For years, the mantra of every bizarre campaign to discredit scientific thought and rationalism has been to "teach the controversy" - to hammer away at any tiny fissure of contention attached to a theory or policy and keep going until you have brought down the entire building.

The phrase was first driven into the mainstream by Seattle-based Christian think tank the Discovery Institute, which appropriated the term for its campaign to discredit evolution by presenting it as a theory that was still open to debate.

It is an ingenious and in many ways successful approach.

Avoiding the need to prove or disprove anything, hardly the strongest suit of creationists, you instead ask people to make a far smaller intellectual leap and believe that there is a degree of doubt surrounding the conventional wisdom. Establish that doubt, even if it is based on blatant falsehoods or outdated data, and the rational position becomes massively weakened and easy to paint as the preserve of arrogant elitists guilty of attempting to crush any dissent.

The audience is then softened up and more willing to investigate an entirely reasonable alternative, which in the case of the Discovery Institute happened to be intelligent design.

It is hardly surprising that the "teaching the controversy" tactic has become a central component of all the anti-science campaigns that blight our culture, featuring in everything from the reports linking the MRI jab with autism to almost every argument put forward by our old friends the climate change sceptics.

And now it looks set to be adopted by a new alliance of anti wind farm groups that was launched earlier today with the express intention of further mobilising opposition to wind farm developments.

Speaking to the group's Chair Jon McLeod, himself an experienced lobbyist employed by one of the UK's largest PR firms, I was struck by how he repeatedly stressed the idea that there is a "debate" surrounding wind energy and renewables policy.

For example, he argued that there were doubts over whether wind farms even lead to reductions in carbon emissions given that fossil fuels are still required to provide a base power load.

No matter that there are no such doubts amongst the government, energy industry or grid operators, nor that the vast majority of research suggests an increase in wind energy capacity will allow the UK to significantly reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. The National Alliance of Wind Farm Action Groups (NAWAG) knows that peddling the myth that there are doubts over wind energy's effectiveness will make it far easier to oppose new developments.

The next stage of the "teach the controversy" playbook is to present the opponent as some kind of uncaring elite, something McLeod does effectively by arguing that wind farm developers are guilty of bullying local communities by repeatedly lodging planning applications for new developments until they are successful.

What he failed to mention is that this apparently controversial practice is also adopted by opponents to wind farms who are equally guilty of attempting to "wear down" developers by appealing planning decisions at every turn.

McLeod then completed the three pronged attack, by offering the entirely reasonable alternative to the current conventional wisdom, namely a "more balanced" support mechanism for renewables. This is a clever approach as who can oppose a call for "balance"?

But again, NAWAG's position is based on misleading information. Onshore wind farms already receive the same or lower levels of financial support through the government's Renewables Obligation mechanism than other forms of renewable energy. The reason they are popular with developers is not because they receive the most generous level of financial incentives as McLeod suggests (in fact the opposite is true, they receive less support than marine energy and offshore wind farms), but because they are the most cost effective form of renewable energy currently available.

The most frustrating aspect of this three-pronged "teach the controversy" model is that it is maddeningly effective, and in McLeod the new lobby group has a canny and experienced PR operator pulling the strings.

Given the success small scale local opposition groups have already had at delaying and blocking wind farm developments, the emergence of an organised national body with a clear and coherent PR strategy should be a cause of considerable concern for the wind energy industry. It urgently needs to get the facts surrounding wind energy across loud and clear, not to mention quickly, if it is to torpedo the myths touted by this newly formed anti-wind alliance.

Posted by James Murray on June 16, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (11)

I never thought I'd end up writing about sewage for a living, but increasingly that is what appears to be happening.

While the rapid expansion of the solar and wind energy industries has attracted miles of column inches and billions in venture capital, the biogas sector that is in many ways more mature, cost effective and environmentally friendly than its high profile rivals has quietly operated on the margins of the renewables sector.

Like a sewage works stuck out on the edge of town, everyone accepts that it is pretty important, but no one wants to pay it too much attention.

In many ways this is understandable. Regardless of whether you dress the underlying feedstock up as organic waste, compost, or manure, these systems are typically powered by a combination or rotting food and sewage - and no one likes to talk about that.

And yet, if people can get over their distaste for the world of sanitation, biogas technologies represent a great environmental and commercial opportunity.

The technology is remarkable simple, usually involving little more than anaerobic digestion plants and combined heat and power systems, both of which are now relatively mature. All you need to do is shovel in the waste, add some enzymes to speed up the natural break down of the material, capture the resulting gas and burn it off to create heat and power. It's obviously a little bit more complicated than that, but not much.

The fuel source is also entirely renewable and all but free, while the technology is capable of producing both energy and fertiliser, creating a sustainable closed loop system.

Moreover, it has the ability to kill two birds with one stone, cutting carbon emissions by replacing fossil fuel based energy, while also capturing methane - itself a potent greenhouse gas.

When you look at these advantages it is surprising that it has taken so long for people to realise that there is a huge commercial opportunity for those that can stand the smell, but slowly that now seems to be changing.

Plans for the world's first urban biogas pipe network in the German city of Lünen were recently unveiled and a number of UK councils are said to be watching the trial closely to see if similar projects could work over here.

Meanwhile, German biogas firm Agri.capital recently announced it had secured 60m in equity funding - no mean fit in the current climate - to help fund expansion plans.

But what is most exciting about the technology is the sheer scale of the opportunity. A study earlier this year from the UK government, which has somewhat belatedly signalled its support for the sector, calculated that deploying anaerobic digestion technologies across the UK's farming sector could generate enough heat and electricity to power two million homes.

A similar study for National Grid went further still, estimating that harnessing all the UK's organic waste streams, including farm, food and wood waste, as well as sewage, could generate enough biogas to heat half the homes in the country.

It calculated that a UK-wide biogas network could be developed for £10bn, which might sound a lot but is likely to be significantly cheaper than generating a similar amount of energy from other forms of renewable energy such as wind power.

When you consider the construction costs associated with building offshore wind farms miles from population centres and then connecting them to the grid, compared with the cost of installing an anaerobic digestor at a sewage plant - which by definition is close to centres of population - and then laying down some new pipes to connect it to a small scale CHP system, you start to see bbiogas networks have the potential to be a far cheaper and simpler option.

Whether the strength of this commercial case can encourage the power brokers in Whitehall and the City to step up investment in the less than glamorous world of sewage remains to be seen, but, as they say in Yorkshire, where there's muck, there's brass.

Posted by James Murray on June 2, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (6)

So, was it green enough for you?

Was the budget's support for green businesses "timid" and "inadequate", as Adrian Wilkes of the Environmental Industries Commission argued, or was it, as Solar Century's Jeremy Leggett observed, a pretty good deal given the context of significant tightening elsewhere in the budget?

The answer, as is so often the case, contains both points of view.

The sad reality of the climate crisis is that we are already locked in to pretty dangerous levels of global warming over the next few decades. The most sensible course of action from a purely climatic perspective is to turn everything off and stop emitting greenhouse gases right now. Consequently, governments and businesses will never be able to secure unconditional praise from some green groups - the need to decarbonise the economy is so urgent means that whatever they do they could, and some will argue should, do much more.

Even measured against more pragmatic goals of cutting carbon emissions 34 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050, the budget is a big disappointment.

Lord Stern has said that at least a fifth of countries' recovery packages should be earmarked for environmental spending, but even with the additional £1.4bn in funding announced in the budget yesterday the UK still fails this test. As Wilkes observes, other countries such as the USA and South Korea are investing far greater sums in clean tech and are threatening to leave the UK at a competitive disadvantage as new low carbon industries emerge.

Ministers claim time and time again that the UK has a leadership position in sectors such as offshore wind and CCS, but despite timely boosts for both technologies yesterday we still import all our offshore wind turbines and have no idea where our first CCS demonstration plant will be built. Other countries are forging ahead and there is a real chance that the UK will look back in ten years time and ask why the billions of pounds invested in renewable energy has been sunk into the pockets of European and US firms.

The commitments to deliver three quarters of a billion pounds for emerging technologies, over £400m each for energy efficiency and green manufacturing, £525m for offshore wind, £4bn from the European Investment Bank, and fresh funding for CCS, look impressive. But in a world where a single CCS demonstration project will cost £1bn and experts reckon we need £37bn to upgrade the grid, this new money is not going to stretch very far.

Moreover, new investment for clean technologies is undermined by the government's refusal to call an end to its love affair with carbon intensive industries. Money for green technologies is all well and good, but the attempt to pass off the £300m scrappage scheme for the car industry as an environmental initiative is simply cringe-worthy. It is a bail out pure and simple and the carbon savings will be somewhere between negligible and non existent.

And yet, despite its myriad failings, I'd argue that the environmental commentators lining up to knock the budget should also accept that there are a fair few positives to be found.

The green spending commitments may be insufficient, but given the woeful state of public finances they are still far greater than expected.

There are sweeping cuts (sorry, efficiency savings) on the horizon for large sections of the public sector, and as such it is encouraging that the Chancellor has ring fenced clean tech, health and education as a sheltered triumvirate, protected from the cost cutters. It is a case of being grateful for small mercies, but the fact that green businesses managed to wring any new money out of the Treasury in the current climate provides more evidence of the government's commitment to the sector than a hundred ministerial speeches on "green collar jobs" and "industries of the future".

The focus of the spending is also encouraging. The £45m earmarked for onsite renewable technologies through the Low Carbon Building Programme is hardly an earth shattering sum, but it shows that the government listened (albeit belatedly) to the industry's concerns about a funding gap and acted appropriately. Equally, the increased subsidy for offshore wind farms through the Renewables Obligation and new financing from the European Investment Bank, reveal that the government accepted the concerns of the wind energy sector and moved to avoid a potential crisis.

The government faced calls from thousands of vested interests in the run up to the budget and it is encouraging that the renewables industry appears to have the ear of at least some of Whitehall's power brokers.

Finally, and most importantly, the combination of the fiscal and carbon budget once again serve to hammer home the direction of travel for the UK's climate change strategy.

We may have to wait until the summer to find out exactly how the government plans to meet its target of a 34 per cent cut in emissions by 2020, but we know that the target is legally binding and will be used to inform all future policy and regulations, just as we know it could well be tightened further.

Equally, we know from the increase in the subsidy mechanism for offshore wind and the new proposal to support CCS plants through a feed in tariff that energy bills will inevitably continue their upward trend over the next decade. Just as we know that the planned increase in landfill tax will make recycling and waste-to-energy plants more financially attractive.

All of this means that firms are once again left in no doubt that efforts to enhance energy efficiency, tackle waste and curb carbon emissions will deliver long term returns, and make as much sense from a financial and risk mitigation perspective as they do from a purely environmental outlook.

Yes, it would be great to have seen plans for high speed rail and a commitment to ditch the third runway at Heathrow. Yes, it would have been nice to hear the government was willing to do something about the low price of carbon and limited availability of credit for green projects. And yes, it would have been fantastic to have seen a hand out to the auto industry replaced by a genuine green vehicle incentive scheme.

But all in all, this budget was greener than expected and proved once again that it is environmentally sustainable businesses that will prosper the most when the recovery eventually materialises.

Posted by James Murray on April 23, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)

OK, so hate is a bit of a strong word.

I'm sure they're kind to their mothers, save lots of birds, are upstanding for the national anthem, etc.

But what I find more than a little disdainful is the mind-bendingly bizarre value system that sees the organisation, and others like it including WWF-UK and the National Trust, lobby against the proposed Severn Barrage.

The RSPB and seven other green groups have this week released a report they commissioned from consultancy Frontier Economics which concludes that the proposed Severn Barrage would prove significantly more expensive than other forms of renewable energy and could not be justified on economic grounds.

They appear to have decided that the government will play deaf to their pleas not to evict 68,000 odd birds by flooding their homes and have instead argued that the project should be blocked for economic as well as ecological reasons.

It is hard to know where to start when assessing how wrong headed all this is, but if the RSPB and co want to talk economics let's start there.

The fact is that all forms of large scale renewable energy projects are "exorbitantly expensive" when compared to fossil fuels and that is not about to change any time soon. You can argue that we should ditch the Severn Barrage project in favour of other forms of renewables on cost grounds, but if cost is the only consideration then you should ditch all renewables in favour of coal.

Furthermore, if we are going to focus on cost the most cost-effective form of renewable energy currently available is onshore wind farms, which, you've guessed it, have also faced occasional opposition from the RSPB for shredding birds and destroying habitats.

In fairness to the RSPB, it has been far more supportive of the wind energy sector than nimby-motivated countryside groups and has supported the development of many wind farms, including the Thames Array. But it also recently secured victory in its campaign against plans for a 181 wind turbine development on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland, claiming it would damage ecologically important peatlands.

It is worth observing that if its sole concern when it came to the UK's renewable energy mix was cost then the RSPB would have supported the Lewis wind farm and opposed the far more expensive offshore Thames Array.

The fact is that cost is not the only consideration when looking at the pros and cons of the Severn Barrage. Yes, it would be far more expensive than other forms of renewable energy, but it would also deliver significant benefits: it would generate almost five per cent of the UK's energy in one hit at a time when attempts to build countless smaller projects are constantly hampered by local planning problems and the clock is ticking on the EU's renewable energy targets; it would provide a genuine flagship tidal energy project, underlining the UK's positions as a leader in marine energy and providing it with invaluable technologies and expertise that could be successfully exported; and it would provide a far more reliable source of energy than those turbines and solar panels that the RSPB et al are now advocating, but are at the mercy of changing weather conditions.

These benefits will have to be weighed up against the financial and environmental costs and it is exactly this work that the government is undertaking right now through its feasibility study.

Let's not kid ourselves here, the opposition of this coalition of green groups to the Severn Barrage is driven not by concerns for the tax payer but by their fears for our feathered friends - and it is this that I find so perverse.

Just so we're straight I do not hate birds. As a country boy born and bred I am well aware of the huge ecological, aesthetic and economic value of the biosphere - and that is precisely why I am so in favour of large scale renewable energy projects.

Climate science tells us that if by the end of this next decade we have not made significant progress towards decarbonising the economy then every single one of the habitats that wildlife groups campaign to protect will be irrevocably damaged. Yes, 60,000 birds could lose their homes as a result of the Severn Barrage, but if all such projects are stopped or even slowed down by concerns over local wildlife then the long term impact on the biosphere will be catastrophic.

And let's remember when we talk about the biosphere we are talking about human beings too.

It is hugely simplistic to try to position the Severn Barrage as a debate over the loss of wildlife in the Severn Estuary against the loss of human life in countries already being impacted by climate change, but at its most fundamental level that is what we are talking about.

It is hard to completely shake the feeling that somewhere along the line the opposition to many renewable energy projects undertaken in the name of wildlife conservation is underpinned by a sense that animals are more important than people. A view, which personally, I can't even begin to comprehend.

I spoke with Martin Harper, head of sustainable development at the RSPB, yesterday and he argued vehemently that the organisation "passionately supported renewable energy". It is just that it believes there are more sustainable options than the Severn Barrage and that the low carbon energy revolution that is required should be "achieved in harmony with the natural world".

But while that is all well and good in an ideal world, we have just 10 to 15 years to deliver significant cuts in carbon emissions and the sad truth is that to achieve the requisite changes at the requisite scale we will have to be far less precious about those still relatively small parts of the natural world that will get trampled on in the process. The RSPB and groups like it claim they support more sustainable renewable energy developments, but even where they do not explicitly stand in the way of projects the hugely onerous and long winded environmental assessments that developers are made to carry out only result in further delays.

If you accept the analogy that the fight against climate change needs to be treated with the same urgency as a World War - as many environmental groups and politicians do - then what opponents to projects such as the Severn Barrage are suggesting is that you call a halt to a battle for fear that some moorhens end up as collateral damage. Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice the birds.

Posted by James Murray on June 13, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (2)

It's time for a trip down the rabbit hole.

I had one of those conversations this morning with a very polite spokeswoman in the Shell press office that leaves you trying to decide whether it is the Valium or the scotch that you should reach for first.

I began the exchange by suggesting that the decision to pull out of the world's largest offshore wind project could perhaps be interpreted as an indication that the company's commitment to renewable energy had become somewhat equivocal. Alas, I was wrong.

Apparently the "strategic decision" to consider selling off the oil giant's stake in the London Array should not be seen as a sign that its commitment to alternative energy is on the slide. In fact, Shell remains a staunch supporter of renewables through investments in 11 wind energy projects in the US and Europe, as well as various biofuel, solar and hydrogen fuel cell projects.

Shell's proposed disposal of its stake in the Thames Array is simply down to an "ongoing review of projects and investment choices" that has resulted in it deciding to focus a bit more on the US as its preferred location for future wind energy investments, in part because of the incentives on offer there.

Which surely implies that the UK government has not been generous enough in its support for offshore wind?

Nope, wrong again (and I hope you are following this, because by this point the task of following this Boris Johnson-esque master class in circuitous logic was proving a bit disorienting). The spokeswoman insisted the government has been great and that it is not just the incentives that have attracted Shell to the US, it is just that it is better equipped over there to make a success of wind energy projects.

So the UK is less well equipped to deliver these wind energy projects?

Erm, wrong again. If you believe what Shell told The Guardian it still reckons the UK remains a great place to invest in wind, claiming that the government has developed a "positive" policy framework and that it is "hopeful" the London Array project "will proceed as planned". Well, not quite as planned obviously, but let's not sweat the small stuff.

It took Shell's partner on the project, E.ON, to cut through the Dr Seuss levels of surrealism and deliver a hefty dose of reality. Shell would not divulge what had prompted its "strategic decision", but Dr Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON had no such qualms in revealing both how "disappointed" he was with Shell and how risky the project has now become.

"The current economics of the project are marginal at best," he explained. "With rising steel prices, bottlenecks in turbine supply and competition from the rest of the world all moving against us."

It is in the light of this information that it becomes clear what Shell means when it says it wants to focus on "capital discipline and efficiency", but why couldn't the oil giant come out and say that itself.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Shell ditching this project – it clearly reckons that with oil at $120 a barrel it can make more money elsewhere and that's its own prerogative (Although, I'd also hazard that when you are making £7.2bn a year and are under intense political and commercial pressure to diversify your energy mix towards renewable energy then the brand and experience benefits it would have gained from being involved in the world's largest offshore wind project would have far outweighed any short term economic hit it might have to take on the investment).

No, what really grates is the lack of transparency behind the decision. Had Shell come out and said we don't feel this project is economical when compared to drilling for tar in Canada or even investing in wind farms in the US then we could have had the debate that is so desperately needed about how to make projects such as the Thames Array compelling to investors.

We could have asked what needs to be done to tackle the supply chain and planning issues that have dogged the project from day one. We could have asked why when the government has recently increased the incentives for offshore wind it has still not proved sufficient to keep one of the project's main backers on board. And most importantly we could of asked how we can make renewable energy a more attractive investment proposition when compared to fossil fuels.

Instead, we are once again left with a fudged statement praising the "positive policy and support framework for offshore wind projects" in the UK, while at the same time the underlying structural and economic faults that have meant the UK has thus far failed to exploit the best wind profile in Europe remain in place.

The simple fact is that Shell and the government need to climb out of this particular rabbit hole and accept that the policy and support framework was obviously not positive enough and as a result a project that could provide clean energy to a quarter of London's homes is now at risk of serious delays and even outright failure.

Posted by James Murray on May 1, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Anyone who spends any time around the green business movement will have become used to being asked one question more than any other.

In essence it boils down to, "What technology is going to save us?", although if your questioner is of a more mercenary bent it can also be phrased as "Where should I invest my money?"

Now if I knew the answer to this question I would not be sitting here and would instead be trying to decide whether it is a touch too ostentatious to have a fountain installed in my land that spouts actual money, while simultaneously mulling which Premiership football team to buy.

However, while the truism that there is no silver bullet and a myriad of green technologies will be required remains as valid as ever, I am increasingly convinced that one area could have a critical role to play in making renewable energy feasible on the scale that it is required – and what's more it is a field that until now has remained largely under the radar of both investors and the media.

It is the oh so glamorous field of electricity transmission.

The renewable energy challenge has never been one of potential capacity, and nor for that matter has it been one of cost - it has always been about transmission.

This was hammered home to me last week on a press trip to Iceland, a country that some geologists believe is sitting on top of enough geothermal energy to power the whole of the northern hemisphere.

The energy is cheap, relatively easy to access and emission free, the only problem is that it is being generated in a country that is a very, very long way from anywhere. If we could only transmit, or even transport the energy, in an efficient manner we would instantly have the answer to many of our energy and climate problems.

This self same transmission issue emerges as the biggest stumbling block wherever you find huge potential reserves of renewable energy.

Several studies a couple of years ago from the German Aerospace Centre and a group of researchers called the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation suggested that installing concentrated solar power systems over just 0.3 per cent of the deserts in the Middle East and North Africa would meet all the current and future energy needs of both the Middle East and the EU.

Or to put it another way a little over one per cent of the Sahara could power the entire planet.

Progress is being made to make such thermal power systems cost effective and storage systems are also being developed that advocates reckon could save the problem of the sun setting each night. All of which means that again the only fly in the ointment is getting the energy from the deserts to the population centres where it is needed.

Tidal and offshore wind power also face the same problem on a smaller scale with the lower energy yields involved being compensated by the fact that transmission over a few nautical miles to the mainland is considerably easier than transmitting power across the thousands of miles from Reykjavik to London.

The simple truth is that if we can solve the problem of long distance energy transmission we have the missing piece of the jigsaw that makes the development of a genuine renewable energy economy if not simple exactly then certainly much simpler.

Now I will freely admit that I did not pay enough attention in Physics classes to draw any conclusions on the chances of this missing piece ever being found, but there is growing numbers of engineers who reckon that improvements in long distance high voltage direct current (HVDC) power cables could hold the answer.

These DC cables are currently much more expensive than the AC cables that underpin our national grid, but they are falling in price and unlike AC cables the amount of energy lost does not increase with distance, meaning they could feasibly allow electricity to be efficiently transmitted over thousands of miles.

It is worth noting that there are some who would argue you will need to pretty much rewrite the laws of physics to make such long range transmissions possible. But then again, if they are right then the vision of global clean energy hubs providing cheap reliable renewable electricity could be become a reality.

In the meantime, any industry that requires plenty of energy but few employees would be worth considering the old idiom about Mohammed and the mountain.

With energy costs soaring and concern over carbon emissions mounting it will make increasing sense for those industries that can relocate operations to consider getting as close as physically possible to the green energy hubs that can provide them with clean, reliable, cheap and carbon tax free power.

It is a concept that the Icelandic government is buying into with its support for the aluminium smelting industry and its work with companies such as Data Islandia and Hitachi Data Systems to encourage firms to shift their power hungry data centres to the country. It is also a model the governments of North Africa and any other country with a potential abundance of green energy would also be wise to emulate.

Meanwhile, the rest of us should sit back and hope the laws of physics aren't as rigid as some people think and that long distance energy transmission can one day become a reality.

Posted by James Murray on April 23, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's going to happen, it's just a matter of when.

Some business - most likely in retail, but possibly in transport - is going to announce it is using biofuel powered vehicles as part of its fleet and get a very nasty surprise.

A press release will be sent out talking up the vehicle's green credentials and spokespeople will be put forward to tell the world how the new vans or cars are just one example of the company's burgeoning green credentials.

At which point one of the world's most respected and recognisable environmental groups - most likely Greenpeace, but possible Friends of the Earth, WWF or Oxfam – will let loose their media attack dogs and go for the jugular.

"Why", they will ask across every media outlet that will give them airtime, "are you even bothering to trial a fuel that countless reports have proven does more harm than good?

"Aren't you aware your biofuel trial, however small, is contributing to food shortages and the rapid price inflation of basic staples which millions of people worldwide depend on for daily survival?

"Don't you know that the increased demand for agricultural land that is directly resulting from the rush to biofuels is leading to deforestation that accelerates climate change and increases the risk of extinction for many species, including those cuddly primates?"

They may even bring along a Brazilian farmer or wildlife reserve warden directly affected by the biofuel revolution to help  them make their point.

The firm, disorientated by the sudden assault on a strategy it thought would be universally applauded, will then put out some sort of statement to the effect that it is only sourcing its biofuels from sustainable sources.

To which the environmental campaigner will respond: "If you are using any form of conventional fuel crop, as opposed to waste crops or algae, then regardless of where it is being grown it is still taking up agricultural land that could be used for growing food at a time when world food stocks are dangerously stretched. The knock on impact of such biofuels is damaging, even if it is sourced from an otherwise 'sustainable farm' in the UK."

Sticking to its guns the firm may try to argue that the trial will deliver significant carbon savings compared to fossil fuels.

To which the campaigner - who is, by definition, far more familiar with these matters than the company's corporate PR department - will ask, "How can you be so sure? Have you included the emissions from the harvesting, processing and transport of the biofuels in your carbon calculations? How are you assessing whether farmers displaced by biofuel plantations aren't in turn contributing to deforestation? Are you following the recommendations of Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen and including the contribution of nitrogen fertilizers when working out biofuel's carbon footprint?"

Finally, the company will give up arguing the toss and try and remind people it is only a trial after all and the aim is to find out if there are any problems with the fuel.

To which the environmental group, by now joined by the entire green blogosphere and possibly even consumer groups, will say ,"why don't you just pull the plug now then? National Express did it and they know a thing or two about transport fuels. We need a moratorium on all biofuels based on fuel crops until genuine second generation fuels made from waste organic matter or algae are available.

"Until then, trials like this are almost certainly increasing carbon emissions, leading to loss of natural habitats and contributing to global food shortages."

Waitrose may have just managed to avoid just such a damaging confrontation - but only because its trial of rape seed oil powered vans is small in scale, its fuel is sourced from "sustainable" sites in the UK and Germany, the company has one of the best reputations for sustainability in the UK, and the environmental groups have not yet readied their anti-biofuel arsenal.

But there is every chance the next firm unveiling biofuel powered vehicles will not be so lucky, particularly if it is simply sourcing the fuel on the open market with no knowledge of where it originated.

If I was in the purchasing, marketing or sustainability department of any large company, I would be standing well back from any biofuel initiative, just in case it goes off in the company's face.

Posted by James Murray on November 7, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday’s edition of the You and Yours programme on BBC Radio 4 included a 15-minute section on the UK’s efforts to generate electricity from waves and tides. You can download the 53-minute episode from the BBC’s web site - the relevant segment begins at 24 min 40 seconds in.

As the programme highlights, Britain’s status as an island nation makes it ideally suited to wave and tidal generation, and yet efforts to extract useful energy from the seas are still in their infancy. The programme is well worth a listen.

Lem Bingley

Posted by Editor on October 12, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Norwegian energy company Statkraft has announced plans to harness usable energy from sea water by building the world's first osmotic power plant.

Osmotic power is a form of renewable energy based on the principle of osmosis where water passes from a region of high concentration to a region of lower concentration through a semi-permeable membrane. Statkraft plans to harness energy from this phenomenon by passing fresh water through a membrane into salt water and using the ensuing pressure difference to drive a turbine.

"You need a continual flow of fresh and sea water coming into the system and a continual outflow of brackish water that runs the turbine," explained Torbjørn Steen, vice president of communications at Statkraft.

The company, which has invested £9m in developing the technology, said the prototype plant will be completed by the end of 2008 and it expects to have a commercially viable technology ready by 2015.

Statkraft estimates that globally osmotic power could generate 1,600TWh of power, including 200TWh in Norway accounting for 10 per cent of the country's current energy use.

However, Steen said that the company will need to continue to improve the efficiency of the technology in order to make it commercially viable.

"Improving the efficiency of output per square metre of membrane is the main challenge for the prototype plant," he explained. "When we started the project we were generating less than one watt per square metre of membrane and now we are up to three watts per square metre. We estimate we need five watts per square metre to make it commercially viable, but we are heading in the right direction."

Posted by James Murray on October 9, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)

US wind turbine manufacturer Clipper Windpower yesterday opened a new Centre of Excellence for Offshore Wind at Blyth in North East England, where it plans to begin work on the world's largest offshore wind turbine.

Clipper's "Britannia Project" to develop a 7.5Mw turbine will be undertaken with support from the Blyth-based New and Renewable Energy Centre (NaREC). It has secured £5m in funding from the One NorthEast development agency.

Business and enterprise secretary John Hutton said that the project was further evidence of the UK's emergence as a key player in the burgeoning renewable energy technology market.

"A recent report from Ernst & Young showed that the UK has moved up from fifth to second in the world for attractiveness in new renewable investment," he said. "Behind this is the Government's determination to bring down planning barriers and target support at marine and emerging renewables."

James G P Dehlsen, chairman and chief executive of Clipper, said that the decision to locate in the North East had been informed by the government's long-term commitment to generating 20 per cent of energy from renewables by 2020, as well as the UK's position as potentially the largest source of offshore wind energy in Europe.

The One NorthEast development agency said that the region was rapidly emerging as a major hub for renewable energy companies. It added that the NaREC would provide the Britannia Project with a support package including access to engineering expertise and test laboratories, while engineering work will be shared between Clipper's US sites and its operations in Blyth.

Funding provided by One NorthEast will also support the development of Clipper's turbine supply chain and related manufacturing facilities, it added.

"The potential for collaboration with the local companies with skills and capacity for turbine component production will be a significant advantage as turbine manufacturing gets underway," said Dehlsen. "We have seen excellent regional university resources specialised in offshore energy, particularly through the Marine Design Centre's expertise in marine technology and science."

The announcement comes days after final approval was granted for the Thames Array offshore wind farm, which is expected to provide enough energy to power a quarter of London's homes.

Posted by James Murray on October 9, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1)