WISE Women: Women in Sustainability and the Environment

Calling all green ladies out there...WISE Women is a new network I have formed to bring together women who are working in, are concerned about and want to do more about sustainability and the environment. Please come join us.

First Speaker Event
Our first Speaker Event tackles one of the most pressing issues of our day: Peak Oil. We know it's running out, we know it's soon, but how do we make sense of it all and why is our government failing to address our pending energy crisis?

David Strahan, award-winning investigative journalist, documentary film-maker and author of The Last Oil Shock will unravel these and other issues surrounding the imminent extinction of Petroleum Man + Woman.

What: Peak Oil
Where: The Hub 5 Torrens Street, London EC1V 1NQ
When: Tuesday 29th April 2008, 6.30pm - 8pm
Cost: £5 on the door

1 male guest allowed per member subject to availability (chaps, you are welcome to attend, but you do have to be a guest of a female member)

RSVP: events@wisewomen.me.uk

Joining WISE Women
If you would like to become a member of WISE Women and subscribe to further events please complete your details on our website: Join WISE Women

www.wisewomen.me.uk

Related Blog links:
Energy Crisis
Richard Heinberg on Peak Oil

Two Warnings from the North Pole

Ben Saunders from Ben Saunders on Vimeo.

On the day that Ben Saunders has had to abandon his solo expedition to the North Pole, James Hansen, Head of Nasa and one of the world's leading climate change scientists, warns of rapidly melting ice due to feed-back mechanisms from our increase in CO2 emissions. As ice sheets recede, the warming effect is compounded says Hansen. Satellite technology available over the past three years has shown that the ice sheets are melting much faster than expected, with Greenland and west Antarctica both losing mass. It is this very melting ice that has literally stopped Ben in his tracks.

A recent paper co-authored by Hansen and eight other scientists warns that the EU and its international partners must urgently rethink targets for cutting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of fears they have grossly underestimated the scale of the problem. The EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed. If you leave us at 450ppm for long enough it will probably melt all the ice - that's a sea rise of 75 metres. What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a disaster - a guaranteed disaster,"

Hansen said that he now regards as implausible the view of many climate scientists that the shrinking of the ice sheets would take thousands of years. "If we follow business as usual I can't see how west Antarctica could survive a century. We are talking about a sea-level rise of at least a couple of metres this century."


For the past 8 days Ben has witnessed first-hand the erosion of the ice making his expedition impossible to continue as equipment failed him whilst he battled with the worsening conditions of the rapidly melting ice. Battling against what has been described by many as the worst conditions in recent history, Ben has encountered miles of never ending pressure ridges, some standing as tall as two-storeys high, over which he has dragged his 65kg sledge. This is what he has to say:

"The ice conditions I have encountered have been the worst I have ever seen, and worse than I could have imagined. I am witnessing at first hand the disintegration of the last of the Arctic’s multi-year pack ice. If climate change in the high Arctic continues at its current rate, I may be one of the last to be able to attempt this journey on foot. I feel enormously privileged to have had that chance and the only true failure would have been not to have started this expedition in the first place."

Over a year ago I chatted with Ben about the receding Arctic ice. He told me then that the pace and scale of the change he witnesses is breathtaking. You can read more of what he said here.

But it is not all bad news. Hansen said his findings were not a recipe for despair. The good news, he said, is that reserves of fossil fuels have been exaggerated, so an alternative source of energy will have to be rapidly put in place in any case. Other measure could include a moratorium on coal power stations which would bring the C02 levels to below 400ppm.

As for Ben, his first-hand reports of the climate changing conditions he is experiencing are invaluable and illuminating. If we take the advice of Hansen et all, the ice may well be there for future generations of explorers like Ben to report back from.

James Hansen
Ben Saunders

The Transition Handbook

This is for Catherine, whom I hope will be inspired to set up our own Transition Initiative...

Rob Hopkins is the founder of the Transition movement, creating the fertile ground (literally as well as metaphorically) to generate the growth of communities that are resilient and able to embrace peak oil and climate change. He bridges the gap between the individual and the government, and provides an alternative and inclusive approach, one which enables people to work together to explore solutions on a credible scale. Just published, the Transition Handbook, explains the why and how it can be done.

And what a remarkable book it is. So good it kept me up all night until I had finished it, then bought more copies which have already been dished out (the only other book I seem to do this with on a regular basis is David Strahan's The Last Oil Shock. Both are top must-reads). It is a seminal text for our times. I'll wager that this will prove to be one of the most dynamic and important social movements of the 21st Century.

The Transition Handbook is all about the potential to progress and develop resilience within our communities, to adapt to the energy crisis whilst respecting the earth we live on. For me, it has help reshape my vision of our future on a community level and demonstrated the importance of inclusivity and strong support networks. This book is no wishy washy green-love-in. It's about business and life as we want it for a future that is in balance with our planet. One to read, reread and act upon.

transitiontowns.org
Transition Culture
Community Action

Alistair Darling's peely wally pale green budget

In Scotland the term 'peely wally' denotes a sickly pale green palor. That's the colour of the new Chancellor's budget. It had been touted to be the much needed great green budget - but it wasn't, it was a sop, a tinkering at the edges, but otherwise pretty much business as usual. In environmental terms there was no sense of seriously addressing 'stability' (he used this word a lot, 23 times, in an attempt to convince us all is well. It didn't work - it's the content that counts) at a time when our emissions continue to rise. My conclusion: it was a 'do nothing' budget.

On the up-side Darling threatened a tax on plastic bags (why threat - just do it. This is an old solution which the UK is still failing to implement), plans to penalise the most polluting cars (£950 for most polluting cars; why not make it thousands, or bolder yet - price them completely off the road or simply ban them) and reward the greenest through changes in car tax, tinkered with taxes on new green homes (retrofitting existing stock is a far larger problem that is not being properly addressed - Home Information Packs are not enough) and said a climate levy on business would continue (of course, why would it not?). "We need to do more and we need to do it now," Darling said presenting his first budget. "There will be catastrophic economic and social consequences if we fail to act." So act.

But didn't - he stood peering over the edge of the yawning abyss that lies ahead and instead stepped back. He delayed his planned rise in duty on road fuel, backed further airport expansion (this really is not joined up thinking. What fuel are planes going to be using in 10 years time? Hot air? Hot coal? No mention of the much needed reinforced public transport system to address peak oil) and simply announced a fresh consultation on boosting renewable energy. We really do not need another (sham) consultation. We need decisive decision making.

Darling did however announce the UK government support for all future allocations of carbon emission permits to power generators to be auctioned. (The current phase of European Union emission permits for the power generators were all allocated free, handing them billions of pounds in profits as they passed on the notional cost of the permits in higher energy costs to consumers) and that aviation be included in the next phase of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme. But what of this? These are not UK decisions, they are EU decisions - and this is likely outcome at EU level with all EU member states voting to support these proposals in any event.

Is this what is called sending out mixed messages? Yes, the UK government supports taxing of flights because they accept they are a large contributor to climate change (4 - 7% CO2 emissions) but, hey, lets expand our airports and get more in the air while we are at it. Hmmm.

Last night I went to hear the Climate Tzar Lord Adair Turner (Chair of the government's Climate Change Committee) speak on Climate Change. He stayed for just two questions at the end and then scooted off. When asked what he would have put in the budget, he neatly side-stepped the question, but did make a few relevant points. In fact, he did that clever thing of completely rephrasing the question. He asked, does Fuel Duty work? His answer: it makes very little impact on using cars less but it can make a big impact on size of car chosen(i.e, more informed consumerism), so yes it does work. And now that it's in place it can be racked up in future years. Yes, fair enough, but Mr Turner you yourself acknowledged at the outset of your talk that it is because of our use of burning of fossil fuels that we have rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions. So, surely you agree with me on this: does this not point to the unavoidable fact that we need to stop using the very fuel that is creating our rapidly escalating emissions, rather than merely using it less fast?

Pollution Solution: Feed-in Tariffs

Heard the term Feed-in Tariff (also referred to FIT, or REFIT - renewable energy feed-in tariff)? Bet you have. It's the catchphrase of preference for all true RE geeks (that's Renewable Energy, not Religious Education). FIT's will help solve our failing RE targets and if you do not know this already you are sooo behind the times. Our Labour government are now toying with the term and contemplating stealing the march on Tory and Lib Dem sworn FIT policy. There has even been an EDM (Early Day Motion) proposed by Labour MP Alan Simpson that is proving popular with 180 votes so far. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Renewable Energy Association are all shouting loudly for FIT's. And so they should.

So, here for you, is the complete low-down on why we so desperately need to support RE, how to do it and what FIT's are...

Why do we need RE?
If you subscribe to the basic principle that we have no option but to replace our current use of polluting fossil fuel with sustainable non-polluting alternatives (whether it be for reducing greenhouse gases and/or because of our pending energy crisis), then energy from renewables is the inevitable solution.

How can we support renewable energy?
For specific RE technologies to succeed, well-conceived government intervention is required. The simple fact is that without appropriate legislative assistance, RE systems are unable to compete. We are afterall dealing with a historical energy system predicated on the use of fossil fuel. New mechanisms are need to be implemented to open the door to RE being included and indeed, in time, fully replacing fossil fuel.

What legislation is required to make this work?
A FIT law. FIT's are a specific market mechanism to facilitate non-commercial RE technology to become commercialised in as fast as time as possible. In other words, it will take RE technology to mass production levels where it can stand alone. They do this by guaranteeing a favourable price (the tariff) for the electricity produced (feeding-in to the grid) over a set period of time (usually 20 years).

It is well established that FIT's are the most effective, cost efficient and transparent system to facilitate not only introduction of RE into the marketplace, but also to promote homegrown industry in the sector. Just look at all countries that have successful FITs, eg Germany, Spain. One aspect of FIT's that is often overlooked but is so vital is that they place a legal obligation on the utility to buy-in the renewable electricity (at a set price); thus no queueing until some ageing dirty coal plant falls off the radar to finally be accepted ongrid. Priority access for RE is a vital mandatory tool.

In a nutshell:
FIT’s
• work on a tariff rate for specific RE technologies that is guaranteed for a set period (usually 20 years). For instance, Germany has FIT's for small hydro, onshore wind, offshore wind, biomass, biogas, PV and geothermal (each RES set at different levels) but not one for CSP because they do not generate CSP on home turf;
• place a legal obligation on the utility companies to purchase electricity at set pricing levels from RES installations which are produced nationally;
• do not apply to buying in of RES from other EU countries or third party countries;
• are not trans-boundary, nor are they ever likely to be. It is the EC's intention that they remain voluntary as a mechanism for each country to implement as they see fit to promote home-grown RE;
• so far 19 out of 27 EU countries have implemented FIT's under their national legislation. Another 12 countries world-wide have adopted this system, and there also exists the use of FIT's at state level in 10 further countries.

[map of EU countries with FIT's]

FIT Benefits:
• proven to be the most successful mechanism to develop RE markets and domestic industries, and achieving the associated social, economic, environmental and security benefits;
• easy to implement and administer, FIT’s are transparent and cost-effective;
• greater flexibility can be designed into the scheme to account for changes in technology and the marketplace;
• encourage steady growth of small- and medium-scale producers;
• low transaction costs;
• ease of financing;
• investor security;
• ease of entry.

Benefit to you
+ You get to buy your own solar panel, wind-turbine etc at good price;
+ You generate your own clean energy (and sell the excess onto the grid, thus helping others too)
+ You get to keep your bills down whilst helping the planet.


There are various books on RE and potential policy, but the best of the lot is: Feed-in Tariffs, Accelerating the Deployment of Renewable Energy,2007, written by one of the foremost experts in this area, Miguel Mendoca. Amazingly, he makes a very dry subject utterly fascinating.

Even better, FIT's are so easy to adopt as national policy that there are now two websites that shows policy makers how to implement the requisite legislation:
Policy Action on Climate Toolkit - everything you need for implementing a FIT (and a nifty 5 min video too)
World Future Council - comprehensive documentation in support.

So, no reason not to get FIT, Mr Brown. Oh and one other thing - that Permitted Development Order that was shelved back on 10th October last year will need dusting off and implementing too, so that we shan't have the whole thing stymied for microgeneration installers by having to apply for planning permission. And while you are at it, could you overhaul the Low Carbon Buildings Programme too? Easy to apply for grants would be much appreciated also. That really would be a pollution solution package to shout about.

Desktop Direct Action: You can email your local MP to ask them to support the FIT EDM. Not sure who your MP is, or what their email address is? Go to TheyWorkForYou.com Easy - and effective.

Pollution Solution - no more mercury in my mouth

Ever wondered where the expression 'Mad as a Hatter' came from? I did, and out of such a casual query opened the door to a discovery that I cannot ignore. Mad as a hatter was a reference to the mental disorders that occurred in hat makers caused by the mercury once used to process felt for hats. To be more specific, it is the exposure to mercury vapour that proves to be so hazardous. When inhaled, it is easily absorbed into the bloodstream causing toxic buildup in various organs.

Mercury, thankfully, is no longer used in hat making. But it is still widely used as a major component in silver amalgam fillings. Over 50% of the compound is mercury (which equals approximately one half gram per filing = as much mercury used in a thermometer, which is loads), the other metals being silver, tin and zinc. The thing is, every time you chew or brush your teeth, that amalgam filling starts smoking and releasing it's toxic vapour. It's the mercury that causes the problems, with a substantial body of evidence demonstrating the hazards of mercury poisoning affecting the endocrine, the central nervous system, the kidneys and the brain. High levels in pregnant women are attributed to a three-fold increase in sterility, still-births and miscarriages. When mercury enters the blood after leaking out of an amalgam filling, it remains there only for a few minutes. Henceforth it is locked into the cells of our body as we excrete far less than we absorb. This is called 'Retention Toxicity'. Once in our organs it can stay there for decades. As Dr Lars Freiberg, chief advisor to the World Health Organisation on mercury safety put it, "there is no safe level of mercury" (1)

Still not convinced? You can watch this gory but nevertheless informative Youtube video on smoking mercury fillings from the IAOMT.

Given this state of affairs, how is it that mercury is so prevalent? It transpires it was that old chestnut, market economics, that had won the day. Amalgam was a cheaper compound than gold for a dental fillings, and despite health reservations, in 1819 it was introduced into the UK, and later worldwide, dental repertoire - it was touted as the filling everybody could afford. But as we now know, this has come at great cost to humans and the environment. In business terms, the external costs have not been factored in.

Thus, it looked like mercury fillings are pretty much here to stay. But times they are a- changing. So concerned about the high levels of poisoning, amalgam fillings are now banned in Sweden and Denmark. Austria is phasing out mercury fillings, and in Switzerland and Japan the dental schools no longer teach amalgam use as the primary form of dental care. In 1991, Germany's Ministry of Health recommended that no further amalgam fillings be used for children, pregnant women or those with kidney disease. In 1993 this was extended to include all women, and the Health Ministry is now considering whether to ban it's use entirely. Now recognised as such a dangerous substance, that the EU is currently onto it's second reading of a Directive proposing a Mercury Exports Ban by 2010.

Here in the UK, you can have your mercury fillings removed - not a cheap option, but one that I intend doing. It's a delicate job that requires a qualified dentist. Your dentist can measure your levels of mercuy toxicity, as can a good kinesiologist (although remember, your reading will be higher if you have just been munching beforehand) Society for Mercury Free Dentistry adheres to a strict code of practise to ensure extraction is undertaken as safely as possible (see their list for qualified dentists). In London extraction and replacement of an amalgam filling with a porcelain one costs around £700-£800 per filling (enough to make you choke on your methylmercury tainted tuna filled sarnie). In Scotland, it's roughly half the price. If you have like me a few that need replacing, a short trip over the border may just be what the dentist ordered.

If you want to read more, have a look at the following books:
Stop the 21st Century Killing You, 2005 Dr Paula Baillie-Hamilton, Vermilion and Toxics A to Z, a Guide to Everyday Pollution Hazards, University of California Press.

Mercury Free Dentistry

See also: Summary of the United Nations Environment Programme on Mercury Assesment

EU policy tracker: EU proposed Directive on the Banning of Exports and the Safe Storage of Metallic Mercury


(1) Panorama, Poison in the Mouth, 1994

Post Carbon Living: Beyond Technofix

by Richard Heinberg
Published on 4 March 2008 by The Ecologist

On January 12, The Guardian quoted departing chief scientific adviser Sir David King as saying, “any approach that does not focus on technological solutions to climate change—including nuclear power—is one of ‘utter hopelessness’.”

It is useful to have this view so succinctly stated, because it is nearly the reverse of the position I will be exploring in this column, which is that there is an overwhelming need for non-technological responses to our global environmental crisis.

I could debate the point with Dr. King, I would begin with a discussion of our differing understandings of the nature of the crisis itself. In his view, climate change is caused by technology and therefore must have a technical solution. But to me this is a blindingly superficial framing of the situation. It’s not just climate change that threatens us, but depletion of resources including oil, natural gas, coal, fresh water, fish, topsoil, and minerals (ranging from antimony to zinc, and including, significantly, uranium); as well as destruction of habitat and accelerating biodiversity loss—which is exacerbated by climate change, but is also happening for other anthropogenic reasons. In essence, there are just too many of us using too much too fast.

Thus the problem is not merely technological; it is cultural in the deepest sense. Starting a couple of centuries ago, our species embarked on a path of unprecedented growth, founded on a temporary subsidy of cheap hydrocarbon energy. Climate change is a side effect of fossil fuel consumption, and has emerged as the most critical symptom of our growth binge. But unless we address the core of the problem, other symptoms will soon overwhelm us even if we manage technically to resolve the dilemma of carbon emissions.

Addressing the core of the problem means letting go of growth; in fact, it means engaging in a period of controlled societal contraction characterized by a stable or declining population consuming at a per-capita level far lower than is currently taken for granted in the industrialized world.

For anyone who understands the basics of ecology—having to do with relationships between population, resources, and carrying capacity—nothing could be clearer. But for those who insist on seeing only technical problems with technical solutions, the forest remains lost from sight behind a single tree.

To be sure: minimally polluting technologies must be part of our response to climate change and all the other symptoms of global crisis—whether those technologies include wind turbines, better public transit systems, or more efficient electrical storage devices. But just as important are changes in individual attitudes, habits, and expectations; and more essential still is a fundamental reworking of economic institutions and policies, so that endless growth ceases to be seen as good or even possible.

Some (Sir David King among them) would say that climate change is so serious and pressing a crisis that we may have to put off grappling with other environmental problems and use any means at our disposal—including otherwise problematic technologies such as nuclear power—to address it. But there is no way we can substitute alternative sources of energy—including nuclear—for fossil fuels to reduce carbon emissions as much and as quickly as the science says we must, unless we also dramatically reduce overall energy consumption. No matter how you slice it, we’ve got to downsize and re-localize our economies, and so culture change is indispensable to the required response.

King says that wrongheaded environmentalists are keen to take society back to the 18th century or further. Yet there are few indeed who want to ditch the humanitarian and scientific advances of the past decades. This is a straw-man argument. A fairer formulation of many environmentalists’ views is this: unless we use technology within the context of a controlled, planned, sustained period of economic contraction, we will see a chaotic, depletion-led societal collapse that could make the 18th century look like paradise by comparison.

Once one accepts this larger framing of the problem and its solutions, a whole world of possibilities opens up—a world I intend to explore in future columns. Far from being a world of utter hopelessness, it is one that engages human responsibility, creativity, and community. It is one characterized by cultural maturity, rather than the advertising-fueled teenage—even infantile—attitude that assumes that the world exists only to supply an ever-expanding list of human wants. It is the world of post-carbon living toward which tens of thousands, perhaps millions, of citizens worldwide are beginning deliberately to transition.

*Richard Heinberg is a Senior Fellow of Post Carbon Institute and author of The Party’s Over, Powerdown, The Oil Depletion Protocol, and Peak Everything. He also has his own excellent website where you can sign up for his Museletters

* Richard Heinberg is to have a regular column in the The Ecologist. This column apears in the print copy of the March issue.

Current Thinking by Howies

Think back. Like before the Ipod, the Iphone, Google, the Breville toaster, even before black and white television, to the 1880s. Back then two men had a fight over the future of electricity and how it would reach us.

In one corner was Thomas Edison. He backed DC (electrons flowing in one direction around a circuit). In the other corner was George Westinghouse who backed AC (in which the electrons shuffle back and forth). Edison lost. The reason he lost was because over short distances spanned by early power grids AC suffered lower losses than DC. Subsequently, it became industry standard.

So what’s the big deal? Well, these days electricity travels much further than it did
in the 1880s. And DC suffers lower losses than AC. So not only does that make DC better in its own right but it would allow electricity grids to be restructured in ways that would make wind power more attractive. That would reduce the need to build more conventional (and polluting) power stations.

You see, wind power has two problems. You don’t always get wind where you want it. And secondly, you don’t always get wind when you want it.

According to Jürgen Schmid, head of ISET, an alternative-energy institute at the University of Kassel, Germany, the answer to both these problems is a continental-wide power distribution. Then the question of where the wind is blowing would no longer matter as the wind is almost always blowing somewhere. If it were windy in Spain but not in West Wales, current would flow in one direction. Conversely if it were a blustery day over here, then it would flow in the other direction.

The ‘when’ aspect of the equation would be to use a country within the European grid to store the electricity until you need it. So how does that work? Well, for example you could use Norway’s hydroelectric plants. The power is used to pump water up into the reservoirs that feed the hydroelectric turbines. That way the power is on tap when you need it.

Should the wind drop all over Europe, which happens rarely, the hydro plants could fill the gap for up to four weeks. Complicated, but at the same time, simple too.

The reason it has not been built goes back to that fight between Edison and Westinghouse back in the 1880’s. He won because high voltage is the best way to transmit power. The higher the voltage, the smaller the loss. Yet AC with its shifting current runs to earth easier, which is another way of saying it loses its power. Hence the reason why the pylons are so high off the ground.

In short, a DC pylon will beat an AC one over long distance (600 miles). And a DC line will beat an AC line at a distance as short as 20 miles. That’s why Dr Schmid calculates that a DC continental grid would allow wind to supply at least 30% of the power needed in Europe. And do so reliably.

Edison was right. DC was the best way to transmit electricity of any given voltage. He was ahead of his time.

Speed read
1 AC may no longer be the future.
2 DC suffers lower losses over longer distance.
3 This will make wind power more commercial.
4 A European-wide power distribution would mean that it won’t matter where the wind is blowing as it is almost always blowing somewhere.
5 Norway has started building DC power lines between Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Germany.
6 Edison may have been right after all.

TREC say the same - use HVDC to transmit clean electricity from concentrating solar power as well as wind throughout Europe, Middle East and North Africa:


Thanks to Howies for telling the story of electricity so well - they make cool clothes too.

Concentrating Solar Power has bright future

The very fact that within just a matter of a few months a second renewable energy conference devoted entirely to CSP was held in Spain is no co-incidence. This is an industry that is evolving by the day and such is the promise of it being on the verge of a tipping point was demonstrated by who attended. This time, attendees did not merely include international as well as national industry players but also investors and the speculators. VC's (who happily just want to throw money at CSP but complain that there aren't enough projects for them to invest in) and banks (who are becoming remarkably CSP friendly in their support) vied for space with oil and power companies who are now considering extending their rapidly depleting energy portfolios into CSP. Suddenly everyone is recognising the potential opportunity. Sign of the times.

Dr Gerhardt Knies, who has shaped the bold vision of the EUMENA - DESERTEC alliance over the past few years, now presents a viable roadmap for rapid CSP commercialisation, comparable to the remarkable achievement of the Apollo mission. To reach the goal of 3,200TWh/y required by 2050 would demand rapid deployment on the scale of 1GW every day from 2020. He calls for a EUMENA solar energy alliance - an alliance between Europe, the Middle East and North Africa to build an HVDC supergrid and share the solar resources. This is now beginning to capture the imagination of politicians and commissioners alike.

Building on the phenomenal success of feed-in tariffs for CSP in southern Europe, an EU commissioned Solar Initiative is due to commence next month. The groundswell of support for a EUMENA solar co-operation at all levels demonstrates that what was once CSP power-point is now becoming CSP power plant.

Such is the success of CSP in Spain, that the feed-in tariff cap has already been reached 3 years early. The industry is waiting to hear how far the cap will be extended to ensure progress of further development projects in the pipeline. Meanwhile in the USA, the future acceleration of CSP remains dependent on the extension of the Investment Tax Credit to ensure crucial investor support continues. They too expect to hear very soon whether a further extension of 8 years has been granted.

It is no longer a matter of 'if' but now a matter of 'when'. One thing is for sure, the next few months for CSP are full of promise.

The Pros and Cons of Solar Power

Even Malcom Wicks MP finds the prospect of CSP rather exciting. To hear the latest on CSP: Costing the Earth podcast: Bring Me Sunshine

DESERTEC
TREC-UK

Oil state backs renewables as vision of the future.

There is an irony in this: it takes an oil state to pledge 15 billion dollars for the world’s first zero-carbon and zero-waste city, designed by our own UK architectural team, Fosters + Partners, to make the rest of the world sit up and take note. This is not a developed nation pushing forward with a bit of innovative zero carbon town planning (Gordon Brown, take note - 2016 is fast drawing near and we still have the building industry lobbying over the implementation of the 10% Merton Rule, never mind building future proofed 100% zero-carbon housing by 2016), nor is this a Clean Development Mechanism project pulling in support under the Kyoto Protocol. No, it is one of the wealthiest oil nations making a grand statement of commitment to push forward with a sustainable town proposal that has taken it's remit extremely seriously.

Located near Abu Dhabi International Airport (which will doubtless be a curious relic of an earlier era by the time this has been built), Masdar City will be the world’s first zero-carbon, zero-waste, car-free city, aiming to exceed the 10 sustainability principles of “One Planet Living”– a global initiative launched by the Worldwide Fund for Nature and environmental consultancy BioRegional. The 6 million square meter walled development to be built at Masdar will include a new university devoted to new ideas for energy production.
To remain zero-carbon within its walls, the city will be entirely car free. Carefully planned public transportation will ensure that none of the city’s inhabitants will have to walk more than 200 meters before meeting some part of the transportation link. Included in the transportation system will be a network of shaded walkways and narrow streets, creating a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere for those who prefer to travel by foot. All of the transportation system is offset with the inclusion of personalized rapid transport, ensuring rapid transit within the city limits. Outside of the walls, the development of the city was strategically sited to link to Abu Dhabi’s principal transport infrastructure, the center hub of Abu Dhabi, and the international airport via the existing road infrastructure and new public rail routes.

Along with the carefully planned intersection of transportation is the conscientious incorporation of wind, photovoltaic farms, research fields, and plantations, allowing for the Masdar to be entirely self-sustaining.

Even the development phase of Masdar has been made sustainable through a two-step phasing process, the first of which is dependent on the development of a large $350 million 100 megawatt solar plant, which will later be boosted to 500 megawatts to help ease peak-time pressure on the national grid.

The One Planet Living programme is based on 10 unique principles of sustainability. These targets are to be achieved by the time the Masdar City is completed and fully functioning in 2015.

One Planet Living principle - Masdar Target:

ZERO CARBON: 100 per cent of energy supplied by renewable energy – Photovoltaics, concentrated solar power, wind, waste to energy and other technologies

ZERO WASTE: 99 per cent diversion of waste from landfill (includes waste reduction measures, re-use of waste wherever possible, recycling, composting, waste to energy)

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT: Zero carbon emissions from transport within the city; implementation of measures to reduce the carbon cost of journeys to the city boundaries (through facilitating and encouraging the use of public transport, vehicle sharing, supporting low emissions vehicle initiatives)

SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS: Specifying high recycled materials content within building products; tracking and encouraging the reduction of embodied energy within materials and throughout the construction process; specifying the use of sustainable materials such as Forest Stewardship Council certified timber, bamboo and other products

SUSTAINABLE FOOD: Retail outlets to meet targets for supplying organic food and sustainable and or fair trade products

SUSTAINABLE WATER: Per capita water consumption to be at least 50 per cent less than the national average; all waste water to be re-used

HABITATS AND WILDLIFE: All valuable species to be conserved or relocated with positive mitigation targets

CULTURE AND HERITAGE: Architecture to integrate local values.

EQUITY AND FAIR TRADE: Fair wages and working conditions for all workers (including construction) as defined by international labour standards

HEALTH AND HAPPINESS: Facilities and events for every demographic group

Whilst the aesthetics may not be to the liking to a Scot brought up on a diet of trees rustling, the fresh air biting and the cold still waters of mountain lochs, one cannot fault the One Planet Principles.



Masdar

Peter Meisen at GENI on DESERTEC

Peter Meisen at GENI on DESERTEC

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Peter Meisen at The Global Energy Network Institute talks about the DESERTEC initiative to promote the use of the sun in the Sahara Desert to create clean electricity for Europe, Middle East and North Africa (EUMENA).

Meanwhile, out in Southern California, where the market for renewables is growing rapidly, all utilities are starting to contract with large sun and wind maunfacturers. Peter gives an update on the California Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, which has been set up to support and enable Southern Californian utilities to meet their Renewable Portfolio Standards and accelerate the ability to bring transmission lines to the areas where the solar plants (and wind farms) are being built.

Why is RETI so important? It has set up a co-operative committee amongst various agencies, regulatory bodies and utilities to figure out how to get through the roadblocks of accessing these wind and solar sites, thereby working with and supporting renewable energy and transmission policy development.

Overdrawing on Earth's Bank

I like Hilary Benn, I really do. He's bright, he's got style, humour, and has a slight streak of the renegade. But, at the end of the day, he's a politician, and yesterday infront of an audience in Islington, he did as politicians do so well - he dodged the tricksy questions.

Mr Benn, our Secretary of State for the Environment, had come to tell us about the outcome of the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Bali on the 3 - 14th December 2007 and to speak on what the UK government are doing on the homefront. (Bali in a nutshell: nothing binding, but US and China agreed at the 11th hour to enter into the ongoing negotiation process providing no emission targets were set, deforestation to be included in future talks, technology transfer between developed and developing nations to be promoted, and pretty much everyone bar Bush accepts the climate change science. He calls it an historic breakthrough, I call it a compromise - I suppose it all depends on how high you set the standards you want to see achieved. Mine happen to be higher). Mr Benn takes a remarkably robust view that the UK is taking great strides in tackling climate change.

But I am a grouchy environmentalist today, and from where I sit, the UK record over the past 12 months does not stack up to much achievement at all (under Labour our emissions have actually risen over the last 10 years), nor do we compare well to Europe (we have a lamentable 2% share of renewable energy in the EU, 1/10th wind power and 1/250th of the solar power that the Germans have produced). Whilst the German renewable industry increased jobs by 25,000 in 2007, we in the UK were laying people off.

Question: Why does the government not have a coherent and effectively co-ordinated policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020? So far it has been a heavy focus on nuclear in the UK, which will, if fully realised, only give us a 4% reduction by 2025 at the latest. This won't solve our (it has to be said - unambitious) 20% reduction by 2020. All we have are piecemeal announcements.

Mr Ben reminds us that we have the Energy Efficiency Commitment (energy suppliers are required to achieve targets for the reduction of carbon emissions in the UK household sector), promotion of energy efficiency (is this making any real difference? Efficiency actually encourages more use - look at increase of energy efficient cars), the introduction of the EST Green Homes Service in April and the Climate Change Bill is moving onwards - due back in for it's third reading in the house of lords at the end of March (aiming for Royal Assent in Spring 2009 - just before the next election).

40% emissions are due to the individual, say Mr Benn. So therefore we must focus on reducing the emissions of the individual. But this seems to be flawed analysis to me. If the source of the emissions, namely use of fossil fuels, is not remedied and replaced with clean alternatives (i.e renewable energy), then those emissions will continue to be released. Energy efficiency certainly delays the inevitable, but in the long term it matters not when those emissions are released - they are still going to be released, and remain out there for hundreds of years. The energy source has to be replaced - it's that simple, even a child understands this. Like many in this country, I want my energy use at home to come from renewable sources, not fossil fuel - but to actually have microgeneration installed is so ridiculously costly and enormously fraught with hurdles (planning permission, grant application etc), that it is just not a viable for the time being.

He concedes that there are exciting technologies and innovation out there, but not much industry take-off on home shores: there are lessons to be learned from Germany, he says quite rightly. This is because they, like a growing number of EU countries, have a successful and ambitious renewable energy policy framework of feed-in tariffs which means thousands of homeowners have now installed microgeneration and their renewables market is flourishing. We do not - and as a consequence we have not.(More on this coming soon)

Mr Benn points out that we are the first country in the world to adopt binding emission targets (60% by 2050 is proposed under the Climate Change Bill - and recent reports say that this is far too low, that we should be aiming for). However, often it's not so much what is said to be done, but rather the sins of omission that are so glaring. Governmental targets are all fine and well, but useless when the market mechanisms are not put in place to foster growth and development. Nor is action taken when targets are not fulfilled. That's part of the reason why we have such a poor uptake of renewable energy so far.

Turning to community and business issues, Geeta Sing, owner of the fabulous organic Duke of Cambridge pub, raised a vital issue: that of the need for business incentives to encourage sustainable businesses like hers. One of the hurdles she faces is the incredible difficulty and expense in sourcing food locally. It's not for shortage of small farms outside London, but that of transporting it in individually. She suggests a practical solution: efficient food hubs which local restaurants and food outlets could share, thereby creating a self-sufficient London. As she pointed out, the organic and environmental movement has grown out of individual responsibility. We need more than ever assistance from the government now, to help support farmers markets and local food suppliers - all too pertinent with the pending oil crisis looming ahead.

The Secretary of State for the Environment calls for us to live within our means. We all know what it is like to be overdrawn at the banks; well now it's time learn to live within the earth's capacity. For the last 200 years we have been overdrawing on the Earth's Bank, and the penalties are beginning to kick in. Time to remedy it before it crashes. Mr Benn, this I am in full agreement with.

Bali outcome

No to Nuclear, Yes to CSP

With John Hutton set to announce a new generation of nuclear power stations for the UK today, it raises the issue of what price such a benefit would be.

Whilst it cannot be denied that our current generation would benefit from nuclear energy generation, it will be future generations who will carry the detriment of the legacy that remains.

Future generations will carry the burden of policing it, paying for it as well as suffering the consequences if /when disaster strikes, which would result in substantial additional economic, environmental and social costs.

Whilst we were not fully aware of the potential future consequences back in the 1950's, or were reckless in proceeding without understanding those consequences and detriment to others, we now carry the knowledge of the inherent risks and costs to future generations. With that knowledge comes the responsibility to ensure the highest possible standards of safety and damage limitation strategies are imposed. Likewise, with it comes the duty to implement a programme of cessation of current use of nuclear as soon as possible.

The only conclusion I can draw, is this: to proceed with a new generation of nuclear would be morally wrong, especially where other solutions, including Concentrating Solar Power, are viable, cost competitive, renewable, low carbon and benign.

Greenpeace response:
Greenpeace Nuclear Power Briefing
Energy Bill:
Energy Bill, Bill 53 07-08

Earlier Postings:
Why I say No to Nuclear
Concentrating Solar Power - the DESERTEC vision
Concentrating Solar Power Basks in the Glow of a Sunny Future

Bali: UN Climate Conference outcome

It was an 11th hour nail biting, final pulling together after berating the Americans for their attempts to sabotage any agreement, which resulted in .. a compromise.

World governments agreed a negotiating framework to decide a new global climate policy by 2009 on 13th December 2007 for the post-2012 period.

The Bali road-map commits all developed countries to quantified greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and says "deep cuts" will be needed. Developing countries will commit to "appropriate mitigation actions".

Disappointingly, upon the insistence of the US, the road-map suggests no concrete emission reduction targets. But a footnote makes reference to documents from the IPCC which say reductions of up to 40 per cent by 2020 are needed to head off dangerous climate change. Greenpeace lamented the lack of references to "crucial cuts" and the "relegation of science to a footnote".

On the positive, general approval was voiced for consensuses reached on tackling emissions from deforestation, on enhancing technology development and transfer, and on stimulating financial flows to fund all climate change-related action.

However, the next two years of talks promise to be difficult. Somewhat unsurprisingly, US officials saying that they had "serious concerns" about the Bali deal. White House spokesman Dana Perino said climate negotiators "must give sufficient emphasis to the important and appropriate role that the larger emitting developing countries should play" - a clear reference to India and China. This may complicate, and indeed hinder the process - a polite way of saying it is anticipated that the US will continue to be obstructive.

[Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, where dark green indicates countries that have signed and ratified the treaty and yellow indicates states that have signed and hope to ratify the treaty. Australia's new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has promised to sign and ratify it - so should be coloured green also.The United States has signed the treaty but continues to refuse to ratify it.]

Technology transfer deal: a clear mandate
In a separate agreement in Bali, parties to the Kyoto protocol agreed to be fully guided by the IPCC's recommendations in setting a second round of commitments by 2009 (which suggests those 40% GHG reductions by 2020 will be implemented in due course - a matter of watch that space). It is intended for the two tracks - the Bali road-map and Kyoto - eventually to merge. A review of the protocol, which will focus also on how to enhance carbon markets, was also launched.

One deal was reached that can be considered the most significant milestone yet on the road towards a new global climate agreement for the post-2012 period. Agreement was reached on a text setting out how the industrialised world should transfer technology to developing countries. The text must still be rubber-stamped by ministers, but no problems are foreseen since it has been agreed by officials representing all parties.

The deal should create a new entity dedicated to technology transfer under the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a fund that supports environmental projects in developing countries. It is not clear whether funding will come from elsewhere within the GEF or from outside.

An expert group will analyse current and potential funding sources for a wish list of developing country technology transfer-related demands, with a view to filling gaps and developing new financing tools if necessary. It must report back by 2010.
Performance indicators for technology transfer will be developed.

Power Down: London's Carbon Neutral Night of Music

Now here's a thing - a carbon neutral music night, and not a carbon offset in sight. Instead, only natural acoustics, candlelight and organic booze (unrefrigerated of course - but that's not a problem as it's so cold outside anyway). Sounds delightful, rather romantic and, well, rather unusual.

But wait - is that a negative factor? I don't think so. Infact, it's all been rather well thought through - and such is it's success that it's now onto it's third outing. There's a serious message behind it all. Power Down strives to make fundamental changes in the way events are organised and run, without using off-setting services. Instead energy conservation and efficiency are the name of the game. When you enter into a space that is lit by candlelight and listen to music without the usual array of stage amplification, whilst supping Buddles organic beer that is thankfully cold due to being stored outside, it does make you stop and pause for thought. It can be done - and Power Down is doing it with the lightest of carbon footprint. No acoustic guitars here, thank you very much (how very last century they are).

Even the candles are made from recycled materials. Second hand vegetable oil from a local fish and chip shop has been mixed with unused wax from redundant candles to make new candles. No worries, the fishy smell has long gone (and anyway Islington chippies tend to be rather pucker affairs).

So, go along and have your preconceptions challenged - Power Down aims to bring a large array of genres to an open minded audience, from Hip-Hop, to Jazz, to Pop, to yes, Folk. There is no reason why all of these different art forms, as dependent on electricity and modern computing as they seem, cannot be stripped bare to their acoustic core. Present a musician with this task, and let's see the result. Who knows what it will sound like. Hopefully it will be intimate, intense and enlightening from the lack of barriers between the audience and the artist, air being the only remaining medium.

When: Saturday, 15th December
Where: the Islington Arts Factory, 2 Parkhurst Rd, Holloway, N7 0SF

Oh, and there will be mistletoe. With lots of dark corners, who knows what the night may bring....

Powerdown

Climate Change March

'Tis the season of goodwill and festive cheer - and there was much of that to bouy our hardcore lineup of protestors marching from Millbank outside the Houses of Parliament up to Grosvenor Square. So what that it rained? Ach, but why didn't I think to wear wellies?

Soggy feet aside, rousing speeches were given by Michael Meacher, Phil Thornhill, Caroline Lucas and more. All head nodding stuff - yes, we need to cut emmissions, this government needs to support microgeneration, introduce feed-in-tariffs (and if they don't the Tories will), give teeth to the Climate Change Bill. What is needed is action, not just aspiration. Yes, we cheered.

The best speaker, however, was left to the last. By which time any meaningful connection with my feet had been lost. But suddenly it didn't matter. George Monbiot took to the podium and gave a compelling thought-piece on capitalism and the need for individual action. Politically, little is taking shape, he says. The Bali talks promise little more than a tinkering at the edges - and I tend to agree with him. Where goverments fail, the movement for change must come from below, from grass-roots community and individual action. Monbiot proffers a different vision of how we need to live, in a world where we need to live with less.

Each time I hear him speak is somewhat akin to soaking up a compelling read, and each time I am left hungry for the next chapter. So much has evolved in the past year alone that it is said Monbiot is to revise his book Heat. This is also a man who is not afraid to let his own thoughts evolve as his own knowledge grows. If his spoken word is anything to go by, it promises to be one of the most significant books of our time.

Global Climate Campaign

Campaign Against Climate Change



[top three photos by Andrew Steele, bottom photo from Marmaduke Dando - with thanks]

The Solution is Simple

See what they say about Dylan on film.

thesolutionissimple.org
enoughsenough.org

EUMENA-DESERTEC Concept takes root in Brussels

On Wednesday, in my capacity as a representative of TREC-UK, I attended the presentation of The White Book "Clean Power from Deserts - The DESERTEC Concept for Energy, Water and Climate Security" to the European Parliament by His Royal Highness Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, former President of The Club of Rome.

The book is based on the studies by the German Aerospace Center on the potential of deserts to supply clean power to Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (EU-MENA).
It proposes a solar co-operation between the technology belt and the sun-belt, between Europe and the MENA region, to fight climate change in an economical and technically feasible way. Key technologies in the DESERTEC Concept are concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) plants with solar heat storage for day/night operation, and low-loss high voltage direct current transmission lines to bring clean power to Europe from the deserts of MENA. A seven year action plan for kicking-off the DESERTEC Concept was announced, setting down the roots for the vision to become reality: CSP plants stretching across the deserts, connecting into a supergrid network bringing clean electricity to Europe, Middle East and North Africa.

The DESERTEC Concept has been developed by the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC) in collaboration with scientists at the German Aerospace Center. The presentation in the European Parliament was staged by four Members of the European Parliament - Matthias Groote, Vittorio Prodi, Rebecca Harms and Anders Wijkman - and by the Club of Rome initiative TREC.

“Every year, each square kilometre of desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil. Multiplying by the area of deserts world-wide, this is nearly a thousand times the entire current energy consumption of the world.” said Dr Franz Trieb, Project Manager for a set of reports on trans-European renewable energy networks. Not much desert would be required. As the map above demonstrates, the larger red square on the left shows an area of 254 km × 254 km of hot desert that, if covered with concentrating solar power plants, would provide electricity equivalent to the current electricity consumption of the whole world. The smaller square (110 km × 110 km) shows a corresponding area for the European Union (when it included 25 countries). Time now to translate vision into action.

The white book can be found at: DESERTEC

TREC-UK

What will we eat when the oil runs out?

What will we eat when the oil runs out? That was the question posed by Richard Heinberg at the Soil Association Lady Eve Balfour Memorial lecture held at Westminster Central Hall on Thursday night. Marm' and I decided to chew it over.

Richard Heinberg set out 4 simultaneous dilemmas that we face:
1. higher oil prices with knock-on effect on input and output transport of foodstuffs;
2. increasing demand for bio-fuels thus replacing food for fuel production;
3. extreme climate change events;
4. degredation of natural resources, of top soil and water.

All the above exacerbated by increasing population.

Calculations demonstrate that more food will need to be produced in the next 50 years than in last 1000 years combined. Post WW2, the introduction of herbicides, petro-chemical pesticides brought better living conditions through chemistry - but at a high environmental cost that was only appparent later. Ironically, this era of food expansion was called the Green Revolution. But it was, as we now know a double edged sword. A tripling of food production increased the human carrying capacity, and so we go forth and multiply ever more.

Now we are facing increasing food prices and urban poor will be impacted the most by our modern day dilemmas. Modern agriculture is highly centralised and therefore more vulnerable to disruption. Quite literally, the seams are fit to burst.

Dramatic economic transformation is needed, so says Heinberg. Transition is needed at forced pace with a dramatic increase in local food sufficiency. The government must support return to agricultural life and land reform - look to Cuba: active lobbying of agronomist was crucial.
The primary solution Heinberg proposes is a planned rapid reduction of fossil fuel used for the production of food and the organic movement to provide the necessary framework to guide and lead.

We need to introduce draft animals, oxen are an ideal choice - they do not compete with humans. Not so far fetched: some french towns are introducing horsepower again for local deliveries

Richard Heinberg puts peak oil supply crunch at 2012, with global coal peaking at 2017 - 2020. David Rutledge of Caltech suggests a similar timescale. These two are the best of the American thinkers on the subject - what they say is worthwhile considering seriously. Heinberg is an optimist: we can do it if we start now and we have to start with the organic movement. Time to start growing our own veg.


Richard Heinberg
Podcast: Lady Eve Lecture
For Dave Rutledge's most recent talk on why energy efficiency is not the answer, but reduction of fossil fuels is see: Hubbert's Peak, The Coal Question and Climate Change

Entrepreneurs with Conscience

Sometimes people enter into my life whom I recognise have the capacity to change not just my life but also the lives of so many others. There are thinkers, there are do-ers - and there are thinking do-ers. Mike Edge, Annette and Andrew Mercer fall squarely into the latter category. They are Entrepreneurs with Conscience - and are busy persuading others to do the same on the basis of three very simple principles:

1. to build ethical and environmental businesses to tackle climate change;
2. to support those working at the coal-face of climate change - the NGO's, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and The Climate Group;
3. to make a personal commitment to reduce their own carbon footprint.

Businesses can move, and with the assistance of these people are moving, far faster than politics (and certainly faster than our current government, who as Jonathan Porritt so succinctly stated, suffer from a chronic case of NIMTO'ism - Not In My Term of Office) to tackle climate change. They are the ones recognising that there needs to be rapid change, grasping the opportunities and are backing the big solutions.

Yesterday I joined Annette to hear Andrew speak at the Be The Change Conference about his experiences as a low carbon green entrepreneur. They have set up Footdown, a forum to foster like-minded entrepreneurs with kernals of business ideas that have the potential to make a big difference. One such kernal which took seed out of one of these meetings prompted the formation of the company 2OC. 2OC has taken to market a remarkable technological solution called geo-pressure energy. Their technology (a small turbine not much larger than the palm of your hand) enables the harvesting of clean electricity from waste energy produced from gas pressure reduction stations. Each turbine creates 2 Megawatts of clean energy - that's the equivalent capacity of the Reading 2MW Wind turbine. Their aim is by 2010 to have installed generating capacity in the UK equivalent to 1 Gigawatt (1GW). That's the equivalent of removing one million tonnes of carbon (1MtC) from the earth’s atmosphere; equivalent to the amount emitted annually by the whole of the UK’s National Health Service. No small achievement.

Andrew is an inspirational speaker - and what he, his wife and his rapidly expanding team are doing is in itself remarkable. This is just the beginning. There are other such businesses galloping over the horizon. These are the people who are raising the bar, setting the new standards, creating the new world around us and acting on the bold vision needed to ensure the right solutions are put in place. As Mike says, it's time to build a war-chest and fight for the planet. Be the Change - the sky's the limit.

Entrepreneurs with Conscience
Be The Change
Footdown
2OC

CSP basks in the glow of a sunny future

So, I have seen the future. The future is bright, the future is CSP. Really, I did, and it was awe-inspiring.

After two days of intense industry and investment talk on CSP, Hywel and I determined we had to see a CSP plant for ourselves. An all-nighter with some newly found friends sampling the delights of Seville sealed our fate. Fortified with an indulgence of tapas and manzanilla, off we scooted without a map before sunrise on a rickety moped heading northwesterly to find our plant. And find it we did. Just as the sun was peeking over the horizon, shimmering in the chill morning air, there loomed a tower with beams of light shining up from the heliostats, looking for all the world as if it had been zanussied in from outer space. It stopped us in our tracks.


This is the Abengoa PS10 plant, the first commercial CSP plant in Spain, and the first solar thermal plant to use a tower commercially. It’s an 11 MW solar thermal plant that has been designed to produce 23 GWh of electricity a year, enough to supply a population of 10,000. It went online in March this year and saves about 16,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum.

Ach, it’s a baby plant you may scoff, this is nothing. But wait, this is just the beginning – and it does not feel so small when standing in front of one of the mirrors as it looms as high as a lamp-post, surrounded by an array of hundreds of these super-sized mirrors. Ahh, but they’re great for basking in the warmth, especially after our hair-raising-chilled-to-the-bone excursion. You can hear them humming happily, as they turn imperceptibly to track the sun: technology’s answer to the sunflower. Oh - and there on the other side of the dusty track is another one: a sister plant double the size which is due to commence operations within 6 months. It’s exciting spacey stuff.

So, the technical details: electricity is produced via 624 movable mirrors (heliostats) of 120 m2 surface each that concentrates solar radiation to the top of a 115 meter high tower where the solar receiver and the steam turbine are located. So, the sun heats the liquid up to 260 - 300*C, which in turn creates steam, which turns the turbine which creates clean green electricity. Simple really, and stunning to see.

But this is not all. Spain has big plans; a further 13 plants , each of 50MW, are due to begin construction (the great thing is these things can be built fast – just 2 – 3 years from planning licence application to laying of the mirrors) by 2010. If they could go bigger they would, but the legislative framework put in place by the Royal Decree 661/2007 ( which has created regulatory stability for access and connection rights to transmission and distribution networks of renewable electricity) currently places a cap on size and number. That will doubtless be increased in due course. There are favourable feed-in-tariffs and, by fostering such proactive policies and incentives, the Spanish government has demonstrated it’s strong commitment to back the renewable industry. They have boldly set their Mandatory Energy Objectives at 30% renewables by 2020, 80% by 2050. There is optimism that even more can be achieved, earlier and within an even tighter framework.

Globally, is estimated that up to 45 GW will be online within the next 15 years, but if those with grand vision are to be supported, the reality could be far larger than that. 500 GW would satisfy the total European electricity demand – that’s a bold vision, but not impossible (there’s a lot of desert and sun out there), and some clean tech investors across the world are beginning to think really big.

Australia is experimenting, China is looking, the Middle East and North Africa have the space and the sun to really roll this out and even America is now moving with remarkable speed in this arena. Switched on this summer was the 64MW Nevada Solar One, a 64 megawatt plant in Boulder City, Nevada. Now Acciona Energy has announced plans for their next project which will be more than three times its size. The 200 MW plant will be built by 2010. Due to the vast solar resource in the Southwest - New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada, the US is now envisaging racking up new-build capacity to 1.5 GW per annum, rapidly increasing to 3 GW within 10 years. Even a year ago, such bold vision was not anticipated. What will this industry look like in a year’s time I wonder?

So, here I am back in sodden London, wondering how soon a Europe-wide and North African standardised electricity network could be put in place. It all seems like a dream, until I awoke this morning to hear Al Gore on Radio 4 saying that he has teamed up with venture capitalists Kleiner Perkins to to help finance entrepreneurs who are addressing climate change.

Having explained what the problems are with his film, he is now looking to the solutions. He’s out to prove that protecting the environment and reducing carbon emissions is good for the economy as well as the environment. Not only that, he’s putting his money where his mouth is and matching the smart solutions, such as low carbon alternatives to generating electricity. As he put it, there are a lot of technologies that already exist that have never been given their due, and now it is time to do so. One example that they are supporting, he said, was “advanced solar thermal electricity generation based on the use of highly sophisticated computer driven mirrors to concentrate the sun's energy to simply boil water to generate electricity.” Now that is a smart idea!

Generation Investment Management

Gore joins Silicon Valley's Kleiner Perkins to push green business

Latest news article: All about CSP

If you would like to know more about CSP, or help support awareness raising, go to TREC-UK