Tom Baldwin and Ben Webster
Labour and the Tories clashed over their green credentials yesterday as David Cameron was accused of failing to confront climate-change deniers inside his party.
The Conservative leader made his pitch for eco-voters when he announced plans for a new generation of neighbourhood parks on derelict land. But he immediately came under attack from Labour, which pointed out that a number of Tory candidates were openly sceptical about man-made global warming.
Despite Mr Cameron’s slogan of “vote blue go green”, a recent survey found that only 22 per cent of Conservative candidates in winnable seats strongly supported Britain’s target of generating 15 per cent of Britain’s energy from renewable sources by 2020.
David Davis, the former Shadow Home Secretary, recently warned that the policy of tough targets to cut carbon emissions, supported by Mr Cameron, was “destined to collapse”.
At a Climate Question forum in London yesterday, Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, repeatedly clashed with his Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green counterparts.
He said that the Tories had been “just found wanting” in dealing with climate-change deniers and that local authorities controlled by the party had too often opposed onshore wind farms. But Greg Clark, the Shadow Energy Secretary, said: “Maybe it’s a symptom of being in Whitehall too long, but Ed must recognise that there are different opinions in the country. I disagree strongly with deniers, but the way is to convince them of the case.”
Challenged over the views of Marcus Wood, the Conservative candidate in Torbay who has expressed scepticism about climate change, Mr Clark said: “I have never heard of him.”
Labelling people who oppose wind farms as antisocial is counter-productive, added Mr Clark. “This kind of lecturing from Westminster and officials in Whitehall doesn’t work.”
He detailed Conservative plans for dealing with the “climate emergency”, which include a “green deal” for every home to improve energy efficiency and a nationwide introduction of “smart meters” by 2016 — four years earlier than Labour proposals.
Labour’s opponents dismissed the Government’s “feeble” record on renewable energy and improving air quality after 13 years in power.
Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat climate-change spokesman, said that it was too late for Mr Miliband to claim that Labour cared about the environment. “Ed talks a good talk, but renewables targets are not met, fuel poverty not met, air quality targets not met,” he said. “The Government hasn’t delivered.”
Mr Miliband responded that Lib Dem opposition to nuclear power left a “massive hole” in their climate change strategy, which he contrasted with Labour’s willingness to take “tough decisions” on meeting carbon emission targets.
But Mr Hughes reiterated his view that nuclear power was too expensive and would undermine investment in renewable energy.
He said that his party had a clear commitment to a zero-carbon Britain and would create a green economy with 100,000 jobs, and £10,000 for each household to cut emissions.
“This is a fantastic opportunity, and this is the reality of this election, that for the first time in my lifetime there could be in government a party which has a commitment at every level to the green agenda,” he said.
Darren Johnson, of the Green Party, which hopes to win its first seats in this election, warned that a “massive transformation” of the economy was needed, and said thast the scale of the challenge was huge because of decades of “dithering and inaction”.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Cuts jeopardise solar utility IPO
A green utility company with plans to float on the London stock market is suffering delays due to economic problems in the eurozone
Terry Macalister
The Observer, Sunday 25 April 2010
A plan to set up an innovative "green" utility with a £1bn flotation on the London stock market risks being blown off course due to financial problems in the eurozone.
Engyco, led by former United Utilities boss John Roberts, has admitted that expected cutbacks to subsidies on renewable power projects in Spain would threaten its plan for an initial public offering (IPO). The company was formed as a vehicle for investing in the Spanish solar market with the hope of creating a pure renewables utility that could raise billions in the bond market.
An Engyco spokesman said €3bn of potential investment was at stake if Madrid introduced plans to reduce solar subsidies, which he believed would only save ministers €420m.
"This kind of move would be very damaging for investment in Spain. We need to get clarity about exactly what is going on but we are still confident that it will blow over as similar threats like this have done in the past," said an Engyco spokesman.
City analysts specialising in the clean-technology sector believe there is little chance of Engyco being launched in the next couple of weeks as scheduled given the negative noises coming out of Madrid. "This is nothing less than a catastrophe" for investors, said Stephane Aderca, an energy analyst at Liberum Capital in London. "We had believed that a promise [to pay a certain level of subsidy] is a promise. Going back on a promise brings the whole thing into question."
Spain's government has sucked in an estimated €18bn in solar-power projects since 2008 by offering generous public subsidies but is now looking at cutting back as the economy suffers.
The state has the authority to cut prices paid to operating renewable power plants under a 2007 law, according to an industry ministry spokesman who declined to be identified. All options are being assessed for a new strategic plan this year, he told local media, in comments that led some Spanish solar and wind developer shares to fall over 4% at the end of last week.
Terry Macalister
The Observer, Sunday 25 April 2010
A plan to set up an innovative "green" utility with a £1bn flotation on the London stock market risks being blown off course due to financial problems in the eurozone.
Engyco, led by former United Utilities boss John Roberts, has admitted that expected cutbacks to subsidies on renewable power projects in Spain would threaten its plan for an initial public offering (IPO). The company was formed as a vehicle for investing in the Spanish solar market with the hope of creating a pure renewables utility that could raise billions in the bond market.
An Engyco spokesman said €3bn of potential investment was at stake if Madrid introduced plans to reduce solar subsidies, which he believed would only save ministers €420m.
"This kind of move would be very damaging for investment in Spain. We need to get clarity about exactly what is going on but we are still confident that it will blow over as similar threats like this have done in the past," said an Engyco spokesman.
City analysts specialising in the clean-technology sector believe there is little chance of Engyco being launched in the next couple of weeks as scheduled given the negative noises coming out of Madrid. "This is nothing less than a catastrophe" for investors, said Stephane Aderca, an energy analyst at Liberum Capital in London. "We had believed that a promise [to pay a certain level of subsidy] is a promise. Going back on a promise brings the whole thing into question."
Spain's government has sucked in an estimated €18bn in solar-power projects since 2008 by offering generous public subsidies but is now looking at cutting back as the economy suffers.
The state has the authority to cut prices paid to operating renewable power plants under a 2007 law, according to an industry ministry spokesman who declined to be identified. All options are being assessed for a new strategic plan this year, he told local media, in comments that led some Spanish solar and wind developer shares to fall over 4% at the end of last week.
Amtrak trials first cow-powered train
Biodiesel made from beef byproducts fuels rail operator's first green train, cutting carbon emissions and improving air quality.
Danny Bradbury for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 April 2010 12.38 BST
US rail operator Amtrak may have given the term "cattle car" a whole new meaning with the first test of a biodiesel train that runs on beef byproducts.
Operating on a $274,000 (£178,000) grant from the Federal Railroad Administration, the state-owned rail company has begun operating its daily Heartland Flyer train, travelling between Oklahoma City and Forth Worth, using B20 biodiesel fuel.
The fuel, which mixes 80 per cent diesel with 20 per cent biofuel, cuts both hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions by 10 per cent, according to the company, which said that the fuel also reduces particulates by 15 per cent and sulphates by 20 per cent compared to standard diesel fuels.
The biodiesel, which was refined from beef byproducts provided by a Texas supplier, will run as a 12-month experiment, during which Amtrak will collect data on emissions, and on the impact of the fuel on mechanical parts.
Although technically the fuel mix can run in unmodified trains, the locomotive was fitted with new engine assemblies so that detailed measurements could be taken to establish the effect of the fuel on the engine.
The impact of biofuel blends on engines can vary dramatically, with some biofuels leading to increased wear and tear, while others tend to burn cleaner and lead to improved engine performance and durability.
Amtrak is now promoting the biodiesel train to passengers with a 50 per cent discount on a companion fare until 28 May.
The biodiesel trial is the latest in a series of environmental initiatives from Amtrak designed to highlight the operator's position as a green alternative to domestic US flights.
The company has switched from low-sulphur fuel to ultra-low sulphur fuel across the railroad to tackle air pollution, and has installed recycling receptacles in its trains and stations. It has also stepped up efforts to reduc e idling times for its diesel trains, and has introduced regenerative braking systems similar to those in hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius for its electric trains.
In addition, the company is a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange and has a public commitment to reduce emissions by seven per cent in 2011 and 2012.
Danny Bradbury for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 April 2010 12.38 BST
US rail operator Amtrak may have given the term "cattle car" a whole new meaning with the first test of a biodiesel train that runs on beef byproducts.
Operating on a $274,000 (£178,000) grant from the Federal Railroad Administration, the state-owned rail company has begun operating its daily Heartland Flyer train, travelling between Oklahoma City and Forth Worth, using B20 biodiesel fuel.
The fuel, which mixes 80 per cent diesel with 20 per cent biofuel, cuts both hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions by 10 per cent, according to the company, which said that the fuel also reduces particulates by 15 per cent and sulphates by 20 per cent compared to standard diesel fuels.
The biodiesel, which was refined from beef byproducts provided by a Texas supplier, will run as a 12-month experiment, during which Amtrak will collect data on emissions, and on the impact of the fuel on mechanical parts.
Although technically the fuel mix can run in unmodified trains, the locomotive was fitted with new engine assemblies so that detailed measurements could be taken to establish the effect of the fuel on the engine.
The impact of biofuel blends on engines can vary dramatically, with some biofuels leading to increased wear and tear, while others tend to burn cleaner and lead to improved engine performance and durability.
Amtrak is now promoting the biodiesel train to passengers with a 50 per cent discount on a companion fare until 28 May.
The biodiesel trial is the latest in a series of environmental initiatives from Amtrak designed to highlight the operator's position as a green alternative to domestic US flights.
The company has switched from low-sulphur fuel to ultra-low sulphur fuel across the railroad to tackle air pollution, and has installed recycling receptacles in its trains and stations. It has also stepped up efforts to reduc e idling times for its diesel trains, and has introduced regenerative braking systems similar to those in hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius for its electric trains.
In addition, the company is a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange and has a public commitment to reduce emissions by seven per cent in 2011 and 2012.
UK Coal puts merger plans on hold
UK Coal's merger talks with Hargreaves Services postponed after £129m loss for 2009 and debts exceeding its value
Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 April 2010 20.56 BST
UK Coal has put merger talks with Hargreaves Services on hold after announcing a huge increase in losses for the year as a result of geological problems at its deep mines, lower property and coal prices.
The company said it had sold £8.6m of farm land to reduce its debts and was looking at more land sales to bolster its flagging balance sheet. New standby borrowing facilities of £30m have also been arranged to see it over the next few months.
Chief executive Jon Lloyd and finance director David Brocksom also saw their salaries frozen and bonuses cut because of the losses, and after two workers died in accidents last year.
It was not clear tonight when, or if, meaningful discussions would take place between UK Coal and resources and energy support services group Hargreaves Services. UK Coal announced last month that it had received a tentative merger approach from Hargreaves. But the company has not handed over detailed financial information requested by Hargreaves to allow it to begin due diligence.
UK Coal is interested in a tie-up, partly to reduce its reliance on its deep mines, which are very expensive to maintain and are unpredictable to run because of unforeseen geological problems like those experienced last year.
UK Coal endured a torrid 2009 in almost every respect. It posted pre-tax losses of £129.1m, up from £15.6m the previous year. Coal production was down by over a tenth, mainly because of collapsing shafts at its deep mines. Because of the recession, demand from coal plants, UK Coal's main customers, fell, as did coal prices. It also had to slash the value of its property division, made up of land reclaimed from former mines, by £25.7m.
The company admitted: "The financial results for 2009 are not those we planned for." It also said that its debts at the end of March stood at £236m, in excess of tonight's market value of the company of £177m.
UK Coal hopes production at its deep mines will increase significantly this year after opening new seams, and that coal and property prices will rise as the economy recovers. It will also open three new surface mines this year, which are cheaper to operate but are unpopular with local residents and planners. UK Coal is Britain's largest producer of coal. It said the UK burned around 43m tonnes of steam coal in 2009, mainly to generate electricity.
Consumption fell by 17% compared to 2008, as electricity demand was hit by the economic downturn, improved performance at nuclear stations and low gas prices. While the firm did see a lull in short-term demand, it said long-term the appetite for coal would be unaffected by the electricity market as UK production can only meet a fraction of requirements and the country is a "substantial importer of coal".
"Demand will continue substantially to exceed our supply capacity throughout this decade," the firm said.
Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 April 2010 20.56 BST
UK Coal has put merger talks with Hargreaves Services on hold after announcing a huge increase in losses for the year as a result of geological problems at its deep mines, lower property and coal prices.
The company said it had sold £8.6m of farm land to reduce its debts and was looking at more land sales to bolster its flagging balance sheet. New standby borrowing facilities of £30m have also been arranged to see it over the next few months.
Chief executive Jon Lloyd and finance director David Brocksom also saw their salaries frozen and bonuses cut because of the losses, and after two workers died in accidents last year.
It was not clear tonight when, or if, meaningful discussions would take place between UK Coal and resources and energy support services group Hargreaves Services. UK Coal announced last month that it had received a tentative merger approach from Hargreaves. But the company has not handed over detailed financial information requested by Hargreaves to allow it to begin due diligence.
UK Coal is interested in a tie-up, partly to reduce its reliance on its deep mines, which are very expensive to maintain and are unpredictable to run because of unforeseen geological problems like those experienced last year.
UK Coal endured a torrid 2009 in almost every respect. It posted pre-tax losses of £129.1m, up from £15.6m the previous year. Coal production was down by over a tenth, mainly because of collapsing shafts at its deep mines. Because of the recession, demand from coal plants, UK Coal's main customers, fell, as did coal prices. It also had to slash the value of its property division, made up of land reclaimed from former mines, by £25.7m.
The company admitted: "The financial results for 2009 are not those we planned for." It also said that its debts at the end of March stood at £236m, in excess of tonight's market value of the company of £177m.
UK Coal hopes production at its deep mines will increase significantly this year after opening new seams, and that coal and property prices will rise as the economy recovers. It will also open three new surface mines this year, which are cheaper to operate but are unpopular with local residents and planners. UK Coal is Britain's largest producer of coal. It said the UK burned around 43m tonnes of steam coal in 2009, mainly to generate electricity.
Consumption fell by 17% compared to 2008, as electricity demand was hit by the economic downturn, improved performance at nuclear stations and low gas prices. While the firm did see a lull in short-term demand, it said long-term the appetite for coal would be unaffected by the electricity market as UK production can only meet a fraction of requirements and the country is a "substantial importer of coal".
"Demand will continue substantially to exceed our supply capacity throughout this decade," the firm said.
US research paper questions viability of carbon capture and storage
Document from Houston University claims governments overestimated CCS value
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 April 2010 17.26 BST
A new research paper from American academics is threatening to blow a hole in growing political support for carbon capture and storage as a weapon in the fight against global warming.
The document from Houston University claims that governments wanting to use CCS have overestimated its value and says it would take a reservoir the size of a small US state to hold the CO2 produced by one power station.
Previous modelling has hugely underestimated the space needed to store CO2 because it was based on the "totally erroneous" premise that the pressure feeding the carbon into the rock structures would be constant, argues Michael Economides, professor of chemical engineering at Houston, and his co-author Christene Ehlig-Economides, professor of energy engineering at Texas A&M University
"It is like putting a bicycle pump up against a wall. It would be hard to inject CO2 into a closed system without eventually producing so much pressure that it fractured the rock and allowed the carbon to migrate to other zones and possibly escape to the surface," Economides said.
The paper concludes that CCS "is not a practical means to provide any substantive reduction in CO2 emissions, although it has been repeatedly presented as such by others."
The report has come at a critical time when British and other governments worldwide have started to fast-track a series of CCS prototype schemes as a way of removing carbon from the atmosphere and helping with climate change.
On 8 April, Royal assent was given on to what is now the Energy Act 2010, which made law plans to raise a levy on power users to establish four CCS projects in Britain. Ministers see this as a potentially planet-friendly way of building new coal fired power stations, such as the one E.ON wants to construct at Kingsnorth, in Kent.
The Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA), which lobbies on behalf of the sector, says Britain is now at the forefront of new technology with a legislative framework in place that offers the opportunity for long-term investment.
Projects are proceeding in the US, such as the experimental coal-fired Mountaineer plant in New Haven, West Virginia, which began small-scale carbon capture last year, as well as in Canada, China and other countries.
Jeff Chapman, chief executive of the CCSA, believes Economides has made inappropriate assumptions about the science and geology. He believes the conclusions in the paper are wrong and says his views are backed up by rebuttals from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Pacific Northwest National laboratory and the American Petroleum Institute.
The British Geological Survey confirmed it was looking at the Economides findings and was hoping to shortly produce a peer-reviewed analysis.
Economides, who has a PHD from Stanford University, said he had seen the arguments against his paper from the API and dismissed them as "nonsense" saying vested interests are protecting a new concept foisted on the world by geologists without proper thought.
"I was a [practising] petroleum engineer for many years and soon realised that geologists did not understand flow and the laws of physics, against which you can't argue."
Chapman pointed out that Statoil, a Norwegian oil company, had been injecting CO2 into an old reservoir on the North Sea Sleipner field for some time as a successful experiment in carbon storage. But Economides says the Sleipner scheme involved a million tonnes over three years, while one 500mW commercial station would need to absorb and store 3m tonnes annually for 25 years.Economides, who admits he veers towards being something of a climate change sceptic, says the oil and coal industries see these schemes as potential solutions so they can keep on doing what they have been doing in the past, but "CCS is the last refuge of the scoundrel," he said.
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 April 2010 17.26 BST
A new research paper from American academics is threatening to blow a hole in growing political support for carbon capture and storage as a weapon in the fight against global warming.
The document from Houston University claims that governments wanting to use CCS have overestimated its value and says it would take a reservoir the size of a small US state to hold the CO2 produced by one power station.
Previous modelling has hugely underestimated the space needed to store CO2 because it was based on the "totally erroneous" premise that the pressure feeding the carbon into the rock structures would be constant, argues Michael Economides, professor of chemical engineering at Houston, and his co-author Christene Ehlig-Economides, professor of energy engineering at Texas A&M University
"It is like putting a bicycle pump up against a wall. It would be hard to inject CO2 into a closed system without eventually producing so much pressure that it fractured the rock and allowed the carbon to migrate to other zones and possibly escape to the surface," Economides said.
The paper concludes that CCS "is not a practical means to provide any substantive reduction in CO2 emissions, although it has been repeatedly presented as such by others."
The report has come at a critical time when British and other governments worldwide have started to fast-track a series of CCS prototype schemes as a way of removing carbon from the atmosphere and helping with climate change.
On 8 April, Royal assent was given on to what is now the Energy Act 2010, which made law plans to raise a levy on power users to establish four CCS projects in Britain. Ministers see this as a potentially planet-friendly way of building new coal fired power stations, such as the one E.ON wants to construct at Kingsnorth, in Kent.
The Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA), which lobbies on behalf of the sector, says Britain is now at the forefront of new technology with a legislative framework in place that offers the opportunity for long-term investment.
Projects are proceeding in the US, such as the experimental coal-fired Mountaineer plant in New Haven, West Virginia, which began small-scale carbon capture last year, as well as in Canada, China and other countries.
Jeff Chapman, chief executive of the CCSA, believes Economides has made inappropriate assumptions about the science and geology. He believes the conclusions in the paper are wrong and says his views are backed up by rebuttals from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Pacific Northwest National laboratory and the American Petroleum Institute.
The British Geological Survey confirmed it was looking at the Economides findings and was hoping to shortly produce a peer-reviewed analysis.
Economides, who has a PHD from Stanford University, said he had seen the arguments against his paper from the API and dismissed them as "nonsense" saying vested interests are protecting a new concept foisted on the world by geologists without proper thought.
"I was a [practising] petroleum engineer for many years and soon realised that geologists did not understand flow and the laws of physics, against which you can't argue."
Chapman pointed out that Statoil, a Norwegian oil company, had been injecting CO2 into an old reservoir on the North Sea Sleipner field for some time as a successful experiment in carbon storage. But Economides says the Sleipner scheme involved a million tonnes over three years, while one 500mW commercial station would need to absorb and store 3m tonnes annually for 25 years.Economides, who admits he veers towards being something of a climate change sceptic, says the oil and coal industries see these schemes as potential solutions so they can keep on doing what they have been doing in the past, but "CCS is the last refuge of the scoundrel," he said.
Giant gravel batteries could make renewable energy more reliable
Wind and solar power are often criticised for being too intermittent, but Cambridge researchers could change that
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 April 2010 12.33 BST
Newly designed giant gravel batteries could be the solution to the on-off nature of wind turbines and solar panels. By storing energy when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining, it is hoped the new technology will boost to renewable energy and blunt a persistent criticism of the technology - that the power from it is intermittent.
Electricity cannot be stored easily, but a new technique may hold the answer, so that energy from renewables doesn't switch off when nature stops playing ball. A team of engineers from Cambridge think they have a potential solution: a giant battery that can store energy using gravel.
"If you bolt this to a wind farm, you could store the intermittent and relatively erratic energy and give it back in a reliable and controlled manner," says Jonathan Howe, founder of Isentropic and previously an engineer at the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Labour government committed to cutting the country's carbon emissions by 34% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, both relative to 1990 levels. To achieve this, ministers outlined plans to build thousands of wind turbines by 2020. The only economically viable way of storing large amounts of energy is through pumped hydro – where excess electricity is used to pump water up a hill. The water is held back by a dam until the energy is needed, when it is released down the hill, turning turbines and generating electricity on the way.
Isentopic claims its gravel-based battery would be able to store equivalent amounts of energy but use less space and be cheaper to set up. Its system consists of two silos filled with a pulverised rock such as gravel. Electricity would be used to heat and pressurise argon gas that is then fed into one of the silos. By the time the gas leaves the chamber, it has cooled to ambient temperature but the gravel itself is heated to 500C.
After leaving the silo, the argon is then fed into the second silo, where it expands back to normal atmospheric pressure. This process acts like a giant refrigerator, causing the gas (and rock) temperature inside the second chamber to drop to -160C. The electrical energy generated originally by the wind turbines originally is stored as a temperature difference between the two rock-filled silos. To release the energy, the cycle is reversed, and as the energy passes from hot to cold it powers a generator that makes electricity.
Isentropic claims a round-trip energy efficiency of up to 80% and, because gravel is cheap, the cost of a system per kilowatt-hour of storage would be between $10 and $55.
Howe says that the energy in the hot silo (which is insulated) can easily be stored for extended periods of time - by his calculations, a silo that stood 50m tall and was 50m in diameter would lose only half of its energy through its walls if left alone for three years.
To demonstrate how much less infrastructure his system requires, Howe uses the example of the Bath County Pumped Storage hydro-electric dam in Virginia, US. This is the biggest energy-storage system in the world, with two reservoirs covering 820 surface acres can store up to 30 GWh storage capacity. An Isentropic gravel battery of the same capacity would occupy 1/300th of the area, according to Howe.
John Loughhead, executive director of the UK Energy Research Centre, said that the novelty of the Isentropic system lay in using cheap materials as the heat store, thus making a normally expensive and mechanically complex process very simple. But he said demonstrators would need to be built to prove the idea actually functions. "The question is, does it work? From an engineering standpoint, the temperature differences they mention, +550C to -150C are initially credibility-stretching for a single-pass cycle, and the potential for gravel particles to pass through the engine and damage or clog the inevitable cooling and lubricating systems seems high."
Howe is in the process of designing a small pilot plant that could store 16MWh at full capacity - enough for the electrical needs of thousands of homes. That energy could be stored in two silos of gravel that are 7 metres tall and 7 metres in diameter. There is no reason why multiple units could not be connected together to store much more power, Howe says several gigawatt hours.
Howe says he is in talks with what he refers to as "a large utility company" to sponsor the construction of a full-storage demonstrator system, something around the 100 kilowatt scale.
Isentropic was selected recently by the government-sponsored Technology Strategy Board for a trade mission to meet Silicon Valley investors, one of around 20 of the Britain's most promising clean technology startup companies.
David Bott, director of innovation programmes at the Technology Strategy Board, one of the sponsors of the 2010 Clean and Cool trade mission said: "Isentropic have done something very exciting, by revisiting scientific theory and coming up with a new technology that answers the need to match the generation of electricity with its use. For instance, the system could enable the more efficient use of wind power, by storing the energy generated by a turbine until it is needed. We need ways to store the energy we generate when we have a surplus, so that it can be used when we need extra and this innovative new system could provide the answer."
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 April 2010 12.33 BST
Newly designed giant gravel batteries could be the solution to the on-off nature of wind turbines and solar panels. By storing energy when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining, it is hoped the new technology will boost to renewable energy and blunt a persistent criticism of the technology - that the power from it is intermittent.
Electricity cannot be stored easily, but a new technique may hold the answer, so that energy from renewables doesn't switch off when nature stops playing ball. A team of engineers from Cambridge think they have a potential solution: a giant battery that can store energy using gravel.
"If you bolt this to a wind farm, you could store the intermittent and relatively erratic energy and give it back in a reliable and controlled manner," says Jonathan Howe, founder of Isentropic and previously an engineer at the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Labour government committed to cutting the country's carbon emissions by 34% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, both relative to 1990 levels. To achieve this, ministers outlined plans to build thousands of wind turbines by 2020. The only economically viable way of storing large amounts of energy is through pumped hydro – where excess electricity is used to pump water up a hill. The water is held back by a dam until the energy is needed, when it is released down the hill, turning turbines and generating electricity on the way.
Isentopic claims its gravel-based battery would be able to store equivalent amounts of energy but use less space and be cheaper to set up. Its system consists of two silos filled with a pulverised rock such as gravel. Electricity would be used to heat and pressurise argon gas that is then fed into one of the silos. By the time the gas leaves the chamber, it has cooled to ambient temperature but the gravel itself is heated to 500C.
After leaving the silo, the argon is then fed into the second silo, where it expands back to normal atmospheric pressure. This process acts like a giant refrigerator, causing the gas (and rock) temperature inside the second chamber to drop to -160C. The electrical energy generated originally by the wind turbines originally is stored as a temperature difference between the two rock-filled silos. To release the energy, the cycle is reversed, and as the energy passes from hot to cold it powers a generator that makes electricity.
Isentropic claims a round-trip energy efficiency of up to 80% and, because gravel is cheap, the cost of a system per kilowatt-hour of storage would be between $10 and $55.
Howe says that the energy in the hot silo (which is insulated) can easily be stored for extended periods of time - by his calculations, a silo that stood 50m tall and was 50m in diameter would lose only half of its energy through its walls if left alone for three years.
To demonstrate how much less infrastructure his system requires, Howe uses the example of the Bath County Pumped Storage hydro-electric dam in Virginia, US. This is the biggest energy-storage system in the world, with two reservoirs covering 820 surface acres can store up to 30 GWh storage capacity. An Isentropic gravel battery of the same capacity would occupy 1/300th of the area, according to Howe.
John Loughhead, executive director of the UK Energy Research Centre, said that the novelty of the Isentropic system lay in using cheap materials as the heat store, thus making a normally expensive and mechanically complex process very simple. But he said demonstrators would need to be built to prove the idea actually functions. "The question is, does it work? From an engineering standpoint, the temperature differences they mention, +550C to -150C are initially credibility-stretching for a single-pass cycle, and the potential for gravel particles to pass through the engine and damage or clog the inevitable cooling and lubricating systems seems high."
Howe is in the process of designing a small pilot plant that could store 16MWh at full capacity - enough for the electrical needs of thousands of homes. That energy could be stored in two silos of gravel that are 7 metres tall and 7 metres in diameter. There is no reason why multiple units could not be connected together to store much more power, Howe says several gigawatt hours.
Howe says he is in talks with what he refers to as "a large utility company" to sponsor the construction of a full-storage demonstrator system, something around the 100 kilowatt scale.
Isentropic was selected recently by the government-sponsored Technology Strategy Board for a trade mission to meet Silicon Valley investors, one of around 20 of the Britain's most promising clean technology startup companies.
David Bott, director of innovation programmes at the Technology Strategy Board, one of the sponsors of the 2010 Clean and Cool trade mission said: "Isentropic have done something very exciting, by revisiting scientific theory and coming up with a new technology that answers the need to match the generation of electricity with its use. For instance, the system could enable the more efficient use of wind power, by storing the energy generated by a turbine until it is needed. We need ways to store the energy we generate when we have a surplus, so that it can be used when we need extra and this innovative new system could provide the answer."
Monday, 26 April 2010
Oil Spills Into Gulf After Rig Disaster
About 1,000 Barrels a Day Gush From Well on Seafloor as BP Rushes to Contain Damage
By RUSSELL GOLD, GUY CHAZAN And BEN CASSELMAN
Associated Press
A boat with an oil boom tries to contain crude in the Gulf about seven miles from the explosion.
The oil well connected to a drilling rig that sank in the Gulf of Mexico last week after a fiery explosion is gushing crude oil, raising fears of a severe environmental hazard.
An oily sheen on Sunday covered 600 square miles, an area twice as large as the five boroughs of New York. The slick, which is spreading north, is about 70 miles south of the Mississippi and Alabama coastline, the U.S. Coast Guard said.
Efforts to shut off the well have been unsuccessful. The leak, which was discovered Saturday through information from underwater cameras, is still gushing 1,000 barrels a day from the seafloor.
The offshore accident has left BP PLC, the U.K.-based company that was exploring for oil on the rig, scrambling to contain both the spill and any potential damage to its reputation. BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward flew to the gulf coast on Friday to oversee the response.
BP has mobilized most of its senior management to deal with the oil spill, which is being seen as potentially the biggest crisis the company has faced since the explosion and fire at its Texas City, Texas, refinery five years ago that left 15 people dead and scores injured.
The fallout for BP and the oil industry could largely depend on the spill's severity and the extent of its ecological impact. An unknown amount of crude has already been released deep underwater, and it wasn't clear how quickly crews could disable the well. The Coast Guard hasn't offered any estimates of the total spill.
On Sunday the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the oil hasn't affected the Louisiana coastline, and was likely to remain offshore for three days according to current forecasts.
"We've no shoreline impact at this time," Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry said Sunday in a press conference. "Our overaching goal is to secure this well while the oil is as far offshore as possible."
Adm. Landry said the well wasn't completely open—and that if it was, the rate of outflow would be many times the current 1,000 barrels a day.
The job of shutting off the well is made all the more difficult by its location. Much of the critical equipment is under almost 5,000 feet of water on the seafloor. A well in such deep water was unthinkable in prior decades, but the industry has pushed the technological envelope in recent years in its search for new sources of oil and natural gas.
The spill comes as the industry is hoping to expand potentially lucrative offshore drilling into new parts of Alaska, the east coast of the U.S. and parts of the Gulf of Mexico long off-limits to the industry.
Late last month, President Barack Obama gave preliminary approval to expanded offshore drilling, although that legislation, expected this week, has slowed amid Washington wrangling.
University of California Santa Barbara Prof. Keith Clarke, who studied a 1969 oil spill off the Southern California coast, said: "Worst-case scenario would be loss of sea life, especially sea birds and marine mammals. Fishing could be significantly impacted. A great deal depends on how long the site leaks."
BP has deployed 32 spill-response vessels to skim off the oil slick and prevent it from reaching shore. About one-third of the world's supply of oil dispersant—about 100,000 gallons—is ready to be used, the company said. "Given the current conditions and the massive size of our response, we are confident in our ability to tackle this spill offshore," Mr. Hayward said in a statement.
Steve Benz, head of the Marine Spill Response Corp., said he was gearing up for the "single largest response effort in MSRC's 20-year history."
Since oil is lighter than water, the spilled oil is slowly rising from a mile deep.
Recovering oil in calm waters is a fairly easy task, says Nancy Kinner, co-director of the Coastal Response Research Center, a partnership between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of New Hampshire. But the waters have been choppy in the past couple days, and authorities won't send out skimming boats and other equipment if emergency workers could be in danger.
The Coast Guard said Sunday that the weather was expected to improve on Monday, enabling oil-collection efforts to resume.
Rough seas also churn up the oil, mixing it up with water to form a sticky emulsion that can't be skimmed off the surface as easily. "It's almost like a fluffy, fluffy chocolate mousse," Ms. Kinner said. "That's really really difficult to gather up."
The initial efforts are aimed at using remote-controlled submarines to activate a 450-ton device on the seafloor that can clamp off the well.
The submarine tactic is continuing, but at the same time BP is bringing in another rig to drill down and intercept the existing well. It would then inject a dense fluid into the well to block it and prevent further spillage. BP officials said it could take two to three months for this to work.
The company is also looking at covering the underwater area with a giant dome to suck up the leaking oil and treat it on a ship.
The spill started when the rig, the Deepwater Horizon owned by Switzerland-based Transocean Inc. and contracted by BP, was putting the final touches on a well in 5,000 feet of water last week that had successfully encountered a deep reservoir containing tens of millions of barrels of oil. On Tuesday evening, a fire broke out.
Most workers evacuated but 11 are missing and presumed dead.
Some 36 hours after the initial well blowout, the rig sank to the bottom of the Gulf. Remote-controlled submarines were sent to the seafloor and sent initially hopeful reports that the well appeared to be sealed off. But further inspection over the weekend showed that the pipe still attached to the well equipment on the seafloor was gushing oil.
It is unclear how long the pipe has been leaking at the current estimated rate of 1,000 barrels a day, but the spill could have begun on Thursday, the Coast Guard said. "Our initial guesses are when the rig exploded and subsequently sank in the water, it bent that pipe over it completely to the bottom of the seafloor," said spokesman Erik Swanson.
Although there were no preliminary estimates on the amount of oil released so far, this appears to be the largest oil spill in the gulf for a decade at least. There were several oil spills associated with hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, but none that exceeded 2,000 barrels. The worst oil spill in U.S. history was the 260,000 barrels dumped into Prince William Sound in Alaska from the Exxon Valdez in 1989.
—Angel Gonzalez and Leslie Eaton contributed to this article.
Write to Russell Gold at russell.gold@wsj.com, Guy Chazan at guy.chazan@wsj.com and Ben Casselman at ben.casselman@wsj.com
By RUSSELL GOLD, GUY CHAZAN And BEN CASSELMAN
Associated Press
A boat with an oil boom tries to contain crude in the Gulf about seven miles from the explosion.
The oil well connected to a drilling rig that sank in the Gulf of Mexico last week after a fiery explosion is gushing crude oil, raising fears of a severe environmental hazard.
An oily sheen on Sunday covered 600 square miles, an area twice as large as the five boroughs of New York. The slick, which is spreading north, is about 70 miles south of the Mississippi and Alabama coastline, the U.S. Coast Guard said.
Efforts to shut off the well have been unsuccessful. The leak, which was discovered Saturday through information from underwater cameras, is still gushing 1,000 barrels a day from the seafloor.
The offshore accident has left BP PLC, the U.K.-based company that was exploring for oil on the rig, scrambling to contain both the spill and any potential damage to its reputation. BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward flew to the gulf coast on Friday to oversee the response.
BP has mobilized most of its senior management to deal with the oil spill, which is being seen as potentially the biggest crisis the company has faced since the explosion and fire at its Texas City, Texas, refinery five years ago that left 15 people dead and scores injured.
The fallout for BP and the oil industry could largely depend on the spill's severity and the extent of its ecological impact. An unknown amount of crude has already been released deep underwater, and it wasn't clear how quickly crews could disable the well. The Coast Guard hasn't offered any estimates of the total spill.
On Sunday the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the oil hasn't affected the Louisiana coastline, and was likely to remain offshore for three days according to current forecasts.
"We've no shoreline impact at this time," Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry said Sunday in a press conference. "Our overaching goal is to secure this well while the oil is as far offshore as possible."
Adm. Landry said the well wasn't completely open—and that if it was, the rate of outflow would be many times the current 1,000 barrels a day.
The job of shutting off the well is made all the more difficult by its location. Much of the critical equipment is under almost 5,000 feet of water on the seafloor. A well in such deep water was unthinkable in prior decades, but the industry has pushed the technological envelope in recent years in its search for new sources of oil and natural gas.
The spill comes as the industry is hoping to expand potentially lucrative offshore drilling into new parts of Alaska, the east coast of the U.S. and parts of the Gulf of Mexico long off-limits to the industry.
Late last month, President Barack Obama gave preliminary approval to expanded offshore drilling, although that legislation, expected this week, has slowed amid Washington wrangling.
University of California Santa Barbara Prof. Keith Clarke, who studied a 1969 oil spill off the Southern California coast, said: "Worst-case scenario would be loss of sea life, especially sea birds and marine mammals. Fishing could be significantly impacted. A great deal depends on how long the site leaks."
BP has deployed 32 spill-response vessels to skim off the oil slick and prevent it from reaching shore. About one-third of the world's supply of oil dispersant—about 100,000 gallons—is ready to be used, the company said. "Given the current conditions and the massive size of our response, we are confident in our ability to tackle this spill offshore," Mr. Hayward said in a statement.
Steve Benz, head of the Marine Spill Response Corp., said he was gearing up for the "single largest response effort in MSRC's 20-year history."
Since oil is lighter than water, the spilled oil is slowly rising from a mile deep.
Recovering oil in calm waters is a fairly easy task, says Nancy Kinner, co-director of the Coastal Response Research Center, a partnership between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of New Hampshire. But the waters have been choppy in the past couple days, and authorities won't send out skimming boats and other equipment if emergency workers could be in danger.
The Coast Guard said Sunday that the weather was expected to improve on Monday, enabling oil-collection efforts to resume.
Rough seas also churn up the oil, mixing it up with water to form a sticky emulsion that can't be skimmed off the surface as easily. "It's almost like a fluffy, fluffy chocolate mousse," Ms. Kinner said. "That's really really difficult to gather up."
The initial efforts are aimed at using remote-controlled submarines to activate a 450-ton device on the seafloor that can clamp off the well.
The submarine tactic is continuing, but at the same time BP is bringing in another rig to drill down and intercept the existing well. It would then inject a dense fluid into the well to block it and prevent further spillage. BP officials said it could take two to three months for this to work.
The company is also looking at covering the underwater area with a giant dome to suck up the leaking oil and treat it on a ship.
The spill started when the rig, the Deepwater Horizon owned by Switzerland-based Transocean Inc. and contracted by BP, was putting the final touches on a well in 5,000 feet of water last week that had successfully encountered a deep reservoir containing tens of millions of barrels of oil. On Tuesday evening, a fire broke out.
Most workers evacuated but 11 are missing and presumed dead.
Some 36 hours after the initial well blowout, the rig sank to the bottom of the Gulf. Remote-controlled submarines were sent to the seafloor and sent initially hopeful reports that the well appeared to be sealed off. But further inspection over the weekend showed that the pipe still attached to the well equipment on the seafloor was gushing oil.
It is unclear how long the pipe has been leaking at the current estimated rate of 1,000 barrels a day, but the spill could have begun on Thursday, the Coast Guard said. "Our initial guesses are when the rig exploded and subsequently sank in the water, it bent that pipe over it completely to the bottom of the seafloor," said spokesman Erik Swanson.
Although there were no preliminary estimates on the amount of oil released so far, this appears to be the largest oil spill in the gulf for a decade at least. There were several oil spills associated with hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, but none that exceeded 2,000 barrels. The worst oil spill in U.S. history was the 260,000 barrels dumped into Prince William Sound in Alaska from the Exxon Valdez in 1989.
—Angel Gonzalez and Leslie Eaton contributed to this article.
Write to Russell Gold at russell.gold@wsj.com, Guy Chazan at guy.chazan@wsj.com and Ben Casselman at ben.casselman@wsj.com
Major solar panel firms 'are misleading consumers'
Consumer group calls on industry to clean up its act after undercover investigation reveals high-pressure sales tactics
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Sunday, 25 April 2010
Solar power installers are bamboozling householders with high pressure sales tactics and misleading financial statistics, an undercover investigation by a consumer group has found.
Which? condemned most of the companies it came across as "cowboys" and cautioned that the Government would have to clean up the taxpayer-backed industry, vital for the battle against climate change, unless it improved its performance.
The consumer group launched its investigation after a rise in complaints about solar thermal firms. Undercover researchers rented a house in southern England and invited firms to quote for installing solar thermal systems, which use sunlight to heat tap water.
Of the 10 that exaggerated the financial savings that could be made, the double-glazing giant Everest subsequently admitted that its representative had made false claims – that its system could save 30 times more money than was possible.
Another firm, Ideal Solar Energy, wrongly claimed a solar scheme could halve gas bills and grossly misquoted energy supply statistics from the energy regulator Ofgem.
Which? said: "While these two companies concerned us the most, we received poor service and exaggerated claims of performance from nearly all 14 firms."
Its chief executive, Peter Vicary-Smith, said: "Most of the firms in our investigation behaved like true cowboys – they promised huge savings that bore no relation to reality, and some really piled pressure on the homeowner to sign up immediately or risk losing a one-off 'special offer'."
He added: "The solar industry is too important to our long-term energy needs for things to drag on like this."
Neil McLoughlin, a trading standards officer who saw undercover footage of the Everest sales visit, said the precise nature of the quotation made the claim even more misleading and suggested the Everest may have broken the law on sales tactics by offering thousands of pounds off the price for making a decision "on the spot".
After being informed of the "sting", Everest said: "We're disappointed that our representative failed to use the sales support documentation provided and made claims he knew to be false."
In addition to boasting it could halve gas bills, Ideal successively dropped its originally quote of £8,690 to £5,860 and made a "pushy" phone call to the householder. It also misquoted statistics from energy regulator Ofgem about the proportion of a gas bill that goes on heating.
Ideal later defended its pitch, saying: "Like all retailers, we offer limited promotions on a selective basis" and added it instructed its sales agents not to specify savings to hot water bills.
Just one company, Southern Solar, was found to be helpful and provide sensible advice.
Last year, the OFT received 1,000 complaints about the solar panel industry – high for an industry with fewer than 100,000 installations in UK homes.
The Renewable Energy Association, a trade body which runs an assurance scheme for solar installers, said it was concerned by the report. A spokesman said: "We will be contacting Which? to follow up on their investigation, and take any action necessary against any of the companies which are members of our scheme."
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Sunday, 25 April 2010
Solar power installers are bamboozling householders with high pressure sales tactics and misleading financial statistics, an undercover investigation by a consumer group has found.
Which? condemned most of the companies it came across as "cowboys" and cautioned that the Government would have to clean up the taxpayer-backed industry, vital for the battle against climate change, unless it improved its performance.
The consumer group launched its investigation after a rise in complaints about solar thermal firms. Undercover researchers rented a house in southern England and invited firms to quote for installing solar thermal systems, which use sunlight to heat tap water.
Of the 10 that exaggerated the financial savings that could be made, the double-glazing giant Everest subsequently admitted that its representative had made false claims – that its system could save 30 times more money than was possible.
Another firm, Ideal Solar Energy, wrongly claimed a solar scheme could halve gas bills and grossly misquoted energy supply statistics from the energy regulator Ofgem.
Which? said: "While these two companies concerned us the most, we received poor service and exaggerated claims of performance from nearly all 14 firms."
Its chief executive, Peter Vicary-Smith, said: "Most of the firms in our investigation behaved like true cowboys – they promised huge savings that bore no relation to reality, and some really piled pressure on the homeowner to sign up immediately or risk losing a one-off 'special offer'."
He added: "The solar industry is too important to our long-term energy needs for things to drag on like this."
Neil McLoughlin, a trading standards officer who saw undercover footage of the Everest sales visit, said the precise nature of the quotation made the claim even more misleading and suggested the Everest may have broken the law on sales tactics by offering thousands of pounds off the price for making a decision "on the spot".
After being informed of the "sting", Everest said: "We're disappointed that our representative failed to use the sales support documentation provided and made claims he knew to be false."
In addition to boasting it could halve gas bills, Ideal successively dropped its originally quote of £8,690 to £5,860 and made a "pushy" phone call to the householder. It also misquoted statistics from energy regulator Ofgem about the proportion of a gas bill that goes on heating.
Ideal later defended its pitch, saying: "Like all retailers, we offer limited promotions on a selective basis" and added it instructed its sales agents not to specify savings to hot water bills.
Just one company, Southern Solar, was found to be helpful and provide sensible advice.
Last year, the OFT received 1,000 complaints about the solar panel industry – high for an industry with fewer than 100,000 installations in UK homes.
The Renewable Energy Association, a trade body which runs an assurance scheme for solar installers, said it was concerned by the report. A spokesman said: "We will be contacting Which? to follow up on their investigation, and take any action necessary against any of the companies which are members of our scheme."
Anger as Brazil approves Amazon rainforest dam
By Raymond Colitt and Denise Luna in Brasilia
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Brazil awarded a domestic consortium rights yesterday to build the world's third-largest hydroelectric dam in the Amazon rainforest amid criticism that the dam will be catastrophic for the environment.
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is likely to face a prolonged battle over the Belo Monte dam that he has heavily promoted despite opposition from a range of critics, including Hollywood director James Cameron.
Government leaders say the project, due to start producing electricity in 2015, will provide power for Brazil's fast-growing economy, but environmentalists and activists say it will damage a sensitive ecosystem and displace around 20,000 locals.
State power regulator Aneel said a consortium including state electric company Eletrobras and a group of Brazilian construction firms – considered the weaker of the two consortia that participated – won the bid.
News of the outcome was blocked for two hours because of a last-minute injunction trying to halt the project on environmental grounds.
The results are unlikely to affect overall electricity rates in Brazil because most of the energy is already set aside for specific clients, with only a small remainder entering power markets.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Brazil awarded a domestic consortium rights yesterday to build the world's third-largest hydroelectric dam in the Amazon rainforest amid criticism that the dam will be catastrophic for the environment.
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is likely to face a prolonged battle over the Belo Monte dam that he has heavily promoted despite opposition from a range of critics, including Hollywood director James Cameron.
Government leaders say the project, due to start producing electricity in 2015, will provide power for Brazil's fast-growing economy, but environmentalists and activists say it will damage a sensitive ecosystem and displace around 20,000 locals.
State power regulator Aneel said a consortium including state electric company Eletrobras and a group of Brazilian construction firms – considered the weaker of the two consortia that participated – won the bid.
News of the outcome was blocked for two hours because of a last-minute injunction trying to halt the project on environmental grounds.
The results are unlikely to affect overall electricity rates in Brazil because most of the energy is already set aside for specific clients, with only a small remainder entering power markets.
Britain reaches milestone for renewable energy
By Emily Beament
Saturday, 24 April 2010
The UK has reached a milestone of installing 1 gigawatt (GW) of offshore wind farms – enough to power 700,000 homes. It was achieved this week as two new wind farms off the coast began generating electricity.
The UK now has 11 offshore wind farms, with a total of 336 installed turbines, according to the industry body Renewables UK. A further 4GW of offshore wind farms are being constructed or have planning consent and a total of 40GW are at various stages of development.
Maria McCaffery, chief executive of the organisation, said hitting the 1GW mark in 10 years was a "tremendous step forward". "The UK offshore wind industry has come of age. In the last 10 years we have built a brand new world-leading industry sector that will create long-term value for this country."
She said that in the first quarter of this year, £500m of private investment had been poured into offshore wind in the UK.
"The opportunity now for this country is to build on this position of global leadership to develop the industrial and service supply chain to provide the equipment and skills that will embed Britain's competitive advantage in marine renewables," Ms McCaffery said.
Saturday, 24 April 2010
The UK has reached a milestone of installing 1 gigawatt (GW) of offshore wind farms – enough to power 700,000 homes. It was achieved this week as two new wind farms off the coast began generating electricity.
The UK now has 11 offshore wind farms, with a total of 336 installed turbines, according to the industry body Renewables UK. A further 4GW of offshore wind farms are being constructed or have planning consent and a total of 40GW are at various stages of development.
Maria McCaffery, chief executive of the organisation, said hitting the 1GW mark in 10 years was a "tremendous step forward". "The UK offshore wind industry has come of age. In the last 10 years we have built a brand new world-leading industry sector that will create long-term value for this country."
She said that in the first quarter of this year, £500m of private investment had been poured into offshore wind in the UK.
"The opportunity now for this country is to build on this position of global leadership to develop the industrial and service supply chain to provide the equipment and skills that will embed Britain's competitive advantage in marine renewables," Ms McCaffery said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
