RSS Feed     Twitter     Facebook

Posts Tagged ‘energy’

CBI call for nuclear power stations

• John Cridland, business group’s deputy director general, urges ‘balance of wind, nuclear, gas and clean coal’
• Greenpeace makes case for investment in renewables to ‘create much-needed British jobs’

The CBI has thrown its weight behind the nuclear industry’s calls for government to scale back “overambitious” wind power targets and boost the role of atomic energy and coal.

The “voice of business” believes energy prices will have to rise 30% in real terms by 2020 and some kind of financial incentives might be needed so that up to 15 new nuclear plants are constructed, capable of providing 34% of UK electricity by 2030.

John Cridland, deputy director general of the CBI, denied business leaders had become “anti-renewables” or have been captured by a nuclear lobby, which so far has talked about building six or eight new plants. “We are not obsessed with nuclear. We have a passion for low carbon,” said Cridland. But he warned that government targets of generating 32% of electricity from wind were unachievable and should be scaled back to at least 25%.

“While we have generous subsidies for wind power, we urgently need the national planning statements needed to build new nuclear plants. If we carry on like this we will end up putting too many of our energy eggs in one basket. But by moving government policy in a different direction we can achieve a good balance of wind, nuclear, gas and clean coal,” he added.

The comments came alongside launch of a report, Decision Time, which warns that failure to take a more balanced approach will leave the country dangerously dependent on imported gas.

The CBI’s advice comes just days before the government is scheduled to unveil an energy white paper, a renewable energy strategy and a low-carbon industrial strategy.

Ironically, the business group’s arguments were given more weight by the renewables industry itself. A report out tomorrow from the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts that only half of the onshore targets for England promised by local areas under “regional spatial strategies” have been met.

The CBI stance will alarm large swaths of the environmental movement, which will note that references to the possible need for a floor price for carbon, and others about wind “crowding out” investment in atomic power, follow similar statements from EDF Energy and E.ON, the foreign-owned utilities that want to construct new reactors in Britain.

Vincent de Rivaz, the chief executive of EDF in Britain, and Paul Golby, the boss of E.ON UK, were both quick to welcome the CBI report, which was drawn up with McKinsey, the management consultant.

“We are pleased that the CBI chose to tackle the issue of how to encourage low-carbon generation,” said de Rivaz. “Action is required now in order to maximise our ability to hit our low-carbon targets in the most affordable way for UK consumers.”

The CBI report calls for the 2020 renewables target to be reduced to 25% but coal, either in its existing shape or “cleaned” by carbon capture and storage, should see its share of the total electricity generation portfolio raised to 16%. The CBI also wants energy efficiency targets to be almost doubled to 20%.

Cridland said the CBI had been in close dialogue with ministers and he was confident some of its measures would be represented in the white paper. But he accepted it would be politically tough to dilute the wind target and boost nuclear – which supplies less than 20% of UK electricity – without protests from green groups.

The BWEA said the results of its progress report on England’s regional renewable targets were worrying: “There is a divergence between government renewable energy and climate change planning policy and what is actually happening on the ground.”

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: “The CBI claims to represent the interests of British industry but it’s actually doing its members a great disservice. Investment in renewables would create much-needed British jobs in one of the few growth sectors in the global economy.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Taylor Marsh: J. Stephen Simon, The Exceptional Oil Man

by Taylor Marsh J. Stephen Simon, Director, Senior VP of ExxonMobil (retired 2008) dies. That will be the official line. But he was simply the…

CBI call for nuclear power stations

• John Cridland, business group’s deputy director general, urges ‘balance of wind, nuclear, gas and clean coal’
• Greenpeace makes case for investment in renewables to ‘create much-needed British jobs’

The CBI has thrown its weight behind the nuclear industry’s calls for government to scale back “overambitious” wind power targets and boost the role of atomic energy and coal.

The “voice of business” believes energy prices will have to rise 30% in real terms by 2020 and some kind of financial incentives might be needed so that up to 15 new nuclear plants are constructed, capable of providing 34% of UK electricity by 2030.

John Cridland, deputy director general of the CBI, denied business leaders had become “anti-renewables” or have been captured by a nuclear lobby, which so far has talked about building six or eight new plants. “We are not obsessed with nuclear. We have a passion for low carbon,” said Cridland. But he warned that government targets of generating 32% of electricity from wind were unachievable and should be scaled back to at least 25%.

“While we have generous subsidies for wind power, we urgently need the national planning statements needed to build new nuclear plants. If we carry on like this we will end up putting too many of our energy eggs in one basket. But by moving government policy in a different direction we can achieve a good balance of wind, nuclear, gas and clean coal,” he added.

The comments came alongside launch of a report, Decision Time, which warns that failure to take a more balanced approach will leave the country dangerously dependent on imported gas.

The CBI’s advice comes just days before the government is scheduled to unveil an energy white paper, a renewable energy strategy and a low-carbon industrial strategy.

Ironically, the business group’s arguments were given more weight by the renewables industry itself. A report out tomorrow from the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts that only half of the onshore targets for England promised by local areas under “regional spatial strategies” have been met.

The CBI stance will alarm large swaths of the environmental movement, which will note that references to the possible need for a floor price for carbon, and others about wind “crowding out” investment in atomic power, follow similar statements from EDF Energy and E.ON, the foreign-owned utilities that want to construct new reactors in Britain.

Vincent de Rivaz, the chief executive of EDF in Britain, and Paul Golby, the boss of E.ON UK, were both quick to welcome the CBI report, which was drawn up with McKinsey, the management consultant.

“We are pleased that the CBI chose to tackle the issue of how to encourage low-carbon generation,” said de Rivaz. “Action is required now in order to maximise our ability to hit our low-carbon targets in the most affordable way for UK consumers.”

The CBI report calls for the 2020 renewables target to be reduced to 25% but coal, either in its existing shape or “cleaned” by carbon capture and storage, should see its share of the total electricity generation portfolio raised to 16%. The CBI also wants energy efficiency targets to be almost doubled to 20%.

Cridland said the CBI had been in close dialogue with ministers and he was confident some of its measures would be represented in the white paper. But he accepted it would be politically tough to dilute the wind target and boost nuclear – which supplies less than 20% of UK electricity – without protests from green groups.

The BWEA said the results of its progress report on England’s regional renewable targets were worrying: “There is a divergence between government renewable energy and climate change planning policy and what is actually happening on the ground.”

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: “The CBI claims to represent the interests of British industry but it’s actually doing its members a great disservice. Investment in renewables would create much-needed British jobs in one of the few growth sectors in the global economy.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Paul Abrams: Over the Heads of Congress: For Obama to Get Healthcare/Energy, Push Must Now Come to Shove

Although the so-called debates over healthcare reform and energy have been less than enlightening, the actual work of Congress marking up bills and launching trial…

Obama Ghana Speech: FULL TEXT

Here are President Obama’s remarks, as prepared for delivery, from his speech to Ghana’s parliament, Saturday July 11, 2009.

Good morning. It is an honor for me to be in Accra, and to speak to the representatives of the people of Ghana. I am …

Allison Kilkenny: Why Did President Obama Choose Ghana as His Africa Destination?

A quarter of US oil imports are expected to come from West Africa by 2015. That could explain why Obama chose Ghana over, say, his father’s homeland of Kenya.

Bob Dinneen: The Days of Energy Malaise Are Over

So when are we going to wake up to the fact that our dependence on imported oil is worse than in the days of Carter’s “malaise”? And what are we going to do about it?

LA Vows to be Coal-Free by 2020: Can It Be Done?

Yesterday, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced his intention to make the city entirely coal-free by 2020, and turn to clean and renewable energy instead. Inspiring? Yes. Possible? Maybe not so much.

Your chance to quiz Eon on energy

Put your questions on coal, fossil fuels and renewables to the chief executive of the German energy firm Eon

Under the You Ask, They Answer microscope this week is the German energy giant Eon and its chief executive, Paul Golby. The company runs fossil fuel power stations, windfarms and biomass plants across the UK. Most controversially it has been attacked by environmental campaigners for its plan to open the first new coal-fired power station in the UK for 20 years at Kingsnorth, in Kent. It also has plans to build two new nuclear power stations and is a major investor in the £2.2bn London Array offshore wind farm. Golby has described anti-coal protesters as “a little naive”.

This is your chance to put your questions direct to Paul Golby and to Eon. How do you feel about expanding coal generation in the UK and new nuclear power stations? Are coal protesters “naive”? Should the company be doing more to invest in renewables? Or should it be paying more attention to keeping customer bills low?

Golby will be live online between 11am and noon on Monday. For the rest of the week until Friday afternoon a team of Eon staff will tackle other questions and comments on the blog. They are:

Emily Highmore – Senior media and communications officer

Tim Pyke – Climate manager

Sara Vaughan – director of regulation & energy policy

Jonathan Smith – PR and media relations manager

Please post your questions below.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Your chance to quiz Eon on energy

Put your questions on coal, fossil fuels and renewables to the chief executive of the German energy firm Eon

Under the You Ask, They Answer microscope this week is the German energy giant Eon and its chief executive, Paul Golby. The company runs fossil fuel power stations, windfarms and biomass plants across the UK. Most controversially it has been attacked by environmental campaigners for its plan to open the first new coal-fired power station in the UK for 20 years at Kingsnorth, in Kent. It also has plans to build two new nuclear power stations and is a major investor in the £2.2bn London Array offshore wind farm. Golby has described anti-coal protesters as “a little naive”.

This is your chance to put your questions direct to Paul Golby and to Eon. How do you feel about expanding coal generation in the UK and new nuclear power stations? Are coal protesters “naive”? Should the company be doing more to invest in renewables? Or should it be paying more attention to keeping customer bills low?

Golby will be live online between 11am and noon on Monday. For the rest of the week until Friday afternoon a team of Eon staff will tackle other questions and comments on the blog. They are:

Emily Highmore – Senior media and communications officer

Tim Pyke – Climate manager

Sara Vaughan – director of regulation & energy policy

Jonathan Smith – PR and media relations manager

Please post your questions below.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


A trial held in a climate of injustice

The outcome of the trial of the Drax protesters was determined the minute the judge banned the consideration of climate change

I would say that if the law considers it acceptable to kill 180 people a year, then the law has some catching up to do.

When Beth Stratford addressed the jury on Wednesday at the trial of the Drax 29 she was speaking in the knowledge that the judge in her trial had already secured a guilty verdict by his earlier decision to ban consideration of climate change from the proceedings. It was a bizarre, deeply flawed decision by Justice Spencer that determined the path of the trial from the outset. In his ruling he wrote,

I rule as a matter of law that … evidence concerning the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is inadmissible. To rule otherwise would allow these defendants to hijack the trial process just as surely as they hijacked the coal train.

We can’t know for sure what was in his mind when he concluded that anthropogenic global warming was so “irrelevant” as to deserve banishment from his courtroom. But I can’t help wondering if the judge – and the wider judicial system – had one eye on the outcome of our recent trial in Maidstone, where six of us were found not guilty of criminal damage despite admitting we climbed and painted on the chimney at Kingsnorth.

Our acquittal in the Kingsnorth case caused great disquiet in Whitehall. The attorney general, Lady Scotland, a member of the government, took active steps towards appealing the decision allowing us to run a climate change defence, before dropping the appeal for reasons unknown (our legal advisers suggested the government may have lost, in the process setting a precedent allowing climate protesters to run the kind of defence banned in the Drax trial).

Now it is evident that instead of appealing our case, the judiciary decided to adopt an alternative strategy – relying on judges to eject the basic laws of physics, biology and chemistry from their courtrooms and declare climate change inadmissible. Indeed, Justice Spencer addressed the question of a scientific consensus on climate change in his summing up to the jury by saying: “There may well be people who would argue against it, certainly against the urgency [of acting], I don’t know, but it’s irrelevant.”

Our earlier acquittal had a small but nevertheless very real influence on the energy and climate change debate in this country, but I am certain that an acquittal of the Drax 29 would have had an immeasurably greater impact. They defended themselves in the most eloquent and articulate fashion, shaming into silence the prosecutors and the men from the police’s National Extremism Unit who sat at the back of court, arms folded, as they were forced to listen to Amy Clancy telling the court how she’d never been arrested before but that the train occupation was the “most reasonable and responsible thing I have done in my life”.

The Drax defendants are heroes of our time. They knew they were almost certain to be convicted from the moment the judge ruled out consideration of climate change. But the protesters pleaded not guilty anyway, they went ahead without legal representation and for two days they forced Justice Spencer’s court to hear evidence of the greatest threat faced by humanity. Their defence ended with Jonathan Stevenson’s address to the jury, in which he said:

The law will eventually have to change and acknowledge the harm that carbon emissions do to all of us, by making them illegal. The only question is whether the law will catch up in time for there to be anything left to protect.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Could energy bonds help save world?

The idea is one of 20 radical solutions to the threat of global warming to be proposed during presentations at a conference in Manchester this weekend

The British public could invest their savings in the UK’s renewable energy revolution and reap the financial rewards of helping to save the planet, under ambitious plans to be discussed this weekend.

The Public Interest Research Centre, a thinktank based in Wales, says the government could sell “energy bonds” to pay for the required investment. The scheme would be similar to war bonds, which galvanised financial support in Britain during the second world war.

The idea is one of 20 radical solutions to the threat of global warming to be proposed during presentations this weekend in Manchester. The event, organised by the Guardian and the Manchester International festival, will publish a report on the ideas, which will be distributed ahead of key UN talks on a new climate treaty in Copenhagen in December.

Tim Helweg-Larsen, director of the Public Interest Research Centre, said: “To finance renewable energy on the scale required, Britain is going to need hundreds of billions of pounds. Energy bonds are a way to unlock large amounts of money from individuals and institutional investors.”

He added: “Make no mistake, this is an incredibly expensive project, but it also has very good rates of return on investments. We should be creating the opportunity for the people of Britain to invest in their own future and a secure climate.”

People and companies would buy the bonds over the internet or at Post Offices, he said, investing anything from £10 to millions. The money raised would be dedicated to investment in offshore wind turbines and other clean energy projects. Fixed returns, backed by the government, could be paid at regular intervals, or after a decade or so when the fund matured. The increase in money paid back would be linked to the likely increase in electricity prices.

The large amounts of public investment raised by such a scheme could provoke awkward questions about how it would be allocated in Britain’s liberalised electricity market, where infrastructure such as wind turbines are largely built and operated by power companies. Helweg-Larsen said nationalisation would not be needed. An investment corporation could be set up to spend the money, either by building generation capacity directly, or by subcontracting the work to existing operators. War bonds worked in a similar way he said, with the money from the public used to pay private firms to make weapons and munitions.

Other climate-saving ideas to be discussed at the Manchester event include practical suggestions, such as alternative fuels from algae to hydrogen, as well as ways to convert the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide to methanol. Others will discuss more controversial ideas such as tighter controls on global population and rethinking conventional models of economic growth.

Stephen Salter, an engineer at Edinburgh University, who was responsible for the “Salter’s Duck” wave energy device, will present his latest idea: a form of geoengineering that uses ships to seed clouds over the ocean, designed to block sunlight.

The ideas will be judged by a panel of experts led by Lord Tom Bingham, former lord chief justice, and including Dan Reicher, director of climate change and energy at Google.org, and author Chris Goodall.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


British Gas to create 2,600 green jobs

Recruits will be needed to help introduce ‘smart meters’ to help people see exactly how much energy they are using in their homes

British Gas today promised to create 2,600 green jobs over the next three years by rolling out “smart meters” and installing wind turbines on peoples’ homes.

The move should help ministers meet targets of cutting carbon emissions through lower use of power, especially that generated by gas or other fossil fuels.

About 1,700 of the recruits will be new to the industry, while 900 are expected to be brought in from rival metering organisations in time for a government-backed roll-out programme due to start in 2012. Earlier this year the company unveiled plans to take on an additional 1,500 staff to work in the clean technology sector.

“Today’s announcement of 2,600 new jobs by 2012 shows we are creating skilled green jobs in Britain and training the experts who will help customers become more energy efficient in the future,” said Phil Bentley, managing director of British Gas.

The new workers, to be trained at the company’s growing network of energy academies, will install smart meters and help homeowners understand how the devices could reduce energy use, save money and end the practice of estimated monthly bills. Anecdotal evidence suggests savings of up to 25% can be made.

In May energy secretary Ed Miliband launched a consultation process on smart meters that is planned to run to September. The government would like energy suppliers to be responsible for meters with a new third-party body handling the data, but the companies want to do it all themselves.

Britain plans to replace all existing electricity and gas meters – often clunky objects hidden away in cupboards – with easily viewed devices that show consumers exactly how much energy they are using, and even see the energy demands of individual appliances.

It is hoped that people will change their behaviour to save money. The meters will also help homeowners sell electricity from green technologies such as solar panels or rooftop wind turbines back to the grid, while improving energy demand forecasts and network management.

Smart meters are seen as a first step toward creating “smart grids” where consumers can adjust electricity use to benefit from cheaper energy at times of low demand, including charging electric cars, and reduce consumption at peak times.

The British government estimates that smart meters could deliver net benefits of between £2.5m and £3.6m over the next 20 years.

In April, the government set a 2020 target to cut Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions by 34% compared with 1990 levels but the necessary renewable energy growth and efficiency improvements have so far been small.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Drax judge relaxes ban on climate change talk

Lecturer tells jury Drax power station threat is ‘deadly and urgent’

Climate change protesters accused of hijacking a power station coal train managed to address a jury on political issues today after a judge relaxed repeated warnings to give them some leeway.

Judge Spencer had earlier repeatedly told Leeds University lecturer Paul Chatterton, who is leading the defence of 22 activists, that the jury was only concerned with whether they had stopped and boarded the train and not with their reasons for doing so.

But after almost an hour’s adjournment he allowed Chatterton and a second protester, 26-year-old film-maker Alison Stratford, wider scope before finally intervening to cut them short.

Chatterton, who has lectured on geography for 11 years, said that he had acted because of “passion and terror at the implications of coal-burning power stations for global warning”.

He told the jury that he did not consider the train hijack to be an illegal act, because United Nations statistics suggested that the amount of carbon produced by Drax was responsible for 180 deaths a year. He said: “The threat is deadly and it is urgent …” The judge then interrupted him again, saying: “I’ve let you go on – please remember the legal restraints.”

Stratford was allowed to show the jury photographs of houses under water in her home town of Louth, Lincolnshire, which she said had roused her fears about climate change. She choked and had to recover in the witness box as she described how her four-year-old nephew had told her: “Don’t worry, we can fix it.”

“I was on the train to show him that I had done everything I could,” she said. But when she got on to Arctic ice melt and polar bears, the judge again asked: “Could you talk about the train?”

The court heard that the protesters had lined up academic witnesses and a scientist from Nasa to address the jury, but this had been ruled inadmissible. Adjourning for lunch, the judge warned that he would show less patience if defendants insisted on talking about their “genuine and deeply held feelings about climate change” rather than the nuts and bolts of the train hijack.

The defendants, aged between 43 and 21, have pleaded not guilty to obstructing a railway engine contrary to the Malicious Damage Act of 1861. But Chatterton admitted as soon as he began his defence that he had been on the train and had “intended to stay on it as long as possible”.

Earlier he told the jury that the prosecution case, which began and ended yesterday, had been “incredibly partial” about the incident on 13 June last year. Addressing the seven women and five men directly across the crowded courtroom at Leeds crown court, he said: “They said what went on there but did not deal with why.”

Yesterday, Richard Mansell QC, prosecuting, told the jury that the defendants “preparing a misuse of the court process to continue the protest action which they started when they boarded that train just over a year ago”.

The accused are Theo Bard, 24; Amy Clancy, 24; Brian Farelly, 32; Grainne Gannon, 26; Bryn Hoskins, 24; Jasmin Karalis, 25; Ellen Potts, 33; Bertie Russell, 24; Alison Stratford, 26; Jonathan Stevenson, 27 and Felix Wight, all of London; Melanie Evans, 25; Matthew Fawcette, 34; Robin Gillett, 23; Kristina Jones, 22; Oliver Rodker, 40 and Thomas Spencer, 23, all of Manchester; Paul Chatterton, 36, and Louise Hemmerman, 31, of Leeds; Melanie Evans, 25, of Stockport; Paul Morozzo, 42, of Hebden Bridge; Christopher Ward, 38, of Newport Pagnell, and Elizabeth Whelan, of Glasgow.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Bang goes the green homes promise

Bang goes its promise of efficient homes; bang goes the green new deal. How will the government meet its obligations under the Climate Change Act?

I’ve asked this question before, but the mystery seems only to thicken: how in God’s name does the government intend to meet its obligations under the Climate Change Act?

Its programme for cutting carbon through renewable energy is way behind schedule. It is expanding airports and motorways, while bailing out the car industry, ensuring that motor emissions stay high. The EU emissions trading scheme hardly touches the industries it is meant to regulate. Full carbon capture and storage will come too late to stop new coal-burning power stations from adding greatly to the problem.

I cannot understand how these policies can be reconciled with a legally binding 80% cut by 2050, let alone a 34% cut by 2020. When compared to real policies, the cuts predicted by its Committee on Climate Change look like pure wishful thinking.

But at least the government seemed to be getting something right. It was making what looked like bold moves to improve our housing stock, insisting that all new homes be zero carbon by 2016 and launching a scheme to improve the energy efficiency of existing stock. Even if nothing else was working, one sector would be making carbon cuts commensurate with the government’s legal obligations. Or so we thought.

Much of the improvement in existing housing stock was meant to have been delivered through tightening the building regulations. From next year, the government had promised us, the energy efficiency of existing homes would have to be improved whenever they were substantially refurbished or extended or their lofts were converted. This was the most important of the government’s energy efficiency reforms, which was meant to have delivered the biggest carbon saving. It also had the potential to employ a carbon army of insulators and draft stoppers: tens of thousands of people who could be taken from the dole queue and quickly trained.

But a fortnight ago, the government suddenly dumped this plan, when it published its new consultation document on Part L of the building regs. It’s the second time this has happened: the government broke the same promise in 2006. Bang goes its promise of efficient homes; bang goes the green new deal. Why?

The only explanation I can think of is that it fears a populist backlash. It’s not hard to imagine the tabloid fulminations about snooping inspectors invading the sanctity of our homes, the big brother state telling us how to live. But the stupid thing is that building inspectors are meant to sign off all substantial works anyway: to implement the energy regulations they would only have had to add one or two more lines to their check list. Like the other building regs – which protect us from fire, collapse, electrocution, explosions and the rest – the proposed new intrusion would have done us a favour, ensuring that we don’t spend hundreds of pounds a year heating the air outside our homes, rather than the air inside. It would have helped to protect homeowners from cowboy builders. But the government is so paralysed by the fear of middle class reaction that it won’t implement even the simplest measures to help us improve our own lives.

So where will its carbon cuts come from? I was mystified before; now I am utterly baffled. Can anyone help me out?

monbiot.com

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Drax hijack trial ‘like second protest’

Prosecutors accuse 22 activists who took control of a coal train last year of ‘misusing the court process to continue the action’

Climate change campaigners who hijacked a power station coal train were accused today of planning to turn their trial into a second public protest on energy policy and global warming.

Prosecution lawyers claimed that 22 men and women who clambered aboard a 21-wagon supply service to Drax in north Yorkshire last year were bent on “misusing the court process to continue the action.”

The dock at Leeds crown court overflowed into the well as the group, aged between 21 and 48, pleaded not guilty to obstructing a railway engine contrary to the Malicious Damage Act of 1861.

The court heard that they had carried out “a well-planned and orchestrated action,” halting the train with red flags and fake railwaymen’s uniforms precisely by a river bridge which they could use to climb on to the huge coal hoppers.

“They effectively took control of the train,” said Richard Mansell QC, prosecuting, “and then started shovelling its coal on to the track below.” Makeshift tents were erected on two of the wagons while other protesters manacled themselves to the train and bridge girders, using locks that police specialists did not cut through for 16 hours.

The protest was aimed at greenhouse gas pollution from coal-burning at Drax, the largest power station of its kind in Europe, and fuel trains were disrupted for two days. Mansell told the jury of six men and six women that passenger and freight services had been disrupted, causing financial loss to several companies, and the clearing of the coal and ballast cleaning had cost £30,000.

The court heard that there was a good-humoured atmosphere on all sides during the confrontation, which ended at midnight when a specialist police team unlocked the last protester. One of the group, who are from London, Manchester, Leeds, Wales, the south-east and Scotland, had dressed as a canary. She carried a placard with the words “How many warnings do we need? The Canary”. She also joined in a request – which was not met – that the chief executive of Drax come the two miles down the rail line to talk to them.

The jury heard that the group had come thoroughly prepared, with 15 shovels, advice on what to do if arrested and scarves to avoid inhaling coal dust. The two who stopped the train initially told its driver Nicholas Wilson that they were stopping him because there was “a load of protesters on the line ahead”. They then revealed that they were part of the group, but assured him that he would come to no harm.

Wilson, who worked for the EWS company that ran the train, had no option but to stop because of the health and safety risk of people on the tracks.

Mansell told the trial, which is expected to last for a fortnight, that the 22 would be representing themselves and were likely to seek political sympathy rather than challenge the facts. He said that there was no question that the train had been illegally stopped and boarded, and the defendants would not seek to deny their actions.

“You may wonder therefore what possible issue it is that you are here to try,” he said. “We must wait and see, but the Crown suspects that what is happening here is that the defendants may seek to play on your emotions, and your sympathies with their cause, if you have them, so as to find them all not guilty.

“If you were to do this, by effectively ignoring the evidence, that would not be true to your oath or affirmation. If they are guilty in law of the offence, then the only true verdict is one of guilty.”

“The Crown says that they are preparing a misuse of the court process to continue the protest action which they started when they boarded that train just over a year ago.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Phonemakers agree universal charger

Move follows request from European commission to harmonise chargers in a bid to reduce waste

The days of drawers full of chargers for mobile phones you no longer use could soon be over after manufacturers agreed to use a universal model.

Ten companies including Apple, LG, Motorola, Nokia and Sony Ericsson have signed up to offer the charger, which will be based on a Micro-USB connector. Currently, when consumers buy a mobile phone they are provided with a new charger even if the old one still works.

The European commission had asked companies to work on harmonising chargers in the EU in a bid to cut down on waste. It said unused chargers amounted to thousands of tonnes of electronic waste a year and was threatening legislation unless a voluntary deal was reached.

The EU industry commissioner, Günter Verheugen, said he was pleased with the agreement, which would make life much simpler for consumers.

“They will be able to charge mobile phones anywhere from the new common charger. This also means considerably less electronic waste because people will no longer have to throw away chargers when buying new phones,” he said.

Talks between the phone firms and commission officials produced a “Memorandum of Understanding” indicating that the first generation of “inter-chargeable” mobile phones will reach the EU market from 2010.

The agreement says that in future harmonised chargers will improve energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption. They should also give mobile users an “easier life”, cutting costs by removing the likelihood of needing a new charger to go with a new mobile phone, and by foregoing the need to hunt all over the house for the correct charger.

Audrey Gallacher, customer relations expert for the UK consumer watchdog Consumer Focus, welcomed the move. “Industry has chosen to do the right thing for their customers by introducing a common phone charger,” she said.

“This is a sensible solution to an everyday gripe for mobile phone users, which will reduce frustration and confusion for consumers as well as cutting down on waste products.”

Conservative MEP Malcolm Harbour said common sense had prevailed. “This agreement will also encourage more chargers to be recycled, preventing electronic waste. Mobile phone companies should consider whether a new charger is now needed with every handset if there is a possibility that an old one can be recycled.

“It is particularly welcome that the commission was able to reach agreement with the industry without introducing new regulation.”

The new charger will only work with data enabled phones but the commission said it expected most phones bought from 2010 will be compatible.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Energy bills must rise to be green

Royal Society report says current government policy is not enough to pay for green technology

Consumers will need to pay more for energy if the UK is to have any chance of developing the technologies needed to tackle climate change, according to a group of leading scientists and engineers.

In a Royal Society study to be published today, the experts said that the government must put research into alternatives to fossil fuel much higher among its priorities, and argued that current policy in the area was “half-hearted”.

“We have adapted to an energy price which is unrealistically low if we’re going to try and preserve the environment,” John Shepherd, a climate scientist at Southampton University and co-author of the report said. “We have to allow the economy to adapt to higher energy prices through carbon prices and that will then make things like renewables and nuclear more economic, as carbon-based alternatives become more expensive.”

Shepherd admitted higher energy costs would be a hard sell to the public, but said it was not unthinkable. Part of the revenue could be generated by a carbon tax that took the place of VAT, so that the cost of an item took into account the energy and carbon footprint of a product. This would allow people to make appropriate decisions on their spending, and also raise cash for research into alternatives.

“Our research expenditure on non-fossil energy sources is 0.2% of what we spend on energy itself,” said Shepherd. “Multiplying that by 10 would be a very sensible thing to do. We’re spending less than 1% on probably the biggest problem we’ve faced in many decades.”

He said that the priority should be to decarbonise the UK’s electricity supply. Measures such as the government’s recent support for electric cars, he said, would be of no use unless the electricity they used came from carbon-free sources.

Though the creation of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was a good move, Shepherd said: “We’ve had a lot of good talk but we still have remarkably little in the way of action.”

He cited the recent DECC proposals on carbon capture and storage (CCS) as an example. The department plans to legislate that any new coal-fired power station must demonstrate CCS on a proportion of its output. Once the technology is proven, a judgment made by the EnvironmentAgency around 2020, power plants would have five years to scale up to full CCS.

Shepherd said the proposals were not bold enough. “Really, it needs to be ‘no new coal unless you have 90% emissions reductions by 2020′. That is achievable and, if that were a clear signal, industry would get on and do it. It’s taken a long time for that signal to come through and now that it has, it’s a half-hearted message.”

A spokesperson for DECC argued that its proposed regulatory measures were “the most environmentally ambitious in the world, and would see any new coal power stations capturing at least 20-25% of their carbon emissions from day one”.

Ed Miliband, energy and climate change secretary, said that a white paper due next month will lay out how Britain will source its energy for the coming decades.

“This white paper will be the first time we’ve set out our vision of an energy mix in the context of carbon budgets and climate change targets. We have identified ways to tackle the challenges – we will need a mix of renewables, clean fossil fuels and nuclear and we’re already making world-leading progress in those areas. It’s a transition plan, a once in a generation statement of how the UK will make the historic and permanent move to a low-carbon economy with emissions cut by at least 80% in the middle of the century.”

The Royal Society report will argue that energy policy has been too fragmented and short-term in its outlook, with a tendency to hunt for silver-bullet solutions to climate change. “That really isn’t the case. What we need is a portfolio of solutions, horses for courses,” said Shepherd.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Nap time

catnap

Napping is one of the best, most underused tools for busy people. It is frowned upon by many people and is viewing as something for the elderly and children. Mention napping and you could be seen as lazy, depressed and unwilling to work. The majority of people experience drowsiness in the afternoon and notice their productivity and mood starting to slip and napping will help combat this. It is completely natural and helps to fight the affects of fatigue such as burnout, stress and a lack of mental clarity.

Even though there seems to be a taboo on napping, there have been many famous nappers who swear by the midday snooze to keep them awake and alert. Famous nappers have included Richard Branson, Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton, Lance Armstrong, Winston Churchill and Leonardo da Vinci. No one can claim that these people didn’t achieve anything and spent all day napping.

Research on napping is constantly showing positive effects. The results suggest that napping can make you more alert, reduce stress and improve cognitive functioning compared to working all day without rest. A mid-afternoon sleep means that productivity can last long into the night. Researchers at NASA showed that a 30-minute power nap increased cognitive functioning by 40%. The volunteers on the tests found that their memory improved as well as experiencing an increase in concentration. Those who didn’t nap would score lower on IQ test than those that did (after a day of work).

If you feel a slump in the afternoon and from then on don’t perform at your best, I recommend taking a short power nap to get yourself feeling alert and ready for work. You will feel rested and you’ll notice your mood and alertness improve. I advise keeping the nap between 15 and 30 minutes as you want to avoid getting into deeper stages of sleep. If you do, you’ll find it harder to wake and may experience the groggy feeling for a while.

For those who are worried about the after affect of a nap, there is the caffeine nap. A caffeine nap is taken after an intake of caffeine, so that you are asleep while your body digests the caffeine. After a 15-30 minute nap, you wake up and instantly have the caffeine in your system. This is great if you instantly need to be on the move after a nap, and you can bounce out of your sleeping state and jump into work feeling refreshed and energised.

Finding 15-30 minutes in a day can sometimes seem difficult, but doing so could mean a great deal to your productivity. Even 10 minutes a day will be better than nothing at all, and may give you the energy you need to be successful. If you’re willing to give it a try, make sure you can find a comfortable place (both physically and mentally) before setting your head down. If you can feel secure and let go, then you’re rest will be even more beneficial.

A lot of people who wish to start their own businesses but are currently working 9-5 will benefit from a nap. The majority of the work on their own business will be done after 5pm and it is hard to stay enthusiastic and inspired at this time. Taking a nap during a break at work or just after finishing work could effectively increase your concentration levels and allow you to keep working, allowing you to further your own business after the 9-5 grind.

Try this for a few days and see if you see the benefits. I did, and now I’m off for a nap!


Paul Dickinson is the author of SolopreneurProductivity.com, a blog designed for the sole purpose of providing productivity tips and tricks for solopreneurs!

Follow me on Twitter: @pauldickinson



6 Key Steps To Meet S’pore’s Energy Needs

Lin Yanqin and Esther Fung
yanqin@mediacorp.com.sg

SPIRALLING oil prices, growing global demand for energy, limited and
uncertain supplies from oil-producing countries, climate change from
greenhouse gas emissions – these are the challenges faced by a Singapore
dependent on imports for energy needs.

But even if Singapore has to be a “price-taker” in meeting its energy
needs, it can still turn “energy challenges” into “energy opportunities”.

To help make this happen, a master plan – outlined in the National Energy
Policy Report – was unveiled by the Minister for Trade and Industry Lim
Hng Kiang yesterday, with six strategies mapped out for Singapore’s energy
future.

Steps will be taken to improve energy security by diversifying energy
sources and the mix of fuels currently used to generate electricity. Plans
are also in place to grow the value-add of the energy industry, now worth
$20 billion, into a $34-billion industry by 2015, and triple the number of
jobs to 15,300.

“There’s very little we can do to affect worldwide demand and supply,”
said Mr Lim after unveiling the details of the energy policy at the
Singapore Electricity Roundtable. “The best solution is a long-term one,
towards efficiency, conservation and a competitive market.”

Traditional strengths like oil- refining and trading would continue to
grow, while others like renewable energy and the trading of energy
products have been identified as growth areas.

More than $300 million has been committed to boost Singapore’s energy
research and development capabilities, such as the Economic Development
Board’s $17-million Clean Energy Research and Test-bedding Programme.

A clean energy scholarship programme to fund some 130 Masters and PhD
students over the next five years for study and research in local and top
foreign universities was also announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
at the opening of a separate event, Global Entrepolis, yesterday.

Diversifying Singapore’s energy supplies was a key strategy of the
framework, Mr Lim said.

Currently, more than three-quarters of Singapore’s electricity is
generated from piped natural gas (PNG) from Malaysia and Indonesia. But
rising domestic demand means that these countries might not be able to
continue PNG exports to Singapore.

Thus, developments, such as the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on
Jurong Island, where construction will begin in 2009, will allow Singapore
to source further for LNG, which can be transported over long distances,
to meet energy needs by 2012.

Singapore will continue to rely on natural gas for energy, Mr Lim said.
“Hydro, geothermal and wind power are not available in Singapore, while
nuclear energy is not feasible due to (Singapore’s) small size.” Solar and
coal power, on the other hand, have potential, but face cost and
technological barriers.

The framework also aims to improve Singapore’s energy efficiency, promote
competition in the energy market, boost international cooperation and get
all government agencies involved in shaping energy policy.

The energy industry regulator, Energy Market Authority, will take on a
more developmental role in policy planning and develop cooperation with in
ternational organisations.

The Energy Studies Institute, which was launched yesterday, will conduct
research in energy economics, energy security, and the environment.

Also underway is the pilot-testing of the Electricity Vending System,
where consumers can choose how much electricity they want to buy.

Trade-offs between the objectives of economic competitiveness, energy
security and environmental sustainability are inevitable, but where they
converge, they should be exploited, said Mr Lim.