Image Credit : Cape Cod Living

James Delingpole follows in a long line of commentators with zero engineering experience in pouring scorn on a technology that could quite possibly save our skins :-

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056158/wind-farms-yet-another-brewing-disaster/

I don’t know what he harbours in his heart against wonderful wind turbines, but he seems to be part of a movement who delight in their failure. Just ask the Internet to show you “exploding wind turbines”.

For example :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKkTUY2slYQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkGXoE3RFZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfHxINzGeo

Clearly, you need to be in full protective fatigues when battling this kind of bad press…in fact “fatigue” is exactly the right word to come back at Mr Delingpole’s cracked warning (of cracks in wind turbine bases).

Any engineer worth their sprocket set will be able to tell you that materials “fatigue”, that over time, in working machines, things wear out, metal bends and cracks as the internal structure is pulled out of shape by external stress, things that get hot and cold regularly contort, anything that turns needs lubricating or it will wear down.

Over time, cement and concrete crumble, stone erodes in the elements, wood splits or rots in inclement conditions, brakes wear down, pathway stones smooth with the treads of thousands of feet, sheds collapse in the wind…and so we get back to wind.

Wind Turbine masts bend in the wind, and so it’s easy to imagine that the concrete base of a wind turbine might be under stress from repeated bending of the mast. Plus, there’s the forces generated by the turning of the wind turbine blades, that add a pull, moving the mast slightly in one direction or other.

It’s all entirely predictable, and can be calculated. And mast turbine bases can be built to withstand these kinds of stress – if they’re built well. There are heaps of guidelines, for example :-

http://www.risoe.dk/vea/recoff/Documents/Sec_5/RECOFFdoc050.pdf
http://ecocem.ie/downloads/Offshore_Wind_Farms.pdf
http://www.ecocem.ie/index.php?p=technical&q=wind_farms

And naturally, once machines are in the field, lessons can be learned from real-life running :-

http://www.middelgrunden.dk

Nick Balmer of the Claverton Energy Research Group wrote recently,

“…Middelgrunden…This pioneering offshore windfarm used concrete gravity foundations and grouted sockets. In a well recorded incident the concrete sockets were found to have developed micro-cracking. It was a major media event and lots of people used it to hit back at wind turbines. In the event it was fixed very quickly…”

All engineering carries a risk of mechanical failure, but what would you personally prefer in terms of risk : a wind turbine falling over in a remote area, or into the sea, from time to time; or a nuclear reactor cracking and sending radioactive gas over the whole of North Wales and the Irish Sea ? Just asking. These technologies both rely on concrete, after all.

Wind Farm projects built for the big energy companies are under the usual contracts. As one contact has pointed out, “The proof of the pudding will be in the Technology and Construction court – if bases are cracking, then owners will start to seek redress.”

Engineering is not a perfect art. There are known unknowns. Time will tell if one design works better than another, or one location or type of location works better than another.

Some mechanical failures are to be expected in developing any technology, but over-protective construction seems to be a theme, as Nick Balmer points out :-

“…As somebody who has priced installing wind turbine bases, I am aware that most are built to some extremely conservative designs used for many years in Germany…[criticisms] of the turbine manufacturers designs have been that generally they are over designed for the purpose. They would say that for the savings in a few cubic metres of concrete at say £70/m3 and say 50kg of steel it is just not worth skimping on materials and design. If the worst came to the worst it is not a big job to repair the turbine bases…”

And what about safety in general ? They might have to re-write the old proverb to read “as safe as wind turbines” :-

http://www.whywind.org/pb/wp_a1b4e1bf/wp_a1b4e1bf.html

“…Odds of Death Due to Injury, United States, 2003 : The odds of anyone being killed in a wind turbine related accident in the U.S. over his/her lifetime was 1 in 3,777,272. This compares to a 1 in 84 risk of dying in a motor vehicle accident, a 1 in 1,134 risk of drowning, and a 1 in 56,789 risk of dying from a hornet, wasp or bee sting…”

“…A Summary of Fatal Accidents in Wind Energy by Paul Gipe details the worldwide accidents in wind energy : Over the course of past 35 years their have been 20 fatal accidents in wind energy worldwide. Falling from the tower is the single most apparent occupational hazard of working with wind energy. Most accidents are due to the same common sense fatal mistake, where people did not use any form of fall protection…”

So, wind turbines are less dangerous than cars, and even bees.

And as for that other common accusation – that wind turbines are inefficient, let’s look at some data shall we ? Actually, let’s look at some data from an anti-wind farm organisation.

The group CLOWD, the Campaign to Limit Onshore Wind Development, according to data collected from Ofgem on 18th June 2010, relating to the period April 2009 to March 2010, Scottish wind power as a whole was running at 54.45% capacity – in other words, producing over half its rated power. The rated power is the figure given for the amount the turbine would produce it the wind was blowing at the right speed all the time. And for England, the same figure was 34.95% of capacity. Since Scotland has twice the wind profile on average to England, that seems like a reasonable result.

Non-expert commentators use this kind of information to talk about the “efficiency” of wind turbines, and berate the low figures. But, when thinking about efficiency and wind turbines, it is necessary to compare wind power to other forms of electricity production.

For example, in the use of Fossil Fuels to deliver electricity to our homes and offices in the UK, a large proportion of the energy from the Natural Gas and Coal used is wasted :-

When gas and coal are wasted, that’s real expense.

By contrast, when a wind turbine fails to capture some wind, that’s no cost at all.

If you’re going to argue against Wind Power, you need some arguments that have solid, uncracked foundations.

And you don’t have any, do you James ? Tilting at windmills is a complete waste of your time.

Unlike the United Kingdom, where political sensibility can quash the most logical enactment of energy policy, plans for progress voiced so tentatively you can bearly feel a ripple, or hear it over the whispering swoosh of a new wind turbine blade, over in Deutschland, what they say, they intend to happen, and they’re making serious proposals about how that’s going to be done :-

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,716221,00.html

“09/07/2010 : Green Visions : Merkel’s Masterplan for a German Energy Revolution : By Stefan Schultz : Giant windparks, insulated buildings, electric cars and a European supergrid: the German government on Monday unveiled an ambitious but vague blueprint to launch a new era of green energy for Europe’s largest economy. SPIEGEL ONLINE has analyzed the plans…”

It appears to be time to wave bye-bye to German coal, incidentally, even as a strong commitment to renewable, sustainable energy is put on the table.

I wish the British Government could take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror of the future and realise what a bunch of dithering duffers they appear to be.

What we need is a proper Energy Policy, chaps, and since you’re in the hot seat you better come up with it. Elected or not, our ministers and officials need to get up out of their deep leather chairs, extinguish their pipes, don their working breeches and get digging for Britain, and I don’t mean Shale Gas or Old Coal.

Matt Phillips of the Claverton Energy Research Forum, had this to note :-

“Last week the German government released its major conclusions of a review of energy policy in its Energiekonzept. If your German is up to scratch, here it is: http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/entw_energiekonzept_kf.pdf”

“Some major highlights of interest in the UK are:”

“1 CO2 targets affirmed: Germany firmly commits to a 40% by 2020 CO2 reduction target.”

“2 Grid and 80% RES: Germany now commits to very high levels of RES and much greater integration of Germany into the European grid. Germany’s RE electricity targets are now: 35% by 2020, 50% by 2030, 65% by 2040, 80% by 2050. It also has a very substantial set of plans around grid expansion and integration in Europe. This would have implications for the rest of the European grid – as if Germany looks for greater integration this would have a major impact on grid across Northern Europe. Germany sees offshore wind as a major growth area with a substantial investment/incentives plan to make it so. The Energiekonzept proposes a €5bn loan scheme for the first ten German offshore wind projects, guarantees to cover losses, support to build specialist vessels, special offshore FIT design and improvements in permitting arrangements. The loan scheme will be financed by KfW – the government bank (equivalent of the Green Investment Bank proposed in the UK – but with major question marks at the moment over the extent of its capitalisation).”

“3 Financing: Germany has committed to recycling its €2bn ETS auction revenues for energy efficiency, renewable innovation and climate adaptation. In addition, the proposed life extension of existing nuclear will be accompanied by a windfall tax on the utilities that will benefit as a result. This €2.3bn tax will also be used explicitly for advancing renewables.”

(Note : none of the ETS auction revenues are proposed for Carbon Capture and Storage, unlike European-level statements on ambition that have been made previously).

“4 Energy Efficiency It calls for halving Germany’s primary energy consumption until 2050 (base year 2008), for doubling the yearly rate of modernisation of buildings (1% to 2%) and for an emissions standard for ALL buildings. And it proposes some instruments in order to reach these targets: An efficiency fund (€500m per year), tax exemptions, monetary incentives for energy management systems for industry, a pilot programme on white certificates, investment incentives for house owners, etc”

“Much of the media and political focus in Germany is the row over nuclear life-extension which has overwhelmed the rest of the content. But it is worth noting that in terms of the reaction, many on the renewable industry side fear nuclear life extension will chill new investment in RES. However it is also important to note the situation with new coal projects in Germany. Ten projects were given permissions more than three years ago and most of those are now under construction. There were 25 other projects in planning. In the last two years 15 of those have been abandoned. It is quite likely that the 10 in the planning pipeline would be affected by nuclear life extension. All of these are anyway are facing substantial public opposition.”

“On coal/CCS the Energiekonzept suggests there will be three commercial scale CCS projects by 2020 – two on coal plants and one on industrial emissions. It is worth noting that progress on this has proved very hard in Germany and the obstacles may not have been overcome just through this declaration of intent. In addition there is a proposal for a regulation to phase out inefficient coal. On the whole the ECF analysis is that the Energiekonzept has not delivered a coal/CCS policy that is sustainable as it does not grapple with the challenges of having a firm pathway for CCS on the plants being built now and nor does it remove the risk of unabated-coal-lock-in. But it is a helpful policy direction to open up the timetable for phasing out ‘old’ coal. As a footnote to this issue, you may not have seen recent comments by RWE that it is pulling out of all new coal projects as coal is uneconomic. While this was only announced in Germany, last week RWE pulled out of a new coal project in Poland.”

“The Energiekonzept is a proposal. It is perceived in Germany as a ‘centre right’ positioning on the issues. But it is important to understand that the mainstream consensus in Germany is now that the future is large scale RES. There is no political constituency in Germany calling for new nuclear plants. The Energiekonzept will almost certainly be subject to legal challenge and the proposals underneath it will be introduced in legislation or policy and so controversial measures will face political challenge.”

Image Credit : Gilbert & George, “Nettle Dance”, White Cube

I’m in the Climate Union. Are You ?

Soon we could all be, if the expansionist plans of a group of social campaigners come to fruition.

Taking in the unions, faith communities and the usual rag-tag bunch of issues activists, the Climate Union aims to establish itself as a political force for Low Carbon.

First of all, however, it has to tackle the uneasy and prickly problem of the exact name of the movement, and the principles under which it will operate.

The flag has been flown : a set of principles has been circulated for discussion amongst the “Climate Forum”. I cannot show you the finalised document yet, but I can offer you my comments (see below).

If you want to comment on the development of this emerging entity, please contact : Peter Robinson, Campaign against Climate Change, mobile/cell telephone in the UK : 07876595993.

Comments on the Climate Forum Principles
Jo Abbess
28 June 2010

I am aware that my comments are going to be a little challenging. I made similar comments during the review of the ClimateSafety briefing, which were highly criticised.

I expect you to be negative in response to what I say, but I think it is necessary to make sure the Climate Forum does not become watered-down, sectorally imprisoned and politically neutered, like so many other campaigns.

Comments on paragraph :-
“While there is an increasing awareness of the climate science, many governments are in practice opposed to implementing radical measure[s] to combat climate change [largely] because…such measures would appear to be in conflict with the interests of business, but also because they are uncertain if they would carry the majority of the public with them. The problem is that those in power do not necessarily have the will to bring about the legislation and the required actions.”

I would contest the assumption that “governments are in practice opposed to implementing radical measure[s]“.

My reasons are that I think that the reality of the situation is that governments are a little bit like mushrooms – kept in the dark and fed rotten sewage.

Although the governments do have access to the best Scientific information about Climate Change, they don’t always absorb it. On the other hand, they often do not have access to the best Economic information.

Governments often listen to some of the best Scientific information, and invest trust in the Scientific institutions. However, they have both a demon and an angel on their shoulder when it comes to Economic information.

The European Union is a classic example, of attempting to mesh together the best of Socialism and the worst of Neoliberalism. There are agents of Capitalism whispering into the ears of the inner circle policymakers the whole time, as evidenced by the work of such organisations as the Corporate Europe Observatory.

In the United Kingdom, when the “Recession”, sorry “Downturn” hit, Keynes and his pluralism was resurrected, but he has now been slain once more by the “Emergency Cuts Budget”.

The fight in Government is not over the Science. The anti-science crowd have picked off a few Members of Parliament with their vulture media tactics, but most MPs are on the ball as regards the Science of Climate Change, as are most of the Government Civil Services and Departments.

The synaptic gap is in translating that knowledge into effective Economic Policy, in my view. Pricing Carbon is not the solution, and even if it has an impact, it will not be a very large part of the solution. Public Finance for such things as Carbon Capture and Storage and New Nuclear will not achieve much – they are classic money pits schemes (or “boondoggle”, another American expression).

I think that the emphasis should be on educating the Government about the need to totally reform the Energy systems, the sourcing of Energy, and the use of Energy.

The reason why I think this is important can be seen in the approach taken to tobacco control. Since there was an enormous amount of money, both public and private, invested in the tobacco industry, it was not politically possible to close down the corporations that produced cigarettes.

Yet a total ban on cigarette smoking was indicated as necessary to the maintenance of public health.

Instead of shutting down the industry, the European governments began a two-pronged campaign, to outlaw smoking in various environments, and also to educate people.

After about 10 years, the tobacco industry saw the way things were going and went off to kill teenagers in China instead, in pursuit of the profit they continue to owe their shareholders.

I don’t think we have 10 years to effect a proper Climate Policy, and we certainly cannot continue to outsource Carbon Dioxide emissions to China through globalisation.

We need something more radical. For example, I suggest that we should call for a ban on the use of Coal to generate Electricity.

The other strand of the current situation is what the public appear to think when they answer opinion polls. Firstly, and importantly, their views don’t actually count towards setting Policy, as the Government is responsible to enact the Climate Change Act, not follow the whims of anti-wind farm lobby groups, pro-Carbon and anti-tax groups (for example).

Climate Change is not an issue about which people are entitled to vote. The cross-party imperative for Policy action is there, regardless of what Nigel Lawson, Christopher Booker, Steve McIntyre and James Delingpole think.

The Government has a mandate from the Climate Change Science, not from the people. However, it would be helpful if the people were more educated about the Science, and I would urge that the Climate Forum addresses directly the anti-science problems in the Media, where most people get their beliefs from.

Also, if would be helpful if the public could be asked to rally behind a basket of sensible, inclusive Policy measures – not taxation – but targeted spending and selective subsidies.

This is where the “One Million Green Jobs” initiative from the Campaign against Climate Change and the unions is so pertinent. A common, progressive agenda would help public debates to have better cohesion and less acrimony.

As for the phrase, “uncertain if they would carry the majority of the public with them”, I don’t believe that the public need to be encouraged to give the Government a “mandate”.

I believe it is naive, foolish and a waste of time and personal energy to suggest that the public need to be rallied to give the Government “a message”.

The Government already have the necessary information to act. What is needed is a general education of both Government and public about what is likely to work in terms of Social and Economic “engineering”.

It’s not about “voluntary behaviour change”. The Act on CO2 campaign asked everyone to drive 5 miles less a week. But over 50% of the population of driving age don’t have access to a car.

Public guilt-tripping is not only irrelevant, it’s unproductive. People who care are already doing the 10:10 initiative, or gave up flying and most home heating years ago.

People who know the problems and have decided to take personal action have already started their journey. The travel that needs to happen is in the field of those who provide us with our energy and fuel.

There has to be a new understanding that the Energy corporates must change – that BP, for example, must turn its production to Renewables or face corporate extinction.

There has to be massive disinvestment away from Carbon Energy and investment into Renewable Energy.

That can start with each one of us expressing a consumer “preference” in the way that we use our money, but it has to be carried higher and wider, with such activities of those of FairPensions.

In the end, it’s not the way we are taxed, but the way the whole Society uses money that determines our survival.

The Church of England, for example, has recently reported that their Commissioners have made a handsome profit on their investments. Which companies are in the top 20 shares held ? BP is one of those companies.

Yet the Church of England, in their Fifth Mark of Mission, say they want “To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth”. They can’t do that if they continue to invest in BP.

It is this kind of dilemma that needs to be addressed, not the debate about whether it is more energy efficient to use paper towels or hand dryers in public toilets.

If all the energy supplied to our homes and all the energy used in our transport systems were green, then it would not matter if we left the porch light on overnight by mistake.

There has to be a major shift in campaigning perception in my view. The energy system itself needs to be overhauled, not public opinion.

And anyway, what counts in Government is not public opinion, but the usual tendency of political views to be compromised by whichever business lobby is in the ascendance.

If the Government could be encouraged to make a clear statement about complete energy transition, a step far, far beyond the work of the Low Carbon Transition plan set out last year, then the tipping point might be near at hand.

It’s true that tackling the belief system of the Government would be helped by seeding the right ideas into the “Twittering classes”, who are strongly networked to the Government, but the major thrust of the Climate Forum surely has to be Government-facing, not public-facing.

I don’t want the Climate Forum to be a Government stooge. I don’t want the Climate Forum to end up as an outsourced public relations exercise – the Government have been using the NGOs to propagandise their plans for years. Gordon Brown and his Office were famously behind the Make Poverty History campaign from its inception.

I’m not against the whole concept of Government. In fact, I think organised government is the only way forward out of the Carbon mess. However, I think the Climate Forum needs to pitch itself as being opposed to lax regulation and weak thinking in Government, more than simply being a Social tool for change.

Reply from Ruth :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

“Jo, really interesting stuff – thank you. I can’t quite see how the Climate Forum could be “government-facing”, with any clout without a huge supporter base, demonstrated by ralleys, lobbying post cards etc?”

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply to Ruth :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Hi Ruth,

The current “campaign” mechanism has its focus on what individuals should be doing. The central theory is about how to change the behaviour of citizens and consumers. Even the 10:10 campaign is a glorified “Are you doing your bit ?”, “Lights Off” or “Save It” campaign.

When campaigns want people to act politically, the message is all about how the people have to mobilise, the people have to carry placards, write postcards, write to their MP, lobby Parliament, e-mail the media. The people have to take all this action. And for what ? To get our million man marches ignored by the political elite, or our petitions fobbed off by the Secretary of State.

Taking the message to Government doesn’t need to be backed up by getting 2 million people on the streets. In fact, in 2003 we managed to get 2 million people on the streets against the scheduled assault on Iraq. Did it make any difference ? No. Because the Government are not obliged to listen to “campaigners” and “protesters”, or act on what they demand.

The Government has to be analysed and critiqued within its own walls, using its own language, deploying its own policies. What level of authority do we need to accumulate to make a real difference ? Do we need maximum “bums on seats” in a campaign, or maximum political crowbars ?

Christian Aid and Oxfam love postcard campaigns. It means the paid staff need to do little work to respond to peoples’ concerns. Worried about Climate Change ? Fill in one of our postcards, then. I have heard an Oxfam campaigns worker recently say that much of their campaigns activity is “outsourced” to local activists, implying that it gave people something to do, even though it was ineffective.

Not cynical, just observant.

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply from Tony :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Dear Jo

Could you suggest a specific rewording of that paragraph that you referred to (and any others) based on your considered arguments? That is what Peter and Ann are looking for.

…

Regards

Tony

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply to Tony :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Dear Tony,

Thanks for asking for my wording.

What I was trying to explain in my comments is that I disagree pretty fundamentally with some of the theories the principles document is based on.

My comments are therefore in relation to the whole document.

My re-wording would take in an entire re-write of the document to place emphasis on effective political engagement with all those who have genuine decision-making authority, particularly and especially in regard to the energy companies.

Those mostly private organisations that provide us with energy and fuel need to be changing their behaviour, not our neighbours in our streets.

Those citizens who care are already committed. We don’t need another “campaign”. We need a networked research and response unit, continuously analysing the state of play in policy and corporate activities and feeding this back to everyone involved in a common, plain language.

I think that the focus of the Climate Forum should be holding the government and corporations genuinely and concretely accountable. And that is not going to be done by the normal “campaign” methods.

I have no idea whether other people feel the same way, so I don’t know if it’s worth trying to put in the energy to do another re-write of the document now, myself.

All I know is, if views like mine are not taken into consideration, then the membership of the movement risks being confined to “the usual suspects”.

Peter and Ann are looking for a re-wording of some of the paragraphs. Unfortunately, I question the whole of the document and the theories on which is is based.

If we want the same-old same-old piecemeal campaigning, then by all means, go ahead on the basis of the social theory that you need to “mobilise” people in order to have political change.

If you want a really different kind of organisation, with urgency and scope, you need a really different kind of movement tool.

Regards,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Methods of electricity storage are considered essential in grids that have large proportions of wind capacity. This is because, surprisingly, winds have been known to quieten down a bit from time to time.

Some people take this fact too far. For example, there is the “Northern European Winter High Pressure” lobby, who continue to insist, in a number of forums, that low aerial flow entirely compromises wind energy expansion, just because there are several days in December or January that might be a little flat.

A couple of examples :-

http://www.wind-power-program.com/intermittency.htm

http://www.claverton-energy.com/is-wind-power-reliable.html

http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=59

This argument has been raging for a while now :-

http://eeru.open.ac.uk/natta/renewonline/rol52/7.htm

And some of the anti-wind lobby may have a point or two (although aesthetics is not a viable one). But limitations from variability are not as bad as they may at first seem :-

http://www.claverton-energy.com/wind-energy-variability-new-reports.html

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100416/offshore-wind-power-grows-push-transmission-supergrids

Dr Gregor Czisch is publishing the English translation of his doctoral thesis on supergrids in July, and we can hope for a rush of interest in his conclusions, which amount to : “low-cost low-carbon energy forever” :-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scenarios-Future-Electricity-Supply-Cost-Optimised/dp/1849191565

http://www.lowcarboneconomy.com/community_content/_discussions/6581/solution

What will help people feel confident about the expansion of wind power will be the development of different methods of storage, for when the sky does become calmer than normal.

My favourite technology design of the month is…rock batteries. Yes, batteries composed almost entirely of pulverised gravel :-

http://www.isentropic.co.uk/index.php?page=storage

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6493372.ece

Whether or not they live up to their design, I think the idea, alone, is worthy of praise.

The “geographical scale” solutions for storage include pumped (water) storage, for which you need to build uphill lakes; and CAES compressed air energy storage, which is fine if you have an underground sealed cavern all naturally there in the rock, like…an old natural gas well or something…at sea, perhaps…

Turn your old North Sea oil rig platforms into wind farms and pump air into the old oil and gas wells for low wind moments, and hey presto ! Variability-free renewable offshore energy !

Weird and wild other ideas could include :-

a. Using special electromagnetically isolated rock formations as kind of supersized capacitors…no, that’s probably completely impossible, but it sounds cool.

b. Using spare wind power to drive some chemical reformation that can be undone to release electrical power again. I know, I know. Hydrogen reformers are already being used in combination with Wind Turbines as discrete “sets”. I’m thinking more generally :-

http://www.pure.shetland.co.uk/html/pure_project1.html

http://www.ifandp.com/article/004090.html

c. Superconducting flywheels.

Here’s more ideas in the making :-

http://cleantech.com/news/5649/energy-storage-not-all-about-batter

Anyway, the American Wind Energy Association thinks energy storage is unnecessary to back wind power up :-

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Energy_Storage_Factsheet.pdf

Wind Power works. There is much evidence. And there are co-benefits. Click the link and choose the Carbon Nation film sneak preview “Wind Miracles in Texas” :-

Carbon Nation Sneak Preview :-
http://www.carbonnation.tv/sneak-previews

Our Renewable Nation interview :-

Dr Gregor Czisch’s meisterwerk is being translated into English for publication this Summer :-

Scenarios for a Future Electricity Supply: Cost-Optimised Variations on Supplying Europe and Its Neighbours with Electricity from Renewable Energies

You would never know from the plainspeaking title just how exciting this is : seriously cheap Energy and peacemaking collaboration all in one shot !

The management consultants PriceWaterhouseCooper (couldn’t they think of a more speakable name ?), have just published their own view on Europe and North Africa combining to provide a one hundred percent renewable Energy solution :-

http://www.pwc.co.uk/sustainability/

http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/publications/100_percent_renewable_electricity.html

Mark Delucchi (one half of the “two Marks” Jacobson and Delucchi) is coming to London, England for a presentation on Zero Carbon Transport Futures in May :-

http://futurity.org/earth-environment/totally-clean-and-green-by-2030/

http://www.claverton-energy.com/pipermail/claverton-group_claverton-energy.com/2010-March/003805.html

http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/delucchi/index.php

Meanwhile, investors crowd into the DESERTEC project :-

http://www.gsjournal.com/2010/03/first-solar-joins-the-desertec-industrial-initiative/

http://www.scienceknowledge.org/?p=6309

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/56974

And of course, the Centre for Alternative Technology will be launching Zero Carbon Britain 2030 in June 2010 :-

http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/content/blogcategory/1/35/

Britain could be a Renewable “Titan” :-

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/britain-could-be-wind-and-wave-titan/

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7933596&story_id=15311437

There’s money in them there sloshing waves and swirling winds :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/13/manchester-report-bonds

There’s a remarkable amount of synergy going on with all the moves towards Renewables.

If I had a eurocent for every time a Climate Change denier-sceptic told me that if I really, truly believe that Carbon Dioxide causes Global Warming I should just stop breathing…well, I’d be rich enough now to afford to buy the whole of Belgium, or at least most of economically-depressed Wallonia. Mmm…Waffles.

But seriously, holding your breath in the form of Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) is one of the big flashing signs for the future of ReSmoothing, smoothing Renewable Energy supply, that is.

As we all now know, thanks to the continual moans of the anti-Wind Farm brigade, Wind Power, and other forms of Renewable Power are variable, or intermittant. Look ! See ! Some days in Winter the wind drops to practically zero…in North Western Europe.

And even though the wind is always blowing somewhere in the World, and even though we can build a super Supergrid over a very large geographical area to draw in many kinds of Renewables, we do still need Energy Storage to cover us for the bad patches.

Hydropower in general is fairly productive, but sometimes overweighty.

(The Three Gorges dam in China, once in operation, was so large it changed the rotation of the Earth ! http://www.theenergylibrary.com/node/11435)

Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) has been going on for decades in parallel with the general Hydropower drive. What do you think some of the artificial lakes around Europe are for, precisely ? Decoration ?

But it’s been so successful that the limit for Hydropower development has probably been reached in most appropriate geographies.

So we have to do other things as well.

Apart from Flow Batteries (giant Fuel Cells), which require lots of metal and sometimes metals in short supply, the headliners appear to involve building underground caverns for things, for which you don’t need lots of metal, just suitable geological formations :-

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/epri-on-renewable-energy-compressed-air-energy-storage/

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6053

This is what all the retiring Petroleum Engineers will end up doing : finding suitable sites for pumped underground storage. When the lemon/turkey/dead duck of Carbon Capture and Storage fails to attract enough money to make it out of the nest.

This anti-sense meme from Classical (Neoliberal, Chicago School) Economics boils down to a perception problem. The obvious reason why Renewable Energy technologies are not already widely in use is due to the first-mover problem – it takes time to establish and roll out new technologies. People just don’t like change. And they have to get over the “investment bump” – spending the money to install new technologies.

The other obvious reason why Renewable Energy technologies are not already widely in use is that the Fossil Fuel and Nuclear industries have been supported with generous helpings of State support. And they’ve spent some of their profits on disinformation campaigns about Renewable Energy technologies – so much so that humble town councils around Great Britain believe that wind turbines are rubbish and refuse to have them on their patch.

But let me tell you this : the only future for Energy is Green.

And the only returns on investment that anyone will be able to make in Energy will be in Renewables.

OK, so I’m not an IFA (Independent Financial Adviser), but I can tell you which way the wind is blowing in terms of Carbon pricing.

Sooner or later, it will become unprofitable to emit Carbon Dioxide, even if you sell Energy from that activity.

The Fossil Fuel companies will go bust if they don’t change course.

Sooner or later, the world will agree on Carbon caps that stick, and reductions in emissions that will be regulated, legislated and monitored.

Why am I sure of this ? I’ve read enough of the Climate Change science, the actual physical evidence, that I am convinced that the only course of action is strong curtailment of Carbon Dioxide emissions from economic activity – which means Energy supply activity.

Oh yes, we will also need to curb our Methane emissions, and do a number of other things as well, but Carbon Dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas to control, reducing its accumulation in the air.

But don’t worry. Even though there is a lot of Energy investment that we will all have to pay for over the next 30 years, it will work out cheaper overall.

Why is that ? Well, first off, wind, wave and solar power is free. I mean, the kit to harness it needs to be paid for, but the power is uncosted. Free fuel ! I hear people cry. Free fuel, forever.

Secondly, Renewables are more sustainable than other Energy resources : there is no bottom-of-the-well problem with Wind Power; there is no danger that the Sun will stop shining until it dies about X billion years hence; the seas will keep washing over the shores.

Third of all, Renewables do not damage the local environment where they are installed, to any great degree. Yes people moan about bird strike on turbines, peat removal for wind turbine siting and so on and so on. But the scale of these impacts is so much less than the use of Fossil Fuels – oil spilling into the oceans on a constant basis; or Coal – poisoning the environment with mercury, dioxins and ash.

Fourth : practically all Renewable Energy technology equipment can be recycled – sparing us from “resource constraints” on building the kit to deploy in the field. We could power the whole world from a small part of the Sahara desert, according to the calculations, so that’s not so much metal and glass, is it ? We’ve covered an area the size of the whole Sahara with cities of metal, concrete and glass in the past.

Actually, it is that good, and people are already doing it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=desertec-555-billion-renewable-ener-2009-11
“November 2, 2009 : DESERTEC $555 Billion Renewable Energy Project Moving Forward : The huge project to build a $555 billion renewable energy “ belt ” in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, funded largely by German companies, moved another step forward a few days ago.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/01/solar-power-sahara-europe-desertec
“Solar power from Sahara a step closer : The German-led Desertec
initiative believes it can deliver power to Europe as early as 2015″

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8337735.stm
“Sahara Sun ‘to help power Europe’”

He can’t determine truth from fiction, that’s why.

We can produce report after report and datasheet after datasheet showing how ridiculous it will be to continue with Coal and Nuclear, and he won’t be able to see the wood for the trees.

This is yet again proof of why it is pointless trying to engage with the decison-makers. They don’t have the mental framework to be able to deal with the facts and figures.

Oh yes, they may be smart. Smart enough to try to navigate differing positions and managing timelines for decisions and announcements.

But clever ? Now that takes a lot more in terms of education.

There is a hole in the head of the governing authorities of the world. They do not understand Energy, nor the limitations of Engineering, and they’ve never had to make or repair anything. So they just don’t know about the underlying reality of technologies.

They are hypnotised by the sales merchants kept in work by the large lobbying budgets of the large companies and transnational corporations.

They are bamboozled by faked figures and dodgy accounting.

What hope is there for reality instead of more TV ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/13/miliband-energy-white-paper-tories-carbon-budgetspower

Watching the US political drama the West Wing one night, Ed Miliband found he had something in common with Josh Lyman, who plays the deputy White House chief of staff. Both, Miliband says, have been exasperated by the infighting within the energy industry.

The energy and climate change secretary recounts the episode in which Lyman crashes his SUV into a Prius, symbol of the environmentally conscious. As penance for such sacrilege, the White House staffer has to attend an industry summit where people are promoting different low-carbon technologies. “They end up having a big fall-out with each other,” Miliband says. “Sometimes the UK debate feels a bit like that: the renewables lot say you should only do renewables and shouldn’t do nuclear or coal. Nuclear people say all this wind will lead to big problems. Coal people say, ‘Why are you going on about renewables and nuclear?’”

Social measures must surely include public investment in de-Carbonising each home. At costs 100 times less than the announced new Nuclear Power programme, and an order of magnitude cheaper than the Carbon Capture and Storage demonstration projects, I think this shows excellent value for money as well as ethical rectitude.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/5394198/Middle-Britain-not-as-wealthy-as-perceived-report-suggests.html

“Middle Britain is not as wealthy as initially perceived as a new survey highlights the true salaries and lifestyles of workers on average incomes. By Myra Butterworth, Personal Finance Correspondent
Published: 27 May 2009 : The report warned that those on middle incomes have lost out sharply compared with better-off professionals and now fear losing their jobs and homes. Median earners had seen their income go up less than average over the last 30 years, increasing by 60 per cent since 1979 compared with rises of 78 per cent for the better off, according to the report by the TUC. Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary, said: “For all the talk of middle Britain, those on real middle incomes got left behind under the Conservatives, were left out of Labour’s boom that has now busted into recession, and are now fearing for their jobs and homes as unemployment bites.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/inco-j04.shtml

“Britain: Income inequality at record high : By Barry Mason : 4 June 2009 : Last month the government quietly published the latest measure of income inequality, the Gini coefficient, for the UK. The figure tells a story of growing exploitation and mounting poverty in Britain…The contrast between rich and poor is even starker when the mean or arithmetical average is considered. The mean earnings figure for 2007-08 was £487 a week. It is calculated that 65 percent of the population earn less than this sum.”

Those who talk in averages call the United Kingdom a developed nation, a rich nation, a country with high levels of wealth and personal resources.

But this is just not the reality for the majority of its citizens.

Energy is relatively cheap, and it’s a good thing too, as people find it hard to move from their usual pattern of energy consumption.

When people hear about Carbon pricing, they are concerned, as their lives would be so much harder if Energy becomes more expensive.

And the majority of people, those at and below the median levels of income and Energy expenditure, they are not the heaviest consumers of anything, and they are already using less than the average (mean) :-

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file50672.pdf

When the Government urges voluntary behaviour change, communicating that each one of us should “Act on CO2″, this is a dense and unworkable message.

People have got other things in their lives to worry about besides Energy, and they have no idea how to cut their Energy consumption cheaply.

People are famously over-optimistic about Do It Yourself home maintenance, even rolling out loft insulation.

And a good 30% of the UK population don’t own the home they live in, and so do not necessarily have permission to change the building fabric.

On top of all that, it’s hard to recruit affordable installation engineers who you can have confidence in, to help you reduce your Energy consumption.

It’s no wonder that people do not respond in their millions.

It seems likely that the international Climate Change negotiations at Copenhagen in December will settle on a treaty with a heavy Carbon Trading component, making a negatively-valued commodity out of Carbon Dioxide emissions.

It is inevitable that this will result in higher Energy prices, and for the poor in every nation, including the developed nations, this will be an unwelcome burden.

Added to that, the annually reducing Carbon Cap that is the other half of the “Cap and Trade” concept that gives us Carbon Trading, will in effect cause Energy Rationing. The nation as a whole will only be permitted to cause a capped amount of Carbon Emissions, and this will automatically restrict the use of Energy.

So, for the underprivileged there will be a “double whammy” : more expensive Energy, and rationing of Energy. For those households who cannot organise themselves and their homes to use less Energy, owing to financial and practical problems, this will only add to their deprivation.

At the conference “The politics of climate change : from economic crisis to business revolution” on Friday 5th June 2009, I heard several speakers outline some of the Social Justice problems with Climate Change policy.

John Hills, Professor of Social Policy at the London School of Economics, made the astute observation that “taxes are regressive”, that is that they unfairly penalise the less well-off. “If you reduce income tax and promote a Carbon tax, that’s also regressive”, as people’s Energy use is not directly proportional to their income.

“There is an argument for “targetted compensation”", he said, “but even if you put every single p [penny] into compensation you still have low income losers, 1) because those instruments are not perfect – means-tested benefits do not have 100% take-up and 2) there is a huge spread of consumption in low-income households, for example [some have high] transport costs [to get to work].”

John Hills pointed out that “15% of the poorest were losers in the “progressive” tax regime change that cut the 10p tax band.”

“Maybe there’s not much we can do ? There is a limit to what we can add to means-testing. As for offsets [offsetting the extra Carbon costs with tax or benefits returned], you can’t spend the same money four times over. You can’t spend Carbon tax revenues on energy efficiency, low income transfers, household adapatation and mitigation measures.”

In other words, if a Carbon Tax is applied, there is a choice about how to spend the Revenue, but it cannot be used to invest in Renewable Energy infrastructure and domestic Energy Efficiency, and at the same time be used to compensate the poor for their extra Energy costs.

For John Hills, this implies that (a) the politics are more difficult. There’s less money left over to make the measures more palatable for the “median voter”. “Even the best compensation package has holes in it.”

For John Hills, a “reflation package would have wanted a “Decent Homes (2)” scheme. These redistributions shouldn’t be an afterthought. [We] need to build in social policy design at the start.”

He concluded with a notable quotable : “Carbon cost capture and recycling is as problematic as Carbon Capture and Storage.”

Rebecca Willis of the Sustainable Development Commission took aim at what she called the “substitution and efficiency paradigm”, and explained that it will not be possible to assume that substituting alternative Energy sources and making everything hyper efficient will be enough. She took issue with people that made out that they were going to continue to fly and drive as they have before.

“Climate Change is political”, she said, “there is a seismic political shift [happening]…All three main parties have agreed to set environmental limits. That’s an incredible start…[that] all parties agreed [that] an 80% cut in emissions by 2050 is in the UK’s best interests…[but that's come at a] cost of propagating a dangerous myth that you can do all this without [any significant impact].”

She referred back to the speech that Stelios Haji-Ioannou (chief of EasyJet) had made in the main meeting, where he claimed that travel is a good thing; and she mentioned Oliver Letwin’s (Conservative Party strategist) personal statement in another conference (or interview) defending his right to drive : “I like to go places”. She said that people were being offered the idea that Low Carbon alternatives could be made for everything. She said that it seemed it was thought that unless everyone buys into this myth of “substitution and efficiency”, that it will be too difficult for political movement.

She mentioned a report that her colleague Tim Jackson had prepared with the title “Prosperity without Growth ?”, where the question mark was deliberate. They had wanted to call the report something more challenging, but they had been advised that if they had the UK Government Finance Department, the Treasury, would not have opened it.

She explained that there is a problem discussing growth. In Tim Jackson’s work, he took reasonable figures for growth in population (9 billion) and the Economy (2% growth year on year), and calculated that we would need to go from 770 grammes of Carbon emitted per unit of productivity/output now to around 6 grammes in 2050.

She said that for all the speakers of the day so far, they were effectively claiming that 6 times as much output could be possible from the same dollar of oil. She pointed out that the amount of Renewable Energy that would be needed to do this would be immense. She cited the work of Professor David Mackay of Cambridge and his book “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air”, and his calculations on the Renewable Energy required to maintain current consumption.

Rebecca Willis said that owing to the content of the recent publications by the Sustainable Development Commission, they were now seen as “dangerous radicals” by the UK Government, even though all their work is evidence-based and entirely reliable. She said that “we won’t meet the targets with this paradigm of substitution and efficiency”.

She said that “Carbon will get more and more expensive – we simply can’t provide enough Carbon-free Energy as people want. We are talking about profound social and economic change.” She said that it was useful to see it in terms of social justice, and she spoke about the pragmatic, cheap solutions. “Everything you do to sort out the existing system is socially and economically more viable.”

“In transport : [we must ask] is the car the solution to all our problems ? Home energy use : look to the Isle of Eigg [in Scotland] and their micro grid. There is a 5 kilowatt limit on each household. They collectively agreed to cap electricity consumption. You couldn’t begin to have that debate on the “mainland”. Maybe we should start talking about how much Carbon we can live with.”

Rebecca Willis bemoaned the way that the main speakers of the morning had used such negative language when talking about cutting Energy consumption. Stelios Haji-Ioannou had said that we’re not going to go and live in caves. And she recalled that Oliver Letwin had whinged about being on his own in his library, cold and hungry. Rebecca asked “Can we start looking at all the positive range in between “substitution and efficiency” and “cavemen” ?”

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/rebecca-willis-vice-chair-whitehall.html

http://www.rebeccawillis.co.uk/biography.html

Frances Graham from the Trades Union Congress (TUC) substituted for Andy Atkins. She said we should be aware that she had boosted the voice of women by 100% at the conference !

“This morning there was a remarkable lack of discussion on a new politics”, she said, “[yet] politics has got us into this mess. There has been no discussion on the Global North and the Global South and the distribution of “pain and gain”. [We need] some kind of consensus about how we get there and who bears the burden.”

She unpacked the current employment situation and explained there were ongoing massive job losses in such areas as construction and in industry. “Our immediate concern is near-term”, she explained – the labour-intensive nature of proposals for investing in Green Energy and Energy Efficiency. She talked of the need for a Just Transition – “it matters who wins, who loses and how we get there.”

Frances Graham said “We need a revitalisation of democracy”. She was “surprised” by the main speakers “talking of us as consumers – not as citizens. Terry Leahy [the Chief Executive Officer for Tesco] didn’t talk about the workforce as having a voice. Climate Change can’t be done to workers or to people, but with us.”

She talked about social policy trends – where “people have been made more responsible for our own pensions, our own care [in old age], our own adult children living at home, and paying for all of this through home ownership.”

She explained that the Trades Union Congress is “looking for a big green economic stimulus”, and indicated that the collaboration of trades unions and workers was already contributing. “We’ve done lots of mitigation and adaptation in work places. Union representatives are working on environmental programmes in work places.”

She recalled the 1976 Lucas Aerospace plan – to diversify from mostly military products. They were facing big job cuts and they came up with an alternative plan. Everybody was involved in the plan. “They came up with ideas such as solar and fuel cells – new forms of windmill – small power packs – fuel efficient engines – they came up with what they wanted to produce. They wanted meaningful work making socially useful goods. It was totally lost. I hope we don’t repeat this mistake. I hope we can unleash fair and democratic change.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/26/fred-pearce-greenwash-shell-exxon
“Greenwash: Shell betrays ‘new energy future’ promises”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article5927869.ece

“Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment”

Good on them. They’ve stopped pretending to have any shred of Environmental accountability. They intend to carry on polluting. At least we know where they stand now, honestly.

Now, technically, this is known as “retreat”. They’re going to focus on shaking their moneymakers in the traditional way, the way that’s always worked for them in the past, and I’m sure their shareholders and stakeholders and takehomepayers will be pleased. Oil and gas prices can only rise, on average, from where they are now.

But this is a very short-sighted plan. Maybe they know something we don’t know about what will happen in the future ? Maybe there will be huge new oil fields (almost impossible) ? Maybe there will be enormous new gas flows (improbable, unless you count methane from melting permafrost) ? Maybe they realise that their retreat will eventually turn into a retrenchment, before their business well and truly folds ?

Maybe they are secretly working on completely new business based on completely new technologies ? Maybe they are retooling in the back yard ? Here’s just one of the many ideas that are being touted :-

(Can we say “fart” ?)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16902-bacterium-eats-electricity-farts-biogas.html

“Bug eats electricity, farts biogas : 06 April 2009 by Michael Marshall : Single-celled organisms that can convert electricity into methane could help solve one of the biggest problems with renewable energy – its unreliability compared to the steady output of polluting fossil-fuel power stations…”

Or maybe Shell has realised it’s a dinosaur Energy corporate, and that the meteor of Carbon pricing is about to wipe it out before it gets a chance to properly evolve, and they’re resigned to eventual doom ?