similar facility in France last year, said on Tuesday that the cells would be produced at a converted Johnson car parts plant in Michigan.
The state of Michigan would cover two-thirds of the plant’s $220m cost through tax credits and other incentives.
The plant is the latest in a flurry of moves to enhance North American battery technology amid predictions that electric vehicles of various types are set to play an increasingly important role in mass transportation.
Japanese companies currently dominate the market for hybrid-vehicle batteries. Panasonic supplies the nickel-metal-hydride battery used in Toyota’s popular Prius hatchback.
Alex Molinaroli, head of Johnson Controls’ power solutions division, said that battery demand in the US was being pulled higher by government support for General Motors and Chrysler, as well as provisions in the Obama administration’s $787bn stimulus package passed this year.
The bill sets aside $2bn in financial support for battery manufacturers and provides a $7,500 credit for the purchase of a plug-in hybrid vehicle.
In addition, the US Department of Energy is expected to earmark a sizeable portion of its $25bn Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program for battery development.
Meanwhile, A123 Systems, a Massachusetts-based lithium-ion battery maker, said this week that it had raised $69m from, among others, General Electric, ConocoPhillips, and Detroit Edison, a power utility.
A123 signed a contract last week to supply batteries for hybrid-electric vehicles being developed by Chrysler. GM this year chose South Korea’s LG Chem to provide batteries for its Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid.
Separately, an alliance of battery manufacturers set up late last year is joining forces with the US Department of Energy to set up a research and development centre in Kentucky.
According to SupplierBusiness, a trade publication, the alliance is seeking $1bn-$2bn in government aid to build a foundry for lithium-ion batteries.
The Johnson-Saft plant, will initially supply batteries for, among others, Ford Motor’s first plug-in hybrid vehicle.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: April 14 2009 22:29
A US-French joint venture plans to build North America’s first lithium-ion battery cell plant as part of a belated drive by the US public and private sectors to close the competitive gap with Asian electric-car technology.
Johnson Controls, based in Wisconsin, and France’s Saft, which opened a similar facility in France last year, said on Tuesday that the cells would be produced at a converted Johnson car parts plant in Michigan.
The state of Michigan would cover two-thirds of the plant’s $220m cost through tax credits and other incentives.
The plant is the latest in a flurry of moves to enhance North American battery technology amid predictions that electric vehicles of various types are set to play an increasingly important role in mass transportation.
Japanese companies currently dominate the market for hybrid-vehicle batteries. Panasonic supplies the nickel-metal-hydride battery used in Toyota’s popular Prius hatchback.
Alex Molinaroli, head of Johnson Controls’ power solutions division, said that battery demand in the US was being pulled higher by government support for General Motors and Chrysler, as well as provisions in the Obama administration’s $787bn stimulus package passed this year.
The bill sets aside $2bn in financial support for battery manufacturers and provides a $7,500 credit for the purchase of a plug-in hybrid vehicle.
In addition, the US Department of Energy is expected to earmark a sizeable portion of its $25bn Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program for battery development.
Meanwhile, A123 Systems, a Massachusetts-based lithium-ion battery maker, said this week that it had raised $69m from, among others, General Electric, ConocoPhillips, and Detroit Edison, a power utility.
A123 signed a contract last week to supply batteries for hybrid-electric vehicles being developed by Chrysler. GM this year chose South Korea’s LG Chem to provide batteries for its Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid.
Separately, an alliance of battery manufacturers set up late last year is joining forces with the US Department of Energy to set up a research and development centre in Kentucky.
According to SupplierBusiness, a trade publication, the alliance is seeking $1bn-$2bn in government aid to build a foundry for lithium-ion batteries.
The Johnson-Saft plant, will initially supply batteries for, among others, Ford Motor’s first plug-in hybrid vehicle.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
UK risks missing out on thousands of green jobs, report warns
Chance to create up to 70,000 jobs in offshore wind industry may be squandered without government action, says IPPR study
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 April 2009 12.34 BST
The UK risks missing out on tens of thousands of jobs in the offshore wind industry unless the government gives greater support to the sector, a report warned today.
The study by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said the UK must rapidly expand its offshore wind capacity or it would fail to meet the legally binding target of sourcing 15% of energy from renewables by 2020.
With wind expected to meet the lion's share of that target, there is an opportunity to create up to 70,000 long-term jobs in the industry in parts of the country where they are most needed, the report said.
But unless the government acts to remove barriers to investment, provide additional focused support to the industry and build up the skills base, the UK will miss out on green jobs.
While the UK already has the biggest offshore wind capacity in the world, just 700 people are currently employed in the sector and most of the parts for the wind farms are manufactured overseas.
The IPPR report said the government needed to be more proactive in establishing certainty in the domestic offshore wind market to encourage investment.
Measures that should be considered include updating the grid infrastructure, with the government underwriting investment if needed, and targeting support to companies that manufacture parts such as cabling, turbines, installation vessels and foundations to unblock bottlenecks in the supply chain.
Financial support schemes such as the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs must be monitored to make sure they help deliver expansion of the sector, the report urged.
The government must also embark on an offshore wind investment programme which would include focused packages of grants and research and development incentives, a near-shore testing facility for technology and underwriting of borrowing to ensure short-term guarantees for lending.
In addition, a strategic approach to improving skills in the sector is needed, by encouraging more youngsters to study subjects such as science, engineering and maths, helping to forge links between universities and industry and providing incentives for people going into low-carbon jobs.
Matthew Lockwood, senior research fellow for IPPR, said: "Offshore wind has great potential for UK jobs but we risk being blown off course.
"The government's pledge to achieve ambitious renewable targets by 2020 shows it is serious about its potential but we need to follow through with concrete policies to create greater certainty for industry, maximise the potential for the UK economy and realise our environmental goals."
The TUC's general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: "The offshore wind industry could create tens of thousands of good, green jobs in the UK but the recession has shaken the industry's confidence and exposed the need for government support for green infrastructure investment."
He said an offshore wind investment programme had to be matched by developing appropriate skills in the workforce.
And Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said: "Gordon Brown personally pledged that the UK would meet its legally binding EU renewable energy target for 2020 but we're already going to miss the targets for 2010.
"If these targets are going to mean anything then offshore wind needs an urgent boost in the budget.
"Mr Brown must remove the barriers preventing renewable energy development such as planning delays, and a lack of skills, grid connections and UK supply chain."
Energy minister Mike O'Brien told a recent meeting at the Renewable Energy Association that the government had changed planning laws and increased support for renewables, and was working with National Grid and Ofgem to ensure sufficient access to the grid.
"However, we are fully aware of the investment challenges facing some parts of the industry," he said.
"As part of the work we are doing across government on the low carbon industrial strategy, we are looking at the impact of the downturn and what we can do to alleviate it."
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 April 2009 12.34 BST
The UK risks missing out on tens of thousands of jobs in the offshore wind industry unless the government gives greater support to the sector, a report warned today.
The study by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said the UK must rapidly expand its offshore wind capacity or it would fail to meet the legally binding target of sourcing 15% of energy from renewables by 2020.
With wind expected to meet the lion's share of that target, there is an opportunity to create up to 70,000 long-term jobs in the industry in parts of the country where they are most needed, the report said.
But unless the government acts to remove barriers to investment, provide additional focused support to the industry and build up the skills base, the UK will miss out on green jobs.
While the UK already has the biggest offshore wind capacity in the world, just 700 people are currently employed in the sector and most of the parts for the wind farms are manufactured overseas.
The IPPR report said the government needed to be more proactive in establishing certainty in the domestic offshore wind market to encourage investment.
Measures that should be considered include updating the grid infrastructure, with the government underwriting investment if needed, and targeting support to companies that manufacture parts such as cabling, turbines, installation vessels and foundations to unblock bottlenecks in the supply chain.
Financial support schemes such as the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs must be monitored to make sure they help deliver expansion of the sector, the report urged.
The government must also embark on an offshore wind investment programme which would include focused packages of grants and research and development incentives, a near-shore testing facility for technology and underwriting of borrowing to ensure short-term guarantees for lending.
In addition, a strategic approach to improving skills in the sector is needed, by encouraging more youngsters to study subjects such as science, engineering and maths, helping to forge links between universities and industry and providing incentives for people going into low-carbon jobs.
Matthew Lockwood, senior research fellow for IPPR, said: "Offshore wind has great potential for UK jobs but we risk being blown off course.
"The government's pledge to achieve ambitious renewable targets by 2020 shows it is serious about its potential but we need to follow through with concrete policies to create greater certainty for industry, maximise the potential for the UK economy and realise our environmental goals."
The TUC's general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: "The offshore wind industry could create tens of thousands of good, green jobs in the UK but the recession has shaken the industry's confidence and exposed the need for government support for green infrastructure investment."
He said an offshore wind investment programme had to be matched by developing appropriate skills in the workforce.
And Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said: "Gordon Brown personally pledged that the UK would meet its legally binding EU renewable energy target for 2020 but we're already going to miss the targets for 2010.
"If these targets are going to mean anything then offshore wind needs an urgent boost in the budget.
"Mr Brown must remove the barriers preventing renewable energy development such as planning delays, and a lack of skills, grid connections and UK supply chain."
Energy minister Mike O'Brien told a recent meeting at the Renewable Energy Association that the government had changed planning laws and increased support for renewables, and was working with National Grid and Ofgem to ensure sufficient access to the grid.
"However, we are fully aware of the investment challenges facing some parts of the industry," he said.
"As part of the work we are doing across government on the low carbon industrial strategy, we are looking at the impact of the downturn and what we can do to alleviate it."
Doubts cast on biofuel benefits
By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
Published: April 15 2009 01:55
The push to use biofuels in place of petrol has done little to aid the development of the UK’s biofuel industry and may have produced more greenhouse gas than it has saved, according to a report published on Wednesday.
British biofuels are generally regarded as more environmentally sound than imports. According to the Renewable Energy Association, they produce a greenhouse gas saving of 71 per cent, against 46 per cent for imports. Yet only 8 per cent of the biofuel – fuel derived from plants – used in the UK comes from British sources, according to the REA.
The government’s Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation came into force exactly a year ago and was meant to spur the development of a British biofuels industry by ensuring 2.5 per cent of transport fuels this year came from plants or waste products.
But heavy use of imports has overtaken the UK’s fledgling biofuels sector, with several domestic companies running into trouble.
The point is reinforced by Wednesday’s report from Friends of the Earth, which also finds the UK’s use of biofuels may have increased emissions from road transport because growing crops for fuel means extra land must be pressed into service to grow food. Often in tropical countries this land is forest and cutting it down results in a loss of the planet’s ability to absorb carbon.
According to Friends of the Earth, the RTFO has probably caused about 1.3m tonnes of extra carbon dioxide emissions.
Andy Atkins, executive director, said: “Trying to cut emissions by adding biofuels to petrol is like trying to cut down on beer by lacing your pints with vodka.”
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: April 15 2009 01:55
The push to use biofuels in place of petrol has done little to aid the development of the UK’s biofuel industry and may have produced more greenhouse gas than it has saved, according to a report published on Wednesday.
British biofuels are generally regarded as more environmentally sound than imports. According to the Renewable Energy Association, they produce a greenhouse gas saving of 71 per cent, against 46 per cent for imports. Yet only 8 per cent of the biofuel – fuel derived from plants – used in the UK comes from British sources, according to the REA.
The government’s Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation came into force exactly a year ago and was meant to spur the development of a British biofuels industry by ensuring 2.5 per cent of transport fuels this year came from plants or waste products.
But heavy use of imports has overtaken the UK’s fledgling biofuels sector, with several domestic companies running into trouble.
The point is reinforced by Wednesday’s report from Friends of the Earth, which also finds the UK’s use of biofuels may have increased emissions from road transport because growing crops for fuel means extra land must be pressed into service to grow food. Often in tropical countries this land is forest and cutting it down results in a loss of the planet’s ability to absorb carbon.
According to Friends of the Earth, the RTFO has probably caused about 1.3m tonnes of extra carbon dioxide emissions.
Andy Atkins, executive director, said: “Trying to cut emissions by adding biofuels to petrol is like trying to cut down on beer by lacing your pints with vodka.”
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
