Tag Archives: power

Reclaim the power! It’s time to deprivatise Britain’s energy Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




What must it be like to manage an oil company? To become the chief executive of an energy corporation and to earn millions a year doing so?

Iain Conn, ex-managing director at BP, knows. He is about to take up the position of CEO at Centrica (which owns one of the ‘Big Six’ energy suppliers, British Gas) in January.

The aptly named Conn will be paid in the region of £2m with added extras expected to raise this to around £3.7 million. One thing’s for sure; he won’t have trouble paying his fuel bill this winter.

The rest of us, however, might struggle. With fuel prices that have risen eight times faster than average incomes, more than one in ten households in England are now living in fuel poverty. Last month the Office for National Statistics released the number of people who died of cold last winter as 18,200.

The World Health Organisation attributes 30% to 50% of these deaths to cold homes. The energy companies would have us believe that there’s nothing they can do about prices but the reality is that they’re pocketing huge profits while failing to pass on lower wholesale prices.

Vast profits on the backs of people, and planet

Collectively, the Big Six made £2.8 billion in 2013, with profits from domestic customers a staggering five times higher than in 2009.

Companies such as Centrica are also reinforcing our addiction to dirty energy, which we still rely on for the vast majority our electricity generation. Centrica owns a 25% stake in Cuadrilla – the first – and one of the largest – companies’ fracking in the UK.

There is something clearly wrong with our current energy system. A utility which used to be publicly owned in this country is making millions keeping people in fuel poverty and deepening our addiction to carbon intensive fuels.

All over the world the story is similar. From the tar sands in Canada and Madagascar, to coal mines in Colombia and Mongolia, fossil fuel extraction is scarring the landscape, displacing communities and contributing to catastrophic climate change.

Yet this is doing nothing to get energy to the people who need it. One in five people globally live without electricity because they are unable to access it and many more go without because they can’t afford it. In Africa only 10% of those living in rural areas have access to electricity.

Although it is the model that is pushed throughout the world by institutions like the World Bank, privatised energy is not helping extend grids to people who lack access to energy or making energy affordable to the poor. The problem is corporate control – energy resources being used to make huge profits while steamrolling over people’s needs.

If we want more communities to be able to access and afford energy within the confines of a carbon constrained world, our current corporate-controlled privatised energy system is failing us. It’s painfully obvious that we need to look at the alternatives. The good news is that there are plenty!

Nationalised

Before Thatcher, the UK had a state run energy system and there are plenty of examples of countries around the world which still have them, such as Uruguay. In other places, privatisation has been such a disaster that energy systems have been taken back into public ownership.

The advantages of publicly owned energy systems are that they tend to have more public accountability and aren’t obliged to siphon off juicy profits for their shareholders.

Municipalised

In Germany there has been a huge move towards local authority run energy schemes as part of the country’s Energiewende, or energy transition.

In Germany this shift, known as municipalisation, has often come as a result of local referenda. In Hamburg, local people voted in September 2013 for their council to buy back the energy grid from multinational corporations E.ON and Vattenfall after campaigners successfully argued that the companies were not acting in the public interest and were delaying the transition to renewable energy.

The city of Boulder in America has also had success in municipalising its energy.

Co-operative

In parts of the world there is a long history of energy systems being run using co-operative models of control and ownership. For instance in Nepal and the Philippines micro-hydro co-operatives supply rural communities with reliable access to energy.

Here communities have collective control over a renewable energy source which could also make use of wind or biomass. A co-operative model more easily enables a project to be run by a community for the community.

Small scale co-operatives can provide an invaluable solution when prospects for grid connection are remote or would cause damage. In developed countries, small-scale cooperatives can also be a democratic way of communities gaining control over energy generation, even when they are connected to regional or national grids.

In Spain, Som Energia (‘We are Energy’ in Catalan) co-operative, was set up in 2011 in response to the lack of green energy options and the high bills of the large energy companies, of which the largest two account for 80% of the Spanish energy market.

Four years after being established, it has set up eight solar roof installations and a biogas plant and is in the process of building Spain’s first community wind turbine. It has 16,000 members who purchase electricity from the co-operative.

Scaled up

There are questions about the speed at which small scale projects can give communities the energy they need. Larger scale on-grid solutions have the potential to connect more households.

Large scale co-operatives have been very effective in America where they date back to the New Deal, and where 13% of the population use them – the co-ops are united by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA).

In Bolivia, the Cooperativa Rural de Electrificacion (CRE) is the biggest in the world with 276,000 users. Set up in the 1970s it was a small group of community leaders frustrated by the lack of municipal, state and private company willingness to provide services that got it off the ground.

Costa Rica also has large and long-established energy co-operatives that are run by the communities they serve and which function alongside the state energy company.

Gaining democratic control of energy resources is a fundamental part of ensuring our energy system provides for those that need it most and moves away from its destructive addiction to fossil fuels.

While there is no ‘one size fits all’ answer to these issues, approaches that give genuine control and ownership of those that they serve have a more likely chance of survival and of remaining truly democratic.

The solutions for reclaiming energy are here. Let’s take power out of private hands.

 

 

Petition: Re-nationalise the UK energy sector and end fuel poverty (38 Degrees).

Facebook: Fuel Poverty – Nationalise Gas, Electricity & Water Companies.

Sam Lund-Harket is an activist working with the World Development Movement (soon to be Global Justice Now) campaigning to end corporate control of the energy sector.

This article was originally published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

Creative Commons License

 

 




388252

Here comes the sun: explosion in solar power beckons Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Is solar power the technology of the future? It is certainly the fastest-growing energy generation technology in the UK.

By the early 2020s, according to a new report, it will be cost-competitive with gas and coal power. If so, the goal of having unsubsidised renewable energy is in sight.

The report, by Berlin-based think tank Thema1, concludes that this is possible without radical technology improvements or similar step changes. This somewhat disagrees with similar studies, which tend to point to the next big thing as being just around the corner.

There are lots of exciting developments in the laboratories but to make a real difference they need time – more than the 10-year time frame in Thema1’s forecasts, so their report is right not to factor them in.

Bright hopes

The majority of new technologies focus on the photovoltaic (PV) module itself, promising higher power output per unit (by using graphene or nanotechnologies) or much reduced production costs (using novel materials like organic solar cells).

Higher rates of converting light into electricity (‘efficiencies’) are always welcome in new PV devices, but their viability depends on the production costs. It is possible today to produce cells that can convert as much as 46% of the sun’s power into electricity, but costs render these commercially unfeasible. The incumbent technology, wafer-based silicon PV modules, converts about 22% of sunlight – at a fraction of the cost.

On the other hand, there is a lot of excitement around technologies such as organic solar cells that are less efficient but have much reduced costs. But this approach tends to shift the balance of costs from the module to the other system components such as mounting structures and can make the system more expensive.

To be commercially viable, these devices need a minimum efficiency of about 10%-12%. This recently led to the demise of virtually all thin-film silicon manufacturers, for example, which struggled to get the double-digit efficiencies in cost-effective production times.

The reality is that the road from laboratory cell to a full-size module is surprisingly difficult and slow. This can be seen when looking at current polysilicon thin-film technologies and how long it took them to come to their current competitive position.

There is no reason to believe that other technologies will be much luckier.

The missing ingredient – political will

Having said this, the Thema1 report is right to say that PV can achieve the costs required to survive – without subsidies, and without any step change in technology. All it needs is the political will.

If governments offer sufficient subsidies in the short term, solar will cut costs just by doing things better. This was the underlying idea of solar subsidies all around the world in recent years.

Yet Thema1 suggests that all we now need to do is incrementally reduce these subsidies, and by 2020 we will have learned how to do things at the market price. This is not completely impossible, but there are some major caveats.

The reductions to UK subsidies of recent years are in fact one of the biggest issues in the industry at present. There were step cuts in funding that incentivised developers to rush through solar projects before cut-off dates, which resulted in installation gluts. This has been detrimental for the quality of installations, resulting in higher operation and maintenance costs and thus higher energy costs.

Governments might argue that subsidy reduction has happened each year and is therefore foreseeable, However, this ignores the fact that these ‘cliffs’ result in a rushed building phase to meet the deadlines.

Reductions typically occur in April – so most building happens in the first quarter of the year, when the weather affects ground conditions and can drive up costs. Changing this hard funding cliff to a softer decline and shifting the timing to later in the year may actually make a noticeable difference in system costs.

The cost of connections is another major issue in the UK, especially with larger developments. The connection cost is sometimes nearly as expensive as the system itself – clearly rendering the investment impossible.

This may be down to weaknesses in the grid and should be addressed on a national scale. All new technologies for producing electricity have required major grid investment, so saying such moves are too expensive for solar is a bit of a smoke screen.

Time of day pricing could optimise PV production profile

Solar PV has the problem that the amount of power it produces varies during days and seasons. One of the most talked-about solutions is to include local electricity storage, which certainly could make solar more competitive provided it can be done reliably and at low cost. But this is may not be required in the medium term.

One reason is that people make the mistake of looking at technologies in isolation. There have been studies in Germany that indicate that this variability can be offset by using wind and solar together, for example. One would need to look at the combinations for the UK to see if this is true in this country as well.

It is also worth pointing out that subsidies are paid to renewable electricity irrespective of the time of generation, although it is more valuable to have an even production throughout the day – with no strong midday peak.

If rates were redistributed to include a timing element, it could be a way of cutting the system cost of PV energy without having to improve the technology itself, as developers adjusted the orientation of their panels to maximise revenue rather than gross production.

But the strongest factor that has the power to make or break solar power is the political support – or lack of it. PV still does have an amazing cost-saving potential through technological progress – as well as through measures like those mentioned above.

But all those together and you have a future that looks very sunny indeed. It is no exaggeration to say that incentive-free solar really could be on the horizon.

 

 

Ralph Gottschalg is Professor of Applied Photovoltaics at Loughborough University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




388132

Europe on the brink – green future or industrial wasteland? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




In the UK’s debate over its future membership of the EU, the broad ‘progressive’ spectrum of voters has long been in the pro-EU camp.

That’s not because ‘we’ like everything about the EU. It’s because the EU has offered unmistakable benefits for people and the environment – from the Working Time Directive, limiting the hours employees may be forced to work, to the Habitats & Species Directive, protecting our most precious wildlife, and the Air Quality Directive, which is forcing cuts in atmospheric pollution that are already preventing hundreds of thousands of premature deaths.

There is no doubt that a reluctant UK – once the proverbial ‘dirty man of Europe’ – has been forced to be infinitely cleaner and greener than it would ever have been on its own. The same goes for many other countries. The benefits have been enormous and unmistakeable.

The Dark is Rising

But there is another side to the EU, built as it was on the disreputable foundations of the Coal and Steel Community and the Euratom Treaty. This is a Europe of vested corporate interests, of over-powerful business lobbies, of jealously guarded privilege, secrecy and dodgy back-room political deals, of weak-wristed regulators unwilling or unable to clamp down on corporate abuses.

And today, it is all too clear which aspect of the EU dominates in the Junckers Commission. In the name of “focusing on what truly matters for citizens – jobs, growth and investment” the Commission is reining in desperately needed regulation to give citizens a clean and safe environment.

Proposed laws to reduce the air pollution that’s still killing some 400,000 people a year are to be scrapped – if Junckers and his troglodytic henchman Timmermans get their way in the College of Commissioners next Tuesday.

Under the name of ‘better regulation’ the whole ‘circular economy’ package to reduce waste to landfill and increase recycling would get bunged into the Commission’s capacious paper-shredder.

There have also been powerful calls to make the Habitats and Birds Directives more adaptable to local needs for example to allow Malta to carry on massacring migrating birds. You can be sure that the adaptation would only go one way – to weaken the laws, not to strengthen them.

Nuclear resurgence

The EU has also shown itself to be far too adaptable for its own good in its interpretation of it’s all important ‘state aid’ rules when it comes to nuclear power.

In October the Commission mysteriously approved a support package worth as much as £35 billion for the UK’s proposed Hinkley C nuclear power station – deeming, against a mountain of evidence, that it somehow maintained a ‘level playing field’ in the UK’s power market, even as it decimated the country’s renewable industries.

And now, following the UK’s inability to raise construction finance in spite of astonishingly generous power prices for nuclear power and a £10 billion construction finance guarantee, the Commission has approved three planned UK nuclear power stations (Hinkley Point C, Wylfa, and Moorside) to appear on its 2015 ‘infrastructure plan’ – putting them in line for as much as €46 billion in loan finance led by the European Investment Bank.

In fact the EU support is meant to be strictly reserved for projects that are economically viable and deliverable in the short term – which is clearly the very opposite of the case as regards the UK’s nuclear projects, which may require as much as £100 billion in subsidies and will not be deliverable for well over a decade.

Indeed, the infrastructure plan spells out the problems they face in clear terms, with strong “barriers” to investment. “High construction cost, long payback period is making debt raising difficult”, the document reveals.

The same applies to Poland’s struggling coal industry – also in line for €8 billion of ‘infrastructure’ funds to build new lignite coal mines, new power stations and extend the lifetimes of old coal plants that would otherwise have to be shut down.

Sacrificing democracy on the altar of ‘free trade’

At the same time the Commission is galloping into deeply unpopular trade and investment deals with the USA and Canada known as TTIP and CETA. Negotiations have been taking place in secret, excluding not just civil society but even MEPs and legislators in national member state Parliaments.

Most vexatious are the ‘investor dispute settlement’ procedures that would allow investors to sue national government for losses incurred due to regulatory changes affecting their anticipated profits.

As such, governments could be liable for losses caused by tightening pollution laws, raising the minimum wage, applying tighter limits on the release of environmental toxins, reversing the privatisation of public services, or a host of other actions. The damages would be awarded in secret courts composed of corporate lawyers.

TTIP / CETA would also involve ‘mutual recognition’ of standards between the EU and the USA and Canada, forcing EU consumers to accept North American GMO crops and meat and dairy produce from animals treated with yield-increasing growth hormones, currently banned from EU markets.

Astonishingly, the Commission even refused to accept an offical petition signed by over 1 million EU citizens known as a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) – on the manifestly false grounds that ECIs can only support the Commission’s proposals, and not oppose them.

How much longer can the EU count on our support?

It increasingly appears that the European Commission has decided, in the name of ‘jobs’, ‘investment’, ‘trade’ and ‘prosperity’ to abandon all the core values that once made the EU attractive to liberal and green minded voters, and abandon itself wholesale to the corporate lobbyists that stalk its corridors and enjoy privileged access to its officials.

And when it comes to a referendum on the UK’s continued EU membership,will surely leave progressive voters bereft of any positive enthusiasm to stay in.

Of course, it may be that the UK on its own would pursue even worse social and environmental policies, and that our own clay-footed politicians would be even more ready to sacrifice our rights, liberties and democratic traditions to corporate interests.

But that is to miss the point. To win a close-run election, the most important thing is not to so much win over opponents to your cause, but to get your own vote out on the day.

To get progressives to deliver their pro-EU votes – surely a necessary counterbalance to the now mainstream anti-EU right – we must be offered a positive vision of the Europe we want, and that our children have a right to enjoy.

And that means a green Europe, leading the world in renewable energy technologies, delivering social and environmental benefits to its citizens, founded on a bedrock of social justice, and rebalancing power away from profit-driven corporations, and to the people.

 


Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

 




388131

UK’s €46 billion bid for EIB nuclear loan Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The EU’s new infrastructure plan could include €46 billion in debt finance from the European Investment Bank (EIB) for UK nuclear power projects, according to an analysis of newly published documents by international NGO, CEE Bankwatch Network.

Also in line for support are huge new coal mines and coal power stations in Poland and eastern Europe, and upgrades to existing highly polluting coal plants that would otherwise be forced to close.

The documents just presented by the European Commission, include details of infrastructure projects bidding for support from the €300bn plan within each member state.

It comes as EU negotiators are in Lima arguing for tougher global climate targets.

The EU infrastructure plan will use around €21bn from the EU’s budget and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to provide guarantees to projects considered to be strategic investments in European infrastructure – creating a new funding body to work alongside the EIB.

The EIB will then seek to raise further €60bn to invest in unfunded projects across Europe.

UK – nuclear, biomass, coal gasification

The largest chunk of infrastructure money in the UK’s list is the €46bn it is seeking from the EIB for new nuclear power stations which have been hit by “funding shortages due to lack of support from utilities and private investors” – €16bn of it in 2015.

Three potential projects are listed with a total capacity of 12.2GW: Hinkley Point C, Wylfa, and Moorside, all described as “reaching investment decision in the near term.” The document adds that “more support is needed to unlock capital and accelerate investment.”

It adds that there are “barriers” to investment: “High construction cost, long payback period is making debt raising difficult.” The UK’s solution: “EIB senior and sub-ordinated debt or guarantees for developers and supply chain”.

The UK’s plans also include €6.3bn in support for new biomass combustion plants to meet the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets which face “lack of investment appetite” in part due to “concerns over the sustainability of biomass.”

Under the environment section of its pitch the UK lists support for controversial offshore underground coal gasification with carbon capture claiming: “this project can attract commercial investment if backed by loan guarantees but needs £23m up front in 2015 for pre-commercial testing.”

Poland’s bid for nuclear and massive coal expansion

Poland’s bid for support includes plans for a €5 billion new lignite (brown coal) mine and power plant in Gubin and €1.5bn each for giant hard coal plants in Laziska and Kozienice hard coal power plants already under construction.

Further to that Poland is seeking EU funds to modernise its ageing fleet of existing coal-fired plants which would otherwise be forced to close under EU air quality rules.

Polish coal projects have struggled to attract investment due to the high cost of mining and concerns amongst investors that Europe’s own plans to cut emissions by 40% are incompatible with expansion of the Polish coal sector.

But the biggest energy sector funding item is €12bn for an unnamed nuclear power plant. “The implementation of the project is impeded by a number of barriers and failures”, the bid makes clear, including “lack of market incentives”, “market failures linked to the lack of long-term economic predictability” and “regulatory barriers linked to highly restrictive licencing requirements”.

The EIB – which has previously committed not to finance coal plants – welcomed the list of projects, which amounts to a total of over a trillion euros, despite Poland’s bid for huge coal sector expansion.

“It is also urgent to tackle the significant non-financial barriers identified by the Task Force that prevent investment for viable projects from materialising”, insisted EIB president Werner Hoyer.

‘Environmental organisations to be managed’

Referring to Poland’s Gubin project the leaked document notes: “There is high risk that without appropriate support mechanisms, financial closure and investment implementation may not be feasible. Numerous stakeholders (especially environmental organizations) to [be] managed.”

The support for UK nuclear and Polish coal appear to be at odds with EU plans to focus investment on projects which are economically viable and deliverable in the short term.

The list was put together by an EU task force including the European commission, member states, the EIB and industry representatives – there were no representatives from civil society.

The list of projects is to be further discussed – and reduced – by the European Council, Commission and the European Investment Bank and no final decisions have been made yet.

“Scary is the first word that came to my mind as I looked at the list of projects proposed by the various member states to be financed from Juncker’s billions,” commented Bankwatch’s Markus Trilling.

“There is a huge amount of coal being proposed by the various countries, including Poland, Croatia and Romania, and this is in full contradiction not only to EU goals but also to Juncker’s rhetoric on sustainability.”

Xavier Sol of Counter Balance added: “As guarantors of the good use of public funds, the EC and the EIB have to help Europeans escape this madness of bad and dirty infrastructure and make sure transformative sectors such as energy efficiency and renewables get priority over fossil fuels.

The EU institutions have to check properly every single project and make sure the public has a chance to comment on the list of projects that will get priority financing.”

 

 

This article is an extended and edited version of one originally published on the Greenpeace Energy Desk.

 




385559

UK’s €46 billion bid for EIB nuclear loan Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The EU’s new infrastructure plan could include €46 billion in debt finance from the European Investment Bank (EIB) for UK nuclear power projects, according to an analysis of newly published documents by international NGO, CEE Bankwatch Network.

Also in line for support are huge new coal mines and coal power stations in Poland and eastern Europe, and upgrades to existing highly polluting coal plants that would otherwise be forced to close.

The documents just presented by the European Commission, include details of infrastructure projects bidding for support from the €300bn plan within each member state.

It comes as EU negotiators are in Lima arguing for tougher global climate targets.

The EU infrastructure plan will use around €21bn from the EU’s budget and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to provide guarantees to projects considered to be strategic investments in European infrastructure – creating a new funding body to work alongside the EIB.

The EIB will then seek to raise further €60bn to invest in unfunded projects across Europe.

UK – nuclear, biomass, coal gasification

The largest chunk of infrastructure money in the UK’s list is the €46bn it is seeking from the EIB for new nuclear power stations which have been hit by “funding shortages due to lack of support from utilities and private investors” – €16bn of it in 2015.

Three potential projects are listed with a total capacity of 12.2GW: Hinkley Point C, Wylfa, and Moorside, all described as “reaching investment decision in the near term.” The document adds that “more support is needed to unlock capital and accelerate investment.”

It adds that there are “barriers” to investment: “High construction cost, long payback period is making debt raising difficult.” The UK’s solution: “EIB senior and sub-ordinated debt or guarantees for developers and supply chain”.

The UK’s plans also include €6.3bn in support for new biomass combustion plants to meet the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets which face “lack of investment appetite” in part due to “concerns over the sustainability of biomass.”

Under the environment section of its pitch the UK lists support for controversial offshore underground coal gasification with carbon capture claiming: “this project can attract commercial investment if backed by loan guarantees but needs £23m up front in 2015 for pre-commercial testing.”

Poland’s bid for nuclear and massive coal expansion

Poland’s bid for support includes plans for a €5 billion new lignite (brown coal) mine and power plant in Gubin and €1.5bn each for giant hard coal plants in Laziska and Kozienice hard coal power plants already under construction.

Further to that Poland is seeking EU funds to modernise its ageing fleet of existing coal-fired plants which would otherwise be forced to close under EU air quality rules.

Polish coal projects have struggled to attract investment due to the high cost of mining and concerns amongst investors that Europe’s own plans to cut emissions by 40% are incompatible with expansion of the Polish coal sector.

But the biggest energy sector funding item is €12bn for an unnamed nuclear power plant. “The implementation of the project is impeded by a number of barriers and failures”, the bid makes clear, including “lack of market incentives”, “market failures linked to the lack of long-term economic predictability” and “regulatory barriers linked to highly restrictive licencing requirements”.

The EIB – which has previously committed not to finance coal plants – welcomed the list of projects, which amounts to a total of over a trillion euros, despite Poland’s bid for huge coal sector expansion.

“It is also urgent to tackle the significant non-financial barriers identified by the Task Force that prevent investment for viable projects from materialising”, insisted EIB president Werner Hoyer.

‘Environmental organisations to be managed’

Referring to Poland’s Gubin project the leaked document notes: “There is high risk that without appropriate support mechanisms, financial closure and investment implementation may not be feasible. Numerous stakeholders (especially environmental organizations) to [be] managed.”

The support for UK nuclear and Polish coal appear to be at odds with EU plans to focus investment on projects which are economically viable and deliverable in the short term.

The list was put together by an EU task force including the European commission, member states, the EIB and industry representatives – there were no representatives from civil society.

The list of projects is to be further discussed – and reduced – by the European Council, Commission and the European Investment Bank and no final decisions have been made yet.

“Scary is the first word that came to my mind as I looked at the list of projects proposed by the various member states to be financed from Juncker’s billions,” commented Bankwatch’s Markus Trilling.

“There is a huge amount of coal being proposed by the various countries, including Poland, Croatia and Romania, and this is in full contradiction not only to EU goals but also to Juncker’s rhetoric on sustainability.”

Xavier Sol of Counter Balance added: “As guarantors of the good use of public funds, the EC and the EIB have to help Europeans escape this madness of bad and dirty infrastructure and make sure transformative sectors such as energy efficiency and renewables get priority over fossil fuels.

The EU institutions have to check properly every single project and make sure the public has a chance to comment on the list of projects that will get priority financing.”

 

 

This article is an extended and edited version of one originally published on the Greenpeace Energy Desk.

 




385559

UK’s €46 billion bid for EIB nuclear loan Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The EU’s new infrastructure plan could include €46 billion in debt finance from the European Investment Bank (EIB) for UK nuclear power projects, according to an analysis of newly published documents by international NGO, CEE Bankwatch Network.

Also in line for support are huge new coal mines and coal power stations in Poland and eastern Europe, and upgrades to existing highly polluting coal plants that would otherwise be forced to close.

The documents just presented by the European Commission, include details of infrastructure projects bidding for support from the €300bn plan within each member state.

It comes as EU negotiators are in Lima arguing for tougher global climate targets.

The EU infrastructure plan will use around €21bn from the EU’s budget and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to provide guarantees to projects considered to be strategic investments in European infrastructure – creating a new funding body to work alongside the EIB.

The EIB will then seek to raise further €60bn to invest in unfunded projects across Europe.

UK – nuclear, biomass, coal gasification

The largest chunk of infrastructure money in the UK’s list is the €46bn it is seeking from the EIB for new nuclear power stations which have been hit by “funding shortages due to lack of support from utilities and private investors” – €16bn of it in 2015.

Three potential projects are listed with a total capacity of 12.2GW: Hinkley Point C, Wylfa, and Moorside, all described as “reaching investment decision in the near term.” The document adds that “more support is needed to unlock capital and accelerate investment.”

It adds that there are “barriers” to investment: “High construction cost, long payback period is making debt raising difficult.” The UK’s solution: “EIB senior and sub-ordinated debt or guarantees for developers and supply chain”.

The UK’s plans also include €6.3bn in support for new biomass combustion plants to meet the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets which face “lack of investment appetite” in part due to “concerns over the sustainability of biomass.”

Under the environment section of its pitch the UK lists support for controversial offshore underground coal gasification with carbon capture claiming: “this project can attract commercial investment if backed by loan guarantees but needs £23m up front in 2015 for pre-commercial testing.”

Poland’s bid for nuclear and massive coal expansion

Poland’s bid for support includes plans for a €5 billion new lignite (brown coal) mine and power plant in Gubin and €1.5bn each for giant hard coal plants in Laziska and Kozienice hard coal power plants already under construction.

Further to that Poland is seeking EU funds to modernise its ageing fleet of existing coal-fired plants which would otherwise be forced to close under EU air quality rules.

Polish coal projects have struggled to attract investment due to the high cost of mining and concerns amongst investors that Europe’s own plans to cut emissions by 40% are incompatible with expansion of the Polish coal sector.

But the biggest energy sector funding item is €12bn for an unnamed nuclear power plant. “The implementation of the project is impeded by a number of barriers and failures”, the bid makes clear, including “lack of market incentives”, “market failures linked to the lack of long-term economic predictability” and “regulatory barriers linked to highly restrictive licencing requirements”.

The EIB – which has previously committed not to finance coal plants – welcomed the list of projects, which amounts to a total of over a trillion euros, despite Poland’s bid for huge coal sector expansion.

“It is also urgent to tackle the significant non-financial barriers identified by the Task Force that prevent investment for viable projects from materialising”, insisted EIB president Werner Hoyer.

‘Environmental organisations to be managed’

Referring to Poland’s Gubin project the leaked document notes: “There is high risk that without appropriate support mechanisms, financial closure and investment implementation may not be feasible. Numerous stakeholders (especially environmental organizations) to [be] managed.”

The support for UK nuclear and Polish coal appear to be at odds with EU plans to focus investment on projects which are economically viable and deliverable in the short term.

The list was put together by an EU task force including the European commission, member states, the EIB and industry representatives – there were no representatives from civil society.

The list of projects is to be further discussed – and reduced – by the European Council, Commission and the European Investment Bank and no final decisions have been made yet.

“Scary is the first word that came to my mind as I looked at the list of projects proposed by the various member states to be financed from Juncker’s billions,” commented Bankwatch’s Markus Trilling.

“There is a huge amount of coal being proposed by the various countries, including Poland, Croatia and Romania, and this is in full contradiction not only to EU goals but also to Juncker’s rhetoric on sustainability.”

Xavier Sol of Counter Balance added: “As guarantors of the good use of public funds, the EC and the EIB have to help Europeans escape this madness of bad and dirty infrastructure and make sure transformative sectors such as energy efficiency and renewables get priority over fossil fuels.

The EU institutions have to check properly every single project and make sure the public has a chance to comment on the list of projects that will get priority financing.”

 

 

This article is an extended and edited version of one originally published on the Greenpeace Energy Desk.

 




385559

UK’s €46 billion bid for EIB nuclear loan Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The EU’s new infrastructure plan could include €46 billion in debt finance from the European Investment Bank (EIB) for UK nuclear power projects, according to an analysis of newly published documents by international NGO, CEE Bankwatch Network.

Also in line for support are huge new coal mines and coal power stations in Poland and eastern Europe, and upgrades to existing highly polluting coal plants that would otherwise be forced to close.

The documents just presented by the European Commission, include details of infrastructure projects bidding for support from the €300bn plan within each member state.

It comes as EU negotiators are in Lima arguing for tougher global climate targets.

The EU infrastructure plan will use around €21bn from the EU’s budget and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to provide guarantees to projects considered to be strategic investments in European infrastructure – creating a new funding body to work alongside the EIB.

The EIB will then seek to raise further €60bn to invest in unfunded projects across Europe.

UK – nuclear, biomass, coal gasification

The largest chunk of infrastructure money in the UK’s list is the €46bn it is seeking from the EIB for new nuclear power stations which have been hit by “funding shortages due to lack of support from utilities and private investors” – €16bn of it in 2015.

Three potential projects are listed with a total capacity of 12.2GW: Hinkley Point C, Wylfa, and Moorside, all described as “reaching investment decision in the near term.” The document adds that “more support is needed to unlock capital and accelerate investment.”

It adds that there are “barriers” to investment: “High construction cost, long payback period is making debt raising difficult.” The UK’s solution: “EIB senior and sub-ordinated debt or guarantees for developers and supply chain”.

The UK’s plans also include €6.3bn in support for new biomass combustion plants to meet the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets which face “lack of investment appetite” in part due to “concerns over the sustainability of biomass.”

Under the environment section of its pitch the UK lists support for controversial offshore underground coal gasification with carbon capture claiming: “this project can attract commercial investment if backed by loan guarantees but needs £23m up front in 2015 for pre-commercial testing.”

Poland’s bid for nuclear and massive coal expansion

Poland’s bid for support includes plans for a €5 billion new lignite (brown coal) mine and power plant in Gubin and €1.5bn each for giant hard coal plants in Laziska and Kozienice hard coal power plants already under construction.

Further to that Poland is seeking EU funds to modernise its ageing fleet of existing coal-fired plants which would otherwise be forced to close under EU air quality rules.

Polish coal projects have struggled to attract investment due to the high cost of mining and concerns amongst investors that Europe’s own plans to cut emissions by 40% are incompatible with expansion of the Polish coal sector.

But the biggest energy sector funding item is €12bn for an unnamed nuclear power plant. “The implementation of the project is impeded by a number of barriers and failures”, the bid makes clear, including “lack of market incentives”, “market failures linked to the lack of long-term economic predictability” and “regulatory barriers linked to highly restrictive licencing requirements”.

The EIB – which has previously committed not to finance coal plants – welcomed the list of projects, which amounts to a total of over a trillion euros, despite Poland’s bid for huge coal sector expansion.

“It is also urgent to tackle the significant non-financial barriers identified by the Task Force that prevent investment for viable projects from materialising”, insisted EIB president Werner Hoyer.

‘Environmental organisations to be managed’

Referring to Poland’s Gubin project the leaked document notes: “There is high risk that without appropriate support mechanisms, financial closure and investment implementation may not be feasible. Numerous stakeholders (especially environmental organizations) to [be] managed.”

The support for UK nuclear and Polish coal appear to be at odds with EU plans to focus investment on projects which are economically viable and deliverable in the short term.

The list was put together by an EU task force including the European commission, member states, the EIB and industry representatives – there were no representatives from civil society.

The list of projects is to be further discussed – and reduced – by the European Council, Commission and the European Investment Bank and no final decisions have been made yet.

“Scary is the first word that came to my mind as I looked at the list of projects proposed by the various member states to be financed from Juncker’s billions,” commented Bankwatch’s Markus Trilling.

“There is a huge amount of coal being proposed by the various countries, including Poland, Croatia and Romania, and this is in full contradiction not only to EU goals but also to Juncker’s rhetoric on sustainability.”

Xavier Sol of Counter Balance added: “As guarantors of the good use of public funds, the EC and the EIB have to help Europeans escape this madness of bad and dirty infrastructure and make sure transformative sectors such as energy efficiency and renewables get priority over fossil fuels.

The EU institutions have to check properly every single project and make sure the public has a chance to comment on the list of projects that will get priority financing.”

 

 

This article is an extended and edited version of one originally published on the Greenpeace Energy Desk.

 




385559

UK’s ‘unlawful’ £35 billion support to fossil fuels in ECJ challenge Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




An innovative energy company today launched a legal challenge to UK Government electricity market ‘reforms’ in the European Court of Justice.

According to Tempus Energy, which brought the challenge, the new system represents an “unlawful subsidy” worth as much as £2.5 billion a year to fossil fuel power generators, for a 15-year period.

As part of the Electricity Market Reform, the Capacity Market was set up to offer subsidies to reliable forms of power capacity to switch in when needed to balance demand.

This includes both the supply of new power on demand (‘supply side’); and cuts in demand for power from power users (‘demand side’). The intended result is to create a 50 GW back-up capability for when the system is tight. 

But Tempus says the way the Capacity Market has been designed violates the EU’s State Aid rules by prioritising fossil fuel electricity generation over “cheaper and more reliable” demand-side options.

Specifically, ‘supply side’ contracts will last for 15 years, but inexplicably, ‘demand side’ contracts will last for only one year – giving power generation a clear advantage over demand reduction.

An ‘engrained bias’ in favour of building new generation assets

Tempus CEO Sara Bell said: “The Capacity Market was originally set up to keep the lights on at the lowest possible cost; a format that has been used very successfully in the US.

“But an engrained, institutional bias in favour of building new assets to boost supply means that cost effective ‘no build’ technologies for managing demand have been ignored. This will push up electricity bills needlessly and commit consumers to paying for capacity that we would not need if we invested in building demand-flexibility, for those who want to use it.”

In the first year of the Capacity Market alone, she added, obligations of up to £2.5bn for expensive peaking power stations to be switched on will be created.

Those costs, plus year on year additional peaking power costs for the next 15 years, will be passed onto customers, potentially costing them over £35 billion – at a time when over 2,280,000 million households are living in fuel poverty.

Under regulations made under the Energy Act, the Government plans to award new generators with ‘capacity contracts’ guaranteeing a revenue stream for up to 15 years to provide energy when called upon by National Grid.

Conversely, customers who volunteer to turn down energy use during peak times, and the companies that aggregate capacity created by customers, will be awarded capacity contracts of just one year.

Notably, the generation contracts will mostly involve the consumption of fossil fuels, often in inefficient plant, and financial benefits will go to large, centralised power companies. By contrast ordinary consumers can benefit from reducing their power usage at times of peak demand.

Marcin Stoczkiewicz, head of climate and energy at ClientEarth, said: “If allowed to go ahead, the UK’s ‘capacity mechanism’ will artificially prop up the existing coal-reliant energy system by paying generators extra to produce more electricity at peak times.

“The costs will be passed on to consumers, regardless of when they use power. This is bad for the environment and for our pockets. We are supporting their action because it’s crucial to driving progress on climate change.”

One year contracts ‘not a viable proposition’

The problem with one year contracts is that technology investments are required to enable equipment to be switched off automatically at times of strong power demand, and these cannot reasonably be paid off in a single year, says Bell.

“The one year contracts offered for demand flexibility are not a viable proposition to customers who would, for a longer revenue stream, be able to invest in flexible technology that would save money and energy in the long term while making our system more secure.”

“Instead, the lack of commitment to innovation from the Government will stymie investment and therefore the advancement of a smart industry that could fundamentally transform our energy economy.”

And this is Tempus’s business model: it aggregates the power-saving potential of many households and businesses using smart technology to automatically shift non-time critical energy use into the cheapest price period. It then shares the benefits with its providers.

By bringing the challenge, Tempus Energy aims to obtain a ruling by the European Court that the state aid approval was unlawful, which will force the EU Commission to hold a formal inquiry.

The case may therefore have a destabilising impact on the first Capacity Market Auction – scheduled for 16th December – as well as challenging the validity of the subsidy scheme in its current form.

However a DECC Spokesperson insisted: “We are fully confident in this auction. The European Commission has concluded that the Capacity Market is within European State aid rules. This challenge will have no impact on the running of the capacity auction in December.”

Europe-wide repercussions

In the US, 10-12% of power is now provided by customers with demand flexibility technology. The EU legal challenge will raise a serious question for investors as to why the UK cannot emulate the successful way in which other countries, like the US, use demand-side capability to cost effectively keep the lights.

As a result of the UK Capacity Market approval, other European countries are lining Capacity Market policies that also discriminate against demand-side resources in favour of generation, said Bell:

“In countries where renewables generation already makes up a significant proportion of the grid mix, such as Germany, the legal challenge will be particularly beneficial as demand side flexibility is the only scalable means to efficiently use ‘wrong time’ renewable generation, which is otherwise wasted. This challenge will ensure other countries are forced to develop level playing fields for all resources.”

Up to 40% of the UK electricity grid is underutilised at a given time. By increasing the use of smart technology to manage energy demand spikes, it is possible to utilise much more of the grid.

That would reduce the need for spending more on infrastructure (paid for by consumers) as well as limiting the need to pay for expensive ‘peaking’ generation, and enabling better access to renewables at times when they are cheap and plentiful.

 

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




387756

UK’s ‘unlawful’ £35 billion support to fossil fuels in ECJ challenge Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




An innovative energy company today launched a legal challenge to UK Government electricity market ‘reforms’ in the European Court of Justice.

According to Tempus Energy, which brought the challenge, the new system represents an “unlawful subsidy” worth as much as £2.5 billion a year to fossil fuel power generators, for a 15-year period.

As part of the Electricity Market Reform, the Capacity Market was set up to offer subsidies to reliable forms of power capacity to switch in when needed to balance demand.

This includes both the supply of new power on demand (‘supply side’); and cuts in demand for power from power users (‘demand side’). The intended result is to create a 50 GW back-up capability for when the system is tight. 

But Tempus says the way the Capacity Market has been designed violates the EU’s State Aid rules by prioritising fossil fuel electricity generation over “cheaper and more reliable” demand-side options.

Specifically, ‘supply side’ contracts will last for 15 years, but inexplicably, ‘demand side’ contracts will last for only one year – giving power generation a clear advantage over demand reduction.

An ‘engrained bias’ in favour of building new generation assets

Tempus CEO Sara Bell said: “The Capacity Market was originally set up to keep the lights on at the lowest possible cost; a format that has been used very successfully in the US.

“But an engrained, institutional bias in favour of building new assets to boost supply means that cost effective ‘no build’ technologies for managing demand have been ignored. This will push up electricity bills needlessly and commit consumers to paying for capacity that we would not need if we invested in building demand-flexibility, for those who want to use it.”

In the first year of the Capacity Market alone, she added, obligations of up to £2.5bn for expensive peaking power stations to be switched on will be created.

Those costs, plus year on year additional peaking power costs for the next 15 years, will be passed onto customers, potentially costing them over £35 billion – at a time when over 2,280,000 million households are living in fuel poverty.

Under regulations made under the Energy Act, the Government plans to award new generators with ‘capacity contracts’ guaranteeing a revenue stream for up to 15 years to provide energy when called upon by National Grid.

Conversely, customers who volunteer to turn down energy use during peak times, and the companies that aggregate capacity created by customers, will be awarded capacity contracts of just one year.

Notably, the generation contracts will mostly involve the consumption of fossil fuels, often in inefficient plant, and financial benefits will go to large, centralised power companies. By contrast ordinary consumers can benefit from reducing their power usage at times of peak demand.

Marcin Stoczkiewicz, head of climate and energy at ClientEarth, said: “If allowed to go ahead, the UK’s ‘capacity mechanism’ will artificially prop up the existing coal-reliant energy system by paying generators extra to produce more electricity at peak times.

“The costs will be passed on to consumers, regardless of when they use power. This is bad for the environment and for our pockets. We are supporting their action because it’s crucial to driving progress on climate change.”

One year contracts ‘not a viable proposition’

The problem with one year contracts is that technology investments are required to enable equipment to be switched off automatically at times of strong power demand, and these cannot reasonably be paid off in a single year, says Bell.

“The one year contracts offered for demand flexibility are not a viable proposition to customers who would, for a longer revenue stream, be able to invest in flexible technology that would save money and energy in the long term while making our system more secure.”

“Instead, the lack of commitment to innovation from the Government will stymie investment and therefore the advancement of a smart industry that could fundamentally transform our energy economy.”

And this is Tempus’s business model: it aggregates the power-saving potential of many households and businesses using smart technology to automatically shift non-time critical energy use into the cheapest price period. It then shares the benefits with its providers.

By bringing the challenge, Tempus Energy aims to obtain a ruling by the European Court that the state aid approval was unlawful, which will force the EU Commission to hold a formal inquiry.

The case may therefore have a destabilising impact on the first Capacity Market Auction – scheduled for 16th December – as well as challenging the validity of the subsidy scheme in its current form.

However a DECC Spokesperson insisted: “We are fully confident in this auction. The European Commission has concluded that the Capacity Market is within European State aid rules. This challenge will have no impact on the running of the capacity auction in December.”

Europe-wide repercussions

In the US, 10-12% of power is now provided by customers with demand flexibility technology. The EU legal challenge will raise a serious question for investors as to why the UK cannot emulate the successful way in which other countries, like the US, use demand-side capability to cost effectively keep the lights.

As a result of the UK Capacity Market approval, other European countries are lining Capacity Market policies that also discriminate against demand-side resources in favour of generation, said Bell:

“In countries where renewables generation already makes up a significant proportion of the grid mix, such as Germany, the legal challenge will be particularly beneficial as demand side flexibility is the only scalable means to efficiently use ‘wrong time’ renewable generation, which is otherwise wasted. This challenge will ensure other countries are forced to develop level playing fields for all resources.”

Up to 40% of the UK electricity grid is underutilised at a given time. By increasing the use of smart technology to manage energy demand spikes, it is possible to utilise much more of the grid.

That would reduce the need for spending more on infrastructure (paid for by consumers) as well as limiting the need to pay for expensive ‘peaking’ generation, and enabling better access to renewables at times when they are cheap and plentiful.

 

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




387756

UK’s ‘unlawful’ £35 billion support to fossil fuels in ECJ challenge Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




An innovative energy company today launched a legal challenge to UK Government electricity market ‘reforms’ in the European Court of Justice.

According to Tempus Energy, which brought the challenge, the new system represents an “unlawful subsidy” worth as much as £2.5 billion a year to fossil fuel power generators, for a 15-year period.

As part of the Electricity Market Reform, the Capacity Market was set up to offer subsidies to reliable forms of power capacity to switch in when needed to balance demand.

This includes both the supply of new power on demand (‘supply side’); and cuts in demand for power from power users (‘demand side’). The intended result is to create a 50 GW back-up capability for when the system is tight. 

But Tempus says the way the Capacity Market has been designed violates the EU’s State Aid rules by prioritising fossil fuel electricity generation over “cheaper and more reliable” demand-side options.

Specifically, ‘supply side’ contracts will last for 15 years, but inexplicably, ‘demand side’ contracts will last for only one year – giving power generation a clear advantage over demand reduction.

An ‘engrained bias’ in favour of building new generation assets

Tempus CEO Sara Bell said: “The Capacity Market was originally set up to keep the lights on at the lowest possible cost; a format that has been used very successfully in the US.

“But an engrained, institutional bias in favour of building new assets to boost supply means that cost effective ‘no build’ technologies for managing demand have been ignored. This will push up electricity bills needlessly and commit consumers to paying for capacity that we would not need if we invested in building demand-flexibility, for those who want to use it.”

In the first year of the Capacity Market alone, she added, obligations of up to £2.5bn for expensive peaking power stations to be switched on will be created.

Those costs, plus year on year additional peaking power costs for the next 15 years, will be passed onto customers, potentially costing them over £35 billion – at a time when over 2,280,000 million households are living in fuel poverty.

Under regulations made under the Energy Act, the Government plans to award new generators with ‘capacity contracts’ guaranteeing a revenue stream for up to 15 years to provide energy when called upon by National Grid.

Conversely, customers who volunteer to turn down energy use during peak times, and the companies that aggregate capacity created by customers, will be awarded capacity contracts of just one year.

Notably, the generation contracts will mostly involve the consumption of fossil fuels, often in inefficient plant, and financial benefits will go to large, centralised power companies. By contrast ordinary consumers can benefit from reducing their power usage at times of peak demand.

Marcin Stoczkiewicz, head of climate and energy at ClientEarth, said: “If allowed to go ahead, the UK’s ‘capacity mechanism’ will artificially prop up the existing coal-reliant energy system by paying generators extra to produce more electricity at peak times.

“The costs will be passed on to consumers, regardless of when they use power. This is bad for the environment and for our pockets. We are supporting their action because it’s crucial to driving progress on climate change.”

One year contracts ‘not a viable proposition’

The problem with one year contracts is that technology investments are required to enable equipment to be switched off automatically at times of strong power demand, and these cannot reasonably be paid off in a single year, says Bell.

“The one year contracts offered for demand flexibility are not a viable proposition to customers who would, for a longer revenue stream, be able to invest in flexible technology that would save money and energy in the long term while making our system more secure.”

“Instead, the lack of commitment to innovation from the Government will stymie investment and therefore the advancement of a smart industry that could fundamentally transform our energy economy.”

And this is Tempus’s business model: it aggregates the power-saving potential of many households and businesses using smart technology to automatically shift non-time critical energy use into the cheapest price period. It then shares the benefits with its providers.

By bringing the challenge, Tempus Energy aims to obtain a ruling by the European Court that the state aid approval was unlawful, which will force the EU Commission to hold a formal inquiry.

The case may therefore have a destabilising impact on the first Capacity Market Auction – scheduled for 16th December – as well as challenging the validity of the subsidy scheme in its current form.

However a DECC Spokesperson insisted: “We are fully confident in this auction. The European Commission has concluded that the Capacity Market is within European State aid rules. This challenge will have no impact on the running of the capacity auction in December.”

Europe-wide repercussions

In the US, 10-12% of power is now provided by customers with demand flexibility technology. The EU legal challenge will raise a serious question for investors as to why the UK cannot emulate the successful way in which other countries, like the US, use demand-side capability to cost effectively keep the lights.

As a result of the UK Capacity Market approval, other European countries are lining Capacity Market policies that also discriminate against demand-side resources in favour of generation, said Bell:

“In countries where renewables generation already makes up a significant proportion of the grid mix, such as Germany, the legal challenge will be particularly beneficial as demand side flexibility is the only scalable means to efficiently use ‘wrong time’ renewable generation, which is otherwise wasted. This challenge will ensure other countries are forced to develop level playing fields for all resources.”

Up to 40% of the UK electricity grid is underutilised at a given time. By increasing the use of smart technology to manage energy demand spikes, it is possible to utilise much more of the grid.

That would reduce the need for spending more on infrastructure (paid for by consumers) as well as limiting the need to pay for expensive ‘peaking’ generation, and enabling better access to renewables at times when they are cheap and plentiful.

 

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




387756