The Times of London reported today of a new deal between a small, UK-based tidal energy company, Atlantis Resources, and the government of India, in a plan which hopes to harness the energy of the seas around India for the first time.

The Western Indian state of Gujarat have given the contract to Atlantic Resources, and in particular the Gulf of Kutch and the Gulf of Khambhat (both in the Arabian Sea) will be investigated for their energy-producing potential, owing to the extreme daily tides that act within those areas. If successful, the initial study could lead to millions of pounds being pumped into tidal energy.

India is struggling with a power deficit in the face of a rising population and growing economic weight. The need to increase its power production is set against its appearance at the Copenhagen Summit this December, where India hopes to bring positive environmental goals and actions to the table and promote itself as a progressive nation.

India has already established itself as a word-leader in wind power, and has instigated a $19 billion development plan for solar energy. According to indiaenvironmentportal.org, India’s National Solar Mission intends to have a 20 Gigawatt capacity for solar generation by 2020- and 200 Gigawatts of power from the sun by 2050. To put this in perspective, at present the entire world’s solar generators can generate approximately 14 Gigawatts of solar power.

Despite India’s progressive approach and active measures for renewable power sources, the large population and distribution of wealth means that its energy deficit needs to be countered urgently: up to 400 millions are not connected to the energy grid.

Also, India currently imports 70% of its oil and has only a small bank of coal reserves that it uses to generate electricity. According to reports, India will become one of the three major consumers of energy in the world by 2030, third only behind China and the USA- these measures are part of a much-needed plan to become self-sufficient and sustainable as a country.

The environmental need is also recognised as being essential: the Times quotes the McKinsey report, conducted by consultants for the project, in saying that India is likely to produce 6.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent gases in 2030, compared with 1.6 billion at present.

Posted under Electricity Generation, Environmental News, News, Renewable Energy, Uncategorized

Far more than MPs in the UK, US senators have a certain responsibility to and affiliation with the state that they represent. Acting more as officials and representatives of their area of governance than as a member of a parliament as in Britain, local interests often play a big party in nationwide negotiations.

It has now been posited that one reason for the paralysis on the US Climate Bill is because of exactly this state loyalty; too many senators from coal producing states are opposed to the changes it might enact in their own backyards.

Jeffrey Sachs, Professor of Economics at Columbia University and Director of the Earth Institute, outlined the problem on the guardian website:

“To ratify a treaty requires the support of 67 of the Senate’s 100 members, a nearly impossible hurdle. The Republican party, with its 40 Senate seats, is simply filled with too many ideologues – and, indeed, too many senators intent on derailing any Obama initiative – to offer enough votes to reach the 67-vote threshold. Moreover, the Democratic party includes senators from coal and oil states who are unlikely to support decisive action.

The idea this time around is to avoid the need for 67 votes, at least at the start, by focusing on domestic legislation rather than a treaty. Under the US constitution, domestic legislation (as opposed to international treaties) requires a simple majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to be sent to the president for signature. Getting 50 votes for a climate change bill (with a tie vote broken by the vice president) is almost certain.

But opponents of legislation can threaten to filibuster (speak for an indefinite period and thereby paralyse Senate business), which can be ended only if 60 senators support bringing the legislation to a vote. Otherwise, proposed legislation can be killed, even if it has the support of a simple majority. That will certainly be true of domestic climate change legislation. Securing 60 votes is a steep hill to climb.

Political analysts know that the votes will depend on individual senators’ ideologies, states’ voting patterns, and states’ dependence on coal relative to other energy sources. Based on these factors, one analysis counts 50 likely Democratic yes votes and 34 Republican no votes, leaving 16 votes still in play. Ten of the swing votes are Democrats, mainly from coal states; the other six are Republicans who conceivably could vote with the president and the Democratic majority”.

If analyses are correct and there are 16 votes to play for, then the US Climate Bill still hangs in the balance. But early hopes for a green energy revolution in the US, and a first major green energy sector, look at least for now to have been dashed. With the same impasse expected at Copenhagen – where politicians will have placed numerous pressures on their leaders to protect their own interests -  a global climate deal could be lacking too.

Certainly, whether it be on a global scale or in a US Climate Bill, the world’s most powerful country will set the trend for future plans and investments. Lets hope the US can undertake some in green energy, then.

Posted under Articles, Renewable Energy

It may be imperative that nuclear waste is disposed of in a correct and proper manner, but it is also incredibly expensive. As a result, the government in the UK are considering measures that might reduce the cost; critics argue that a reduction in the cost will lead to a reduction in safety.

Today the Guardian reported the government’s proposals and plans as follows:

“The government is poised to allow nuclear power generators to use ordinary landfill sites for dumping “hundreds of thousands of tons” of waste in an attempt to reduce the £73bn cost of decommissioning old reactors.

The move has triggered a swath of applications around the country from big corporations trying to cash in on this potential new business, but infuriated local councils and campaign groups.

The issue of waste is critical to the government as the stockpile is potentially much greater than previously thought and ministers are keen to encourage the power industry to build a new generation of reactors. Actions being considered by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and its Nuclear Decommissioning Authority include:

• Allowing the nuclear industry to use ordinary landfill sites for disposing of radio​active waste in a more extensive way.

• Allowing the main independent nuclear waste dump at Drigg in Cumbria to reduce its costs by scaling back the level of containment.

• Building a £1.5bn radioactive liquid-waste processing plant at Sellafield, Britain’s biggest atomic site, despite a history of project cost overruns and wider safety concerns there.

• Extending a blueprint for dealing with existing high-level waste to cover that created by future nuclear stations – an “unjustifiable” step, according to the chair of the committee that created the blueprint“.

Whether landfills could really cope with the mass containment of nuclear waste it remains to be seen, but the transitory nature of landfill – it sticks around for a long time, but it is by no means contained – seems somewhat unfitting for the safe closure of nuclear waste.

It goes without saying, then, that for it to be genuinely safe the landfills sites themselves might need a lot of tweaking.

Nonetheless, the proposals seem relatively popular in government, and it would certainly greatly reduce cost. Many environmental groups, though, aren’t so sure; given the potential dangers of nuclear waste, some critics – perhaps too idealistic – argue that if the waste isn’t going to be contained properly, then nuclear power shouldn’t be used at all.

It is the same all or nothing attitude that those who support renewable energy over Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) might propagate. But government seem more interested in the quicker and cheaper solutions in both cases.

Certainly quicker can sometimes be better. But a move away from coal, even if it is towards nuclear power, is perhaps the best option, all things considered.

Posted under Articles, Renewable Energy

Nuclear power, with all its connotations, is nonetheless one of the most advanced forms of new energy. Accepted long before solar power or wind power, and implemented already on a mass scale – albeit in a military sense – we are aware of its capabilities.

It constitutes a near bottomless resource, and one that is certainly more sustainable than coal. Theoretically speaking, it is also low in pollution. Why so much hesitation in the use of nuclear power, then?

On the controversial divide around nuclear power, George Monbiot has written as follows:

“There’s little doubt that nuclear power could be produced safely and cleanly. There’s also little doubt that it seldom has been. The contrast between the way things are and the way they should be threatens to split the environmental movement from top to bottom.

But the persistent trouble with nuclear power – like any other potentially polluting industry – is that doing things the right way is expensive, while doing them the wrong way is cheap. My new-found complacency about nuclear power – it’s ugly, but not nearly as bad as a global climate crash – was shaken by the discovery last month of a shipwreck off the coast of Italy. The ship was one of 42 believed to have been scuttled by the ‘Ndrangheta, the Calabrian mafia. Most were sunk off the coast of Somalia.

The wreck appears to be stuffed to the gunwhales with Norwegian nuclear waste, despite the fact Norway has some of the strictest environmental regulations on Earth. The UN has pointed out that it costs roughly 400 times as much to dispose of dangerous waste legally as it costs to look the other way. The temptation to cut corners often proves overwhelming. I would choose nuclear power over coal, and nuclear dumping over climate breakdown, but I would rather have neither“.

As Monbiot argues, nuclear power is a technology that’s great when in the hands of the good and terrible if standards slip. The gulf in theory and practice to which Monbiot points is one that centres on financial measures; as he writes, its much cheaper simply to dump waste, than contain it properly.

Nuclear power is a technology that requires that time and effort, and it is unlikely that – looking simply at the experience of history – most people are going to take the hard but virtuous path.

Despite its obvious green credentials, then, nuclear power stands to be a terrible pollutant. Perhaps that gulf can be reconciled, but until then, nuclear power will navigate a difficult bridge between environmentalists who favour its green attributes, and those who might produce it quickly and at less cost.

If there’s no reconciliation, indeed, then it will remain on the outskirts of the green energy family.

Posted under Renewable Energy

The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference is now under two months away, and many issues are still, fundamentally, to be resolved. Will Europe support America in their reluctance for setting a worldwide CO2 emissions reduction benchmark? Can India reconcile its views with the Western major powers? And which side, at the close, will China fall in that divide?

Nothing is certain; some politicians are even claiming that the possibility of a total breakdown is a very real one. But the rhetoric from major leaders is one of heroism, of seizing the day so that it can last out for others. Whether that rhetoric will necessitate action, it remains to be seen.

Nonetheless, Gordon Brown has spoken under such terms, to a group of environmental ministers from leading countries, at a meeting of the Major Economies Forum. Brown stated as follows:

“In every era there are only one or two moments when nations come together and reach agreements that make history, because they change the course of history. Copenhagen must be such a time. There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late.”

The extraordinary summer heatwave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35,000 extra deaths. On current trends, such an event could become quite routine in Britain in just a few decades’ time…And within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren the intense temperatures of 2003 could become the average temperature experienced throughout much of Europe. In Britain we face the prospect of more frequent droughts and a rising wave of floods.

We cannot compromise with the earth, we cannot compromise with the catastrophe of unchecked climate change, so we must compromise with one another…I urge my fellow leaders to work together to reach agreement amongst us, recognising both our common and our differentiated responsibilities – and the dire consequences of failure“.

Britain will certainly be one of the most important negotiators at the talks – through not, perhaps, as important as the US, India and China – and Brown’s understanding of the conference as a key moment in history should certainly appeal to the narcissism often apparent in political circles; perhaps indeed history can be made at Copenhagen, and world leaders will make sure that their names are known in the process.

It remains to be see though, if leaders can agree to binding emissions cuts, or to a programme of sustainability that might include green energy and renewable energy on larges scales.

Posted under Articles, Renewable Energy

As part of Energy Saving Week, which runs from the 19-25 October, British citizens were canvassed on their knowledge of climate change. Given a series of statements about causes of climate change, measures that try to tackle climate change, and more, those involved in the poll showed that Britain is pretty on the ball about the subject and what it involves.

Having a good general understanding of the issues is of course a positive thing – though something quite different from having a good application of them – and government has made sure to commend the findings of the poll. Joan Ruddock, minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), commented as follows:

“I’m not surprised British people know more about climate change because we are leading the world in cutting carbon emissions to prevent global warming. This effort puts the UK in a strong position ahead of the Copenhagen summit negotiations in December. With climate change on the national curriculum, British children will get a better understanding as to why it’s important to switch off lights and computers when they’re not in use. Considering around 40 per cent of carbon pollution is a result of personal choices, there is huge potential for everyone to start bucking the trend. Energy Saving Week is a great place to start“.

One thing that the poll also showed, though, is that children – despite perhaps being the most ingrained in an energy efficient way of thinking, through school – are the most wasteful people in Britain. There is a gulf, then, between learning and application; hopefully as Ruddock argues the presence of the issues in the national curriculum will help that situation.

For now, though, the Energy Saving Week will make do with theme days, each designed to put theory into practice. They are as follows:

• Monday: Wasteful behaviour & Launch day
• Tuesday: Warmer homes day (Insulation)
• Wednesday: Smarter driving day (Transport)
• Thursday: Switch off/turn down/turn off day
• Friday: Buy better day

Taking one key energy efficiency theme each day the programme should help households across the UK see how simple it is to put in place effective measures for energy savings. No doubt, too, Energy Saving Week will promote the New Labour energy saving mantra: save energy, save money.

On a wider level, though, the attention that Energy Saving Week will draw to energy efficiency could spotlight the ongoing debates around green energy and renewable energy, and the rival technology Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which both have strong claims to production for the ‘new generation’ of energy creation.

With CCS currently a big favourite with a lot of government ministers, and it seems with the DECC, Energy Saving Week is a good time for those supporters of green energy and renewable energy to put forward their argument.

Posted under Articles, Renewable Energy

Greenpeace, speaking out on the many benefits of a renewable energy drive that would see solar energy, wind power, hydroelectricity and others implemented across the US, has claimed that an organised sector could generate around eight million jobs.

Adding to the possibilities of the green energy technologies, which are widely publicised as sustainable and virtually zero carbon (most of the carbon emissions generated from such technologies, of which there is still little, is in the manufacture and transportation of the technology) Greenpeace’s job generation assertion fits renewable energy nicely into a pattern of continued growth and a return to stability in the economy.

General Secretary of the International Union Trade Confederation, Guy Ryder, stated that

“Now is the time to put in place a ‘just transition’ to sustainably transform the jobs of today and develop the decent and green jobs of tomorrow…The union movement, as well as the authors of this report, believe ambitious climate action by world leaders can and must be a driver for sustainable economic growth and social progress“.

It has been reported that many politicians, particularly in the UK and the US, favour Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) over renewable energy, which it is argued represents a quicker fix with still effective consequences. Further, some have claimed that CCS could generate a vast wealth for those that can store it – island countries like the UK, and also the US – who might see high demand for the submergence of the frozen carbon.

A further objection to a move towards green energy is a possible loss of jobs; a loss that would not be present under CCS, which still uses coal-fired power stations as its core means of energy generation.

Greenpeace, though, argue that a renewable energy sector would create more jobs than would be lost in the coal industry. Greenpeace USA Campaign Director Damon Moglen commented as follows:

“Global leaders can tackle the twin crises of global economic recession and climate change head on by investing in renewable energy…For each job lost in the coal industry our green energy scenario, known as the Energy [R]evolution, creates three new jobs in the renewable power industry. We can choose green jobs and growth or unemployment, ecological and social collapse“.

An intriging statistic that should help us reassess the possibilities of renewable energy and above all CCS, which – though no doubt effective – will cause its own problems too, in the long term; there is no more vast storage space than the sea, that too is finite. CCS, then, could see cause new pollution problems of its own, renewable energy might still then be the answer, many generations on, when the problem of climate change will perhaps be far more grave.

Posted under Articles, Renewable Energy

In terms of single contributions to carbon emissions worldwide, the US and China are continued worst offenders. Interestingly, then, the mass production of green energy in China could see the latter boost its economy massively, and helping the US towards a carbon emissions reduction, without reducing its own habits in the slightest.

Bruce Mulliken of Green Energy News stated as follows:

“China, the People’s Republic of, is on track to be number one in wind capacity and likely the world’s largest producer of wind turbines. In less than a decade, utility scale, megawatt class wind turbines with a “Made in China” label will be arriving in U.S. ports. You can almost bank on that prediction. China is already a leader in solar photovoltaic energy and soon will be building and exporting zero emission electric cars. Low energy LED lighting is likely another China-dominated export. Because of its large population China will struggle to become a “green” country, but its industries will benefit as other nations work to cut emissions.

The U.S. Senate is now beginning debate on a climate bill. Debate is likely to get as ugly as that over health care. Some form of legislation could pass, eventually, that would lead to a mandated cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The Chinese economy will benefit as industries here in the U.S. seek technologies to make those cuts. Chinese energy technology imports won’t dominate the American energy landscape, of course, but there will be a noticeable presence.

Right now, China’s economy is recovering from not so much a recession but a slowdown. China barely skipped a beat in last year’s financial collapse. The U.S. economy, while officially out of recession, is struggling with record high unemployment, so it will feel like recession here for a long time“.

China is fast becoming the world’s dominant producer of wind and solar energy technology, and the US Climate Bill – if it gets through senate – could rely heavily on these technologies. A possible scenario then: China, without substantially reducing its own emissions, becomes the chief provider of green energy technology, opening a gateway to a cleaner economy worldwide, servicing particularly – with its superior finances – the US.

Strange indeed, but entirely possible. In such a case, China could become both the hero and the villain of the new green energy technologies, and of general carbon emissions reductions, helping to reduce global warming whilst remaining the longstanding pillar of the current paradigm of energy consumption.

Unbalanced though it is, and undesirable though it may be, China’s power of production, plus the difficult it would see in reducing carbon emissions in such a populous and still developing country, could genuinely see China emerge as a well provider that has no menas for its own consumption.

Posted under Articles, Renewable Energy

As part of the UK’s Green three Good Energy have a certain responsibility to provide man outlet for their customers to share in their passion for renewable energy and their anxieties around climate change, global warming and sustainability.

To that end, they have headed three distinct initiatives showing that they practice that they preach:

• Working from within: People in high places in government like what we have to say so we get invited to a load of meetings to help shape the future strategy of the UK. Juliet, our CEO, sits on the Renwables Advisory Board and Ofgem’s Environmental Advisory Group. We attend numerous working groups within Ofgem, we are member of the Micropower Council and the British Wind Energy Association … oh yes and Juliet also is a director of Regen South West.
• Making a noise: Sometimes when we feel very strongly about things we get active and send letters to MPs and newspapers. We also ask our customers to write letters of support for generation projects. Take a look at some of our recent press releases to see what we have been up to.
• Partnership activity: We also join forces with our campaign partners on specific campaigns – organisations including Action Aid, Friends of the Earth, Soil Association, Sustrans, and Tearfund.

Alongside that activism they have a number of business achievements. The Green tariff accreditation is one of the most notable, as it states that Good Energy are genuine providers of renewable energy and green energy, not simply an organisation trying to cash in on the new wave of environmental conciousness.

They have also produced a number of products that can help with energy consumption.

A summary of their notable products and accreditations is as follows:

• Launch of homegen product in 2004. To get this product off the ground we had to work with Ofgem to get the finances sorted. Since then lots of other electricity suppliers have brought out something similar, although ours still has the best payment terms for total generation.
• Launch of renewable heat product in 2008. Good Energy has just launched a renewable heat product. We want to demonstrate to the government that with the right financial incentives there will be greater uptake of renewable heat. Still early days so watch this space.
• Green tariff accreditation. Knowing just what is a green tariff and what is greenwash is tough going, but we’ve been working within the industry to get something straightforward for customers to understand, and now we’re happy to tell you we’ve made progress. We’ve signed up to Ofgem’s recently revised Guidelines for Green Tariffs. The guidelines will form the basis for an independent accreditation scheme for green tariffs, allowing consumers to more easily differentiate between truly green tariffs and greenwash.
• Feed-in tariff analysis. A feed-in tariff (FIT) is an additional payment made to renewable generators to boost renewable generation. We have been offering our own FITs for small scale generators through our  HomeGen and SmartGen scheme for a number of years now, so we know how they work. We compiled this report, released in 2009, which is an analysis of the FIT models under consideration by the Government

Good Energy, then, are certainly more than a company producing green energy.

Posted under Articles, Renewable Energy

A committee designed to advise government on and set binding targets for climate change policy and carbon emissions in the UK, the Climate Change Committee have published a report titled ‘Meeting Carbon Budgets – The Need for a Step Change’ which outlines specific steps that government can take to reduce national carbon emissions levels.

With a number of the suggestions focused on energy efficiency, the Climate Change Committee are focusing much of their suggestions of emissions cuts on improvement of current facilities; insulation of homes on a mass scale is one much touted possibility. The CCC has made it clear that whatever changes are made must come under the banner of a national initiative. The Guardian Newspaper reported as follows:

“The Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) published an ambitious plan to move to a low-carbon economy in July. But the CCC report, Meeting Carbon Budgets – The Need for a Step Change, is first time the committee has published its analysis of what is needed for this to be achieved. Kennedy directed his heaviest criticism at the government’s leading policy, to reduce carbon emissions from homes by 35% by 2020. The carbon emissions reductions target (Cert) came into effect last year and places an obligation on energy suppliers to help homeowners reduce household emissions until 2012. “Cert has been very good at insulating old ladies’ lofts and sending energy saving lightbulbs through the post,” said Kennedy. “But we need a national programme for energy efficiency.” He added that companies selling energy were not always best placed to advise customers on how to reduce demand.

The committee recommends insulating 10m lofts and 7.5m cavity walls by 2015, plus solid wall insulation for 2.3m homes by 2022. This would require a “whole-house approach” under which an audit of each house is carried out, says the report, and schemes that would see work carried out street by street“.

The second part of their proposal focuses on implementations of new energy initiatives. In an effort to bring down national carbon emissions from the energy sector by at least 50%, the CCC has suggested that 23GW of wind power be introduced to the national grid, and has also suggested that three nuclear power plants are built and active by 2022.

In their proposals, though, there was no place for other forms of green energy, and this move has been criticised. McKinnon and Clarke energy consultant David Hunter stated that,

“It is laudable that we set these goals. But wind is available 30% of the time, so 70% of the time you have to rely on something else like fossil-fuelled power stations. Nuclear and wind aren’t good bedfellows because nuclear produces a steady baseload and can’t step in when wind is down.”

Once again, then, it seems that the possibilities of green energy in the UK are not being fully utilised and realised.

Posted under Articles, Renewable Energy