2050magazine.com - Issue 1

RENEWABLE ENERGY NEWS SOLAR COSTS PLUMETTING THE FRACKING DEBATE CROWD FUNDING looking forward to our renewable future

“GLOBAL WARMING? BEHIND ME? SURELY NOT”

issue 1 - may 2012

Welcome

“HE’S BEHIND YOU!” When I was a child growing up in England, one of the highlights of the Christmas season was being taken to the theatre to watch a pantomime.

Which, for those of you who haven’t had the pleasure, is all the evidence you will ever need of English eccentricity.

It is considered perfectly normal in these strange productions for the leading man to be played by an attractive young woman in a disturbingly short skirt, and for the main comedic character, the dame, to be played by a hairy-armed man dressed up as a woman. And when I say dressed up, I mean dressed up. Purple beehive wig, flouncy dress and a pair of footballs for breasts.

It is also customary for the children in the audience to warn the dame every time the villain of the piece tries to sneak up on her. Frantic shouts of ‘He’s behind you’ were the norm when I was a kid. And warn her we did, until we were blue in the face.

But as loud as we shouted and hissed, the less she seemed to hear us. As children we didn’t realise that this was all part of the festive drama; that the dame wasn’t meant to turn round quickly enough to catch the villain. We just thought she was incredibly stupid. “What is it children?” She would enquire. “Somebody behind me you say? Don’t be silly now, there’s nobody there, I’ve looked.”

Which is why, when I think about the challenges of global warming, I can’t help seeing humanity as some sort of hideously exaggerated pantomime dame. Being shouted at not by children, but by scientists.

“But surely these dramatic temperature rises are just long term trends children?” She whinnies hopefully.

“I’m sure the scientists will come up with some solutions soon.”

“But we already have,” the scientists shout back in unison. “All you’ve got to do is start using them.”

For while 99.99% of independent scientific opinion believes that our accelerated CO2 emissions over the last 50 years are the direct cause of global warming, which, if left unchecked much longer, will see 20% of the world’s land mass submerged in seawater by the year 2050, only 35% of the general public believes them.

The real irony of course being that if we could take our frightened little heads out of the sand for just a minute, we would see that it is actually what the scientists are suggesting we do, that will make everything fine. Way more than fine. For just a fraction of our global GDPs spent now, we can not only avert climate chaos and all the socio-political and economic chaos that will come with it, but also end up with a world powered almost entirely for free. The economic benefits of that alone are enormous.

So how best to make the grand old dame of humanity take the scientists seriously for once (aside from stopping them from wearing jumpers at press conferences)? There is only one answer. To help them with their shouting. As 1960s singer Lulu would have put it, “You know you make me wanna shout...”

Joe Swain, Editor

Inside pages 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 26 In The News A selection of the more intersting renewable energy stories from the last few weeks

page 17 - Crowdfunding As traditional sources of investment finance continue to remain scarce, will the movement towards crowd-funding prove to be the perfect solution for clean technology projects? page - In The News page 17 6 - Crowdfunding A selection of the more interstingfinance renewable energy As traditional sources of investment continue to stories fromscarce, the last remain willfew theweeks movement towards crowd-funding prove perfect solution for clean technology projects? page to 27be- the Solar Gains ‘Solar PV soon to be the cheapest source of power,’ says Kees Van Der Leun

page 33 - Electricity Top 20 ways to save it at home

page 46 - Fracking Good sense, or nonsense?

You decide.

Welcome

Welcome to the first issue of 2050magazine, another Planet B Venture!

We are very excited to be part of this company, an important part of the Planet B group of initiatives and an absolutely beautiful initiative in its own right.

2050 combines the excellent editorial and writing qualities of Joe Swain, with the knowledge and network of Planet B, resulting in a publication that aims at bringing knowledge, insights and debate about climate change, renewable energy and energy efficiency to the crowd. The crowd in this case more specifically being both those people that are working in this space, as well as people that just have a general interest

in the area of renewable energy and all the related topics, but are looking for something that is more accessible than what is currently out there. All this intermingled with a nice bit of humour.

And I think we are off with a good start. We’ve already had 10s of thousands of pageviews on our special reports, while we are still in beta phase. The style of the magazine is slowly taking shape. The website is steadily filling up with interesting articles, and feedback from our readers is very good.

The name 2050 magazine comes from the more or less generally acknowledged necessity to have a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% in 2050 compared to 1990 levels in order to avoid major climate change from happening. An aspiring target, and one that we

are working on, on a daily basis.

Through 2050 magazine, we want to contribute to this target by informing more and more people about the positive things that are already happening. By talking to people about how we can already make a difference.

Which fits perfectly in the Planet B beliefs.

Planet B was founded (passionately founded even) on the basic belief that we can achieve solutions on our own Planet Earth, thereby avoiding the need for a real Planet B. Solutions that are less resourceintensive and sustainable from an environmental, economic and ecological point of view. They are here and we can achieve them now.

In order to do so, though, we need to change our thinking.

In recent years, we have seen a number of things happening, but amongst the most important ones is that capitalism as we know it, including associated financing mechanisms, is changing. Richard

Branson refers to it in his (by the way highly recommended) book, "Screw Business as Usual", as Capitalism 24902, a concept that indicates that capitalism will need to focus more and more on the crowd, both in the Western World as well as in Developing Countries.

We need innovation. Innovation focusing on technologies and on finance. We also need innovation in involving people, in mobilising the crowd.

We need the crowd to bring technologies to market, to generate new ideas and to fund new innovations, using traditional approaches and using social networks. Social

networks can really help us.

The crowd is also very important for 2050 magazine - first of all, we are aiming at large readership numbers aiming at reaching millions of people within the next couple of years. These people are not just readers, we also hope that more and more they will be involved in contributing to the magazine, by providing opinions, comments and content.

Second of all, we would like to develop a much closer relationship with our readers - it is with that in mind that we have launched our first crowd investing campaign,

through which you can acquire a (smaller or larger) share of 2050 magazine.com.

In May 2012, you can invest in 2050magazine, by buying a share (starting at tickets of 20 Euros) on ImpactCrowd.com. We would love to welcome you on board!

Jan-Willem Bode, co-founder Planet B Ventures www.planetbventures.com jwbode@planetbventures.com twitter: jwbode

In The News

“We’re Still Going to be the Greenest Government Yet,” says Cameron, ignoring sniggers.

UK government hosts clean energy summit, but fails to deliver major policy intervention - originally posted 27 April 2012

A meeting has been going on in London in the last few days.

The UK’s “when we said ‘green’ we were of course including a greenish shade of mauve” Con-Lib Coalition Government, has been playing host to a group known as the Clean Energy Ministerial, or CEM for short.

They’re here to try and whip up a bit of urgency in the race to get clean, renewable energy sources up and running around the world and probably feel now, after Premier Cameron’s wholeheartedly bland address yesterday, that they would have been better off spending their time at home banging their heads against a string bag full of jellyfish. Or something else, equally pointless.

To broadly summarise, after rumours had spread earlier in the week that Cameron might actually be about to deliver some sort of meaty clean tech initiative to wrestle back some territory on that pledge to become the ‘greenest Government ever’. (Only 2% of the UK population currently believe they can lay claim to that.)

That he would stride up to the podium like Martin Sheen in a scene from the West Wing, throw his speech away and say, “To hell with it. Let’s do something really radical here. Let’s put some serious public money into developing renewable energy as quickly as humanly possible, not just because it is a highly sensible thing to do from a survival point of view, but because billions and billions spent now, will save trillions and trillions down the line. Who’s with me?”

Bruce’ written on its side, chances are we wouldn’t be accepting quite such a pedestrian response from our leaders as we are now, faced with a metaphorical asteroid of 20 times the dimensions.

To rapturous applause from the audience, a bit of a street party and home in time for tea and medals.

And what would we have had Cameron announce in his best people-rallying Sheenesque impersonation?

What we actually got of course was yet more vague rhetoric about renewable energy being “really important”, but that it must first become economically viable.

To print more money. And this time to spend it on some serious renewable energy subsidies rather than giving it to the poor little banks. Quantitative Easing, to give it the name the economics monkeys call it.

The obstacle it seems, is that the economists, with all their short-term rulebooks, are still calling the shots. Quite why we’re still listening to them anyway after what they’ve managed to achieve in the last few years, goodness only knows. Never has the adage, that economists were only invented to make weather forecasters look good, rung truer.

Does he not see the paradox?

Nothing will make renewable energy economically viable quicker than a few people like him, the people elected to do things on our behalf, shutting up with all the rhetoric and actually doing something.

Let’s face it, if the Earth were on an imminent collision course with a small- to medium-sized rogue asteroid with ‘Stop me if you can

Let’s cut the rhetoric Mr Cameron, and start quantitatively easing ourselves into a sustainable future before we’re waist deep in seawater with Bruce Willis running around in a fluorescent orange superhero suit brandishing an oversized bucket and mop.

Please?

In The News

Shale Gas Is A Good Baddy, So Leave It Alone UK Government okays further exploration for shale gas after report downplays risk of major earthquakes - originally posted 17 April 2012 So, the news is out today, that the UK government is going to give the green light for further shale gas exploration. On the strict proviso that the ensuing earthquakes are only small ones.

The go-ahead comes after the publication of a report by a government-named panel of experts, which essentially says: “Yes fracking does cause earthquakes from time to time, but then so does coal mining, and as long as we keep an eye on the water contamination problems from the chemicals they use, we should be able to get this gas out of the ground, and burning in our homes by teatime.” Or words to that effect it seemed.

Friends of the Earth UK’s director Andy Atkins pointed out that just because it’s possible to scrape the gas out of the ground, it doesn’t mean we should.

“We don’t need earth tremorcausing fracking to meet our power needs - we need a seismic shift in energy policy. We should be developing the huge potential of clean British energy from the sun, wind and waves, not more dirty and dangerous fossil fuels.”

A seismic shift in policy. Nice one.

A government spokesman countered, “Au contraire, gas is actually part of our game plan to achieve legally binding carbon

reduction targets by 2050, so there. Gas is the good baddy.”

a bit like the ones most of us do every Monday morning. The ones with those wonderfully steep curves from top left to bottom right, that gradually plateau out during the week as you realize you were never going to get all that done in the time available anyway, and end up rising as ludicrously steeply to the right

by Friday afternoon when you wonder once more, “Where did all the time go?” All but a few jobs pushed through to the following week’s list for more of the same.

A postulation, which was challenged by Tony Jupiter, former head of Friends of the Earth UK speaking on the Today programme. “ “I remain to be convinced... that this is a credible part of meeting the 80% reduction targets in greenhouse gas emissions that are enshrined in law in this country.”

Which rather implies that logically speaking, somebody, somewhere (hopefully in the Government) is checking all this against some sort of master programme.

Over optimism? Delusional tendencies? Laziness? Who knows? One thing’s for sure, we’ve been doing those lists for years now.

A detailed ‘to do’ list, if you like, of all the things we’re meant to be doing between now and 2050, re: carbon reduction, if we’re going to avoid losing Holland and a few other places to the sea.

Among other bad things.

What is worrying right now though, is the possibility that their ‘to do’ list might look

pp 1. Sho

ing

k 2. B o o

ay

ho li d

d 3. Rea

ace nd Pe War a

rt 4. Sta

t plane saving

In The News

Solar-powered iPhones, Koala Bears, Just Around The Corner

UK company, G24 Innovations (G24i), has announced a new world record of 26 per cent efficiency for small solar cells that can convert indoor light into electricity. - originally posted 17 April 2012 I have no idea exactly how good 26 per cent efficiency is in the overall scheme of things, but apparently it whipped the old record of 15 percent and means we are at last knocking on the door of small power heaven.

Which also means that as soon as these solar cells, which work indoors for goodness sake, can be incorporated into the design of hand-held devices such as phones and cameras, it will

surely sound the death knell for the cumbersome world of leads, chargers and disposable batteries.

Just imagine how many tons of carbon that would save being spewed into the air.

And if the company’s confidence that 40 per cent efficiency is also achievable in the foreseeable, the cells may soon be powering our mid-sized gadgets, such as laptops, satellite navigation systems for cars (currently mainly petrol-fuelled), home music appliances. Even TVs and desktop computers.

That, as they are wont to say in America, would be a game changer for sure.

A

world without plugs. Without wiring. Without circuit boards. (“It’s easy if you try…”)

Okay, I’m pushing it a bit here, but what about a world where you don’t have to try and figure out how it is exactly that power leads manage to tie themselves in knots the moment you turn your back on them? (“Wait for it, wait for it…..he’s out of the room, okay, let’s bundle!)

The technology behind the breakthrough apparently involves using dye-sensitised cells to partially imitate the process of photosynthesis and generate energy from low-level indoor light. A type of magic if you like.

Not that this is a brand new magic. I still have in my possession a solar-powered calculator from the early 90s.

It was impressive then, and still is. But the expected morph into some of our more thirsty appliances, has, for reasons best known to the wizards, been a long time coming.

And if powering our small and mid-sized appliances directly from indoor light really is just around the corner, the benefits in terms of power savings could be enormous.

Take for example a standard wide screen LCD TV. In Europe alone there are about 200 million of them, each drinking about 600 kilowatt hours of power from the grid every year. That’s 120 million megawatt hours between them.

Roughly speaking, 27 coal-fired power stations.

And that’s just the televisions and just in Europe.

The design, which has taken

many years to develop, won Prof Graetzel the 2012 Albert Einstein World Award of Science and the 2010 Millennium Technology Prize. Top man, well done.

Closing thoughts: I think, from a marketing point of view, that the very first domestic appliance they should start powering, for maximum cool, is a drinks chiller. A few strips of wonder cells, some recycled insulation and hey presto, bob’s your uncle, the best Christmas present ever. Perfectly chilled chardonnay, courtesy of the sun.

(I’ll settle for 10 per cent by the way, if anyone’s reading this). And then when nobody’s talking about anything else, launch the other more useful stuff.

But, and I hate to finish on a negative note here, there is a downside. Can you imagine how horrific a kid’s toy shop would be if, with the aid of a few wellplaced solar strips, every single toy, game and teddy bear could suddenly talk? Or even shuffle towards you with their eyes closed and their little paws outstretched, chanting, “Where is our friend, the little koala bear you had when you were 8, Karl the Koala, what have you done with him? Death to the bear killer, death, death, death….”

Or is that just me?

Joe Swain, Editor, 2050magazine. com

In The News

Eating Less Meat is a Vital Part of the Fight Against Global Warming, Study Concludes

Fertilisers of the type used to help grow feed crops for cattle, have been singled out as responsible for producing the most dangerous of the greenhouse gases currently causing climate change. - originally posted 27 April 2012 growing winter ground cover crops, which help absorb nitrogen from the air while also preventing its release into the atmosphere.

New research has concluded that meat eaters in developed countries must reduce their intake by about 50% if the worst consequences of climate change are to be avoided.

The study, published in Environmental Research Letters, warns that dramatic changes to the way we produce food and an overall reduction in the amount of meat we eat, must be put into place by 2050.

Not an insignificant challenge when you weigh the urgent need to reduce damaging emissions emanating from food production, against the growing appetite of a rapidly expanding global population.

The report, authored by Eric Davidson, director of the Woods Hole Research Centre in Massachusetts, concludes that the developed world will have to reduce its use of fertilizer by half, while concurrently persuading

people not to eat as much meat.

“I think there are huge challenges in convincing people in the west to reduce portion sizes or the frequency of eating meat. That is part of our culture right now,” he said.

Davidson also conceded that it will be equally challenging to reduce meat consumption in developing economies such as China and India, which has grown in recent years in direct proportion to rising prosperity.

The real culprit in the piece is nitrous oxide, a gas released by both fertilisers and animal manure and rated by the UN’s climate body as the single most damaging of all the identified greenhouse gases. The UN has subsequently called for significant cuts in its emission.

Davidson’s research also led him to the conclusion that the situation could be alleviated by

Davidson based much of his research on data derived from the Food and Agricultural Organisation, which has calculated that the world’s population will be nudging the 9 billion barrier by 2050, that the average calorie intake will rise to 3130 per person, and that meat consumption will rise from 37kg per person per year to 89kg.

“The solution isn’t that everyone needs to become a vegetarian or a vegan,” Davidson said.

“Simply reducing portion sizes and frequency would go a long way. So would switching from beef and pork, which have a high carbon footprint, to chicken or fish.”

In the meantime some scientists are already working with some success at growing artificial meat in laboratory conditions, a solution which would, if it succeeds, negate the need both for fertilisers and manure.

COMMENT: “Growing feed crops, for cattle and pigs, produces more of those emissions than crops that go directly into the human food chain. Eating less meat would reduce demand for fertiliser as well as reduce the amount of manure produced.” (Suzanne Goldenberg, The Independent)

In The News

Nuclear Power No Longer Economically Viable German energy suppliers E.ON and RWE have abandoned plans to build a new nuclear power station in the UK because the long- term economics of the project don’t add up. - originally posted 29 March 2012 In the form of a joint venture known as Horizon, the German companies made the decision to pull out despite having already spent “in the low 3-digit millions” developing plans for the new installation in Anglesey, North Wales.

“A strategic decision has been made by both RWE and E.ON that they will not develop new nuclear power projects in the UK through the Horizon joint venture,” a statement confirmed earlier today.

Volker Beckers, chief executive of RWE said: “It is because of the strength of support for our development work, particularly on the Island of Anglesey, that we continue to believe that nuclear power has an important role to play in the UK’s future energy mix.

“We are therefore looking to ensure that work on development, including grid connection, can be taken up quickly by other potential investors.”

Horizon had planned to build 6,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity in the UK, a country it saw as relatively pro-nuclear.

But the parent companies have recently been showing concerns over possible overspends on the project like those they have been witnessing on other nuclear investments in Europe.

The consortium blamed the

global economic climate as well as the recent decision by Germany to abandon its nuclear power programme, and the effect that has had in terms of additional decommissioning costs and falling profit margins.

This comes not long after E.ON board member Klaus-Dieter Maubach had intimated earlier this month that the utility’s “commitment to nuclear was fading”, telling a conference E.ON’s appetite for nuclear power had “become smaller”.

RWE’s new chief executive Peter Terium had previously been reported as saying that the UK’s 60 euro per megawatt-hour price for electricity would not warrant construction of a nuclear plant.

According to Reuters, RWE also recently confirmed that it would not pursue nuclear new-build plans in the UK with any other partners.

COMMENT: “It’s a bit of a setback for climate campaigners, many of whom see nuclear power as the way to make the UK’s energy production greener. Especially as oil has become a tastier prospect, as crude oil prices start to drop.”

Emma Haslett Management Today Magazine.

“E.On and RWE’s withdrawal is clearly very disappointing, but the partners have clearly explained that this decision was based on pressures elsewhere in their businesses and not any doubts about the role of nuclear in the UK’s energy future. The UK’s new nuclear programme is far more than one consortia and there remains considerable interest.”

Charles Hendry, UK Energy Minister.

In The News

Carbon Capture: How Difficult Can That Be? The BBC featured an interesting article today about the UK Government’s renewed efforts to incentivise the development of scalable carbon capture and storage technology (CC&S) - originally posted 4 April 2012

They are apparently ready to offer one billion pounds in ‘competitive capital funding’ to companies able to successfully advance the current technology to such a point, that CO2 from fossilpowered power stations can be trapped and then stored in old oil fields under the North Sea.

It reminded me of an article written by James Murray at businessgreen.com recently, in which he likened the Government’s reliance on this technology advancement to the search for miracle diet pills. The sort that work ‘post-eating’ by mopping up all the bad things in the food you’ve just enjoyed, thereby allowing you to carry on stuffing whatever you like down your throat, safe in the knowledge that thanks to the pills, you won’t risk gaining weight or doing yourself any other sort of harm.

The only problem being that the metaphorical doughnuts are already being scoffed in frightening numbers, with no sign yet of the miracle pills.

Similarly, the ‘invention’ of the technology behind largescale CC&S - some time in the next 10 to 15 years - forms a worryingly large part of the UK’s carbon reduction strategy and its chances of complying with its overall targets for a ‘low carbon’ UK by 2050.

Cynics might be tempted to think this something of a risky strategy.

An appealing one perhaps, but a bit of a leap in the dark when you consider how serious the consequences of non-compliance with carbon reduction targets would be.

A bit like getting your ailing body cryogenically frozen for 15 years in the hope that by then someone will have discovered the elixir for eternal youth.

I must admit though, when I first considered the idea of carbon capture, I do remember thinking, “How hard can that be? Surely we

have the technology to put some giant condoms on those belching power station chimneys and then, when they are full, float them up through the upper atmosphere into space. Where, you never know, the CO2 might eventually do something useful, like start another carbon-based life form that we can play with one day. Or eat probably, knowing us.

I realize now that this is technically achievable, just too expensive.

Something which can also be said about CC&S according to another article I read not so long ago in the Economist, which argued that while the basic technology of carbon capture exists, it is highly unlikely that it will ever be economically viable, given the amount of time it would take to develop on the scales required, and the falling costs of renewable energy from far less capitallyintensive sources such as wind and solar.

It seems to be an issue that divides environmental groups: “We still don’t know when these technologies will be technically proven at full scale, and whether their costs will be competitive with other low-carbon options.”

Prof Jim Watson of the UK Energy Research Centre “Market uncertainty remains a key barrier to investment across energy industries. Government is understandably keen to reduce the costs of CCS deployment, but the first priority must be to make sure it works effectively on a commercial scale.” The Prospect Union’s Head of Research, Sue Ferns.

Article posted by Joe Swain, Editor 2050 Magazine

In The News

Arnie Takes The Lead - Sustainia Initiative Hollywood legend and former govenor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has teamed up with the European Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard, to demonstrate how currently available low-carbon technology could be harnessed to achieve a sustainable global environment as soon as 2020 - originally posted 12 March 2012 have better transport and nice houses to live in. Showing that vision is very important.”

The Sustainia Initiative will also involve the establishment of what Schwarzenegger describes as the ‘Nobel prize for sustainable development’, which will acknowledge technological innovation.

SO WHAT?

Schwarzenegger and Hedegaard announced the Sustainia Initiative in Geneva last week, with the backing of the United Nations. Using similar technology to that behind the globally popular Second Life virtual reality game, it will create an interactive model to show how the adoption of sustainable practices would help create an efficient, low carbon world without any real impact on living standards.

“Being a champion in body building, in movies and in politics, where I was able to lead California to renewable energy, energy efficiency, green jobs, I believe it is important to demonstrate that sustainability is the better choice for all of us,” said Schwarzenegger.

“For communities around the world and for the individual, the Sustainia award offers a multitude of benefits in terms of

better health, more liveable regions and cities and increased productivity.

But we need to actually see it to understand it. And this is what we will make possible.”

The Sustainia initiative has been launched with an eye on the Rio+20 conference in June, where political and business leaders will be meeting to discuss how to most effectively promote sustainable practices and a shift to renewable energy sources.

“We’ve done this because it is hard for people to understand what a sustainable future could look like,” Hedegaard told the UK’s Guardian newspaper. “Many people do not want to give up what they know because they fear that if we get away from business as usual, we will go to a grey and uninteresting life. But we can show that doesn’t have to be – we can create cities where there is cleaner air, where people

1. While not being quite as radical as Lucy Lawless’s Greenpeace demonstration last week, this is another example of how important it is for well-known clean technology advocates such as Schwarzenegger to lead by example.

2. The ‘virtual world’ idea could give the initiative great traction among younger people used to interactive games like Second World.

3. It will help to erode the misconception that the adoption of clean technology and sustainable practices leads to lower standards of living. (If you haven´t read it yet, try the Rocky Mountain Institute’s book Reinventing Fire, which outlines how a move to sustainable technology over the next 30 years could save America five trillion dollars a year!)

In The News

Donald, Where’s Your Golf Course?

Donald Trump halts work on 1 billion dollar golf complex in Scotland in response to offshore wind turbine plans - originally posted 13 February 2012

There’s an old Celtic ballad that goes:

being “hell bent on destroying Scotland’s coastline”.

Let the wind blow high and the wind blow low Through the streets in my kilt I go All the lassies cry, “Hello!

Donald, where’s your trousers?”

Chief executive of Scottish Renewables Niall Stuart hit back with, “Who is Donald Trump to tell Scotland what is good for our economy and our environment?

Offshore wind is already attracting billions of pounds of investment and supporting hundreds of jobs across Scotland, including in his mother’s hometown of Stornoway.” Meow!

One which we couldn’t help being reminded of the other day as we tried to get to the bottom of the story about Donald Trump’s spat with Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond. The crux of it apparently being, that the latter has sanctioned plans for the construction of a new wind farm (The European Wind Deployment Centre) off the coast of Aberdeen, which we’re assuming will be considered an eyesore by visitors to the 1 billion dollar luxury golf complex that McTrump (it’s true, he’s half Scottish) is right in the middle of building.

Indeed, so annoyed is he by the Government’s desire to push on with their ambitious wind energy plans (a government spokesman referred to a study that suggests: “harnessing just a third of the practical resource off our coast by 2050 would enable us to generate enough electricity to power Scotland seven times over”) that he has put on hold the construction of a hotel and other guest accommodation at the project.

Trump accused Salmond of

Which leads us to the conclusion that this is going to be a vigorous and interesting scrap (a good format for a TV show perhaps) and it might even serve to drag a few key issues into the mainstream media. Issues about which the non-scientific general public (we’re fully paid up members) will have many questions. Questions such as: 1. Why do some people obviously consider wind turbines to be an eyesore, even when they’re

stuck out in the middle of the sea? Were windmills an eyesore in Don Quixote’s day? Or is this simply a case of Trump adopting a ‘Not In My Back Yard’ (NIMBY) stance because the turbines in question just happen to be visible from his golf course?

2. Do offshore wind’s numbers add up, or are they, as HRH Prince Phillip recently suggested, ‘useless’ and ‘completely reliant on subsidies’?

3. How far out into the sea would the wind farm have to go before the turbines became just a vague glimmer on the horizon? How far can their power travel without starting to leak like a weary ‘It’s a Knockout’ contestant? Would moving them out of sight make them prohibitively expensive?

Questions, questions, questions.

In The News

“Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life…(da da, da da, da da da da da)” UK government’s assessment of the possible consequences of doing nothing about global warning, strangely positive - originally posted 31 January 2012 Of course we were delighted to hear that some of the greatest scientific minds in their fields have spent the last 3 years on a research project for the UK’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), trying to predict what might actually happen to the world (okay, the bit of it in and around the UK) over the next 90 years or so, if global warming were to go completely unchecked.

every winter.

That’s exactly what we’d want our top scientists doing right now. Working out the nightmare scenario of apathy. Rather than, say, studying the mating habits of arctic snow foxes in Snowdonia.

To celebrate the opening up of hitherto frozen shipping lanes through the Artic, is surely a bit weird isn’t it? Tantamount to getting excited about how much quicker you’d be able to drive to work if half the world’s population were to be wiped out by a reemergence of the Bubonic Plague.

Which is why we were a little surprised when we saw a report on the 2,000 page report on the BBC’s website the other day which seemed to us strangely distracted by the so-called ‘positive’ effects of global warming. The top 3 of which were: 1. That 3,900 – 24,000 fewer people will die from the cold

2. That wheat and sugar beet yields will improve by up to 140% and 70% respectively on account of the longer growing season.

3. That we will be able to take advantage of new shipping routes through the Arctic to Asia, thanks to a few million more tons of that pesky icecap melting.

And sugar beet? We shall sleep easier tonight knowing that in 80 years from now, as the sun sets on the North Sea, round about where Holland used to be, we’ll all be able to enjoy the view over a nice cup of sweet tea and an iced doughnut.

We can only hope it was a quirk of tone. The BBC is after all an excellent source of news about the environment and our journey to a

sustainably powered world. But this sort of faux optimism (we’re suspecting there was a tongue in an editor’s cheek somewhere along the line) can be dangerous.

It is after all only a very short hop and a skip away from a “Phew What A Scorcher, Bikinis in Hyde Park, Thank Goodness for Global Warming” headline in the Sun. UK Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said of the report, ”It shows what life could be like if we stopped our preparations now, and the consequences such a decision would mean for our economic stability.”

Long hot summers, deckchairs on the beach, and oodles of sugar beet presumably?

Is she seriously asking us to toy with the idea of maybe not bothering to do what 99.9% of the scientific world is now screaming at us to do yesterday?

Isn’t that a bit like imagining what your children’s teeth would end up looking like if you were to do away with all that expensive toothpaste?

It’s one thing to be bold enough to stare the consequences of inaction squarely in the face, but another surely to start emphasizing the positive side effects of such a course. However ‘warm’ a feeling that might give your readers/voters/creditors.

sponsored by:

SPECIAL REPORT CROWD FUNDING As traditional sources of investment finance continue to remain scarce, will the movement towards crowd-funding prove to be the perfect solution for clean technology projects?

Crowdfunding

POWER FROM THE PEOPLE

As traditional sources of investment finance continue to remain scarce, will the movement towards crowd-funding prove to be the perfect solution for clean technology projects?

As the name implies, crowdfunding is a term used to describe any situation in which a large number of people get together, usually via the internet, to collectively fund the activities of other people or organisations.

The individual investments can be

as little as 20 euros per person with the most likely beneficiaries being early stage businesses.

It’s not new as a concept, being pre-dated by charity-led ‘donation’ and ‘pledge’ systems, and by ‘micro-patronage’ networks often used for funding artistic and

creative ventures.

Crowd-funding is a mechanism however, which has become increasingly popular over the last few years (some sources cite the first recorded use of the term ‘crowd-funding’ as recently as 2006), a popularity which is mainly

due to:

relationship that is likely to arise between customer and client.

(1) the growth of strong social networks that incorporate secure online payment systems;

CASE STUDY:

Such a relationship provides third-party validation of the business idea (or not, in the case (2) the general scarcity, as a result of initiatives which don’t attract of the current economic climate, funding), word-of-mouth marketing of funding from traditional sources emanating from and beyond such as banks, investment funds, the investors’ network, and the angel investors, and the like; opportunity to market test the idea When computer game developers or product through feedback from Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert were urged by fans to produce more (3) the current lack, again as a investors and their networks. ‘point and click’ games like the result of the current economic ones already in their repertoire climate, of attractive interest rates Crowd-funding as an alternative for small savers. means by which to finance small (The Secret of Monkey Island, Day businesses is still relatively new of the Tentacle, Full Throttle and Crowd-funding is proving to be however, in comparison to its Grim Fandango) they struggled to a particularly useful funding continued use in creative and find any mainstream publishers mechanism for small business charitable initiatives. Of the 344 willing to show a reciprocal level ventures, because it is able to take crowd-funding platforms listed on of financial enthusiasm. advantage of the natural synergy the ‘crowdsourcing.org’ website, that exists between potential only 16% are denoted as being So they turned instead to the ‘crowd’ investors and start-up ‘business’ orientated (49% creative crowd-funding website kickstarter businesses that share their general and 35% charities). But the overall and 24 hours later they had raised goals and aspirations in a ‘life, the numbers are certainly growing very $1 million, and reached their universe and everything’ sort of quickly, and different platforms are target of $1.7 million in just a few way. cropping up everywhere. days. From their fans. Move over Marillion.

Indeed, advocates of crowd3 countries in particular, or, more funding often refer to the case of accurately perhaps, the occupants Their creative vehicle, Double the UK rock band Marillion, whose of those countries, have been Fine, suddenly found itself fully1997 tour of the United States embracing the concept more funded and with a ready-made was not only conceived by their readily than others. America, still network of supporters / testers / fans, but also successfully financed the world leader in internet-based customers urging them to do their by them to the tune of USD 60k. It commerce, currently has the most thing. provided funding where none would official crowd-funding platforms have otherwise existed and also with 138; the UK, because of its served to highlight the other great history as a financial services hub, “Double Fine’s fundraising success advantage of being funded by fans has 32; and the Netherlands, with is really going to make game publishers think about what / like-minded individuals: the close a long history of involvement in the impact could be of going charity initiatives, has 24. directly to their audiences,” said Advocates of crowdKickstarter co-founder Yancey It is noticeable that these funding often refer to Strickler. three countries also have high the case of the UK rock percentages of their populations actively using social networking band Marillion, whose such as Facebook and Twitter 1997 tour of the United sites (close to half of the populations States was not only of these countries use them, a conceived by their fans, proportion which is likely to rise to 75% within the next six months or but also successfully so).

financed by them to the tune of USD 60k.

In terms of the total amounts of

Crowdfunding

Within the context of climate change related ventures or projects, there are certainly some businesses already benefitting from this important new source of finance. money actually passing hands, the US is streets ahead of the pack with over a billion dollars generated in 2009, while in Europe the total value of crowdfunded finance in 2010 was in the region of 100 - 200 million euros.

Within the context of climate change-related ventures or projects, there are certainly some businesses already benefitting from this important new source of finance. These tend to be

ventures that are in need of seed capital to take their various innovations to market, or specific (community-initiated) projects.

Indeed one such platform, USbased ongreen.com, deals almost exclusively with ‘green’ projects and claims to have so far distributed more than 164 million dollars to emerging companies, in sums ranging from tens of thousands to tens of millions.

It is still too early in the growth of crowd-funding to accurately define the profile of the sort of people likely to become investors, but initial analysis seems to suggest that a project is more likely to attract capital if it appeals to people on at least one more level than simply the opportunity to make a financial return. This observation bodes well for the renewable energy sector as there is an increasingly discernible trend towards a ‘if we all pull together we might just save this planet yet’ mentality.

Indeed, research carried out by ‘mymicroinvest.com’ in America describes the likely investor as being relatively highly-educated (and therefore aware of current global issues such as climate change) with an above average level of income, and aged between 25 and 34. The size of an individual investment is highly dependent on the exact nature of the initiative, but it would not be unusual for a successful cashdrive of EUR 100,000 to attract an average investment of around EUR 100 per person.

As with most good ideas however, there are challenges which need to be overcome before it can really take off on a global scale. One of the most obvious disadvantages of seeking crowd-funding, rather than say, having a chat with your local bank manager, is that in doing so it is very difficult not to give away your idea to potential competitors.

The whole issue of intellectual property rights is one which needs to be addressed at an international level and in the meantime applicant businesses are encouraged to engage in early patent filing, along with normal copyrighting and trademarking procedures.

The whole issue of intellectual property rights is one which needs to be addressed at an international level and in the meantime applicant businesses are encouraged to engage in early patent filing, along with normal copyrighting and trademarking procedures.

those involving Nigerian princes!) which means that one of the main challenges for crowdfunding platforms will be to differentiate themselves from these.

It has recently been reported that the World Intellectual Property Organisation is developing a completely new form of IP protection known as a ‘creative barcode’ that will hopefully provide at least a modicum of protection to inexperienced businesses or those which have no choice but to publicise their business plans.

Another obstacle, and one which is already being addressed by the more established crowd-sourcing platforms, is that of financial regulation. Crowd-funding initiatives which are deemed to be soliciting investments from the general public, are illegal in most regions of the world if they aren’t first approved by the relevant securities regulatory authorities.

The precise definition of what constitutes ‘investment’ and ‘soliciting to the general public’, will likely be the key to this issue.

The next most significant barrier to growth is trust. There are after all a million and one ‘investment’ opportunities available on the internet (even more if you include

The more pro-active platforms seem to be taking the view that regulation of some kind is essential if the fledgling sector is to avoid the negative impact of

Crowdfunding ‘rogue’ schemes, but at the same time hoping that a streamlined framework can be agreed that will avoid excessive bureaucracy.

To this end the ‘Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act’, which seeks to reduce current restrictions on small-scale crowd-

funding of for-profit businesses seeking early-stage equity-based financing, was passed by the US House of Representatives in a vote of 407-17 last year and 3 more Acts are currently in various stages of the approval process.

In the Netherlands a proposal for

a guarantee facility and a pilot programme for crowd-funding is undergoing parliamentary discussion.

Assuming these definitions and regulatory frameworks can be put into place quickly, there is every reason to believe that the next few years will see exponential growth in the use of crowdfunding platforms, particularly by start-up businesses in the clean technology sector.

Three Wheels United - an Enviufacilitated project which enables rickshaw drivers in India to significantly reduce the carbon emissions of their vehicles.

your

Case Study

Enviu, a Dutch company with offices in the Netherlands and Barcelona, not only specialises in raising crowd-finance for innovative new projects, but was also crowd-funded itself.

“At Enviu we believe in the economy of the crowd; an economy where starting innovative new businesses creates value for people and planet. An economy that is open for everyone,” says communications manager Vibeke Helder.

“Of course we cannot do that alone. We need the help of the crowd. What is a better way than crowd-investing in impact-driven companies? Now everyone can contribute to making our start-ups a success!

The sustainable dancefloor, a simple but brilliant design which generates power from the movement of dancing

We started our crowd-funding campaign in September 2011. Our aim was to collect 100,000 euros We wanted to encourage people Our first start-up is the Sustainable before the end of 2011, and we to be frontrunners in this method Dance Club. Its flagship product is succeeded! 372 investors a floor which generates from all over the world when people We started our crowdfunding campaign in energy invested in Enviu. We not dance on it. only raised our target of September 2011. Our aim was to collect 100,000 euros, but also 100,000 euros before the end of 2011, and Three Wheels United, is broke a national record in second start-up. This we succeeded! 372 investors from all over our the process! project improves the lives the world invested in Enviu. Not only were of auto-rickshaw drivers At Enviu we use the in India while reducing power of the crowd in our we able to raise our target, but we also CO2 emissions. everyday activities. We broke a national record in the process! have a large community Yummm! Concepts BV is of participants from all the third Enviu start-up. It over the world. These of investing. That is why it is very develops healthy snacks for kids. participants contribute their important to involve a community expertise and time to make our in the whole process of crowdSoon the Open Source House will start-ups a success. funding. Enviu is very transparent also be included as a start-up. It about what its community provides sustainable, affordable Crowd-investment was new to members are investing in. housing in low-income countries. our community. That is why we mobilized everyone working at We put all our documents on our Due to this overwhelming success, Enviu to use their networks. We crowdfunding platform so people we know that collaborative used social media to keep people can easily find the answers to their investing is the way to go. updated and to thank them for questions.

Therefore we plan to offer the their investment. We worked day opportunity to directly invest in and night to keep the information By investing in Enviu, people our projects and other sustainable on our website and social media invested in our current three startstart-ups. We hope to make that platforms up-to-date. ups and our future start-ups. possible by spring 2012.”

www.enviu.org

Case Study

Crowd-funding the electrification of the Citroen DS: a group of Dutch car enthusiasts get together to realise everyone’s dream to modernise a vintage car. Okay, mainly theirs.

Co-founder of Planet B Ventures, Freerk Bisschop openly admits to his long-standing love affair with perhaps the most iconic of vintage cars (certainly the most curvaceous) the Citroen DS. An ‘old-timer’ with an enthusiastic following, especially in the Netherlands (the car that is, not Bisschop.)

“We DS owners are extremely proud of the cars we are driving,” says Bisschop. “To the extent that

any of the negatives (reliability, noise, etc) are happily brushed aside in discussions you have with us. And you have to admit, it is a great car to look at.”

and futuristic (technology) characteristics of their car(s).

Therefore, electrifying their car is logical: to be ahead of the crowd again!”.

But, as a long-time advocate of clean-tech energy, both professionally and personally, Bisschop knew that there was one way the DS could be improved, and that was by electrification.

But converting an existing petrol car into a state of the art, modern electric vehicle can be a costly business even if you are lucky enough to find a company with the expertise to do the job.

“DS owners love design

“We knew of a company called

Rebbl, which specialises in converting old-timers into electric vehicles. They quoted me 32,500 euros for the standard conversion, but, because this is an electrification project, explained that they would first need to develop a prototype which would add 22,550 euros to the costs.”

A significant amount of money, even for a true DS fanatic. Especially when you consider that for 60,000 euros you can order an electric Delorean.

Or, for just a little bit more, a Tesla Roadster, perhaps the most exciting electric car on the road today.

“My business model was simple: together with 5 other DS fanatics, a prototype is built, and the first 6 cars are converted into an electric car. The costs (which can be reduced significantly by using subsidies and a bit of financial/ fiscal engineering) are split between the initial group of 6.

given the fact that the DS is probably one of the most abundant old-timers around.

“Basically, what we are looking at here is an offline crowd-funding model where people invest in a prototype and then license out the developed Intellectual Property. As beautiful in its simplicity, as the DS is in its curvaceousness.”

If enough conversions can be done, the initial group of 6 will not only get their money for the prototype back, but may actually earn some additional money in the process.

But of course true DS fanatics, aren’t interested in any of these fancy new cars, and Bisschop decided to see if there were any more owners out there who might be interested in electrifying their mistresses too, and sharing the extra cost of the prototype.

“But then, every additional DS owner (over and above the original 6) who wants to have their car converted in a similar way, can use our protoype for a flat fee of 1,000 euros or so, allowing us to gradually repay the initial investment.

In the end he didn’t have to utilise any internet-based social networks, as most DS fans tend to know each other directly anyway.

“If enough conversions can be done, we will not only get our money for the prototype back, but may actually earn some additional money in the process. Not unlikely,

And just in case they need to tempt any wavering owners, it might be worth pointing out that the converted DS will have a top speed of at least 160km/h (compared with 130 km/h at the moment), with a maximum reach of 200 km on one battery charge (just 9-10 hours). Specs that are not dissimilar to other top of the range electric vehicles that are currently being developed or marketed.

Other benefits include the fact that the electrified version will be so silent you will be able to make phone calls in the car (using a car kit of course) which is almost impossible at the moment.

Plus, filling up the tank (if that’s the right term in electric car world?) won’t cost you a cent if you happen to live in Amsterdam, as the City is committed to providing all electric vehicle owners with a loading station and a reserved parking space in front of their houses, completely free!

And, last but not least, as with any electric car, the amazing acceleration capability of the electric version will no doubt leave petrol-powered DS owners wondering what on Earth that was that just whizzed silently past them with a knowing wink and a friendly toot of the horn.

In The News

Let There Be Light!

LIGHT BULBS FROM BOTTLES OF WATER: How a local businessman is bringing free, sustainable light to the darkest corners of Manila - - originally posted 18 January 2012

The simplicity and sustainability of the system make it cheap enough for almost anyone to make and maintain one themselves. As Diaz says, “the three rules of appropriate technology are that people can find it, they can replicate it, and most importantly, they can make a business of it”.

Filipino entrepreneur Illac Diaz knows what it’s like to live in the darkness of a typical urban shanty town in downtown Manila, where thousands of people share crowded rooms, each doing whatever they can to eek out a living.

Most of these homes have unsafe electrical supplies (2,520 electricity-related fires were reported in 2009), or none at all, meaning many inhabitants are unable to carry out normal domestic tasks during the daytime.

Which is where Diaz comes in, with his cheap but amazingly effective ‘plastic bottle’ light bulb kit.

The science, for once, is simple. If

you fill a large plastic bottle with water and a little bleach, and then insert it through a carefully prepared hole in the roof – so that about a third of it is exposed to sunlight above the roof, and the rest hangs below – it instantly becomes a 50-watt solar light bulb. In more scientific parlance, ‘a light refractor’.

Diaz has stated that he is ‘out to make lighting free and safe, one slum at a time’.

The idea was originally attributed to mechanic Alfredo Moser of Brazil, who used the creation locally, but Diaz is attempting to spread it worldwide using a student design created at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Diaz is planning to take his system to 36 towns across the country. His project has also been picked up by the Civil Military Operations group of the Armed Forces of the Phillipines, which is set to distribute 10,000 bottle bulbs to Manila’s slums.

The limitation of the solar bulb is obviously that it only works during the day. But when most of your day is spent huddled over a stove, or plying your trade as a seamstress or fixing circuit boards on abandoned radios with a soldering iron, light is a very useful ally.

One can only imagine how industrious those very same shanty towns would become if schemes such as these could be extended beyond lighting, to provide a free source of safe, renewable energy on a neighbourhood basis. httpv://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=o-Fpsw_yYPg

SPECIAL REPORT

SOLAR GAINS Why solar PV will be our cheapest form of power as soon as 2016

Solar Gains

SOLAR GAINS

‘Solar PV soon to be the cheapest source of power,’ says Kees Van Der Leun For a long time, the holy grail of solar PV, the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity by means of solar cells, was ‘grid parity’, a term used to describe the point at which it becomes cheaper to generate one’s own solar electricity than to buy electricity from the grid. Indeed an important market milestone, being achieved now in many places around the world. But

recently it has become clear that PV is likely to become the cheapest option to generate electricity, beating other large-scale power generation technologies.

Working on PV solar energy at Ecofys since 1986, I have seen a steady progression in terms of rising efficiency and falling costs.

But it was only on a 2004 visit

to Q-Cells’ solar cell factory in Thalheim, Germany, that it dawned on me that PV could become very cheap indeed. They gave me a stack of 100 silicon solar cells, each capable of producing 3.8 Watts of power in full sunshine. I still have it in the office; it’s only an inch high!

I realised how little silicon was

Figure 1: a stack of 100 solar cells, good for 380 W of PV solar power. (Photo: Ariane van Dijk.)

needed to supply the annual electricity consumption of an average European family (4,000 kWh). Under European solar radiation, that would take 1,400 cells, totalling less than 14 kilograms of silicon.

are distributed over all users of the grid, nationwide. Successive governments, in varying coalitions, have always kept the principle alive, periodically lowering the tariffs as scale went up, and costs came down.

Of course you need to cover the cells with some glass, add a frame, a support structure, some cables, and an inverter. But the fact that 14 kilos of silicon, an amount that costs € 500 to produce, is enough to produce a lifetime of household electricity baffled me. Over 25 years, the family would pay at least € 20,000 for the same 100,000 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels, and its generation cost alone would total over € 6,000!

Contrary to what some believe, competition on the German PVmarket has always been fierce, which of course is a driving factor behind the ensuing cost (and price) reductions. The graph (fig 2.) shows how system costs have come down by more than 60% in the last 6 years.

To unleash this potential, you need a market driver when costs are still high, and we should all be grateful that Germany has played the role of engine since the introduction of a feed-in tariff there in the year 2000. Under the feed-in scheme, a family, or a company, investing in a PV solar system, receives a fixed amount per kWh of solar electricity that they supply to the grid. The additional costs

The graph assumes a current cost to the consumer for a small solar system of € 1.97 per Watt of capacity installed (excl. VAT).

From Ecofys experience, we know prices can be substantially lower already, but for the purpose of this exercise let’s use a cost of 2.00 €/W. Average annual solar radiation in the sunniest parts of Germany, where most of their PV systems are installed, is 1,000 to 1,100 kWh per m², measured on a horizontal plane. Taking into account the higher irradiation for a tilted solar panel, and some system losses,

SOLAR DATA

The technology behind Photovoltaics (PV) – the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity – was first observed by AlexandreEdmond Becquerel in 1839.

The Earth receives approximately 10,000 times as much energy from the sun than it needs to feed its entire energy habit.

By the end of 2005, total global PV capacity reached 5,400 megawatts (MW) – an approximate contribution to global power requirements (13,400,000 MW) of just 0.04%. By the end of 2011, total global PV capacity reached 674,000 MW, 0.5% of global requirements.

PV installations now exist in more than 100 countries around the world.

The fact that 14 kilos of silicon, an amount that costs € 500 to produce, is enough to produce a lifetime of household electricity baffled me. Over 25 years, the family would pay at least € 20,000 for the same 100,000 kWh of electricity from fossil fuels, and its generation cost alone would total over € 6,000!

The world’s largest PV power station is the Golmud Solar Park in China with a 200 MW capacity.

Dubai recently announced plans to build a single 1,000 MW capacity facility - the Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park.

Solar Gains

The cost of PV solar electricity needs to drop to below $ 0.06 per kWh to make it the cheapest source of electricity. In sunny regions, we will need to shave off 1/3 from the present solar PV cost to make that happen. That will take another 4 years, so expect this in 2016!

it means that 1 W of capacity will roughly produce 1 kWh per year. At capital costs (depreciation + interest) of 10% per year, this means one solar kWh now costs around € 0.20 to produce. Since that’s roughly what consumers pay for electricity from their utility, that’s grid parity.

In a sunnier region, like the Southwest of the US, the solar radiation is double that in Germany, so the same installed capacity (in Watts) will produce twice as much solar electricity (in kWh). As a consequence, the cost of a household solar kWh in Arizona is only half that in Germany, i.e. already below € 0.10 now, without any subsidies or tax breaks.

Large solar PV power plants, now being built up to the scale of hundreds of MegaWatts, are cheaper, but they have to compete with conventional power plants, and wind farms. Let’s take a cost of 1.40 €/Watt, this time excluding VAT, since that’s not applicable for a power producer. In sunny regions, like Arizona, this will already produce bulk power at € 0.07, or $ 0.09, per kWh. It should also be remembered that it is highly unlikely that fossil fuels will get away without any charge for CO2-emissions in the long run, and in a growing

Figure 2: Price development of installed solar PV systems (<100 kW) in Germany, excl. VAT. Source: BSW Solar.

Solar power in Germany has been subsidised by the government since 2000, a policy which now sees 79% of installations owned by private individuals, communities and farmers.

Solar Gains number of countries, such as the 27 countries of the European Union and Australia, this market distortion has already come to an end. But without attaching a cost to CO2, the cost of PV solar electricity needs to drop to below $ 0.06 per kWh to make it the cheapest source of electricity. In sunny regions (such as Arizona) we will need to shave off 1/3 from current solar PV costs to make that happen. That will take another 4 years, so expect this in 2016!

increases in cumulatively installed capacity will drive PV costs down even further, swiftly growing the regions in which it is the cheapest option to generate electricity!

As can be seen from the map in figure 3, the regions with high solar radiation include most of Latin America, Africa, the Middle-East, Australia, and large swaths of Asia, including all of India. For all those regions, PV will be the cheapest option by 2016. After that, further

Now solar PV is becoming huge.

Total new power generation capacity installed in the world is around 200 GW per year, so in 2011 solar PVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s share was already 14%. New constraints will show up, not least in grid connection, so growth figures will probably come down somewhat.

Total global PV capacity reached 68 GW (68,000 MW) at the end of last year. In just 5 years, the PV capacity added to this total annually, grew from 1.6 GW (2006) to 28 GW (2011), an average growth rate of 77% per year (REN21, 2011).

It is feasible however that we could reach 1,000 GW (1 Terawatt) of solar PV by 2020, even at a growth rate slowed down to 33% per year.

Developing a world energy system that runs on 100% renewable energy by 2050 is a major and complex global effort, involving large investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and infrastructure, as we have shown in The Energy Report (WWF/Ecofys, 2011). But this rapid development of solar PV sure helps a lot!

(Kees Van Der Leun is the COO and a director at Ecofys, an international renewable energy and energy efficiency consultancy.)

Figure 3: Solar radiation map of the world. Š Meteotest; based on www.meteonorm.com Sources: REN21, 2011. Renewables 2011 Global Status Report. http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/REN21_GSR2011.pdf WWF/Ecofys, 2011. The Energy Report: 100% renewable energy by 2050. http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ter_fullreport_lesres_2011-02-02_000.pdf

SPECIAL REPORT

ELECTRICITY

Top 20 Ways to Save It At Home

Saving Electricity

ELECTRICITY Top 20 Ways to Save It At Home

A smorgasboard of options for reducing your energy bills by 20%.

Some blindingly obvious, some wickedly ingenious, and some just downright sneaky. But all of them potentially vital. As Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute once said, “The greatest reduction in CO2 emissions we can very quickly make, is for the emissions we don’t produce in the first place.”

I

’ve always thought that you only really become an adult when you flee the parental nest, set up home for yourself and invite your parents round for dinner. And only then, when, at some point during the meal, as your dad is in the middle of recounting some story or other about his day, you lean across the table, whack him soundly round the back of his head and shout, “Elbows!”

But maybe that’s just me. For other people, the ones who weren’t constantly reminded that their elbows belonged by their sides and that their food wouldn’t run away if they were to put their knives and forks down for a minute, that moment of ritual passage more likely came with the arrival of their very first utility bill. Flopping unceremoniously through the letterbox.

I still remember mine, with all its incomprehensible quantities, readings and graphs. A swirl of gibberish followed by a worryingly large number. For a minute there I thought a small country somewhere in South America must be missing its national debt.

A shock to the system I have been lucky enough to enjoy on a monthly basis ever since.

These days though, with three kids charging about the house leaving lights on and demanding microwave popcorn, I pay a little more attention to the swirly bits than I used to. Then, just like my dad, I grumble around for half an hour turning lights off and muttering to myself.

Which is why, in an attempt to avoid a full-scale paternal reincarnation, I have recently conducted an extensive survey to discover people’s favourite tips for saving electricity. Some simple, some a little ingenious, but all worthwhile.

After all, the average home in Europe uses about 5,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a year, which, in a country like the UK, accounts for about 30% of their total consumption.

So the way I see it, and I don’t think I’m alone with this, if each of us can save say 20% on our monthly electricity bills by doing a few sensible things around the house, that would translate to a whopping 6% reduction in national consumption.

Equivalent to 206,820,000 megawatts, which, to use the traditional gauge, would save us 75 power stations.

THE SHORT VERSION: 1.Watch your ‘demand’ charges.

2. Use off-peak power at off-peak prices 3. Turn off unused appliances 4. Do your own energy audit 5. Watch out for energy vampires 6. Buy energy-efficient white goods 7. Vacuum clean the condenser coils at the back of your fridge 8. Always keep your fridge full 9. Cool cooked food before you put it into the fridge 10. Defrost frozen food in the fridge 11. Use your kettle for boiling hot water not the hob 12. Cook as many things at the same time as you can 13. Gradually change your lightbulbs 14. Use lamps not overhead lights 15. Install motion sensors 16. Never run the dishwasher half empty 17. Live without a tumble dryer 18. Wash your clothes in cold water 19. Take Showers rather than baths 20. Install an efficient showerhead

Saving Electricity

I still remember my first utility bill, with all its incomprehensible quantities and graphs. A swirl of gibberish followed by a worryingly large number. For a minute there I thought a small country somewhere in South America must be missing its national debt.

1. Watch your ‘demand’ charges’ Some utility companies impose an additional charge based on the maximum amount of electricity you draw at any one time. This is called a demand charge.

If your utility company has a demand charge then you have the opportunity to cut your usage by spreading out your electrical use throughout the day.

2. Use off-peak power at off-peak prices Along the same lines, some utilities have cheaper rates in the evenings which means it makes sense to put your washing on then rather than during the day, particularly if it makes no difference to you either way.

Or storage heaters, which draw their power during the night and then dish out heat during the day.

3. Turn off unused appliances Usually people add the words ‘when you’re not using them’ to the end of this tip which for some reason always makes me think of some poor bloke in intensive care, wired up to a bank of machines with an over-zealous porter buzzing round him, “You using this mate? What about this one then, with all the flashing lights, must be costing a fortune that one.”

But joking apart, this is one of the biggies when it comes to savings, which, unlike the chap in intensive, you wouldn’t even notice. Haven’t we all heard, from someone, somewhere, that we could save ‘x’ number of power stations just by turning off our TVs, rather than putting them on standby? And it’s perfectly true.

To be fair, modern appliances are way more efficient in standby mode than they used to be, but it’s also fair to say that all our appliances aren’t necessarily modern and collectively we have so many more of them kicking around these days than we used to. You can buy devices relatively cheaply that automatically cut power to devices when they go into standby mode. Alternatively plug everything into a power strip and turn the whole lot off every night with the flick of just one switch.

4. Do your own energy audit.

As my old history teacher always used to say, “Knowledge is power”, and for once he was right. It really does help to know how much you’re spending on electricity at any one time and on what, before you start running around looking for savings.

The Sky At Night: a global light pollution image based on satellite photographs

1,000,000 + 500,000 - 1,000,000 200,000 - 500,000 100,000 - 200,000 50,000 - 100,000 20,000 - 50,000 10,000 - 20,000 1,000 - 10,000 - 1,000

Energy consumption on a country by country basis

Saving Electricity

When Thomas Edison worked late into the night on the electric light, he had to do it by gas lamp or candle. I’m sure it made the work seem that much more urgent. (George Carlin) There are devices you can get for this too. There’s one for example, which allows you to convert your usage at any moment in time into a projection of a monthly or annual bill. Which means that if you really want to scare the rest of your family into joining you in your noble energy saving crusade (or ‘nagging’ as they probably affectionately call it) all you have to do is plug it in at breakfast time, when all the TVs are on, the hairdryers are whirring away and the tumble dryer is in emergency Sports Day mode. The resultant bill projection obviously won’t be entirely realistic, but it will be scary. Which helps too sometimes.

There are also some very handy devices for measuring the thirst of each of your appliances individually. All you do is plug it into a wall socket, and then insert the plug for the electronic device that you wish to monitor. It will give you detailed readings on energy use, from which, combined with a quick estimate of how many hours a year the appliance is used, you will be able to calculate its running cost. It’s only a very small step from there to becoming the proud owner of a league table of results on the fridge door for everyone to enjoy.

5. Watch out for energy vampires It isn’t just the infamous ‘standby’ mode you have to watch out for (tip 3). Some appliances, particularly

chargers, still use power even when they aren’t plugged in. These are known as ‘energy vampires’ and can account for about 8% of an average electricity bill. Anything with one of those unusually large plugs tends to be quite naughty at this. Best remedy is to unplug them or put them onto a power strip and turn the whole lot off every so often. Or sprinkle them with holy garlic water and drive wooden stakes through their hearts.

6. Buy energy-efficient white goods While this particular suggestion has a bit of a Marie Atoinette ‘Why don’t the peasants just eat cake?’ ring to it – wouldn’t we all love to have enough money to go out and buy brand new white goods? – if your kitchen really is on the retro side, not stylistically but actually, there is a fair chance the economics will stack up over a far shorter time period than you might expect. Newer models really are that much more efficient than their ancestors.

If, for example, you are running a pre-1990 fridge, it’s probably using about 1,400 killowatt hours of electricity a year. A modern fridge uses about 350 killowatt hours. That’s a 1050 killowatt saving, which, at a sample rate of 20 euro cents, equates to a 210 euro saving every year.

Modern cookers are also far more energy efficient and many come with inbuilt convection fans which alone can reduce cooking times by 30%.

7. Vacuum clean the condenser coils at the back of your fridge.

This particular tip definitely falls into the ‘sneaky’ category for me, mainly because so few people know about it, and yet it really does work. All heating and ventilation engineers worth their salt will have a portable vacuum cleaner somewhere in the back of their van because they know that by simply removing accumulated dust they can improve a

Saving Electricity

This particular tip definitely falls into the ‘sneaky’ category for me, mainly becasue so few people know about it, and yet it really does work.

fridge’s efficiency by up to 25%. Which leaves plenty of time for pretending to do lots of other far more complicated tweaks and drinking free cups of tea.

8. Always keep your fridge full.

Again, a bit Marie Antoinette at first glance, but fridges work a lot more efficiently if they are nicely full, but not so full that air can’t circulate properly inside them.

9.Cool cooked food before you put it into the fridge.

Fridges spend their lives trying to maintain the air inside them at a particular temperature and so chucking in something hot like a Tupperware tub full of piping hot soup, in fridge parlance is known as ‘loading up the in-tray a bit’.

10. Defrost frozen food in the fridge Conversely, defrosting frozen food in the fridge rather than on a kitchen surface will be considered, again in fridge parlance, as ‘a bit of a result’, because

it will immediately help the fridge meet its set temperature.

11. Use the kettle for boiling water not the hob It’ a question which can evoke much debate, but the overall answer is that boiling water in a kettle rather than on a hob uses 50-70% less energy and is quicker. Especially if you only heat as much water as you require for drinks and cooking, which is dead easy to do if you invest in a modern Eco-kettle with all its fancy markings. Don’t be tempted to use your microwave to boil water, studies have shown it comes third behind both the kettle and the stove top methods.

12. Cook as many things at the same time as you can And don’t preheat the oven for roasting and try not to keep opening the oven door to check on progress - every time you do that you lose about 20°C of heat.

Use a microwave to reheat food or to cook small portions. Although it uses a lot of power, it does so over a very short time.

13. Gradually change your light bulbs Lighting accounts for about 10% of a typical electricity bill. Change your high-wattage bulbs with lower users, ideally CFLs. which use 75% less power than old incandescent bulbs, and last much longer. Or consider LED bulbs, even more efficient and longer lasting, but more expensive to buy.

14. Use lamps not overhead lights Lamps can be put into the corner of a room so that the light is reflected off two walls. They are also far sexier.

Saving Electricity

Lamps can be put into the corner of a room so that the light is reflected off two walls. They are also far sexier.

15. Install motion sensors These are particularly handy for external lights, both in terms of security and avoiding energy wastage, but can also be fitted internally just as successfully. Or you can change your switches in certain locations for those mechanical ‘plunge’ style switches which only stay on for a minute or two unless you ‘re-plunge’ them.

16. Never run the dishwasher half empty Running a full load of dishes in an efficient dishwasher uses far less hot water than washing up by hand in the sink. And ‘stacking’ the machine rather than washing up is a doddle which effectively just puts the whole nasty business off until tomorrow.

17. Live without a tumble dryer Hang your clothes out to dry rather than using an electric tumble dryer. Or, if you find you have no option, consider running clothes through the spin cycle of the washing machine a couple of times first.

Apparently that reduces drying time by about 50%.

18. Wash your clothes in cold water Turning down the temperature on your washing machine definitely helps because heating the water accounts for most of the electricity consumed during a typical washing cycle. Or why not go the whole hog and try washing your clothes in cold water? Many people swear by it and none of them seem to smell.

19. Take showers rather than baths It probably goes without saying that showers require less heated water than a bath. And it’s also apparently good etiquette, army style, to spend no more than 3 minutes in the shower. Which isn’t to say that if you successfully implement all of the above power saving tips, you shouldn’t reward yourself with a deep ‘wallowing’ bath at least once a month. With Radox perhaps, if they still make that stuff.

20. Install an efficient showerhead A modern, ‘unclogged’ showerhead will save both water and electricity and give you a far more enjoyable shower experience. Cheap and easy to install too.

Would the last person to leave the planet, please remember to turn out all the lights. (Neil Armstrong)

CASE STUDY

looking beyond the price tag.

By Gijs de Reeper, the founder of greenem.com, a cost comparison site which helps consumers make purchasing decisions that include an awareness of future power consumption as well as initial price.

Everyone knows that appliances use electricity, but these costs are not taken into account when hunting for that bargain. As such, you have a very real chance you just spent hours shaving a few dollars off the price of that particular TV, when looking at a remarkably similar, more efficient and more expensive model, might save you hundreds of euros over the course of the product’s lifetime.

A troubling fact is that consumers simply lack the knowledge to get to grips with this issue. A 2009 study

by PwC found that 60% of consumers could not name the price of one kilo-Watt-hour (kWh), the principal measurement of electricity usage (it’s about €0.25 in The Netherlands, and 0.13p in the UK).

40% did not know how much electricity their household used (roughly 3,500 kWh per year).

In a recent survey by the Dutch consumer television programme Kassa, people were asked to sort several household appliances on the basis of their presumed annual energy costs. The refrigerator was placed on

the bottom spot by most respondents, whereas this energy-intensive appliance is actually the second hungriest in the average household, just behind the tumble dryer, which on its own accounts for 20% of domestic electricity usage.

For Joe Public, making the right decision is a tough one.

But just suppose you’re convinced that the appliance’s energy consumption, however unsexy it is, ought to be taken into account. How do you go about actually doing so?

In the EU, mandatory energy labels have been implemented towards this end. Unfortunately, these have a tendency to be caught up by technological progress: as such, 95% of refrigerators have a “green” A-label or better. To resolve this, the Commission opted to add plusses to the label to signify further efficiency, confusingly resulting in products that can be A+++++.

Moreover, while the intention of the program is good, how helpful is it really to know that a tumble dryer uses 4.2 kWh per cycle? What does that mean for me?

And that’s where we come in. Greenem is a comparison website, set up in 2010 to give consumers an easy to understand, easy to use tool to help them make their purchase decision based on the total cost of ownership (TCO).

This simply means that you take into account not only the one-time investment, but also the energy consumption that will invariably follow, over

Using a tumble dryer can cost up to €1.25 for each cycle Only half the energy usage of an oven is related to cooking; the other half is due to the ubiquitous digital clock The period in which you recoup the hefty €25 investment of an energy efficient LED light bulb to replace an incandescent, is 24 months, leaving the remaining lifetime of the LED light (up to 18 years!) to earn a pretty cool dividend the course of the product´s lifetime.

This already gives you some insight into whether forking out an extra €100 for that more efficient model is worth it. The next step was to personalize these usage costs, as the consumption pattern of a student living by himself is unlikely to be the same as that of a family with four children from across the street.

We have also added a variable that lets you say whether you are an efficient person (turning off the lights if you’re not in the room, using the short cycle of the dishwasher, etc), or, if you’re the sort of consumer whose utility company sends you a Christmas basket every year, and urges you to just keep on doing what you do, as they love you for it.

Feedback from visitors has been very encouraging, as they recognize the unique information we bring to the market. We also notice however, that people can be turned off when seeing the four-digit usage costs.

Unfortunately, we can’t help that: some products really consume that much.

A promising indication is that our best-selling product is a particularly efficient tumble dryer that will save an average household €500 over the product’s lifetime, compared to the average machine, while being twice as expensive to purchase.

Think about that next time you’re bargain hunting.

The notion is that you first input your household size and consumer type. Next, you make a first selection of products on the basis of sought-after characteristics, such as load capacity, brand, color, and what not.

This will likely leave you with dozens of possible choices. Finally, you can sort your selection, so you can see the one with the lowest total cost of ownership at the top.

Which appliances in particular are worth your while to look beyond the price tag? A few spring to mind.

Refrigerators, freezers, and tumble dryers have gotten a lot more efficient in recent years: up to 70% per cycle.

Others have improved their efficiency by decimating standby, or idle usage. Some televisions have reduced this to as little as 1 kWh a year, one hundredth of their counterparts a few years ago.

Gijs de Reeper is the managing director of Greenem. He holds an MSc in International Business Economics, and lives with his girlfriend, son and labrador retriever in Amsterdam.

ad SPECIAL REPORT

fracking good sense, or nonsense? you decide.

Fracking

fracking

Good sense or nonsense? You decide.

2050 editor, Joe Swain, gets to grips with the whole fracking debate. Is fracked gas like normal gas? Is gas part of the Master Plan? Who exactly should we be rooting for here?

Global shale gas deposits A map of the world depicting where shale gas resources currently lie (image courtesy of: opsur.org)

I

n environmental and carbon reduction quarters there is a word much muted these days, and that word is fracking.

Ignoring for now its obvious literary attributes, it is a word which seems to provoke much emotion.

To understand the process of fracking is relatively easy, but to understand why it is such an emotive issue, is to appreciate the argument that surrounds it.

It would appear that there are essentially 3 positions: 1. That there is no such thing as man-made global warming and that all fossil fuels, oil, coal and gas (in whatever environment it might be found) are a gift from our ancestors and should be used up with glee until they are all gone, in somewhere between 30 and 300 years time, depending upon whose estimates you believe. And that all methods of extraction, including fracking, are therefore acceptable.

That necessity is the mother of invention and humankind will no doubt quickly invent some sort of replacement fuel when the time comes.

2. That gas, both that extracted using conventional methods and that which has been extracted

using methods such as hydraulic fracking, emits only half as much greenhouse gas when it is burnt than the other main fossil fuels, coal and oil. That fracked gas should, like conventional gas, be considered a vlauable ‘transition’ fuel as we simultaneously build up our renewable energy capacity.

A ‘time buyer’ if you like, and one which has a legitimate place in our overall energy mix in the short to medium term.

3. That gas which has been extracted using methods which include a high level of high pressure fracking does not qualify for the same ‘50%’ cleaner tag as other forms of gas. That when you take all that extra energy and resources into account, gas which has been intensively fracked from shale stone, is, by virtue of all that extra effort, actually ‘dirtier’ than coal and oil. Not to mention the link to earthquakes and the risk posed to drinking water supplies.

To save time, we’re just going to ignore position 1, mainly because it’s silly.

The second position is far more interesting because it certainly seems to be accepted in most scientific quarters that gas, once retrieved, burns 50% more cleanly than other fossil fuels. It follows therefore that any switch to gas from the other fossil fuels should result in a reciprocal 50% saving

Controversial top: It is generally accepted that conventional gas emissions are 50% less harmful than other fossil fuels. middle: A fracking rig in Wyoming (image courtesy of peakwater.org). bottom: There are concerns that fracking contaminates drinking water supplies often culminating in public protest.

It certainly seems to be accepted in most scientific quarters that gas, once retrieved, burns 50% more cleanly than other fossil fuels. It follows therefore that any switch to gas from the other fossil fuels should result in a reciprocal 50% saving in emissions each time.

Fracking in emissions each time. An enthusiastic logic which has heralded the much talked about ‘dash for gas’ in recent months.

It is a position of perceived compromise and as such, one which instantly attracts the attention of governments searching for common ground between their carbon reduction targets and their need to court big business for the sake of economic prosperity.

But it has to be said that the transition position, quite apart from sounding like a bit part character in the Rocky Horror Show, does rather rely on 2 quite important assumptions. That gas is indeed part of the master plan, and that all gases, however extracted, are equal.

Perhaps the master plan (again assuming there is one?) concurs that switching lanes for a while will buy us the time we need to build up our renewable energy infrastructures, and then, at the last moment, to jump from the saddles of our tiring gas-steeds into the saving embrace of a brand new clean tech energy future. All in time to keep the temperature rise below 2 degrees.

Perhaps somebody could just quickly scurry off to the headmaster’s office to check that.

And then of course there’s the whole question as to whether shale gas, once you’ve included the allegedly higher than average fracking energy it requires to extract it, and other associated risks, is indeed the ‘equal’ of ‘conventional’ gas.

Which is where our final position comes in.

The people in this camp seem to be opposed to fracking for 3 main reasons: a) The fracking process required to retrieve shale gas involves pumping millions of gallons of water and unquantified and often unidentified chemicals into the ground below where people live. With the obvious risk of drinking water contamination and runoff pollution. b) It has been generally agreed that the fracking process causes earthquakes and that this is probably a bad thing.

Apparently, despite the fact that shale gas requires so much more than other sources of gas, fracking has only caused minor earthquakes so far, thank goodness. And our governments have assured us that tremors of that size are no cause for alarm. Just a bit of a rumbly tummy, nothing to worry about. c) Gas isn’t actually that big a part of the overall master plan anyway, and we shouldn’t really let it distract us from pressing on with the very real challenge of manufacturing and installing a complete global clean energy system.

And sharpish. That to proverbially scrape the barrel for more hard-to-getat gas in the meantime, would be to distract us from that greater goal.

What makes the debate about the relative merits of fracking so expensively emotive it would seem, is that it is not one of your straightforward ‘oil v green’ confrontations, but more of an internal struggle over tactics.

It has been generally agreed that the fracking process causes earthquakes and that this is probably a bad thing.

What is fracking?

Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing and refers to how the rock is fractured apart by the high pressure mixture.

Wells are sunk deep into the ground and then once they reach gas-rich shale rock layers, the drill heads turn and run parallel to the surface. Much like a desert plant sinking its roots deep into the ground and then shooting them out to the sides once it encounters moist ground.

Water mixed with various chemicals is then pumped down the shaft at extremely high pressure which in turn forces the natural fissures in the rock to open up and release the gas within it, which then makes its way back to the main shaft.

The first hydraulic fracturing was performed in 1947, at the Hugoton gas fields of southwestern Kansas, in limestone deposits by Halliburton.

A high-pressure fracturing process uses between 6 and 11 million liters of water per well.

“An independent geological report has found that it is “highly probable” a controversial technique to extract gas, known as fracking, triggered two minor earthquakes on the Lancashire coast earlier this year.” (BBC) Much of the water used in fracking is collected from the well and processed, but there are concerns that potentially carcinogenic chemicals can sometimes escape and find their way into drinking water sources.

Some American householders also claim that shale gas leaking into their drinking supply causes tap water to ignite. (See link to movie trailer for ‘Gasland’.)

The industry vigorously denies that shale gas is unsafe and blames pollution incidents as examples of bad practice, rather than an inherently risky technique.

Drilling through the water table The fracking process has become far more sophisticated in recent years, but there are still concerns about its effects on the environment, particularly drinking water supplies (image courtesy of barryonenergy.com)

Fracking Assuming most right-minded people realize that the bigger picture here is to make that switch to renewable energy, there is obviously still a division among them as to the extent to which gas should be relied upon as our ‘transition’ fuel.

far enough below the water table in each area, there will be no risk of water contamination. (A view which led the UK government to recently recommend that fracking only be performed at a minimum depth of 600m. Supposedly about 500m below the water table.)

Those in favour of fracking will say: “It boosts overall worldwide gas supplies and can help to reduce market cost. Shale is not anticipated to supply a large proportion of Britain’s gas needs, but it is contributing to a worldwide flow of gas that has halved gas prices in the US domestic market, and led to a glut in world markets. It’s estimated to have offered gas security to the US and Canada for about 100 years, and has presented an opportunity to generate electricity at half the CO2 emissions of coal. Exploration companies are also claiming there is a potential £70bn of reserves in rocks deep under south Wales.”

(BBC summarising advantages of shale gas) Those in favour will also probably point out that the technology behind the process has become far more sophisticated since it was first used commercially in the 1950s. That as long as the water and chemicals are pumped into the shale bedrock

Some fracking proponents will also point out that fracking is and has been used in the process of extracting ‘conventional’ gas too, since the 1950s and that it isn’t as new as people are suggesting.

And that minor earthquakes are a common occurrence in all mining situations, not just in the case of fracked shale gas.

And perhaps point out that many projected low-carbon scenarios include gas as part of the overall mix. Maybe we should be concentrating more on perfecting techniques than on whole-scale banning?

It’s easy to see why the debate is so grey. Albeit with a green background.

And you can understand why it is important to get a ruling on this fairly quickly.

It’s already led to a fairly big spat between the EU and Canada over the ‘fracked tar sand gas 26% dirtier than coal’ claim made by

What makes the debate about the relative merits of fracking so expensively emotive it would seem, is that it is not one of your straightforward ‘oil v green’ confrontations, but more of an internal struggle over tactics. .

The fracking process The fracking process often involves drilling a well through the water table and there is much debate as to whether this is something that can ever be achieved safely in the long term. The gas companies claim that if carried out properly, the process can be conducted safely and that methane leaks and the like are only caused by faulty workmanship. (Image courtesy of the Ground Water Protection Council.)

Fracking the former during an import classification wrangle recently.

The EU saying that like shale gas, coal tar gas requires a large degree of high pressure fracking and that consumers should know that before being asked to buy it. And Canada, well, understandably if not forgivably, peeved by what it sees as goalpost changing. Just as it was beginning to reap the benefits of sitting on top of the world’s largest coal tar deposits, and with it, the second largest energy resource left in the world after Saudi Arabia’s oil.

But that’s another story (see news archive).

The hub of the issue it seems, is whether fracked shale gas is, or is not, as clean as ‘conventional gas.

Media interest top: Time magazine recently ran an article about the potential of shale gas for the US and how it could help in the search for energy independence. bottom: The documentary style film ‘Gasland’ shows footage of drinking water so contaminated by methane released in the fracking process, that it was possible to ignire it. The film’s claims have been rebutted by the industry but continue to cause discussion at the highest levels.

Our unusual relationship with gas is reminiscent perhaps of one of those Great Escape type war films. The goodies are just about to be discovered at the train station all dressed up in their civilian suits made out of Marmite pots. And then just when you think the game is surely up, one of the enemy, a kindly old guard who remembers the good old days, silently lets them through without raising the alarm. You end up feeling sorry for the old boy, but at the same time remembering which side he was on as you scurry away to higher ground in time to fly off to safety in a glider made of jam.

In other words, kindly old gas probably does have a role to play between now and 2050, but we probably have to accept that it is a diminishing role and one that can only include gas which can be safely and cleanly harvested. And therefore actually warrants the ‘50% cleaner than other fossil fuels’ claim.

If high pressure fracking for shale gas ends up doing more harm then good, then the point of ‘dashing’ for it diminishes somewhat.

It is reminiscent perhaps of one of those Great Escape type war films, where the goodies are just about to be discovered at the train station all dressed up in their civilian suits made out of Marmite pots.