Fighting FiT

Solar photovoltaics (PV) face some problems- with tariff levels being cut back and/or capacity caps imposed for to Feed In Tariffs (FiTs) in Spain, Germany, France and planned in the UK.

The basic problem is that the FiTs had stimulated to market strongly, which was what they were meant to do, so that demand for PV had boomed. But under the FiT system, that led to what some saw as excessive costs being loaded up on consumers, who pay for it via their bills. Spain had already imposed a cap and then Tariff cuts which in effect crashed the Spanish solar boom.

The French government talked about a ‘speculative bubble’ and imposed a three-month halt to new PV installations over 3 kW, while legislators worked on new tariffs for larger PV installations, which were expected to include rules providing caps on development and lowering feed-in tariffs for solar PV projects. The government also played the China card. ‘Most panels installed in France were made in China with a highly questionable carbon footprint,’ Environment Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet said, whereas the policy must “create jobs in France, not subsidise Chinese industry.’ Even so if current developments are completed, France could still reach its 2020 target of 5.4 GW of solar capacity by the end of 2011.

Meanwhile, after much bitter wrangling, the German solar industry agreed solar PV tariff reductions with the federal Government. PV had boomed with over 14GW being installed. In mid- 2010 industry lobby organization VIK, had claimed that the continued high growth of the German PV-market could result in most ratepayers having to pay an extra 3.5 eurocents/kWh in 2011 compared with the present 2.047 eurocents/kWh, and more later.

Figures like this were disputed, but the German solar industry association (BSW-Solar) eventually agreed to a compromise under which feed-in-tariffs will be reduced according to the amount of solar electricity installed annually, with a sliding scale of reductions based on capacity predictions. For example, if the calculated solar PV market capacity for 2011 year was over 3.5 GW, tariffs would be reduced by 3%; if the projected capacity was 7.5 GW, tariffs would be reduced by 15%. As previously planned, funding will also be cut by a further 9% at the turn of the year 2012. Renewable Energy Focus commented ‘This new step is seen as an earlier than planned reduction, following warnings against the artificial stimulation of the solar market.’

There will be a review of the EEG (the German Renewable Energy Sources Act) in 2012, which will presumably play a decisive role in the future of PV in Germany.

The savage cuts in the Feed In Tariff for PV in Spain were imposed by Royal Decree, and were said to be retroactive i.e retrospective for existing projects, although the government later denied this. Btu there were major protests by people whose jobs were threatened, with protestors from all over Spain wielding PV panels. One said ‘the Government is bowing to the pressures of major energy companies and is misleading citizens into believing that the tariff deficit is a problem created by renewables’.

The Spanish Association of Renewable Energy Producers said ‘it appears Parliament has given itself over to the electric utilities to do away with the solar PV sector in this country’. Congress approved the Decree by 175 to 12, but with many abstentions. There are likely to be a lot of legal disputes as thousands of PV array owners are hit.

The UK is to review its small ‘Clean Energy Cashback’ Feed In Tariff, with the budget saying support for PV was to be cut back in 2013, leading to a £40m saving in 2014/15 (10%), ‘unless higher than expected deployment requires an early review’. And if need be, access to the FiT might be limited for large solar farms on greenfield sites before the review. That review was originally planned for 2012. but has now been brought forward, since DECC said, there is ‘growing evidence that large scale solar farms could soak up money intended to help homes, communities and small businesses generate their own electricity’. So far around 40 MW of PV has been installed under the scheme out of about 77MW in all- tiny by comparison with Germany and Spain, but much more than before. However the new ‘fast track’ review of PV projects larger than 50kW looks like slowing things to a crawl.

DECC’s concern about solar farms is not shared by all. For example, Adrian Lea, manager of planning and regeneration at Cornwall council, insisted solar farms were a positive development: ‘It begs the question of what the purpose of a feed-in tariff is for. To me, the purpose [of the tariff] is to develop a solar PV industry, to bring forward renewable energy infrastructure within the UK, and to meet renewable energy targets. In terms of solar panels, I don't think you're going to do that on domestic roofs because the rate of installation, while highly commendable, is pants, quite frankly.’ But, if nothing else, it’s a good excuse for a review -and for cuts.

So what next? Given the global recession, extra costs to consumers were obviously politically difficult, even if in fact they were much smaller than other energy price hikes. But it does mean that the growth of PV, and the reduction in price that the FiT system would then yield, will be slowed. It’s a failure or nerve, at the very least. The FiTs are designed to gradually reduce prices, as they help build markets. But you have to stay the course.

The UK government is trying to limit the problem of short-term consumer costs in its proposed new Electricity Market Reforms by adopting a variant of the FiT which has a strong market element and possibly also contract auction/tenders to keep prices down. That’s not really a FiT at all- it’s more like the old Non Fossil Fuel Obligation, which saw many successful tenders but few actual projects, since companies often bid at unrealistically low prices. Hence the campaign for a real FiT – with fixed, although annually degressed, tariffs. And without nuclear included. The worry is that with nuclear included, there will be less for renewables. See: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/27/wrong-policy-on-renewable-energy and http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com

The message is that if we want a proper FiT, we will have to fight for it- and also to protect the existing one.

A new ideology?

‘Renewable energy alone cannot decouple consumption from climate change; just because energy sources are called ‘renewable’ does not mean there is an infinite amount available that can be accessed sustainably. Demand for energy is a political issue. Our energy priority should be to satisfy human survival needs, not to keep a worldwide division of labour, which is based on profit, in place.’ Kolya Abramsky, editor of a 'Sparking a World- wide Energy Revolution' (AK Press) www.akpress.org

Well, that’s one powerful viewpoint, though hardly a new one -it’s basically the traditional Marxist analysis updated . Abramsky looks to grass roots action and collective and co-operative organisations as the way ahead, and that certainly would be welcome- there will be many battles ahead if we want to get a sustainable energy system adopted and done properly.

However, a little oddly, he also says that IRENA, the new Internationa renewable energy agency based in Abu Dhabi, could be a possible source of support for desperately needed technology transfer to help people in undeveloped countries create viable sustainable communities. We’ll maybe. But evidently it’s hard to shake off reliance on central agencies! Maybe we are all secret Stalinists really

What else is on offer in terms of new ideological frameworks- following up on my previous Blog ? While once it was Marx, Trotsky and Gramsci, social science/politics undergrads these days seem to be brought up on Harvard Professor John Rawls’ classic ‘Theory of Justice’, which cleverly does away with the need for ideology altogether by describing a rational, logical moral and ethical framework for action and policy making. There is much stress on ‘fairness’ and little recognition of the massive imbalances in power and wealth that shape the word as it is, and make it hard to move toward any reasonable degree of equity, fairness or justice. No harm in trying of course, as liberals through the ages have argued- even if currently the main target of the modern student generation seem to be the Liberals, who have it seems failed to be fair and just! By dumping the Lib Dem promises on grants- but also on nuclear power.

The political right meanwhile has an almost clear field of play- so much so that they can even afford to toy with neo-socialist ideas about market intervention and liberal ideas about wider ownership and community. Much of this may be token, when the reality is cut backs, job losses and pain for most, continued affluence for a minority, but it’s a Great Society illusion that seems to be what many people want to sign up to. Certainly in the energy field it’s leading to more (verbal) support for Feed-In Tarrifs and the like, and maybe some actual changes, as long as they don’t interfere too much with the mainstream economics of energy or plans for nuclear expansion.

Which leaves us, if we want really significant change, with the greens. It’s fairly easy to write a green manifesto- much as once with the Liberals, you can add in everything that sounds good, with little fear of having to live with it as an actual policy in power. It’s very value driven stuff- not just based on equality, fraternity, justice, but also on deep-green eco-centric views, along with radical views about lifestyle, community and culture. With a dash of new age spiritual thinking added in. That may make it hard for reds and greens to get on. But otherwise, that combination still seems to be the best bet for the future. We need decentralism to balance Stalinist tendencies, and grass roots workerism to balance overly fey abstraction. A proper coalition?

The end of ideology

Time was when energy policy, and much else, was driven by political beliefs. But we have apparently moved into a period when political ideology is dead- replaced by a pragmatic centre left miss-mash. That apparently means that old entrenched ideas can be dumped and fresh new ones embraced- leading to a brave new world, ostensibly driven by ‘evidence’ and rationality. Occasionally there is some mention of ‘values’ as a guide to policy, but in the main the touchstone of reality is a general appeal to ‘modernisation’, with technology as the driver.

So in the energy field, under the new political settlement, high tech nuclear is celebrated- and any opposition seen as antiquated and reactionary, a throwback to when ideology ruled. Renewables too are generally welcomed now as ‘modern’, although often with less conviction. When problems emerge, there tends to a default process- back to nuclear. At best nuclear is offered as a stop-gap while problems with renewables are sorted. But also sometimes as the best long term option- maybe led by fusion.

Not everyone agrees with this new position. Some prefer a more solid foundation for policies than pragmatism and also fear that the rationality being used to buttress modernism is faulty. Indeed it is sometimes even argued that rational ‘technical’ analysis has its limits- we also need a moral and ethical input.

In the past, it is true, there have been strong rational arguments against nuclear power, based on objective technical and economic analysis. That still exists, and if anything, is stronger than ever- costs rise, safety and security issue proliferate, alternatives look increasingly better. But some of this is relative- e.g. it may be reasonable to pay more if it ensures energy reliability. However the case against nuclear is wider than that and may not be so easily subject to rationalist analysis - it’s about intangible and possibly absolute things like whether it is right to burden many future generations with active wastes to deal with.

In the past we expected politicians to reflect issues like this in the policies they chose. So, for all its faults, the old Labour party opposed nuclear not just on technical or economic grounds, but because it was not seen as right and didn’t fit with their values- which included concern for development- and employment -in other energy sectors. That was in essence an ideological viewpoint. You can argue that it was partly based on a political commitment to certain groups of workers - notable coal miners. And you may see that as partisan. But then that’s how politics works. If you don’t like one set of views you lobby for change or if that doesn’t work, try to elect another set of politicians with different views.

What we seem to have now is a set (maybe even three sets) with no views, just a vacuous commitment to an ill-defined belief in progress. Of course some cynics will say that much of this is actually just a smokescreen for reactionary policies- much as ever, ensuring that, for example, the rich get richer and the poor stay powerless. That may well be true. But it just adds strength for the case for return to more honestly ideologically based politics.

Nuclear power is only one issue, but it symbolises many others, as it did throughout the last half of the last century. Indeed it was striking how the often disparate movements and groups during that period- new leftists, greens, hippies, pacifists, feminists and more- shared a similar view: nuclear was at or near the centre of what they opposed, a grey, soulless, centralised, authoritarian, patriarchal, consumerist culture. That view has not gone away. 100,000 Germans took the streets last year (and twice!) in opposition to nuclear- even though its current political champion there is a woman, and we are now all happy (digital) consumers!

For some of us who have been through this before, it’s tiresome having to resist nuclear once again. It’s much more positive to fight for something- like renewables. But it seems it has to be done- pragmatically, nuclear and renewables may be able to co-exist when both relatively small. But that’s not the way things would go, if the nuclear lobby gets its way. Nuclear and renewables are technically incompatible on a large scale, and long term the expansion of nuclear seem to have major resource problems, while meanwhile undermining the rapid development of renewables. So there are rationalist arguments against, which might also be seen as underpinning moral and ethical arguments- e.g. it’s wrong to undermine the development of renewables, the only long-term energy source we have. But we are unlikely to get either argument heard without a new ideology to provide the framework.

Meanwhile though we are stuck with what we have. In its approach to energy, the UK coalition does seem to be trying to soften the ‘market dominance’ approach that has be adopted since Thatcher, and even move more towards strategic planning. It’s also tinkering with subsidies- though mainly to find a way to support nuclear. But companies (and shareholders) won’t accept inroads into profits, and the government won’t tap rich taxpayers and has to avoid loading up consumers with extra costs. So the room for manouevre is limited. All it can do is say ‘we are all in it together’, and hope no one notices that we aren’t.

Scotland gets braver

While maintaining the SNP’s strong opposition to nuclear power, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has announced that Scotland's renewable electricity target for 2020 is being raised from 50% to 80% of electricity consumption, putting Scotland well in the lead in the EU.

Aided by a rapid expansion in wind power, it is already on course to exceed its interim target of 31% in 2011. And, according to the Scottish Government, much higher levels of renewables could be deployed by 2020 with little change to Scotlands current policy, planning or regulation framework. A separate study commissioned by industry body Scottish Renewables, reported similar conclusions- 123% was possible! And Scottish Green Party co-leader Patrick Harvie even called for setting a 100% renewable target, ‘perhaps even before 2020’!

Scotland already has 7GW of renewables installed, under construction or consented. And Salmond claimed that, given the scale of lease agreements now in place to develop offshore wind, wave and tidal projects over the next decade, ‘it is clear that we can well exceed the existing 50% target by 2020.’ He may be right, but 80% by 2020 is stunningly ambitious. Even CAT only looked to 2030 in their ‘Zero Carbon Britain’, and that was pushing it very hard. While visionary scenarios can inspire/ motivate people to try harder, they have to be at least in principle credible. But unless there is a crash, supercharged deployment/infrastructure development programme, beyond anything so far discussed, 2030 might be a bit more realistic.

The pay-off of course is not just reduced emissions, it’s also jobs. Scotland’s offshore wind industry could create 28,000 jobs by 2020, contributing £7.1 bn to the economy, according to a report commissioned by Scottish Renewables and Scottish Enterprise. Billed as the first comprehensive study of the potential impact of offshore wind on the Scottish economy, it suggests this new industry could create as many as 48,000 jobs - 28,000 directly, supported by a further 20,000 through related industries. But that assumes proper support by government- without that, it warns, not much will happen.

Scotland does seem to be trying though, with its own versions of support schemes that are much more ambitious than those so far introduced by the Whitehall government e.g. under the Renewalbes Obligation Scotland they offer 5ROCs/MWh for wave energy projects and 3ROCs/Mwh for tidal projects compared to the 2ROCs/MWh offered by the UK wide RO schemes. And it also has a direct grant support system for marine renewables, which has provided £13m for wave and tidal projects so far. In addition there’s a £10m ‘Saltire prize’ for marine renewables. There’s 1.6GW of wave and tidal now planed in the Pentland Firth area and companies from around the world are queuing up to demonstrate their projects at the European Marine Energy Centre on the Orkneys. Moreover, the Scottish government has now allocated £70m for port infrastructure upgrades to help develop its offshore wind industry, in effect dwarfing the £60m UK-wide allocation.

To push things on further , the Scottish Government has also outlined its plans for achieving ambitious targets for reducing emissions by 42% by 2020, after a draft order to set annual emissions targets for 2010-22 was laid in Parliament. The targets proposed in the draft order take account of advice from the Committee on Climate Change and the deliberations of a cross party working group over the summer. The annual targets for 2011- 2022 start at 0.5% for 2011 and end with 3% for 2022, peaking at 9.9% in 2013 - going further than those recommended by the Committee. Scottish climate change minister, Stewart Stevenson, said: ‘Scotland has the most ambitious climate change legislation anywhere in the world and these annual targets set a clear framework for achieving our 2020 target’.

It certainly bold stuff. The SNP clearly is more adventuristic than any Westminster outfit so far, with arguably both good and bad implications. It could overreach itself and unravel. But it seems much more interventionist- and less concerned about markets. Though some see it as just bolshy and rebellious. And that would never do!

The cuts- energy escapes

The governments spending review brought fears of big cuts- and even of the demise of DECC! But in the end DECC survived and the energy sector generally got off very lightly.

Predictably the 40% of DECCs budget that goes to nuclear clean up work was left untouched, and DECC was just asked to reduce resource spending related to the remainder of its activities by 18% in real terms over the next for years, with capital spending actually being allowed to grow by 41% in real terms. Specific commitments included:

• Up to £1 billion of investment to create one of the world’s first commercial-scale carbon capture and storage demonstration plants- ‘strengthening the UK’s position as a world leader in cleaner fossil fuel technology’. That’s less than hoped and there is no mention of the levy arrangment that Labour managed to get on the statute books, for but is does indicated the fact that CCS is near the top of the political agenda

• £860m funding for the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) to be introduced in 2011-12. ‘This will drive a more-than-tenfold increase of renewable heat over the coming decade, shifting renewable heat from a fringe industry firmly into the mainstream. The Government will not be taking forward the previous administration’s plans of funding this scheme through an overly complex Renewable Heat levy’. But there will be a two month delayed start, until June 2010. There had been much concern that the RHI would be shelved – and its still not clear how it will work- who pays and how?

• £200m for low-carbon technologies including offshore wind and manufacturing infrastructure at port sites- so the £60m promised by Labour for ports will go ahead.

The Department will also refocus some if its spending:

• Revenue raised (~£1bn pa) from the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) Energy Efficiency Scheme will be used to support the public finances, rather than recycled to participants. Clever- a stealth tax on companies in effect!

• Feed-In Tariffs will be refocused on the most cost-effective technologies saving £40m in 2014-15. ‘The changes will be implemented at the first scheduled review of tariffs unless higher than expected deployment requires an early review’ (presumably of high cost PV solar).

In parallel the Dept of Business Innovation and Skills will, ‘lead the creation of a UK-wide Green Investment Bank that will be capitalised initially with a £1bn spending allocation with additional significant proceeds from the sale of Government-owned assets, to catalyse additional investment in green infrastructure’. That’s less that the £3-4bn thought to be needed and the £2bn initially proposed, but it’s a start.

So it’s not all bad news...

The ports money is definitely welcome and should help draw new investment from other sources e.g: Tag Energy Solutions has secured £20m to build an offshore wind turbine manufacturing plant at Haverton Hill, Billingham. It said 400 jobs would eventually be created once the factory had been completed. The plant will specialise in building foundations for offshore wind farms. Steel producer Corus earlier announced a similar plan. It said it is to build a £31.5m offshore foundation plant in Redcar, Teeside, which will produce monopiles for the foundations of offshore wind turbines. The company believes the facility will create around 220 jobs. In July, plans were also unveiled to build a £400m UK offshore development centre near Immingham. Developer Able UK said the site could eventually create 27,000 jobs and help build the numerous North Sea projects lined up for development.

And after the Spending Review announcement , Siemens and General Electric confirmed their plans to develop UK offshore wind turbine manufacturing facilities last year that it would make £60m available for improving UK port infrastructure. Siemens plan investments of £80 million wind turbine production facility, while General Electric (GE) aim to invest £100 million to develop offshore wind turbine manufacturing base in the UK, in a move is expected to create 1,900 jobs in the UK by 2020, both in terms of direct employment and through associated manufacturers of towers, blades, nacelles and other offshore wind technology. And Spanish wind energy firm Gamesa has announced plans to make the UK the centre of its worldwide offshore wind business and invest £133.7 million by 2014.

Losers

There were however some losers. The Government is to abolish or downgrade many quangos (non-departmental public bodies) including the Sustainable Development Commission, and the long established Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, along (less worryingly) with the Infrastructure Planning Commission. The full list of 200 or so includes British Nuclear Fuels, NESTA, the Design Council and crucially the Renewables Advisory Board, the Renewable Fuels Agency, and even the Regional Development Agencies- who have been strong in backing renewables locally. Still evidently under review (although not necessarily for abolition, just reorganisation) are the Environment Agency, the Carbon Trust, the Energy Saving Trust, and, perish the thought, the UK Atomic Energy Authority.

Some of this was just sabre (or rather axe) rattling, and some of the agencies were pretty defunct shells- e.g. most of the UKEAs work has been privatised, as has BNFLs. But some, like the SDC, RECP, RAB, and the (so far untouched) EST and Carbon Trust, might be seen as crucial to the proper development of a sustainable future- although some rationalisation could be merited.

And finally, the government ruled out public funding for the controversial Severn tidal barrage, which it says could cost £34bn. It also saw smaller barrages or lagoons as not viable.

The DECC/SWRD/WAG ‘Severn Tidal Power Feasibility Study: Conclusions and Summary Report’ does seem to finish off tidal range projects in the UK, at least for the moment. Although it did say that the results for other locations around the UK might be different, it is hard to see how they could do better than the Severn - the best site by far in terms of tidal range. Given that most environmental groups strongly opposed large barrages, the government decision not to provide support did not lead to complains from them about ‘ignoring green options’

The report says ‘the Cardiff-Weston barrage is the largest scheme considered by the study to be potentially feasible and has the lowest cost of energy of any of the schemes studied. As such it offers the best value for money, despite its high capital cost which the study estimated to be £34.3 billion including correction for optimism bias. However this option would also have the greatest impact on habitats and bird populations and the estuary ports.’

It went on ‘a lagoon across Bridgwater Bay (£17.7bn estimated capital cost) is also considered potentially feasible, as is the smaller Shoots barrage (£7bn). The Bridgwater Bay lagoon could produce a substantial energy yield and has lower environmental impacts than barrage options. It also offers the larger net gains in terms of employment’. By contrast ‘the Beachley Barrage and Welsh Grounds Lagoon are no longer considered to be feasible. The estimated costs of these options have risen substantially on investigation over the course of the study’ It added ‘combinations of smaller schemes do not offer cost or energy yield advantages over a single larger scheme between Cardiff and Weston’.

It noted that, in addition, the study funded further work on 3 proposals using innovative and immature technologies (the Severn Embryonic Technologies study). It said ‘Of these, a tidal bar and a spectral marine energy converter showed promise for future deployment within the Severn estuary - with potentially lower costs and environmental impacts than either lagoons or barrages. However these proposals are a long way from technical maturity and have much higher risks than the more conventional schemes the study has considered. Much more work would be required to develop them to the point where they could be properly assessed.’

So tidal range seems to been written out of the story for some while. Which leaves tidal current turbines - a much less invasive and rapidly developing approach. But it will interesting to see if the traditionalist large engineering companies and institutions who backed the large barrage can regroup: some are trying: see www.corlanhafren.co.uk.

Energy politics in Africa

Most people in Africa are not on the power grid and most new investment in energy systems seems unlikely to change that much. Instead its just part of the expansion of global capitalism. That’s the main thesis of a radical new book ‘Electric capitalism: recolonization in Africa on the power grid’ David McDonald et al, www.hsrcpress.ac.za/

It provides plenty of examples to buttress its case- the most familiar perhaps being the giant 100GW hydro project planned for the Congo river and South Africa’s (now thankfully abandoned) nuclear ambitions- the planned expansion of nuclear capacity and the development of the Pebble Bed Modular reactor have been shelved .

Major grid-linked projects like this may help boost the economy and some the wealth created may trickle down, but it’s argued that decentral community scaled projects are often much more relevant. However, it’s claimed that at present efforts at deploying solar and other renewables are marginal at best- just small tokens.

The book provides not only detailed political analysis and case studies but also a laypersons guide to the energy options- large and small. It’s mainly focused on Southern Africa, which is where most of the industrialisation is going on, and where most research on alternative options has been done: for example see the excellent 2006 Earthlife Africa study by Banks and Shaffler which, the book says, claims that South. Africa could get up to 70% of its electricity from renewables by 2050, even assuming continuing growth in demand for energy:

www.earthlife.org.za/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/potential-of-re-in-sa-feb06.pdf

That included large hydro, which this book doesn’t support. A more recent Earthlife analysis suggested that over 50% from renewables was feasible (400TWh p.a by 2050), with for example the potential for on land wind being put at 50GW, the wave potential at 10GW, and the solar potential being enough in theory to supply the needs of the whole country. See:

www.earthlife.org.za/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/rebriefingpaperfinal5aug08.pdf

But this S. African focus means that the book doesn’t look at large scale Concentrating Solar Power and supergrid export issues in North Africa. That too could be seen as a neo-colonial exercise by EU companies, but it doesn’t have to be that way, although the large scale capital involved with CSP/supergrids and the role of the export markets for some of the power, may make it hard to control.

Even so, it’s clear that the conventional energy options are far less relevant than renewables for Africa- but progress will take money, and political commitment, not least to avoid exploitation.

Progress on the ground

There are some signs of progress, although so far the emphasis has mainly been on technology and the economic potential of renewables. ‘The solar radiation Africa receives could make this continent the Saudi-Arabia of the future’. That was a summary of the conclusions from the recent ‘Power Kick for Africa’ strategy workshop on renewable energy policies organised by the World Future Council Foundation, in cooperation with the Energy Commission of Ghana. It brought together representatives from utilities, regulators, industry and civil society from ten African countries who are determined to expand their cooperation under the umbrella of the African Renewable Energy Alliance (AREA).

http://area-network.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

In addition, the Africa-EU Energy Partnership (AEEP) and the EU, together with the African Union , recently launched a 10 year Renewable Energy Cooperation Programme (RECP), and announced a planned contribution of €5 million to start the programme. It includes proposal for:

* Building 10,000 MW of new hydropower facilities;

* Building at least 5,000 MW of wind power;

* Building 500 MW of solar energy

*Tripling the capacity of other renewables

* Raising energy efficiency in Africa in all sectors.

Some of these targets mat be rather low, but slowly practical projects are getting going, with solar PV and micro-hydro already quite widely used across Africa, being joined by wind power, so far mainly in the North- for example Morocco’ s Power utility ONE is building a 200 MW wind farm outside Tarfaya while Egypt is planning a 1GW offshore wind farm in the Gulf of Suez, and 7.2GW of wind by 2020. In addition to several CSP projects in the North (Morocco has just commissioned 22 MW hybrid gas/CSP unit, and Egypt is nearing completion of a €250m 150MW hybrid unit near Cairo) and the various renewable energy projects in South Africa, there is also progress elsewhere.

For example, Kenya , which has an installed energy capacity of about 1.3GW, currently gets over 60% of it from hydro. However climate change has made this erratic. Renewable Energy World reported that ‘the Kenyan government has recently re-evaluated its power policies and is now encouraging the use of renewable energy for both industrial and domestic use. It is not only offering incentives to companies to invest in renewable energy production, but it is also leading the way in a planned $8 billion capital injection into renewable energy generation’.

It’s claimed that Kenya has the potential to install over 2GW of renewable electricity capacity over the next 3 years under the green energy initiative led by the government, including about 800 MW of wind, and 500MW of geothermal, along with biomass and municipal solid waste.

KenGen has set up a 5.1MW wind farm in Ngong on the southern outskirts of Nairobi, and plans to erect a second 10 MW wind farm in the area. The African Development Bank has pumped over $400m into what at 300MW is set to be Africas biggest wind farm in - to be built in the northern frontier district of Turkana. According to the Nairobi- based UN Environment Programme, Kenya has potential for up to 3GW of wind, especially in the north. And Geothermal is another interesting option. Keyna’s long term geothermal potential is put at 7GW.The government has allocated $137.5m in fiscal year 2010/ 2011 towards the development of geothermal.

So, in countries like Keyna, the technology is there and some funding is flowing. But how all this will pan out politically, there and elsewhere, remains to be seen. In the past much of the input came from companies like BP who launched PV solar deployment projects, but more recently have retired from the field. Money inevitably is a key issue and, with that, come problems of political control. Much as anywhere else.

Green Jobs

Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World
UN Environment Programme

‘Economic activity and employment depend in fundamental ways on avoiding continued resource depletion and safeguarding ecosystems and ecological services. If action on urgent environmental problems, especially countering climate change, is not taken, many jobs could be lost to resource depletion, biodiversity loss, increasing disasters, and other disruptions. On the other hand, environmental policies not only protect existing jobs against these threats, but also stimulate new businesses and job creation’. So says this new UNEP report.

It takes a look at all the options for new and continued but sustainable jobs, but notes that ‘With regard to both nuclear power and coal, continued heavy investments may draw critical resources (R&D, investment capital, as well as scientists, engineers, and technicians) away from the pursuit of alternatives such as renewable energy and greater energy efficiency’. And so it focusses mainly on renewables.

It says ‘Renewable energy sources are expanding rapidly. We estimate current employment at about 2.3 million jobs worldwide. Given incomplete data, this is in all likelihood a conservative figure. The wind power industry employs some 300,000 people, the solar PV sector an estimated 170,000, and the solar thermal industry more than 600,000, many of the latter in China.’ Overall China had nearly 1 million working in the sector, followed by the USA and about 450,000 and Germany at around 260,000, in 2006/7.

However it notes that ‘about half of all present renewables jobs are found in the biofuels industry’ and ‘there are rising doubts about the environmental benefits and economic impacts of at least some types of biofuels. In addition, the bulk of biofuels jobs are found at sugarcane and palm oil plantations, where wages are low, working conditions often extremely poor, and worker rights at least in some cases suppressed. Many of these jobs can hardly be described as good or decent employment’.

The report stresses the need for ‘ just transition’ that avoid problems like this and it is not too keen on market competition as a means of promoting rapid development of sustainable approaches. It also points to issues of training and skill development, noting that ‘in many OECD countries, deindustrialization and offshoring of manufacturing have created a situation where companies in the fledgling green economy are struggling to find workers with the skills needed’ and in the developing world there are even more problems of skill gaps. But it says ‘In just two or three decades the entire global economy will need to be well on the way to being low-carbon and sustainable. The historical circumstances therefore demand that bold measures be taken to both expand the green economy and grow green jobs at a much faster pace in the developed world, and to ensure that the same process begins in earnest in the developing countries’.

Overall then, despite the problems, it is hopeful. Longer term it concludes that ‘Renewable energy is poised for continued expansion, and may generate more than 8 million jobs in wind and solar alone over the next two decades. If most or all new buildings were constructed according to higher efficiency standards, it would revolutionize the construction industry. Many additional green jobs can be created through extensive weatherization and retrofitting of existing buildings.’ Perhaps less convincingly it claims that ‘Similar change is possible in agriculture—switching the bulk of the world’s farming to organic and sustainable methods’.

For the EU, it notes that the MITRE modelling exercise ‘found that under current policies, there would be about 950,000 direct and indirect full-time jobs by 2010 and 1.4 million by 2020. These are “net” numbers—taking into account potential job losses in conventional energy and relating to renewables support mechanisms, which may result in lower spending elsewhere in the economy. Under an “Advanced Renewable Strategy,” there could be 1.7 million net jobs by 2010 and 2.5 million by 2020. These results are actually quite conservative in the sense that they cover employment just within the smaller EU-15 (i.e., before expansion), and exclude jobs supported by renewables exports to other countries. About 60–70 percent of the jobs would be in renewables industries (primarily biofuels and biomass processing and wind power), the remainder in agriculture. An analysis by skill level indicates that skilled jobs account for about a third of net employment growth’.

See MITRE project site, http://mitre.energyprojects.net.

The UNEP report: www.unep.org/labour_environment/features/green_jobs-report.asp

The prospects for job growth do look good. In the UK the government has been talking of 70,000 jobs form the offshore wind energy programme by 2020 and perhaps 60,000 from wave and tidal programmes by 2030. We could do better than that. I’ve been working on a Campaign against Climate Change report on ‘Climate Jobs’, making that case. A revised version of their ‘1 million Climate Change jobs now!’ booklet should be out soon. See www.campaigncc.org/greenjobs