The Times
April 30, 2009
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
It is a dazzling vision of a clean energy future. An entire continent powered by solar panels, wind and wave turbines, geothermal and hydroelectric power stations — and all stitched together by a European “supergrid” stretching from the sunbaked deserts of the south to the windswept North Sea, from the volcanoes of Iceland to the lakes of Finland.
It may sound like the stuff of science fiction but this is a vision that the European Union wants to make a reality. The concept is gaining ground among policymakers, including leaders such as President Sarkozy and Gordon Brown, who are concerned about Europe's carbon emissions and its steadily growing dependence on Russian gas.
Adam Bruce, chairman of the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), is convinced that a European supergrid that could eventually banish polluting fossil fuels altogether, is only a matter of time.
“We are only limited by our own ambition,” he says. “The capacity is there. There is the potential for wind alone to supply 50 per cent or more of our energy needs.”
Gregor Czisch, a German academic at the University of Kassel who developed the concept, claims it would cost €45 billion (£40.5 billion) to build. The numbers add up, he insists, and all of Europe's electricity supplies could eventually be harvested from the wind, water and the sun.
Such dreams of renewable energy certainly catch the imagination but for Britain, which generates just 1 per cent of its electricity from renewables — the least in the European Union after Malta and Luxembourg — the gap between ambition and reality seems particularly stark.
The truth is that, despite the Government's talk of a green energy revolution, Britain's renewable energy industry is in crisis.
About 40 per cent of the UK's power stations were built before 1975 and urgently need to be replaced. But the combined impact of the credit crunch, falling oil and coal prices and the weaker pound now threaten to hold up wind projects just as the UK has raised its commitment to green electricity.
“The economics a year ago were already tight but the cost of capital and the foreign exchange movement have made it much harder,” says Sarwjit Sambhi, director of power generation at Centrica, one of Britain's Big Six power companies, which is trying to build a 250 megawatt (MW) wind farm off Lincolnshire, big enough to supply 170,000 homes. “We are not going to make investments below our return on capital so my goal will be to spend as little as possible until the economics improve,” he said.
In last week's Budget, the Government announced incentives designed to bolster investment in huge offshore windfarms and ensure that Britain hits its target of raising the share of electricity produced from renewable sources to 35 to 40 per cent by 2020.
So will they work? Not according to Jim Skea, director of the UK Energy Research Centre. He has just undertaken a big research project into how the UK can slash its carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. “In none of the scenarios we looked at were renewables picked up nearly fast enough to meet the 2020 targets,” said Professor Skea. “It will be a big struggle. We are not spending nearly enough.”
Wind power, easily the most economically attractive form of renewable energy in the UK, remains hugely expensive when compared with gas and coal.
A recently approved gas-fired station in Pembroke will cost £1 billion and will be the largest in the UK, producing 2,000MW. It would cost six times as much to build a windfarm of similar capacity.
While a strengthened subsidy regime and up to £4 billion of extra funding from the European Investment Bank (EIB) announced in the Budget are welcome, Professor Skea believes that far more radical action will be required, including huge increases in research spending to accelerate the development of better technology, and a dramatic rise in the price of traded carbon emissions, up from £13 presently to £200 a tonne.
But that is not all. Sceptics scoff that wind, wave and solar power are inherently unreliable. A solution could lie in back-up gas and nuclear plants and a far smarter grid that includes technology to balance the load at moments of reduced supply.
This could range from sophisticated centralised networks right into homes, where chips embedded in non-essential appliances could force them to switch off for brief periods as and when the grid demanded it.
Such technology exists but it is a world away from today's grid, some of which dates back to the 1930s, and it will require vast investments and sweeping regulatory change to accomplish.
Until Europe's governments grapple with the fine detail of these issues, the Continent's dreams of a supergrid and a future free of fossil fuels are likely to remain in the realms of science fiction.
Ultimately, according to Professor Skea, an international deal at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December will be critical to achieving the political momentum required to achieve all of this.
Nevertheless, the BWEA's Adam Bruce remains upbeat: “It's certainly a challenge but these problems are not insurmountable. The more renewable energy you create the less it costs. People focus on the upfront capital cost but not the longer-term benefits.”
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Small-scale green energy grants rise to £150,000
Published Date: 30 April 2009
By JOHN ROSS
THE level of grants to help communities develop small-scale renewable energy schemes has been increased by the Scottish Government.
Up to £150,000 is now available – a rise of 50 per cent – to fund technical support, training and installation of green energy equipment.The Communities and Renewable Energy Scheme (Cares) replaces an initiative which helped develop more than 400 projects. Energy minister Jim Mather said: "I want to maximise the benefits of renewable energy to communities throughout Scotland." Nicholas Gubbins, chief executive of Dingwall-based charity Community Energy Scotland, which is delivering the Cares project, said: "There is already a high level of interest and enthusiasm within communities for developing their own projects."These can bring real benefits to communities, helping to address energy costs and making a significant contribution to Scotland's carbon and renewable energy targets."
UK 'will struggle' to meet 2020 renewables goal
Coalition of energy and climate scientists reveal scenarios for how lifestyles and energy generation in Britain must change to reach 2050 emission reduction targets
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 April 2009 00.05 BST
The UK will "struggle" to meet its 2020 target to source 15% of its electricity from renewable sources, according to a leading energy expert who also advises the UK government on climate policy.
Jim Skea, research director of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) and a member of the government's advisory Committee on Climate Change warned yesterday that, while renewable energy would play an important role in meeting the UK's target to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, the more immediate 2020 goal of sourcing 15% of UK electricity from renewables would be "a very big struggle".
He made the comments at a briefing to launch a new UKERC report that presents scenarios for how lifestyles and energy generation in Britain would have to change reach the 2050 climate targets. The study concludes that investing in low-carbon energy technologies in the short term will save the UK billions of pounds in its goal to reach its long-term targets while consumer resistance to change would also raise the cost of a low-carbon Britain.
The scenarios were based on two years of work by a coalition of energy and climate scientists. Each study took in various constraints such as how willing consumers might be to use energy more efficiently or change the amount and way they travel. In all the scenarios, the electricity sector would be completely carbon free by 2050 through the use of nuclear power, renewables and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. This clean electricity would then become the main source of power for homes and transport.
Skea said that none of the scenarios had a major role for renewables technology until at least the 2030s. "If you're looking at all the potential delays on the system of deploying renewable energy, getting grid connections in, getting planning permissions, 2020 is almost tomorrow and we'll have to struggle very hard to reach it," said Skea. "If these barriers could be removed, it's technically possible but a lot of political will is needed to push this through."
According to the report, achieving the 2050 target using the most economic methods would cost around £17bn, or around £700 per household per year. But this cost would rise if consumers were resistant to new technologies.
"Nimby" attitudes to building nuclear power, biofuel crops or onshore wind could push up the costs of reaching 2050 targets to £20bn or £800 per household per year. An ecologically active public that demands an end to all fossil fuels and all environmentally damaging practices such as open-cast coal-mining would push the price up even further, to £28bn, or £1,100 per household, though this scenario would also end up providing more clean energy for Britons to use.
Skea said that driving these required changes would be difficult but one way would be to raise the price of carbon so that businesses were incentivised to invest in cleaner, low-carbon technologies instead. A carbon price of £200 per tonne of CO2 by 2050 would be required, he said, leading to petrol prices of at least £5 per litre. But this would not necessarily mean that household energy bills would rise. "The price of energy might go up but the absolute amount you pay might go down," said Skea.
One of the UKERC scenarios involved wide-ranging changes in the way people lived their lives, for example, that could end up saving consumers and businesses more than £50bn in energy bills every year. This included taking up energy efficiency measures at home including lowering temperatures on thermostats from 20C to 17C, installing insulation and microgeneration. At the same time almost all car journeys for short distances would be cut out, and only ultra-low carbon or electric cars be used for longer journeys with more people working from home.
"In the residential and transport sector, energy demand will halve by 2050," said Jillian Anable, head of transport research at UKERC. "What that means for the total energy system is that energy use will reduce by a third. This means de-carbonisation could take place more slowly. The cost of delivering this low-carbon scenario would be reduced."
Another author of the study, Mark Winskel of the Institute of Energy Systems at Edinburgh University, highlighted the need for more support for research and development (R&D) of new energy technologies. "There has been an absolute decline in R&D spend which went down from £700m per annum in the mid 1970s. From the mid 1990s, we're averaging £100m per annum."
Raising the investment back to 1970s levels and using the cash to accelerate the commercial viability of energy systems including solar photovoltaics, wave and tidal energy, would save the UK around £1bn a year on average between 2010 and 2040, said Winskel, in not having to buy in more expensive carbon-reduction technologies in future to meet 2050 targets.
Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, said that converting to a low-carbon economy was a task that demanded spending now, despite the economic downturn, to save money in the long run.
"Evidence from countries that have successfully developed big renewable industries shows that governments need to support domestic markets, encouraging rapid development with help on planning and incentives. Without a strong government lead the fossil fuel corporate dinosaurs will get in the way and prevent the growth in green-collar jobs which we need. Expanding renewables is about controlling corporate influence as well as government targets."
Friends of the Earth's executive director, Andy Atkins, said: "This report confirms what we have always said - slashing UK emissions and building a low carbon economy is both achievable and affordable. But the government must stop dithering over the urgent need to act."
"Putting energy saving and the development of green sources of power at the heart of policy-making would make the UK a world leader in tackling climate change, increase energy security, end fuel poverty and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. A green energy revolution is desperately needed to meet the challenges we all face. Time is running out – Brown must show that he has the political courage to develop a safer, cleaner future."
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 April 2009 00.05 BST
The UK will "struggle" to meet its 2020 target to source 15% of its electricity from renewable sources, according to a leading energy expert who also advises the UK government on climate policy.
Jim Skea, research director of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) and a member of the government's advisory Committee on Climate Change warned yesterday that, while renewable energy would play an important role in meeting the UK's target to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, the more immediate 2020 goal of sourcing 15% of UK electricity from renewables would be "a very big struggle".
He made the comments at a briefing to launch a new UKERC report that presents scenarios for how lifestyles and energy generation in Britain would have to change reach the 2050 climate targets. The study concludes that investing in low-carbon energy technologies in the short term will save the UK billions of pounds in its goal to reach its long-term targets while consumer resistance to change would also raise the cost of a low-carbon Britain.
The scenarios were based on two years of work by a coalition of energy and climate scientists. Each study took in various constraints such as how willing consumers might be to use energy more efficiently or change the amount and way they travel. In all the scenarios, the electricity sector would be completely carbon free by 2050 through the use of nuclear power, renewables and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. This clean electricity would then become the main source of power for homes and transport.
Skea said that none of the scenarios had a major role for renewables technology until at least the 2030s. "If you're looking at all the potential delays on the system of deploying renewable energy, getting grid connections in, getting planning permissions, 2020 is almost tomorrow and we'll have to struggle very hard to reach it," said Skea. "If these barriers could be removed, it's technically possible but a lot of political will is needed to push this through."
According to the report, achieving the 2050 target using the most economic methods would cost around £17bn, or around £700 per household per year. But this cost would rise if consumers were resistant to new technologies.
"Nimby" attitudes to building nuclear power, biofuel crops or onshore wind could push up the costs of reaching 2050 targets to £20bn or £800 per household per year. An ecologically active public that demands an end to all fossil fuels and all environmentally damaging practices such as open-cast coal-mining would push the price up even further, to £28bn, or £1,100 per household, though this scenario would also end up providing more clean energy for Britons to use.
Skea said that driving these required changes would be difficult but one way would be to raise the price of carbon so that businesses were incentivised to invest in cleaner, low-carbon technologies instead. A carbon price of £200 per tonne of CO2 by 2050 would be required, he said, leading to petrol prices of at least £5 per litre. But this would not necessarily mean that household energy bills would rise. "The price of energy might go up but the absolute amount you pay might go down," said Skea.
One of the UKERC scenarios involved wide-ranging changes in the way people lived their lives, for example, that could end up saving consumers and businesses more than £50bn in energy bills every year. This included taking up energy efficiency measures at home including lowering temperatures on thermostats from 20C to 17C, installing insulation and microgeneration. At the same time almost all car journeys for short distances would be cut out, and only ultra-low carbon or electric cars be used for longer journeys with more people working from home.
"In the residential and transport sector, energy demand will halve by 2050," said Jillian Anable, head of transport research at UKERC. "What that means for the total energy system is that energy use will reduce by a third. This means de-carbonisation could take place more slowly. The cost of delivering this low-carbon scenario would be reduced."
Another author of the study, Mark Winskel of the Institute of Energy Systems at Edinburgh University, highlighted the need for more support for research and development (R&D) of new energy technologies. "There has been an absolute decline in R&D spend which went down from £700m per annum in the mid 1970s. From the mid 1990s, we're averaging £100m per annum."
Raising the investment back to 1970s levels and using the cash to accelerate the commercial viability of energy systems including solar photovoltaics, wave and tidal energy, would save the UK around £1bn a year on average between 2010 and 2040, said Winskel, in not having to buy in more expensive carbon-reduction technologies in future to meet 2050 targets.
Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, said that converting to a low-carbon economy was a task that demanded spending now, despite the economic downturn, to save money in the long run.
"Evidence from countries that have successfully developed big renewable industries shows that governments need to support domestic markets, encouraging rapid development with help on planning and incentives. Without a strong government lead the fossil fuel corporate dinosaurs will get in the way and prevent the growth in green-collar jobs which we need. Expanding renewables is about controlling corporate influence as well as government targets."
Friends of the Earth's executive director, Andy Atkins, said: "This report confirms what we have always said - slashing UK emissions and building a low carbon economy is both achievable and affordable. But the government must stop dithering over the urgent need to act."
"Putting energy saving and the development of green sources of power at the heart of policy-making would make the UK a world leader in tackling climate change, increase energy security, end fuel poverty and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. A green energy revolution is desperately needed to meet the challenges we all face. Time is running out – Brown must show that he has the political courage to develop a safer, cleaner future."
UK Government green goals face failure
The Times
April 30, 2009
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
Government plans to generate more than a third of Britain's electricity from green energy sources, such as wind and solar power, by 2020 are doomed to failure without a dramatic increase in state support, according to a leading energy research group.
Despite fresh incentives to increase investment in offshore wind parks announced in last week's Budget, the UK Energy Research Centre (ERC) said on Wednesday that it was virtually impossible for the UK to meet the target imposed by Europe of generating 15 per cent of total energy from renewable sources by 2020 — which equates to about 35 per cent of total electricity.
Jim Skea, research director, said: “Renewables can make a significant contribution, but if you look at the scale of what is required, I think that is very, very challenging and 2020 is almost tomorrow when you look at what needs to be achieved.”
Professor Skea said that Britain urgently needed to set a higher carbon price to hasten the adoption of low carbon technologies and to boost investment in energy research — which has collapsed from £700 million a year in the 1970s and 1980s to just £100 million annually.
He also said that sweeping new measures would be needed to encourage dramatic cuts in energy use.
Speaking at the launch of a new study on how the UK can meet its long-term goal of cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, the ERC said the carbon price would need to rise to £200 per tonne from £13. He said that this would equate to an increase in the price of petrol to about £5 a litre. Professor Skea said: “In almost every scenario we looked at, oil is driven out of the system. It would be cheaper for people to shift to biofuels or electric vehicles.”
Professor Skea said that the goal of cutting emissions by 80 per cent was achievable, but only with big changes in funding and in people's lifestyles, including a shift towards teleworking and phasing out petrol vehicles.
The ERC claimed that the cost of meeting these goals would be £17 billion a year — or £670 for every one of the 25 million UK households, which would be achieved through higher utility bills, extra transport costs and higher prices for goods and services.
The ERC, which consists of energy academics at universities across the UK, undertakes research that is supplied to the public sector and to government. It was established in 2004 after a recommendation from Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser at the time.
Professor Skea said: “UK energy policy goals are extraordinarily ambitious. Meeting them will require efforts well beyond the bounds of historical experience. By looking at the energy system in the round, our researchers have shown not only that the goals can be met, but that it is possible to reconcile them with wider technological, social and environmental changes.”
The UK spends about £100 billion a year on energy, including domestic, transport and industrial use.
April 30, 2009
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
Government plans to generate more than a third of Britain's electricity from green energy sources, such as wind and solar power, by 2020 are doomed to failure without a dramatic increase in state support, according to a leading energy research group.
Despite fresh incentives to increase investment in offshore wind parks announced in last week's Budget, the UK Energy Research Centre (ERC) said on Wednesday that it was virtually impossible for the UK to meet the target imposed by Europe of generating 15 per cent of total energy from renewable sources by 2020 — which equates to about 35 per cent of total electricity.
Jim Skea, research director, said: “Renewables can make a significant contribution, but if you look at the scale of what is required, I think that is very, very challenging and 2020 is almost tomorrow when you look at what needs to be achieved.”
Professor Skea said that Britain urgently needed to set a higher carbon price to hasten the adoption of low carbon technologies and to boost investment in energy research — which has collapsed from £700 million a year in the 1970s and 1980s to just £100 million annually.
He also said that sweeping new measures would be needed to encourage dramatic cuts in energy use.
Speaking at the launch of a new study on how the UK can meet its long-term goal of cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, the ERC said the carbon price would need to rise to £200 per tonne from £13. He said that this would equate to an increase in the price of petrol to about £5 a litre. Professor Skea said: “In almost every scenario we looked at, oil is driven out of the system. It would be cheaper for people to shift to biofuels or electric vehicles.”
Professor Skea said that the goal of cutting emissions by 80 per cent was achievable, but only with big changes in funding and in people's lifestyles, including a shift towards teleworking and phasing out petrol vehicles.
The ERC claimed that the cost of meeting these goals would be £17 billion a year — or £670 for every one of the 25 million UK households, which would be achieved through higher utility bills, extra transport costs and higher prices for goods and services.
The ERC, which consists of energy academics at universities across the UK, undertakes research that is supplied to the public sector and to government. It was established in 2004 after a recommendation from Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser at the time.
Professor Skea said: “UK energy policy goals are extraordinarily ambitious. Meeting them will require efforts well beyond the bounds of historical experience. By looking at the energy system in the round, our researchers have shown not only that the goals can be met, but that it is possible to reconcile them with wider technological, social and environmental changes.”
The UK spends about £100 billion a year on energy, including domestic, transport and industrial use.
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Australia's Loy Yang Power in landmark carbon deal
Reuters, Wednesday April 29 2009
SYDNEY, April 29 (Reuters) - Australian electricity generator Loy Yang Power has entered into a landmark deal to hedge some of its carbon emissions, ahead of the country's planned introduction of a carbon-trading system next year, Loy Yang said on Wednesday.
Loy Yang, part owned by AGL and Tokyo Electric Power Co <9501.t>, said it had entered into a certified emission reduction (CER) trade with local energy trader Arcadia Energy Trading, the first between two Australian counter-parties.
The deal covers 100,000 tonnes of carbon, deliverable in December 2011.
(Reporting by Mark Bendeich; Editing by Bruce Hextall)
SYDNEY, April 29 (Reuters) - Australian electricity generator Loy Yang Power has entered into a landmark deal to hedge some of its carbon emissions, ahead of the country's planned introduction of a carbon-trading system next year, Loy Yang said on Wednesday.
Loy Yang, part owned by AGL and Tokyo Electric Power Co <9501.t>, said it had entered into a certified emission reduction (CER) trade with local energy trader Arcadia Energy Trading, the first between two Australian counter-parties.
The deal covers 100,000 tonnes of carbon, deliverable in December 2011.
(Reporting by Mark Bendeich; Editing by Bruce Hextall)
How 'smart fridges' could slash UK CO2 emissions and help renewables
Instead of spikes in demand and coal-fired solutions, fridges and washing machines may soon be available that can regulate their own energy usage. Mark Anslow reports on a new generation of electrical appliances that 'listen' and learn. From The Ecologist, part of the Guardian Environment Network
Mark Anslow
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 10.38 BST
"What do you think was happening here?"
Jon Fenn, electricity operations manager for National Grid, is standing pointing at a jagged graph projected on to the wall of his ofice in the grid's electricity control centre in Berkshire.
The graph shows the nation's total electricity demand during the first round 2006 World Cup match between England and Sweden. Demand steadily falls throughout the first half, followed by a sudden spike at half-time, followed by another steady fall, then another spike and a plateau at the end of the match. Fenn is pointing to the lowest point of demand, right at the end of the game's first half.
He asks: "What do you think we were looking for?"
I look blank. "We were looking to see if there was going to be any extra time played," he explains patiently.
For the controllers who staff the National Grid's control room 24 hours a day, extra time in a national football match means something very significant. They are waiting for hundreds of thousands of kettles to be boiled at half-time, countless fridge doors to be opened and a multitude of kitchen lights to be flicked on. At half-time in 2006, electricity demand soared by almost two gigawatts in a matter of minutes – equivalent to suddenly needing the combined output of nearly two Dungeness B nuclear power plants. Twenty minutes later, as everyone sat back down in front of the TV, the demand had disappeared.
To anticipate this sort of spike in demand, the grid engineers quickly need to bring extra power plants online. Extra time played in the game could mean they bring the power on too early, risking tripping fuses on the grid. Bring it online too late, however, and blackouts could result.
It's a fine balancing act, and also highly expensive and polluting. A key component of being able to match these sudden spikes in demand is what is known as 'spinning reserve' – essentially keeping a power station running but only using a part of its output, ready to ramp up to full power at a moment's notice.
Because this kind of use is unsuited to nuclear power plants, which take days to come on- or offline, and can potentially damage the more modern and sensitive natural gas plants, it tends to be the workhorse coal power stations that fulfil this 'balancing' role. One estimate suggests that more than 2.1 million tonnes of CO2 are produced every year simply keeping these power stations 'ticking over', waiting for us to flip the kettle on.
It's not just football matches that generate these spikes in demand, however. In fact, every winter's day our demand for electricity soars from a night-time low of around 35 to almost 60 gigawatts during the evening rush hour. In the summer, that profile is different still – flatter, but with different peaks when air conditioning equipment is switched on in the heat of the day. Fenn can point to little spikes in our electricity demand during the middle of the night when night storage heaters suddenly trip into life.
"We're students of collective public behaviour," he admits.
A cool innovation
Endearing as it may be, however, our electrical behaviour is becoming increasingly problematic. The current reliance on coal power plants to balance out demand will come to end as a result of the 2007 Large Combustion Plant Directive – legislation that regulates the non-CO2 emissions from coal and oil plants, and which will force several to close by 2015. And on the flip-side, as more wind energy is brought online the variability of the grid will increase. Although wind energy is not 'unpredictable' as some critics suggest – it can be accurately forecast hours in advance – it does prove a problem for the current grid setup, where supply has to be matched to demand at all costs. Wind may blow strongly in the middle of the night, when the demand is low, but slacken off during the evening rush hour.
What's clearly needed is some way of matching not only supply to demand, but also demand to supply – some sort of what the industry likes to call 'demand management'.
"Don't say demand management!" hisses David Hirst when we first meet. "Say demand. Only the electricity companies would be so arrogant as to talk about "managing" their customers."
A former IT expert and the inventor of a technology that might help even out the variability on the grid, Hirst has developed a small, cheap piece of electronics that could be built into all new home fridges and freezers. Currently being marketed by British company RLtec, the device would constantly 'listen' to the frequency of the grid – a direct indication of whether the grid is over- or underpowered. If the grid frequency drops then the fridge would know that lots of consumers had suddenly increased their electricity demand – perhaps for the half-time cuppa – and that operators in the grid control room would be about to open the throttle on a series of coal-fired power plants. In response, the fridge could switch its cooling unit off until the grid frequency had returned to a normal level – in effect reducing 'non-essential' demand until the grid operators had managed to balance the system again, hopefully without resorting to too much coal.
"The fridges would only remain off for between 15 and 30 minutes," Hirst says. "Any longer than half an hour, and the fridges would say to themselves, "stuff this for a laugh", and start working again. Food preservation is paramount."
Some good scientific modelling work has been done on this, which suggests that if each of the three million domestic fridges sold in the UK every year were fitted with this technology (known as 'dynamic demand'), then the equivalent electrical response of all these units would be 35 megawatts – the size of a small wind farm. If, however, all of the UK's 40 million fridges were eventually replaced with dynamic demand units, then the response level would rise to between 728 and 1,174 megawatts – a level that RLtec claims would make an entire spinning reserve power plant obsolete.
It's an attractive idea, and one that National Grid welcomes.
"Evening-out demand would make things very much simpler for us," Fenn says. "There's a great opportunity for technology here."
There is, however, also a great shrugging of shoulders when it comes to deciding who will pay for installing the dynamic demand equipment in the fridges. In theory, the rapid-response service provided by the fridges is worth a fair amount of money to National Grid – between £4.40 and £34.10 per fridge, in fact, according to Government commissioned research. This is because it offsets expensive charges made by coal power plant operators for their usual balancing services. National Grid, though, is reluctant to commit to funding the fridges without knowing exactly how effective they will be in aggregate. There is also talk of using money from the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) energy eficiency levy on the power companies – the tax that explains why your utility is throwing energy-saving light bulbs at you and offering to lag your loft. As yet, everyone is waiting for the result of a larger smart fridge trial, due to report back in 2010.
Fridges are only the tip of dynamic demand iceberg, however. For a start, Hirst says, they essentially only allow the grid to 'borrow' power for half an hour – after that, they all need cooling back down again. Where things get more exciting, though, is when you look at the possibility of shifting the 'on' times of other appliances, such as dishwashers.
Hirst calculates that if the UK's 10 million dishwasher owners were to load up the machines with crockery and then, rather than switch them on immediately after dinner, set the machines simply to have the load washed between 11pm and 7am, then the grid would effectively have 10 gigawatt hours (Gwh) of flexible storage. This vast amount is equivalent to the capacity of the Dinorwig pumped storage plant in Wales, which pumps water up into a huge reservoir when electricity is cheap and then lets it roar through turbines when demand surges in the evening. It could also save a considerable amount of CO2 often produced during the evening peak by gas power stations.
As electric-car ownership increases, so will electricity demand. It makes sense to charge cars at night when demand is low, but linked into smart meters, cars could charge whenever electricity is cheap – when the wind is strong, for example. They could also feed power back to the grid at times of high demand, like a giant battery.
The list goes on. Immersion heaters in our hot water tanks are, like fridges, currently a law unto themselves, tripping on when their thermostats tell them to. As long as water is hot for morning showers or evening baths, however, the exact time at which these devices run is not especially important to us – but very important in terms of running a low-carbon electricity system. Similarly, certain spaceheating systems, such as storage heaters or underfloor heating could become more flexible. What's needed is a way of bringing these appliances together so that they know when is the most eficient time to power up.
Enter the smart meter – the only part of the much-vaunted 'smart grid' that the householder will ever see. A smart meter is essentially a meter that allows two-way communication: the electricity company can read the meter remotely and the householder can see both how much power they are using, and how much it costs. Unfortunately, that's about where consensus on smart meters stops. Some would like the meters simply to give customers information on energy usage; others see the display part of the meters – sited in the house – as a tool to discourage householders from using energy at peak times; still others would like to see the meter communicate remotely with appliances in the house, allowing them to operate at the most efficient times of day.
Joe Short, an expert in the field and founder of the charity Dynamic Demand, warns that a mistake with smart meters at this early stage could spell disaster for developing truly energy efficient ways of running our homes.
"We need to be very careful that the smart meter agenda is not driven by the agenda of the large energy suppliers," he says. "The big players are interested in smart metering because of the automatic meter-reading element, but we need a signal to get into the house – either a carbon or price signal. We need not to miss the opportunity of all these smart meters."
David Hirst is worried about the influence of the energy companies on smart metering for a different reason.
"Do you really want someone to be able to control the appliances in your house? Least of all the electricity companies?" he asks, voicing a concern already raised by consumer groups.
Hirst has a different model for smart meters, one that explains why he insists on referring to demand 'participation' rather than 'management'. He wants to see smart meters tune into future price broadcasts from the electricity companies, sent out every few minutes. A high electricity price would indicate high demand on the grid (and hence, high CO2 emissions), while a low price would indicate either low demand or an abundance of wind or solar energy. Appliances – laundry machines, dishwashers and even electric cars – would calculate when would be cheapest to run and plan to wait until the best time to switch themselves on.
"It would mean you, and your appliances, would have a choice," Hirst says. "Occasionally, you may simply say, 'I need it urgently – I'll pay the extra'. That's participation."
The future of smart meters – and smart appliances – is yet to be written. A recent trial in the District of Columbia, US, saw 1,400 customers fitted with smart meters coupled to their air conditioning units. With the householder's day-to-day permission, the electricity company was able to deactivate the home's air conditioning system at times of peak electricity demand, and give customers a rebate on their bill as a result. The UK's own trials, conducted by Ofgem, have been disappointing, dogged by equipment problems. But elsewhere in Europe – notably in Italy, where almost 30 million meters have been installed – the response has been positive.
'Smart' appliances and demand-responsive fridges are, of course, only bits of kit. If householders and tenants fail to engage with the new devices – and in one of the UK trials a quarter of those using energy monitors didn't even bother to replace the batteries when they ran out – then no amount of technical wizardry will help. The purpose of all these devices is simple: in the words of Jessica Strömbäck of the VaasaETT Global Energy Think Tank at a 'demand response' conference in January: "It is important in the long run that customers change their view of electricity from a natural human right to the costly resource that it is".
Mark Anslow
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 10.38 BST
"What do you think was happening here?"
Jon Fenn, electricity operations manager for National Grid, is standing pointing at a jagged graph projected on to the wall of his ofice in the grid's electricity control centre in Berkshire.
The graph shows the nation's total electricity demand during the first round 2006 World Cup match between England and Sweden. Demand steadily falls throughout the first half, followed by a sudden spike at half-time, followed by another steady fall, then another spike and a plateau at the end of the match. Fenn is pointing to the lowest point of demand, right at the end of the game's first half.
He asks: "What do you think we were looking for?"
I look blank. "We were looking to see if there was going to be any extra time played," he explains patiently.
For the controllers who staff the National Grid's control room 24 hours a day, extra time in a national football match means something very significant. They are waiting for hundreds of thousands of kettles to be boiled at half-time, countless fridge doors to be opened and a multitude of kitchen lights to be flicked on. At half-time in 2006, electricity demand soared by almost two gigawatts in a matter of minutes – equivalent to suddenly needing the combined output of nearly two Dungeness B nuclear power plants. Twenty minutes later, as everyone sat back down in front of the TV, the demand had disappeared.
To anticipate this sort of spike in demand, the grid engineers quickly need to bring extra power plants online. Extra time played in the game could mean they bring the power on too early, risking tripping fuses on the grid. Bring it online too late, however, and blackouts could result.
It's a fine balancing act, and also highly expensive and polluting. A key component of being able to match these sudden spikes in demand is what is known as 'spinning reserve' – essentially keeping a power station running but only using a part of its output, ready to ramp up to full power at a moment's notice.
Because this kind of use is unsuited to nuclear power plants, which take days to come on- or offline, and can potentially damage the more modern and sensitive natural gas plants, it tends to be the workhorse coal power stations that fulfil this 'balancing' role. One estimate suggests that more than 2.1 million tonnes of CO2 are produced every year simply keeping these power stations 'ticking over', waiting for us to flip the kettle on.
It's not just football matches that generate these spikes in demand, however. In fact, every winter's day our demand for electricity soars from a night-time low of around 35 to almost 60 gigawatts during the evening rush hour. In the summer, that profile is different still – flatter, but with different peaks when air conditioning equipment is switched on in the heat of the day. Fenn can point to little spikes in our electricity demand during the middle of the night when night storage heaters suddenly trip into life.
"We're students of collective public behaviour," he admits.
A cool innovation
Endearing as it may be, however, our electrical behaviour is becoming increasingly problematic. The current reliance on coal power plants to balance out demand will come to end as a result of the 2007 Large Combustion Plant Directive – legislation that regulates the non-CO2 emissions from coal and oil plants, and which will force several to close by 2015. And on the flip-side, as more wind energy is brought online the variability of the grid will increase. Although wind energy is not 'unpredictable' as some critics suggest – it can be accurately forecast hours in advance – it does prove a problem for the current grid setup, where supply has to be matched to demand at all costs. Wind may blow strongly in the middle of the night, when the demand is low, but slacken off during the evening rush hour.
What's clearly needed is some way of matching not only supply to demand, but also demand to supply – some sort of what the industry likes to call 'demand management'.
"Don't say demand management!" hisses David Hirst when we first meet. "Say demand. Only the electricity companies would be so arrogant as to talk about "managing" their customers."
A former IT expert and the inventor of a technology that might help even out the variability on the grid, Hirst has developed a small, cheap piece of electronics that could be built into all new home fridges and freezers. Currently being marketed by British company RLtec, the device would constantly 'listen' to the frequency of the grid – a direct indication of whether the grid is over- or underpowered. If the grid frequency drops then the fridge would know that lots of consumers had suddenly increased their electricity demand – perhaps for the half-time cuppa – and that operators in the grid control room would be about to open the throttle on a series of coal-fired power plants. In response, the fridge could switch its cooling unit off until the grid frequency had returned to a normal level – in effect reducing 'non-essential' demand until the grid operators had managed to balance the system again, hopefully without resorting to too much coal.
"The fridges would only remain off for between 15 and 30 minutes," Hirst says. "Any longer than half an hour, and the fridges would say to themselves, "stuff this for a laugh", and start working again. Food preservation is paramount."
Some good scientific modelling work has been done on this, which suggests that if each of the three million domestic fridges sold in the UK every year were fitted with this technology (known as 'dynamic demand'), then the equivalent electrical response of all these units would be 35 megawatts – the size of a small wind farm. If, however, all of the UK's 40 million fridges were eventually replaced with dynamic demand units, then the response level would rise to between 728 and 1,174 megawatts – a level that RLtec claims would make an entire spinning reserve power plant obsolete.
It's an attractive idea, and one that National Grid welcomes.
"Evening-out demand would make things very much simpler for us," Fenn says. "There's a great opportunity for technology here."
There is, however, also a great shrugging of shoulders when it comes to deciding who will pay for installing the dynamic demand equipment in the fridges. In theory, the rapid-response service provided by the fridges is worth a fair amount of money to National Grid – between £4.40 and £34.10 per fridge, in fact, according to Government commissioned research. This is because it offsets expensive charges made by coal power plant operators for their usual balancing services. National Grid, though, is reluctant to commit to funding the fridges without knowing exactly how effective they will be in aggregate. There is also talk of using money from the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) energy eficiency levy on the power companies – the tax that explains why your utility is throwing energy-saving light bulbs at you and offering to lag your loft. As yet, everyone is waiting for the result of a larger smart fridge trial, due to report back in 2010.
Fridges are only the tip of dynamic demand iceberg, however. For a start, Hirst says, they essentially only allow the grid to 'borrow' power for half an hour – after that, they all need cooling back down again. Where things get more exciting, though, is when you look at the possibility of shifting the 'on' times of other appliances, such as dishwashers.
Hirst calculates that if the UK's 10 million dishwasher owners were to load up the machines with crockery and then, rather than switch them on immediately after dinner, set the machines simply to have the load washed between 11pm and 7am, then the grid would effectively have 10 gigawatt hours (Gwh) of flexible storage. This vast amount is equivalent to the capacity of the Dinorwig pumped storage plant in Wales, which pumps water up into a huge reservoir when electricity is cheap and then lets it roar through turbines when demand surges in the evening. It could also save a considerable amount of CO2 often produced during the evening peak by gas power stations.
As electric-car ownership increases, so will electricity demand. It makes sense to charge cars at night when demand is low, but linked into smart meters, cars could charge whenever electricity is cheap – when the wind is strong, for example. They could also feed power back to the grid at times of high demand, like a giant battery.
The list goes on. Immersion heaters in our hot water tanks are, like fridges, currently a law unto themselves, tripping on when their thermostats tell them to. As long as water is hot for morning showers or evening baths, however, the exact time at which these devices run is not especially important to us – but very important in terms of running a low-carbon electricity system. Similarly, certain spaceheating systems, such as storage heaters or underfloor heating could become more flexible. What's needed is a way of bringing these appliances together so that they know when is the most eficient time to power up.
Enter the smart meter – the only part of the much-vaunted 'smart grid' that the householder will ever see. A smart meter is essentially a meter that allows two-way communication: the electricity company can read the meter remotely and the householder can see both how much power they are using, and how much it costs. Unfortunately, that's about where consensus on smart meters stops. Some would like the meters simply to give customers information on energy usage; others see the display part of the meters – sited in the house – as a tool to discourage householders from using energy at peak times; still others would like to see the meter communicate remotely with appliances in the house, allowing them to operate at the most efficient times of day.
Joe Short, an expert in the field and founder of the charity Dynamic Demand, warns that a mistake with smart meters at this early stage could spell disaster for developing truly energy efficient ways of running our homes.
"We need to be very careful that the smart meter agenda is not driven by the agenda of the large energy suppliers," he says. "The big players are interested in smart metering because of the automatic meter-reading element, but we need a signal to get into the house – either a carbon or price signal. We need not to miss the opportunity of all these smart meters."
David Hirst is worried about the influence of the energy companies on smart metering for a different reason.
"Do you really want someone to be able to control the appliances in your house? Least of all the electricity companies?" he asks, voicing a concern already raised by consumer groups.
Hirst has a different model for smart meters, one that explains why he insists on referring to demand 'participation' rather than 'management'. He wants to see smart meters tune into future price broadcasts from the electricity companies, sent out every few minutes. A high electricity price would indicate high demand on the grid (and hence, high CO2 emissions), while a low price would indicate either low demand or an abundance of wind or solar energy. Appliances – laundry machines, dishwashers and even electric cars – would calculate when would be cheapest to run and plan to wait until the best time to switch themselves on.
"It would mean you, and your appliances, would have a choice," Hirst says. "Occasionally, you may simply say, 'I need it urgently – I'll pay the extra'. That's participation."
The future of smart meters – and smart appliances – is yet to be written. A recent trial in the District of Columbia, US, saw 1,400 customers fitted with smart meters coupled to their air conditioning units. With the householder's day-to-day permission, the electricity company was able to deactivate the home's air conditioning system at times of peak electricity demand, and give customers a rebate on their bill as a result. The UK's own trials, conducted by Ofgem, have been disappointing, dogged by equipment problems. But elsewhere in Europe – notably in Italy, where almost 30 million meters have been installed – the response has been positive.
'Smart' appliances and demand-responsive fridges are, of course, only bits of kit. If householders and tenants fail to engage with the new devices – and in one of the UK trials a quarter of those using energy monitors didn't even bother to replace the batteries when they ran out – then no amount of technical wizardry will help. The purpose of all these devices is simple: in the words of Jessica Strömbäck of the VaasaETT Global Energy Think Tank at a 'demand response' conference in January: "It is important in the long run that customers change their view of electricity from a natural human right to the costly resource that it is".
BP solar profits slump
BP's renewables unit suffers as overall profits crash by two-thirds
Tim Webb and Graeme Wearden
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 17.12 BST
BP has reported a slump in sales of solar panels and falling profits at its alternative energy division. Overall, BP group profits fell by almost two-thirds in the first three months of the year compared with the same period last year. The company mainly blamed lower oil prices and higher taxes at its Russian subsidiary TNK-BP.
Earlier this month the oil group said it was axing 620 jobs at its solar energy division in the US and Spain because of an oversupply of solar equipment in the market and the recession. The job cuts are equivalent to more than a quarter of the workforce.
BP said today its solar sales during the quarter would generate 15MW of power, down from 34MW in the same period in 2008. BP said this reflected "ongoing weak demand in the market".
Losses from the unit, which covers its alternative energy operations – also including wind farms and biofuels – totalled $800m (£547m). That compares with $193m of losses in the same period last year, although the unit now includes more overhead costs than it did before.
Overall, BP reported profits today of $2.39bn (£1.64bn) in the first three months of this year, down from $6.23bn a year ago. It blamed the fall in the price of oil, which fluctuated between $35 and $50 a barrel during the quarter; a year ago a barrel cost more than $100.
With profits also lower than in the last three months of 2008, when BP made $2.59bn, the company is now planning to spend less on finding and developing new oil and gas reserves. It warned it would spare less than $20bn for capital expenditure this year, down from an earlier target of $20bn-$22bn.
The cut in spending could have long-term consequences for BP's growth. It is not clear which projects will be affected by the cutbacks, but environmentalists are likely to welcome them, given the controversy over projects such as BP's recent investment in oil sands in Canada.
Shareholders will receive a dividend of 14 cents a share, the same as in the last quarter and nearly half a cent more than a year ago.
Earlier this year, Shell angered environmentalists when it said it was scrapping investment in solar and wind power to focus on developing biofuels and carbon capture and storage.
The former chief executive Lord Browne rebranded BP as "Beyond Petroleum" signalling that the group would seek to expand beyond fossil fuels. But the current chief executive Tony Hayward is thought not to share his predecessor's enthusiasm for renewables.
BP's total wind capacity stands at 678MW, almost four times the amount it had built this time last year. A spokesman declined to comment on plans to build any more wind farms.
Tim Webb and Graeme Wearden
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 17.12 BST
BP has reported a slump in sales of solar panels and falling profits at its alternative energy division. Overall, BP group profits fell by almost two-thirds in the first three months of the year compared with the same period last year. The company mainly blamed lower oil prices and higher taxes at its Russian subsidiary TNK-BP.
Earlier this month the oil group said it was axing 620 jobs at its solar energy division in the US and Spain because of an oversupply of solar equipment in the market and the recession. The job cuts are equivalent to more than a quarter of the workforce.
BP said today its solar sales during the quarter would generate 15MW of power, down from 34MW in the same period in 2008. BP said this reflected "ongoing weak demand in the market".
Losses from the unit, which covers its alternative energy operations – also including wind farms and biofuels – totalled $800m (£547m). That compares with $193m of losses in the same period last year, although the unit now includes more overhead costs than it did before.
Overall, BP reported profits today of $2.39bn (£1.64bn) in the first three months of this year, down from $6.23bn a year ago. It blamed the fall in the price of oil, which fluctuated between $35 and $50 a barrel during the quarter; a year ago a barrel cost more than $100.
With profits also lower than in the last three months of 2008, when BP made $2.59bn, the company is now planning to spend less on finding and developing new oil and gas reserves. It warned it would spare less than $20bn for capital expenditure this year, down from an earlier target of $20bn-$22bn.
The cut in spending could have long-term consequences for BP's growth. It is not clear which projects will be affected by the cutbacks, but environmentalists are likely to welcome them, given the controversy over projects such as BP's recent investment in oil sands in Canada.
Shareholders will receive a dividend of 14 cents a share, the same as in the last quarter and nearly half a cent more than a year ago.
Earlier this year, Shell angered environmentalists when it said it was scrapping investment in solar and wind power to focus on developing biofuels and carbon capture and storage.
The former chief executive Lord Browne rebranded BP as "Beyond Petroleum" signalling that the group would seek to expand beyond fossil fuels. But the current chief executive Tony Hayward is thought not to share his predecessor's enthusiasm for renewables.
BP's total wind capacity stands at 678MW, almost four times the amount it had built this time last year. A spokesman declined to comment on plans to build any more wind farms.
Waxman Delays Action on Climate Bill
By IAN TALLEY
WASHINGTON -- House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman delayed until next week further action on his big climate bill, amid sharp divisions among committee Democrats.
The delay indicates that the House Democratic leadership is having difficulty rounding up votes to move the bill forward, amid disagreements over which industries and regions of the country should bear the burden for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. Democrats from industrial and coal-dependent states have expressed concerns that the climate bill would sharply raise energy costs and hurt the economy in their states.
"The hearings have spurred productive discussions between members on the legislation, which are continuing this week," Rep. Henry Waxman (D, Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a memo to members.
Mr. Waxman and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D, Mass.), had scheduled to mark up the American Clean Energy and Security Act this week. The main provision of the bill would mandate major greenhouse-gas-emission cuts and require emitters to buy and sell the right to emit gases such as carbon dioxide. It would also require a rising percentage of power to come from renewable-energy sources.
Messrs. Waxman and Markey left out one of the most controversial elements that will determine how much cutting emissions will cost, buying time for negotiations.
While the Obama administration and Democratic leadership want to auction off all the rights to emit -- called allowances -- representatives from regions heavily reliant on the coal industry, fossil-fuel generation and energy-intensive industries want the government to give out the emission credits to those sectors to soften the fiscal impact.
Last week, nearly a dozen moderate Democrats needed by leadership to pass a bill out of committee recommended weakening the emission-reduction targets in the early years of the program and giving out around 60% of the allocations to industries that would be hardest hit.
Under the proposal led by Virginia Democrat Rick Boucher, two-thirds of those allocations would go to the electric industry, one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the economy. While a majority of those valuable emission credits would be given to local distribution companies to offset rising energy costs for consumers, a share would be given directly to coal-generation firms.
Although Messrs. Waxman and Markey have said there will be free allocations to the power industry -- primarily through the retail-distribution side to prevent windfall profits for the generators -- they are concerned that giving away too many emission credits may undermine the program.
The division between the moderate and more left-leaning Democrats broke out into the open late last week when influential Rep. John Dingell (D, Mich.) gave the GOP fodder for their attacks against the bill by declaring it "a tax, and it's a great big one."
The GOP, meanwhile, said the mark-up delay would give Democratic leadership time for "arm-twisting and vote buying."
Write to Ian Talley at ian.talley@dowjones.com
WASHINGTON -- House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman delayed until next week further action on his big climate bill, amid sharp divisions among committee Democrats.
The delay indicates that the House Democratic leadership is having difficulty rounding up votes to move the bill forward, amid disagreements over which industries and regions of the country should bear the burden for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. Democrats from industrial and coal-dependent states have expressed concerns that the climate bill would sharply raise energy costs and hurt the economy in their states.
"The hearings have spurred productive discussions between members on the legislation, which are continuing this week," Rep. Henry Waxman (D, Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a memo to members.
Mr. Waxman and Energy Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D, Mass.), had scheduled to mark up the American Clean Energy and Security Act this week. The main provision of the bill would mandate major greenhouse-gas-emission cuts and require emitters to buy and sell the right to emit gases such as carbon dioxide. It would also require a rising percentage of power to come from renewable-energy sources.
Messrs. Waxman and Markey left out one of the most controversial elements that will determine how much cutting emissions will cost, buying time for negotiations.
While the Obama administration and Democratic leadership want to auction off all the rights to emit -- called allowances -- representatives from regions heavily reliant on the coal industry, fossil-fuel generation and energy-intensive industries want the government to give out the emission credits to those sectors to soften the fiscal impact.
Last week, nearly a dozen moderate Democrats needed by leadership to pass a bill out of committee recommended weakening the emission-reduction targets in the early years of the program and giving out around 60% of the allocations to industries that would be hardest hit.
Under the proposal led by Virginia Democrat Rick Boucher, two-thirds of those allocations would go to the electric industry, one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the economy. While a majority of those valuable emission credits would be given to local distribution companies to offset rising energy costs for consumers, a share would be given directly to coal-generation firms.
Although Messrs. Waxman and Markey have said there will be free allocations to the power industry -- primarily through the retail-distribution side to prevent windfall profits for the generators -- they are concerned that giving away too many emission credits may undermine the program.
The division between the moderate and more left-leaning Democrats broke out into the open late last week when influential Rep. John Dingell (D, Mich.) gave the GOP fodder for their attacks against the bill by declaring it "a tax, and it's a great big one."
The GOP, meanwhile, said the mark-up delay would give Democratic leadership time for "arm-twisting and vote buying."
Write to Ian Talley at ian.talley@dowjones.com
Al Gore calls on world to burn less wood and fuel to curb 'black carbon'
Soot from engines, forest fires and partly burned fuel is collecting in Arctic and causing north pole to warm at alarming rate
John Vidal in Tromso
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 17.48 BST
The world must burn less diesel and wood, Nobel peace prize-winner Al Gore said yesterday, as the soot produced is accelerating the melting of ice in polar and mountainous regions.
Gore, backed by government ministers and scientists, said that the soot, also known as "black carbon", from engines, forest fires and partially burned fuel was collecting in the Arctic where it was creating a haze of pollution that absorbs sunlight and warms the air. It was also being deposited on snow, darkening its surface and reducing the snow's ability to reflect sunlight back into space.
"The principle [climate change] problem is carbon dioxide, but a new understanding is emerging of soot," said Gore. "Black carbon is settling in the Himalayas. The air pollution levels in the upper Himalayas are now similar to those in Los Angeles."
The impact of the soot is as significant as it is surprising — it was not mentioned as a warming factor in the UN's major 2007 report on climate change. A study this month indicated that soot from industry, cars, farming and wood fuel burning has been responsible for half the total temperature increases in the Arctic between 1890 to 2007. Temperatures there are rising twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet, making it the region worst affected by climate change.
Gore warned that all the world's icy regions were experiencing rapid and dangerous global warming. "The cryosphere – the frozen water part of the Earth – is disappearing. Global warming is causing the permafrost to thaw. It contains more carbon than anywhere else and the risk is that it releases methane. That has the potential to double the global warming potential in the atmosphere," he said.
Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Store said action on black carbon was even more urgent than that on CO2: "Even if we turn the rising curve of greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years, the reduction will not occur quickly enough to preserve the polar and alpine environments. We must address short lived climate pollutants such as black carbon."
Glaciologists working in Latin America, Nepal, China and Greenland all reported at the meeting in Tromso that glaciers were losing ice more rapidly and becoming less thick as a result of global warming.
Dorthe Jensen, from the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark, said: "In the last five years we have seen many ice streams double in speed. Their floating snouts have moved back 30km. We never imagined the ice discharge would change so much."
Glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan plateau, from which 40% of the world derives its fresh water, are retreating fast, said Yao Tandong, a researcher with the Chinese academy of sciences. "This is causing severe social problems as lakes get bigger and people are forced to move. Himalayan glaciers are mostly retreating at an accelerating rate."
The meeting also heard, in a new report from the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (Amap), that climate change was now affecting every aspect of life in the Arctic. Norwegian, Canadian, Russian, US and other polar scientists reported that, in the last four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface waters in the Arctic ocean have warmed and permafrost is in some areas rapidly thawing, releasing methane.
The report's main findings are:
Land
Permafrost is warming fast and at its margins thawing. Plants are growing more vigorously and densely. In northern Alaska, temperatures have been rising since the 1970s. In Russia, the tree line has advanced up hills and mountains at 10 metres a year. Nearly all glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels as the water drains to the ocean.
Summer sea ice
The most striking change in the Arctic in recent years has been the reduction in summer sea ice in 2007. This was 23% less than the previous record low of 5.6m sq kilometres in 2005, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. New satellite data suggests the ice is much thinner than it used to be. For the first time in existing records, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free in summer 2008. However, the 2008 winter ice extent was near the year long-term average.
Greenland
The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at sea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.
Warmer waters
In 2007, some ice-free areas were as much as 5C warmer than the long-term average. Arctic waters appear to have warmed as a result of the influx of warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic. The loss of reflective, white sea ice also means that more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.
John Vidal in Tromso
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 17.48 BST
The world must burn less diesel and wood, Nobel peace prize-winner Al Gore said yesterday, as the soot produced is accelerating the melting of ice in polar and mountainous regions.
Gore, backed by government ministers and scientists, said that the soot, also known as "black carbon", from engines, forest fires and partially burned fuel was collecting in the Arctic where it was creating a haze of pollution that absorbs sunlight and warms the air. It was also being deposited on snow, darkening its surface and reducing the snow's ability to reflect sunlight back into space.
"The principle [climate change] problem is carbon dioxide, but a new understanding is emerging of soot," said Gore. "Black carbon is settling in the Himalayas. The air pollution levels in the upper Himalayas are now similar to those in Los Angeles."
The impact of the soot is as significant as it is surprising — it was not mentioned as a warming factor in the UN's major 2007 report on climate change. A study this month indicated that soot from industry, cars, farming and wood fuel burning has been responsible for half the total temperature increases in the Arctic between 1890 to 2007. Temperatures there are rising twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet, making it the region worst affected by climate change.
Gore warned that all the world's icy regions were experiencing rapid and dangerous global warming. "The cryosphere – the frozen water part of the Earth – is disappearing. Global warming is causing the permafrost to thaw. It contains more carbon than anywhere else and the risk is that it releases methane. That has the potential to double the global warming potential in the atmosphere," he said.
Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Store said action on black carbon was even more urgent than that on CO2: "Even if we turn the rising curve of greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years, the reduction will not occur quickly enough to preserve the polar and alpine environments. We must address short lived climate pollutants such as black carbon."
Glaciologists working in Latin America, Nepal, China and Greenland all reported at the meeting in Tromso that glaciers were losing ice more rapidly and becoming less thick as a result of global warming.
Dorthe Jensen, from the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark, said: "In the last five years we have seen many ice streams double in speed. Their floating snouts have moved back 30km. We never imagined the ice discharge would change so much."
Glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan plateau, from which 40% of the world derives its fresh water, are retreating fast, said Yao Tandong, a researcher with the Chinese academy of sciences. "This is causing severe social problems as lakes get bigger and people are forced to move. Himalayan glaciers are mostly retreating at an accelerating rate."
The meeting also heard, in a new report from the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (Amap), that climate change was now affecting every aspect of life in the Arctic. Norwegian, Canadian, Russian, US and other polar scientists reported that, in the last four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface waters in the Arctic ocean have warmed and permafrost is in some areas rapidly thawing, releasing methane.
The report's main findings are:
Land
Permafrost is warming fast and at its margins thawing. Plants are growing more vigorously and densely. In northern Alaska, temperatures have been rising since the 1970s. In Russia, the tree line has advanced up hills and mountains at 10 metres a year. Nearly all glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels as the water drains to the ocean.
Summer sea ice
The most striking change in the Arctic in recent years has been the reduction in summer sea ice in 2007. This was 23% less than the previous record low of 5.6m sq kilometres in 2005, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. New satellite data suggests the ice is much thinner than it used to be. For the first time in existing records, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free in summer 2008. However, the 2008 winter ice extent was near the year long-term average.
Greenland
The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at sea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.
Warmer waters
In 2007, some ice-free areas were as much as 5C warmer than the long-term average. Arctic waters appear to have warmed as a result of the influx of warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic. The loss of reflective, white sea ice also means that more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.
Climate change hitting entire Arctic ecosystem, says report
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme study tells of profound changes to sea ice and permafrost, among others
John Vidal in Tromso, Norway
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 13.18 BST
Levels of summer sea ice in the Arctic have drastically reduced since 2005
Extensive climate change is now affecting every form of life in the Arctic, according to a major new assessment by international polar scientists.
In the past four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface waters in the Arctic ocean have warmed and permafrost is in some areas rapidly thawing.
In addition, says the report released today at a Norwegian government seminar, plants and trees are growing more vigorously, snow cover is decreasing 1-2% a year and glaciers are shrinking.
Scientists from Norway, Canada, Russia and the US contributed to the Arctic monitoring and assessment programme (Amap) study, which says new factors such as "black carbon" – soot – ozone and methane may now be contributing to global and arctic warming as much as carbon dioxide.
"Black carbon and ozone in particular have a strong seasonal pattern that makes their impacts particularly important in the Arctic," it says.
The report's main findings are:
Land
Permafrost is warming fast and at its margins thawing. Plants are growing more vigorously and densely. In northern Alaska, temperatures have been rising since the 1970s. In Russia, the tree line has advanced up hills and mountains at 10 metres a year. Nearly all glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels as the water drains to the ocean.
Summer sea ice
The most striking change in the Arctic in recent years has been the reduction in summer sea ice in 2007. This was 23% less than the previous record low of 5.6m sq kilometres in 2005, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. New satellite data suggests the ice is much thinner than it used to be. For the first time in existing records, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free in summer 2008. However, the 2008 winter ice extent was near the year long-term average.
Greenland
The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at sea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.
Warmer waters
In 2007, some ice-free areas were as much as 5C warmer than the long-term average. Arctic waters appear to have warmed as a result of the influx of warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic. The loss of reflective, white sea ice also means that more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.
Black carbon
Black carbon, or soot, is emitted from inefficient burning such as in diesel engines or from the burning of crops. It is warming the Arctic by creating a haze which absorbs sunlight, and it is also deposited on snow, darkening the surface and causing more sunlight to be absorbed.
John Vidal in Tromso, Norway
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 April 2009 13.18 BST
Levels of summer sea ice in the Arctic have drastically reduced since 2005
Extensive climate change is now affecting every form of life in the Arctic, according to a major new assessment by international polar scientists.
In the past four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface waters in the Arctic ocean have warmed and permafrost is in some areas rapidly thawing.
In addition, says the report released today at a Norwegian government seminar, plants and trees are growing more vigorously, snow cover is decreasing 1-2% a year and glaciers are shrinking.
Scientists from Norway, Canada, Russia and the US contributed to the Arctic monitoring and assessment programme (Amap) study, which says new factors such as "black carbon" – soot – ozone and methane may now be contributing to global and arctic warming as much as carbon dioxide.
"Black carbon and ozone in particular have a strong seasonal pattern that makes their impacts particularly important in the Arctic," it says.
The report's main findings are:
Land
Permafrost is warming fast and at its margins thawing. Plants are growing more vigorously and densely. In northern Alaska, temperatures have been rising since the 1970s. In Russia, the tree line has advanced up hills and mountains at 10 metres a year. Nearly all glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels as the water drains to the ocean.
Summer sea ice
The most striking change in the Arctic in recent years has been the reduction in summer sea ice in 2007. This was 23% less than the previous record low of 5.6m sq kilometres in 2005, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. New satellite data suggests the ice is much thinner than it used to be. For the first time in existing records, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free in summer 2008. However, the 2008 winter ice extent was near the year long-term average.
Greenland
The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at sea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.
Warmer waters
In 2007, some ice-free areas were as much as 5C warmer than the long-term average. Arctic waters appear to have warmed as a result of the influx of warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic. The loss of reflective, white sea ice also means that more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.
Black carbon
Black carbon, or soot, is emitted from inefficient burning such as in diesel engines or from the burning of crops. It is warming the Arctic by creating a haze which absorbs sunlight, and it is also deposited on snow, darkening the surface and causing more sunlight to be absorbed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
