EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • UK carbon capture competition ‘dead on its feet ‘says expert

     

    Speaking to BusinessGreen.com, Professor Stuart Hazeldine, a geologist at the University of Edinburgh and leading expert in CCS technologies, said that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) should close the competition and award the funding to Scottish Power to develop CCS at its Longannet plant in Fife in order to prevent any more time being wasted.

    “Scottish Power are the only people who can deliver by 2014 now,” he said. ” The competition timescale has already slipped and to get it back on track the award needs to be made soon.”

    Back in 2007 the government said it would award the winner of its CCS competition around £1 billion to help fund a commercial scale carbon capture demonstration project.

    The government has said it plans to announce the winner some point next year with three proposals in the running: Longannet, RWE npower’s station at Tilbury in Essex, and E.ON’s plans for a new coal plant at Kingsnorth in Kent.

    “RWE npower are showing a manifest lack of movement on their CCS offerings and E.ON have delayed Kingsnorth plans,” said Hazeldine. “That leaves one obvious winner.”

    He added that the long-running competition had discouraged other firms from coming forward with project proposals. “The UK has such a slow track record on developing CCS that anyone who is able to has gone elsewhere,” he said. “We need to get on with it.”

    The government has now committed to helping fund “up to four” CCS plants in the UK. The first – the competition winner – will be funded by the Treasury, but any further plants will be funded primarily from a levy on energy bills.

    As well as awarding the competition to Scottish power, the government should announce a “feed study” – a detailed engineering evaluation – for CCS at Kingsnorth so that E.ON can install the technology when it likely revives the plant in the second half of this decade, Hazeldine advised.

    Hazeldine first made his controversial recommendations at a Westminster energy forum last month, where Martin Deutz, director of the cleaner fossil fuels unit at DECC, defended the department’s position.

    “It is an active commercial negotiation and I’m not going to say anything about the commercial position of each of the companies,” he said. “But I would say that the negotiations that we have been having with the bidders have thrown up a number of extremely interesting and important issues… they are important issues which have to be dealt with financially, operationally and in regulatory terms.”

  • IEA calls for global push to end energy poverty

     

    Energy firms have no incentive to build power plants or connect remote areas to the grid if people are too poor to pay the bills. “It’s not likely to happen unless there’s a major international concerted effort by rich countries,” Birol said. “We will start to push it on to the main agenda at Copenhagen.”

    Birol will appeal for international support on the issue ahead of the Copenhagen summit when he delivers a speech at the UN in New York on 23 November.

    today, the IEA outlined its annual World Energy Outlook, which forecasts that global oil supplies could increase by more than a fifth from just under 85m barrels a day last year to 105m by 2030.

    The Guardian revealed on the eve of the report’s publication that senior figures within the organisation disagreed with its forecast, believing that it would be impossible for the world to maintain oil supplies even at 90m-95m barrels. They claim that the IEA, under pressure from the US and to prevent panic on global stock markets, is deliberately exaggerating the level of accessible new supplies of oil.

    The IEA responded today by publishing on its website a key chapter from last year’s outlook report detailing how it estimates the decline in the rate of production from the world’s largest oilfields. The information is normally only available to those who buy the entire report for €150 (£134). The agency, which dismissed the Guardian’s report as “groundless”, said it wanted to show the public that its research was independent. Birol said: “We are very proud of our analysis and independence. We have a lot of critics. It’s not possible to make everyone happy.”

    The IEA’s forecast of global oil supplies hitting 105m barrels in 2030 represents its “doomsday” scenario, which, it said, would result in catastrophic global warming and energy supplies becoming increasingly vulnerable to terrorists or accidents. This is based on Copenhagen failing to reach a deal that ensures a higher carbon price, which would make the consumption of fossil fuels such as oil and coal more expensive and encourage the use of low-carbon forms of energy such as renewables and nuclear instead.

    This business-as-usual scenario would leave the west even more dependent on oil from the Middle East, it said. Emissions would soar by more than a third from 2007 levels and global temperatures rise by up to 6C over the next two decades.

    Birol said: “The reason why we showed it is to say this is the way that we are going and we should not go there otherwise there will be an accident in terms of climate change and energy security. We do not want it to happen.”

    The IEA, set up to advise its 28 member countries, said that the alternative scenario would see oil consumption only increase slightly between now and 2030. This is based on countries agreeing at Copenhagen to stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million. This would give the world a 50% chance of limiting temperature increases to 2C, it said.

    Birol admitted that there was “lots of resistance” to such a “450 scenario”, particularly among Opec nations which stand to lose trillions of dollars in revenue from lower consumption of oil and gas. But he said the global economic downturn provided a “window of opportunity” for the world to take tough action. Many companies and countries had shelved investment in power plants because of the fall in energy demand. “But in the absence of a signal from Copenhagen, in 2010, or 2011, they will be built,” he warned. “If a coal plant is built, it will emit for 50 years.”

    He added that last summer’s record $147 a barrel oil price had “traumatised” many developing countries into looking for less volatile and costly forms of energy. Birol said oil prices, which had since fallen back to about $80, would continue to be volatile and would rise over the long term.

  • Rees govt spending $100m backing coal power future

    Rees govt spending $100m backing coal power future
     
    Media release: 11 November 2009
     
    The Rees government is squandering $100 million on a discredited
    technology to keep coal-fired electricity as the major source of the
    state’s energy, according to Greens NSW MP John Kaye.
     
    Dr Kaye said: “Former Howard government Resources Minister, Ian
    Macfarlane, has blown the whistle on carbon capture and storage.
     
    “He has publicly stated that such technology is at least 20 years away,
    and it will be 30 years before it will be financially viable.
     
    “Despite the urgent need to address carbon emissions, carbon capture
    and storage, or ‘clean coal’ as it is branded, is being used to justify
    up to three new coal-fired power stations in NSW.
     
    “The Rees government is throwing $100 million of taxpayers money at
    this marketing exercise for the coal mining industry.
     
    “The need to address carbon emission levels is too important for NSW
    Energy Minister John Robertson to play politics by hiding behind mining
    industry marketing rhetoric.
     
    “The community is demanding a transition to a low carbon future by
    embracing jobs-rich, ready to go renewable energy technology, such as
    solar thermal.
     
    “The Rees government should stop subsidising carbon-intensive
    industries. It should abandon plans to hand over generator trading and
    household electricity billing to the corporate sector.
     
    “A just transition will only be possible for the community if energy
    generation, distribution and retail remains in public hands,” Dr Kaye
    said.
     
    For more information: John Kaye 0407 195 455
     
     
    —
    Another message from the Greens Media mailing list.

    Too many messages? Don’t unsubscribe – try switching to a daily digest.
    You can unsubscribe or change your subscription settings here:
    <http://lists.greens.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/options/media>
    Or send an email to <media-unsubscribe@lists.greens.org.au>

  • Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower

     

    The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation’s latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

    ‘There’s suspicion the IEA has been influenced by the US’ Link to this audio

    In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

    Now the “peak oil” theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. “The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year,” said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. “The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today’s number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

    “Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources,” he added.

    A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was “imperative not to anger the Americans” but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. “We have [already] entered the ‘peak oil’ zone. I think that the situation is really bad,” he added.

    The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: “The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans.”

    The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies.

    The IEA said tonight that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned the accuracy of its figures. A spokesman said it was unable to comment ahead of the 2009 report being released tomorrow.

    John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.

    He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. “Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on,” said Hemming.

    “This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation,” he added.

    The IEA was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the west. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of the IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. Peak oil critics have often questioned the IEA figures.

    But now IEA sources who have contacted the Guardian say that Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation.

    Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted.

    A report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could “peak” and go into terminal decline before 2020 – but that the government was not facing up to the risk. Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were “at best optimistic and at worst implausible”.

    But as far back as 2004 there have been people making similar warnings. Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: “If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets … in the end that would suit no one.”

     

  • Spain’s windfarms set new national record for electricity generation

     

     

    At one stage on Sunday morning, the country’s wind farms were able to cover 53% of total electricity demand – a new record in a country that boasts the world’s third largest array of wind turbines, after the United States and Germany.

     

    For more than five hours on Sunday morning output from wind power was providing more than half of the electricity being used. At their peak, wind farms were generating 11.5 gigawatts, or two-thirds of their theoretical maximum capacity of almost 18GW.

     

    The new record, which beat a 44 % level set earlier last week, came as strong winds battered the Iberian peninsula.

     

    The massive output of wind turbines meant the Spanish grid had more electricity than was needed over the weekend. In previous years similar weather has forced windfarms to turn turbines off but now the spare electricity is exported or used by hydroelectric plants to pump water back into their dams — effectively storing the electricity for future use.

     

    José Donoso, head of the Spanish Wind Energy Association, recalled that just five years ago critics had claimed the grid could never cope with more than 14% of its supply from wind.

     

    “We think that we can keep growing and go from the present 17GW megawatts to reach 40GW in 2020,” he told El País newspaper.

     

    Windfarms have this month outperformed other forms of electricity generation in Spain, beating gas into second place and producing 80% more than the country’s nuclear plants.

     

    Experts estimate that by the end of the year, Spain will have provided a quarter of its energy needs with renewables, with wind leading the way, followed by hydroelectric power and solar energy.

     

  • Solar households to get paid for all their power

     

    Solar households to get paid for all their power

    ABC November 10, 2009, 3:09 pm

    The New South Wales Government has reversed its policy on solar power – meaning households with solar energy systems will soon be paid for all of the electricity they generate.

    The state Government is adopting a gross feed-in tariff system for solar energy rather than the net model which is in place in other states.

    The Environment Minister John Robertson says it means households will be paid for all of the electricity produced by solar panels, not just the surplus which is fed back into the grid.

    “It will be the highest payment for families anywhere in the country at 60 cents per kilowatt-hour,” he said.

    “This will provide households the opportunity to reduce their carbon footprint and also ensure they’re generating electricity using solar cells.”

    The opposition’s Catherine Cusack says the scheme has long been Coalition policy.

    “This is a victory for Barry O’Farrell who has argued all along that only a gross feed in tariff will provide the industry with the kickstart that it needs,” she said.

    The scheme will only run for seven years.

    But Greens MP, John Kaye, says that for it to make a real difference it needs to run for 20 years.

    “We will be moving to amend the scheme to make it a scheme for the long term,” he said.

    “To give solar electricity the future it needs in New South Wales, for jobs and for greenhouse.”

     

     

    ———-
    CAWG Mailing List

    To unsubscribe send an email to

    Further information can be found at