By Fiona Harvey
Published: April 29 2009 03:00
Businesses are losing their enthusiasm for environmental issues, just as the government is ramping up its efforts to combat global warming, a new poll suggests, Fiona Harvey reports .
More than eight in 10 companies think the government's targets of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 are unattainable, according to a survey of 300 UK businesses by RWE npower, the energy company. The poll was carried out before the Budget when ambitious emission cuts were set out.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Clean coal can avert an energy crisis
Britain has enough coal reserves to last up to 300 years – so let's expand our mining and stop relying on unstable supplies abroad
Peter Lazenby
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 11.30 BST
The debate on the development of "clean" coal technology needs to accept a key point. Britain is already dependent on coal-fired electricity. Use of coal-fired power stations continued despite the devastation of the mining industry after the strike against pit closures of 1984-85, and coal still provides 33% of Britain's electricity.
Britain simply stopped burning British coal and bought coal from overseas. Last year 43m tonnes of coal were imported, mainly from Russia, Poland and Australia.
Yet Britain has enough known coal reserves to meet the nation's needs for 200 to 300 years. Why not mine those reserves – resume and expand major coal mining in Britain, and to hell with reliance on foreign imports?
The need for investment in clean coal technology is paramount, both to end the damage being done by current coal burn and to make expansion of coal use environmentally viable.
First look at the background to Britain's looming energy crisis.For a quarter of a century the National Union of Mineworkers and others hammered home the argument that energy policy (or lack of it) under successive Conservative and Labour governments was driving Britain towards a future dependent on fuel from overseas.
The Thatcher government encouraged the "dash for gas", in which Britain's North Sea gas was burned in enormous quantities to make electricity. Had the gas been saved for domestic and community use – heating homes, hospitals, schools and the like – it would have lasted for centuries.
The result is a Britain dependent on gas supplies that come from, or travel across, some of the most unstable regions in the world.
Britain in the 1980s and 1990s had the most efficient, and safest, deep-mined coal industry in the world. Today it is even more efficient. At Kellingley colliery in Yorkshire, one of the handful of pits still open, 2,000 men used to mine 1m tonnes of coal annually. Today at Kellingley, 500 men produce more than 2m tonnes.
Britain was also making some of the greatest advances in research into clean coal technology. The Tories cost Britain almost two decades of practical research into solving the environmental problems surrounding the burning of coal by closing the coal industry's research centre at Grimethorpe in Yorkshire.
Had that not happened, carbon capture might be at a far more advanced stage of development. But it is not too late. The support of the climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, for a new wave of carbon-capture coal-fired power stations points the way ahead.
Britain should be opening more mines in tandem with rapid and substantial investment in clean coal technology research. About 20 new pits employing collectively 10,000-plus miners could meet current coal needs. More pits could be sunk to increase Britain's independent energy source. Britain could even become an energy exporter.
If the private sector is unwilling or unable to invest, let it be publicly funded. The future of Britain's energy supplies, indeed the country's very survival as an industrial nation, merits that investment.
Peter Lazenby
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 11.30 BST
The debate on the development of "clean" coal technology needs to accept a key point. Britain is already dependent on coal-fired electricity. Use of coal-fired power stations continued despite the devastation of the mining industry after the strike against pit closures of 1984-85, and coal still provides 33% of Britain's electricity.
Britain simply stopped burning British coal and bought coal from overseas. Last year 43m tonnes of coal were imported, mainly from Russia, Poland and Australia.
Yet Britain has enough known coal reserves to meet the nation's needs for 200 to 300 years. Why not mine those reserves – resume and expand major coal mining in Britain, and to hell with reliance on foreign imports?
The need for investment in clean coal technology is paramount, both to end the damage being done by current coal burn and to make expansion of coal use environmentally viable.
First look at the background to Britain's looming energy crisis.For a quarter of a century the National Union of Mineworkers and others hammered home the argument that energy policy (or lack of it) under successive Conservative and Labour governments was driving Britain towards a future dependent on fuel from overseas.
The Thatcher government encouraged the "dash for gas", in which Britain's North Sea gas was burned in enormous quantities to make electricity. Had the gas been saved for domestic and community use – heating homes, hospitals, schools and the like – it would have lasted for centuries.
The result is a Britain dependent on gas supplies that come from, or travel across, some of the most unstable regions in the world.
Britain in the 1980s and 1990s had the most efficient, and safest, deep-mined coal industry in the world. Today it is even more efficient. At Kellingley colliery in Yorkshire, one of the handful of pits still open, 2,000 men used to mine 1m tonnes of coal annually. Today at Kellingley, 500 men produce more than 2m tonnes.
Britain was also making some of the greatest advances in research into clean coal technology. The Tories cost Britain almost two decades of practical research into solving the environmental problems surrounding the burning of coal by closing the coal industry's research centre at Grimethorpe in Yorkshire.
Had that not happened, carbon capture might be at a far more advanced stage of development. But it is not too late. The support of the climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, for a new wave of carbon-capture coal-fired power stations points the way ahead.
Britain should be opening more mines in tandem with rapid and substantial investment in clean coal technology research. About 20 new pits employing collectively 10,000-plus miners could meet current coal needs. More pits could be sunk to increase Britain's independent energy source. Britain could even become an energy exporter.
If the private sector is unwilling or unable to invest, let it be publicly funded. The future of Britain's energy supplies, indeed the country's very survival as an industrial nation, merits that investment.
Economy blows ill wind for renewable energy
Green energy faces setbacks as Shell, BP and others halt renewable projects
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 16.17 BST
This year has not been a good one for renewable energy, despite promises by politicians all round the globe to make it the centrepoint of economic recovery.
Vestas chief executive Ditlev Engel began 2009 by warning that the economic downturn had left it with a 15% excess in global manufacturing capacity – though he was optimistic about Gordon Brown's promises to create thousands of new jobs in Britain and China's pledge to invest $70bn (£58bn) on electricity grid connections.
A year-long study for the department for energy and climate change worked out that another 5,000-7,000 wind turbines could be built off the coast of Britain by 2020, generating 25GW of energy, equivalent to 25 large coal-fired power stations. The new capacity would be on top of 8GW already being built or in planning, making a total of 33GW.
Analysts at Goldman Sachs, however, were already warning that "the most important theme in 2009 within the alternative energy space will be a move from severe under-supply to one of at least a more balanced market and potentially serious oversupply."
The first big hurdle for wind cropped up in March, with oil company Shell pulling out of wind, solar and hydro power because it felt they were not economic. It said it would concentrate instead on cleaner ways of using fossil fuels, such as carbon capture and sequestration technology.
BP cut 620 jobs at its solar division, Siemens cut 400 jobs from its wind operations in Denmark and Iberdrola, owner of ScottishPower, cut investment in renewables by almost half so far this year.
A month later, developers of the London Array, a project to build the world's largest offshore wind farm in the Thames estuary, approached the European Investment Bank for a bailout, putting the future of the project in doubt.
This week the Guardian revealed that one of the country's most efficient wind farms, at Haverigg in Cumbria, could be dismantled to make way for a new nuclear power station.
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 16.17 BST
This year has not been a good one for renewable energy, despite promises by politicians all round the globe to make it the centrepoint of economic recovery.
Vestas chief executive Ditlev Engel began 2009 by warning that the economic downturn had left it with a 15% excess in global manufacturing capacity – though he was optimistic about Gordon Brown's promises to create thousands of new jobs in Britain and China's pledge to invest $70bn (£58bn) on electricity grid connections.
A year-long study for the department for energy and climate change worked out that another 5,000-7,000 wind turbines could be built off the coast of Britain by 2020, generating 25GW of energy, equivalent to 25 large coal-fired power stations. The new capacity would be on top of 8GW already being built or in planning, making a total of 33GW.
Analysts at Goldman Sachs, however, were already warning that "the most important theme in 2009 within the alternative energy space will be a move from severe under-supply to one of at least a more balanced market and potentially serious oversupply."
The first big hurdle for wind cropped up in March, with oil company Shell pulling out of wind, solar and hydro power because it felt they were not economic. It said it would concentrate instead on cleaner ways of using fossil fuels, such as carbon capture and sequestration technology.
BP cut 620 jobs at its solar division, Siemens cut 400 jobs from its wind operations in Denmark and Iberdrola, owner of ScottishPower, cut investment in renewables by almost half so far this year.
A month later, developers of the London Array, a project to build the world's largest offshore wind farm in the Thames estuary, approached the European Investment Bank for a bailout, putting the future of the project in doubt.
This week the Guardian revealed that one of the country's most efficient wind farms, at Haverigg in Cumbria, could be dismantled to make way for a new nuclear power station.
Closure of turbine factory takes the wind out of Britain's low-carbon sails
• Environment Company boss blames 'nimbys' for sales slump• Budget measures seen as last glimmer of hope
Tim Webb
The Guardian, Wednesday 29 April 2009
Britain's only wind turbine manufacturing plant is to close, dealing a humiliating blow to the government's promise to support low-carbon industries.
Vestas, the world's biggest wind energy group, said yesterday it would close its Isle of Wight plant, which employs about 600 people and makes blades for windfarms in the US.
Announcing the move, the boss of the Danish company delivered a scathing attack on "nimbys" and the planning system, blaming them for holding up projects and causing paralysis in the industry. The company also pointed to "a lack of political initiatives [to support the wind industry]" and the weak pound. "It is extremely time-consuming and extremely complicated. Some of our developers, customers, will tell you it is so difficult. In the UK nimbyism is a huge challenge," Ditlev Engel told the Guardian.
The group had planned to convert the factory in Newport in June to make blades for the British market, but said yesterday that orders had ground to a halt. The low demand could not justify the investment, Engel said.
He said the group would consult workers for the next two to three months, and investment in the plant may still go ahead if orders picked up soon.
Engel said last week's budget, which increased subsidies available for offshore windfarms, as well as recent moves to free up the sluggish planning process, could boost the industry but it was too early to say whether orders would pick up enough to rescue the plant.
"The government has tried to improve the situation," he said. "Whether it's enough I don't know."
But the company's financial statement for the first quarter, released yesterday, blamed the credit crunch, a depreciation of sterling and "a lack of political initiatives" for the planned job losses.
The TUC called on the government to do more to protect "green jobs and skills". The union body's general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: "The loss of these jobs on the Isle of Wight would not only be a blow to the emerging green sector, but would also be a personal tragedy for the hundreds of workers affected locally."
Engel admitted that if Vestas makes its workers redundant it would be harder to reopen the plant if orders pick up, because it would have to find a new skilled workforce.
Vestas is also cutting just under 1,300 workers in Denmark. The group, which after the cuts will employ about 20,000 people worldwide, reported yesterday that profits had more than doubled in the first quarter of the year, to €76m (£68m). While scaling back operations in Britain and Denmark, Vestas said it was expanding manufacturing in the US and China where it said demand was higher.
In early March, Gordon Brown convened a low-carbon industrial summit aimed at finding ways to help the sector's manufacturers lead Britain out of recession. Vestas representatives attended.
Engel said the group was in "constant dialogue" with the government and had informed it of yesterday's move. He admitted that no aid or assistance had been offered by the government to try to save the plant. But he reserved his fiercest criticism for local politicians and "nimbys" who he said were holding up projects, particularly onshore, giving Britain one of the lengthiest planning processes for windfarms anywhere in the world.
"Since last summer, the order intake in the UK market has dropped significantly. Therefore it would be very difficult to substantiate the investment as we had already planned.
"The UK has large wind resources and it's a priority for the government but the orders didn't move. That's why we're telling employees that we're not reinvesting there.
"We are waiting to see in the coming period if the government initiative announced last week will get the market to move again. At least it gives some hope but it's too early to tell."
Engel said the weakness of the pound had also had an effect, making it more expensive to build windfarms in Britain, but the main problem lay in planning applications.
"People talk about big offshore parks. Why not put in onshore parks? The cost of installation is half compared to offshore."
The Isle of Wight facility will stop making blades in June. The R&D department, which employs about 150 people, will remain open.
Tim Webb
The Guardian, Wednesday 29 April 2009
Britain's only wind turbine manufacturing plant is to close, dealing a humiliating blow to the government's promise to support low-carbon industries.
Vestas, the world's biggest wind energy group, said yesterday it would close its Isle of Wight plant, which employs about 600 people and makes blades for windfarms in the US.
Announcing the move, the boss of the Danish company delivered a scathing attack on "nimbys" and the planning system, blaming them for holding up projects and causing paralysis in the industry. The company also pointed to "a lack of political initiatives [to support the wind industry]" and the weak pound. "It is extremely time-consuming and extremely complicated. Some of our developers, customers, will tell you it is so difficult. In the UK nimbyism is a huge challenge," Ditlev Engel told the Guardian.
The group had planned to convert the factory in Newport in June to make blades for the British market, but said yesterday that orders had ground to a halt. The low demand could not justify the investment, Engel said.
He said the group would consult workers for the next two to three months, and investment in the plant may still go ahead if orders picked up soon.
Engel said last week's budget, which increased subsidies available for offshore windfarms, as well as recent moves to free up the sluggish planning process, could boost the industry but it was too early to say whether orders would pick up enough to rescue the plant.
"The government has tried to improve the situation," he said. "Whether it's enough I don't know."
But the company's financial statement for the first quarter, released yesterday, blamed the credit crunch, a depreciation of sterling and "a lack of political initiatives" for the planned job losses.
The TUC called on the government to do more to protect "green jobs and skills". The union body's general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: "The loss of these jobs on the Isle of Wight would not only be a blow to the emerging green sector, but would also be a personal tragedy for the hundreds of workers affected locally."
Engel admitted that if Vestas makes its workers redundant it would be harder to reopen the plant if orders pick up, because it would have to find a new skilled workforce.
Vestas is also cutting just under 1,300 workers in Denmark. The group, which after the cuts will employ about 20,000 people worldwide, reported yesterday that profits had more than doubled in the first quarter of the year, to €76m (£68m). While scaling back operations in Britain and Denmark, Vestas said it was expanding manufacturing in the US and China where it said demand was higher.
In early March, Gordon Brown convened a low-carbon industrial summit aimed at finding ways to help the sector's manufacturers lead Britain out of recession. Vestas representatives attended.
Engel said the group was in "constant dialogue" with the government and had informed it of yesterday's move. He admitted that no aid or assistance had been offered by the government to try to save the plant. But he reserved his fiercest criticism for local politicians and "nimbys" who he said were holding up projects, particularly onshore, giving Britain one of the lengthiest planning processes for windfarms anywhere in the world.
"Since last summer, the order intake in the UK market has dropped significantly. Therefore it would be very difficult to substantiate the investment as we had already planned.
"The UK has large wind resources and it's a priority for the government but the orders didn't move. That's why we're telling employees that we're not reinvesting there.
"We are waiting to see in the coming period if the government initiative announced last week will get the market to move again. At least it gives some hope but it's too early to tell."
Engel said the weakness of the pound had also had an effect, making it more expensive to build windfarms in Britain, but the main problem lay in planning applications.
"People talk about big offshore parks. Why not put in onshore parks? The cost of installation is half compared to offshore."
The Isle of Wight facility will stop making blades in June. The R&D department, which employs about 150 people, will remain open.
Wind turbine maker to axe 600 jobs
By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
Published: April 29 2009 03:16
One of the biggest renewable energy manufacturers in Britain announced on Tuesday it is to cut more than half its UK jobs – blaming the government for failing to support the sector.
In a grave blow to the government’s ambitions to create a “green” export industry, Vestas, the world’s biggest maker of wind turbines, will axe about 600 of its 1,100 UK employees, probably closing its factory in the Isle of Wight and cutting jobs elsewhere in the UK.
Ditlev Engel, chief executive of Vestas, told the Financial Times: “We had been planning additional investment in the UK [because of government targets to increase renewables]. But the UK is probably one of the most difficult places in the world to get permission [for wind projects]. We can’t afford to keep on this capacity.”
The blow comes less than a week after Alistair Darling trumpeted the role of low-carbon industries in job creation, announcing new funding for renewables in his Budget.
Mr Engel said the cuts were not the result of the recession – the company’s order book had recovered and he predicted 20 per cent growth in 2009. The reason was rather the inability of the government to deliver the conditions needed for renewables growth.
“There are two sets of politicians, Whitehall politicians and local politicians,” Mr Engel said. While the former group encourages renewables, which bring new jobs, local politicians tend to oppose wind farms, meaning few are built.
Green zeal fades
Businesses are losing their enthusiasm for environmental issues, just as the government is ramping up its efforts to combat global warming, a new poll suggests.
More than eight in 10 companies think the government’s targets of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 are unattainable, according to a survey of 300 UK businesses by RWE Npower, the energy company. The poll was carried out before the Budget when ambitious emission cuts were set out.
Exchange rates, which have made imports of wind turbine components from Europe more expensive, also played a part in Vestas’ decision, Mr Engel said. “The UK currency has dropped significantly against the euro, which has made things difficult.”
But the main reason, he said, was the problem with building renewable energy in the UK. Although the UK has the best wind resource and the most generous subsidy system in Europe – paid for by electricity consumers – it has failed to generate the volumes of electricity necessary to meet European Union targets, which will require 35-40 per cent of electricity to come from renewables by 2020, against about 5 per cent today.
Mike O’Brien, minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, sought to play down the significance of the job cuts. He said: “It’s clear that Vestas recognises the potential of the UK wind market. Measures set out in the Budget will offer renewed support to the wind industry and help move potential projects towards construction, which could mean more business for Vestas.”
He said the government would be offering support to those affected by the redundancies.
But, making clear that he believed Vestas would continue to retain a production base in the UK, he added: “Vestas have indicated the steps we have taken [in the Budget] will have a positive influence on the possibility of them producing blades in the UK.”
Blades are the single component of turbines that Vestas makes in the UK. Other parts are imported.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: April 29 2009 03:16
One of the biggest renewable energy manufacturers in Britain announced on Tuesday it is to cut more than half its UK jobs – blaming the government for failing to support the sector.
In a grave blow to the government’s ambitions to create a “green” export industry, Vestas, the world’s biggest maker of wind turbines, will axe about 600 of its 1,100 UK employees, probably closing its factory in the Isle of Wight and cutting jobs elsewhere in the UK.
Ditlev Engel, chief executive of Vestas, told the Financial Times: “We had been planning additional investment in the UK [because of government targets to increase renewables]. But the UK is probably one of the most difficult places in the world to get permission [for wind projects]. We can’t afford to keep on this capacity.”
The blow comes less than a week after Alistair Darling trumpeted the role of low-carbon industries in job creation, announcing new funding for renewables in his Budget.
Mr Engel said the cuts were not the result of the recession – the company’s order book had recovered and he predicted 20 per cent growth in 2009. The reason was rather the inability of the government to deliver the conditions needed for renewables growth.
“There are two sets of politicians, Whitehall politicians and local politicians,” Mr Engel said. While the former group encourages renewables, which bring new jobs, local politicians tend to oppose wind farms, meaning few are built.
Green zeal fades
Businesses are losing their enthusiasm for environmental issues, just as the government is ramping up its efforts to combat global warming, a new poll suggests.
More than eight in 10 companies think the government’s targets of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 are unattainable, according to a survey of 300 UK businesses by RWE Npower, the energy company. The poll was carried out before the Budget when ambitious emission cuts were set out.
Exchange rates, which have made imports of wind turbine components from Europe more expensive, also played a part in Vestas’ decision, Mr Engel said. “The UK currency has dropped significantly against the euro, which has made things difficult.”
But the main reason, he said, was the problem with building renewable energy in the UK. Although the UK has the best wind resource and the most generous subsidy system in Europe – paid for by electricity consumers – it has failed to generate the volumes of electricity necessary to meet European Union targets, which will require 35-40 per cent of electricity to come from renewables by 2020, against about 5 per cent today.
Mike O’Brien, minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, sought to play down the significance of the job cuts. He said: “It’s clear that Vestas recognises the potential of the UK wind market. Measures set out in the Budget will offer renewed support to the wind industry and help move potential projects towards construction, which could mean more business for Vestas.”
He said the government would be offering support to those affected by the redundancies.
But, making clear that he believed Vestas would continue to retain a production base in the UK, he added: “Vestas have indicated the steps we have taken [in the Budget] will have a positive influence on the possibility of them producing blades in the UK.”
Blades are the single component of turbines that Vestas makes in the UK. Other parts are imported.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Electric car subsidies do not serve green goals
By Richard Pike
Published: April 27 2009 19:58
Hard facts and informed opinion have been the first casualties of the maelstrom of comment, debate and public relations generated by the government’s plan to provide a subsidy of up to £5,000 to buyers of electric cars.
Missing is an answer to the main question: is this a good way of spending public money to address climate change? The government argues that the move will encourage early adopters of the technology, helping electric car manufacturers achieve economies of scale. But, given that it would cost more than £150bn to subsidise Britain’s entire car fleet, are there more cost-effective means of meeting our commitment to reduce UK carbon dioxide emissions to a fifth of 1990 levels by 2050?
From a pure energy perspective, electric cars are slightly less good at turning fuel from a power station into movement than the average engine is at extracting energy from petrol or diesel. With a modern internal combustion engine, 32 per cent of the energy in petrol ultimately drives the pistons, while for diesel the figure is 45 per cent, giving an average for the UK’s 30m cars of 34 per cent.
Whatever fuel is used in power stations – gas, oil, coal, nuclear or biomass – just over two-fifths of the available energy is captured as electricity by linking the turbine to dynamo. But, because of electrical transmission losses over miles of cabling, only 36 per cent of the available energy ends up as useful power. In charging and discharging the lithium-ion battery of an electric car, a further seventh is lost, leaving about 31 per cent of the original fuel’s energy available to the motor.
We can, therefore, draw the intriguing conclusion that in the UK right now there are no compelling energy-saving reasons for moving to electric cars.
The argument then switches to how much carbon dioxide is produced from different fuels for the same energy. A rough rule of thumb is that, compared with natural gas, petrol and diesel produce 1.4 times as much carbon, oil 1.5 times and coal double – against zero for nuclear and renewable energy.
As long as the mix of fuels generating the electricity does better on this ratio than petrol or diesel, there will be a reduction in emissions from replacing existing cars with electrical vehicles. This is why discontinuing the use of fossil fuels in power stations (or moving to carbon capture and storage) is so important for electric cars to be effective, although gas provides some benefit.
The current fuel mix for generating electricity in the UK gives a carbon ratio of 1.2 times gas (against, remember, 1.4 for petrol and diesel). This means that if all internal combustion engine cars were replaced, car emissions would fall by a seventh. In this scenario, cars could be charged up during the night with electricity from existing power stations, although emphasis on gas and the currently diminishing nuclear capacity during that period would lower the figure of 1.2 slightly.
Cars account for 24m tonnes of fuel each year and generate 12 per cent of the UK’s carbon emissions. With our current energy mix, complete replacement to electric would therefore reduce this to about 10 per cent.
The hypothetical, though absolutely relevant, question is: would it be worth spending £150bn today to replace all cars with electric vehicles, in order to reduce carbon emissions by 2 percentage points? The answer has to be No. The same money is comparable with the cost of replacing all our electricity-generating capacity with photovoltaic solar cells (if sufficient could be manufactured globally) and reducing our carbon footprint by a third.
Alternatively, it is likely that infrastructure for carbon capture, wind and tidal energy, development of better batteries, further “green” research and waste heat recovery from power stations could all be progressed to a substantive scale, with more benefit, for the same cost.
The proposed £2,000-£5,000 per car is an extravagant gesture, even if for a smaller number of cars (initially £250m of subsidy). Directionally it sends the right message for the future, as eventually we will have to move away from oil-based fuels.
But the policy is not joined up with the reality of how electricity is currently generated in this country, or how it is likely to be generated for the next decade or more. If the logic is flawed for 30m cars, it must also be wrong for the 50,000 or so vehicles the government plans to subsidise.
The writer is chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: April 27 2009 19:58
Hard facts and informed opinion have been the first casualties of the maelstrom of comment, debate and public relations generated by the government’s plan to provide a subsidy of up to £5,000 to buyers of electric cars.
Missing is an answer to the main question: is this a good way of spending public money to address climate change? The government argues that the move will encourage early adopters of the technology, helping electric car manufacturers achieve economies of scale. But, given that it would cost more than £150bn to subsidise Britain’s entire car fleet, are there more cost-effective means of meeting our commitment to reduce UK carbon dioxide emissions to a fifth of 1990 levels by 2050?
From a pure energy perspective, electric cars are slightly less good at turning fuel from a power station into movement than the average engine is at extracting energy from petrol or diesel. With a modern internal combustion engine, 32 per cent of the energy in petrol ultimately drives the pistons, while for diesel the figure is 45 per cent, giving an average for the UK’s 30m cars of 34 per cent.
Whatever fuel is used in power stations – gas, oil, coal, nuclear or biomass – just over two-fifths of the available energy is captured as electricity by linking the turbine to dynamo. But, because of electrical transmission losses over miles of cabling, only 36 per cent of the available energy ends up as useful power. In charging and discharging the lithium-ion battery of an electric car, a further seventh is lost, leaving about 31 per cent of the original fuel’s energy available to the motor.
We can, therefore, draw the intriguing conclusion that in the UK right now there are no compelling energy-saving reasons for moving to electric cars.
The argument then switches to how much carbon dioxide is produced from different fuels for the same energy. A rough rule of thumb is that, compared with natural gas, petrol and diesel produce 1.4 times as much carbon, oil 1.5 times and coal double – against zero for nuclear and renewable energy.
As long as the mix of fuels generating the electricity does better on this ratio than petrol or diesel, there will be a reduction in emissions from replacing existing cars with electrical vehicles. This is why discontinuing the use of fossil fuels in power stations (or moving to carbon capture and storage) is so important for electric cars to be effective, although gas provides some benefit.
The current fuel mix for generating electricity in the UK gives a carbon ratio of 1.2 times gas (against, remember, 1.4 for petrol and diesel). This means that if all internal combustion engine cars were replaced, car emissions would fall by a seventh. In this scenario, cars could be charged up during the night with electricity from existing power stations, although emphasis on gas and the currently diminishing nuclear capacity during that period would lower the figure of 1.2 slightly.
Cars account for 24m tonnes of fuel each year and generate 12 per cent of the UK’s carbon emissions. With our current energy mix, complete replacement to electric would therefore reduce this to about 10 per cent.
The hypothetical, though absolutely relevant, question is: would it be worth spending £150bn today to replace all cars with electric vehicles, in order to reduce carbon emissions by 2 percentage points? The answer has to be No. The same money is comparable with the cost of replacing all our electricity-generating capacity with photovoltaic solar cells (if sufficient could be manufactured globally) and reducing our carbon footprint by a third.
Alternatively, it is likely that infrastructure for carbon capture, wind and tidal energy, development of better batteries, further “green” research and waste heat recovery from power stations could all be progressed to a substantive scale, with more benefit, for the same cost.
The proposed £2,000-£5,000 per car is an extravagant gesture, even if for a smaller number of cars (initially £250m of subsidy). Directionally it sends the right message for the future, as eventually we will have to move away from oil-based fuels.
But the policy is not joined up with the reality of how electricity is currently generated in this country, or how it is likely to be generated for the next decade or more. If the logic is flawed for 30m cars, it must also be wrong for the 50,000 or so vehicles the government plans to subsidise.
The writer is chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Carbon trading volumes jump 37%
By Fiona Harvey
Published: April 27 2009 18:25
The carbon market showed a remarkable growth spurt in the first quarter of this year, with trading volumes up 37 per cent.
Trading was driven by price volatility and companies selling carbon permits to raise short-term cash.
However, low prices meant the market’s value had fallen by 16 per cent to $28bn by the end of March, according to New Carbon Finance, a carbon data specialist.
Nearly 2bn carbon credits were traded in the first quarter, an increase of 37 per cent on the previous quarter and more than double the amount traded in the first quarter of 2008.
Guy Turner, director of New Carbon Finance, said: “In spite of the recession, a decline in carbon prices and uncertainty over what will happen after 2012 [when the current provisions of the Kyoto protocol expire], traders are taking this market seriously and trading more actively.”
The bulk of the international market – about 84 per cent by value – is the European Union’s emissions trading scheme, under which energy-intensive companies are issued a quota of carbon permits they may trade with one another. Trading in this market rose by 54 per cent, compared with the last quarter of 2008.
Prices for EU permits are nearly €14 ($18.4), up from a low of about €8 in February. Traders have priced in the effects of the recession driving down industrial production, and companies have largely stopped selling off permits to raise cash.
But volumes in the other main part of the market, the trade in carbon credits issued by the United Nations – 9 per cent of the market by value – fell about a third.
Trading in this market has been affected by uncertainty over what will replace the Kyoto protocol. The UN issues credits to carbon-cutting projects under the protocol, and these can be used by companies in the EU scheme to top up quotas.
The stream of finance for such projects is drying up, according to New Carbon Finance: the last new carbon fund, of $95m, was set up last year and no new money was raised in the first quarter of 2009.
The company forecast the carbon market would be worth about $120bn by the end of the year, broadly on a par with last year.
However, if the US introduced a federal cap-and-trade system the market would reach more than $2,000bn by 2020.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: April 27 2009 18:25
The carbon market showed a remarkable growth spurt in the first quarter of this year, with trading volumes up 37 per cent.
Trading was driven by price volatility and companies selling carbon permits to raise short-term cash.
However, low prices meant the market’s value had fallen by 16 per cent to $28bn by the end of March, according to New Carbon Finance, a carbon data specialist.
Nearly 2bn carbon credits were traded in the first quarter, an increase of 37 per cent on the previous quarter and more than double the amount traded in the first quarter of 2008.
Guy Turner, director of New Carbon Finance, said: “In spite of the recession, a decline in carbon prices and uncertainty over what will happen after 2012 [when the current provisions of the Kyoto protocol expire], traders are taking this market seriously and trading more actively.”
The bulk of the international market – about 84 per cent by value – is the European Union’s emissions trading scheme, under which energy-intensive companies are issued a quota of carbon permits they may trade with one another. Trading in this market rose by 54 per cent, compared with the last quarter of 2008.
Prices for EU permits are nearly €14 ($18.4), up from a low of about €8 in February. Traders have priced in the effects of the recession driving down industrial production, and companies have largely stopped selling off permits to raise cash.
But volumes in the other main part of the market, the trade in carbon credits issued by the United Nations – 9 per cent of the market by value – fell about a third.
Trading in this market has been affected by uncertainty over what will replace the Kyoto protocol. The UN issues credits to carbon-cutting projects under the protocol, and these can be used by companies in the EU scheme to top up quotas.
The stream of finance for such projects is drying up, according to New Carbon Finance: the last new carbon fund, of $95m, was set up last year and no new money was raised in the first quarter of 2009.
The company forecast the carbon market would be worth about $120bn by the end of the year, broadly on a par with last year.
However, if the US introduced a federal cap-and-trade system the market would reach more than $2,000bn by 2020.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
EU sets car-makers new deadline for greener air conditioning
Refrigerant used in current air conditioning systems in most European cars is more polluting than CO2
David Gow in Brussels
guardian.co.uk, Monday 27 April 2009 12.38 BST
Europe's struggling car-makers are facing a legal requirement to fit more eco-friendly air conditioning on all new models from 2011.
The European commission recently ruled that the full force of a 2006 law, the MAC (mobile air conditioning) directive (pdf), will take effect in two years' time rather than 2017 as the industry has been lobbying for.
Car-makers have been pressing EU governments to allow them to continue using existing types of air conditioning on new models of existing cars as they struggle to invest in "green" technologies and develop more fuel-efficient models such as hybrids and electric vehicles.
But the commission insists that the refrigerant used in current air conditioning systems in most European cars has a global warming potential (GWP) far higher than the 150 laid down by the MAC law. Some estimates put the GWP of the existing refrigerant (hydrofluorocarbon R-134a) at 1,400 times higher than CO2.
The commission's guidance, welcomed by green campaigners, says that national authorities are wrongly interpreting the law to approve current systems up to the end of 2016.
Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat MEP, argued that the new law was good for business and the environment: "This is a textbook example of how EU environmental legislation can create market opportunities and promote innovation."
The ruling has prompted a race among car manufacturers to find alternative refrigerants Some are opting for CO2 itself, which has a GWP of one but can remain in the atmosphere for up to 500 years compared to the 13 years for the current refrigerant.
Honeywell, the US industrial group, claims its new hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant known as '1234-YF' has a GWP of just four and an atmospheric lifetime of just 11 days. It says this can swiftly be used in current air conditioning systems without a significant redesign but critics say it is much more expensive.
The European car industry lobby, ACEA, is expected to seize on the ruling to step up its case for €40bn in loans to help car-makers develop "greener" models in the face of the downturn which has seen sales slump 17.2% in the first quarter of 2009.
David Gow in Brussels
guardian.co.uk, Monday 27 April 2009 12.38 BST
Europe's struggling car-makers are facing a legal requirement to fit more eco-friendly air conditioning on all new models from 2011.
The European commission recently ruled that the full force of a 2006 law, the MAC (mobile air conditioning) directive (pdf), will take effect in two years' time rather than 2017 as the industry has been lobbying for.
Car-makers have been pressing EU governments to allow them to continue using existing types of air conditioning on new models of existing cars as they struggle to invest in "green" technologies and develop more fuel-efficient models such as hybrids and electric vehicles.
But the commission insists that the refrigerant used in current air conditioning systems in most European cars has a global warming potential (GWP) far higher than the 150 laid down by the MAC law. Some estimates put the GWP of the existing refrigerant (hydrofluorocarbon R-134a) at 1,400 times higher than CO2.
The commission's guidance, welcomed by green campaigners, says that national authorities are wrongly interpreting the law to approve current systems up to the end of 2016.
Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat MEP, argued that the new law was good for business and the environment: "This is a textbook example of how EU environmental legislation can create market opportunities and promote innovation."
The ruling has prompted a race among car manufacturers to find alternative refrigerants Some are opting for CO2 itself, which has a GWP of one but can remain in the atmosphere for up to 500 years compared to the 13 years for the current refrigerant.
Honeywell, the US industrial group, claims its new hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant known as '1234-YF' has a GWP of just four and an atmospheric lifetime of just 11 days. It says this can swiftly be used in current air conditioning systems without a significant redesign but critics say it is much more expensive.
The European car industry lobby, ACEA, is expected to seize on the ruling to step up its case for €40bn in loans to help car-makers develop "greener" models in the face of the downturn which has seen sales slump 17.2% in the first quarter of 2009.
Consultancy cooking on gas
Published Date: 27 April 2009
AN environmental consultancy has helped develop a methane gas extraction system for Africa's biggest landfill site.
SLR, which has an office in Edinburgh, connected a site in Durban to the South African national grid system. It will now help support 8MW of electricity generation – enough to power the equivalent of 5000 homes in the developed world.SLR's landfill gas team also assisted Durban's eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality to register the scheme with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).SLR associate Grant Pearson, said: "As well as providing technical expertise, a key part of our role was to provide support to keep the project moving forward and to ensure that the environmental, social and financial benefits of the scheme could be realised."
Cleaner power station means SSE can use UK coal without adding to greenhouse gases
Published Date: 28 April 2009
By Hamish Rutherford
SCOTTISH & Southern Energy has signed its largest deal to buy UK-produced coal after fitting one of its power stations with equipment to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Because of the high level of sulphur in most British-mined coal, the company's stations have been powered by imported fuel from around the world.But a new flue gas desulphurisation plant added to the firm's Ferrybridge station in West Yorkshire earlier this year allowed SSE to sign a deal to buy 3.5 million tonnes of coal from Doncaster-based UK Coal.The coal can now be burned at the plant as the new equipment will remove sulphur dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from the station's emissions.According to SSE, the contract is expected to supply about 15 per cent of the coal requirement at Ferrybridge between late 2009 and 2014.A spokeswoman for Perth-based SSE said the company could take more coal from the UK at Ferrybridge, but domestic supplies were insufficient for its needs.Under the terms of the latest contract, SSE is providing a secured, interest-bearing loan to the UK Coal company, which will supply the fuel, to assist with capital investment to upgrade production some of its mines.The loan, the size of which was not revealed yesterday, is due to be repaid by 2014.SSE said the coal would be supplied from deep mine and surface sites in the UK, including Kellingley Colliery in North Yorkshire. Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed, but in a statement SSE said prices would be linked to global prices, with a ceiling and floor to reduce price risk.SSE chief executive Ian Marchant said that while the company was attempting to reduce the carbon intensity of its generation by 50 per cent by 2020, "the security of the UK's energy supply" meant coal would continue to have a role in its plans."Our investment in equipment to remove emissions of sulphur means we can now make this substantial commitment to an indigenous source of fuel, thereby supporting jobs in the UK's mining industry."Shares in SSE rose 38p, or 3.6 per cent, to 1,103p.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
