Mayor of London says he wants to make the city the most environmentally friendly in the world
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment EditorSunday, 23 November 2008
Reuters
Boris Johnson is backing a cycle-hire scheme for the capital
Cripes! Boris Johnson, one of Britain's least environmentally friendly politicians, will this week relaunch himself as a green champion.
In his maiden green speech, which aides are billing as "extremely substantial" and "a milestone event", London's Mayor – who used to denounce "eco-moralists" for spouting "mumbo-jumbo"– is to announce his intention to make the city the eco-capital of the world.
The man who compared fear of global warming to a "Stone Age religion", and poured scorn on renewable energy, has decided that he wants to make the capital "the world's leading city in delivering carbon reductions and capturing the benefits of the new energy economy".
The speech – to be delivered on Tuesday to the annual conference of the official Environment Agency – will stress that the financial crisis provides a crucial opportunity for developing environmentally friendly businesses, one of the main arguments of those pressing governments to launch a "green new deal" to revive growth.
Industries will have the chance to develop "new technologies", the Mayor will add, and householders will be able to save money by conserving energy and reducing their carbon footprints.
Mr Johnson will also promise "substantially increased investment" in small-scale exploitation of solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy in homes and communities, and "minimum-hassle, minimum-cost energy efficiency programmes" to insulate homes, offices and other buildings.
The speech will mark one of the most remarkable political Damascene conversions in years, for the Mayor was one of the few prominent Britons to welcome George W Bush's determination to kill off international attempts to combat climate change. He said that the President's "decision to scrumple up the Kyoto Protocol" was "right not just for America but for the world".
Mr Johnson then proclaimed that sharply reducing emissions would "exacerbate" climate change. He insisted that windfarms, "even when they are in motion, would barely pull the skin off a rice pudding" and denounced energy saving as a waste of effort. He became a hero to climate-change deniers worldwide.
He changed his tune during his election campaign earlier this year, describing global warming as "the biggest challenge of our generation", but his proposed policies were unconvincing and lagged far behind measures that his rival, Ken Livingstone, was already taking, which made London a world leader in combating global warming.
Jonathon Porritt, the Government's top environmental adviser, said that a Johnson victory would be "a massive setback" – and, once in office, the new Mayor seemed to justify the warning. He cancelled Mr Livingstone's plans to charge gas-guzzlers more to enter central London, put all his far-reaching climate-change measures under review, and sacked Allan Jones, the highly regarded head of the capital's Climate Change Agency. He also scrapped an order for 60 vehicles running on hydrogen – thought to be the world's biggest initiative of its kind.
However, the Mayor's office retorts: "Boris Johnson was elected on a firm commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2025 and to make London's environment cleaner and greener. Since being elected he has announced a range of measures to set London on the road to achieve this."
It points out that, among other promises, he has pledged to retain Mr Livingstone's Low-Emission Zone and has announced plans for a cycle-hire scheme and 10 low-carbon zones.
Monday, 24 November 2008
The eco machine that can magic water out of thin air
Ed Pilkington in New York
The Observer, Sunday November 23 2008
Water, Water, everywhere; nor any drop to drink. The plight of the Ancient Mariner is about to be alleviated thanks to a firm of eco-inventors from Canada who claim to have found the solution to the world's worsening water shortages by drawing the liquid of life from an unlimited and untapped source - the air.
The company, Element Four, has developed a machine that it hopes will become the first mainstream household appliance to have been invented since the microwave. Their creation, the WaterMill, uses the electricity of about three light bulbs to condense moisture from the air and purify it into clean drinking water.
The machine went on display this weekend in the Flatiron district of Manhattan, hosted by Wired magazine at its annual showcase of the latest gizmos its editors believe could change the world. From the outside, the mill looks like a giant golf ball that has been chopped in half: it is about 3ft in diameter, made of white plastic, and is attached to the wall.
It works by drawing air through filters to remove dust and particles, then cooling it to just below the temperature at which dew forms. The condensed water is passed through a self-sterilising chamber that uses microbe-busting UV light to eradicate any possibility of Legionnaires' disease or other infections. Finally, it is filtered and passed through a pipe to the owner's fridge or kitchen tap.
The obvious question to the proposition that household water demands can be met by drawing it from the air is: are you crazy? To which the machine's inventor and Element Four's founder, Jonathan Ritchey, replies: 'Just wait and see. The demand for water is off the chart. People are looking for freedom from water distribution systems that are shaky and increasingly unreliable.'
For the environmentally conscious consumer, the WaterMill has an obvious appeal. Bottled water is an ecological catastrophe. In the US alone, about 30bn litres of bottled water is consumed every year at a cost of about $11bn (£7.4bn).
According to the Earth Policy Institute, about 1.5m barrels of oil - enough to power 100,000 cars for a year - is used just to make the plastic. The process also uses twice as much water as fits inside the container, not to mention the 30m bottles that go into landfills every day in the US. But the mill also has downsides, not least its $1,200 cost when it goes on sale in America, the UK, Italy, Australia and Japan in the spring. In these credit crunch times that might dissuade many potential buyers, though Ritchey points out that at $0.3 per litre, it is much cheaper than bottled water and would pay for itself in a couple of years.
There is also the awkward fact that although there is eight times more atmospheric water than in all the rivers of the world combined, it is unevenly distributed. Those areas of the US that are most desperate for more water - such as the arid south-west where ground water levels are already dramatically depleted - have the lowest levels of moisture in the air.
The mill ceases to be effective below about 30 per cent relative humidity levels, which are common later in the day in states such as Arizona. To combat that problem, the machine has an intelligent computer built into it that increases its output at dawn when humidity is highest, and reduces it from mid-afternoon when a blazing sun dries the air.
The Observer, Sunday November 23 2008
Water, Water, everywhere; nor any drop to drink. The plight of the Ancient Mariner is about to be alleviated thanks to a firm of eco-inventors from Canada who claim to have found the solution to the world's worsening water shortages by drawing the liquid of life from an unlimited and untapped source - the air.
The company, Element Four, has developed a machine that it hopes will become the first mainstream household appliance to have been invented since the microwave. Their creation, the WaterMill, uses the electricity of about three light bulbs to condense moisture from the air and purify it into clean drinking water.
The machine went on display this weekend in the Flatiron district of Manhattan, hosted by Wired magazine at its annual showcase of the latest gizmos its editors believe could change the world. From the outside, the mill looks like a giant golf ball that has been chopped in half: it is about 3ft in diameter, made of white plastic, and is attached to the wall.
It works by drawing air through filters to remove dust and particles, then cooling it to just below the temperature at which dew forms. The condensed water is passed through a self-sterilising chamber that uses microbe-busting UV light to eradicate any possibility of Legionnaires' disease or other infections. Finally, it is filtered and passed through a pipe to the owner's fridge or kitchen tap.
The obvious question to the proposition that household water demands can be met by drawing it from the air is: are you crazy? To which the machine's inventor and Element Four's founder, Jonathan Ritchey, replies: 'Just wait and see. The demand for water is off the chart. People are looking for freedom from water distribution systems that are shaky and increasingly unreliable.'
For the environmentally conscious consumer, the WaterMill has an obvious appeal. Bottled water is an ecological catastrophe. In the US alone, about 30bn litres of bottled water is consumed every year at a cost of about $11bn (£7.4bn).
According to the Earth Policy Institute, about 1.5m barrels of oil - enough to power 100,000 cars for a year - is used just to make the plastic. The process also uses twice as much water as fits inside the container, not to mention the 30m bottles that go into landfills every day in the US. But the mill also has downsides, not least its $1,200 cost when it goes on sale in America, the UK, Italy, Australia and Japan in the spring. In these credit crunch times that might dissuade many potential buyers, though Ritchey points out that at $0.3 per litre, it is much cheaper than bottled water and would pay for itself in a couple of years.
There is also the awkward fact that although there is eight times more atmospheric water than in all the rivers of the world combined, it is unevenly distributed. Those areas of the US that are most desperate for more water - such as the arid south-west where ground water levels are already dramatically depleted - have the lowest levels of moisture in the air.
The mill ceases to be effective below about 30 per cent relative humidity levels, which are common later in the day in states such as Arizona. To combat that problem, the machine has an intelligent computer built into it that increases its output at dawn when humidity is highest, and reduces it from mid-afternoon when a blazing sun dries the air.
A Ford scion quietly works for greener auto industry
By Bill Vlasic
Published: November 24, 2008
DEARBORN, Michigan: As the Detroit auto companies contend with their worst financial crisis in decades, the most famous American auto executive has stayed largely out of sight.
But William C. Ford Jr., the executive chairman and scion of the founding family of the Ford Motor Co., has been preparing for a bigger role in the industry's plan for survival.
While General Motors and Chrysler plead to Congress for a bailout, Ford has reached out to President-elect Barack Obama in hopes that his company can benefit from the administration's longer-term strategies for the auto industry.
Ford has been working behind the scenes, meeting one-on-one with Obama in August, conferring with his senior economic advisers, and teaming up with Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan to push a vision of a leaner, greener auto industry.
With Detroit on the brink of disaster, the great-grandson of Henry Ford could play a critical role in how the Obama administration decides to assist the companies financially and shape broader energy policies.
"One of the things that I feel very encouraged about is the president-elect and where he'd like to take this country in terms of energy, and I completely buy into his vision," Ford said in an interview, his first since the Big Three approached Washington lawmakers about a rescue plan.
He can afford to take a longer view because Ford, unlike GM and Chrysler, does not need an immediate infusion of government aid to stay in business.
While Ford's chief executive, Alan Mulally, joined his counterparts from GM and Chrysler in testifying before Congress last week, Ford is not asking for an immediate bailout from Washington for now.
The company has enough cash on hand — $18.9 billion, as well as a $10.7 billion line of credit with private lenders — that will keep it running through 2009 without cutting development of its next generation of more fuel-efficient cars.
While Ford cannot continue to burn cash indefinitely, it is also not on the verge of bankruptcy like GM and Chrysler. And the health of the company presents a unique opportunity for Ford, 51, who has been chairman of the company since 1999 and served five years as its chief executive.
"We have a plan that is high-tech, product-driven, which is a fuel economy plan," he said. "And we have kept that plan in place under these tough conditions."
In August, Ford shared those plans with Obama, then candidate for president, when he was in Lansing, Michigan, for a speech on energy policy.
"We talked about the electrification of our industry and other fuel-economy issues," Ford said. "He's a great listener and he asked all the right questions."
Ford said they focused on a few specific, industrywide issues. One was government help to put more electric cars on the road.
"One of the things we need to sort out as a country is batteries," Ford said. "We really don't want to trade one foreign dependency, oil, for another foreign dependency, batteries." The main producers of batteries are Asian manufacturers.
He does not profess to have Obama's ear yet on the how to save Detroit. But Ford is keeping close contact through Governor Granholm, a member of the president-elect's economic advisory team.
"I think he is a key player," she said of Ford. "He has tremendous credibility with respect to the serious issues related to renewable energy and energy security for this nation."
Ford has been Detroit's most vocal environmentalist since becoming the first family member to run Ford since his uncle, Henry Ford II.
Even when Ford was living off profits from its big sport utility vehicles, he was pushing to take the company in a greener direction. Ford was the first automaker to bring to market a hybrid version of an SUV, the Ford Escape, and it is introducing a new line of Ecoboost engines next year that will cut fuel consumption by up to 20 percent.
The Ford family controls the automaker by virtue of its 70.85 million shares of Class B stock, which carry 40 percent voting rights for the entire company.
But the family's wealth has taken a drastic hit as losses have mounted at Ford and its stock price has plunged.
The family's Class B shares were worth $101 million at Friday's closing price of $1.43 a share, down 81 percent from a year ago when the shares had a value of $532 million.
Ford also owns 5.2 million shares individually, which have dropped in value to $7.4 million from $39 million.
"The family clearly has taken an enormous financial beating," Ford said. "But the family still is here and standing behind the company."
The company is in better shape than GM and Chrysler, but just barely. Ford has lost $24 billion since 2006, and it reduced its cash cushion by $7.9 billion in the third quarter this year.
Two years ago, Ford was seen as the riskiest bet in the industry to survive when it mortgaged nearly all its assets, even its blue Ford oval trademark, to secure a huge line of credit.
Now, with the collapse of the credit market, GM and Chrysler cannot borrow money on their assets and could face insolvency by the end of the year without U.S. government assistance.
Ford said his company was interested in being able to access government loans only if the economy continues to deteriorate. "We're trying very hard not to need it," he said. "Our plan is to have our own liquidity and get through without it."
Ford has already undergone an extensive revamping at the direction of Mulally, who succeeded Ford as the automaker's chief executive in 2006.
Since then, the company has cut 40,000 jobs, sold off three of its brands and begun an effort to transform its truck-heavy vehicle fleet with an influx of smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
Ford remained in Detroit last week as Mulally endured two days of harsh criticism by lawmakers over Detroit's financial plight, along with GM's chairman, Rick Wagoner, and Chrysler's chairman, Robert Nardelli.
In the interview, Ford said that some of the skepticism from Congress about the industry's future was justified. "I completely understand the frustration that Americans feel and it came out loud and clear this week," he said. "I don't think we told our story terribly well."
After 15 years of relying on pickup trucks and SUV's for profit, Ford is putting the bulk of its capital investment into smaller cars.
Much of the debate in Washington has centered on the best source of government money for an emergency loan program for Detroit.
One is a $25 billion low-interest loan program already passed by Congress that provides money specifically for improvements in fuel efficiency.
Ford has applied for $7 billion of those loans, which are administered by the Department of Energy. Ford expects that any aid from the Obama administration in the future will be tied to improvements in fuel economy.
"We just submitted our application to the DOE and what's interesting is in the next two years, 75 percent of our vehicles will qualify for their definition of advanced vehicle technology," he said.
Ford said he was committed to helping Obama end America's dependence on foreign oil whether Detroit gets a bailout before the end of the year or not.
"It's all about fuel economy and energy independence," he said. "I passionately believe that Ford can and should be part of that solution."
Published: November 24, 2008
DEARBORN, Michigan: As the Detroit auto companies contend with their worst financial crisis in decades, the most famous American auto executive has stayed largely out of sight.
But William C. Ford Jr., the executive chairman and scion of the founding family of the Ford Motor Co., has been preparing for a bigger role in the industry's plan for survival.
While General Motors and Chrysler plead to Congress for a bailout, Ford has reached out to President-elect Barack Obama in hopes that his company can benefit from the administration's longer-term strategies for the auto industry.
Ford has been working behind the scenes, meeting one-on-one with Obama in August, conferring with his senior economic advisers, and teaming up with Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan to push a vision of a leaner, greener auto industry.
With Detroit on the brink of disaster, the great-grandson of Henry Ford could play a critical role in how the Obama administration decides to assist the companies financially and shape broader energy policies.
"One of the things that I feel very encouraged about is the president-elect and where he'd like to take this country in terms of energy, and I completely buy into his vision," Ford said in an interview, his first since the Big Three approached Washington lawmakers about a rescue plan.
He can afford to take a longer view because Ford, unlike GM and Chrysler, does not need an immediate infusion of government aid to stay in business.
While Ford's chief executive, Alan Mulally, joined his counterparts from GM and Chrysler in testifying before Congress last week, Ford is not asking for an immediate bailout from Washington for now.
The company has enough cash on hand — $18.9 billion, as well as a $10.7 billion line of credit with private lenders — that will keep it running through 2009 without cutting development of its next generation of more fuel-efficient cars.
While Ford cannot continue to burn cash indefinitely, it is also not on the verge of bankruptcy like GM and Chrysler. And the health of the company presents a unique opportunity for Ford, 51, who has been chairman of the company since 1999 and served five years as its chief executive.
"We have a plan that is high-tech, product-driven, which is a fuel economy plan," he said. "And we have kept that plan in place under these tough conditions."
In August, Ford shared those plans with Obama, then candidate for president, when he was in Lansing, Michigan, for a speech on energy policy.
"We talked about the electrification of our industry and other fuel-economy issues," Ford said. "He's a great listener and he asked all the right questions."
Ford said they focused on a few specific, industrywide issues. One was government help to put more electric cars on the road.
"One of the things we need to sort out as a country is batteries," Ford said. "We really don't want to trade one foreign dependency, oil, for another foreign dependency, batteries." The main producers of batteries are Asian manufacturers.
He does not profess to have Obama's ear yet on the how to save Detroit. But Ford is keeping close contact through Governor Granholm, a member of the president-elect's economic advisory team.
"I think he is a key player," she said of Ford. "He has tremendous credibility with respect to the serious issues related to renewable energy and energy security for this nation."
Ford has been Detroit's most vocal environmentalist since becoming the first family member to run Ford since his uncle, Henry Ford II.
Even when Ford was living off profits from its big sport utility vehicles, he was pushing to take the company in a greener direction. Ford was the first automaker to bring to market a hybrid version of an SUV, the Ford Escape, and it is introducing a new line of Ecoboost engines next year that will cut fuel consumption by up to 20 percent.
The Ford family controls the automaker by virtue of its 70.85 million shares of Class B stock, which carry 40 percent voting rights for the entire company.
But the family's wealth has taken a drastic hit as losses have mounted at Ford and its stock price has plunged.
The family's Class B shares were worth $101 million at Friday's closing price of $1.43 a share, down 81 percent from a year ago when the shares had a value of $532 million.
Ford also owns 5.2 million shares individually, which have dropped in value to $7.4 million from $39 million.
"The family clearly has taken an enormous financial beating," Ford said. "But the family still is here and standing behind the company."
The company is in better shape than GM and Chrysler, but just barely. Ford has lost $24 billion since 2006, and it reduced its cash cushion by $7.9 billion in the third quarter this year.
Two years ago, Ford was seen as the riskiest bet in the industry to survive when it mortgaged nearly all its assets, even its blue Ford oval trademark, to secure a huge line of credit.
Now, with the collapse of the credit market, GM and Chrysler cannot borrow money on their assets and could face insolvency by the end of the year without U.S. government assistance.
Ford said his company was interested in being able to access government loans only if the economy continues to deteriorate. "We're trying very hard not to need it," he said. "Our plan is to have our own liquidity and get through without it."
Ford has already undergone an extensive revamping at the direction of Mulally, who succeeded Ford as the automaker's chief executive in 2006.
Since then, the company has cut 40,000 jobs, sold off three of its brands and begun an effort to transform its truck-heavy vehicle fleet with an influx of smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
Ford remained in Detroit last week as Mulally endured two days of harsh criticism by lawmakers over Detroit's financial plight, along with GM's chairman, Rick Wagoner, and Chrysler's chairman, Robert Nardelli.
In the interview, Ford said that some of the skepticism from Congress about the industry's future was justified. "I completely understand the frustration that Americans feel and it came out loud and clear this week," he said. "I don't think we told our story terribly well."
After 15 years of relying on pickup trucks and SUV's for profit, Ford is putting the bulk of its capital investment into smaller cars.
Much of the debate in Washington has centered on the best source of government money for an emergency loan program for Detroit.
One is a $25 billion low-interest loan program already passed by Congress that provides money specifically for improvements in fuel efficiency.
Ford has applied for $7 billion of those loans, which are administered by the Department of Energy. Ford expects that any aid from the Obama administration in the future will be tied to improvements in fuel economy.
"We just submitted our application to the DOE and what's interesting is in the next two years, 75 percent of our vehicles will qualify for their definition of advanced vehicle technology," he said.
Ford said he was committed to helping Obama end America's dependence on foreign oil whether Detroit gets a bailout before the end of the year or not.
"It's all about fuel economy and energy independence," he said. "I passionately believe that Ford can and should be part of that solution."
Opencast mining is vandalism
It is both environmentally destructive and a clear contributor to climate change. If the government won't act to stop it, we must
Kevin Bland
guardian.co.uk, Sunday November 23 2008 00.07 GMT
Climate change is real and happening. Of course the Earth has natural cycles of heating and cooling but human activites - burning fossil fuels, livestock production, waste disposal and deforestation - accelerate the process. As a species we must take urgent and collective action to avert the disastrous consequences of the climate changing for the worse.
Coal has played a big part in the situation that we find ourselves in. Burning coal has in part led to the current climate crises and continues to do so. We continue to burn coal unabated to produce electricity and so we contribute to our own demise. Coal is the least efficient way of producing energy from a fossil fuel, and even with technology improving, there is no way currently of removing the CO2 from the process on a large enough scale, or soon enough to count.
There are currently 30 applications to extract coal in the UK. Fourteen of these are in the north east. All are for surface - or opencast - mines. All to feed coal fired power stations.
For me and many other folk opencast mining is vandalism. The scale of destruction of a modern opencast operation is obscene. How UK Coal, Miller Argent and the Banks Group can use phases such as "sustainable" and "environmentally sensitive" about opencast is beyond me. A look over an opencast site leaves no doubt as to the environmental destruction of such an operation.
Recently residents took us on a guided walk over a site that UK Coal plan to opencast. The guide that lead the walk - a local historian - was amazingly well informed and the son of a mining family. He explained the political and social aspects of mining over the last few 100 years - this site at Bradley/Billingside woods is part of the fabric of mining heritage in the North East.
We went on to look at the wildlife in the area: red kite nests, ponds where crested newts have their home, badger sets in ancient holly copses and the woodland that provides habitat for the nearly extinct red squirrels. UK coal has stated that the mining history and the unique wildlife is of no significance.
The supposedly democratic planning process is also being undermined. A recent planning application for a new Banks Group opencast close to Cramlington was correctly refused by Northumberland County Council as the proposed site is located within an opencast constraint area. The ironically named communities minister at the time, Hazel Blears, stepped in and overruled them.
As open cast mining expands across the UK, this is the experience of many more communities at many more sites.
We must not allow new coal-fired power stations to be built. The same goes for the new opencast mines planned to feed them. The government has failed to act, and the corporate interests continue to push for the wrong courses of action. In this situation, it is left to ordinary folk to act, and we have very little time.
Kevin Bland
guardian.co.uk, Sunday November 23 2008 00.07 GMT
Climate change is real and happening. Of course the Earth has natural cycles of heating and cooling but human activites - burning fossil fuels, livestock production, waste disposal and deforestation - accelerate the process. As a species we must take urgent and collective action to avert the disastrous consequences of the climate changing for the worse.
Coal has played a big part in the situation that we find ourselves in. Burning coal has in part led to the current climate crises and continues to do so. We continue to burn coal unabated to produce electricity and so we contribute to our own demise. Coal is the least efficient way of producing energy from a fossil fuel, and even with technology improving, there is no way currently of removing the CO2 from the process on a large enough scale, or soon enough to count.
There are currently 30 applications to extract coal in the UK. Fourteen of these are in the north east. All are for surface - or opencast - mines. All to feed coal fired power stations.
For me and many other folk opencast mining is vandalism. The scale of destruction of a modern opencast operation is obscene. How UK Coal, Miller Argent and the Banks Group can use phases such as "sustainable" and "environmentally sensitive" about opencast is beyond me. A look over an opencast site leaves no doubt as to the environmental destruction of such an operation.
Recently residents took us on a guided walk over a site that UK Coal plan to opencast. The guide that lead the walk - a local historian - was amazingly well informed and the son of a mining family. He explained the political and social aspects of mining over the last few 100 years - this site at Bradley/Billingside woods is part of the fabric of mining heritage in the North East.
We went on to look at the wildlife in the area: red kite nests, ponds where crested newts have their home, badger sets in ancient holly copses and the woodland that provides habitat for the nearly extinct red squirrels. UK coal has stated that the mining history and the unique wildlife is of no significance.
The supposedly democratic planning process is also being undermined. A recent planning application for a new Banks Group opencast close to Cramlington was correctly refused by Northumberland County Council as the proposed site is located within an opencast constraint area. The ironically named communities minister at the time, Hazel Blears, stepped in and overruled them.
As open cast mining expands across the UK, this is the experience of many more communities at many more sites.
We must not allow new coal-fired power stations to be built. The same goes for the new opencast mines planned to feed them. The government has failed to act, and the corporate interests continue to push for the wrong courses of action. In this situation, it is left to ordinary folk to act, and we have very little time.
The great green electricity con
In his first of his weekly Greenwash columns, Fred Pearce finds that "green" electricity tariffs are often far from what they seem
Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday October 23 2008 00.01 BST
The offers are tempting for any self-respecting green. For a small premium, or sometimes no premium at all, you can make sure that only clean, green, renewable electricity comes down the grid into your home. But what do you get for your money? Does the planet really benefit? Is this greenwash?
Most of us are not foolish enough to suppose that our electricity supplier specially packages up "green energy" for us, and shoves it down the wires. We just get regular electricity, of course. But most of us would suppose that if we pay a green tariff, someone somewhere generates more renewable energy – and burns less fossil fuel - than they would if we hadn't done our bit for the environment.
But no. In fact, we are usually subsidising the power companies to do what they are required by law to do already. Worse, despite us paying through our green noses, they still can't meet their targets. Then they rub our noses in it by selling what "green electricity" they do produce over and over again. This is all within the law, of course. But that is because the government's green laws are a mess. In many cases, buying green electricity is not so much greenwash as a full-scale green con. Certainly, that's the view of Virginia Graham, who six years ago drew up the first set of guidelines on green tariffs, for the industry regulator Ofgem. She is now wiser and more cynical. "It suits the companies for people to think they are getting green electricity if they sign up to green tariffs," she says. "But in most cases they are not, and people are being misled."
Let me explain how the system works. Under government rules, electricity suppliers have to make sure that a certain percentage of their electricity is generated from renewable sources, like wind turbines, solar panels and burning wood or plants. This is called the renewables obligation.
The percentage rises each year. For the year ending March 2007, the most recent for which there are published stats on how the companies performed, the obligation was 6.7%. But the companies collectively only managed to generate 4.7% of their electricity from renewables.
Most of the big companies missed the target by a country mile. EDF managed 5%, E.On 3.6% and British Gas 4%.This may not all be the fault of the suppliers. It would take another article to explain what has gone wrong with rolling out British renewables. But the fact remains that the suppliers are selling green energy, often at premium prices, to green-minded customers as if this were on top of their existing commitments.
Npower's juice tariff offers "clean green energy at no extra cost to you or the planet". The company says it gets sufficient power from offshore windfarms to supply its juice customers. Maybe so. But according to its fuel-mix declaration, only 3% of its overall supplies were renewable last year – less than half its obligation.
To shed some light on this mess, Ofgem, the industry regulator, has been talking to suppliers for over a year now about setting up a mandatory system of labelling and an independent auditor for green tariffs.
But insiders say the industry has been watering down the proposals, and no amount of fussing over the detail is going to get round the central point. Power companies that do not meet their legal renewables obligations are telling porkies if they suggest that when you sign up for their green tariff, they will deliver more green electricity. It just isn't so.
To be fair, some tariffs do offer something a bit more certain. They promise to plant a tree for you, or put money into research into renewables. The EDF green tariff, which advertises that it "lets you choose renewable energy for your home", funds solar panels on school roofs and similar projects.
But until they meet their existing renewable obligations, and demonstrate that people buying green tariffs will push them beyond the legal minimum, they won't get an extra penny out of me.
The story doesn't end there, however. You see, green electricity is not just for greens. Not even mainly for greens. The biggest buyers are companies. When their electricity comes with a green label, they have taken to going around calling themselves "carbon neutral". Which is good PR. BT has made great play of having cut its carbon emissions by more than half by buying green electricity.
So levy payers have been very willing to pay premium prices to buy "green electricity". So keen, in fact, that they buy more green electricity than is being generated in the first place. It is hard to believe that this is possible within the law, but I am told it is. An electricity supplier that has access to, say, two gigawatt (GW) hours of renewable electricity, can sell 4GW-hours labelled as renewable, says Graham. "Renewable electricity is often being sold twice, perhaps more. Double counting is enormous."
The government may be starting to get a handle on all this. In August, the environment secretary, Hilary Benn, announced plans for a crackdown on companies making dodgy claims about their carbon neutrality.
At this point, you might shrug your shoulders and walk away from this green fantasy land. But not so fast. Because it turns out we have been paying for it all. All electricity customers, regardless of what tariff they are on, pay an average premium on their bills of £10 a year specifically to help pay the electricity suppliers meet their renewable obligations.
We know they don't fully meet those obligations. But surely every scrap of green energy that they do produce is ours, paid for with our £10. But instead they are selling it to others, several times over. In the end, the biggest con seems have been perpetrated not on the buyers of green electricity, but on the rest of us.
• How many more green scams, cons and generous slices of wishful thinking are out there? Please send your examples of greenwash to greenwash@guardian.co.uk or add your comments below
Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday October 23 2008 00.01 BST
The offers are tempting for any self-respecting green. For a small premium, or sometimes no premium at all, you can make sure that only clean, green, renewable electricity comes down the grid into your home. But what do you get for your money? Does the planet really benefit? Is this greenwash?
Most of us are not foolish enough to suppose that our electricity supplier specially packages up "green energy" for us, and shoves it down the wires. We just get regular electricity, of course. But most of us would suppose that if we pay a green tariff, someone somewhere generates more renewable energy – and burns less fossil fuel - than they would if we hadn't done our bit for the environment.
But no. In fact, we are usually subsidising the power companies to do what they are required by law to do already. Worse, despite us paying through our green noses, they still can't meet their targets. Then they rub our noses in it by selling what "green electricity" they do produce over and over again. This is all within the law, of course. But that is because the government's green laws are a mess. In many cases, buying green electricity is not so much greenwash as a full-scale green con. Certainly, that's the view of Virginia Graham, who six years ago drew up the first set of guidelines on green tariffs, for the industry regulator Ofgem. She is now wiser and more cynical. "It suits the companies for people to think they are getting green electricity if they sign up to green tariffs," she says. "But in most cases they are not, and people are being misled."
Let me explain how the system works. Under government rules, electricity suppliers have to make sure that a certain percentage of their electricity is generated from renewable sources, like wind turbines, solar panels and burning wood or plants. This is called the renewables obligation.
The percentage rises each year. For the year ending March 2007, the most recent for which there are published stats on how the companies performed, the obligation was 6.7%. But the companies collectively only managed to generate 4.7% of their electricity from renewables.
Most of the big companies missed the target by a country mile. EDF managed 5%, E.On 3.6% and British Gas 4%.This may not all be the fault of the suppliers. It would take another article to explain what has gone wrong with rolling out British renewables. But the fact remains that the suppliers are selling green energy, often at premium prices, to green-minded customers as if this were on top of their existing commitments.
Npower's juice tariff offers "clean green energy at no extra cost to you or the planet". The company says it gets sufficient power from offshore windfarms to supply its juice customers. Maybe so. But according to its fuel-mix declaration, only 3% of its overall supplies were renewable last year – less than half its obligation.
To shed some light on this mess, Ofgem, the industry regulator, has been talking to suppliers for over a year now about setting up a mandatory system of labelling and an independent auditor for green tariffs.
But insiders say the industry has been watering down the proposals, and no amount of fussing over the detail is going to get round the central point. Power companies that do not meet their legal renewables obligations are telling porkies if they suggest that when you sign up for their green tariff, they will deliver more green electricity. It just isn't so.
To be fair, some tariffs do offer something a bit more certain. They promise to plant a tree for you, or put money into research into renewables. The EDF green tariff, which advertises that it "lets you choose renewable energy for your home", funds solar panels on school roofs and similar projects.
But until they meet their existing renewable obligations, and demonstrate that people buying green tariffs will push them beyond the legal minimum, they won't get an extra penny out of me.
The story doesn't end there, however. You see, green electricity is not just for greens. Not even mainly for greens. The biggest buyers are companies. When their electricity comes with a green label, they have taken to going around calling themselves "carbon neutral". Which is good PR. BT has made great play of having cut its carbon emissions by more than half by buying green electricity.
So levy payers have been very willing to pay premium prices to buy "green electricity". So keen, in fact, that they buy more green electricity than is being generated in the first place. It is hard to believe that this is possible within the law, but I am told it is. An electricity supplier that has access to, say, two gigawatt (GW) hours of renewable electricity, can sell 4GW-hours labelled as renewable, says Graham. "Renewable electricity is often being sold twice, perhaps more. Double counting is enormous."
The government may be starting to get a handle on all this. In August, the environment secretary, Hilary Benn, announced plans for a crackdown on companies making dodgy claims about their carbon neutrality.
At this point, you might shrug your shoulders and walk away from this green fantasy land. But not so fast. Because it turns out we have been paying for it all. All electricity customers, regardless of what tariff they are on, pay an average premium on their bills of £10 a year specifically to help pay the electricity suppliers meet their renewable obligations.
We know they don't fully meet those obligations. But surely every scrap of green energy that they do produce is ours, paid for with our £10. But instead they are selling it to others, several times over. In the end, the biggest con seems have been perpetrated not on the buyers of green electricity, but on the rest of us.
• How many more green scams, cons and generous slices of wishful thinking are out there? Please send your examples of greenwash to greenwash@guardian.co.uk or add your comments below
Fuel from food? The feast is over
The Associated Press
Published: November 24, 2008
EDITOR'S NOTE — In a time of sky-high food prices, a hungrier world may have to curb its appetite for fuel made from corn. This is the fourth of five reports in a periodic series on the future of food.
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — In future years we may look back at the Great Mexican Tortilla Crisis of 2006 as the time when ethanol lost its vroom.
Right or wrong, that was when blame firmly settled on biofuels for the surge in food prices. The diversion of American corn from flour to fuel put the flat corn bread out of reach for Mexico's poorest.
Two years later, the search is on for ways to keep corn on the table rather than in the gas tank. Moving away from food crops, the biofuel of the future may come from the tall grass growing wild by the roadside, from grain stalks left behind by the harvest, and from garbage dumps and dinner table scraps.
Carlo Bakker's tiny biofuel operation, World Mobile Plants, avoids edibles. He says his mini-refinery, loaded into a shipping container on a flatbed truck, roams South Africa making biodiesel fuel from used cooking oil, or from sunflower seeds or the jatropha shrub, which grows in poor soil with little water. He says he plans eventually to use organic household waste as well.
Bakker says one mobile unit can make 1 million liters (260,000 gallons) per year, which he sells for $1 (€0.80) per liter, or $3.79 (€3) per gallon,on a par with regular diesel prices.
"We don't compete with the food chain," Bakker said during a biofuels conference in Amsterdam. "We see opportunities not only to make money but to help people."
Governments encouraged the switch to alternative fuels in recent years to lessen dependence on imported oil. But producers are taking a hard look at the food crops used as raw material for these so-called first-generation biofuels. After all, they too had to pay more as prices spiked.
"They got burned. They don't want to go through that problem again," said Vicky Sharpe, director of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which administers a US$1 billion Canadian government fund to invest in clean technologies.
Universities, corporate research laboratories and startup companies are pouring millions of dollars into finding ways to break down woody or grassy biomass for cellulosic ethanol — or second-generation biofuel — that would unshackle ethanol from the volatile food market.
"You will see a movement from first- to second-generation biofuels, because the second generation uses waste streams. They don't enter the food-versus-fuel debate," said Sharpe. "This is just stuff that would be wasted otherwise."
But second-generation technology is still young, and Sharpe believes commercial plants are still several years away.
Food prices rose steadily for the past three years until they peaked last June. Before they retreated, the World Bank said corn prices had tripled since January 2005. Rice and wheat weren't far behind.
Around the world, the poor — U.N. figures say the number of undernourished is approaching 1 billion — protested that they were hungrier than ever. Food riots erupted in 18 countries, from Bangladesh to Haiti. Some 75,000 Mexicans marched in their capital, accusing the government of "stealing tortillas." Some countries imposed export bans to hoard their grain stocks.
World grain harvests had soared, reaching a record 2.3 billion tons last year. But demand continued to grow, not only for biofuel but for animal feed to satisfy an increasingly meaty diet for the growing middle class in India and China.
Just how much influence biofuels had on food prices is debatable. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said biofuel production was responsible for just 3 percent of the global price increases. It said the real culprits were oil prices, which pushed up fertilizer and transportation costs, and the sharp drop in the dollar's value.
On the high end, a World Bank report in June calculated that 70-75 percent of the price rise was due to biofuels and the cascading effect they had on grain stocks, export bans and investor speculation.
"The moderation of global prices over the last few months is scant consolation to the millions who are still facing high domestic prices and have cut back on eating nutritious food and investing in their child's schooling," a World Bank report said in October.
Energy policies played a role. The European Union last year mandated a 10 percent biofuel mix in transport fuels by 2020, and the U.S. set a production target of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022 — compared with 6.5 billion last year, which already consumed almost one-quarter of the U.S. corn crop.
The EU mandate is being reconsidered, and calls are being heard in Washington to rethink the U.S. goal.
Some producers say critics unfairly lump all biofuels together.
"You should look at biofuels as separate kinds of fuel," says Uwe Jurgensen, head of the Association of Dutch Biofuels Producers.
Brazil's massive ethanol industry, based on sugarcane grown on just 1 percent of its arable land, has little impact on edible sugar.
Biodiesel, the biofuel of choice in Europe, is made largely from rapeseed grown on disused land, Jurgensen said. Only 40 percent of the crushed rapeseed is refined into biodiesel, while the rest is processed into the food chain as animal feed.
Blaming biofuels for exploding food prices "was an easy argument. Either you eat or you drive. If you look at it a bit further, you see that is not the case," Jurgensen said, speaking at a gleaming, soon-to-be-open US$110 million biodiesel factory at Rotterdam port.
Peter van der Gaag agrees. The head of BER-Rotterdam, building a plant in the port city to convert 350,000 tons of wheat a year into ethanol and gas, said just 2 to 3 percent of the world's wheat goes toward ethanol. How much impact can it have on the price of bread? he asked.
"Biofuels are certainly not to blame for poverty, but it is easy for environmentalists to give a bad name to biofuels," he said.
In fact, environmentalists are skeptical of even nonfood biofuels, which consume scarce water and are sometimes cultivated on fertile cropland.
"If biofuels were grown on degraded land, that could be a good thing. But it has to be seen with a lot of caution," said Frauke Thies, a Greenpeace campaigner for renewable energy. "We are not opposed to biofuels in principle, but the practices of today are not sustainable."
Even as scientists work on second-generation answers, foodstuffs are likely to remain in the fuel chain for years to come because of government subsidies. In the United States, biofuels have been getting tax credits since 1978. Globally, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates governments supported biodiesel and ethanol with up to US$12 billion in 2006.
Last year, 139 U.S. ethanol plants produced fuel equal to 5 percent of U.S. gasoline consumption. As of July, however, just 33 cellulosic ethanol plants were in the pilot or demonstration phase.
Corn ethanol costs US$1 a gallon to make, but cellulosic fuel from stalks, leaves and straw costs US$5 to US$6. It requires the injection of enzymes to convert plant matter into sugars that are then fermented into ethanol.
Michigan State University's Mariam Sticklen is one scientist trying to reduce that cost, to about US$2 a gallon, by genetically engineering crops to produce their own enzymes.
"It's still early days," she said, "but the world needs a no-food-for-fuel policy."
Published: November 24, 2008
EDITOR'S NOTE — In a time of sky-high food prices, a hungrier world may have to curb its appetite for fuel made from corn. This is the fourth of five reports in a periodic series on the future of food.
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — In future years we may look back at the Great Mexican Tortilla Crisis of 2006 as the time when ethanol lost its vroom.
Right or wrong, that was when blame firmly settled on biofuels for the surge in food prices. The diversion of American corn from flour to fuel put the flat corn bread out of reach for Mexico's poorest.
Two years later, the search is on for ways to keep corn on the table rather than in the gas tank. Moving away from food crops, the biofuel of the future may come from the tall grass growing wild by the roadside, from grain stalks left behind by the harvest, and from garbage dumps and dinner table scraps.
Carlo Bakker's tiny biofuel operation, World Mobile Plants, avoids edibles. He says his mini-refinery, loaded into a shipping container on a flatbed truck, roams South Africa making biodiesel fuel from used cooking oil, or from sunflower seeds or the jatropha shrub, which grows in poor soil with little water. He says he plans eventually to use organic household waste as well.
Bakker says one mobile unit can make 1 million liters (260,000 gallons) per year, which he sells for $1 (€0.80) per liter, or $3.79 (€3) per gallon,on a par with regular diesel prices.
"We don't compete with the food chain," Bakker said during a biofuels conference in Amsterdam. "We see opportunities not only to make money but to help people."
Governments encouraged the switch to alternative fuels in recent years to lessen dependence on imported oil. But producers are taking a hard look at the food crops used as raw material for these so-called first-generation biofuels. After all, they too had to pay more as prices spiked.
"They got burned. They don't want to go through that problem again," said Vicky Sharpe, director of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which administers a US$1 billion Canadian government fund to invest in clean technologies.
Universities, corporate research laboratories and startup companies are pouring millions of dollars into finding ways to break down woody or grassy biomass for cellulosic ethanol — or second-generation biofuel — that would unshackle ethanol from the volatile food market.
"You will see a movement from first- to second-generation biofuels, because the second generation uses waste streams. They don't enter the food-versus-fuel debate," said Sharpe. "This is just stuff that would be wasted otherwise."
But second-generation technology is still young, and Sharpe believes commercial plants are still several years away.
Food prices rose steadily for the past three years until they peaked last June. Before they retreated, the World Bank said corn prices had tripled since January 2005. Rice and wheat weren't far behind.
Around the world, the poor — U.N. figures say the number of undernourished is approaching 1 billion — protested that they were hungrier than ever. Food riots erupted in 18 countries, from Bangladesh to Haiti. Some 75,000 Mexicans marched in their capital, accusing the government of "stealing tortillas." Some countries imposed export bans to hoard their grain stocks.
World grain harvests had soared, reaching a record 2.3 billion tons last year. But demand continued to grow, not only for biofuel but for animal feed to satisfy an increasingly meaty diet for the growing middle class in India and China.
Just how much influence biofuels had on food prices is debatable. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said biofuel production was responsible for just 3 percent of the global price increases. It said the real culprits were oil prices, which pushed up fertilizer and transportation costs, and the sharp drop in the dollar's value.
On the high end, a World Bank report in June calculated that 70-75 percent of the price rise was due to biofuels and the cascading effect they had on grain stocks, export bans and investor speculation.
"The moderation of global prices over the last few months is scant consolation to the millions who are still facing high domestic prices and have cut back on eating nutritious food and investing in their child's schooling," a World Bank report said in October.
Energy policies played a role. The European Union last year mandated a 10 percent biofuel mix in transport fuels by 2020, and the U.S. set a production target of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022 — compared with 6.5 billion last year, which already consumed almost one-quarter of the U.S. corn crop.
The EU mandate is being reconsidered, and calls are being heard in Washington to rethink the U.S. goal.
Some producers say critics unfairly lump all biofuels together.
"You should look at biofuels as separate kinds of fuel," says Uwe Jurgensen, head of the Association of Dutch Biofuels Producers.
Brazil's massive ethanol industry, based on sugarcane grown on just 1 percent of its arable land, has little impact on edible sugar.
Biodiesel, the biofuel of choice in Europe, is made largely from rapeseed grown on disused land, Jurgensen said. Only 40 percent of the crushed rapeseed is refined into biodiesel, while the rest is processed into the food chain as animal feed.
Blaming biofuels for exploding food prices "was an easy argument. Either you eat or you drive. If you look at it a bit further, you see that is not the case," Jurgensen said, speaking at a gleaming, soon-to-be-open US$110 million biodiesel factory at Rotterdam port.
Peter van der Gaag agrees. The head of BER-Rotterdam, building a plant in the port city to convert 350,000 tons of wheat a year into ethanol and gas, said just 2 to 3 percent of the world's wheat goes toward ethanol. How much impact can it have on the price of bread? he asked.
"Biofuels are certainly not to blame for poverty, but it is easy for environmentalists to give a bad name to biofuels," he said.
In fact, environmentalists are skeptical of even nonfood biofuels, which consume scarce water and are sometimes cultivated on fertile cropland.
"If biofuels were grown on degraded land, that could be a good thing. But it has to be seen with a lot of caution," said Frauke Thies, a Greenpeace campaigner for renewable energy. "We are not opposed to biofuels in principle, but the practices of today are not sustainable."
Even as scientists work on second-generation answers, foodstuffs are likely to remain in the fuel chain for years to come because of government subsidies. In the United States, biofuels have been getting tax credits since 1978. Globally, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates governments supported biodiesel and ethanol with up to US$12 billion in 2006.
Last year, 139 U.S. ethanol plants produced fuel equal to 5 percent of U.S. gasoline consumption. As of July, however, just 33 cellulosic ethanol plants were in the pilot or demonstration phase.
Corn ethanol costs US$1 a gallon to make, but cellulosic fuel from stalks, leaves and straw costs US$5 to US$6. It requires the injection of enzymes to convert plant matter into sugars that are then fermented into ethanol.
Michigan State University's Mariam Sticklen is one scientist trying to reduce that cost, to about US$2 a gallon, by genetically engineering crops to produce their own enzymes.
"It's still early days," she said, "but the world needs a no-food-for-fuel policy."
Power in the desert: solar towers will harness sunshine of southern Spain
• Andalucia project will power 11,000 homes• Technology exported to Morocco, Algeria and US
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
The Guardian, Monday November 24 2008
In the desert of southern Spain, 20 miles outside Seville, more than 1,000 mirrors are being carefully positioned. Each is about half the size of a tennis court, so the adjustments will take time. But when they are complete in a few weeks, it will mark a major moment in the quest for renewable energy.
The mirrors are part of the world's biggest solar tower plant, a technology that reflects sunlight to superheat water at a central tower. Once this €80m (£67m) plant is inaugurated in January, it will generate 20MW of electricity, enough to power 11,000 Spanish homes.
Concentrated solar power (CSP) technology, as it is known, is seen by many as a simpler, cheaper and more efficient way to harness the sun's energy than other methods such as photovoltaic (PV) panels. But CSP only works in places with clear skies and strong sunshine.
The Andalucian deserts are an ideal location, and Spain hopes the PS20 plant will enable it to take advantage of its huge solar resource and lead the field in CSP technology.
"The radiation hitting the earth is 10,000 times the consumption of energy," said José Domíngues Abascal, chief technology officer at Abengoa, the Spanish energy company behind the plant. "There is great potential in solar energy."
Abengoa has already built a smaller version of the tower technology to test that the idea works. The 11MW PS10 system has been generating electricity for almost two years. Its new design uses an area larger than 100 football pitches, with 1,255 mirrors, called heliostats, each with a collecting area of 120 sq m. These track the sun as it moves through the day and reflect the energy to the top of a 160-metre tower at the centre of the field. Here, the concentrated light is used to heat water to more than 1000C, producing steam that can turn an electricity generating turbine.
When switched on, the new plant will be the world's largest commercial CSP plant feeding electricity into a national grid. It will be also be a significant step for tower technology, seen as a candidate for the large-scale solar plants of the future.
Spanish firms are charging ahead with CSP: more than 50 solar projects around Spain have been approved for construction by the government and, by 2015, the country will generate more than 2GW of power from CSP, comfortably exceeding current national targets. The companies are also exporting their technology to Morocco, Algeria and the US.
"CSP is at the very beginning of a big boom," said José Luis García, at Greenpeace in Spain. "Spain is in a good position to develop and implement the technology. We have the sun so we are in the best position to lead in this field."
The country's clean energy targets are in line with the EU's plan to source 20% of primary energy from renewables by 2020, which means that 30% of electricity would have to come from carbon-free sources. A new EU renewables directive would increase that electricity target to 40%, but García said Spain could easily reach for more, up to 50%.
John Loughhead, executive director of the UK Energy Research Council, said that Abenoga's tower approach at the new plant was relatively efficient "because what you're doing is concentrating a very large area of sunlight on top of a very small area so you can get very high temperatures".
He added that, given the right environment, solar towers were a credible way to make clean power. "But can you make them cheap enough, will they be reliable enough, will they have the right lifetime?"
Another difficulty for potential developers is cost. In Spain, the generation costs of electricity from CSP are double those from more traditional methods. But Abascal said the price was falling as solar projects got bigger and it would match that of fossil fuel power within a decade.
For now, CSP projects across Spain are built with the promise that the government will pay a premium, known as a feed-in tariff, for any CSP electricity sent into the grid. The PS20 is part of a €1.2bn series of solar power plants based on CSP technologies including tower plants and trough-style collectors - where water is passed in tubes directly in front of parabolic mirrors that collect sunlight - and a few PV panels planned by Abengoa. The solar farm will eventually generate up to 300MW of power, enough for the 700,000 people of Seville, by 2013.
The 20MW solar tower is also a forerunner for an even more ambitious idea, one that Abascal hopes will become a standard for CSP plants in future - a 50MW version that could generate electricity around the clock. "During the day, you'd use 50% of your electricity to produce electricity and 50% to heat molten salt. During the night you use the molten salt to produce electricity."
Molten salt technology is in its early stages but Abengoa is testing the idea at a power plant in Granada. So far the company has demonstrated that it is possible to store up to eight hours of solar energy by heating tanks containing 28,000 tonnes of salt to more than 220C. "This will make it possible to have almost constant production or at least it will be able to produce energy for most of the day," said Abascal.
The European commission has identified CSP as part of its future clean energy technology plan. Earlier this year a representative from its joint research centre argued that CSP could even form a major part of a proposed EU supergrid that would transport electricity, generated in solar plants in southern Europe and northern Africa, across Europe.
The supergrid has received political support from Gordon Brown and France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who has commissioned a feasibility study on the project.
Graveyard generation
The Spanish town of Santa Coloma de Gramenet has placed more than 450 solar panels on top of mausoleums at its cemetery to generate power, it emerged yesterday. The crowded, working-class town outside Barcelona decided that flat, open, sun-drenched land was so scarce that the graveyard was the only viable spot to site the panels, which provide enough electricity to power 60 homes. They rest on mausoleums holding five layers of coffins. The idea was a tough sell, said Antoni Fogue, a city council member. But town hall and cemetery officials waged a campaign to explain the project and the panels were erected at a low angle, to be as unobtrusive as possible."This installation is compatible with respect for the deceased and for the families of the deceased," Fogue said.
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
The Guardian, Monday November 24 2008
In the desert of southern Spain, 20 miles outside Seville, more than 1,000 mirrors are being carefully positioned. Each is about half the size of a tennis court, so the adjustments will take time. But when they are complete in a few weeks, it will mark a major moment in the quest for renewable energy.
The mirrors are part of the world's biggest solar tower plant, a technology that reflects sunlight to superheat water at a central tower. Once this €80m (£67m) plant is inaugurated in January, it will generate 20MW of electricity, enough to power 11,000 Spanish homes.
Concentrated solar power (CSP) technology, as it is known, is seen by many as a simpler, cheaper and more efficient way to harness the sun's energy than other methods such as photovoltaic (PV) panels. But CSP only works in places with clear skies and strong sunshine.
The Andalucian deserts are an ideal location, and Spain hopes the PS20 plant will enable it to take advantage of its huge solar resource and lead the field in CSP technology.
"The radiation hitting the earth is 10,000 times the consumption of energy," said José Domíngues Abascal, chief technology officer at Abengoa, the Spanish energy company behind the plant. "There is great potential in solar energy."
Abengoa has already built a smaller version of the tower technology to test that the idea works. The 11MW PS10 system has been generating electricity for almost two years. Its new design uses an area larger than 100 football pitches, with 1,255 mirrors, called heliostats, each with a collecting area of 120 sq m. These track the sun as it moves through the day and reflect the energy to the top of a 160-metre tower at the centre of the field. Here, the concentrated light is used to heat water to more than 1000C, producing steam that can turn an electricity generating turbine.
When switched on, the new plant will be the world's largest commercial CSP plant feeding electricity into a national grid. It will be also be a significant step for tower technology, seen as a candidate for the large-scale solar plants of the future.
Spanish firms are charging ahead with CSP: more than 50 solar projects around Spain have been approved for construction by the government and, by 2015, the country will generate more than 2GW of power from CSP, comfortably exceeding current national targets. The companies are also exporting their technology to Morocco, Algeria and the US.
"CSP is at the very beginning of a big boom," said José Luis García, at Greenpeace in Spain. "Spain is in a good position to develop and implement the technology. We have the sun so we are in the best position to lead in this field."
The country's clean energy targets are in line with the EU's plan to source 20% of primary energy from renewables by 2020, which means that 30% of electricity would have to come from carbon-free sources. A new EU renewables directive would increase that electricity target to 40%, but García said Spain could easily reach for more, up to 50%.
John Loughhead, executive director of the UK Energy Research Council, said that Abenoga's tower approach at the new plant was relatively efficient "because what you're doing is concentrating a very large area of sunlight on top of a very small area so you can get very high temperatures".
He added that, given the right environment, solar towers were a credible way to make clean power. "But can you make them cheap enough, will they be reliable enough, will they have the right lifetime?"
Another difficulty for potential developers is cost. In Spain, the generation costs of electricity from CSP are double those from more traditional methods. But Abascal said the price was falling as solar projects got bigger and it would match that of fossil fuel power within a decade.
For now, CSP projects across Spain are built with the promise that the government will pay a premium, known as a feed-in tariff, for any CSP electricity sent into the grid. The PS20 is part of a €1.2bn series of solar power plants based on CSP technologies including tower plants and trough-style collectors - where water is passed in tubes directly in front of parabolic mirrors that collect sunlight - and a few PV panels planned by Abengoa. The solar farm will eventually generate up to 300MW of power, enough for the 700,000 people of Seville, by 2013.
The 20MW solar tower is also a forerunner for an even more ambitious idea, one that Abascal hopes will become a standard for CSP plants in future - a 50MW version that could generate electricity around the clock. "During the day, you'd use 50% of your electricity to produce electricity and 50% to heat molten salt. During the night you use the molten salt to produce electricity."
Molten salt technology is in its early stages but Abengoa is testing the idea at a power plant in Granada. So far the company has demonstrated that it is possible to store up to eight hours of solar energy by heating tanks containing 28,000 tonnes of salt to more than 220C. "This will make it possible to have almost constant production or at least it will be able to produce energy for most of the day," said Abascal.
The European commission has identified CSP as part of its future clean energy technology plan. Earlier this year a representative from its joint research centre argued that CSP could even form a major part of a proposed EU supergrid that would transport electricity, generated in solar plants in southern Europe and northern Africa, across Europe.
The supergrid has received political support from Gordon Brown and France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who has commissioned a feasibility study on the project.
Graveyard generation
The Spanish town of Santa Coloma de Gramenet has placed more than 450 solar panels on top of mausoleums at its cemetery to generate power, it emerged yesterday. The crowded, working-class town outside Barcelona decided that flat, open, sun-drenched land was so scarce that the graveyard was the only viable spot to site the panels, which provide enough electricity to power 60 homes. They rest on mausoleums holding five layers of coffins. The idea was a tough sell, said Antoni Fogue, a city council member. But town hall and cemetery officials waged a campaign to explain the project and the panels were erected at a low angle, to be as unobtrusive as possible."This installation is compatible with respect for the deceased and for the families of the deceased," Fogue said.
Obama's green start
Hope of early action on climate change as US president-elect prepares two bills to cut pollution and kick-start a clean energy revolution
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment EditorSunday, 23 November 2008
Barack Obama and congressional leaders are preparing rapid legislation to cut US emissions that cause global warming and to kick-start a clean energy revolution.
Two bills are to be introduced as soon as the President-elect takes office in January. One will provide $15bn (£10.1bn) a year to encourage innovation in renewable energies as part of a thorough overhaul of the highly polluting US energy system. The other will pave the way to setting up a system of tradable emissions permits to combat global warming. The moves, to be taken quicker than expected, will galvanise top-level international negotiations on a new climate treaty that reopens in Poznan, Poland, next week, and will greatly boost attempts to bring in a "green new deal" as the best way out of the financial crisis.
Yesterday – as exclusively predicted in The Independent on Sunday three weeks ago – Mr Obama took the first steps towards creating green jobs, a crucial element of the proposed deal, as a top priority for his forthcoming administration. In his weekly radio address, he announced that he has ordered his advisers to produce an economic recovery plan that will create 2.5 million new jobs in two years by building windfarms, making solar panels and fuel-efficient cars, as well as in modernising schools and re-building crumbling infrastructure.
Senior Democratic sources added that the President-elect had picked Timothy Geithner, head of the New york Federal Reserve Bank to be his Treasury Secretary. "We are facing a sea change," said Barbara Boxer, the Democratic head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of the two new bills. "Instead of denial we will have resolve; instead of procrastination we will have action. The time to start is now."
The energy bill is expected to pass rapidly through the houses of Congress – in both of which the Democrats will have increased majorities – with some experts expecting it to become law by the summer. Sources close to the rapidly forming Obama administration say that it will include tax breaks to encourage wind, solar and other renewable energies, and the creation of a grid to deliver their electricity effectively. There will also be incentives for consumers to buy fuel-efficient cars, and for householders and businesses to conserve energy.
There will be massive investment in developing carbon capture and storage, which removes carbon dioxide from power station emissions. And the bill may include a bid to set a nationwide target for the amount of energy to be obtained from renewable energy. Most controversially, there is likely to be an increase in drilling for oil more than 25 miles offshore, not least to provide revenues to finance the energy revolution.
The climate bill will instruct the US Environmental Protection Agency to introduce a national "cap and trade" system for regulating emissions of carbon dioxide. This gives the polluters limits on what they are allowed to emit, but leaves them able to trade them; so those that clean up fastest will be able to sell unwanted permits to pollute to laggards.
Mr Obama wants to return US emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by 2020, and cut them by a further 80 per cent by 2050. Last week in a video address to a global warming summit he promised to set "strong annual targets" to achieve this. He added: "My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process."
Despite his commitment, some leading congressmen and even some environmentalists believe that a climate bill is unlikely to make it into law this year. Senator Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the upper house's Energy Committee, said last week that it might have to wait until 2010, adding: "The reality is that it may take more than the first year to get it all done." This would imperil the international effort to agree a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which is scheduled to culminate in a massive conference in Copenhagen in a year's time.
But hopes of early action rose dramatically last week when Democratic congressmen overturned their hallowed seniority system and replaced John Dingell, the 82-year-old chairman of the House of Representatives' crucial Energy and Commerce Committee, with a so-called "young Turk" in the shape of 69-year-old Henry Waxman. Rep Dingell has long been an old-school supporter of car-makers and other big industries and has obstructed tough anti-pollution legislation. By contrast, Mr Waxman is an ardent environmentalist who represents Hollywood and Beverly Hills and promises to make passing climate change legislation a top priority.
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment EditorSunday, 23 November 2008
Barack Obama and congressional leaders are preparing rapid legislation to cut US emissions that cause global warming and to kick-start a clean energy revolution.
Two bills are to be introduced as soon as the President-elect takes office in January. One will provide $15bn (£10.1bn) a year to encourage innovation in renewable energies as part of a thorough overhaul of the highly polluting US energy system. The other will pave the way to setting up a system of tradable emissions permits to combat global warming. The moves, to be taken quicker than expected, will galvanise top-level international negotiations on a new climate treaty that reopens in Poznan, Poland, next week, and will greatly boost attempts to bring in a "green new deal" as the best way out of the financial crisis.
Yesterday – as exclusively predicted in The Independent on Sunday three weeks ago – Mr Obama took the first steps towards creating green jobs, a crucial element of the proposed deal, as a top priority for his forthcoming administration. In his weekly radio address, he announced that he has ordered his advisers to produce an economic recovery plan that will create 2.5 million new jobs in two years by building windfarms, making solar panels and fuel-efficient cars, as well as in modernising schools and re-building crumbling infrastructure.
Senior Democratic sources added that the President-elect had picked Timothy Geithner, head of the New york Federal Reserve Bank to be his Treasury Secretary. "We are facing a sea change," said Barbara Boxer, the Democratic head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of the two new bills. "Instead of denial we will have resolve; instead of procrastination we will have action. The time to start is now."
The energy bill is expected to pass rapidly through the houses of Congress – in both of which the Democrats will have increased majorities – with some experts expecting it to become law by the summer. Sources close to the rapidly forming Obama administration say that it will include tax breaks to encourage wind, solar and other renewable energies, and the creation of a grid to deliver their electricity effectively. There will also be incentives for consumers to buy fuel-efficient cars, and for householders and businesses to conserve energy.
There will be massive investment in developing carbon capture and storage, which removes carbon dioxide from power station emissions. And the bill may include a bid to set a nationwide target for the amount of energy to be obtained from renewable energy. Most controversially, there is likely to be an increase in drilling for oil more than 25 miles offshore, not least to provide revenues to finance the energy revolution.
The climate bill will instruct the US Environmental Protection Agency to introduce a national "cap and trade" system for regulating emissions of carbon dioxide. This gives the polluters limits on what they are allowed to emit, but leaves them able to trade them; so those that clean up fastest will be able to sell unwanted permits to pollute to laggards.
Mr Obama wants to return US emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by 2020, and cut them by a further 80 per cent by 2050. Last week in a video address to a global warming summit he promised to set "strong annual targets" to achieve this. He added: "My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process."
Despite his commitment, some leading congressmen and even some environmentalists believe that a climate bill is unlikely to make it into law this year. Senator Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the upper house's Energy Committee, said last week that it might have to wait until 2010, adding: "The reality is that it may take more than the first year to get it all done." This would imperil the international effort to agree a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which is scheduled to culminate in a massive conference in Copenhagen in a year's time.
But hopes of early action rose dramatically last week when Democratic congressmen overturned their hallowed seniority system and replaced John Dingell, the 82-year-old chairman of the House of Representatives' crucial Energy and Commerce Committee, with a so-called "young Turk" in the shape of 69-year-old Henry Waxman. Rep Dingell has long been an old-school supporter of car-makers and other big industries and has obstructed tough anti-pollution legislation. By contrast, Mr Waxman is an ardent environmentalist who represents Hollywood and Beverly Hills and promises to make passing climate change legislation a top priority.
Green scheme scrapped as household recycling is sent to landfill
It could be the end of the green dream for Britons who do their bit for the environment by recycling household rubbish.
By Jasper Copping Last Updated: 8:59AM GMT 23 Nov 2008
After years of rapid growth in the amount of waste recycled, signs have emerged that the world financial crisis could halt the trend.
One council has scrapped a recycling scheme due to a global collapse in the market for waste materials, and is diverting recyclable waste to landfill sties instead.
Hertfordshire county council has withdrawn a scheme that allowed residents to recycle everyday items like yoghurt pots, margarine tubs and other types of plastic packaging, because it has become uneconomical to do so.
The items will now go into landfill sites and the council has asked residents to avoid buying products with too much plastic packaging.
It is thought to be the first case of a local authority scrapping a recycling scheme in response to the recent collapse of the market, as global demand for recyclable materials slumps and prices fall so low that councils and their contractors cannot shift their waste, which is now worthless.
However, industry experts fear more could follow suit and the Local Government Association (LGA) is writing to all councils urging them to resist the temptation to divert recyclable rubbish into landfill.
The Association is already in talks with the Ministry of Defence about using former military bases to stockpile material that cannot be recycled.
The LGA has held emergency talks with Defra, the Environment Agency (EA) and the government's waste quango, Wrap, about the crisis, after which the EA announced it would relax its rules to make it easier for councils to store waste that they could not sell to recycling firms.
The decision by Hertfordshire means that it will no longer accept so-called "mixed plastics" for recycling at its 19 waste collection sites.
However, it will still recycle "rigid" plastics, including bottles and items like garden furniture, and kerbside collection schemes in the county will not be affected.
Councillor Derrick Ashley said: "We're disappointed by this news, as we're sure residents will also be. However, we do appreciate that due to the global financial crisis, there simply isn't the market for some recycled plastics at the moment."
The decision follows a collapse in the price of mixed plastic from about £200 a tonne to almost nothing, as demand from China dried up.
Other prices have seen similar falls, including scrap metal, steel and aluminium, cardboard and mixed low-grade paper and cardboard. Only glass and top quality paper prices have remained steady.
Mountains of plastic bottles, paper and steel cans are expected to build up over the coming weeks and experts predict the problem will be exacerbated by the Christmas festivities, which traditionally sees a surge of packaging materials and drinks containers filling recycling bins.
Dozens of councils and their contractors are understood to have already started storing waste, although few have publicly admitted it, fearing it could undermine public support for recycling schemes.
In Oxfordshire, plastic bottles and card are piling up in depots. Wayne Lewis, spokesman for the Oxfordshire Waste Partnership, said: "At present, despite lower prices, we are managing to recycle material. We are still finding a market for it. But, yes, small amounts are now going into storage at our contractors' depots."
Community Waste, in Milton Keynes, works as a contractor for a number of councils. Its director, Richard Cutts said: "The situation is extremely serious. Few realise just how serious.
"We are continuing to recycle rather than store 2,000 tonnes of waste a week – and that is costing us £70 a tonne. Obviously, we cannot continue to do that forever. At all costs I want to avoid material going to landfill and I am sure that by working closely with customers a solution can be found."
Bristol City Council has also said it is considering starting to stockpile.
The collapse in recycling could strengthen arguments for incinerators to burn waste.
Staffordshire county council is currently one authority trying to construct an incinerator, against strong opposition from environmentalists and local residents.
A spokesman for the LGA said: "We're surveying councils to find out what is going on. A lot of councils have fixed term contracts with companies to deal with the waste, so are not yet feeling the effects.
"Other councils are having problems and are not able to get rid of their waste. There have been measures to help to store waste at their sites. In the longer term, we are looking at ex-military bases. We want them to avoid using landfill."
By Jasper Copping Last Updated: 8:59AM GMT 23 Nov 2008
After years of rapid growth in the amount of waste recycled, signs have emerged that the world financial crisis could halt the trend.
One council has scrapped a recycling scheme due to a global collapse in the market for waste materials, and is diverting recyclable waste to landfill sties instead.
Hertfordshire county council has withdrawn a scheme that allowed residents to recycle everyday items like yoghurt pots, margarine tubs and other types of plastic packaging, because it has become uneconomical to do so.
The items will now go into landfill sites and the council has asked residents to avoid buying products with too much plastic packaging.
It is thought to be the first case of a local authority scrapping a recycling scheme in response to the recent collapse of the market, as global demand for recyclable materials slumps and prices fall so low that councils and their contractors cannot shift their waste, which is now worthless.
However, industry experts fear more could follow suit and the Local Government Association (LGA) is writing to all councils urging them to resist the temptation to divert recyclable rubbish into landfill.
The Association is already in talks with the Ministry of Defence about using former military bases to stockpile material that cannot be recycled.
The LGA has held emergency talks with Defra, the Environment Agency (EA) and the government's waste quango, Wrap, about the crisis, after which the EA announced it would relax its rules to make it easier for councils to store waste that they could not sell to recycling firms.
The decision by Hertfordshire means that it will no longer accept so-called "mixed plastics" for recycling at its 19 waste collection sites.
However, it will still recycle "rigid" plastics, including bottles and items like garden furniture, and kerbside collection schemes in the county will not be affected.
Councillor Derrick Ashley said: "We're disappointed by this news, as we're sure residents will also be. However, we do appreciate that due to the global financial crisis, there simply isn't the market for some recycled plastics at the moment."
The decision follows a collapse in the price of mixed plastic from about £200 a tonne to almost nothing, as demand from China dried up.
Other prices have seen similar falls, including scrap metal, steel and aluminium, cardboard and mixed low-grade paper and cardboard. Only glass and top quality paper prices have remained steady.
Mountains of plastic bottles, paper and steel cans are expected to build up over the coming weeks and experts predict the problem will be exacerbated by the Christmas festivities, which traditionally sees a surge of packaging materials and drinks containers filling recycling bins.
Dozens of councils and their contractors are understood to have already started storing waste, although few have publicly admitted it, fearing it could undermine public support for recycling schemes.
In Oxfordshire, plastic bottles and card are piling up in depots. Wayne Lewis, spokesman for the Oxfordshire Waste Partnership, said: "At present, despite lower prices, we are managing to recycle material. We are still finding a market for it. But, yes, small amounts are now going into storage at our contractors' depots."
Community Waste, in Milton Keynes, works as a contractor for a number of councils. Its director, Richard Cutts said: "The situation is extremely serious. Few realise just how serious.
"We are continuing to recycle rather than store 2,000 tonnes of waste a week – and that is costing us £70 a tonne. Obviously, we cannot continue to do that forever. At all costs I want to avoid material going to landfill and I am sure that by working closely with customers a solution can be found."
Bristol City Council has also said it is considering starting to stockpile.
The collapse in recycling could strengthen arguments for incinerators to burn waste.
Staffordshire county council is currently one authority trying to construct an incinerator, against strong opposition from environmentalists and local residents.
A spokesman for the LGA said: "We're surveying councils to find out what is going on. A lot of councils have fixed term contracts with companies to deal with the waste, so are not yet feeling the effects.
"Other councils are having problems and are not able to get rid of their waste. There have been measures to help to store waste at their sites. In the longer term, we are looking at ex-military bases. We want them to avoid using landfill."
Coal's return raises pollution threat
Rising prices are spurring plans for a big increase in mining despite a threat to climate change goals
John Vidal, environment editor
The Observer, Sunday November 23 2008
Britain is poised to expand its coal mining industry, despite fears that the move will lead to a rise in climate change emissions and harm communities and the environment.
Freedom of information requests and council records show that in the past 18 months 14 companies have applied to dig nearly 60 million tonnes of coal from 58 new or enlarged opencast mines. At least six coal-fired power stations are planned. If all the applications are approved, the fastest expansion of UK coal mining in 40 years could see southern Scotland and Northumberland become two of the most heavily mined regions in Europe.
The demand for new mines is being driven by dramatic increases in the price of coal. This has quadrupled in two years and has risen by 45 per cent since the start of this year. Opencast, or surface, mines are much cheaper than deep mines, but those living nearby can suffer years of pollution.
The increase in mining will embarrass the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, who is arguing that Britain must reduce carbon emissions. Ministers must soon decide whether to approve a controversial new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent, the first in 30 years. 'Attention has been focused on the decision at Kingsnorth, but over the past 18 months local authorities have approved more than 24 new opencast mines and 16 expansions of existing mines,' said Richard Hawkins, of the Public Interest Research Centre (Pirc), which conducted the study.
'There is a clear contradiction between the government's 80 per cent target for climate change emissions cuts and investment in new coal. With industry and government saying carbon capture and storage is at least 20 years away, this shows that the 160m tonnes of carbon dioxide released by burning this coal would not be captured,' he said.
Research shows that Scotland will bear the brunt of the expansion. Currently 11 mines produce about 5m tonnes of coal a year. A further 27 mines could extract a total of 22m tonnes of coal over just a few years. Thirteen of the 27 have already been approved and the rest are awaiting planning decisions.
Northumberland is likely to become the centre of coal mining in England with plans to extract more than 20m tonnes of coal from some of the largest opencast mines in Europe. Wales, which has one of the biggest surface mines in Europe at Ffos-y-Fran, could have five large new mines. The research also suggests that power companies would like to build six new coal-fired power stations. These would replace existing power stations if given the go-ahead but could lock Britain into coal for the next 50 years at a time when it is trying to lead the world on reducing climate change emissions.
According to the research, based on information provided by energy companies, Scottish and Southern, Scottish Power, Eon and RWE npower all have plans at different stages of development. Feasibility studies have been carried out on new plants at Cockenzie and Longannet in Scotland, as well as new stations at Tilbury in Essex, Blyth in Northumberland and Ferrybridge in Yorkshire. Only one application to build, at Kingsnorth in Kent, has so far been put forward.
In the past six months 12 groups, made up of climate change activists and residents, have been set up to object to the plans. There have been big protests in Wales, Derbyshire and Yorkshire and a coal train heading for Britain's biggest power station at Drax in North Yorkshire was hijacked by protesters in June.
Nearly half of all British coal is mined using opencast methods against just 12 per cent 10 years ago, but this is expected to increase significantly. In 2005, total UK production was 20m tonnes, with 9.6m tonnes coming from deep-mined production and opencast accounting for 10.4m tonnes. Nearly 70 per cent of all the coal burnt in UK power stations is imported from Russia, South Africa, Colombia and Australia.
But coal prices have risen far above official projections. 'Part [of the increase in applications] is certainly due to the increase in the world coal price, which follows oil and gas,' said a spokesman for the Coal Authority, the body which regulates the licensing of UK coal mines.
John Vidal, environment editor
The Observer, Sunday November 23 2008
Britain is poised to expand its coal mining industry, despite fears that the move will lead to a rise in climate change emissions and harm communities and the environment.
Freedom of information requests and council records show that in the past 18 months 14 companies have applied to dig nearly 60 million tonnes of coal from 58 new or enlarged opencast mines. At least six coal-fired power stations are planned. If all the applications are approved, the fastest expansion of UK coal mining in 40 years could see southern Scotland and Northumberland become two of the most heavily mined regions in Europe.
The demand for new mines is being driven by dramatic increases in the price of coal. This has quadrupled in two years and has risen by 45 per cent since the start of this year. Opencast, or surface, mines are much cheaper than deep mines, but those living nearby can suffer years of pollution.
The increase in mining will embarrass the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, who is arguing that Britain must reduce carbon emissions. Ministers must soon decide whether to approve a controversial new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent, the first in 30 years. 'Attention has been focused on the decision at Kingsnorth, but over the past 18 months local authorities have approved more than 24 new opencast mines and 16 expansions of existing mines,' said Richard Hawkins, of the Public Interest Research Centre (Pirc), which conducted the study.
'There is a clear contradiction between the government's 80 per cent target for climate change emissions cuts and investment in new coal. With industry and government saying carbon capture and storage is at least 20 years away, this shows that the 160m tonnes of carbon dioxide released by burning this coal would not be captured,' he said.
Research shows that Scotland will bear the brunt of the expansion. Currently 11 mines produce about 5m tonnes of coal a year. A further 27 mines could extract a total of 22m tonnes of coal over just a few years. Thirteen of the 27 have already been approved and the rest are awaiting planning decisions.
Northumberland is likely to become the centre of coal mining in England with plans to extract more than 20m tonnes of coal from some of the largest opencast mines in Europe. Wales, which has one of the biggest surface mines in Europe at Ffos-y-Fran, could have five large new mines. The research also suggests that power companies would like to build six new coal-fired power stations. These would replace existing power stations if given the go-ahead but could lock Britain into coal for the next 50 years at a time when it is trying to lead the world on reducing climate change emissions.
According to the research, based on information provided by energy companies, Scottish and Southern, Scottish Power, Eon and RWE npower all have plans at different stages of development. Feasibility studies have been carried out on new plants at Cockenzie and Longannet in Scotland, as well as new stations at Tilbury in Essex, Blyth in Northumberland and Ferrybridge in Yorkshire. Only one application to build, at Kingsnorth in Kent, has so far been put forward.
In the past six months 12 groups, made up of climate change activists and residents, have been set up to object to the plans. There have been big protests in Wales, Derbyshire and Yorkshire and a coal train heading for Britain's biggest power station at Drax in North Yorkshire was hijacked by protesters in June.
Nearly half of all British coal is mined using opencast methods against just 12 per cent 10 years ago, but this is expected to increase significantly. In 2005, total UK production was 20m tonnes, with 9.6m tonnes coming from deep-mined production and opencast accounting for 10.4m tonnes. Nearly 70 per cent of all the coal burnt in UK power stations is imported from Russia, South Africa, Colombia and Australia.
But coal prices have risen far above official projections. 'Part [of the increase in applications] is certainly due to the increase in the world coal price, which follows oil and gas,' said a spokesman for the Coal Authority, the body which regulates the licensing of UK coal mines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
