« June 2008 | Main |August 2008 »
The Week in Green: Are wind turbines at risk of being blown away?
It's been a good few months for the global wind energy industry with governments and investors working together to create a fair wind (sorry) for the sector.
In the UK, the wind industry's dominance of the renewables sector has never looked more secure with the government confirming last month that wind will form the centre piece of its renewables strategy over the next decade, the north east fast emerging as global hub for the sector, the planning problems that have dogged both large and small scale projects apparently beginning to recede, and the flagship Thames Array project back on track after Shell's exit.
There is little doubt the sector is set to enjoy a bumper decade or two, but looking further into the future it is possible to detect some storm clouds on the horizon (I'll stop the weak weather references now, promise).
The problem hinges on the simple question of what do you do when the wind stops blowing.
I'm not suggesting, like Jeremy Clarkson and his acolytes, that the problem of reliability makes turbines worthless. The accuracy of modern wind profiling and site selection coupled with the ability to limit the risk posed by still conditions by developing a network of wind farms so huge that it is highly unlikely all the turbines will stop turning at the same time means the case for turbines remains a strong one.
But that said the inherent issue of reliability means that wind will always be vulnerable to being displaced by the emergence of renewable energy technologies that offer a more predictable flow of energy.
Two projects, both still in the earliest stages of development, underlined this reality this week.
The proposals for a tidal barrage or fence across the Severn Estuary which were published this week may all end up proving much more expensive than wind farms, but the sheer amount of energy it could tap - enough to meet five per cent of the UK's electricity needs, apparently - and the day in day out predictability of that energy make the project extremely attractive.
Similarly, the hugely ambitious proposals for a string of solar farms across North Africa and the Middle East capable of providing energy to all of Europe would not come cheap, particularly when the entire continent's energy grid would need converting to high voltage direct current cables. But again the reliability of the Saharan sun makes the concept difficult to ignore as the potential long term solution to Europe's energy problems.
Wind would play its part in such a project with offshore wind farms in the North Sea and geothermal power stations in Iceland also feeding into the grid, but solar would surely enjoy the lion's share.
In fact, even if the plans for African solar farms die a death in the corridors of Brussels the wind sector can expect to face increased competition from solar as panels become steadily cheaper and more efficient. This is particularly true in the microgeneration space where the emergence of solar roofs, walls and windows appear a much better bet than the much criticised mini turbines.
This is not to suggest the medium term outlook for the wind sector is anything other than rosy. Wind turbines will maintain the cost advantage they enjoy over most other renewables for a good few years yet and once governments have backed a technology as they have done with wind they tend to be very slow to shift their allegiance.
But there remains a very real chance that wind turbines could ultimately prove themselves the video recorders of renewable energy - a stop gap technology, destined to enjoy several decades of complete dominance before ultimately being edged out by a superior alternative.
Right, I'm off to try and get my hands on a Canadian visa.
Have a good weekend,
James
The Week in Green: why it's time to look behind the green labels
Gold is better than bronze, right?
Well, not always.
Under proposals set out this week by Ofgem and designed to slap gold, silver or bronze labels on energy companies' various green energy tariffs, some firms could find themselves deciding that a tariff carrying a bronze label is actually significantly better than one that has been awarded gold.
A system designed to bring clarity to a bewildering market, looks like it could just lead to yet more confusion.
The problem centres on Ofgem's failure to draw a distinction between those green tariffs that work by investing a customers' money in building extra renewable energy capacity and those that invest it in carbon offsets or energy saving initiatives.
According to Ofgem, green tariffs will be rated based on how much money the energy provider is putting into these very different environmental schemes, not the nature of the schemes themselves.
Now, if you are of the view, as many people are, that signing up to a green tariff should represent a means of buying renewable energy at a premium rate that allows you as a customer to support the building of extra renewables capacity then you could find yourself in the bizarre position of having to eschew a gold rated green tariff based on contributions to a carbon offset tree planting scheme in favour of a bronze rated tariff that actually results in extra wind turbines being built.
This is not to say the Ofgem proposals are all bad. The plan to force energy providers to be more transparent about exactly what their green tariffs involve is welcome, as is the move to only accredit those tariffs that deliver environmental benefits beyond those the energy companies are already legally obliged to deliver under the government's Renewables Obligation. But you can't help but feel that the goal of making it easier for the customers to identify the best green tariffs has been missed.
With countless green accreditation, certification and labelling schemes now available the need to closely assess the criteria by which they judge products and services has never been more urgent.
Buying a product with a green label should give you confidence that it is amongst the greenest options available, but sadly this is not always the case and procurement professionals need to be careful not to get caught out.
Detailed, verifiable criteria such as those being used to underpin California's plans for carbon rating labels on car number plates are an extremely valuable tool for changing purchasing behaviour and boosting the market for green product. But too many accreditation criteria are outdated, poorly enforced or just plain lax and in many cases buying a product with a green label is no guarantee that it is really that green. It may negate the purpose of labelling schemes altogether, but it is essential firms take a very close look at the criteria each scheme uses before using them as an indication of green credentials.
Right, I'm off to put on another jumper and fix that leaky tap.
Have a good weekend,
James
When will green businesses find their voice?
Today's sadly inevitable decision to delay the planned increase in fuel duty met with an equally inevitable chorus of crowing from motoring groups.
"Good," said the seemingly endless battalion of associations, lobbyists and trade groups who claim to represent motorists' interests, before realising they had the chancellor on the ropes and adding that "of course, it doesn't go far enough."
Not satisfied with their victory, spokesman after spokesman trotted out their view that while the postponement was welcome, rising oil prices and the fact that many hauliers are "on the brink" meant the government should go further and cut fuel duty.
But where was the countervailing view?
The Green Party and bodies such as Friends of the Earth did their best, pointing out that rising oil prices show exactly why the government should embrace measures such as higher fuel duty that serve to wean people off of fossil fuels.
But as is so often the case it is all too easy for the media and business groups to dismiss such arguments as the preserve of the old hair shirt brigade. Consequently, the view that fuel prices are too high and need to be reduced is allowed to become established as the conventional wisdom almost unchallenged.
What is urgently required are green business leaders who are willing to make the case for potentially unpopular green measures from an explicitly commercial perspective.
Where are the retailers committed to green supply chains who are willing to say that yes, high fuel prices are a problem, but they pose a far bigger problem for those companies running inefficient fleets than those who are already moving to improve their fuel efficiency?
Where are the electric car and rail companies who are willing to argue that while rising fuel prices represent a challenge for road hauliers and conventional auto manufacturers they represent a great opportunity for greener alternatives?
Where are the business groups - I'm looking at you CBI - who are brave enough to point out that lobbying for lower fuel duty in the face of soaring global oil prices only serves to distract from the urgency with which businesses should be looking for alternative business models that leave them less exposed to fossil fuels?
The problem is that barring a couple of noticeable exceptions, there is a near complete absence of such figures, and while the silence is particularly noticeable with regards to the fuel duty debate it is similarly evident around almost every green business issue.
For example, I've spoken with several people within the wind industry who feel that the trade groups that represent them are far too willing to keep their counsel for fear of alienating Whitehall mandarins, when they should be screaming from the rooftops about the countless barriers being put in the industry's way.
They have a point - you know for sure that if the motoring lobby faced even a fraction of the challenges that have dogged the renewable energy industry they would have taken to the streets long ago.
The scarcity of business figures willing to speak up for the sector is understandable in many ways. The bulk of specialist green firms are still relatively small and tend to be more focused on building their own businesses than they are on becoming champions for a whole sector. Meanwhile, those larger firms that have signalled their support for a low carbon future - Tesco, M&S, Virgin, HSBC, et al - are hampered by either a traditional reluctance to get involved in political debates or an unwillingness to anger shareholders by being seen to lobby for measures that would result in higher energy costs.
But the fact remains that as the economic slowdown begins to bite and those lobbyists representing carbon intensive industries become ever more desperate green businesses will need vocal champions more than ever.
There is a strong long term business case for measures that increase the costs for carbon intensive firms and incentivise the shift towards alternative technologies - plenty of firms realise this, we just need more willing to come out and say so.
The Week in Green: What we need from the G8
The G8 meets in Japan next week with three inter-related issues set to not just dominate the agenda, but tear it up, stamp on the pieces and tell all the other issues to dissappear off from whence they came.
Climate change, energy prices and food shortages will be the only topics in town and, to be honest, you can understand why.
The concern is that a focus on the two shorter term concerns - spiralling energy prices and worsening food shortages - could dampen appetites for action on climate change. But now, more than ever this cannot be allowed to happen.
These issues are so closely intertwined that you cannot address one area without tackling all three.
Food shortages will only get worse if climate change is not addressed, just as in the long term peak oil means rising fuel prices can only be brought under control by a shift towards alternative energy sources.
In this light, an agreement on climate change has to come first and if that means the short term pain presented by high oil prices continues then so be it - it's not nice but it is necessary to force people to make the transition towards greener alternatives.
But what do we want from such an agreement?
Green business experts the world over have gone blue in the face requesting binding emission targets, a working price on carbon, a greater focus on energy efficiency and fresh efforts to tackle deforestation. PwC was the latest to have a go this week, insisting that such a strategy would be technically feasible and economically affordable.
But sadly the G8 is unlikely to deliver on this wish list next week - not least because negotiators have it in their mind that Copenhagen in December 2009 is the key date for reaching such a deal and they don't want to get ahead of themselves.
However, that does not mean the G8 cannot deliver real progress.
What businesses want to see is real leadership and a clear signal that an agreement next year is now inevitable. Ever since the UN's Bali conference delivered some sort of breakthrough fears have continued that some countries are looking to delay the process and water down the final agreement. If the G8 unequivocally declares that this will not be allowed to happen then firms can start planning investments safer in the knowledge that a meaningful post Kyoto deal will be delivered.
Get that sorted and then not only will we be in a better position to address food shortages and rising energy costs, but perhaps we would also be able to find the time to return to all those other concerns that will necessarily have to take a back seat during next week's talks..
