Power from the people

Power from the people

The energy minister is doing it. David Cameron's doing it. Is DIY power generation going to be the next big thing? Solar panels and miniature wind turbines could soon become an officially-promoted part of the urban landscape. Soaring energy bills, fears about insecure fuel supplies and concerns about climate change have already encouraged a growth in green energy schemes.

This week MPs will vote on proposals which would make it significantly easier for householders across the UK to generate their own power.

Tory moderniser, David Cameron, already has plans for a wind turbine on his London home while Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks also wants to install his own mini-windmill.

And the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill, which is facing its final parliamentary hurdles when it comes before the Commons on Friday, has got all-party support to promote "micro-generation", such as solar and wind power.

Selling power

The bill would introduce official targets for the growth of micro-generation - and there would be a "buy-back" regulation in which householders who produce a surplus of power would be paid a fair price by energy suppliers.

Planning obstacles for small-scale renewable energy schemes would be reduced - and to meet targets, it's been suggested local authorities could provide financial incentives for using renewable energy.

Labour backbencher Mark Lazarowicz, who is sponsoring the bill, says the "whole political atmosphere has changed" in the debate over energy and climate change.

"The argument isn't any more about whether we should use more renewable energy, but how we do it," says Mr Lazarowicz.

Adding to the political pressure will be the government's own strategy on micro-generation, due to be published before the end of the month.

Solar flair

One problem for householders wanting to erect wind turbines and solar panels is getting planning permission, and the energy minister is expected to make this easier.

Mr Wicks, as well as wanting to stick a turbine on his own roof, has already pointed to the benefits of micro-generation.

"Before the advent of large-scale power stations, self-sufficiency in energy generation was the norm - water mills used to grind corn, coal-fired boilers providing heat. Advances in technology mean that products are now available that allow the individual to regain this self-sufficiency," Mr Wicks has argued.

So how would any of these energy schemes work in practice?

Rowan Langley, who lives in north-west London, is ahead of the micro-generation game. He set up a solar power generation system in his back garden, which produces between a third and a half of his electricity. The panels cost about £400 to £500 each, he says.

Panellist's blog

This provides enough power for his basic needs, such as lighting and running appliances, like the fridge and television. If he wants to run something that needs more power, such as a washing machine, he switches to the mains supply.

"It cost me the same as a big plasma TV would have done, but it is saving rather than costing me electricity," he says.

To share his experiences and to help others, Mr Langley has his own solar power blog [see Internet Links, above, right], recording how his DIY power system still functions on dark days in winter.

As well as cutting his fuel bills, Mr Langley sees this as a way of putting his environmental principles into practice. And he enjoys the independence of being able to generate his own power.

"When it comes to decommissioning - think of the problems of a nuclear power station. Decommissioning my power station will mean packing it away - and maybe selling parts of it on eBay," he says.

The nuclear industry, for its part, supports renewable energy - but says it cannot alone provide for all the country's energy needs.

Urban slip-streaming

The type of wind turbine that Mr Cameron is reported to be seeking is the D400 StealthGen, produced by the Nottingham-based Eclectic Energy, and costing £2,200 plus another £400 for installation.

The company's managing director, Peter Anderson, says there has been a huge surge in interest in these turbines, which have been designed specifically for unobtrusive, residential use.

The translucent rotor blades are 1.1m in length and Mr Anderson says they are very quiet when operating. An individual turbine should provide about a fifth of electricity needs - and it operates seamlessly with the mains supply.

Fashion might be part of the rising interest, as he says that for some people it's a "lifestyle statement". For others, it's an expression of their environmental belief and for some it's a way of getting themselves a self-sufficient power supply.

Place in the sun

But we shouldn't be complacent. Keith Barnham, professor of physics at Imperial College London, says that the UK has already been "crazily" slow in its development of solar power - and that so far we have had a poor record on serious sustained investment.

Research investment is seven times greater in nuclear power - and he says that Germany, with similar sunlight levels, already has 30 times more solar panels on its roofs.

If the Germans continue to expand solar power at the same rate, in another six years they will be getting more electricity from solar power than the UK gets from its nuclear power stations, says Professor Barnham.

Increased investment in solar power would make the technology more efficient and cheaper, he says, in the way that mobile phone and computer technology has accelerated.

"We've already fallen badly behind," says Professor Barnham.

Quote of the Day>Ministers warned of huge rise in nuclear waste

Lethal radioactivity could rise five-fold, warn experts
Industry denies massaging statistics

A new generation of nuclear power stations would increase five-fold the amount of a lethal and long-lasting form of highly radioactive nuclear waste stored in the UK, official figures show.

The analysis, by a government-sponsored committee of experts, reveals the scale of the legacy to future generations by building nuclear plants. It comes as the nuclear industry and supporters are pressing ministers to approve reactors in the face of uncertainty over gas supplies.

The figures reveal that spent uranium fuel rods from new power stations would almost triple radioactivity in the current inventory of UK nuclear waste. They contrast with claims that new reactors would create far less waste than predecessors.

BNFL says a new generation of plants would add only 10% to the volume of waste. Experts say this is misleading because the majority of existing waste is made up of bulky, less hazardous material.

Chris Murray, chief executive of nuclear waste management body Nirex, said: "The volume is not the whole story. We need to be very exact about what type of waste new reactors would actually produce and how it needs to be dealt with."

In 2003 the Commons select committee on science and technology said BNFL's argument that new reactors would only produce 10% more waste meant that "the waste issue cannot be used as an argument against further nuclear build".

Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, said: "It is typical of the nuclear industry that, not only have they got the brass neck to put something forward which is so unsustainable, but they also try to fiddle the figures to cover up what they're doing."

The figures have been prepared by Corwm, the committee on radioactive waste management. They use yet-to-be published government accounts of the amount of nuclear waste in the UK. They assume Britain will build 10 new reactors and will not reprocess the spent fuel, which is hazardous and difficult to handle because it stays radioactive for thousands of years and generates so much heat it must be stored for several decades before it can be dealt with. Corwm says this would produce an extra 31,900 cubic metres of spent fuel, on top of the 8,150 cubic metres currently stored.

A Nuclear Industry Association spokesman said:

"We're not fiddling the figures. It's just a different way of measuring it."

A massive rise in spent fuel would not present a significant technical challenge because it was a relatively well understood waste, Prof MacKerron said. But it could significantly increase the size of a permanent disposal site. Corwm is weighing up several long-term disposal options. A decision is expected this summer.

He said: "The footprint of any facility you might want would have to be increased, by more than 10% but nothing like as much as 2-3 times. It's very difficult to know at the moment where between those extremes it lies."

The nuclear industry has suggested spent fuel from new reactors could be stored on site at power stations for at least a century.

Jean McSorley, of Greenpeace, said: "There's barely a policy in the UK for handling the spent fuel we've already got. The nuclear decommissioning authority is struggling with the amounts from current reactors. How the UK can cope with a massive increase ... has not been answered by anyone."

Green issues: It's not the end of the world

Journalists have a responsibility to cover climate change, but make the pieces too gloomy and readers will fail to listen. And there's also a problem convincing some editors to take the subject seriously

The British press routinely carries The Day After Tomorrow-style articles - about earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, floods and big freezes - which journalists might think are raising awareness of climate change.

The reality, a new report has found, is that this coverage is so hopelessly doom-laden in tone that readers have become apathetic about the threat.

The research, by the green communications agency Futerra, found that 60 per cent of articles about climate change in national newspapers were negative and failed to mention possible solutions. Only a quarter included any mention of what could be, or is being, done to fight climate change. Stories in the tabloid and mid-market papers (which reach three-quarters of national readers) tended to be highly scaremongering.

"If we keep telling people that Armageddon is inevitable, we risk creating an epidemic of apathy," says Solitaire Townsend, managing director of Futerra. "If you create fear you must create hope and agency - the ability to do something about it, and believe that you can do something about it." She says that telling the public to take notice of climate change is proving "as successful as selling tampons to men".

In its study, Futerra reviewed the 320 national newspaper stories about climate change published between August and November last year. Each was given a "Fear/Hope" rating from one to five, with one being the most pessimistic.

The Financial Times came out best: it printed 63 climate change articles and had an average Fear/Hope rating of 2.7 - as close to "balanced" as any paper got. The Independent was second, with 60 articles and a more pessimistic outlook (2.2). The Sun was one of the worst offenders, publishing just four (hugely negative) articles.

The FT's environment correspondent, Fiona Harvey - who recently won the Foreign Press Association award for environment story of the year - topped the reporters' league. Her prolific writing (28 articles in 13 weeks - 20 more than her closest challenger, Charles Clover of The Daily Telegraph) was the most balanced (2.9, where 3 is balanced).

"Our job is just to report the truth of what is going on," says Harvey, speaking from the UN climate conference in Montreal. "If [government] talks are taking a long time and there's no progress, you have to say that. A story that is gloomy is still often realistic."

But Harvey says she tries to emphasise practical measures that readers can take to tackle climate change. "We have a business audience and I've lost count of the number of times over the last year I've written about energy efficiency," she says. "It is beneficial for companies, as it saves them money, and it helps the environment by curbing emissions. Telling readers what they can do is crucial."

Journalists have a responsibility "to get people away from the idea that climate change will be gradual and will happen in 20 or 30 years' time," she says.

Harvey adds that environmental reporting in the British press is far more responsible than in the US, where many articles include views by climate change sceptics to provide "balanced" coverage. "Our opinion in the UK is that the argument has been won by mainstream scientists," she says. "Quoting climate change sceptics only gives them a spurious credibility they don't deserve."

Jonathan Porritt, the founding father of the British green movement, and now an advisor to the Government, says that the Futerra research "highlights the responsibilities of the media to look to the opportunities as well as highlighting the risks".

Futerra's Townsend says that one of the biggest challenges in improving press coverage is overcoming the lack of interest most tabloid editors have in the subject. "They account for the biggest chunk of UK newspaper readership and therefore have the biggest opportunity to enlist the British public in the fight against climate change. But they almost exclusively give out the apathy message."

One of the few good environmental articles to emerge from the tabloids last year came in February, from David Edwards for the Daily Mirror: "20 ways YOU can save the planet". Instead of covering the Kyoto treaty in terms of limits and legal obligations, he gave readers environmentally friendly tips (many of them unpopular), such as giving up foreign holidays, turning the heating down and using energy efficient light bulbs (all costed, with facts showing the environmental benefit).

Futerra, which is sponsored by the Government, wants to move the debate beyond "Is this the End of the World?" headlines. In an effort to make environmental communications more sophisticated, it has produced 20 "rules of the game". One of these is to ignore those who deny that climate change exists. "The argument is not if we should deal with climate change but how," says Futerra.

"Normalising is the crucial thing," said Townsend. "We don't need to make recycling or bus journeys sexy. We need to make them normal."

Futerra also highlights one of the glaring problems of green marketing: talking about climate change doesn't make people feel good about themselves. So it is worth exploring campaigns to link green activities such as cycling to work or having solar panels on your roof with values such as self-improvement (fitness), home improvement (house price) and national pride (having the world's leading scientists).

One final warning: "Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions." Go gently to keep everybody on side.

The British press routinely carries The Day After Tomorrow-style articles - about earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, floods and big freezes - which journalists might think are raising awareness of climate change.

The reality, a new report has found, is that this coverage is so hopelessly doom-laden in tone that readers have become apathetic about the threat.

The research, by the green communications agency Futerra, found that 60 per cent of articles about climate change in national newspapers were negative and failed to mention possible solutions. Only a quarter included any mention of what could be, or is being, done to fight climate change. Stories in the tabloid and mid-market papers (which reach three-quarters of national readers) tended to be highly scaremongering.

"If we keep telling people that Armageddon is inevitable, we risk creating an epidemic of apathy," says Solitaire Townsend, managing director of Futerra. "If you create fear you must create hope and agency - the ability to do something about it, and believe that you can do something about it." She says that telling the public to take notice of climate change is proving "as successful as selling tampons to men".

In its study, Futerra reviewed the 320 national newspaper stories about climate change published between August and November last year. Each was given a "Fear/Hope" rating from one to five, with one being the most pessimistic.

The Financial Times came out best: it printed 63 climate change articles and had an average Fear/Hope rating of 2.7 - as close to "balanced" as any paper got. The Independent was second, with 60 articles and a more pessimistic outlook (2.2). The Sun was one of the worst offenders, publishing just four (hugely negative) articles.

The FT's environment correspondent, Fiona Harvey - who recently won the Foreign Press Association award for environment story of the year - topped the reporters' league. Her prolific writing (28 articles in 13 weeks - 20 more than her closest challenger, Charles Clover of The Daily Telegraph) was the most balanced (2.9, where 3 is balanced).

"Our job is just to report the truth of what is going on," says Harvey, speaking from the UN climate conference in Montreal. "If [government] talks are taking a long time and there's no progress, you have to say that. A story that is gloomy is still often realistic."

But Harvey says she tries to emphasise practical measures that readers can take to tackle climate change. "We have a business audience and I've lost count of the number of times over the last year I've written about energy efficiency," she says. "It is beneficial for companies, as it saves them money, and it helps the environment by curbing emissions. Telling readers what they can do is crucial."

Journalists have a responsibility "to get people away from the idea that climate change will be gradual and will happen in 20 or 30 years' time," she says.

 

 

German Minister Dismisses Nuclear Power Lobby

Germany should boost renewables rather than nuclear power to increase its energy security, Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said on Tuesday, seeking to snuff out a debate rekindled by a Russian gas blockade.

Gabriel's Social Democrats struck a deal in 2001 with utility firms to close Germany's 19 nuclear power plants by 2020, but leading members of their conservative coalition partners are urging a rethink.

Gabriel, environment minister since November, told a news conference that existing reserves of uranium could run out in 30 to 40 years.

"The technology is expensive and the fuel relatively cheap, but the latter will change fairly soon," Gabriel said.

He added that those advocating a longer life for the country's nuclear power stations were simply seeking to increase earnings for the affected firms. E.ON, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall Europe operate nuclear plants in Germany.

Gabriel's stance appears to have the backing of Chancellor Angela Merkel, who must hold the fragile coalition of left and right together. Government spokesman Thomas Steg said on Wednesday Merkel had indicated she would stick to a coalition deal which foresees an exit from nuclear power.

The Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU) and its Christian Democrat (CDU) allies in neighbouring Baden-Wuerttemberg, home to a number of nuclear plants, want the nuclear debate reopened following a gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine.

RELIANCE ON RUSSIA

Roughly a third of German gas comes from Russia, and the dispute over pricing, which led Moscow to cut off the gas flow through a key pipeline for two days, has many asking whether Germany is too reliant on Russia.

"I am confident that we will be able to enter a discussion (on nuclear power) soon," CSU chief Edmund Stoiber told a party meeting on Thursday. "But we cannot force it."

Stoiber said he was not trying to reverse Germany's abandonment of nuclear power, but simply to prolong the life of safe atomic plants.

Gabriel said 25 percent of Germany's electricity could come from renewables by 2020. By then, energy productivity should have doubled compared with 1990s levels, he added.

Nuclear power, which became unpopular in Europe after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, has been making a comeback. The first new nuclear plant on the continent in years is being built in Finland. One reason for nuclear's return to favour is the fact that nuclear reactors emit virtually no greenhouse gases.

However, only a quarter of Germans believe the country should produce more nuclear power to lessen its reliance on energy imports, according to a Thursday poll for ARD public television. Eighty-one percent want Germany to stress renewables.

 

 

 

Welcome to Michael Lunn's Blog site

I have finally had a chance to establish a Blog site. For those that know me, I have been a professional change agent for a number of years.

Over the coming weeks I will be posting thoughts, reflections and stories of my career.

regards to all readers,

Michael Lunn