Tag Archives: power

Wind turbines generating 4.5% of US electricity Updated for 2026





The wind turbines are turning across America, and a major report by the US Department of Energy (DOE) says the wind energy sector now supplies 4.5% of the nation’s electricity.

Given the right energy policies and investment in infrastructure, that figure could increase to 10% by 2020 and to 35% by 2050, the DOE predicts.

That will benefit tens of thousands of workers who will be employed in one of the US’s fastest-growing industries. It’s also excellent news for those who suffer the toxic impacts of coal mining, and power station fumes – and for the climate.

It will moreover, will help preserve supplies of increasingly precious water, used in huge volumes by thermal power plants. Many parts of the western US, notably California, are in the grip of a severe long term drought.

“Deployment of wind technology for US electricity generation provides a domestic, sustainable and essentially zero carbon, zero pollution and zero water-use US electricity resource”, the DOE says.

Impressive growth

The rate of growth of wind power in the US has been impressive. In 2011 alone, nearly 3,500 turbines went up across the country. And the Natural Resources Defence Council says that a typical 250 MW (megawatt) wind farm – around 100 turbines – will create 1,073 jobs over the lifetime of the project.

The DOE says costs of wind power are dropping, while reliability and other issues are being sorted out. “Wind generation variability has a minimal and manageable impact on grid reliability and costs”, the report says.

Texas is the top wind power state, followed by Iowa, California and Oklahoma. At the end of 2013, the US had 61 GW (gigawatts = 1,000 MW) installed – up from 25 GW in 2009.

The aim is to increase those figures to 113 GW by 2020, to 224 GW by 2030, and to more than 400 GW by 2050.

The DOE says that if these plans are realised, the emission into the atmosphere of more than 12 gigatonnes of climate changing greenhouse gases (GHG) will be avoided.

“Wind deployment can provide US jobs, US manufacturing and lease and tax revenues in local communities to strengthen and support a transition towards a low-carbon US economy”, the report says.

The trouble is that there is considerable resistance to wind power in parts of the political establishment. The DOE report – while not directly accusing Washington of standing in the way of progress on wind – does say that “new tools, priorities and emphases” need to be set in place in order to achieve wind energy targets.

Driven by tax-breaks – now can it keep on growing without?

Policies to encourage wind development are also required. A special Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), which effectively gave subsidies to the wind industry of about $13 billion a year, was introduced in 1992.

But when the tax credit came up for renewal in 2012, it was not retained in the tax code, and finally lapsed at the end of 2013, although the oil, gas, fracking and coal industries – all major GHG emitters – have continued to receive subsidies.

Political analysts say there is little likelihood that the PTC will be renewed by a legislature controlled by the Republican party – large parts of which are viscerally opposed to giving financial incentives to the renewable energy sector.

The elimination of tax breaks initially slowed growth in the construction of wind energy facilities, but the industry remains upbeat and says investors are still putting money into projects. Indeed the US wind industry may now have reached a level – in terms of scale, cost and proven performance – where it can keep on growing even without the tax breaks.

Rather more critical may be the urgent need to build new transmission lines to carry the power from wind farms to where it’s needed. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), which represents the industry, calculates that about 900 miles of transmission lines need to be put in place each year up to 2050 if the DOE is to achieve its wind power goals.

“The US is blessed with an abundant supply of wind energy”, the AWEA says. “Pairing this homegrown resource with continued technology innovation has made the US the home of the most productive wind turbines in the world.”

 


 

Kieran Cooke writes for Climate News Network.

 




391464

Dear Bryony – don’t dump your nuclear waste on us! Updated for 2026





Dear Baroness Worthington,

I watched on in horror as you championed the removal of local authority’s right to decide over the disposal of nuclear waste in their communities.

I didn’t know who you were at the time, and your position of the matter left me thinking perhaps you were a stakeholder in some nuclear power supply chain company.

I was dismayed to learn that you used to be a key member of Friends of the Earth. Further research shows that you have a background in environmentalism and appear on the surface to be concerned with climate change.

So I ask myself, why would someone with your background be a champion of nuclear power? And why would you champion the disposal of nuclear waste underground at levels where groundwater circulates?

And why would you want this done without allowing the full scrutiny of councillors and planning officers? Why would you prefer to remove power from locally elected representatives and place decisions in the hands of one person, creating a potentially corruptible situation?

Nuclear power is not low carbon!

Nuclear power is not a low carbon energy source. There is a wide range of data on the carbon footprint of nuclear waste, much of which is industry rhetoric. Benjamin Sovacool’s review found the average carbon footprint of nuclear power to be 66 gCO2/KWh, breaching the Committee on Climate Change’s recommended limits. Keith Barnham’s article in The Ecologist has more detail:

The fact is the carbon cost of decommissioning and waste handling is difficult to estimate – and if Sellafield’s soaraway clean-up budget is anything to go by, carbon costs as well as financial ones could spiral.

Building geological disposal facilities to handle waste would not necessarily reduce these costs. Vitrification and construction are not low carbon pursuits. What would the carbon cost of a water contamination event be? The human cost would be far greater.

Then there is the issue of uranium mining, a carbon-costly enterprise. As this finite source depletes, ever lower quality of uranium ore will be sought, further increasing the energy required to extract the uranium, and raising the carbon price tag.

Fast breeder reactors technologies that could avoid some of the uranium ore issues have been tried, at enormous cost – and repeatedly failed due to intractable technological hurdles and monstrous expense, while their purported advantages in reducing long-lived nuclear waste have been hugely over-hyped.

Moreover despite bullish promises by the nuclear industry and its cheerleaders, for example over Hitachi’s Prism design, they do not exist – and probably never will.

As for the ‘molten salt’ thorium reactor technology you espouse, it is fraught with most of the same issues as any other nuclear fission technology.

And thanks to serious and possibly unsolvable technological difficulties, it’s a very long way of becoming a practical reality. Any large scale deployment is at least half a century away – by which time low cost renewables will surely dominate the world’s power supply, and it will be completely redundant.

Finite investment funds must go into renewables!

The amount of subsidies the government wishes to funnel into the greedy jaws of nuclear power is quite frightening, locking us into ridiculous contracts for decades and guaranteeing fuel poverty in the future.

Who knows what the energy market will look like in ten, twenty years? Yet energy consumers may be having to pay inflation-proofed subsidies for Hinkley Point C – if it’s ever built – to 2060 and beyond!

If renewable technology received the proper support – and that includes people like you ceasing to defend the nuclear industry that is threatening to grab almost all the UK’s ‘low carbon’ energy funding –  we could be online to meet our carbon targets.

Cheerleading for new builds that take years to get off the ground, even if you do believe they are low carbon – in the face evidence that clearly suggests otherwise – could delay action on climate change that should be happening right now, but is being deliberately starved of funds.

What if those nuclear energy subsidies were instead promised to the solar, wind, tidal, anaerobic digestion and retrofitting industries? Wouldn’t that be a far better way to tackle climate change?

There’s nothing ‘natural’ about fission products!

But back to radioactive waste, which is a sticky issue. We have to deal with what we have, but most environmentalists and humanitarians agree that adding to that pile is madness. Why would someone with your credentials think otherwise?

You have risen to a position of great power. You stood in the Moses room as someone who is known for their actions in protecting the environment, and damned it by championing nuclear power and nuclear waste dumping and stressing that it was a nationally significant issue that extends beyond the lifetimes of the people living in the area.

You spoke about a pendulum of nuclear regulation and how radiation is ‘natural’. Background radiation is natural. Mining ores, processing, enriching etc, is most definitely not natural. Even less so are the myriad fission products emitted by nuclear power plants, concentrated in spent nuclear fuel, and discharged during fuel reprocessing – and comparing the two through insinuation is both wrong and immoral.

How is reducing regulation ever a good move for protecting public health and safety?

You may be thinking right now that I am part of a public that is somewhat hysterical about radiation and its effects. I have a PhD in cancer biology and have studied the response of cells to irradiation.

I’m not frightened of a bit of background radiation, but I do have grave concerns about burying highly radioactive nuclear waste underground where it has to stay isolated for hundreds of thousands of years, without any of it ending up in our water supplies.

The one thing we know for certain about deep hydrogeology is that we don’t know all that much about it. How can you guarantee the safety of our water supplies, and those of our children and their descendants? I suggest you read the ‘Rock Solid?‘ review produced by GeneWatch on behalf of Greenpeace on geological disposal if you have not done so already.

I also very concerned about climate change, and quite aside from the radioactive waste issue, I am opposed to nuclear new builds due to their carbon emission consequences.

I would urge you to rethink your position on nuclear new builds and geological disposal on both pragmatic and ethical grounds.

 


 

Note: Baroness (Bryony) Worthington, a Labour peer, spoke in the House of Lords debate on the Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015.

Dr Becky Martin earned her PhD at the Institute of Genetics, University of Nottingham and went on to work at the University of Oxford studying DNA repair gene expression in bladder cancer for three years. She is now a full time mother and environmental campaigner, and blogs here. Together with several other mothers she co-founded the group No Geo Nuke Dumping @NoNukeDumping. 

 

 




391182

Dear Bryony – don’t dump your nuclear waste on us! Updated for 2026





Dear Baroness Worthington,

I watched on in horror as you championed the removal of local authority’s right to decide over the disposal of nuclear waste in their communities.

I didn’t know who you were at the time, and your position of the matter left me thinking perhaps you were a stakeholder in some nuclear power supply chain company.

I was dismayed to learn that you used to be a key member of Friends of the Earth. Further research shows that you have a background in environmentalism and appear on the surface to be concerned with climate change.

So I ask myself, why would someone with your background be a champion of nuclear power? And why would you champion the disposal of nuclear waste underground at levels where groundwater circulates?

And why would you want this done without allowing the full scrutiny of councillors and planning officers? Why would you prefer to remove power from locally elected representatives and place decisions in the hands of one person, creating a potentially corruptible situation?

Nuclear power is not low carbon!

Nuclear power is not a low carbon energy source. There is a wide range of data on the carbon footprint of nuclear waste, much of which is industry rhetoric. Benjamin Sovacool’s review found the average carbon footprint of nuclear power to be 66 gCO2/KWh, breaching the Committee on Climate Change’s recommended limits. Keith Barnham’s article in The Ecologist has more detail:

The fact is the carbon cost of decommissioning and waste handling is difficult to estimate – and if Sellafield’s soaraway clean-up budget is anything to go by, carbon costs as well as financial ones could spiral.

Building geological disposal facilities to handle waste would not necessarily reduce these costs. Vitrification and construction are not low carbon pursuits. What would the carbon cost of a water contamination event be? The human cost would be far greater.

Then there is the issue of uranium mining, a carbon-costly enterprise. As this finite source depletes, ever lower quality of uranium ore will be sought, further increasing the energy required to extract the uranium, and raising the carbon price tag.

Fast breeder reactors technologies that could avoid some of the uranium ore issues have been tried, at enormous cost – and repeatedly failed due to intractable technological hurdles and monstrous expense, while their purported advantages in reducing long-lived nuclear waste have been hugely over-hyped.

Moreover despite bullish promises by the nuclear industry and its cheerleaders, for example over Hitachi’s Prism design, they do not exist – and probably never will.

As for the ‘molten salt’ thorium reactor technology you espouse, it is fraught with most of the same issues as any other nuclear fission technology.

And thanks to serious and possibly unsolvable technological difficulties, it’s a very long way of becoming a practical reality. Any large scale deployment is at least half a century away – by which time low cost renewables will surely dominate the world’s power supply, and it will be completely redundant.

Finite investment funds must go into renewables!

The amount of subsidies the government wishes to funnel into the greedy jaws of nuclear power is quite frightening, locking us into ridiculous contracts for decades and guaranteeing fuel poverty in the future.

Who knows what the energy market will look like in ten, twenty years? Yet energy consumers may be having to pay inflation-proofed subsidies for Hinkley Point C – if it’s ever built – to 2060 and beyond!

If renewable technology received the proper support – and that includes people like you ceasing to defend the nuclear industry that is threatening to grab almost all the UK’s ‘low carbon’ energy funding –  we could be online to meet our carbon targets.

Cheerleading for new builds that take years to get off the ground, even if you do believe they are low carbon – in the face evidence that clearly suggests otherwise – could delay action on climate change that should be happening right now, but is being deliberately starved of funds.

What if those nuclear energy subsidies were instead promised to the solar, wind, tidal, anaerobic digestion and retrofitting industries? Wouldn’t that be a far better way to tackle climate change?

There’s nothing ‘natural’ about fission products!

But back to radioactive waste, which is a sticky issue. We have to deal with what we have, but most environmentalists and humanitarians agree that adding to that pile is madness. Why would someone with your credentials think otherwise?

You have risen to a position of great power. You stood in the Moses room as someone who is known for their actions in protecting the environment, and damned it by championing nuclear power and nuclear waste dumping and stressing that it was a nationally significant issue that extends beyond the lifetimes of the people living in the area.

You spoke about a pendulum of nuclear regulation and how radiation is ‘natural’. Background radiation is natural. Mining ores, processing, enriching etc, is most definitely not natural. Even less so are the myriad fission products emitted by nuclear power plants, concentrated in spent nuclear fuel, and discharged during fuel reprocessing – and comparing the two through insinuation is both wrong and immoral.

How is reducing regulation ever a good move for protecting public health and safety?

You may be thinking right now that I am part of a public that is somewhat hysterical about radiation and its effects. I have a PhD in cancer biology and have studied the response of cells to irradiation.

I’m not frightened of a bit of background radiation, but I do have grave concerns about burying highly radioactive nuclear waste underground where it has to stay isolated for hundreds of thousands of years, without any of it ending up in our water supplies.

The one thing we know for certain about deep hydrogeology is that we don’t know all that much about it. How can you guarantee the safety of our water supplies, and those of our children and their descendants? I suggest you read the ‘Rock Solid?‘ review produced by GeneWatch on behalf of Greenpeace on geological disposal if you have not done so already.

I also very concerned about climate change, and quite aside from the radioactive waste issue, I am opposed to nuclear new builds due to their carbon emission consequences.

I would urge you to rethink your position on nuclear new builds and geological disposal on both pragmatic and ethical grounds.

 


 

Note: Baroness (Bryony) Worthington, a Labour peer, spoke in the House of Lords debate on the Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015.

Dr Becky Martin earned her PhD at the Institute of Genetics, University of Nottingham and went on to work at the University of Oxford studying DNA repair gene expression in bladder cancer for three years. She is now a full time mother and environmental campaigner, and blogs here. Together with several other mothers she co-founded the group No Geo Nuke Dumping @NoNukeDumping. 

 

 




391182

Fukushima: an unnatural disaster that must never be repeated Updated for 2026





Four years have passed since the March 11 tragic triple meltdowns began at Fukushima Daiichi. There is no end in sight.

Let’s be clear, the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi was manmade. Tokyo Electric (TEPCO) and indeed the entire nuclear industry worldwide act as if they are the victims of a natural disaster, but in fact the nuclear industry is the perpetrator of this travesty.

When the American nuclear companies, General Electric and Ebasco, built Fukushima Daiichi for TEPCO, they knew that huge tsunamis were a real risk.

Instead of designing for the worst imaginable consequences, which would make nuclear power unaffordable, the industry chose instead to save money, allowing economics to trump safety. The continuing problems at Fukushima Daiichi during the past four years stem from those skewed priorities.

Tokyo Electric, the government regulators in Japan, and the worldwide nuclear industry grossly underestimated the initial radioactive releases, underestimated the magnitude of the disaster, and underestimated the consequences of not taking action. The Japanese people will pay the price for decades to come.

Protecting people? Or protecting the nuclear industry?

Is Tokyo Electric or the Japanese government incompetent? I don’t think so. As I look back at the last four years, I think that TEPCO, Japanese regulators, and worldwide regulatory agencies wanted nuclear power to succeed so badly that they focused on saving Tokyo Electric and forgot about the people they were created to serve.

At each nuclear catastrophe: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and again at Fukushima Daiichi, the companies, governments, and agencies responding to these disasters were not working to protect people, but worked instead to protect the ongoing operation and potential future of nuclear power.

The mishandling of this disaster has shown us that emergency response must be directed by organizations that put people first, not agencies that have a vested interest in perpetuating nuclear power, banking, and industrial interests.

Why have the nuclear industry, its regulators, and governments worldwide attempted to minimize the devastation created by the obvious collapse of the myth of nuclear safety? The answer is money.

Throughout the world, banks and governments are heavily invested in the financial success of the ongoing operation of their nuclear power plants, no matter what health consequences and personal loss is forced upon the people of their nations.

Only nuclear power can destroy a country overnight

Following the Fukushima Daiichi triple meltdown, governments around the world have destroyed their social contracts with their citizens by pressing for costly and risky nuclear power without regard for the health and welfare of generations to come. The social contract between the people in Japan and the Japanese government has certainly been breached, perhaps for decades to come.

The same skewed decision-making process that lead to ignoring the tsunami risk at Fukushima Daiichi in 1965 is still being applied to new nuclear construction and old nuclear operation. The old paradigm has not and likely will not change, despite five meltdowns during the last 35 years disproving the myth of nuclear safety.

Of all the ways electricity is produced, nuclear technology is the only one that can destroy the fabric of a country overnight. In his memoirs Mikhail Gorbachev states that it was the Chernobyl accident that destroyed the Soviet Union not Perestroika.

Five former Japanese Prime Ministers: Kan, Koizumi, Nakazone, Noda, and Hatoyama, who span the spectrum of liberal to conservative, oppose nuclear power. And currently in Europe, former physicist and German Chancellor Angela Merkel is leading her country to be nuclear free by 2022.

Where there is a political will, nations can wean themselves from nuclear power without waiting for yet another nuclear disaster to occur.

And as Naoto Kan, Japan’s prime minister during the Fukushima Daiichi tragedy, said (Crisis Without End, From the Symposium at the New York Academy of Medicine 2011):

“Considering the risk of losing half our land and evacuating half our population, my conclusion is that not having nuclear power plants is the safest energy policy”,

 


 

Arnie Gunderson is an eminent US nuclear engineer and whistle-blower. He is know to millions via his website Fairewinds.com. He is in the United Kingdom this week to commemorate the tragic triple meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on March 11, 2011 by speaking to the House of Commons and several other venues about the disaster.

Event tonight:  Arnie Gunderson and Dr Ian Fairlie, international expert on radiation and health, are both speaking in Keswick, Cumbria, at the Skiddaw Hotel – 7:30 – 9.30pm. Event organised by Radiation-Free Lakelands.

Reference links, books, articles

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21642221-industrial-clean-up-without-precedent-mission-impossible

http://www.fairewinds.org/fukushima-meltdown-4-years-later/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/world/asia/critics-say-japan-ignored-warnings-of-nuclear-disaster.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Crisis Without End, From the Symposium at the New York Academy of Medicine, The New Press, ISBN 978-1-59558-960-6, 2014

The Ecologist: ‘Fukushima and the institutional invisibility of nuclear disaster‘, Dr. John Downer, December 20, 2014.

The Ecologist: ‘All fouled up – Fukushima four years after the catastrophe‘, Dr Jim Green, 11th March 2015.

The Big Lie, Secret Chernobyl Documents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/16/editorial-fukushima-nuclear-dirty-tricks

http://newsok.com/pge-releases-thousands-of-emails-with-state-regulators/article/feed/790236/?page=1

http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/cpi-asks-govt-to-explain-why-it-rushed-into-nuke-agreement_1537199.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-odyssey-of-naoto-kan-former-japan-prime-minister-during-fukushima/

http://www.fairewinds.org/alone-in-the-zone/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/soviet-leader-chernobyl-nuclear-accident-caused-the-collapse-of-the-ussr.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112760135

 




391148

Greenpeace Energy to launch legal challenge to UK nuclear subsidies Updated for 2026





German green power supply company Greenpeace Energy (GPE) will take legal action against the European Commission because it has approved State aid worth billions for the building of the UK’s new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant.

According to GPE, the nuclear subsidy “threatens to distort competition in the European Union against genuine clean energy” and “could act as precedent and further undermine the EU energy market.”

“Highly subsidised nuclear power from this plant will noticeably distort European competitiveness. It will have an effect on prices at the power exchange in Germany as well”, says Sönke Tangermann, GPE’s managing director.

“This effect will have economic disadvantages for committed green power providers like us, and that’s why we are going to court.”

He adds that GPE will file a plea for annulment at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg “as soon as the Commission’s State aid approval is published in the EU’s Official Journal and the period prescribed for bringing an action begins.”

Austria is also expected to launch a legal action against the Hinkley C subsidies – in the face of menacing threats from UK diplomats that the UK would “embrace any future opportunity that arises to sue or damage Austria in areas which have strong domestic political implications.”

Far higher subsidies to nuclear than to renewables

Last October the EU Commission approved State aid for the new build of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset. GPE estimates that the immediate subsidy is worth about €22 billion, or £16 billion.

However the picture is complex as the aid package includes an inflation-proof generation subsidy of £92.50 per MWh for 35 years, construction guarantees, limits on liability for decommissioning, and a low accident liabilty cut-off. Other analysts believe the true cost as far higher and could amount to £30 billion or more.

The generation subsidy alone guarantees Hinkley’s power a wholesale price of £92.50 per MHh, double the market price, or 9.25p per unit – equivalent to almost 13€c. Adding all the elements together, says GPE, “The resulting subsidy is far higher than that for wind or solar power in Germany.”

It’s also much higher than renewable energy subsidies in the UK. Last week the UK government awarded contracts to renewable energy generators under its new ‘contracts for difference’ (CFD) auction. Typically wind generators were bidding £82.50 per MHh, and solar generators came in even lower, at £79.23 per MWh and £50 per MWh.

Also the contracts are for only 15 years – as opposed to the 35 years for Hinkley C – and contain no additional support or guarantees. The entire CFD package for new renewable energy capacity is limited to just £50 million per year, rising to £65 million in future years.

As reported on The Ecologist, the effect of the UK’s energy policy will be to almost kill off the flourishing solar sector, reducing the rate of new solar build from 2,000-3,000 MWh per year, to an estimated 32MW.

Many critics believe that the government is cutting back on renewables that are increasingly competitive against fossil fuels as prices rapidly drop, to make way for far higher-priced nuclear power.

Hinkley threatens to distort the entire European market

An expert opinion commissioned by Greenpeace Energy from analysts Energy Brainpool shows that Hinkley Point C will lead to a shift in price levels in the European electricity market.

The opinion explains that lower prices for electricity at the power exchange in Germany will discriminate against those suppliers that procure green power at fixed prices directly from plant operators in the framework of the German Renewable Energies Act.

“Unlike the claims of Prime Minister Cameron, a new reactor built at Hinkley Point, supported by billions of taxpayers money, is not a purely British affair, but directly disadvantages us as a German enterprise active in the European electricity market”, says Tangermann.

Due to the price effects of Hinkley Point C, the costs of the system laid out in Germany’s Renewable Energies Act (EEG) to foster renewables are likely to rise because the operators of renewable energy plants – with fixed feed-in tariffs – would in future have to be paid a larger difference in the electricity price at the power exchange.

This would probably cause a small increase in the renewable energy surcharge, while “the strain it would put on the EEG system is an outrage”, says Tangermann.

Will Hinkley corner European Investment Funds?

GPE’s other fear is that Hinkley, and other nuclear projects elsewhere in Europe, could grab a huge share of the European Investment Fund presented by Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the EU Commission, when it enters into force.

The UK has already applied for €46 billion to fund Hinkley C and two other nuclear power stations from the projected €315 billion fund, and this could be essential as other potential funders have withdrawn. Poland is also applying for €12 billion for new nuclear build.

Moreover, the EU intends to massively extend cross-border power lines, meaning the negative effect of this development, as calculated by Energy Brainpool, would be reinforced on a massive scale.As such GPE sees in the approval of State aid for Hinkley Point C a precedent for other nuclear projects that will hugely distort Europe’s energy market, says Tangemann:

“If the Commission’s approval goes unchallenged, then Hinkley Point C is just the tip of the iceberg, which is why we are calling on the German government to take legal action against the unfair State aid approval for Hinkley Point C. It must not open the door to other hazardous and absurdly expensive nuclear power projects in Europe.”

Germany’s biggest independent energy co-op

GPE is Germany’s largest national, independent energy cooperative, supplying clean power to more than 111,000 customers, of which about 9,000 are businesses. It is organised as a cooperative with 23,000 members whose contributions provide a solid equity capital base.

Through its subsidiary Planet Energy it also builds its own power plants, and has 11 wind farms (see photo) and three photovoltaic plants totalling 65MW are already in operation.

GPE has appointed Dr. Dörte Fouquet at the Becker Büttner Held law office, specialists in this area, to prepare the application for the plea for annulment and assist in subsequent proceedings.

In coming weeks, Greenpeace Energy will also review the possibility of joining forces with other stakeholders in Germany’s energy market for bringing legal action as a collective.

 


 

Principal source: Greenpeace Energy.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




390968

After UK’s record solar year, government tries to kill the sector Updated for 2026





Marks & Spencer (M&S) has just completed the UK’s largest single roof mounted solar panel array on its East Midlands automated distribution centre in Castle Donington.

The 6.1MWp solar array comprises 24,272 PV panels, each rated at 250W, installed on the company’s 900,000 sq.ft (84,000 sq.m) roof.

It’s yet another contribution to the record growth of the UK’s solar sector, which now boasts over 650,000 solar installations across homes, offices, schools, churches, warehouses, farms, police stations, train stations and even a bridge.

Official statistics show that total capacity reached almost 5GW at the end of 2014, up from 2.8GW at the end of 2013. At peak production, that’s enough to power 1.5 million homes, and approaching 10% of the UK’s peak power demand.

But now the government is determined to kill UK solar

Despite the manifest success of the UK’s solar industry, the government last week anounced that only five large (over 5MW) new solar installations will be supported under its new  ‘Contracts for Difference’ (CFD) system.

The CFD ‘auction’, held earlier this year, required ‘established renewables’ – a category that includes onshore wind, landfill gas, hydro and solar – to compete with each other for a share of £50m for the next year, rising to 65m allocated for future years.

Relative to support for other technologies the sum is minute. The government is spending £3.1bn for under its established Renewables Obligation (RO) support mechanism for 2014/15. And while the RO remains open until 2017 to other technologies, it specifically excludes large-scale solar.

The Solar Trade Association predicts a catastrophic decline in the sector as a consequence. It estimates that 2-3GW (2,000-3,000MW) of large-scale solar will be completed in the current financial year.

But it predicts that next financial year new installations will collapse to just 32MW for all solar PV large and small – around 1% of current levels.

‘Blatant discrimination’

Some now accuse the government of “blatant discrimination” against solar power, owing to its unique exclusion from the RO, combined with the paltry sum available under the CFD package. In addition Britain’s Green Investment Bank has so far excluded solar power from loans of £1.6 billion for renewables.

The five solar projects selected from the CFD auction came in at the lowest prices of all the 27 winners, at £50 and £79.23 per MWh. Most of the others were onshore wind projects bidding at £82.50. This provides a strong indication that solar is already the UK’s lowest cost form of renewable energy.

Making government policy especially paradoxical, say critics, is the fact that solar PV is expected to be competitive with fossil fuel power as soon as 2020, according to the recent report In Sight: Unsubsidised UK Solar‘. The report recommends:

“Solar PV will be a critical technology in the 21st century, and the British government should continue to support the industry until it is fully economic without subsidies; we believe that this will be reached within the next decade across all solar markets in Britain.

“Support must be reduced progressively and predictably towards elimination over the next decade, to help build a more mature, lowcost supply chain, while maintaining value for money and preventing developers from inflating prices. Getting the right support level is critical to driving sustained cost reductions.”

Even Amber Rudd, Minister for Energy and Climate Change, had nice things to say at M&S’s solar launch yesterday: “More rooftop solar means more jobs – and will also help deliver the clean, reliable energy supplies that the country needs at the lowest possible cost to consumers.”

But in fact, the government is putting the boot in. Why? A clue may exist elsewhere in the report: “Increasing cost-competitiveness and capacity growth of solar PV in Britain will impact the British power system, including falls in wholesale power prices, as already seen in Germany.

“The growth of solar power may threaten electric utilities which fail to transition away from solely supplying electricity, to providing residential energy services.”

Could the UK government’s apparently senseless policy on solar power be written by the energy companies in direct opposition to the consumer interest in lower electricity prices? So it would appear.

But M&S sticks to its solar guns

M&S’s record-breaking PV array will help the company maintain its commitment of sourcing 100% of its electricity for UK and Ireland buildings from renewable sources, with 50% sourced from small scale renewable sources by 2020.

The energy it generates each year – estimated at 5,000 MWh – will provide nearly 25% of the energy required for the distribution centre, and lower M&S’s carbon footprint by 48,000 tonnes over 20 years.

As such M&S’s solar commitment is driven by its low carbon policy commitment rather than subsidies. Since the launch of its ‘Plan A’ in 2007, M&S has lowered its carbon emissions by 37% and is carbon neutral across its worldwide operations.

And Hugo Adams, Director of Property at M&S, confirmed that there was more in the pipeline. The completion of this project, he said, was “the first significant step in a number of solar energy initiatives we are planning this year. The scale of the project demonstrates our ambitious goals and long term commitment to onsite renewable energy.”

And it may just be that as prices fall, other companies, landlords, schools, local authorities and home-owners will just carry on installing solar anyway, driving down their power bills and carbon footprint – and foiling the attempt by the UK government, in cahoots with the Big Six power companies, to kill the sector off.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




390945

After UK’s record solar year, government tries to kill the sector Updated for 2026





Marks & Spencer (M&S) has just completed the UK’s largest single roof mounted solar panel array on its East Midlands automated distribution centre in Castle Donington.

The 6.1MWp solar array comprises 24,272 PV panels, each rated at 250W, installed on the company’s 900,000 sq.ft (84,000 sq.m) roof.

It’s yet another contribution to the record growth of the UK’s solar sector, which now boasts over 650,000 solar installations across homes, offices, schools, churches, warehouses, farms, police stations, train stations and even a bridge.

Official statistics show that total capacity reached almost 5GW at the end of 2014, up from 2.8GW at the end of 2013. At peak production, that’s enough to power 1.5 million homes, and approaching 10% of the UK’s peak power demand.

But now the government is determined to kill UK solar

Despite the manifest success of the UK’s solar industry, the government last week anounced that only five large (over 5MW) new solar installations will be supported under its new  ‘Contracts for Difference’ (CFD) system.

The CFD ‘auction’, held earlier this year, required ‘established renewables’ – a category that includes onshore wind, landfill gas, hydro and solar – to compete with each other for a share of £50m for the next year, rising to 65m allocated for future years.

Relative to support for other technologies the sum is minute. The government is spending £3.1bn for under its established Renewables Obligation (RO) support mechanism for 2014/15. And while the RO remains open until 2017 to other technologies, it specifically excludes large-scale solar.

The Solar Trade Association predicts a catastrophic decline in the sector as a consequence. It estimates that 2-3GW (2,000-3,000MW) of large-scale solar will be completed in the current financial year.

But it predicts that next financial year new installations will collapse to just 32MW for all solar PV large and small – around 1% of current levels.

‘Blatant discrimination’

Some now accuse the government of “blatant discrimination” against solar power, owing to its unique exclusion from the RO, combined with the paltry sum available under the CFD package. In addition Britain’s Green Investment Bank has so far excluded solar power from loans of £1.6 billion for renewables.

The five solar projects selected from the CFD auction came in at the lowest prices of all the 27 winners, at £50 and £79.23 per MWh. Most of the others were onshore wind projects bidding at £82.50. This provides a strong indication that solar is already the UK’s lowest cost form of renewable energy.

Making government policy especially paradoxical, say critics, is the fact that solar PV is expected to be competitive with fossil fuel power as soon as 2020, according to the recent report In Sight: Unsubsidised UK Solar‘. The report recommends:

“Solar PV will be a critical technology in the 21st century, and the British government should continue to support the industry until it is fully economic without subsidies; we believe that this will be reached within the next decade across all solar markets in Britain.

“Support must be reduced progressively and predictably towards elimination over the next decade, to help build a more mature, lowcost supply chain, while maintaining value for money and preventing developers from inflating prices. Getting the right support level is critical to driving sustained cost reductions.”

Even Amber Rudd, Minister for Energy and Climate Change, had nice things to say at M&S’s solar launch yesterday: “More rooftop solar means more jobs – and will also help deliver the clean, reliable energy supplies that the country needs at the lowest possible cost to consumers.”

But in fact, the government is putting the boot in. Why? A clue may exist elsewhere in the report: “Increasing cost-competitiveness and capacity growth of solar PV in Britain will impact the British power system, including falls in wholesale power prices, as already seen in Germany.

“The growth of solar power may threaten electric utilities which fail to transition away from solely supplying electricity, to providing residential energy services.”

Could the UK government’s apparently senseless policy on solar power be written by the energy companies in direct opposition to the consumer interest in lower electricity prices? So it would appear.

But M&S sticks to its solar guns

M&S’s record-breaking PV array will help the company maintain its commitment of sourcing 100% of its electricity for UK and Ireland buildings from renewable sources, with 50% sourced from small scale renewable sources by 2020.

The energy it generates each year – estimated at 5,000 MWh – will provide nearly 25% of the energy required for the distribution centre, and lower M&S’s carbon footprint by 48,000 tonnes over 20 years.

As such M&S’s solar commitment is driven by its low carbon policy commitment rather than subsidies. Since the launch of its ‘Plan A’ in 2007, M&S has lowered its carbon emissions by 37% and is carbon neutral across its worldwide operations.

And Hugo Adams, Director of Property at M&S, confirmed that there was more in the pipeline. The completion of this project, he said, was “the first significant step in a number of solar energy initiatives we are planning this year. The scale of the project demonstrates our ambitious goals and long term commitment to onsite renewable energy.”

And it may just be that as prices fall, other companies, landlords, schools, local authorities and home-owners will just carry on installing solar anyway, driving down their power bills and carbon footprint – and foiling the attempt by the UK government, in cahoots with the Big Six power companies, to kill the sector off.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




390945

After UK’s record solar year, government tries to kill the sector Updated for 2026





Marks & Spencer (M&S) has just completed the UK’s largest single roof mounted solar panel array on its East Midlands automated distribution centre in Castle Donington.

The 6.1MWp solar array comprises 24,272 PV panels, each rated at 250W, installed on the company’s 900,000 sq.ft (84,000 sq.m) roof.

It’s yet another contribution to the record growth of the UK’s solar sector, which now boasts over 650,000 solar installations across homes, offices, schools, churches, warehouses, farms, police stations, train stations and even a bridge.

Official statistics show that total capacity reached almost 5GW at the end of 2014, up from 2.8GW at the end of 2013. At peak production, that’s enough to power 1.5 million homes, and approaching 10% of the UK’s peak power demand.

But now the government is determined to kill UK solar

Despite the manifest success of the UK’s solar industry, the government last week anounced that only five large (over 5MW) new solar installations will be supported under its new  ‘Contracts for Difference’ (CFD) system.

The CFD ‘auction’, held earlier this year, required ‘established renewables’ – a category that includes onshore wind, landfill gas, hydro and solar – to compete with each other for a share of £50m for the next year, rising to 65m allocated for future years.

Relative to support for other technologies the sum is minute. The government is spending £3.1bn for under its established Renewables Obligation (RO) support mechanism for 2014/15. And while the RO remains open until 2017 to other technologies, it specifically excludes large-scale solar.

The Solar Trade Association predicts a catastrophic decline in the sector as a consequence. It estimates that 2-3GW (2,000-3,000MW) of large-scale solar will be completed in the current financial year.

But it predicts that next financial year new installations will collapse to just 32MW for all solar PV large and small – around 1% of current levels.

‘Blatant discrimination’

Some now accuse the government of “blatant discrimination” against solar power, owing to its unique exclusion from the RO, combined with the paltry sum available under the CFD package. In addition Britain’s Green Investment Bank has so far excluded solar power from loans of £1.6 billion for renewables.

The five solar projects selected from the CFD auction came in at the lowest prices of all the 27 winners, at £50 and £79.23 per MWh. Most of the others were onshore wind projects bidding at £82.50. This provides a strong indication that solar is already the UK’s lowest cost form of renewable energy.

Making government policy especially paradoxical, say critics, is the fact that solar PV is expected to be competitive with fossil fuel power as soon as 2020, according to the recent report In Sight: Unsubsidised UK Solar‘. The report recommends:

“Solar PV will be a critical technology in the 21st century, and the British government should continue to support the industry until it is fully economic without subsidies; we believe that this will be reached within the next decade across all solar markets in Britain.

“Support must be reduced progressively and predictably towards elimination over the next decade, to help build a more mature, lowcost supply chain, while maintaining value for money and preventing developers from inflating prices. Getting the right support level is critical to driving sustained cost reductions.”

Even Amber Rudd, Minister for Energy and Climate Change, had nice things to say at M&S’s solar launch yesterday: “More rooftop solar means more jobs – and will also help deliver the clean, reliable energy supplies that the country needs at the lowest possible cost to consumers.”

But in fact, the government is putting the boot in. Why? A clue may exist elsewhere in the report: “Increasing cost-competitiveness and capacity growth of solar PV in Britain will impact the British power system, including falls in wholesale power prices, as already seen in Germany.

“The growth of solar power may threaten electric utilities which fail to transition away from solely supplying electricity, to providing residential energy services.”

Could the UK government’s apparently senseless policy on solar power be written by the energy companies in direct opposition to the consumer interest in lower electricity prices? So it would appear.

But M&S sticks to its solar guns

M&S’s record-breaking PV array will help the company maintain its commitment of sourcing 100% of its electricity for UK and Ireland buildings from renewable sources, with 50% sourced from small scale renewable sources by 2020.

The energy it generates each year – estimated at 5,000 MWh – will provide nearly 25% of the energy required for the distribution centre, and lower M&S’s carbon footprint by 48,000 tonnes over 20 years.

As such M&S’s solar commitment is driven by its low carbon policy commitment rather than subsidies. Since the launch of its ‘Plan A’ in 2007, M&S has lowered its carbon emissions by 37% and is carbon neutral across its worldwide operations.

And Hugo Adams, Director of Property at M&S, confirmed that there was more in the pipeline. The completion of this project, he said, was “the first significant step in a number of solar energy initiatives we are planning this year. The scale of the project demonstrates our ambitious goals and long term commitment to onsite renewable energy.”

And it may just be that as prices fall, other companies, landlords, schools, local authorities and home-owners will just carry on installing solar anyway, driving down their power bills and carbon footprint – and foiling the attempt by the UK government, in cahoots with the Big Six power companies, to kill the sector off.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




390945

After UK’s record solar year, government tries to kill the sector Updated for 2026





Marks & Spencer (M&S) has just completed the UK’s largest single roof mounted solar panel array on its East Midlands automated distribution centre in Castle Donington.

The 6.1MWp solar array comprises 24,272 PV panels, each rated at 250W, installed on the company’s 900,000 sq.ft (84,000 sq.m) roof.

It’s yet another contribution to the record growth of the UK’s solar sector, which now boasts over 650,000 solar installations across homes, offices, schools, churches, warehouses, farms, police stations, train stations and even a bridge.

Official statistics show that total capacity reached almost 5GW at the end of 2014, up from 2.8GW at the end of 2013. At peak production, that’s enough to power 1.5 million homes, and approaching 10% of the UK’s peak power demand.

But now the government is determined to kill UK solar

Despite the manifest success of the UK’s solar industry, the government last week anounced that only five large (over 5MW) new solar installations will be supported under its new  ‘Contracts for Difference’ (CFD) system.

The CFD ‘auction’, held earlier this year, required ‘established renewables’ – a category that includes onshore wind, landfill gas, hydro and solar – to compete with each other for a share of £50m for the next year, rising to 65m allocated for future years.

Relative to support for other technologies the sum is minute. The government is spending £3.1bn for under its established Renewables Obligation (RO) support mechanism for 2014/15. And while the RO remains open until 2017 to other technologies, it specifically excludes large-scale solar.

The Solar Trade Association predicts a catastrophic decline in the sector as a consequence. It estimates that 2-3GW (2,000-3,000MW) of large-scale solar will be completed in the current financial year.

But it predicts that next financial year new installations will collapse to just 32MW for all solar PV large and small – around 1% of current levels.

‘Blatant discrimination’

Some now accuse the government of “blatant discrimination” against solar power, owing to its unique exclusion from the RO, combined with the paltry sum available under the CFD package. In addition Britain’s Green Investment Bank has so far excluded solar power from loans of £1.6 billion for renewables.

The five solar projects selected from the CFD auction came in at the lowest prices of all the 27 winners, at £50 and £79.23 per MWh. Most of the others were onshore wind projects bidding at £82.50. This provides a strong indication that solar is already the UK’s lowest cost form of renewable energy.

Making government policy especially paradoxical, say critics, is the fact that solar PV is expected to be competitive with fossil fuel power as soon as 2020, according to the recent report In Sight: Unsubsidised UK Solar‘. The report recommends:

“Solar PV will be a critical technology in the 21st century, and the British government should continue to support the industry until it is fully economic without subsidies; we believe that this will be reached within the next decade across all solar markets in Britain.

“Support must be reduced progressively and predictably towards elimination over the next decade, to help build a more mature, lowcost supply chain, while maintaining value for money and preventing developers from inflating prices. Getting the right support level is critical to driving sustained cost reductions.”

Even Amber Rudd, Minister for Energy and Climate Change, had nice things to say at M&S’s solar launch yesterday: “More rooftop solar means more jobs – and will also help deliver the clean, reliable energy supplies that the country needs at the lowest possible cost to consumers.”

But in fact, the government is putting the boot in. Why? A clue may exist elsewhere in the report: “Increasing cost-competitiveness and capacity growth of solar PV in Britain will impact the British power system, including falls in wholesale power prices, as already seen in Germany.

“The growth of solar power may threaten electric utilities which fail to transition away from solely supplying electricity, to providing residential energy services.”

Could the UK government’s apparently senseless policy on solar power be written by the energy companies in direct opposition to the consumer interest in lower electricity prices? So it would appear.

But M&S sticks to its solar guns

M&S’s record-breaking PV array will help the company maintain its commitment of sourcing 100% of its electricity for UK and Ireland buildings from renewable sources, with 50% sourced from small scale renewable sources by 2020.

The energy it generates each year – estimated at 5,000 MWh – will provide nearly 25% of the energy required for the distribution centre, and lower M&S’s carbon footprint by 48,000 tonnes over 20 years.

As such M&S’s solar commitment is driven by its low carbon policy commitment rather than subsidies. Since the launch of its ‘Plan A’ in 2007, M&S has lowered its carbon emissions by 37% and is carbon neutral across its worldwide operations.

And Hugo Adams, Director of Property at M&S, confirmed that there was more in the pipeline. The completion of this project, he said, was “the first significant step in a number of solar energy initiatives we are planning this year. The scale of the project demonstrates our ambitious goals and long term commitment to onsite renewable energy.”

And it may just be that as prices fall, other companies, landlords, schools, local authorities and home-owners will just carry on installing solar anyway, driving down their power bills and carbon footprint – and foiling the attempt by the UK government, in cahoots with the Big Six power companies, to kill the sector off.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




390945

After UK’s record solar year, government tries to kill the sector Updated for 2026





Marks & Spencer (M&S) has just completed the UK’s largest single roof mounted solar panel array on its East Midlands automated distribution centre in Castle Donington.

The 6.1MWp solar array comprises 24,272 PV panels, each rated at 250W, installed on the company’s 900,000 sq.ft (84,000 sq.m) roof.

It’s yet another contribution to the record growth of the UK’s solar sector, which now boasts over 650,000 solar installations across homes, offices, schools, churches, warehouses, farms, police stations, train stations and even a bridge.

Official statistics show that total capacity reached almost 5GW at the end of 2014, up from 2.8GW at the end of 2013. At peak production, that’s enough to power 1.5 million homes, and approaching 10% of the UK’s peak power demand.

But now the government is determined to kill UK solar

Despite the manifest success of the UK’s solar industry, the government last week anounced that only five large (over 5MW) new solar installations will be supported under its new  ‘Contracts for Difference’ (CFD) system.

The CFD ‘auction’, held earlier this year, required ‘established renewables’ – a category that includes onshore wind, landfill gas, hydro and solar – to compete with each other for a share of £50m for the next year, rising to 65m allocated for future years.

Relative to support for other technologies the sum is minute. The government is spending £3.1bn for under its established Renewables Obligation (RO) support mechanism for 2014/15. And while the RO remains open until 2017 to other technologies, it specifically excludes large-scale solar.

The Solar Trade Association predicts a catastrophic decline in the sector as a consequence. It estimates that 2-3GW (2,000-3,000MW) of large-scale solar will be completed in the current financial year.

But it predicts that next financial year new installations will collapse to just 32MW for all solar PV large and small – around 1% of current levels.

‘Blatant discrimination’

Some now accuse the government of “blatant discrimination” against solar power, owing to its unique exclusion from the RO, combined with the paltry sum available under the CFD package. In addition Britain’s Green Investment Bank has so far excluded solar power from loans of £1.6 billion for renewables.

The five solar projects selected from the CFD auction came in at the lowest prices of all the 27 winners, at £50 and £79.23 per MWh. Most of the others were onshore wind projects bidding at £82.50. This provides a strong indication that solar is already the UK’s lowest cost form of renewable energy.

Making government policy especially paradoxical, say critics, is the fact that solar PV is expected to be competitive with fossil fuel power as soon as 2020, according to the recent report In Sight: Unsubsidised UK Solar‘. The report recommends:

“Solar PV will be a critical technology in the 21st century, and the British government should continue to support the industry until it is fully economic without subsidies; we believe that this will be reached within the next decade across all solar markets in Britain.

“Support must be reduced progressively and predictably towards elimination over the next decade, to help build a more mature, lowcost supply chain, while maintaining value for money and preventing developers from inflating prices. Getting the right support level is critical to driving sustained cost reductions.”

Even Amber Rudd, Minister for Energy and Climate Change, had nice things to say at M&S’s solar launch yesterday: “More rooftop solar means more jobs – and will also help deliver the clean, reliable energy supplies that the country needs at the lowest possible cost to consumers.”

But in fact, the government is putting the boot in. Why? A clue may exist elsewhere in the report: “Increasing cost-competitiveness and capacity growth of solar PV in Britain will impact the British power system, including falls in wholesale power prices, as already seen in Germany.

“The growth of solar power may threaten electric utilities which fail to transition away from solely supplying electricity, to providing residential energy services.”

Could the UK government’s apparently senseless policy on solar power be written by the energy companies in direct opposition to the consumer interest in lower electricity prices? So it would appear.

But M&S sticks to its solar guns

M&S’s record-breaking PV array will help the company maintain its commitment of sourcing 100% of its electricity for UK and Ireland buildings from renewable sources, with 50% sourced from small scale renewable sources by 2020.

The energy it generates each year – estimated at 5,000 MWh – will provide nearly 25% of the energy required for the distribution centre, and lower M&S’s carbon footprint by 48,000 tonnes over 20 years.

As such M&S’s solar commitment is driven by its low carbon policy commitment rather than subsidies. Since the launch of its ‘Plan A’ in 2007, M&S has lowered its carbon emissions by 37% and is carbon neutral across its worldwide operations.

And Hugo Adams, Director of Property at M&S, confirmed that there was more in the pipeline. The completion of this project, he said, was “the first significant step in a number of solar energy initiatives we are planning this year. The scale of the project demonstrates our ambitious goals and long term commitment to onsite renewable energy.”

And it may just be that as prices fall, other companies, landlords, schools, local authorities and home-owners will just carry on installing solar anyway, driving down their power bills and carbon footprint – and foiling the attempt by the UK government, in cahoots with the Big Six power companies, to kill the sector off.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




390945