Blogger

Are you guilty of a "musn't, not now, can't" mentality?

Thu, 23 May 2013 23:05:00 +0000

Too many industries claim to support action on climate change, but still resist any measures that challenge polluting business-as-usual models

Last week I had one of those weird days where events appeared to conspire to create their own narrative arc, which is always handy when your job entails wrestling a narrative from seemingly disparate events.

The day started with a breakfast briefing hosted by PR company Edelman on whether energy companies can restore their battered reputation, which raised plenty of interesting questions about why utilities are held in such low regard they make your local estate agent look like a beacon of trustworthiness, but provided far fewer answers about what energy executives can do about their dismal popularity ratings.

One of the most interesting aspects of the discussion was the way in which the industry representatives on the panel, led by Energy UK's chief executive Angela Knight, were pretty dismissive of the role green energy could play in restoring consumer trust. There was an acknowledgement renewable energy companies had done some "good things" marketing themselves (did I detect a hint of condescension?), but there was also a warning that we have to consider renewable energy costs and a pretty clear rejection of the idea that clean energy can play a key role in restoring consumer confidence in energy companies, regardless of the fact a clear majority of the public favour clean energy.

Coincidentally, that afternoon I then had a coffee with a contact at BT who gave me the nod that the telco giant was preparing to announce that it had signed a deal with Npower to source 100 per cent of its power from renewable sources. Some commentators have questioned the impact this commitment will have on actual UK renewable energy capacity, given we have a binding renewable energy target and investment is primarily driven by the government's various subsidy mechanisms. But one thing is clear: if a company that uses almost one per cent of the UK's power says it only wants renewable power, it seems strange to suggest that the provision of green electricity has no role to play in improving relations between energy companies and their customers.

The day then ended with John Ashton's lecture on the parlous state of UK climate politics and the binary choice we face between what he described as a "must, now, can" approach to decarbonisation and a "mustn't, not now, can't" mentality. According to Ashton, the "mustn't, not now, can't" approach is in many ways just the more respectable face of the climate denier dismissal of climate change as a threat, given that both schools of thought urge businesses and policymakers to "cling to business as usual and hope for the best".

It is a compelling and hard-hitting analysis and one that took me full circle, back to the breakfast briefing earlier in the day and the panel's reluctance to talk about decarbonisation and how energy companies should use green technology as a means of reaching out to disillusioned customers. It is a stance that is not only in contradiction to growing demand for green energy from BT and others, it also looks like an example of the "musn't, not now, can't" mentality in action.

Across numerous industries this approach has become worryingly embedded. Most intelligent executives accept that we have to decarbonise our economy and take action to tackle climate change, but when it comes to the steps that are actually needed there is a tendency to argue that "musn't" take such bold steps, or we should but "not now", or we could but they "can't" work. In the most blatant cases, as embodied by BusinessEurope's recent efforts to trash modest climate policy reforms, these delaying tactics are a pretty transparent attempt to destroy all policies that challenge business-as-usual, while clinging to the fig leaf argument that you would like to see action on climate change taken at a later date. More insidious are the numerous industries that accept decarbonisation in principle, but still quietly lobby against ambitious policy and technology deployment on cost or feasibility grounds. Sometimes their concerns are justified, often they are not, and always they lead to a delay in the steps necessary to deliver decarbonisation.

Of course, delivering decarbonisation at the lowest possible cost is hugely important, as Policy Exchange's Guy Newey eloquently argued on BusinessGreen earlier this week. It is possible, indeed it is highly desirable, to embrace an ambitious "must, now, can" approach to climate change that is in no way financially profligate and seeks to deliver decarbonisation in the most cost-effective way possible. In fact, Newey puts forward some credible proposals for how this could be done – personally, I don't agree with all of them, but it is clear you can raise concerns about the cost of some low-carbon technologies and then set out an alternative approach that you think can still deliver rapid decarbonisation.

The problem is that many of those industry groups and commentators who criticise the cost of clean energy or seek to undermine low-carbon policies and investment don't do this. They explain why we "musn't" follow a particular path to decarbonisation, but then fail to offer any credible proposals for climate action that we "must" take instead.

The one point that Energy UK's Knight made last week that I agreed wholeheartedly with was the assertion that "we should not run away from the fact that we are going to go through a transition period that will lead to more investment, more jobs but also more costs. We may want to move to more renewables that cost more at the moment – in that case be upfront about it and sell the story." It is great advice, the energy industry, green NGOs, and politicians should be making a compelling case for investment in clean energy that we must make in order to realise a huge range of environmental and economic benefits. But is the energy industry really doing this? Is Energy UK doing this? Is it demanding a honest debate about energy policy and costs in order to make the case for why decarbonisation and clean energy is essential? Or is it demanding that debate so as to turn the public against clean energy and energy efficiency policies that are having a (still relatively modest) short-term impact on bills? The fact that the answers to these questions remain opaque tells its own story.

It would be better for everyone if the debates on energy and climate policies were honest and open – honest and open about costs, benefits and climate impacts. It would also be better for everyone if the companies that actually stand to benefit from the low-carbon transition fully embraced the future and started cheerleading for it, rather than clinging to a business-as-usual approach that threatens everyone's long-term interests.

As the UN Global Compact and Accenture's upcoming survey of global CEOs will soon reveal, a gap is opening up between those businesses, like BT, who have embraced the "must, now, can" approach to climate threats, and those who are nominally committed to tackling climate change but are all too willing to obfuscate and delay in support of the status quo. It is perfectly justifiable for businesses to have a problem with certain low-carbon policies and technologies; after all we are at the start of a long economic transition and some of these policies and technologies will be flawed. But it is not justifiable to attack measures that are designed to deliver decarbonisation without putting forward credible alternative pathways towards a low-carbon future. Ashton is right: there are only two options. All business leaders should be asking themselves whether they embrace the "must, now, can" brio that should always characterise the best entrepreneurs, or whether they are happier siding with the "musn't, not now, can't" stance beloved of corporate dinosaurs.

Marked – Sterkere spot tross storflom

Thu, 23 May 2013 20:53:24 +0000

(Montel) Spotprisen økte videre til tross for at store deler av Sør-Norge er rammet av flom. Lenger ute på kurven falt prisene på våtere varsler og som følge av at spotprisen økte mindre enn ventet.Fredagens systempris ble 38,29 EUR/MWh, opp ni cent fra torsdag. Prisen ble litt lavere enn det markedet hadde ventet.

Systemprisen har styrket seg fra og med onsdag denne uken, til tross for flommen på Østlandet.

– Det er kanskje ikke så overraskende at spoten er sterk, fordi selv om vi får store nedbørsmengder og snøsmelting, så har vi litt begrensede snøressurser i fjellet. I tillegg går noe av vannet til spille på Østlandet, så det blir interessant å se hva situasjonen er når flommen er over, sier John Brottemsmo, analytiker i Bergen Energi.

Statkraft meldte torsdag ettermiddag at flomfaren i Telemark og Numedalslågen er over i denne omgang, takket være at mye av smeltevannet og all nedbøren fra Hardangervidda har blitt stoppet i magasinene. NVE på sin side er derimot svært bekymret for situasjonen for innsjøen Øyeren i Glomma-vassdraget hvor vannstanden kan overgå flommen fra 2011 med hele 90 centimeter. Vannføringen i Glomma ventes å nå 3.000 kubikkmeter/sekund nedstrøms Øyeren.

Selv om vannføringen i elvene på Østlandet nå er svært stor, rapporterte både Energiselskapet Buskerud og Eidsiva at virkningsgraden til elvekraftverkene synker med 10-20 prosent når det er svært høy vannstand nedstrøms kraftverkene.

Andre faktorer som støtter opp om spotprisen er lavere forventet vindkraftproduksjon, samt at den svenske kjernekraftproduksjonen bare går på 43 prosent på grunn av årlig vedlikehold i flere reaktorer.

Lenger ute på kurven falt juni-kontrakten med 0,4 euro til 34,50 EUR/MWh på Nasdaq OMX, mens Q3 13-kontrakten endte ned 0,53 euro til 35,00 EUR/MWh. 2014-kontrakten falt 0,38 euro til 35,65 EUR/MWh.

– Det er litt våtere varsler som trykker ned prisene. Men på grunn av de sterke spotprisene faller ikke Q3-kontrakten gjennom nivået på 35 euro, sier Jon Ove Heen, sjef for krafthandel i Markedskraft.

Værvarslene viser at det skal komme 5,1 – 8,9 TWh med nedbør i Norge og Sverige de neste ti dagene, mens normalen er 4,1 TWh. Temperaturene i Norden ventes i snitt å ligge rundt normalen på 12 grader, ifølge SMHI.

Gert Ove Mollestad
gert@montel.no
15:47, Thursday, 23 May 2013

NVE: Vannstanden skal fortsatt øke

Thu, 23 May 2013 20:49:05 +0000

Oslo (NTB-Fredrik Ljone Holst): Vannstanden øker fortsatt i nedre deler av Glomma, Gudbrandsdalslågen og Drammensvassdraget, opplyser NVE i et oppdatert flomvarsel.

I varselet som ble utstedt ved 14-tiden torsdag, heter det at vannføringen fortsatt er svært stor i mange vassdrag i Sør-Norge, men nå har nådd toppunktet i de fleste sideelvene. Samtidig øker vannføringen fortsatt i nedre deler av Glomma, i Gudbrandsdalslågen og i Drammensvassdraget.

Stigende vann i lavlandet

Det neste døgnet er det ventet mer nedbør på Østlandet, og vannstanden vil øke i en rekke av de større innsjøene i lavlandet de neste dagene, melderNorges energi- og vassdragsdirektorat (NVE).

I Telemark, Buskerud, Oppland og Hedmark er det varslet opptil 20 millimeter nedbør lokalt. Utviklingen i disse fylkene vil fortsatt avhenge av hvor mye mer nedbør som kommer, men NVE tror ikke at det vil bli en betydelig økning i vannføringen i området.

Over 2011-nivå

I Drammenselva ventes vannføringen å overstige nivået fra 2011 i løpet av helgen. I Nedre del av Gudbrandsdalslågen vil vannføringen fortsatt øke noe, og i Mjøsa er vannet ventet å nå 6 meter på den lokale skalaen allerede fredag, og det kan stige ytterligere 90 centimeter neste uke. Vannstanden vil i så fall være 20 centimeter høyere enn i juni for to år siden.

Også lenger ned, i Øyeren, er vannstanden mandag ventet å være 90 centimeter høyere enn i juni 2011. Vannføringen i Glomma nedenfor Øyeren vil ifølge NVE ligge noe høyere enn en 10-årsflom.

Direktoratet melder at det er avtagende fare for jordskred, men at intense lokale byger kan gi stedvis stor skredfare.

Mindre flom i nord

Også i store deler av Nord-Norge er det større vannføring enn normalt, blant annet fordi varmt vær har satt fart i snøsmeltingen.

NVEs varsel for den nordlige landsdelen minner om fare for sørpeskred der det fortsatt er mye snø i fjellet og jordskredfare i Troms og Finnmark. Vefsna har kulminert på et nivå som tilsvarer femårsflom. Det samme ventes å skje i Altaelva og Tanaelva i løpet av torsdag eller fredag, mens Rana og Målselva har kulminert uten å gå over målet for normal vårflom. (©NTB)

The post NVE: Vannstanden skal fortsatt øke appeared first on .

Rising energy dependency endangers Europe’s economy

Thu, 23 May 2013 13:43:08 +0000

The issue of energy may have been overshadowed by that of tax at yesterday’s EU summit of Heads of State in Brussels, but its growing importance and impact on Europe’s economy is one that cannot be ignored. As the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, Europeans are paying a lot for their energy – prices are [...]

The post Rising energy dependency endangers Europe’s economy appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Climate change committee report on EMR

Thu, 23 May 2013 11:15:00 +0000

Investing in low-carbon technologies and decarbonising the power sector by 2030 could save the country £25 to £45 billion, according to the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) in a new report. But to get there the government must avoid a 'dash for gas' approach and think long term, it warns.

The government is planning big changes to the power sector. It aims to shift to a low carbon system and maintain energy security - while keeping costs down - through a policy package known as Electricity Market Reform (EMR). But in a report out today, the CCC says that the government's lack of clarity about where energy policy is going, and particularly the suggestion that it might also be expanding the amount of power the country gets from gas, is threatening the entire process.

If the country is really going to shift to a low-carbon energy system, the committee says the government must think more strategically.

Defining a strategic approach

What would a more strategic approach look like? The government has made a plan for how it's going to source 15 per cent of the country's energy from renewables by 2020. But the committee says the government must look far beyond that date.

According to the CCC, this approach would include:

Announcing how much funding it intends to commit to low-carbon technologies in 2030, as it already has for 2020, under the Levy Control Framework;
Publishing strategies for how it is going to develop the less mature low carbon technologies - for example offshore wind, or carbon capture and storage (CCS);
Giving investors certainty on how much government support wind power will receive right up to 2019, and signing contracts with developers so they can start planning to build new wind farms in the 2020s;
Setting out options for how it is going to mobilise finance for the low-carbon economy - from banks, institutional investors, or the new Green Investment Bank.

This all sounds to us a bit like the low-carbon industrial strategy that the government launched back in 2009. The strategy contained plans for how the country was going to build up supply chains for low-carbon technologies, develop new technologies like tidal power, and attract new manufacturing - of wind turbines, for example. We're not sure exactly how much of this plan ever emerged into reality, however, as little mention has been made of it since.

Cost savings

The committee reiterates its call for the government to decarbonise the power sector by 2030 - in more technical terms reducing emissions from the power sector to 50g per kilowatt hour of electricity.

It argues that a clear commitment to hitting the 50g target would provide revenue certainty for investors, drive investment in low-carbon technologies and make the UK one of the 'early movers' in developing low-carbon technologies like carbon capture and storage and offshore wind.

According to the CCC's modelling in the long term this could save the country somewhere between £25 and £45 billion under its central predictions for the future price of gas and the carbon price. But this could rise to £100 billion with high gas and carbon prices. The cost savings would arise because the country avoids the cost of relying on gas, and of having to decarbonise rapidly in future because it would already have laid the foundations.

What you aim for versus what you get

The CCC is scathing about the government's gas strategy, launched last December. The gas strategy suggested three possible futures for UK energy policy - including a 'dash for gas' scenario where significantly more gas generation would be built. Publishing "such widely varying scenarios for sector development" has created confusion amongst investors, the committee says.

There are some similarities between the gas strategy and the CCC's modelling. Both documents suggests that the country could reduce the power sector's emissions intensity to 100g of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour by 2030 - and still hit its emissions targets.

But in the CCC's report, this outcome is very much "Plan B". It accepts that energy policy is very uncertain and it is hard to make meaningful predictions. For example, nuclear power could turn out to cost more than the government expects; carbon capture and storage technology might not deliver; or offshore wind might turn out to be more expensive than hoped.

In these cases, the country might fail to meet the 50g target, and emissions intensity might be reduced to 100g of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour by 2030. But crucially, under the CCC's assumptions, the less mature low carbon technologies would still have been developed. The country would have a wide diversity of low-carbon technologies to rely on, not just gas and nuclear:

The CCC contrasts the government's approach with its own, saying:

"...a scenario with high nuclear deployment, but low investment in CCS and offshore wind during the 2020s (e.g. as assumed in the government's emissions projections) could deliver a similar emissions intensity but would leave the UK overly reliant on a single low-carbon technology. This would imply unacceptable costs and risks of achieving the 2050 target and/or of very high electricity prices required to deploy uncommercialised low-carbon options at scale after 2030."

As our teachers used to say: to fail to prepare is to prepare to fail.

Pay now, save later

It's worth pointing out that the report is based on a crucial assumption - that the UK government and governments worldwide will be committed to decarbonising in the future. Indeed, the CCC's prediction of savings in the UK is based on there being an effective carbon price.

And in the UK, cutting emissions and reforming the electricity market continues to present a challenge to politicians focused on short-term energy bills, especially as the savings the CCC predicts depend on high renewable rollout - which will cost money.

In fact, in the short term, the CCC estimates that subsidies for low-carbon technologies will add £100 to consumer energy bills by 2020. The greatest economic benefits from investing in low carbon would come after 2030 - which, when the next election is in just two years, is a long time in politics.

Chief executive of the CCC, David Kennedy, gave Carbon Brief his opinion:

"Some people might say this is about the 2030s and 40's, so who cares? But lot of us hope to alive then, and so will our kids our grandkids. It's the same argument as about national debt or pensions. Energy is the same, you have to think long term. It's about not lumbering future generations with burdens they can't cope with."

Daily climate and energy links - 23rd May 2013

Thu, 23 May 2013 09:15:00 +0000

Green energy could save Britain up to £100 billion, says Government climate advisers
Paying for more wind farms and nuclear power stations may be costly in the short term but will save the country up to £100 billion in the long run, the Committee on Climate Change has suggested. But this clashes with the pursuit of gas, reports The Independent.
The Telegraph

News:

Greg Barker: 'The era of negawatts has arrived'
The energy and climate change Minister insists this week that energy saving measures are businesses' "greatest ally".
BusinessGreen

Stop picking on UK companies, says SSE boss Ian Marchant
Politicians attacking British listed companies risks driving big businesses abroad, chief of power supplier SSE says. This comes as SSE warns consumers to brace themselves for further increases in energy bills, reports the Financial Times.
The Telegraph

Climate change 'spurred modern human behaviour'
Abrupt climate change in Africa helped trigger technological and cultural advances in early modern humans, according to new research.
BBC News

GWPF Invites Royal Society Fellows For Climate Change Discussion
In response to a suggestion by Sir Paul Nurse, the President of the Royal Society, the Global Warming Policy Foundation has invited five climate scientists to discuss the fundamentals of climate science.
The GWPF

China unveils details of pilot carbon-trading programme
China's pilot carbon trading scheme will cover 638 companies responsible for 38 per cent of the city's total emissions, officials have announced.
The Guardian

Davey: Scottish independence threatens green energy boom
Energy secretary Ed Davey has warned that the collective UK energy system has underpinned the success of Scottish renewable industry so far, but this is unlikely to continue if the country votes for independence next year.
BusinessGreen

Commentary:

A second chance to save the climate
Further commentary from scientists on a new climate sensitivity paper, which suggested temperatures might not rise as much as some models predict in the short term.
New Scientist

Has Global Warming Stalled?
A useful summary from climate scientist Kevin Trenberth on his recent paper about deep ocean heat uptake - and what it means for the pace of global warming.
Royal Meteorological Society

Climate change caused the Oklahoma tornado? Crikey, these people are getting desperate!
James Delingpole takes umbrage at suggestions by US politicians that the recent tornado could be linked to climate change - so much so that he may stop writing about climate science altogether.
The Telegraph

Making Sense of the Moore Tornado in a Climate Context
How climate scientists are making advances in getting to the bottom of how rising temperatures could affect tornadoes now and in the future. Andy Revkin has an interesting discussion between scientists on his dot earth blog.
Climate Central

Can solar keep the UK's lights on?
A critical look at suggestions that solar power could be the UK's best option for meeting electricity demand in 2015.
Carbon Counter

Science:

On the value of consensus in climate communication
John Cook looks at climate communicator Dan Kahan's criticisms of his new paper, which found that 97 per cent of surveyed climate scientists support the consensus that climate change is human-caused.
Skeptical Science

Volcanoes cause climate gas concentrations to vary
A new paper explains how scientists are using satellites to better understand how trace gases and tiny particles released when volcanoes erupt influence the climate.
PhysOrg

Status strømmarkedet torsdag 23. mai 2013

Thu, 23 May 2013 07:50:48 +0000

Spotpris (systemprisen) for torsdag 23. mai 2013 ble på 28,6 øre/kWh eksklusive mva, litt opp fra i går.

Som prisene i kartet viser betaler en Oslo kunde 27,4 øre/kWh eksklusive mva, mens en Tromsø kunde betaler 28,5 øre/kWh, det samme.

Det settes en spotpris for hver dag. Spotprisen for fredag blir ikke kjent før ca kl.12:30 torsdag. Det er spotprisen som er kraftleverandørenes fysiske innkjøpspris og det er den prisen kraftprodusentene får når de produserer kraft.

Kunder som ligger på spotprisavtaler hos Gudbrandsdal Energi avregnes etter Konkurransetilsynets krav om månedlig gjennomsnittlig pris som grunnlag. Et lite påslag på de spotprisene du ser i kartet og du har pris ut til kunde eksklusive mva. Mva er på 25%.

Vi har i øyeblikket en magasinfylling på 34,9 % fylling for Skandinavia. Betydelig opp fra sist uke, og en hydrologisk balanse på 18 TWh under normalen.Hydrologisk balanse er summen av vannmengden i magasinene pluss produksjonsrelatert snø som ligger i fjellet og tilsig fra terrenget. Dette måles mot det som er normalt for årstiden

Det er spådd 2,0 TWh mer enn normalt med nedbør neste 10 døgn i følge EC operasjonell. Det er meldt varmere enn normalt i hele perioden. Værtypen er lavtrykksdominert. Det er spådd noen dager med mindre nedbør enn normalt midt i 10 døgnsperioden før nye lavtrykk kommer inn. Det er meldt svært vått utover i perioden.

Kjernekraftproduksjonen i Skandinavia litt opp fra i går etter at Forsmark 2 ble startet opp etter årlig vedlikehold. Samlet kjernekraftproduksjonen går på 56 % av full produksjon. Ringhals 1 og 4, Oskarshamn 1 og 3 samt Forsmark 3 er tatt ut av produksjon pga av årlig vedlikehold. Det Finske kjernekraftverket Olkiluoto 1 er startet opp igjen etter årlig vedlikeholdsperiode. I tillegg er det noen reaktorer som går på litt redusert effekt.

Det er planlagt at ytterligere 1 kjernekraftreaktor i Skandinavia tas ut av produksjon i mai for årlig vedlikeholdsperiode. En vedlikeholdsperiode kan ta en mnd. tid.

Marginalkostnaden for kull er lav om dagen så det gir kullkraftprodusentene insitament til å produsere. Vi har også i en lang periode hatt svært lave priser i Tyskland. Dette genererer import til Skandinavia, noe det er behov for med dagens svake hydrologiske situasjon her hjemme. i dag er dog den tyske prisen høyere enn den Skandinaviske spotprisen (systemsprisen)

Kundene må forberede seg på høyere strømpriser i sommer i forhold til normalen grunnet den dårlige hydrologiske balansen, men vi ser den siste tiden at snøsmelting og mye nedbør har presset ned strømprisene en god del.

(NB! Systemprisen er fellesprisen som settes for Skandinavia eksklusive Baltikum. Dernest blir det korrigert for kapasitetsbegrensninger områdene i mellom og spotpris pr. prisområde blir beregnet. Når områdeprisene beregnes er landene i Baltikum med i beregningen).

Jan Jansrud

Markedssjef

Gudbrandsdal Energi

Billig strøm bestilles her: www.ge.no

Prisene i kartet er oppgitt i kr/MWh. Flytt komma en plass til venstre og en får resultatet i øre/kWh.

The post Status strømmarkedet torsdag 23. mai 2013 appeared first on .

Flom – status 23.05.2013

Thu, 23 May 2013 06:24:41 +0000

Oppdatert 14:50:

Situasjonen i Kvam er uforandret. Planlegging av provisoriske anlegg er i gang hos GE. Vannstanden i Laugen synes å ha kulminert.

30 kunder er uten strøm på baksida mellom Ringebu og Lia. Mannskaper er i gang med feilretting.

Om ikke noe nytt skjer, kommer neste oppdatering fra GE i morgen etter kl. 08.

Oppdatert 11:00

Statusgjennomgang kl. 11:00

Situasjonen i Kvam er under forverring.
Vi har fått en ny feilsituasjon på baksida mellom Ringebu og Sør-Fron, der 30 kunder nå er uten strøm. De som var uten strøm tidligere i dag har nå stort sett fått strømmen tilbake, når vi ser bort fra kriseområdet i Kvam.

GE har fullt mannskap ute på feilretting og overvåkning.

Ny oppdatering etter kl. 14:00.

Oppdatert 09:10:

Vi har hatt statusgjennomgang kl. 08.00 – ingen vesentlige nye hendelser. Det er vedvarende sterk flom – verst fortsatt i Kvam. Der er situasjonen slik at vi bare må avvente med å gå inn for å få oversikt.

Ellers i distriktet vårt er det 10 abonnenter fortsatt uten strøm – 5 fikk igjen strømmen i natt etter hard jobbing fra våre folk.

Vi tror vi klarer å holde vannet ute fra hovedkontoret selv om det er truet fra to kanter – bekk fra jernbanen og innsig fra Lågen.

I Øyer stiger vannet betydelig og installasjonene våre i forbindelse med ny E-6 kan være utsatt. Vi har vakt i området.

Status 23.05.2013 kl. 07:30:

Gudbrandsdal Energi satte beredskap i går ca. kl. 14:00, med beredskapsleder og ekstra bemanning på sentralbord og alle vaktfunksjoner.

Montørstaben har vært i fullt arbeid i forbindelse med utbedring og sikring av anlegg, og opprettholdelse av driften i hele går til langt på natt. Vi har tatt en pause midt på natta, men går på med full innsats på morgenkvisten i dag, for å fortsette med feilretting og utbedringer.
Vi har hatt problemer med å komme fram, da veiene er stengt mange steder. Men vi har klart å sørge for strøm til nesten alle kundene våre gjennom flommen.

Høyspent:
66 kV linje Ringebu – Tretten falt ut i 22.05 kl 18:33. Det ble utført en foreløpig linjebefaring, og tre på linja ble fjernet. Det gjenstår en mer grundig befaring av linja før den friskmeldes og spenningsettes igjen. Dette har høy prioritet å få utført fra torsdag morgen ut fra reservemating og beredskap.

Nettstasjon 11100 Åa i Kvam er utkoblet på grunn av flommen i Storåa. Ca. 70 kunder tilknyttet denne nettstasjonen er uten strøm. Prognosen er at vi kan få lagt inn denne igjen torsdag formiddag, etter å ha sikret tilknyttet kabelanlegg.

Lavspent:
Ca. 15 kunder i Ringebu og Fronskommunene uten strøm. Disse vil bli prioritert tidlig torsdag.
Vi har tre kunder på Fåvang bakside som kan risikere lengre strømbrudd på grunn av ras, og faren for nye ras. Det ble vurdert som stor risiko å oppholde seg i rasområdet.

Kraftverkene:
Kraftverkene har gått som de skal.
Vinkeldammen i Ringebu har vært opp mot 1,20 m over høyeste regulerte vannstand (HRV). Dette er tiltaksgrensa for å sette beredskap for ekstra overvåkning. Vi har gjennomført streifvakt på anlegget på observasjonspunkter beskrevet i beredskapsplan. Vannføringen er for nedadgående, og er nå 0,88 m over HRV. Ved 1,20 m over HRV er vannføringen i Våla, (gjennom kraftverket og overløp) ca. 170 m3/s.
For Moksa på Tretten har vi hatt en fast vannstand i Åkvisla inntaksdam på 0,27 m over HRV, som tilsvarer en vannføring i Moksa inn i Åkvisla inntaksdam på ca. 25 m3/s.

Feilretting:
Vi har en del nettanlegg hvor det ble gjort provisorisk reparasjon og sikring i går, og anlegg som trenger tilsyn, vurdering og evt. utbedring i dag. Dette er oppgaver som vil bli prioritert og tatt tak i dag.

Vårt hovedkontor på Vinstra:
En bekk har gått over sine bredder og tatt vei mot adm.bygget. Vi har sikret mot administrasjonsbygget med et par gruslass.
Vannstanden i Gudbrandsdalslågen forbi hovedkontoret ligger på ca. 1800 m3/s. Ved pinseflommen i 2011 var vannføringen ca. 2300 m3/s forbi våre kontorer.

The post Flom – status 23.05.2013 appeared first on .

Trekkfuglene returnerer i full fart

Thu, 23 May 2013 06:20:21 +0000

Stockholm (NTB-TT): Så er det bevist, det mange fugleentusiaster har trodd. Trekkfuglene legger inn et ekstra gir når de flyr nordover om våren.

Det er nemlig en fordel å komme fram tidlig.

– De fuglene som først når fram til hekkeplassene, kan velge de beste territoriene og den beste partneren, sier Cecilia Nilsson, som er doktorgradsstipendiat ved Lunds universitet.

Sammen med forskerkolleger har hun sammenstilt data om trekkfugler fra hele verden, og kan for første gang vise med sikkerhet at fuglene flyr fortere under trekket om våren enn om høsten.

Resultatene er publisert i det siste nummeret av det vitenskapelige tidsskriftet The American Naturalist.

Dobbelt så fort

Hos noen arter er tempoforandringen ikke så stor, men andre arter dobler hastigheten og har i tillegg kortere pauser underveis.

Det er blant annet ved hjelp av GPS-lignende teknologi at forskerne nå kan få undersøkt fuglenes oppførsel under sesongforflytningene. De kan følge både hele flokker og enkeltfugler.

– Man har lenge trodd at fuglene flyr fortere mot hekkeområdene enn bort fra dem. Men det er først med moderne teknikk at vi har kunnet føre bevis for tesen, forteller Nilsson.

Lange turer

Det er stor forskjell på farten til ulike fuglearter. Den aller raskeste er dobbeltbekkasinen, som kan komme opp i en hastighet på 97 kilometer i timen. Det bruker bare to– fire døgn på å fly 4.300 og 6.800 kilometer.

Den trekkfuglen som forflytter seg lengst, er rødnebbternen. Den flyr cirka 80.000 kilometer i året, og legger bak seg strekningen Arktis– Antarktis på mellom to og tre måneder.

Gjennomsnittshastigheten for små trekkfugler er cirka 40 kilometer i timen.

Dårlig tid

Mange tror at fuglene flyr raskere om våren fordi været er mer stabilt og dagene lengre enn om høsten. Men forskerne i Lund peker også på andre betingelser.

– For de lavtflygende fuglene er det veldig viktig med tidlig hekking, slik at ungene blir tilstrekkelig stabile og sterke for å orke den neste, tøffe forflytningen til høsten. Trolig er det innebygget hos dyrene at de forbrenner mest energi på det som kommer best til nytte, sier Nilsson. (©NTB)

The post Trekkfuglene returnerer i full fart appeared first on .

Website Redesign Federal Network Agency

Wed, 22 May 2013 18:32:35 +0000

The German Federal Network Agency has redesigned its website. The revision also affects the English pages.

As with all design updates, information may be found in new places when navigating on the site. However, it appears that links to the previous version of BNetzA’s website for the most part continue to function as previously, leading to redesigned pages. English language information on the site continues to be limited.

Data on current and previous PV feed-in tariffs is available here.

BNetzA provides a short overview of its international activities in English. Bundesnetzagentur’s 2012 annual report Magazine is now available here.

EEG Clearing Agency Issues Vote on Need for Stationary Installation of PV Power Plants

Wed, 22 May 2013 17:56:30 +0000

Clearingstelle EEG (EEG Clearing Agency) has issued a vote concerning the need for a stationary installation of PV power plants in order to receive solar feed-in tariffs under the Renewable Energy Sources Act 2009 as applicable until 31 December 2011 (EEG 2009). The agency also commented on the legal situation under the EEG 2012.

In line with a prior recommendation issued in 2010 EEG Clearing Agency held that a stationary installation (ortsfeste Installation) of PV power plants was not a prerequisite for the commissioning of a plant in the sense of Section 3 no. 5 EEG 2009, on which the start and duration of EEG payments depend.

Section 3 no. 5 EEG 2009 read: “”commissioning” shall mean the first time an installation is put into operation, following the establishment of operational readiness, irrespective of whether the generator in the installation was put into operation using renewable energy sources, mine gas or other energy sources”

In the case at hand claimant built a PV power plant on his property in late 2010 and early 2011. On 29 December 2010 223 modules with a capacity of 44.27 kW were installed. Another 716 modules with a capacity of 136.04 kW were also delivered in December 2010, but could only be installed in early 2011 due to extreme weather conditions. According to a statement by the supplier dated 28 December 2010 all the modules (including the ones not yet installed on the roof of claimant) were operational. Hence EEG Clearing Agency held that all modules had been commissioned in the sense of Section 3 no. 5 EEG. Therefore claimant was eligible for solar feed-in tariffs as payable on 31 December 2010.

EEG Clearing Agency pointed out that the legal situation has changed since the amendment of the EEG 2012 that entered into force on 1 April 2012. At the time Section 3 no. 5 EEG was supplemented by two more half-sentences, one of which reads: “the operational readiness depends on the stationary installation of the plant at the place intended for permanent operation and the permanent installation of supplies needed to generate alternating current”.

Source: Clearingstelle EEG

Scientists: How Matt Ridley misinterpreted new climate sensitivity paper

Wed, 22 May 2013 16:30:00 +0000

A new paper suggesting temperatures might not rise as much as some models predict in the near future has been interpreted in some corners - notably by Matt Ridley in the Times - as a sign that climate change no longer poses a problem. But the authors have spoken out against Ridley's arguments, highlighting why pinpointing earth's sensitivity to greenhouse gases relies on more than one estimate.

The story stems from a letter in Nature Geoscience on Sunday with a new estimate of what scientists call equilibrium climate sensitivity. That's the total warming we can expect from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, compared with pre-industrial levels.

Climate sensitivity is important because the higher it is, the more warming there will be. In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated a likely range of between two and 4.5 degrees Celsius, with a best estimate of three degrees.

More than one way to estimate climate sensitivity

There are different ways to go about calculating climate sensitivity - which is part of the reason the IPCC's range is so large. The new study used what's called an energy budget model, which used land, atmosphere, ice and ocean temperatures between 1970 to 2009 to see how warming in all parts of the climate system has changed in that time. We wrote more about the new paper here.

Scientists can also use natural recorders of temperature - called climate proxies - to look at how earth's temperature has changed in response to greenhouse gases throughout its distant past. The third way is using complex climate models to simulate how processes affecting temperature rise are likely to evolve in the future.

Uncertainties about some of these processes - particularly how clouds affect the rate of warming - means climate model estimates can vary quite widely.

New estimate

Most of the media coverage surrounding the new paper focusses on earth's Transient Climate Response (TCR). This is a simplified measure of climate sensitivity that estimates the amount of surface warming we can expect at the point of a doubling of carbon dioxide.

Importantly, TCR doesn't take into account heat that's going into the deep oceans rather than staying in the atmosphere. Scientists think natural cycles are driving the deep oceans to take up more heat at the moment, causing surface temperatures to rise slower recently than in previous decades.

The new paper suggests a best estimate of TCR based on data from the last decade of 1.3 degrees, but because of uncertainty around the measurements it could be as low as 0.9 degrees or as high as two degrees.

The authors suggest that unlike their estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity - which is largely consistent with model projections - their range of TCR is lower than some models predict. This is the point some parts of the media have picked up on.

Media misinterpretation

In a piece for the Times, Conservative peer and member of skeptic thinktank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Matt Ridley, compared the new paper's estimate of TCR with that of the Met Office's HadGem2 model, which suggests a value of 2.5 degrees.

In a blog for yesterday's Guardian, co author on the new paper Myles Allen disagrees with the point Ridley's trying to make with his comparison. Allen says:

"[Ridley] is worried that government policies are misguided because they place their faith in climate models, like one of the Met Office models that puts the warming instead at 2.5 degrees Celsius, almost twice our estimate."

But, as Allen explains, scientists don't place all their confidence in just one model. He says:

"Climate scientists are all well aware the Met's model (HadGEM2) is at the top end of the current range. The Met Office's advice to government is based on the range of results from current climate models, not just their own."

Allen is making the point that scientists use a number of climate models to make robust temperature projections - and if a comparison is to be made, it should be with the average of all the models, not just HadGem2. He says:

"The relevant comparison is not with the 2.5 degrees Celsius response of one model, but with the average of climate models used by the UN's climate science panel [the IPCC] in its upcoming major report, which is 1.8 degrees Celsius. Now, 1.3 degrees is 30 per cent less than 1.8 degrees Celsius, but this is hardly a game changer."

Allen's explains that at 1.8 degrees, the average value of climate sensitivity from all the models is within the 0.9 to two degree range of uncertainty that accompanies the new paper's estimate. In other words, the two estimates aren't inconsistent with each other.

As part of a longer discussion on the paper's conclusions, lead author on the paper Alexander Otto makes a similar point in an article for the Met Office.

The fact that the uncertainty ranges of different methods of estimating climate sensitivity are still quite large is another reason the IPCC's range is unlikely to be refined just yet.

Damage done

Ridley goes on to suggest that given the new lower estimate of sensitivity, the negative effects of climate change we're likely to experience before the end of the century are negligible. He says:

"There is little doubt that the damage being done by climate-change policies currently exceeds the damage being done by climate change, and will for several decades yet … At this rate, it will be the last decades of this century before global warming does net harm."

Part of Ridley's argument is that rolling out renewables "dwarf[s] any possible [economic] effects of worse weather, for which there is still no actual evidence anyway: recent droughts, floods and storms are within historic variability."

Although it's certainly difficult to attribute particular events to climate change, scientists suggest rising temperatures are stacking the decks towards more extreme weather. As Allen puts it:

"Try explaining to a casino bouncer that it doesn't matter you are using loaded dice because a triple-six is within historic variability."

Warming in the pipeline

While TCR gives a useful indication of the surface warming we can expect in the next few decades, scientists turn to equilibrium climate sensitivity for the full picture of the total warming - at earth's surface and in the oceans - we can expect in the long term. We wrote a bit more about the difference between the two measures of sensitivity here.

The new paper's estimated range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is consistent with that of current climate models. Contrary to Ridley's suggestion that scientists are "backing away from rapid warming", this means projections of how much warming we can expect in the future remain unchanged - at least for now.

While the precise value of climate sensitivity poses an interesting scientific question, many argue tackling the policy response is by far the bigger problem. As Allen puts it:

"If this means we can move on from a sterile debate about the global response to much more interesting questions about regional impacts, the rights of different generations, and, most interesting of all, what to do about it, that's great. Ridley, welcome to the real climate debate."

Tornadoes and climate change - what does the science say?

Wed, 22 May 2013 16:15:00 +0000

Monday's tornado in Oklahoma highlights the threat extreme weather poses to human life, and has prompted some to ask if human-caused climate change is partly to blame. Unfortunately, that's a question scientists still can't answer.

The overwhelming response in the media and online in the wake of the tornado has done a pretty good job of accurately reflecting the science, which is so far unclear over whether theres a link between climate change and tornadoes.

This statement from scientist Michael Wehner sums up the situation pretty well:

"With tornadoes, what we don't know is as much as what we do know."

Tornadoes 101

Before we dig into the science in more detail, here's a quick introduction to what tornadoes are and how they form.

Tornadoes are narrow, spinning columns of air reaching from a the base of a thunderstorm down to the ground. They actually only account for a fraction of the energy released in a thunderstorm, but that energy is concentrated on a small area.

As the video below shows, tornadoes need two critical conditions to form: warm moist air and high 'wind shear'. Wind shear is the spinning motion caused when winds at different heights blow at different speeds. It's the moisture and high winds which cause most of the destruction when a tornado hits.

What does the science say?

Trying to establish whether tornadoes activity will change as the climate warms is tricky for a number of reasons, as a recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlights.

First, scientists don't have a complete, good quality data set on tornadoes that have already occurred. Without a long reliable record, scientists can't easily look to see how tornadoes have changed since temperatures started rising.

Second, computer models used to simulate the climate can't tell scientists much about tornadoes either. That's because these models work on large scales, simulating changes in the ocean and the atmosphere on a global scale. In comparison, tornadoes are small weather events. As Dr Suzanne Gray, a meteorologist from Reading University explains:

"Tornadoes are too small-scale for current climate models to simulate, so it is not possible to say very much about how strength and occurrence might alter under climate change."

Then, there's one final problem. Climate change is likely to affect the two critical conditions for tornado formation - atmospheric moisture and wind shear - in opposite ways. The atmosphere is expected to hold more moisture as temperatures rise, making tornadoes more likely. But wind shear will probably decrease, having the opposite effect. Scientists can't say whether one force will override the other.

Climate change and the Oklahoma tornado

Given how hard it is to find any link between climate change and tornadoes, it's no surprise scientists say individual events, like the tornado which struck Oklahoma, cannot be pinned to climate change. As IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri reiterated yesterday:

"One really cannot relate an event of this nature to human-induced climate change. It's just not possible. Scientifically, that's not valid."

Scientists worldwide are continually researching tornadoes to find out how their frequency and intensity might change in the future. As time goes on, the record of past tornadoes will grow too - providing a bigger set of data to spot trends in. It seems logical that climate change will have some effect on tornadoes, but for now it's very hard to say what that effect will be.

Strømpris uke 20

Wed, 22 May 2013 11:09:45 +0000

Figuren nedenfor til venstre viser innkjøpsprisen på strøm de siste årene samt børsprisen (kraftbørsen Nordpool) Strømprisen har falt noe den seneste tiden og ligger i dag på ca 27 øre/kWh frem til i oktober før den øker til ca 30 øre/kWh siste kvartal i år.

Tabellen øverst til høyre viser strømprisen pr uke. Varmt vær med mye snøsmelting de siste dagene har ført til nedgang i uke prisene. Uke 16 ble levert på 31,6 øre/kWh mens uke 20 har falt med 15 % i forhold til uke 16 og ble levert på 26,9 øre/kWh.

Inneværende uke ser ut til å bli levert på i underkant av 27 øre/kWh i Nord Norge mens prisen for neste uke ligger i dag på Nordpool på ca 26,3 øre/kWh.

Vårt spot tips for neste uke for Nord Norge er 27 øre/kWh.

Share/Bookmark

ECC committee says government must outline what Green Deal success looks like

Wed, 22 May 2013 10:20:00 +0000

Parliament's Energy and Climate Change (ECC) committee has told the government to get a move on with monitoring the success of its core energy efficiency policies in a new report, out today.

The ECC committee is concerned the government hasn't worked out what a successful energy efficiency rollout would look like, let alone how to assess whether it meets those criteria. Says the report:

"It is unacceptable that, three years into the life of this parliament, ministers are incapable of defining the actual goals of one of the coalition's flagship policies."

Despite the government's assertion that the Green Deal is intended as a long-term project, press attention has focused on the number of people to sign up - or not - over its first few months in operation.

According to the committee, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said the Green Deal and ECO schemes' main objective is to reduce carbon. It has calculated potential carbon savings of 4.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year by 2020.

DECC also hopes the schemes will benefit an extra 100,000 low-income households per year. In written evidence, DECC also estimated the schemes would support between 39,000 and 60,000 jobs in the energy efficiency sector by 2015.

Beyond carbon savings, the committee suggests the government could measure "boosting the low carbon economy, empowering consumers, empowering businesses, levering in new private investment, and ensuring consumer standards are met" to get a wider picture of the success of the Green Deal and ECO.

There's a lot riding on the success of the Green Deal and ECO: government advisor the Committee on Climate Change told the committee that for the UK to stay within its carbon budgets, six to seven million cavity walls, seven million lofts and over one million solid walls must be insulated by 2020.

But the committee advises against setting targets for efficiency schemes, warning they could lead to hard selling "or even mis-selling" to reach goals.

Assessing whether or not the Green Deal and its sister policy, the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) - aimed at supporting the fuel poor to insulate their houses - are a success requires long-term monitoring. While it's not possible to assess a project's success or failure in a few short months, it's not possible simply to trust that takeup will improve with time, either.

Daily climate and energy links - 22nd May 2013

Wed, 22 May 2013 09:55:00 +0000

Households 'ripped off' over energy bills as Ofgem says investigating company profits too 'intrusive'
Families are at risk of being ripped off over their energy bills because the regulator is refusing to find out why companies are making "outrageous" profits, MPs said today.
Telegraph

News:

Businesses hail plans for energy efficiency payments
Businesses and green groups have welcomed government plans to pay companies to curb their energy use, despite concerns that its chosen method for driving reductions in power demand could fail deliver the £2.3bn of promised economic savings by 2030. The Times criticises the move, saying consumers will foot the bill.
BusinessGreen

Shale gas could supply a third of UK needs, says IoD
Britain's shale gas reserves could "be a new North Sea for Britain", meeting more than a third of annual gas needs, reducing dependence on imports and generating significant tax revenues, according to the Institute of Directors.
Financial Times

Insurers: Tornadoes have done record damage in last five years
Analysts at insurance companies say the weather is getting worse over the long term - and damages are more severe.
Washington Post

High energy prices for industry occupy officials at EU summit
Since 2005, electricity prices in the EU have become significantly higher than in other major economies - a fact that will exercise delegates at the EU summit today.
Financial Times

China reveals details of first carbon trading scheme
New details of China's pilot carbon trading scheme have been released.
Financial Times

Commentary:

Nuclear futures: Renewables blossom in Germany's post-nuclear vision
Germany's decision to end using nuclear power has paved the way for the rise of renewables in the country.
The Conversation UK

UKIP's rise may undo the climate change consensus
Cardiff University's Adam Corner warns UKIP's popularity could undermine cross-party resolve to tackle climate change.
The Conversation UK

Matt Ridley has joined the real climate debate
Climate scientist Myles Allen examines a skeptic's anlysis of his study on climate sensitivity.
Guardian

Universal and useless? The 2015 global climate agreement
Everyone will be happy to sign the next global climate agreement because it will require very little in terms of emissions reductions from signatories.
The Conversation

Climate disasters displace millions of people worldwide
The Guardian continues its special feature on climate-induced displacement with an infographic.
Guardian

Science:

Timing made Oklahoma tornado toll worse
This week's tornado in Oklahoma has devastated communities - due, some scientists think, to the fact it occurred in the middle of the working day.
New Scientist

EWEA CEO: wind energy needs the clout of gas, coal and nuclear

Wed, 22 May 2013 09:07:44 +0000

“Gas, coal and nuclear have more political clout than the wind industry”, and the industry has to take a “more visible place in the political landscape.” So writes EWEA’s new CEO Thomas Becker in the latest Wind Directions. “The big boys did not see nice ‘alternative’ wind as a threat. Now they do. As old [...]

The post EWEA CEO: wind energy needs the clout of gas, coal and nuclear appeared first on EWEA Blog.

EU Parliament Passes Non-binding Resolution in Favour of Fixed Target for Renewables’ Share by 2030

Tue, 21 May 2013 22:35:44 +0000

The EU Parliament has passed a non-binding resolution in favour of a fixed target for a renewables’ share for 2030, without deciding on a recommendation for the target itself.

An amendment calling on the Commission to propose a mandatory EU-wide share for renewables for 2030 was adopted by a narrow majority (339 votes to 336, with 19 abstentions), but a proposal that this target should be between 40% and 45%, i.e. higher than the Commission’s current working assumption of 30%, was rejected (284 votes to 365, with 35 abstentions).

MEPs argued that it was essential to move the debate about a suitable EU system of support for post-2020 forward. A long-term integrated strategy for promoting renewables at EU level should take account of the wide variety of promotion mechanisms currently existing among member states, as well as of regional and geographical differences, the text of the resolution says according to a press release by Parliament.

Source: European Parliament

European Parliament Backs 2050 Roadmap and Renews Demand to Increase the EU’s 2020 Emission Target

EEG Clearing Agency Issues Vote on Calculation of Solar Feed-in Tariffs for Electricity Generated in Two Plants on Neighbouring Plots of Land

Tue, 21 May 2013 22:34:45 +0000

Clearingstelle EEG (EEG Clearing Agency) has issued a vote concerning the calculation of solar feed-in tariffs for electricity generated in two solar plants located on neighbouring plots of land. The agency held that the two plants did not have to be considered as one plant in the sense of Section 19 para. 1 Renewable Energy Sources Act 2009 (EEG 2009), so that each plant was eligible for its own (higher) tariff.

Feed-in tariffs paid under the EEG fall the higher the installed capacity (installierte Leistung) or the rated average annual capacity (Bemessungsleistung) is. Usually every plants receives its own feed-in tariff. However the EEG 2009 (and also the currently applicable EEG 2012) stipulated in Section 19 EEG that

“Several installations shall be classified as one installation, notwithstanding ownership, and solely for the purpose of determining the tariff to be paid for the latest generator commissioned where

1. they are located on the same plot of land or are otherwise in direct spatial proximity,

2. they generate electricity from the same kind of renewable energy source,

3. the electricity generated in them is paid for in accordance with the provisions of this Act depending on the capacity of the installation, and

4. they were commissioned within a period of twelve consecutive calendar months.

In the case at hand, two solar power plants were erected by two different companies, one on the residential property of claimant and one on a neighbouring warehouse belonging to the agricultural property of claimant. The buildings are legally located on two separate plots of land that are recorded under two different numbers in the land register. Both plants started operations in 2009.

Originally the residential property and the warehouse were located on one plot of land. When claimant contected defendant and asked for a separate 30 kW connection of the warehouse on which the second solar power plant was to be installed, defendant told claimant that according to his technical terms for connection, the plot of land had to be divided as only one so-called household connection (Hausanschluss) could be made for each plot of land. Claimant subsequently divided the land and had the change recorded in the land register. He then claimed feed-in tariffs for each solar power plant individually.

EEG Clearing Agency ruled in his favour, although plants are considered as one according to Section 19 para. 1 no. 1 EEG 2009 when they are “in direct spatial proximity”. In line with a prior recommendation on the interpretation of Section 19 para. 1 no. 1 EEG, the agency considered Section 19 para. 1 no. 1 EEG 2009 not applicable, arguing that the plants were erected by different companies, were located on separate buildings and the division of the land did not occur to circumvent Section 19 EEG 2009, but on request of defendant who had made the division a prerequisite for the grid connection of the solar power plant on the warehouse. Claimant was not obliged to question the legality of the technical terms for grid connection of defendant, EEG Clearing Agency ruled.

Since April 2012 Section 19 EEG contains a new paragraph 1a, which stipulates that

“Notwithstanding paragraph 1 sentence 1, several installations in the sense of Section 32 para. 1 nos. 2 and 3 are classified as one installation, notwithstanding ownership, and solely for the purpose of determining the tariff to be paid for the latest generator commissioned where

1. they are located in the same municipality

2. within a distance of up to 2 kilometers as the crow flies, measured from the outer edge of the respective plant, and commissioned within a period of twenty-four consecutive calendar months.”

Source: Clearingstelle EEG

Farmers in Senegal Use Forecasts to Combat Climate Risks

Tue, 21 May 2013 14:22:20 +0000

Recent trainings in Senegal have improved trust between farmers and researchers, leading to increased use of climate forecasts and other information.

Energy Hackathon Helsinki – short review

Tue, 21 May 2013 14:04:24 +0000

I have spend most of last week in Finland’s lovely capital, Helsinki. My main reason to visit was to attend and present our work at the Energy Hackathon. This event was staged at the Aalto University’s Media Lab and drew together a pretty wide range of interesting people. Backgrounds included developers, energy companies, journalists and [...]

A little wind power goes a long way

Tue, 21 May 2013 12:43:39 +0000

By Fran Witt, Renewable World One kilowatt may not seem like a lot – some heaters in the West use this much energy every hour. But in Songambele, Tanzania, comparatively little energy is going a long way. Renewable World, the UK based charity who work to provide renewable energy to remote communities in the developing [...]

The post A little wind power goes a long way appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Sun still shining on UK solar

Tue, 21 May 2013 11:47:54 +0000

Far from setting, as one Sunday paper suggested this weekend, the sun is shining on the solar industry here in the UK and investing in solar Photovoltaics (PV) makes real financial sense. Thanks to our Feed-in Tariff (FITs) scheme householders and businesses are paid for the green electricity they produce from solar PV and a [...]

French and German ministers call for 2030 renewable energy targets

Fri, 17 May 2013 15:40:20 +0000

Writing in France’s prestigious centre-left daily newspaper Le Monde, Peter Altmaier, the German environment minister, and Delphine Batho, his French counterpart, underlined the need for a 2030 renewable energy target and highlighed the importance of renewables in transforming the European economy, improving energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “We want to make the energy [...]

The post French and German ministers call for 2030 renewable energy targets appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Market for Energy-Efficiency Products Grows by 16% to EUR 146 Billion

Thu, 16 May 2013 22:55:30 +0000

The market for energy-efficiency products has grown by 16% to EUR 146 billion in 2012, the German business initiative for energy-efficiency (DENEFF) informed, presenting a new survey. Employment in the sector has risen by 10% to roughly 800,000 employees, DENEFF said.

Growth was mainly influenced by rising energy prices, new technologies and legal requirements. A lack of skilled employees and a reliable legal framework were the greatest challenge for companies, DENEFF said. The survey “Branchenmonitor Energieeffizienz 2013“ was based on data collected from 63 companies from various sectors ranging from mechanical engineering, consulting on energy-efficient building (Gebäudeenergieberatung), building materials, household appliances and banks as well as existing studies and statistics.

Regarding two recently published studies on the costs, benefits and results of energy-efficient renovations and a new research project on an energy-efficient factory (eta-Fabrik) sponsored by the Federal Ministry of Economics, please see the related posts below.

Economics Ministery Launches Research Project “Energy-Efficiency Factory”

Thu, 16 May 2013 22:54:11 +0000

The Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) has launched the project “Energy-efficient Factory for Interdisciplinary Technology and Applied Research” (eta-Fabrik). Its aim is to research and optimise energy-efficiency at all stages of the industrial production process.

Lead by the Technischen Universität Darmstadt twelve business companies and five research institutes and universities will work together on the project “eta-Fabrik”. The objective is to reduce primary energy consumption of the industrial production process by up to 40%. To this end a research factory will be built and the production process and the building itself continously optimised with regard to the energy-efficiency.

Federal Minister of Economics Dr. Philipp Rösler pointed out the importance of higher energy efficiency for a successful implementation of Germany’s energy policy shift. Supporting research regarding energy efficiency was therefore an essential element of the government’s energy research programme, he said. BMWi is providing funding worth EUR 7.9 million for the “eta-Fabrik” project. The results shall become part of the training of young scientists and (via an industry working group) influence new construction projects of energy-efficient production sites.

Source: Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi)

Last chance to win €100 Amazon voucher for quick survey!

Thu, 16 May 2013 15:12:28 +0000

Would you like to see a greater variety of stories and/or authors on the EWEA blog? Or do you think the blog’s appearance could be improved? Tell us what you think – both good and bad – about the EWEA blog, and we’ll enter you into the draw to win a €100 Amazon voucher! Click [...]

The post Last chance to win €100 Amazon voucher for quick survey! appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Factsheet on e-Highway2050 Project Available in English

Wed, 15 May 2013 20:28:26 +0000

A 4-page factsheet on the e-Highway2050 project is available in English, the German Energy Agency (dena) informed. The e-Highway2050 project is aimed at developing a methodology to support the planning of the Pan-European Transmission Network, focusing on 2020 to 2050, to ensure the reliable delivery of renewable electricity and pan-European market integration.

The project will result in a modular development plan for possible electricity highways and options for a complete pan-European grid architecture, based on various future power system options such as high Renewable Energy Sources penetration, technology breakthroughs in transmission technologies, innovative active demand-side management etc.

e-Highway2050 is being funded for a period of three years by the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of the European Commission within the scope of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research.

Source: dena

Commission Presents Proposal for Regulation on Guidelines for Trans-European Energy Infrastructure

Federal Cabinet Not to Vote on Fracking Bill

Wed, 15 May 2013 20:27:25 +0000

A legal framework for the fracking technology used for extracting natural gas and oil from deep underground is not likely to be voted on by Parliament in the near future. Due to disagreement within the ruling Conservative/Liberal coalition the Federal Cabinet will not vote on a fracking bill on Wednesday, various newspapers report.

The new debate about the controversial fracking technology had been caused by demands from Conservative CDU members from Baden-Württemberg, who wanted to ban fracking in the Lake Constance region, the newspaper Welt says. The liberal FDP coalition partner, however, feared that this would mean that other areas close to drinking water areas (Trinkwassereinzugsgebiete) would be exempted as well, leading to a ban of fracking in virtually all of Germany.

In late February the Federal Environment Ministry (BMU) and the Federal Economics Ministry (BMWi) had presented a joint proposal in order to regulate the use of the controversial fracking method for the exploration and extraction of (shale) gas or oil or geothermal energy, setting strict conditions. The proposal provided for a mandatory environmental impact assessment, outlawed fracking in drinking water protection areas and made the involvement of the water authorities and agreement with them mandatory.

The fracking technology, which creates fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting fluids into cracks to force them further open could potentially lead to contaminations of the ground water, BMU and the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) said when presenting a study on the fracking technology in September 2012. Concerns and uncertainties existed in particular with regard to the chemicals injected into the shale rock to break it open and with regard to the disposal of the flowback, they pointed out.

In April German EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger had warned that Germany risked losing its competitiveness given its hesitant stance towards energy issues such as fracking, geothermal energy and the CCS technology.

If a vote on a fracking bill will take place before the political summer recess or the Federal Election on 22 September 2013 remains currently unclear.

Source: Welt

Measuring the Effect of China’s Arctic Interests

Wed, 15 May 2013 18:52:02 +0000

Of non-Arctic states, China has shown the most interest in the Arctic as climate change opens up the region to new economic development. The ways in which China attempts to balance its economic interests and environmental responsibilities within its energy policy may provide a predictor of its future behavior in the Arctic.

Tell a G8 leader to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy

Wed, 15 May 2013 16:01:41 +0000

The global temperature is rising. Freak weather events are multiplying. Climate change is happening. And yet governments are giving $6 to polluting fossil fuels for every $1 dollar that goes to clean renewables. World leaders must move now to renewable, clean energy sources like wind energy. And with the new Global Wind Day app you [...]

The post Tell a G8 leader to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Completion of the Clean Energy Investment U.S. – India Project

Tue, 14 May 2013 18:12:26 +0000

The Center for Climate Change Law has completed the Clean Energy Investment US-India Project. The project aimed to ease the path for U.S. investors and solar and other renewable energy equipment manufacturers to access the Indian market. So far, investment in this expanding market has been limited by high transaction costs. Funded by a generous grant by the Sujana Group, directed by Aarthi Anand, and with the assistance of experienced lawyers, bankers and industrial corporations in both the U.S. and India, the project has drafted and made available for free download the suite of documents needed for a corporation to put up a power plant and obtain necessary finance. By preparing these contract templates and making them freely available, the project hopes to have reduced the prohibitive transaction costs that had limited U.S. investment in renewable energy projects in India.

Background to the Project

Investment in Indian clean energy projects can potentially earn high returns for U.S. investors, lower greenhouse gas emissions and decrease production costs for Indian companies. The burgeoning Indian energy market is estimated at $1.1 trillion by McKinsey, with an estimated potential of reducing 2.8-3.6 billion tonnes of GHG, if it can access the needed finance. Of the $1.1 trillion, it is believed that $333 billion are financially attractive projects, in the sense that they have a positive internal rate of return.

Investment Structure Proposed

The Project has developed a Quasi-Project Finance Model for financing clean energy investment in India. The proposed model follows non-recourse finance, along the lines of standard project finance. Lenders will work with an Indian Corporate Sponsor and form a Project Special Purpose Vehicle (“Project SPV”), for financing the captive or independent power project. The details of the proposed structure include:

The Project SPV: The Lenders will finance the power project through the Project SPV. The Loan Agreement between the lenders and the Project SPV will govern the terms of the loan. This Project SPV will be owned by equity investors, including the Lenders, Corporate Sponsor and/or other private investors.
Corporate Power Purchase Agreement (“Corporate PPA”): The Project SPV will rely on one or more Power Purchase Agreements between the Project SPV and the Corporate Sponsor in order to provide contractual assurances that the power produced by the project will be purchased by the Corporate Sponsor, thereby generating cash flow to repay the loan.
Government Power Purchase Agreement (“Government PPA”): Some Corporate Sponsors may have already negotiated orders to supply power to the government. Some state governments have started executing agreements to buy certain amount of power from renewable energy sources at higher prices than applicable for purchase from coal-fired power sources. Such existing supply agreements with governments and demonstrable earnings may assist the financial viability of the project, subject to reviewing the legal terms in these Government PPAs.
In addition to the Corporate PPA, it will be important for the Corporate Sponsor to demonstrate that the arrangements for a reliable engineering, procurement, construction contractor (to build the plant), operation and maintenance, grid connection (to the state electricity grids) etc. are in place. The grid connection will allow for a Plan B – the ability to sell to someone other than the Corporate Sponsor in case of excess supply or for any other reason and is hence, quite important from a lender’s risk perspective.

New Income Streams

In addition to the income stream from the Corporate PPA, the Clean Energy Investment US-India Partnership Project model will also enable the Lenders to include earnings from green income streams and tax allowances, such as:

Renewable and energy efficient plants in India can potentially register for and earn carbon credits under the United Nation Clean Development Mechanism (“UNCDM”), created under the Kyoto Protocol.
If for any reason the power project is not eligible to receive credits from the UNCDM or related bodies, the project could still potentially earn credits under voluntary offset mechanisms or national regimes that the Indian Government has proposed. The Indian Government has proposed a Perform, Achieve, Trade (“PAT”) Scheme for installing more energy efficient technology, and Renewable Energy Certificates (“REC”) for renewable power plants.
The Indian Government also provides tax benefits for energy efficient and other green power plants, which could be utilized to finance the power project.

Including multiple income streams and assets will reduce the lender’s risk and in turn, the Corporate Sponsor could benefit from better loan terms.

Outcomes – the Project Agreements

The Project has now been completed. More information about the Project is available here, and the contract templates can be downloaded here. Any users of the contract templates should retain their own legal counsel, as the templates are starting points and are not a substitute for project- and client-specific legal advice.

“We would be very keen to have 2030 targets” – Irish EU ambassador

Tue, 14 May 2013 16:18:03 +0000

Irish Ambassador to the European Union Tom Hanney is in the throes of a six month stint at the heart of decision making in Brussels, as Ireland currently holds the EU Presidency. The Deputy Permanent Representative says holding the Presidency is “a marathon, from January to June”. We met him to find out about Irish [...]

The post “We would be very keen to have 2030 targets” – Irish EU ambassador appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Extended Strategic Environmental Assessment Regarding Federal Requirement Plan for Transmission Networks

Mon, 13 May 2013 21:16:24 +0000

The Federal Network Agency (BNetzA) has published the extended draft for the Strategic Environmental Assessement (SUP 2013) relating to the Federal Requirement Plan for Transmission Networks. SUP 2013 will examine the impact of the electricity grid expansion and enhancement on human beings, animals and the environment.

It extends the scope of the investigation, examining not only possible affects of grid expansion onshore, but also in the territorial sea (Küstenmeer).

The first German Federal Requirement Plan for Transmission Networks was recently approved by Parliament. It will set the course of the expansion of transmission networks in Germany. The Federal Council, that represents the interests of the sixteen German states, will vote on it at the beginning of June.

According to the German Energy Act (EnWG), a Federal Requirement Plan has to be passed by Parliament at least every three years. In line with its legal obligations BNetzA is in the process of preparing the annual update of the Electricity Grid Development Plan (NEP), on which the Federal Requirement Plans are based. This includes not only a review of all the measures proposed by the transmission operators (TSOs) concerning grid expansion and enhancement, but also the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SUP) pursuant to the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (UVPG).

While the investigation criteria shall not change, the scope of SUP shall be extended, as BNetzA has to review not only the measures proposed in the onshore Electricity NEP 2013, but also the offshore NEP 2013, which the TSOs submitted in March 2013. Apart from overhead and underground power lines, the use of submarine cables will have to examined as another transmission technology. To this end BNetzA has developped special criteria.

Besides, SUP 2013 shall extend the investigation of alternatives regarding the measures proposed for onshore grid expansion compared with 2012. In the Electricity NEP Strom 2013 the TSOs proposed three different scenarios for the electricity generation and consumption until 2023. BNetzA intends to compare the possible environmental impact regarding the scenarios A 2023 and C 2023 with the scenario B, the lead scenario.

Comments regarding SUP 2013, which can be found online at www.netzausbau.de/untersuchungsrahmen-2013, can be made by public authorities and associations concerned until 31 May 2013. BNetzA will subsequently assess the comments, revise SUP 2013 and publish an update.

Source: Federal Network Agency

UN-REDD/FAO photo-contest – the best shots

Mon, 13 May 2013 18:23:26 +0000

I have just flicked through the selected photos that are all contestants for the UN-REDD/FAO photo-contest. The objective of the contest was to create awareness of the meaning behind Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) and how it is connected to food security. The contest tries to give talents from all over the [...]

Seventy seven percent of Austrians favour wind power

Mon, 13 May 2013 18:06:54 +0000

A new opinion poll conducted in Austria has found that 77% of Austrians are in favour of wind energy compared to just 4% in favour of fossil fuels and 1% for nuclear power. The poll, published on 8 May by the Austrian Wind Energy Association, IG Windkraft, also found that Austrian’s are prepared to pay [...]

The post Seventy seven percent of Austrians favour wind power appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Federal Regulatory Barriers to Grid-Deployed Energy Storage

Mon, 13 May 2013 13:34:28 +0000

by Andrew H. Meyer

Until recently, the most advanced form of grid-deployed energy storage involved pumping water up a hill. But newer storage technologies like flywheels and chemical batteries have recently achieved technological maturity and are well into successful pilot stages and, in some cases, commercial operation. If widely adopted these new energy storage technologies will fundamentally alter the operation of our electricity system. A new PAPER analyzes the legal and policy significance of these emerging technologies.

Energy storage carries electricity through time, just as transmission lines carry it through space—without it, electrical energy must be used at the instant it is generated. Storage resources transform electrical energy into another form of energy that can be stored and then used to regenerate electricity when needed. Because the United States grid has extremely limited energy storage capacity, grid operators must match the supply of thousands of generators with the load of millions of end users in an unceasing, moment-to-moment dance of staggering complexity. And the dance is only becoming more complicated as renewable resources like solar and wind—which have variable and unpredictable outputs—constitute an increasing portion of our generation mix.

Energy storage can address some of the major energy challenges of our time by enhancing the reliability, resiliency, and efficiency of our electricity system, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Among other benefits, energy storage resources can reduce our dependence on inefficient peaking plants, increase the capacity factor of existing generation and transmission infrastructure, and facilitate the integration of renewable resources—all with zero direct emissions.

Recent studies predict we are on the cusp of an energy storage boom. Driving the storage renaissance is a dramatic surge in federal and state support, and the increasing cost-competitiveness of certain advanced storage technologies. But federal regulations threaten to undermine the successful deployment of storage on the grid. Depending on the circumstance, a storage device might behave like any of the traditional grid classifications: generation, transmission, distribution, and even load. These multifaceted operational characteristics, which make storage so useful, also confound regulatory rules and categories tailored to the more rigid operational characteristics of legacy technologies. Consequently, storage resources either cannot access certain electricity markets or are inadequately compensated for the services they provide. This federal regulatory lag impedes the commercialization of technologies that the federal government itself supports with billions of dollars in funding, and obstructs the success of state policies promoting storage and the integration of renewable energy resources.

Laudably, FERC has proactively addressed some particular barriers to storage, which this paper will discuss, but many significant barriers remain. Part I of this Article introduces energy storage, particularly its history, its operational uses, and its benefits. Part II introduces federal electricity regulation, and analyzes various FERC-jurisdictional opportunities and barriers to energy storage. It also highlights recent FERC actions that proactively address or incidentally impact energy storage resources. Finally, Part III proposes actions FERC should take to remedy identified barriers. In particular, it argues that FERC is required under the Federal Power Act to eliminate unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory barriers to energy storage in organized wholesale markets and resource adequacy planning processes. It then argues that the Commission should clarify its policies for classifying storage devices, without arbitrarily limiting storage resources from maximally benefiting the grid by performing multiple functions. Finally, it argues that energy storage resources should be considered comparably alongside traditional resources in transmission planning processes.

The author welcomes any comments, corrections, or suggestions relating to this draft paper: ahm2138@columbia.edu.

“The Roadshow on Film”

Fri, 10 May 2013 14:56:08 +0000

Yesterday we received our final cut of the British Energy Challenge roadshow video. It was recorded at the first event we held in Liverpool’s Victoria Gallery & Museum, and as it will be the only roadshow we’re going to record, we’re really pleased at how well it brings across the enthusiasm of the audience, and [...]

WTO Appellate Body finds Ontario’s renewable energy program violates international trade rules

Fri, 10 May 2013 13:45:56 +0000

On May 6, 2013, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s dispute settlement system held that Ontario’s feed-in tariff (FIT) program to support renewable energy development was inconsistent with Canada’s international trade obligations. The decision confirmed the conclusion reached by the dispute settlement panel which first ruled on the case in December 2012, although the Appellate Body disagreed with that Panel’s analysis and reasoning on some points of law.

The first complaint against Ontario’s scheme was made by Japan in September 2010, and a second complaint was made by the European Union (EU) in August 2011. Both Japan and the EU alleged that the FIT program discriminated against foreign suppliers of renewable energy technologies, as participation in the scheme required electricity generators to source a certain amount of their components from Ontario. For wind projects, the local content requirement was 25%, while for solar projects it was 60%. As neither complaint was able to be resolved through consultations between the parties, the two cases were submitted for joint adjudication by a Panel. The Panel held that the local content requirement of the FIT scheme accorded preferential treatment to products made in Ontario, in violation of the national treatment obligation set out in Article 2.1 of the Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) Agreement and Article III of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). These conclusions were confirmed on appeal.

In addition to claims under the TRIMs Agreement and the GATT, Japan and the EU had argued that the FIT scheme constituted a prohibited subsidy in violation of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). The Appellate Body found that the Panel’s analysis of that agreement was flawed, because it held that the relevant “market” was a single market for electricity in Ontario regardless of the source of the energy. The Appellate Body’s view was that the relevant market was “shaped by the government’s definition of an energy-supply mix,” and the appropriate benchmark for comparison should have been “competitive prices for wind power and solar [photovoltaic] generation.” The Appellate Body drew a distinction between markets which only exist because of government intervention, such as measures to create a certain mix of energy supplies, and government interventions that may distort competition in existing markets. However, the Appellate Body reached no conclusion on whether Ontario’s scheme was consistent with the SCM Agreement, as it had inadequate evidence before it to make the necessary factual determinations.

While the Appellate Body therefore did not determine if Ontario’s program was an impermissible subsidy, its discussion of the interpretation of the SCM Agreement may be important for pending cases concerning government support for renewable energy projects. In February 2013, the US made a complaint against Indian government support of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission, alleging that its domestic content requirements violate the SCM Agreement (in addition to the GATT and TRIMs Agreements). If consultations between the parties fail to resolve that dispute, then it may be heard by a dispute settlement panel. Although it has not yet made a formal complaint, in April 2013 India raised concerns about US support of renewable energy producers. In particular, it has questioned whether schemes adopted by Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts and Minnesota are consistent with the SCM Agreement and the TRIMs Agreement.

Government Passes Amendment of 26th BImSchV on Electromagnetic Fields

Fri, 10 May 2013 08:43:24 +0000

The government has passed a revised draft ordinance amending the 26th Ordinance Implementing the Federal Immission Control Act Concerning Electromagnetic Fields (26th BImSchV) and the Ordinance Concerning Electromagnetic Fields in the Telecommunications Sector (BEMFV). The amendment of the 26th BImschV will be of considerable importance for grid expansion as it contains new restrictions for overhead lines above residential housing and an unclear minimisation clause.

The amendments contain provisions intended to further improve health protection, e.g. a ban on new overhead power lines spanning residential housing. Besides the ordinance stipulates that electric and magnetic fields have to be minimised when grids are expanded. Details for this minimisation shall be contained in a future administrative regulation (Verwaltungsvorschrift). The ordinance will in the future not only cover high frequency and low frequency installations, but also direct current (DC) installations. Certain grandfathering rules apply (cf. Article 1, no. 10).

The Federal Cabinet adopted the ordinance with the changes requested last Friday by the Federal Council (Bundesrat), the legislative body that represents the interests of the sixteen German states (Länder) on the federal level. The latest amendments provide for a faster implementation of the requirements concerning the construction of low frequency installations and the ban on overhead power lines spanning residential housing than originally envisaged. The draft ordinance will once again be submitted to the Bundestag and is expected to enter into force in July.

Source: Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety

The Sahel Is Getting Wetter, But Will It Last?

Thu, 09 May 2013 11:58:04 +0000

New research gives a unifying explanation of the Sahel's past, present and future climate patterns.

Three mayors, three communities, one wind

Thu, 09 May 2013 07:00:42 +0000

In association with Global Wind Day, photographer Robert van Waarden travels to three different communities in Romania that have been inspired by wind energy. Read their stories below, and think about submitting your own wind energy inspired story and photo to the Global Wind Day 2013 photo competition which closes on 12 May! Roşu [...]

The post Three mayors, three communities, one wind appeared first on EWEA Blog.

“Companies are betting that government climate policies will fail” – The Economist

Wed, 08 May 2013 09:34:40 +0000

The reason fossil fuel firms are not trying to reduce their carbon emissions could be due to uncertainty on climate and energy policy, suggests the Economist in a recent editorial. The paper cites cuts in renewable energy support schemes as one of the elements influencing investors. “Companies are betting that government climate policies will fail.” [...]

The post “Companies are betting that government climate policies will fail” – The Economist appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Do green businesses really want corporate dinosaurs acting in their name?

Tue, 07 May 2013 23:05:00 +0000

James Murray BusinessGreen

BusinessEurope's increasingly blatant lobbying against ambitious action on climate change cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged

"Lord, make me chaste - but not yet." That, in a nutshell, is the hypocritical, counterproductive, and staggeringly short-sighted strategy currently being deployed by one of Europe's largest business groups when it comes to efforts to strengthen the EU's climate strategy. Through flawed arguments and questionable lobbying techniques, BusinessEurope is threatening to undo years of progress that have helped establish the EU as one of the world's leading low carbon economies, while at the same time innocently proclaiming that it accepts the need for something to be done to tackle address climate risks. Any business committed to ambitious action to tackle climate change should be hugely concerned and asking itself whether it is happy to be associated, even indirectly, with dinosaur arguments that only serve to lock the EU into a high carbon future.

As we revealed last month, BusinessEurope, the organisation that represents many of the largest industry groups from across Europe, left several of its most influential members deeply frustrated at the manner in which it lobbied vigorously against modest efforts to try and salvage the EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS). But rather than reflecting on complaints that it was guilty of overstating the degree of business opposition to backloading and parroting the party line of heavy industry while downplaying the views of other sectors, BusinessEurope has clearly decided to now double down on its anti-green rhetoric.

Since playing an integral role in ensuring MEPs voted down the "backloading" proposals that would have offered a temporary fix for the oversupply in the carbon market, BusinessEurope has also voiced its opposition to proposals to require businesses to report on non-financial performance because it will "create red tape and further disadvantage for a large number of European businesses in international markets", and called on the Commission to ensure energy policy is "totally reshaped" post-2020 to ensure it is not "too much driven by climate" and is more focused on "cost-competitiveness and security of supplies".

Each of these interventions bear exactly the same hall marks: they make the same tired old, mealy-mouthed argument that businesses are not against action to climate change, per se, but we must make sure that no one is actually required to do anything in the short term, because that would be an unbearable "burden" on business as usual that may actually require carbon intensive industries to innovate and adapt.

As WWF's Sam Van Den Plas eloquently argued last week, BusinessEurope has, in a few short weeks, argued that Brussels should take not take emergency action to fix the carbon market because wider reforms are needed, while also arguing that wider reforms should ideally wait until 2020, and then arguing that the post-2020 period should see a watering down of ambition to tackle climate change. It amounts to a staggeringly clumsy and transparent drip, drip, drip attempt to water down the bloc's climate strategy.

There remains an important and necessary debate to be had about how to limit the impact of higher energy costs on European industry, avoid the risk of "carbon leakage", and ensure the bloc retains its competitiveness - a debate for which effective policies can and are being developed. But it is increasingly apparent from its public statements that rather than engage in these discussions in a constructive manner BusinessEurope simply wants to undermine a policy agenda that it regards as "too much driven by climate" - as if treating a looming existential threat to European security and competitiveness as a priority is somehow a mistake.

BusinessEurope may shroud its argument for inaction with legitimate questions about competitiveness and acknowledgements that some action on climate change will be required at some undetermined point in the future. But its failure to set out a compelling alternative approach for decarbonising (without deindustrialising) the European economy and its attempts to undermine modest improvements to the carbon market and corporate reporting rules tell their own story - it is the story of corporate dinosaurs, the story of oil majors who admit climate change will cause a major disruption within decades but continue to move forward with plans to drill in the Arctic, the story of businesses who reject any short term investment that leads to long term returns and resilience.

Thankfully, this Neanderthal corporate culture has been on the wane in the UK for several years; countless blue chip firms are fully committed to the transition to a low carbon economy, while the CBI has become one of the most powerful advocates in the UK for a more progressive policy approach to environmental issues. But with the economic slowdown continuing and European business leaders desperately looking for something to blame it looks like this regressive approach to the biggest long term threat faced by businesses today is now being revived in Brussels.

Does any of this matter? Well, it does not matter as much as BusinessEurope likes to think. Most MEPs are increasingly aware that the organisation's agenda is to a large extent the agenda of heavy industry and fossil fuels, rather than the business community as a whole. Meanwhile, groups such as the Friends of the ETS and the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change are becoming more adept at demonstrating that there are plenty of progressive businesses out there that want to see more, not less, action on climate change. But the short-sighted arguments being espoused by BusinessEurope and others are still important, given that they provide right wing MEPs and governments with the cover they need to block green measures and push anti-green policies.

Business leaders at those firms committed to the development of a low carbon economy need to urgently ask themselves if they are happy to allow these arguments to be presented unchallenged, particularly when BusinessEurope has on at least one occasion engaged in the dubious tactic of presenting its position as being the same as that of the wider business community. Do green firms really want corporate dinosaurs armed with economic arguments from the last century to speak for them? Should they publicly distance themselves from such groups and such arguments? Should they do more to present the compelling counter-argument that action to tackle climate change will spur innovation, create jobs, and drive growth, at the same time as addressing a risk that threatens to badly undermine European security?

Jobs and economic growth, as well as climate security, are at stake. As Alastair Harper of green business think tank Green Alliance observes, BusinessEurope's stance threatens to undermine those industries that are providing one of the few growth areas for the European economy, while concealing the fact that volatile fossil fuel prices and our reliance on energy imports are one of the biggest drags on recovery. "The fossil industry is the sick man of Europe and a key cause of the slowdown," he says. "We can't let it get in the way of those low carbon businesses that are driving investment, innovation and leading us to a recovery. When Europe is desperate for growth, this odd trade body of trade bodies is trying to wreck one of the most exciting areas of investment."

More specifically, the CBI needs to ask whether it is genuinely happy with the strategy BusinessEurope is currently deploying. The UK-based employers group is one of BusinessEurope's largest members and retains considerable clout in Brussels. But while the CBI campaigned for the adoption of mandatory carbon reporting rules in the UK for listed firms, BusinessEurope remains hostile to EU-wide CSR reporting rules. While the CBI has repeatedly called on government to show more ambition in tackling climate change (while taking steps to ensure we don't deindustrialise as we decarbonise), BusinessEurope is currently espousing much less nuanced arguments explicitly designed to undermine the kind of market-based climate policies many UK businesses favour.

My understanding is that those members of BusinessEurope who are privately frustrated by its increasingly anti-green rhetoric are reluctant to quit the group, arguing that they can better influence the organisation by retaining membership and putting forward more progressive arguments. It is a reasonable strategy, but they urgently need to exercise this supposed influence or else they will have to take their share of the blame for the blocking of green policies they are actually in favour of.

Business leaders who understand the threat posed by climate change need to tackle head on BusinessEurope's suggestion that we can indefinitely defer ambitious steps to build a greener economy on the spurious grounds that it will help the economy in the short term. If businesses allow themselves to be represented by dinosaurs they only have themselves to blame if they end up facing an increased risk of extinction.

In the limelight: Biking towards a better environment

Green Blog — Tue, 07 May 2013 16:14:00 +0000

"In the limelight" is a monthly series showcasing the ways people are using Google products to be better to the environment. Explore ways you can be greener with help from Google products on the Google Green website.
May is National Bike Month, an opportunity to celebrate the bicycle and its many benefits. All month long, Bike to Work Day activities are taking place in cities across the country. Whether you’re an avid cyclist or a casual cruiser, biking can save you money, improve your health and help you explore your community. As an added benefit, biking is better for our environment, too.
One way to discover bike routes in your community is Google Maps biking directions, which currently provides biking directions and bike routes in over 200 US cities, Canada, Australia, and 14 European countries. You can use Google Maps to plan your route for Bike to Work Day (or any day).
Today, we’re sitting down with Todd Scott, the Detroit Greenways Coordinator, who made cycling easier for his community. Using Google Map Maker, he’s built a comprehensive, accurate and accessible map of biking directions and routes in and around Detroit. Todd is helping build community and preserve the environment in an effort to transform the Motor City into “Cycle City.”

Detroit is the birthplace of the automotive revolution. What is the connection to bicycling? Active bicycling clubs began forming in Detroit in the 1890s, preceding the automotive revolution. These early bicyclists became the entrepreneurs, industrialists, race car drivers, salesman, and mechanics that led to Detroit becoming the Motor City. In many ways, we're getting back to cycling -- and for many reasons: improved health, being green, saving money, being social, and just having fun.
How did you come up with the idea to use Google Map Maker? I was at the 2010 National Bike Summit when Google first launched bicycling directions. I realized that in order for them to work well, we needed reliable map data that made it easy for people to discover bicycle friendly roads and trails. Google Map Maker lets me do that.
What do you consider the key benefit of promoting cycling in your city? There are so many benefits to cycling in Detroit that it's tough to choose just one. However, I hear from residents and visitors alike that they see a different Detroit on a bike than they do in a car. A ride from the abandoned Michigan Central Station to the Ford Rouge Plant is pretty amazing. This takes you through the heart of Southwest Detroit with many great restaurants, bakeries, murals, parks, etc. On a bike, it's so much easier to stop and appreciate the sights, sounds, and smells of these neighborhoods.
What are other ways in which your city supports cycling? The city of Detroit has lost nearly two-thirds of its population over the last half-century. That means our roads have very little vehicle traffic and are very bike friendly. Still, we’re focused on adding more trails and bike lanes in the city. This year we're adding 100 miles of bike lanes and expanding some of the city's most popular trails.
What does being green mean to you? For me it's core to my decision making process. I do try to bike and walk to work, the grocery store, the bank, and other local businesses. Sometimes this lifestyle is trumped by other factors. I do turn up the thermostat in the winter when my girlfriend visits.
You can find local bike trails and routes using Google Maps biking directions and start enjoying a healthier, greener lifestyle today!
Posted by Jeff Eisenberg, Google Green

In the limelight: Biking towards a better environment

Green Blog — Tue, 07 May 2013 16:14:00 +0000

Wind energy will help Europe’s economy set sail again

Mon, 06 May 2013 15:48:12 +0000

The 1 May celebrations in Europe last week were tainted by historically high unemployment levels, a miserable macroeconomic outlook and a battered climate and energy policy. The challenges facing Europe’s economy are many. But it is beyond doubt that a thorough modernisation of our energy supply remains an important part of the solution. Every single [...]

The post Wind energy will help Europe’s economy set sail again appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Netherlands sets out plans for 6,000 MW onshore wind

Mon, 06 May 2013 10:44:39 +0000

The Dutch government recently published its draft plans aimed at better managing the growth of onshore wind power in the country to the satisfaction of the Dutch Wind Energy Association (NWEA). The plan sets out how at least 6,000 megawatts of onshore wind power can be installed in the Netherlands in the coming years. New [...]

The post Netherlands sets out plans for 6,000 MW onshore wind appeared first on EWEA Blog.

A deadline focuses minds

Mon, 06 May 2013 10:00:51 +0000

A couple of years ago the global community came together and set a self-imposed date for agreeing a legally binding deal to tackle climate change. By 2015 we agreed to have a deal signed, and coming into force by 2020. You might think we’ve been here before of course. Copenhagen, Durban, Doha – each annual [...]

EWEA CEO: BusinessEurope “on another planet” on energy policy

Fri, 03 May 2013 14:32:14 +0000

Commenting on the call from BusinessEurope Director General Markus J Beyrer on EU energy policy, European Wind Energy Association CEO Thomas Becker had this to say; It sounds a little old fashioned when BusinessEurope claims that fighting climate change is not compatible with cost-competitiveness and security of supply. What have they been doing for the [...]

The post EWEA CEO: BusinessEurope “on another planet” on energy policy appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Coal’s hidden health costs: 40 billion euros a year

Fri, 03 May 2013 10:37:32 +0000

Coal-fired power stations cost the European Union up to €42.8 billion a year in health costs associated with coal-fired power stations, a new report says. The study — ‘The Unpaid Health Bill: How coal power plants make us sick’ — also found that EU-wide impacts amount to more than 18,200 premature deaths, about 8,500 new [...]

The post Coal’s hidden health costs: 40 billion euros a year appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Strømpris uke 17

Fri, 03 May 2013 07:47:58 +0000

Figuren nedenfor til venstre viser innkjøpsprisen på strøm de siste årene samt børsprisen (kraftbørsen Nordpool). Strømprisen har falt noe den seneste tiden og ligger i dag på ca 28 øre/kWh frem til i oktober før den øker til ca 31 øre/kWh siste kvartal i år.

Tabellen øverst til høyre viser strømprisen pr uke. Mer nedbør de siste dagene har ført til nedgang i uke prisene. Uke 15 ble levert på 39,1 øre/kWh mens uke 17 har falt med hele 26 % i forhold til uke 15 og ble levert på 28,9 øre/kWh.

Den stramme kraftsituasjonen som Statnett informerte om for tre uker siden i NO3, NO5 og deler av NO2 (Trøndelag og Vestlandet) er ikke lenger relevant.

Inneværende uke ser ut til å bli levert på i underkant av 29 øre/kWh i Nord Norge mens prisen for neste uke ligger i dag på Nordpool på ca 27 øre/kWh.

Vårt spot tips for neste uke for Nord Norge er 26 øre/kWh.

Share/Bookmark

Why do we expect energy companies to help us save energy?

Thu, 02 May 2013 23:05:00 +0000

James Murray BusinessGreen

Energy companies deserve condemnation for missing efficiency targets, but why are they asked to fund energy-saving efforts in the first place?

Can you think of an industry, besides energy, where companies are actively forced to help their customers buy less of their product?

Even when you consider products that are commonly thought of as social ills, such as guns, alcohol and cigarettes, suppliers are not obliged to actively reduce demand for their offerings. They may be subject to strict controls and limits on advertising and sales, and they may choose to support progressive charities and promote responsible use of their products. But drinks companies are not legally obliged to fund Alcoholics Anonymous, just as cigarette firms are not forced to fund the free distribution of nicotine patches. It is only energy companies that are forced to fund efficiency schemes designed to ensure their customers use less of their product.

Equally, you do not see Tesco and Sainsbury's being forced to donate to food banks because food has become too expensive, yet energy companies are obliged to spend billions supporting (hugely admirable and sadly necessary) initiatives to tackle fuel poverty. Why is energy the only industry to face such obligations? And, more importantly, is it really the most effective way of tackling fuel poverty and delivering much-needed efficiency improvements and emission savings?

Even those who regard the energy industry as the devil incarnate have to admit that forcing a company to help reduce demand for its product is a bit bizarre, when you think about it. In the UK, energy companies have faced years of mandatory targets and obligations forcing them to invest billions helping customers improve domestic energy efficiency so as to require less of their energy. We've had the CERT and CESP schemes, which required energy companies to offer customers subsidised insulation and undertake improvements for fuel poor households, and now we have the ECO scheme, which will run alongside the government's new Green Deal financing initiative and will similarly fund efficiency makeovers for fuel-poor families. These schemes have undoubtedly enjoyed considerable successes, slashing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing energy bills, and resulting in warmer homes. And yet, no one can argue that they have delivered the nationwide improvement in building efficiency that is desperately needed for both environmental and economic reasons.

Understandably, there will not be much sympathy for any energy company that points out this policy oddity, particularly given news this week that several of them have failed to meet the energy efficiency targets they were set under the previous CERT and CESP scheme. But while these companies deserve all the condemnation that is coming their way for initially seeking to game the CERT system and then missing their targets that they had plenty of warning about, there are legitimate concerns about the way in which subsidised efficiency programmes struggle to get customers to sign up to improvement work and as such result in high costs per tonne of carbon saved. These concerns urgently need addressing, not least because they now threaten to undermine the newly launched ECO scheme.

None of this is to suggest Ofgem should go easy on those companies that have missed their energy efficiency targets. The rules are the rules, some of the energy giants managed to comply with them and others did not; the watchdog should throw the book at the laggards. Nor is it to suggest that the energy industry does not deserve its battered reputation. Time and again energy companies have been shown to be engaging in dodgy practices that make their current position as media punchbag largely justified. But that still does not mean energy companies are necessarily the best people to pick up the tab for energy efficiency programmes, particularly when they clearly lack the ability to deliver these programmes in a cost-effective manner.

To illustrate quite how weird this policy regime is, it is instructive to consider how the auto industry has driven efficiency gains. Requiring energy companies to improve the energy efficiency of their customers' properties is akin to forcing oil companies to improve the efficiency of cars. But in the auto industry there is a near universal recognition among policy makers that the primary responsibility for delivering efficiency gains lies with vehicle manufacturers and individual drivers. As a result, the drastic improvement in vehicle efficiency – new cars in the EU are nine per cent more efficient than they were just three years ago – are the direct result of mandatory standards for manufacturers, backed by price signals for drivers in the form of fuel duty and tax breaks for more efficient vehicles. Yes, the oil companies do face legal requirements to ensure their fuel is clean, safe and able to be used as efficiently as possible, but they are not required to fund the mechanical efficiency improvements of the vehicles.

It is easy to envisage how such an approach could be adapted to suit building energy efficiency, even when you take into consideration the differences between a fleet that is refreshed every few years and housing stock that is refreshed every few centuries. The government is introducing demanding new zero carbon home building standards, but these should be made tougher and extended so that you cannot sell, rent or upgrade homes without meeting mandatory energy efficiency standards. You cannot sell a car that is dirty, inefficient and unsafe because you need an MOT; the same should apply to property. Similarly, demanding standards should be imposed on the domestic appliances we all use, while price signals should also be introduced through more tax breaks for the most efficient products and materials. Like the oil companies, the main obligation on the energy suppliers should be to provide a safe and efficient product, which in this case means decarbonising the power they sell and ensuring it is delivered to people's homes in the most efficient manner possible.

This approach would inevitably impose new costs on construction firms and appliance manufacturers, which would in turn lead to higher prices for householders. But these costs would be quickly offset for customers by efficiency gains, while tough new standards would inevitably drive innovation in these sectors. More important still, the new Green Deal scheme would allow landlords, people buying and selling homes, and those carrying out extensions to undertake improvements at no upfront cost and then pay for them through the energy savings that result. Everyone would benefit.

A model based on more demanding standards would deliver far more rapid improvements in energy efficiency than the current system of relying on energy industry funded efficiency programmes and hoping people will voluntarily embrace Green Deal improvements. It would allow the upfront cost of efficiency improvements to fall on the appropriate sectors, it would result in lower energy prices as a considerable cost is removed from the energy industry, and it should free up energy companies to focus on what they should be doing as a matter of urgency, namely decarbonising their power supplies.

The one flaw in this approach is that it would remove programmes that are urgently required to help households tackling fuel poverty. But where households are struggling to tackle rising energy bills there is a strong case for saying it is the government, rather than energy companies, that should be leading the way. Government is far better positioned to orchestrate local authorities, social housing projects and the third sector to undertake street-by-street improvements. At the purely bureaucratic level it is government, through the Department of Work and Pensions that knows which households are most likely to be facing fuel poverty – information that ministers are currently refusing to share with energy companies, meaning that late last year some energy firms were spending double the amount trying to identify fuel poor households to offer CESP scheme improvements to than they were spending on the resulting energy efficiency upgrades. If government needs to raise funding to deliver such a programme, ministers could start by either raiding the tax revenues provided by the energy industry through the carbon floor price and emissions trading scheme, or removing the Winter Fuel Allowance from rich pensioners who are in no danger of experiencing fuel poverty.

Will any of this happen? Of course not. The "my home is my castle" mantra makes a policy regime focused on property standards political kryptonite, as proved by the controversy caused by the modest "conservatory tax proposals". A tax-and-spend, tighter regulation approach to enhancing energy efficiency is anathema to the current government, meaning that it has no choice but to stick with the perverse policy of forcing energy companies to spend money so that they can make less money in the future.

We're stuck with the current system and given their woeful standing with the public at the moment, the energy companies would be wise to step up efforts to deliver on their next round of energy efficiency targets. The ECO looks to be a significantly better scheme than CERT and CESP, with the combination of a brokerage system for efficiency projects and plans to get utilities, charities and local authorities working much closer together on projects set to result in more cost-effective improvements for fuel-poor households.

But with the next wave of efficiency improvements requiring far more work than simply laying down some insulation in the loft, policymakers need to ask if obliging energy companies to fund improvements will ever be able to deliver the large-scale energy efficiency revolution that is required. The Green Deal has always been designed to address this problem by breaking the link between efficiency improvements and grant programmes, and it seems to have made an encouraging start. But it is clear that the Green Deal does not go far enough, while the ECO still places responsibility on energy companies who, barring a remarkable transformation, will never regard energy saving as part of their core business.

I am no apologist for the energy giants' recent behaviour – I firmly believe they should face a more demanding obligation to deliver clean energy as a matter of urgency and should be taxed appropriately as they do so. I also think they have made a grave error in failing to play a fuller role in the fast evolving market for onsite and community scale renewables that promises to destroy their current centralised business model as renewable energy costs fall and storage technologies emerge. But while there is a huge responsibility for energy companies to support the revolution in energy generation, the responsibility for delivering an efficiency revolution should surely lie with the individuals who will benefit, the companies that sell energy using products and properties, and a government that has a duty to cut emissions and tackle fuel poverty. Forcing energy companies to spend money that is made selling energy on schemes designed to ensure they sell less energy – which in turn results in them putting up the price of energy – is a vicious circle that barely moves us closer to the seismic energy efficiency gains we all need.

The Environment Agenda in the European Parliament May Committee Week

Thu, 02 May 2013 23:00:00 +0000

Wiping the slate green

Thu, 02 May 2013 11:35:26 +0000

This week, as part of the Global Wind Day wind energy stories series, photographer Robert van Waarden takes readers to the UK’s first wind farm in Cornwall. Delabole is famous for its hole in the ground. Well, to be more accurate, it is famous for its slate mine. The hole is visible from the backyard [...]

The post Wiping the slate green appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Spanish Government addresses fracking as the EU delays regulation

Wed, 01 May 2013 23:59:07 +0000

Teresa Parejo Navajas
Professor of Law
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (Spain)

On March 1, 2013, the Spanish Council of Ministers approved a Preliminary Law regarding electric systems, which includes a section about environmental control of the technique of hydrofracturing (“fracking”). The preliminary law proposes that those projects that would need to use fracking in order to extract unconventional gas should be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment procedure.

The EU has not yet regulated this technique and, therefore, it has not established environmental requirements for extraction of unconventional gas in European territory. Spain has seized this EU legal loophole for drafting its law. The political division among Member States on this issue is evident: France, Ireland and Bulgaria have established moratoriums on fracking, while Poland has promoted the technique. In this context, it is going to be very difficult to achieve EU-wide harmonization.

Similarly, the European Commission and the European Parliament have also reached different conclusions regarding the need (or not) to complement or extend the environmental regulation of the EU to fracking. Given this disagreement, a consultation process on regulating fracking recently occurred. The consultation ended March 23rd, and its conclusions are expected to be available next summer.

In any case, the European Commission has already included in its 2013 Work Program an “Environmental, Climate and Energy Assessment Framework to enable safe and secure unconventional hydrocarbon extraction” as a new initiative subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment, aimed at managing risk and providing maximum legal clarity and predictability to both market operators and citizens across the EU.

According to a recent study, Spain has enough non-conventional gas resources to power the country for 39 years. It is clear, though, that with this figure it is impossible to claim –as the Spanish Government does- a long lasting energy policy based on (or even supported by) fracking. In fact, 50 Spanish towns within Cantabria and León (a northern region in which the gas is supposed to be located) wrote a letter to the Ministry of Industry to express their concern about the impacts that fracking would have on their lands and public health. The response of the Minister was clear: fracking should be permitted subject to compliance with the environmental and human health protection provisions, though the companies will need to set up liability insurance (accepting, hence, the associated risks) for possible incidents or accidents.

For some, fracking is seen as threatening Spain with a future of being a “swiss cheese” of polluted fracking sites; for others, it represents a golden opportunity to gain some energy independence in a country that imports 99% of mineral oils consumed. The debate is now open.

Climate Adaptation and Water

Wed, 01 May 2013 23:00:00 +0000

This new blog by Ryan Meade discusses water issues in the context of the European Commission’s new Climate Adaptation Strategy. It raises concerns about the ‘predict and provide’ model of policymaking, calling for a more iterative and flexible approach to climate adaptation.

Après Moi, le Déluge? Water Security as a Tool of EU Foreign Policy

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:00:00 +0000

As a vital component of the water-food-energy nexus, water has a geopolitical role as a strategic resource.

IEA Chief Economist: governments “stealing money from the poor”

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:08:01 +0000

By subsidising fossil fuels, governments are “stealing money from the pockets of the poor, who would get money otherwise for schools and hospitals”. So says Fatih Birol, Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency, in the latest issue of Wind Directions. Fossil fuels get over half a trillion US dollars – six times more than [...]

The post IEA Chief Economist: governments “stealing money from the poor” appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Cost of renewable energy is falling, reports say

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:19:30 +0000

Wind energy costs are falling and some companies involved in wind are seeing a rise in profits, according to evidence which has appeared in the world’s media this month. In Europe, insurance firm Allianz was quoted by Reuters as saying last week that “renewable energy production and infrastructure are gaining investor appeal as they become [...]

The post Cost of renewable energy is falling, reports say appeared first on EWEA Blog.

VIDEO: The Quest for a Global Climate Deal

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 23:00:00 +0000

Ahead of a critical UNFCC climate change conference in Bonn in April 2013, this new video considers a dilemma that currently faces world leaders: How can a global deal be reached to tackle climate change? It explores some of the key choices to be made and looks in particular at the role of the EU in negotiating a new deal.

Introducing The British Energy Challenge

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:00:33 +0000

A first post from me and a short one just to tell you about a new project that we launched last week. ‘The British Energy Challenge’ is a series of events designed to engage the public in thinking about how the UK can move to a low carbon economy. The first of these roadshows took place in Liverpool to [...]

The Liverpool roadshow

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:54:20 +0000

I’d never been to Liverpool before, and although I knew pretty much what to expect, the Beatles, liver birds … I didn’t know what to expect from the first British Energy Challenge roadshow. Being new to DECC’s communications team, I hadn’t even heard of it three weeks ago. So last Thursday I found myself on [...]

A wind farm for all seasons – Estonian turbines inspire photographer

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:00:02 +0000

By Tuuliki Kasonen, Estonian Wind Power Association Janne Põlluaas is an Estonian woman who has had a passion for photography and nature since spending her childhood summers at a beach called Laulasmaa, a 30 minute drive from the Estonian capital, Tallinn. As a child Janne would sit with her father in the darkroom and watch [...]

The post A wind farm for all seasons – Estonian turbines inspire photographer appeared first on EWEA Blog.

A Healthy Collaboration

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:11:19 +0000

IRI just renewed an agreement with the World Health Organization to be a collaborative center. Research scientist and center director Madeleine Thomson talks about past successes and future research directions.

Wind power growth expected to slow in 2013, but recovery predicted

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:42:16 +0000

Strong markets in China, India and Brazil, and new markets in Latin America, Africa and much of Asia will drive growth in the wind industry over the next five years, according to a new report from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), which warns that investment in Europe could falter if renewables policies fail to [...]

The post Wind power growth expected to slow in 2013, but recovery predicted appeared first on EWEA Blog.

EU ‘Justice Scoreboard’: the Contribution of Justice to Business

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:00:00 +0000

The EU Justice Scoreboard analyses data on the ‘business-friendliness’ of Member States’ judicial systems for the first time. How does Ireland score, and what are the Scoreboard’s future applications?

Migration: The next frontier in the UK debate on Europe?

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:00:00 +0000

Immigration is a leading concern of voters in the UK and in 2013 the focus has turned to migrants from within the EU.

Wind energy is bright light in an otherwise grim report

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:45:22 +0000

The continued expansion of wind power, coupled with a decrease in costs for the emissions-free electricity-generating technology, was one of the few positive notes in a new International Energy Agency (IEA) report on efforts to create a low-carbon world. The IEA report, which was presented in India last week to the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), [...]

The post Wind energy is bright light in an otherwise grim report appeared first on EWEA Blog.

IIEA Cybersecurity papers

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:00:00 +0000

Two IIEA papers, by Paddy Buckenham and Eoin McDonnell, analyse cybersecurity challenges and actions being taken by key domestic, European and international stakeholders.

Updates to the Climate Change Litigation Chart

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:08:50 +0000

by Margaret Barry

New updates to the Center for Climate Change Law and Arnold & Porter Climate Case Chart. Find the complete chart here.

DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Friends of the Earth v. EPA (D.D.C. March 27, 2013): added to the “Force Government to Act/Clean Air Act” slide. Plaintiffs sought to compel EPA to issue a determination under Section 231 of the Clean Air Act regarding whether lead emissions from aircraft engines using aviation gasoline (avgas) cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The district court granted EPA’s motion for summary judgment, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because an endangerment determination under Section 231 is not the type of nondiscretionary act or duty that the Clean Air Act’s citizen suit provision (42 U.S.C. § 7604) grants district courts the jurisdiction to compel.

County of Sonoma v. Federal Housing Finance Agency (9^th Cir. March 19, 2013): added to the “Stop Government Action/Other Statutes” slide. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the regulator and conservator of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, issued a directive preventing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from purchasing mortgages for properties encumbered by liens created by property-assessed clean energy (PACE) programs. FHFA indicated, among other things, that the first liens of the PACE programs could disrupt the housing market and that there was a lack of underwriting standards to protect homeowners and an absence of energy-saving standards to allow for the valuation of home improvements. Plaintiffs alleged that FHFA must issue a regulation to implement this directive. The district court ruled against FHFA and required completion of notice-and-comment rulemaking. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the action, ruling that FHFA’s directive was a lawful exercise of its statutory authority as conservator, and that the courts therefore lacked jurisdiction.

Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (D.D.C. March 19, 2013): added to the “Petitions Under the Endangered Species Act and Related Litigation” slide. The Sierra Club challenged the determination of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in response to its petition to revise the critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle, claiming that the FWS’s decision to delay any revision was arbitrary and capricious. It also alleged that the defendants had unlawfully delayed in designating additional critical habitat for the turtles. One of the claims in the Sierra Club’s petition was that “threats on the nesting beach are substantial and that global climate change is exacerbating the situation.” The court held that the FWS’s determination was unreviewable because the applicable statutes (the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act) provided no manageable standard to evaluate the FWS’s exercise of discretion.

NRDC v. Mich. Dept. of Env . Quality (Mich. Ct. App. March 21, 2013): added to the “Challenges to Coal-Fired Power Plants” slide. In 2011, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club filed a lawsuit seeking review of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) issuance of an air permit for the expansion of a coal-fired power plant in Holland, Michigan. The lawsuit alleged that the permit did not comply with federal regulations requiring that modification permits address greenhouse gas emissions. The state agency had issued the permit in February 2011 following a court decision finding that the agency had overstepped its authority in denying the permit. The circuit court affirmed MDEQ’s issuance of the permit, and plaintiffs appealed, contending that the circuit court applied the wrong standard of review and that the permit was not authorized by law because the “best achievable controls technology” (BACT) analysis in support of the permit did not adequately consider clean fuels and therefore did not comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA). The court of appeals ruled that the circuit court had reviewed the permit’s compliance with the CAA de novo and had not improperly deferred to MDEQ. The court of appeals stated that although the circuit court may have improperly reviewed the record evidence in a situation where there was no contested case hearing, such an error was harmless. In its own de novo review of CAA compliance, the court of appeals held that MDEQ’s BACT analysis was adequate because it provided a reasoned analysis of each type of fuel that the facility could utilize without major modifications. The court stated that the CAA does not generally require a facility to be redesigned to use the cleanest fuel.

Butler v. Brewer (Ariz. Ct. App. March 14, 2013): added to the “Common Law Claims” slide. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on the basis of the public trust doctrine. Among other things, they sought a declaration that the atmosphere was a public trust asset and that the defendants had a fiduciary obligation as trustees to take affirmative action to preserve the atmosphere and other trust assets from the impacts of climate change. They asked the court to mandate that the state institute reductions in CO₂ emissions of at least six percent annually. The superior court dismissed the action, stating that plaintiffs’ remedies were with the legislature or Congress. On appeal, the court of appeals in a memorandum decision rejected the defendants’ argument that determinations of what resources are protected by the public trust doctrine and whether the state has violated the doctrine are non-justiciable. The court assumed without deciding that the atmosphere was part of the public trust subject to the doctrine. Nonetheless, the court of appeals affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that the complaint failed to make the requisite showing of a specific constitutional provision or other law that had been violated by state action or inaction. Furthermore, the court agreed in part with defendants that a state statute precluded defendants from redressing Butler’s grievances. Butler had not challenged the constitutionality of the statute or identified a basis upon which it could be found unconstitutional. The court determined that it was without power to order the state to take action in violation of the statute and that it therefore could not grant relief.

Filippone v. Iowa DNR (Iowa Ct. App. March 13, 2013): added to the “Common Law Claims” slide. In 2011, Glori Dei Filippone and others filed an administrative petition with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requesting adoption of rules to reduce statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuels. Filippone cited the Public Trust Doctrine as one of the rationales for requiring such regulation. DNR denied the petition, stating that it had already adopted state regulations regarding an inventory of statewide GHG emissions and also citing existing and impending federal regulation of GHG emissions from certain sources in the state. Filippone filed a petition for judicial review of DNR’s denial of the petition, and the district court affirmed DNR’s determination. Filippone again appealed, and the court of appeals upheld the denial. The court of appeals declined to expand Iowa’s public trust doctrine to include the atmosphere, noting that the doctrine has a “narrow scope.” The court of appeals also held that DNR had given fair consideration to the petition and that denial of the petition was not unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion, and that Filippone had failed to preserve error on her Inalienable Rights Clause claim. One judge on the panel issued a concurring opinion stating that he felt that there was a “sound public policy basis” for extending the public trust doctrine to air but that the court was constrained by Iowa Supreme Court precedent limiting the doctrine’s scope. Filippone has filed an appeal in the Iowa Supreme Court.

Merced Alliance for Responsible Growth v. City of Merced (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2012) (petition for review denied March 13, 2013): added to the “State NEPAs” slide. On March 13, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied a community group’s petition for review in a case in which the community group had unsuccessfully challenged the City of Merced’s approval of a regional distribution center in the City boundaries. The community group had alleged that the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the proposed project did not address the project’s impact on greenhouse gases and climate change. The intermediate appellate court held that the EIR adequately addressed these issues.

NEW CASES, MOTIONS AND NOTICES

South west Energy Efficiency Project v. New Mexico Construction Industries Commission (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2013) (motion for contempt order filed, Apr. 11, 2013): added to the “Stop Government Action/Other Statutes” slide. In 2011, the New Mexico Construction Industries Commission adopted revisions to four building codes. The purpose of the revisions was to remove energy efficiency requirements that went beyond the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code. There was no discussion or deliberation about the revised codes at the meeting at which the revisions were adopted, and the Commission did not make any separate findings or orders. A number of organizations and individuals challenged the adoption of the revised codes. The New Mexico Court of Appeals set aside the revisions, ruling that the Commission had failed to state any reason for its adoption of the revised codes. The court directed the Commission to reconsider and revote on the revisions and to make a statement as to the rationale for its actions, preferably in written form. On April 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order holding the Commission and the Governor of New Mexico in contempt for failing to comply with the court’s April 4, 2013 order. The motion alleged that since the court issued its order, the Commission and the Governor had twice announced that they intended to continue to enforce the building codes that the court had set aside.

Competitive Enterprise Institute v. EPA (D.D.C., filed March 28, 2013): added to the “Force Government to Act/Other Statutes” slide. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against EPA pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act seeking disclosure of EPA instant message transcripts for communications sent from or to three senior EPA officials, including EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. The complaint seeks communications related to climate change and the regulation of coal-fired generators.

California Construction Trucking Ass’n Inc. v. EPA (D.C. Cir., filed March 25, 2013): added to the “Industry Lawsuits/Challenges to Federal Action” slide. In April 2011, parties petitioned EPA to reconsider aspects of the greenhouse gas emissions standards issued in May 2010 for model year 2012-2016 light duty vehicles. Petitioners argued that EPA had failed to make the standards available to the Science Advisory Board for review and comment prior to promulgating the standards. In January 2013, EPA denied the petition for reconsideration, finding that the issues raised by the petition could have been made during the public comment period for the rulemaking and that the petition “failed to demonstrate that its objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rulemaking.” On March 25, 2013, petitioners filed a Petition for Review in the D.C. Circuit seeking review of EPA’s denial.

Clinging to a climate of optimism

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:24:00 +0000

James Murray BusinessGreen

It has been a tough few days for those businesses committed to building a sustainable future, but succumbing to environmental defeatism is not an option

It never rains, but it pours. It really has been a pretty depressing few days for anyone who cares about the fight against the existential threat that is climate change.

As a self-avowed New Environmentalist I am naturally optimistic about mankind's ability to respond to the many environmental challenges we face - the countless green success stories I write about every day make it impossible to be anything but. And yet, while I remain positive that a sustainable economy can be built, I have to admit that my optimism has been dented over the past few days. I dare say you are feeling much the same way, it has been that kind of week.

To recap, first up Bloomberg New Energy Finance confirmed that global investment in clean energy fell during the last quarter. Yes, clean energy capacity is continuing to increase at a rapid clip and there are plenty of reasons why a short term slowdown in investment does not constitute a crisis for the sector. But when clean energy investment levels ideally need to double by 2020, a quarter of falling investment is anything but helpful. As if that sobering news was not bad enough, our elected leaders in Brussels then confirmed that they were incapable of supporting even modest proposals to deliver a modest improvement to a carbon market that they had previously hailed as the centrepiece of Europe's climate change strategy.

That double blow was depressing, but then came the devastating one-two of reports from the International Energy Agency and the Carbon Tracker group, confirming what we already knew but can be understandably reluctant to admit: despite all the progress of the green economy and the emergence of cutting edge clean technologies, greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to climb at an exponential rate, and if we are to do anything about it we must leave billions of pounds worth of fossil fuel assets in the ground.

Taken as a whole these developments are deeply, deeply worrying. The outlook is as bleak and cheerless as a Daily Mail editors' meeting, just without the crippling cynicism.

There are, of course, various silver linings to this cloud. In the short to medium-term the prospects for green businesses remain as strong as ever. The fundamental drivers behind the transition to a low carbon economy - energy efficiency gains, improved energy security, cleaner air and water, resource efficiency, public and political pressure - are as robust as ever. Growing numbers of clean technologies can now compete with polluting incumbents without relying on subsidy or policy measures, making the shift towards greener and more sustainable business models inevitable. As the IEA report acknowledged, encouraging progress is being made with electric cars, the cost of solar power, and the continued emergence of gas as a cleaner alternative to coal that could enable a "transition" towards a low carbon fuel mix. A week after warning that renewable energy investment was falling, Bloomberg New Energy Finance yesterday released updated projections suggesting that falling technology costs meant clean energy investment will top $630bn a year by 2030, making it far and away the dominant energy category.

Meanwhile, the green policy landscape is not as bleak as last week's events suggest. At the same time as the EU was voting to undermine its own emissions trading scheme, China was reasserting its commitment to introducing its own national carbon market, John Kerry was signalling that his appointment as US Secretary of State will herald a more ambitious approach to climate policy from the US, and Walmart was revealing staggeringly ambitious plans to increase its already significant use of renewable energy six-fold inside seven years. For all of their scary predictions, many climate scientists maintain that the avoidance of "dangerous" levels of climate change is at least technically possible.

But while cause for optimism remains, any honest appraisal of the latest evidence can only lead us to conclude that progress is not being made nearly quickly enough. As global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise we continue to sleepwalk towards numerous environmental disasters. Despite admirable gains for the green economy, our political, corporate, and technological responses to this unfolding crisis are hopelessly inadequate. It is hard to resist the conclusion that we are, to borrow the vernacular, screwed.

How should we process this flurry of depressing information? What are its implications? There are countless terrifying projections detailing what a three, four, or five degree warmer world will look like from an environmental, economic, and humanitarian perspective. But ultimately the only lens we have through which to consider this future is personal; after all the only experience we have is personal.

From that purely personal point of view, the one thing that always strikes me as most worrying about climate projections is how tight the timelines have become. We seem to be stuck with the "think of the grandchildren" response to climate change that established itself in the 1980s, but anyone who is middle aged or younger really should start thinking about themselves (as well as the grandchildren, obviously). I am 33 and while life is inherently fragile and unknowable I'm hoping to enjoy a long and healthy existence. That means that if I live to the average age for a UK male I'll see the 2050s, if I get lucky and emulate the most long-lived of my grandparents I'll make it to the 2070s. Given advancements in medical science, there are significant numbers of my coevals who will celebrate New Year in 2080. A child born now has a reasonable chance of seeing in the next century.

My point is this: if you are over 45, then you are on track to bequeath the rest of us a pretty scary inheritance. But if you are under 45, then you have a good chance of experiencing some of the more devastating results of our failure to leave fossil fuels in the ground for yourself. You will see first-hand whether we are capable of building a genuinely sustainable global economy by mid-century or not. You will find out if it is possible to support nine billion people in a warmer world. You have a direct stake in this game. Is this a selfish way of looking at things? Definitely. But if we can't honestly acknowledge the direct risks we face, what hope is there of taking the necessary moral leap and considering the threats faced by our contemporaries born into those countries on the front line of climate impacts.

What will we face in 2050? It is impossible to see the future, but if the environmental projections are even half right it will be daunting. In fact, we already have a taster of some of the pressures to come, given that many of the economic and humanitarian challenges that relate to climate change are already evident. The bulk of the inflationary pressures currently impacting the UK relate to environmental issues as volatile weather and resource scarcity push up the prices of food and key commodities. With greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise, the carbon intensity of global energy infrastructure flat-lining, and a political and economic settlement capable of keeping fossil fuels in the ground a long way from being realised, all the best estimates continue to point to average global temperature increases of four degrees plus by the end of the century. The balance of risk suggests that without a global economic revolution or an entirely unanticipated natural phenomena - either of which would have to be so dramatic that they could realistically described as miraculous - the world by mid-century will already have a remarkably hostile climate.

Warnings such as this inevitably attract accusations of scaremongering. Climate sceptics and their allies will continue to argue that none of the worst climate impacts will ever come to pass. I envy them their scientific ignorance and cavalier attitude to risk; envy it and hold it in the highest contempt. As Duncan Clark explained in an excellent article for the Guardian last week detailing our continued failure to stop burning fossil fuels, lower than anticipated levels of climate sensitivity could possibly ride to our rescue, but it would be deeply irresponsible to rely on such an unlikely salvation. "If we are lucky, the impact of burning all that oil, coal and gas could turn out to be at the less severe end of the plausible spectrum," he argued. "But that is hardly reassuring: it's akin to saying that it is fine to walk blindfolded into a main road since you can't be sure there are any cars coming."

More valid is the optimistic argument that civilisation will find a way, that mankind is ingenious enough to come up with a solution to the climate crisis. I want to believe this; on balance I do still believe this. History has shown that both rapid industrial revolutions and disruptive economic change is possible. Technological innovations have proven Malthusian projections wrong time and again. As has been argued repeatedly, all the technologies necessary to decarbonise the global economy in a sustainable and just manner already exist, and they are getting cheaper and more effective all the time. Even if we don't decarbonise quickly enough in the first instance, geo-engineering and climate adaptation measures could provide some sort of safety net. And yet, when you assess the odds of delivering this green revolution against the odds of crippling climate and environmental impacts, does it not make you feel nervous? I don't mind admitting, it terrifies me.

So what do we, as green business leaders and environmentalists, do next? How do we throw the inexorable rise in global carbon emissions into reverse? How do we stop the current crisis whereby, like a squeezed balloon, reduced emissions in the US and EU are quickly wiped out by rising emissions in emerging economies? How do we convince the world to leave still valuable fossil fuels in the ground? And how do we manage this transition in a way that does not lead to the bursting of the carbon bubble and the collapse of large parts of the global economy?

New Environmentalism is about nothing if it is not about pragmatism. We need answers to these questions. We need a plan.

Luckily, it is not as if we don't have the answers. As Clark argued, we already know how to decarbonise. "A properly designed global cap and trade scheme is one option," he writes. "Stiff taxes on the production or sale of carbon-based fuels is another. Or we could simply oblige companies taking carbon out of the ground to arrange for a rising share of what they extract to be buried again. Any of these models could bring down global emissions and stimulate an explosion of investment and innovation in clean and efficient energy systems."

Similarly, last week's Carbon Tracker report set out a series of intelligent recommendations for deflating the carbon bubble, ranging from regulators demanding more disclosure from companies on the carbon-related risks they face to individuals divesting their pensions from carbon intensive projects.

Drawing on this and other thinking it is relatively easy to develop a theoretical plan that would deliver global decarbonisation without impinging on living standards - a plan based on a ban on the use of unabated coal power, a massive increase in clean tech R&D, demanding new energy efficiency and green product standards, the global deployment of smart grid technologies, huge investment in climate adaptation, the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, the introduction of appropriate carbon pricing mechanisms, and a global effort to explore the feasibility of geo-engineering proposals.

The problem is that this kind of comprehensive strategy remains the stuff of environmentalist fantasy. Incremental progress can and has been made on all of these fronts, but when it comes to the kind of ambitious co-ordinated reform that is necessary short termism and vested interest continues to remain the order of the day. The big question is how do green businesses and new environmentalists deliver on this plan? Because, as last week proved, the current approaches obviously aren't working.

For me there are a handful of changes that green businesses and NGOs need to embrace that could be loosely grouped together under the banner "pragmatic urgency".

The first step has to be to ditch the tendency towards ideological and policy purity that continues to afflict much green thinking. The scale of the climate change threat and the failure of current efforts to ensure fossil fuels are left in the ground means that unless a green policy is shown to be explicitly counter-productive (I am thinking about the worst biofuel policies and the most excessive subsidies) then there should be an assumption in favour of action being taken. The arguments greens repeatedly engage in over whether carbon pricing or subsidy is preferable, or whether we should use transparency rules or mandatory standards to drive green product progress are often a huge waste of time - we need everything. Too many environmental debates are akin to arguing in 1940 about whether the allies should build tanks or planes. The latest attempt by that inveterate self-publicist Bjorn Lomborg to start a debate on how governments should ditch clean energy policies in favour of R&D is a case in a point. The fact that broadcasters can take such a blatantly false choice seriously and continue to give Lomborg air time to push his demonstrably flawed arguments provides yet more proof that all it takes to get yourself on TV is a few eye-catching talking points and an unwavering sense of self-confidence.

Secondly, and I make no apologies for making this point yet again, the marketing and positioning of the green economy has to focus relentlessly on the benefits it delivers. That means demonstrating how green technologies are now mature and working, and embedding attractive clean technologies such as low emission vehicles, smart appliances and solar panels in people's homes and offices. As the influential British diplomat John Ashton observed recently, "we have to make the prospect of moving rapidly to a low carbon growth model feel like an opportunity not a risk".

That should be the strategy, but what about the tactics? How do you ensure these attractive technologies and business models cut through into the mainstream?

There has to be a recognition among all those businesses committed to the development of a low carbon economy that it is not going to happen at sufficient pace without a policy framework that challenges the high carbon status quo. That means business leaders need to roll up their sleeves and go out of their way to get that policy. Too many firms are happy to commit to the development of greener business models, write letters about the need for supportive policies, and even invest billions in developing clean technologies. But there is still reluctance amongst business leaders to impress upon their political counterparts that the low carbon transition is an absolute necessity.

There is an urgent requirement for businesses to establish whether they mean what they say when they sign up to admirable communiques calling for urgent action to tackle climate change. If so, that means extricating themselves from any lobby group or trade association pursuing an agenda contrary to such action and actually using some of their political capital to demand real progress. Carbon intensive vested interests are happy to mobilise their supporters in the press and chew the ears off politicians over their short-sighted concerns in both public and private - green businesses need to get better at playing this game and impressing upon political leaders that when they call for carbon pricing or climate change action they are not doing it for PR purposes, they mean it.

Related to this point is the need for much sharper criticism of those same vested interests and the risk-happy ideologues who would rather engineer a full blown environmental crisis than take even modest steps to deliver greener infrastructure. If a business is fully committed to the development of a sustainable economy they should not be so willing to let their less enlightened peers undermine that vision. Green business leaders need to go on the record and make it clear that when groups like BusinessEurope seek to scupper environmental policies they do not act for all businesses - they do not speak for you.

Every business with a stake in the green economy needs to embrace this pragmatic urgency with immediate effect. They need to make a much bigger nuisance of themselves and make it clear that those investing in extracting ever more hydrocarbons from the ground are locked into a business model that is unsustainable in every sense of the word.

They also need to redouble efforts to demonstrate that low carbon technologies and economic models can work effectively ahead of the crucial 2015 UN climate summit in Paris. According to many of those who were directly involved, the last attempt to deliver an international climate change treaty in Copenhagen in 2009 failed because world leaders were not quite yet convinced that decarbonisation and economic prosperity were compatible. We cannot allow that same misconception to destroy the last best hope of international action. To do so would be to condemn the world to many, many more depressing weeks in the years ahead. And, after last week, I for one have had enough of those.

A hat-trick is the goal in the football and energy fields

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:53:17 +0000

Football fans know the value of a hat-trick – the triumvirate of goals that prove success for any striker. Though difficult to achieve, the hat-trick is worth striving for. The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) also wants to score a hat-trick. Their new publication proposes three targets to drive EU energy policy after 2020: renewable [...]

The post A hat-trick is the goal in the football and energy fields appeared first on EWEA Blog.

6 Reasons Why Installing Solar Power Makes Perfect Sense

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:49:37 +0000

Today I’d like to share a guest article by Brisbane solar company Infinite Energy Brisbane that highlights why solar energy systems for residential utilization make so much sense: Solar power is a relative newcomer in the residential energy industry; so many homeowners are still wary and somewhat uneducated about fueling the home using solar energy. [...]

Rejection of ETS “Backloading” Reform: Blip on Road to a Global ETS, or Signs of Worse to Come?

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:00:00 +0000

This blog by Joseph Curtin looks at why the recent ETS backloading vote was rejected in the European Parliament and asks whether this should be seen as a sign of worse to come or just a blip on the way to a global ETS.

Europe, the BRICS and Global Governance

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:00:00 +0000

In this blog Patrick Holden, University of Plymouth, examines the political implications of the BRICS leaders’ summit, which took place in March 2013.

Keeping it safe – how do wind workers avoid danger?

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:33:28 +0000

While the wind industry will never face the equivalent of a Deepwater oil spill or a Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, its spectacular growth rates over the last decade do mean there are more health and safety hazards. An electrical fire can occur; heavy parts can fall from great heights; lifting huge unstable loads with cranes could [...]

The post Keeping it safe – how do wind workers avoid danger? appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Following the lead of nature’s engineers

Green Blog — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:03:00 +0000

It’s no surprise that Google appreciates engineers. And this Earth Day, we’re looking at some of our favorite engineers from nature to see how they can teach us to treat the environment better. We’ve created a website where we can see the beauty and ingenuity of the natural world through photos from National Geographic. We also want to provide easy ways to be greener in our own lives, so this site shows us how we can all be like those organisms by taking simple actions to care for the environment.

For instance, until recently I’d never heard of a remora. Turns out that these fish latch on to other ocean creatures such as whales and turtles to catch rides. In a way, these fish are using their own form of mass transit. To be like the remora and travel with a lighter footprint, we can plan trips using rapid transit. Or we can be inspired by bears—the true experts on “sleep mode”—to save energy in our own lives by adjusting our home thermostat and using energy efficient appliances.

Our doodle today also acknowledges the interconnections of the natural world. You can interact with elements of the environment to affect the seasons, weather and wildlife.

As another way to move from awareness to action, we’re hosting a Google+ Hangout On Air series focused on pressing environmental issues. We’ll kick it off today at 12pm ET with a Hangout on Air connecting NASA (live from Greenland), National Geographic explorers from around the world, and Underwater Earth (live from the Great Barrier reef). Throughout the week, we’ll hold daily Hangouts on Air covering topics such as clean water and animal conservation.

This Earth Day and every day, let’s take a moment to marvel at the wonder of nature and do our part to protect the natural ecosystem we all depend on. A salute to nature’s engineers!

Posted by Erin Reilly, Google Green team

Following the lead of nature’s engineers

Green Blog — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:03:00 +0000

The Environment Agenda at the European Parliament’s April Committee Week

Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:00:00 +0000

The plenary vote of 16 April, at which MEPs voted to reject a proposal from the European Commission to delay auctioning of carbon allowances in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme, has dominated the news and environment agenda over the last week, but there is still a busy Committee week ahead. This blog picks out some of the highlights.

Massive wind power installations could help New York cast off fossil fuels

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:24:31 +0000

Wind energy could play a major role in providing all the power needed for the entire state of New York by 2030, according to a new academic study. New York’s power demand for all sectors in 17 years time could be met, in part, by 4,020 onshore 5-megawatt wind turbines and 12,770 offshore 5-MW machines, [...]

The post Massive wind power installations could help New York cast off fossil fuels appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Expanding options for companies to buy renewable energy

Green Blog — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:30:00 +0000

We’re always looking for ways to expand the use of renewable energy. To date we’ve committed more than $1 billion to renewable energy project investments, signed agreements to procure wind power near our data centers, and installed solar panels at our corporate headquarters.

It’s also important to work directly with our utility partners to find solutions that will make more renewable energy available for us and for others. The most straightforward way to do this is for utilities to offer a renewable power option for companies that request it—something that’s not currently offered by most utilities. We’ve just published a white paper laying out our thoughts on how and why such programs might work.

We’re also announcing our first effort to put this idea into practice. We’re expanding our Lenoir, NC data center, and our local electricity provider, Duke Energy, has pledged to develop a new program for large companies like Google who want to buy renewable power for their operations. Duke will file the plan with their state commission within 90 days.

Our data center in Lenoir, NC.

Offering companies like Google a renewable energy option has many advantages. Because the service is made available to a wide range of customers, companies that don’t have the ability or resources to pursue alternative approaches can participate. And by tapping utilities’ strengths in power generation and delivery, it makes it easier for companies to buy renewable energy on a larger scale. Of course, the approach is not without its challenges: utilities will need to work out the mechanics of the service within their local regulatory structure, and in many cases state utility commissions will need to approve the programs. There’s also the challenge of finding cost-effective renewable projects.

We'll continue to find creative ways to supply our facilities with renewable energy, but we think this solution can provide an important new way to increase the use of renewable energy nationwide. We look forward to working with utilities, state utility commissions, companies and other stakeholders to make it a reality.

Posted by Gary Demasi, Director, Global Infrastructure

Expanding options for companies to buy renewable energy

Green Blog — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:30:00 +0000

Our data center in Lenoir, NC.

Future of shale gas challenging, cost of renewables falling

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:47:36 +0000

A report published by Citibank, a major international bank, has found that the future of shale gas in Europe is shrouded in uncertainties and the energy technology may not be as viable as had been previously claimed. The same report found that renewables will cost the same as conventional fuels (including gas) in many parts [...]

The post Future of shale gas challenging, cost of renewables falling appeared first on EWEA Blog.

EU climate policy in crisis after MEPs vote

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:05:33 +0000

Yesterday the European Parliament voted against a proposal to delay the auctioning of 900 million tonnes of carbon allowances in the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) – a move proposed by the European Commission to rescue the ailing ‘cornerstone’ system of Europe’s climate legislation which puts a price on carbon emissions. As a result, the [...]

The post EU climate policy in crisis after MEPs vote appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Poland’s true wind energy potential is 13 GW by 2020

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:55:49 +0000

Poland is the biggest wind energy market in the EU’s newer Member States, but wobbles in government support have made investors nervous. We spoke to Ewa Kurdyła, Director of the Polish Wind Energy Association, to find out what’s going on… Poland’s National Renewable Energy Action Plan indicates that cumulative wind capacity should increase by an [...]

The post Poland’s true wind energy potential is 13 GW by 2020 appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Win a €100 Amazon voucher by telling us what you think of the EWEA blog!

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:35:29 +0000

The post Win a €100 Amazon voucher by telling us what you think of the EWEA blog! appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Wind dreams in Nepal

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:31:00 +0000

Continuing with the series of “wind energy stories” from around the world, in association with Global Wind Day, Robert van Waarden travels to Nepal to meet Amrit Singh Thapa in Kathmandu. Amrit points it out as we zoom past on his motorbike. If you look closely, past the Nokia sign, past the other motorbikes, over [...]

The post Wind dreams in Nepal appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Energy Hackathon 2013 in Helsinki

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:27:12 +0000

I am sharing news of an interesting event with you guys: The Energy Hackathon 2013 in Helsinki, Finland – I will also be there as a mentor for the hackathon and think it is a great occasion for us to promote the idea that access to open data is a crucial enabler to accelerate clean [...]

80% of Irish people support wind power in Ireland

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:00:15 +0000

By Caitríona Diviney, Chief Operating Officer, Irish Wind Energy Association 80% of the Irish public support wind power, an opinion poll from Ipsos MRBI conducted on behalf of the Irish Wind Energy Association (IWEA), the national wind energy association in Ireland, has revealed. This is a clear indication that there is widespread support for wind [...]

The post 80% of Irish people support wind power in Ireland appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Climate and Society Students ‘Develop’ Research for NASA, IRI

Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:07:14 +0000

Two Climate and Society students are working on a NASA DEVELOP project at the International Research Institute for Climate and Society. Learn about the research and visit their virtual posters.

Strømpris uke 15

Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:55:19 +0000

Figuren nedenfor til venstre viser innkjøpsprisen på strøm de siste årene samt børsprisen (kraftbørsen Nordpool) for strøm for 2013. Som figuren viser (oransje stiplet linje) ligger innkjøpsprisen på strøm på ca 30 øre/kWh frem til og med september for så å øke til ca 32,5 øre/kWh resten av året.

Spot prisen har den siste uken holdt seg på et relativt høyt nivå og hovedårsaken er en kald og tørr værtype i Skandinavia.

Det er spesielt i Midt Norge (NO3) og på Vestlandet (deler av NO5 og NO2) at kraftsituasjonen har forverret seg. Statnett har derfor endret statusen for disse områdene fra Normal kraftsituasjon (Grønn farge) til Stram kraftsituasjon (Gul farge).

Fyllingsgraden i magasinbeholdningen er under det som forventes å være normalt for årstiden. Statnett vurderer det også dithen at en andel av magasinbeholdningen ikke kan utnyttes før snøsmeltingen starter.

Statnett forventer at kraftsituasjonen i NO3, NO5 og deler av NO2 vil være stram frem til snøsmeltingen starter.

Inneværende uke ser ut til å bli levert på i overkant av 40 øre/kWh i Nord Norge mens prisen for neste uke ligger i dag på Nordpool på ca 36 øre/kWh.

Vårt spot tips for neste uke for Nord Norge er 35 øre/kWh.

Share/Bookmark

Wind energy: empowering entrepreneurs in Africa

Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:00:03 +0000

Last month the EWEA blog brought you the story of a small wind energy project in Tanzania and how it has helped to change the fortunes of some African farmers. Today, in this project update by Fran Witt from Renewable World, we look at how wind-powered electricity is connecting remote communities to the knowledge economy. [...]

The post Wind energy: empowering entrepreneurs in Africa appeared first on EWEA Blog.

It’s time to step up the campaign for wind

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:36:33 +0000

In an editorial published by Recharge, Morten Albæk, Senior Vice-President of marketing at Vestas, argues that claims made by anti-wind campaigners can verge on the ridiculous, but they are powerful. Wind power, meanwhile, is not doing enough to promote its positive message… Birds are 19,200 times more likely to die from flying into a building [...]

The post It’s time to step up the campaign for wind appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Open Data MeetUp in Vienna – 3 years OGD in Austria

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:56:46 +0000

The Austria Open Data Movement started 3 years ago, which gives us a good enough reason to celebrate this anniversary next week on April 17th in Vienna! Rufus Pollock, an early supporter of Open Data in Austria and co-founder of the Open Knowledge Foundation, will speak about Past-Present-Future of Open Data in the international context. The [...]

Thatcher’s green legacy: We now know what happens when you don’t manage industrial transition

Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:05:00 +0000

James Murray BusinessGreen

Much of the controversy surrounding the late prime minister stems from the failure to cushion the effects of industrial change - green leaders should take note

Yesterday, the Conservative MEP and self-styled right wing firebrand Daniel Hannan asked a thought-provoking question. The question, voiced on Twitter, was directed at "all the Lefties complaining that Margaret Thatcher closed coal-mines", and asked whether they were "after all, in favour of burning coal?"

The answer for most "lefties" and greens (regardless of what Hannan thinks, the two constituencies are not synonymous) is, of course, "no, we are not in favour of burning coal, at least not without working carbon capture and storage technology".

And yet, he raises an interesting point about the way in which many of Thatcher's critics have mistakenly aimed their ire at her historic decisions to close the mines, privatise key industries and generally de-industrialise the UK, when their frustrations more accurately lie with the brutally swift way in which she enacted nation-shaping reforms that a clear majority of people, both now and then, regarded as necessary and desirable.

This overly simplistic criticism of the recently-departed former Prime Minister by many on the Left has allowed those who wish to deify Thatcher to argue, entirely reasonably, that she was brave enough to push through reforms that the experience of other countries in Europe and North America have shown to be largely inevitable. It would take a particularly intense commitment to socialism to argue, for example, that the UK should have continued to operate nationalised car companies, travel agents and airlines. Equally, it remains difficult in retrospect to argue that some of the UK's uncompetitive heavy industries should have been retained indefinitely when they were being undercut by emerging markets.

No, the real reason that Thatcher, rightly or wrongly, remains such a divisive figure is not because she delivered these reforms, it is because of the manner in which she delivered them - through police lines, broken strikes, communities blighted by unemployment, and the controversial assertion that there is "no such thing as society". You can argue that her experiment in creative destruction may have worked at a macro level, restoring growth to the economy, pride to the nation's sense of self, and competitiveness to companies that had previously been hampered by over-powerful unions and restrictive state control. But only Thatcher's most one-eyed cheerleaders would fail to acknowledge the devastating impact many of these reforms had at a local level, through levels of public underinvestment, joblessness, poverty and hopelessness that ended up tearing at the very social fabric of the nation.

Many of the eulogies prompted by the death of the most successful and yet most controversial prime minister of modern times have argued that these reforms were necessary, regardless of the collateral damage that ensued, and that despite the caricature of unrelenting indifference Thatcher cared deeply about the people who lost out during the 1980s revolution. According to many of those who worked with her, she believed firmly that the rolling back of the state and the closing of the mines would magically unleash private sector jobs and entrepreneurialism in the communities that were affected and could not comprehend why things did not pan out as planned. This may well have been the case, but a quick glance at the reaction to her passing proves that any good intentions did little to appease those communities who suffered under the Thatcher government. You can argue, again entirely justifiably, that on balance the reforms were to the benefit of the nation. But it is worth noting that Germany and the Nordics proved that it was possible to undertake similar transitions without the same level of controversy, divisiveness and at times outright brutality.

As was eloquently highlighted by Ed Miliband in the House of Commons yesterday, Thatcher's time in office holds significant lessons for the UK's green economy through the way in which she married a very modern form of environmentalism with conservative thinking. But there are also lessons for the sector contained in the controversial industrial reforms Thatcher enacted, and more importantly the failure to deliver a smooth and planned transition towards a new economic mix.

The simple fact is that the UK and other major economies are now embarked on a new economic transition as we seek to decarbonise – a transition greater even than that experienced during the Thatcher era. Just as with the contrasting fortunes of the City and the miners in the 1980s, a decarbonisation programme that requires industrialised nations to cut emissions 80 per cent by 2050 will inevitably lead to winners and losers as some of the more carbon-intensive industries are forced to embrace new clean technologies or face the end of the road. Many people in the green economy do not like to talk about this reality, hoping that CCS technology and other breakthroughs will ease the transition, allowing many carbon-intensive industries to evolve and survive. But while this happy scenario may well materialise for some carbon-intensive sectors, others will inevitably face a bleaker future as cleaner and more cost-effective alternative technologies materialise. From whaling to the UK coal industry, history is littered with industries that failed to adapt to changing realities and suffered as a result, leaving communities to cope with the socio-economic fallout.

Politicians and green business leaders have to decide if they want to make this inevitable transition in as orderly a fashion as possible, where new clean industries are developed and strategically located to support the communities that suffer as a result of declining carbon-intensive sectors. Or whether they want a repeat of Thatcher's creative destruction, where the market (aided by proper pricing of carbon emission externalities and regulation of environmentally damaging polluting industries) is let rip and the chips are left to fall where they may. The most effective answer, as demonstrated by the Germans and the Nordics, is probably a mix of both approaches that allows for a cost-effective low-carbon transition, while diluting the worst of the impacts for those communities who face short-term costs as a result.

There are countless lessons to be drawn from the Thatcher era and the remarkable life of a prime minister who genuinely transformed the UK, both economically and socially – sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. But one key lesson for those political and business leaders engaged in the transition to the green economy is that if you want to avoid the risk of dividing the nation you need to manage the low-carbon transition in a way that shows consideration to those communities that will be adversely affected. The opprobrium heaped on Thatcher by the miners will only be repeated for green leaders if they fail to carefully replace high-carbon jobs with their low-carbon counterparts.

The other key lesson is that if you want to deliver an economic transition that will be regarded by history as genuinely transformational, you will need the staggering conviction, bravery, and downright belligerence that both supporters and opponents of Baroness Thatcher agree were the essence of the Iron Lady.

Is German offshore wind under threat?

Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:57:30 +0000

Headlines in the German media have said recently that Germany’s offshore wind sector could be facing support cuts, on top of suffering from the already costly grid connection delays. So what is the future of German offshore wind power? We spoke to Andreas Wagner, CEO of the Offshore Wind Foundation (Stiftung Offshore-Windenergie) and part of [...]

The post Is German offshore wind under threat? appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Turbine blade in Vienna city centre marks start of Austrian wind art contest

Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:35:31 +0000

With Global Wind Day just over two months away, the Austrian Wind Energy Association has decided to place a mini wind turbine right in the centre of Vienna. Lukas Pawek, coordinator of Global Wind Day in Austria, explains why… This week the Austrian Wind Energy Association placed a small wind turbine in the centre [...]

The post Turbine blade in Vienna city centre marks start of Austrian wind art contest appeared first on EWEA Blog.

70% of Europeans think renewables “should be prioritised”

Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:19:44 +0000

Overall, 70% of EU citizens think renewable energy should be prioritised as an energy option for the next 30 years, a Eurobarometer has found. The survey, “attitudes of Europeans towards air quality” published earlier this year found that the 70% compares to just 9% for unconventional fossil fuels like shale gas, and 8% for conventional [...]

The post 70% of Europeans think renewables “should be prioritised” appeared first on EWEA Blog.

Keeping our data centers green and our employees safe

Green Blog — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:15:00 +0000

The Internet is a virtual place for most people, but data centers -- the large industrial warehouses filled with servers that power the web -- are anything but. We want our data centers to be both environmentally sustainable and safe places to work, so we make sure that that they meet the highest standards of environmental management and workforce safety. Our three owned-and-operated data centers in Europe - located in Belgium, Finland and Ireland - have now joined our U.S. facilities in receiving ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 certification.

In order to receive these certifications, you need to say what you’re going to do, then do what you say — and then keep improving. The ISO and OHSAS standards dictate what key elements are required, but it’s up to us to figure out how to follow through. So we’ve developed a comprehensive system of procedures and improvements that our data center teams follow every day. Each of our data centers is different, so many of the improvements we’ve implemented are specific to local needs.

In Belgium, we use an evaporative cooling system that’s well-suited to the temperate climate. After cooling the servers, water runs through large cooling towers, where much of it is released as water vapor. This process is very energy efficient, but keeping the cooling towers clean and clear of outdoor dust is a time-consuming process. So the team tried a simple fix: they attached screens to the outsides of the towers, which allow air to flow freely but cut down significantly on the amount of build-up. This worked so well that our other data centers have begun to install screens as well.

Screens keep outdoor dust from entering these cooling towers.

In Ireland, we’ve found a way to use excess heat coming out of the server rooms to heat our office space. Hot air that would normally be sent outside through our cooling infrastructure is instead drawn over an air-to-air heat exchanger, where it is used to heat up incoming fresh air for the office area. This eliminates our need for gas heaters in the facility, and, like in Belgium, it’s working so well that we’re considering implementing it at other facilities.

In Finland, where we cool the data center with seawater, we want to bring the temperature down before sending the water back into the Gulf. So we built a “tempering hut,” where we manually mix the outgoing warm water with fresh cold water. We’re constantly tweaking the temperature and amount of the cold water to reach the optimal temperature, and we track that data as part of our ongoing efforts to monitor and improve our operations.

The tempering hut, the small building on the far left, is where we cool water down before returning it to the Gulf of Finland.

We want to lead the industry in environmental management and workplace safety, and we’re proud to be the first major Internet services company to achieve these certifications across their entire U.S. and European fleet.

Posted by Joe Kava, VP, Data Centers