Friday 21 February 2014

Atlantis gets EU cash for tidal push: By Darius Snieckus in Bristol Recharge News Thursday, February 20 2014

Atlantis gets EU cash for tidal push




The funding, awarded under the Seventh Framework programme for research and technological development, will underpin design, installation and operation of the company’s 1.5MW AR1500 tidal energy turbines in the 3.5 sq km Inner Sound project site, where tidal current races through at over four metres per second.
“The award of this grant ... will help to catalyse the [tidal] industry’s development, providing a credible and robust transition pathway from single turbine demonstration units, to the deployment of multi-hundred turbine arrays in Europe and across the wider international market,” says Atlantis chief executive Tim Cornelius.
The EC grant comes on the heels of Atlantis entry onto the London Stock Exchange’s Alternative Investment Market and £12m initial public offering (IPO).
“Taken with the £12 million that we have raised through IPO, this grant means that the business is in a strong financial position to deliver its projects,” Cornelius adds
The capital raised through the IPO is earmarked for the delivery of the first stage of MeyGen – a lead-off 9MW pilot project, planned as a stepping stone to an 86MW array – as well as for final detailed design of the AR1500 turbine and a demonstrator project planned off China.
Installation of the first six Atlantis turbines at MeyGen would begin early next year, with switch-on expected to follow “in late 2015 or early 2016”.
Last September, US military industrial giant Lockheed Martin inked a global partnership deal with Atlantis to bring the latter’s new 1.5MW turbine system to market, with an eye on deliveries to MeyGen, at the Force centre on Canada’s Bay of Fundy and India’s Gulf of Kutch.
Atlantis’ 1MW AR1000 turbine, a three-bladed machine standing 22.5 metres tall, weighing 1,500 tonnes and outfitted with an 18-metre-diameter rotor and permanent-magnet generator, has been put through its paces at the European Marine Energy Centre in the Scottish Orkney Islands and test-bench trialled at the National Renewable Energy Centre at Blyth.

Tuesday 18 February 2014

Fossil Fuel Priests: Jeremy Leggett Recharge News Nov 4, 2013

Five thousand delegates from more than 100 countries file into a cavernous convention centre in Daegu, South Korea, for the World Energy Congress 2013.
A huge screen above them in the foyer is filled with a spinning globe, that blue pearl in space that we call planet Earth, along with some writing: “Nature has provided our energy needs for thousands of years. As we make the choices to meet our future energy needs” — the camera dives in to pan across sweeping rainforests — “nature is relying on us.”
Readers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report by hundreds of the world’s best climate scientists would know for sure what nature is relying on us to do. Cut out the burning of fossil fuels, all the way to zero, by 2050 at the latest, beginning well within this decade. Otherwise we risk destabilising the climate, ending access to clean water and viable agriculture for most of us, collapsing civilisation in the process.
But most people at this congress share a deeply entrenched belief system. They are essentially priests within a kind of religion that is built around the burning of fossil fuel.
The first speaker, Saudi Aramco chief executive Khalid Al-Falih, is typical of many who will follow him over the week. “The Earth is blessed with a colossal endowment of fossil fuels,” he intones. Fossil fuels are the “crown jewels” of the world’s energy mix. We have 50 years of oil supply and 250 years of gas. And we must let market forces decide how much of it we use. He does not mention climate change, or the message on the giant screen outside.
Others are less comfortable ignoring the message, and so invent a mythology around it, in the way religions so often do.
A relaxed GDF Suez boss, GĂ©rard Mestrallet, sits on a stage, being interviewed by a journalist who is unprepared to ask any hard questions. Mestrallet explains why he wants the US shale-gas boom exported across Europe, including to his own country, France, which has foolishly banned it. In parallel, he and the chief executives of nine other European utilities want to see subsidies for renewables ended. Why do they want this? “We are for the security of Europe,” he says. “We are for the climate.”
The journalist does not ask how he thinks such a proliferation of gas can lead to the end of fossil-fuel burning less than four decades from now. He does not ask how cutting renewables subsidies can be “for the climate”.
leggett-quote.jpgHad the uninquisitive journalist asked about the climate implications of all this gas, Mestrallet would doubtless have responded that burning gas creates fewer emissions than burning coal, which would have been true. But he would have omitted the worries about fugitive emissions of gas all the way from the well head to the home that cancel out the advantage of gas over coal. Big Energy bosses usually do. He would have dodged the issue of all the investment flowing to gas depressing the development of renewables. Big Energy bosses are good at that too.
The World Energy Council’s latest scenarios, published during the congress, offer a window on the dysfunctional group-think at work.
The “Jazz” scenario envisages total primary energy increasing by 61% to 2050, amid little multilateral effort to co-ordinate fossil-fuel reductions. The “Symphony” scenario envisages an increase of 27%, with a degree of policy co-ordination. In 2010, fossil fuels provided 79% of the world’s primary energy. Their share by 2050, by which time climate scientists tell us they must be phased out, would be 77% in the Jazz scenario and 59% in the Symphony scenario. In both scenarios, gas expands significantly from its current share.
And the climate implications? The target set by the EU is a 2°C temperature increase. A likely chance of staying below that requires returning CO2 equivalent concentrations below 400 parts per million (ppm). At present the figure is more than 420ppm. The Jazz scenario would take us to 590-710ppm of CO2 equivalent. The Symphony scenario would take us to 490-535ppm. Both would torpedo civilisation.
The top 20 European utilities, including GDF Suez, were worth $1trn in 2008. Today they are worth half that. The growing success of renewables, plus their own mistakes and oversights, have done this to them.
These are dying companies, with unworkable business plans. They should be embracing renewables with open arms, but instead seem set on a last ferocious assault on them. Their inculturated, institutionalised belief system compels them to do this.
All the evidence for this article can be found at www.jeremyleggett.net
Jeremy Leggett is founder and non-executive chairman of international PV company Solarcentury. His new book, The Energy of Nations: Risk Blindness and the Road to Renaissance , is published by Routledge

Wednesday 12 February 2014

320MW UK tidal lagoon advances: Recharge News Feb 7, 2014

How the lagoon could look
How the lagoon could look








The 320MW Swansea Bay project, which would generate energy using an 11.5km2 walled coastal inlet in which incoming water is trapped and later released through turbines, would be the largest tidal power plant in the world, supplying power for over 120,000 homes.
“Until now, tidal energy has been heavily promoted by governments and environmentalists as an intuitive source of clean and reliable energy for our island nation, but the business response has focused on relatively small-scale tidal stream devices,” says TLP chief executive Mark Shorrock.
“Tidal lagoons offer renewable energy at nuclear scale and thus the investment of hundreds of millions of pounds in UK industries and coastal communities.”
The £750m project, which could be online by 2018 flowing baseload electricity for up to 16 hours each day using ebb and flood tides, would also save more than 200,000 tonnes of CO2 annually over its 100-year design life.
TLP, based in Cheltenham, UK, has the backing of a consortium made up of international power technology giants GE, Alstom, Andritz and Voith, along with engineering consultancy Atkins Global, Dutch offshore dredging specialist Van Oord, textile technologist TenCate and UK construction contractor Costain.
Infrastructure conglomerate Macquarie has signed up to lead the capital financing of the Swansea Bay project.
Atkins Europe chief executive David Tonkin states: The tidal lagoon concept represents a bold new addition to the energy mix. It is a great example of how innovative engineering could be used to harness our natural resources and provide clean, sustainable and predictable power for thousands of homes.
Swansea Bay is seen as well-suited to a tidal lagoon project, as the site is in shallow water but with a tidal range of more than ten metres. It is also close to several population centres in England and Wales, minimising electricity transmission losses during export.
TLP’s longer-term plan is to construct five or more tidal lagoon power plants inside the next decade, with a view to supplying 10% of the UK’s domestic energy.
“Economies of scale bring immediate advantage.  A second lagoon will require a lower level of support than offshore wind, for a renewable power supply that is both long-lived and certain,” states Shorrrock. “A third lagoon will be competitive with the support received by new nuclear, but comes without the decommissioning costs and safety concerns.
“Had we invested in tidal lagoons in the 1980s, by now, and into the next century, we would be generating cheaper power than any other form of supply.”
A decision from the UK government on the project is expected in 2015.
Large-scale tidal-range power plants are in operation at La Rance in France (240MW); Sihwa in Korea (254MW); and Annapolis in Canada’s Bay of Fundy (30MW).

Friday 7 February 2014

THE EUROPEAN POLICY REVIEW ON 2030 GREENHOUSE GAS, RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARGETS


This article is dedicated to 1) the achievements and progress of the European Union (EU) on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and clean energy; 2) ongoing EU deliberations on 2030 emissions, renewables and energy efficiency targets; and 3) what this means for Canada. 

Specifically, the EU being the global leaders on a migration to a green economy, with its Emissions Trading System (cap and trade scheme) having been launched as far back as 2005, Canada has much to learn from the current and future EU debates on 2030 targets.  These EU discussions are particularly pertinent for Canada in light of a need to review Canadian fast forward green economy catch-up options following the next federal election in 2015.

2020 Targets and Progress on the Migration to a Green Economy
To begin, the foundations for the discussions on 2030 targets are the binding EU 2020 targets.  These targets entail:
·        -  a 20% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels;
·        -  raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewables to 20%; and
·        -  a 20% improvement in the EU's energy efficiency.

Under this system, each country has its own binding national targets based on its relative capacities to contribute to EU-wide goals. 

In the case of Germany, for example, it had already reduced its emissions by 25% in 2012, thereby exceeding its Kyoto 2012 target of a 21%, all while being one of the world's strongest economies.  These facts are contrary to what Stephen Harper would have us believe to the effect that the economic development and sustainable development are opposing forces for which there can be no reconciliation.

Indeed, measured in terms of economic impacts, the EU progress to-date is staggering, especially with respect to job creation.  There are presently 3.5M people employed in the EU green sectors and the sector's job growth, for the 1999 to 2008 period, was 180,000 new jobs/year.  Even during the worst of the EU economic crisis, most of these jobs were retained and many more were created.

The EU renewable energy related jobs comes in at 1.2M in 2012 and the projection for 2020 is  2.7M.  With the right policies, this could reach 4M jobs by 2030.

The European Commission's White Paper
Against this backdrop, to initiate EU discussions on 2030 targets and build on the momentum of the 2020 goals, the very conservative and corporate friendly European Commission took up the task of producing a White Paper for release on January 22, 2014.  

In the months preceding the publication of the White Paper, a major debate arose among EU member nations as to whether 1) there should be 2030 binding triple targets, EU-wide and nation-specific, and in keeping with the precedent set with the 2020 triple goals or 2) simply have a stand-alone binding GHG reduction target to eventually be accompanied by state-specific GHG targets.  In its White Paper of January 22nd, the European Commission came down in favour of the second option.

The White Paper called for a 40% GHG reduction target with binding requirements for EU member states and an "at least" 27% renewables goal that would be binding on the EU but not binding on the Member States individually. 

Under the European Commission's formula, not only would an EU-wide binding renewable energy target be difficult to enforce in the absence of a binding renewables target for each nation, but also the 27% renewables target would reduce by one third the momentum set by the 2020 goals.  That is, modeling of the 40% GHG reduction target suggests that the 27% renewables portion of the EU-wide energy supply would be achieved anyway without the Commission's renewables target.

Debates within the EU: 8 Countries Favour Nation-specific Binding Clean Energy Goals While the UK and Poland Resist
The aforementioned Commission's position went against the recommendations submitted in letter dated January 2014, from the energy ministers of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Portugal, written to commissioners Connie Hedegaard,  the commissioner for climate action, and Gunther Oettinger, the commissioner for energy, in support of a binding clean energy goals for every EU nation.  The letter stated that such an approach is essential to providing the renewable sector with the certainty it needs for long term cost-effective investments.  Sigmar Gabriel, the German Minister of Economics and Energy, indicated that the extraordinary progress achieved to-date, and as alluded to above, would have not been possible without the combination of nation-specific binding GHG and renewable energy targets.

Particularly on the minds of those supporting binding renewables target is the fact that the EU is the part of the world which is most dependent on imported fossil fuels.  In 2012, EU spent $740B on importing these fuels.  Accordingly, the International Energy Agency has described the path to reducing this dependency as being that of greater reliance on domestically produced clean energy and greater energy efficiency.

In this confrontation of positions, it is the UK, in particular, that has been very vocal in opposing a renwables target because it wants to have the flexibility to include nuclear;  carbon capture and sequestration (CCS); and fracking technologies in its energy strategy.   Consequently, the UK has been advocating a 50% GHG target without renewables targets. 

Fittingly, Oliver Krischer, German MP from the opposition Green Party, said proposals to scrap binding renewable energy and energy efficiency targets for 2030 are intended to initiate a renaissance of nuclear power and push through fracking and CCS activities through the back door.

Another big obstacle to a renewables binding target at national levels, is Poland for which coal represents 90% of electrical its power generation.


The European Parliament Votes in Favour of Triple and Binding 2030 Targets
Consistent with the aforementioned debates within the EU, on February 4, 2014 Members of the  European Parliament in a plenary non-binding vote, voted 347 to 308  in favour three binding targets on national levels, a 40% reduction in GHGs; a 30% target pertaining of energy to come from renewables; and a 40% improvement in energy efficiency.  This MEP February 2014 vote is consistent with the recommendations of the European Parliament's Environment and Industry Committees on a three-targets binding approach.

According to the European Wind Energy Association, the 30% binding renewables targets for EU member states could provide 570,000 new jobs and save $818B in imports of fossil fuels, all while lowering energy costs for energy-intensive industries.

Next Steps
The MEP vote notwithstanding, it is just one step in a very lengthy process leading up to final legislation in 2017.   Moreover, the vote in the European Parliament does not require that member states to approve national binding targets.

On February 19, 2014, there will be a Franco-German summit on energy cooperation.  On March 4, 2014 the EU energy ministers will meet.  This will be followed by a European Council meeting of heads of state on March 8-9, 2014.

Further down the road, European Commission commissioners will be replaced in 2014 and firm legislative proposals are not expected before 2015, after the European parliamentary elections.  Subsequently, it may take about two years before the final policies become EU law.

Adding to the cocktail of views that will contribute to the above-described debates are the positions of clean tech sector stakeholders adamantly in favour of national binding renewables targets.

Taken together, the EU discussions on the pros and cons of different 2030 options could prove to be enlightening for Canadians reviewing options to catch up to the Europeans, who are already way ahead of Canada on the migration to a green economy.  As well, their successes and failures to-date in advancing their respective countries offer models for consideration for Canada.   Accordingly, as a contributor to The Common Sense Canadian, I will continue to provide articles on new EU green economy developments.

Lastly, it is worth noting that the February meeting of the European Parliament included a vote in favour of extending the EU Fuel Quality Directive beyond 2020, thus banning tar sands imports to the EU indefinitely, likely to the great displeasure of Stephen Harper with respect to his free trade objectives with Europe.