The Gravel/Argon Battery?

One of the holy grails of renewable energy has always been just how to store energy from what are inevitably intermittent, and variable, sources of power; from the likes of wind turbines, photovoltaic arrays etc.

This sounds rather far fetched, and my initial reaction was - it will never work - but reading through the article from the Guardian in detail had me thinking ....... well, they might just be onto something here.

Worth a perusal.

CATEGORY - ALT ENERGY

For now, just links as I happen across, or get told about them:

NOTE - New info/links as stumbled across subsequently indicated by NEW

GENERAL

Indy - Letters - Real facts about the Severn Barrage - Actually a pithy breakdown, though subject to confirmation factually

Indy - Greener power to the people: the real energy alternative?

What still astounds, and depresses me is that even now, with all that we face and all that is in place and/or being proposed, from government to major media I still have no clear idea what the facts are to make objective choices.

From nuclear to wind to micro, I really have no idea what will work, what won't and, crucially, what the actual numbers are, from ROI to enviROI.

Sadly it all still seems shaped by agenda, lobby-pressure, targets and, often, the green-tinted view that if it is' eco' it must be good no matter what.

Guardian - - How power from the people could cut CO2 emissions - with government help

Guardian - Hutton tells power grid to clear barriers to wind

Guardian - A renewed effort on green energy

Times - Why going green will still cost the earth - My favourite headline! Not, however, reading the rest.

Times - Homes that produce their own energy

Without the Hot Air - Summary of an academic study linked in a blog I frequent. Pro or con, as always, read, and treat with one eyebrow cocked.

Times - How China’s thirst for oil can save the planet - some more alt eng at the end

Telegraph - Latest microgeneration technology for houses - some excellent links to the various options mentioned below

Times - Expert fears over green energy targets

A worthy share from a forum I frequent:

10 Steps in 10 Years to 100 Percent Renewable Power

original article here

BBC - Britain 'faces power cuts threat' - As stated, it is reporting a report from an interst group. Does anyone do 'objective' any more?

Guardian - Shell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in favour of biofuels - Rather significant, IMHO

Indy - Green energy targets will not be met without government aid - That's what money from whom, again? Nothing to do with some players more keen on dosh than targets (neither looking like serving my kids' futures in terms I fancy, mind) pulling out as the business models don't add up, I hope.

INFORMATION

coopfire.coop -
green.energyhelpline.com -
greenenergy360.org
grunweb.org.uk -
localpower.org - NEW
Microgeneration Certification Scheme -
nhbcfoundation.org -
nef.org.uk -
renewable energy foundation -

Algae

algalbiomass.org -
algaeatwork.com -
algaefuelmaking.com -
nationalalgaeassociation.com -
Newsnight - All of a sudden... algae is everywhere
Gaurdian - UK announces world's largest algal biofuel project
Newsnight - I share a moment
What is it about entities that end in 'Trust' that seem to inspire anything but in those who are exposed to their vision?Sadly, we share a similar view of quangos, and especially those appointed by, funded via and hence beholden to those who created them.Vast empires of persons, pay, perks and pensions, whose first aim is to secure budgets and then blow them on comms exercises mainly aimed at self-justification and/or securing more funding than actually applying much to any..DOING, as such. I anticipate a major round of announcements in this regard soon, as part of looking like something might happen to make my kids' future better, but not really getting round to anything tangible. Doubtless ably shared in PR support by a quick trip to a snowy place in a helicopter by all the usual suspects and their crews from you know who to tell 'us' what awaits if 'we' don't sort ourselves out. Trust me.
Yours in hoping we share the right rocket when the world really catches cold... (see Hitchhikers Guide)
Indy - Oil giant Exxon sees the future – and it is green algae - Doesn't make it right of course, but in matters green, when you are trying to track the future, it is often worth following the money. And it is interesting where multi-billion oil companies are going into, and avoiding/getting out of. Oddly, there is often a slight disconnect with political directions. I wonder why?

Biochar

Guardian - Woodchips with everything. It's the Atkins plan of the low-carbon world - I have seen this referred to a lot. Time to get up to speed. So view this as but one view I quote. The comments will help.

Gaurdian - James Lovelock on Biochar: let the Earth remove CO2 for us - As night follows day...

Biofuel

FT.com - via blog - hey, it's good news, at least in one area... I hope!
Indy - Can biofuel help prevent global warming, or will it only make matters worse?
Bear in mind it's 'a' discussion from 'a' paper. In fact I'm thinking this deserves it's own category as it really isn't alt. energy and is definitely a hot topic.
Guardian - Burning biofuels may be worse than coal and oil, say experts - Glad I didn't (well, couldn't afford) the SAAB Biodiesel! I'd be keyed everywhere. Goes well with the one below, though:)
Guardian - UK biofuels really do help the planet - Letter from the NFU. That's of the UK. hence I am unsure if the headline is accurate.
Indy - Shell starts algae biodiesel research site in Hawaii
Times - Shell joins search for green fuel with plan to make diesel from algae

Oooooooo....kay.

It 'may' be green....er.

But what still comes out the pipe when it's combusted?

ASA - SAAB - Interesting insight into the issues. Note the number of complainants. I will be interested if the latest Prius TVC gets though unscathed. Some fairly hefty claims in there, including one that seems to say it actively scrubs CO2 from the air. Bearing in mind 5-25% of a cars' carbon impact is at manufacture, which seems to be ignored in this ad, I look forward to the supporting evidence.

Telegraph - Airline industry could be flying on biofuels in five years - Another when one kinda needs to divorce the local smartness of the technology from the bigger picture of its' consequences. In amongst an already 'could'-heavy piece, I stumble here: '..depending on the availability of sufficient crops to produce it.' Might one add '..at the expense of food supplies?'. Not sure "The feedstocks are very expensive but as we build the market, more people will grow energy crops." really addresses that dilemma.

Guardian - US car manufacturers plough a lonely furrow on biofuels - Haven't seen much on this topic lately. Perhaps this suggests why?

Biogas

Junkk - Heard of making a pig's ear of things?

Ecologist - NEW - Biogas: is your council about to waste your waste? - Why, in the name of all that is backstreet brown enveloped, are our councils cutting daft deals that are tied down for 25 years!!!?

Biomass

Times - Wind puts sun in the shade for investors - Actually it's about a few things, but I simply noted this at the end: '..the company should benefit from a move by certain utilities towards the burning of biomass, such as wood, as they strive to reduce carbon emissions.
UK company Drax, for example, recently announced plans to build a facility in a power plant in the north of England, reportedly capable of handling around 1.5m tons of biomass per year. Webber said it was likely that it would import wood from North America for fuel.'

CHP - Combined Heat & Power (involves combos of various others, especially the two above)

EPA - Catalog of CHP Technologies - US-based, but v. useful! Why do I get the feeling that, for all the froth and bother from the EU, an awful lot of US-based stuff is just getting on with it... and getting streets ahead.

Energy from Waste

Telegraph - Why are we not using waste as fuel to generate heat and power? -
Telegraph - Waste produces waste - I should have known (well, remembered) this, but was stuck by this in the author's letter: '...burning does not decrease the mass of waste; it actually increases it. The illusion of disposal is maintained because a large proportion is “aerosolled” into the air as highly reactive and toxic gases and dust. The remaining ash goes to landfill'
This reply in rebuttal to his letter/claim is also worth noting. Complex, eh?

Feed in Tariff

Newsnight - Actually in the post threads. I join to ponder whether being FiT for purpose might lead to a good enviROI.

Fusion

Telegraph - Nuclear fusion energy project could lead to limitless clean electricity

GeoEngineering

Guardian - Geo-engineers, too, have a vital role in saving the planet
The Register - 'Sunshade' global-cooling plan would ruin solar power
BBC - Setback for climate technical fix - See comment from Dave

GRID - NEW Sub-category - without the means of distribution being sorted, all else is academic

Indy - NEW - The undersea secret that's bringing more power to the people - the claim is that it is boring. I find it anything but.

Heat Pumps

Indy - The latest craze in hi-tech heating sounds great – but the figures simply don't add up - Another possible enviROI poor option? Or......

ADDENDUM - Note feedback in comments section!

Hydro

Times - Britain's rivers called on to provide renewable energy

Laser Fusion

Indy - Lasers point way to clean energy

Liquified Natural Gas

ASA - Insights via, of all things, a ruling on an Exxon ad. Guardian

Microgeneration

Marketing Week - BG to launch range of home energy generation products - It is to be hoped that the ROI and enviROIs of these will be properly spelled out and understood before rushing in.

Indy - Donnachadh McCarthy: The Home Ecologist - An odd situation, at best

BERR - Quality mark gives consumers confidence in going green - If they say so. Actually, I have been asking for such a thing for ages. Hope this will prove valuable.

Ocean Thermal

New Scientist - Plumbing the oceans could bring limitless clean energy - Interesting, with that 'could', but I still caution that there is no such thing as a free lunch

Tidal

gizmag - World's first commercial scale tidal energy generator nears completion -
Wave Energy Today - if you need to know about the subject 'in depth' (sorry)

Junkk.com - Issues raised surrounding the Severn Barrage

Junkk

Various

BBC - Cash cuts see green grants halved - an action says a lot more than most green spin.

Smart Planet - Top five UK renewable electricity technologies - via a tip kindly provided by Ian of Wave Energy News

Telegraph - UK lags behind on eco energy

Times - Going green: how much does it cost and is it worthwhile? - Not very extensive, but a little more to the gristmill

Wave

Junkk

Wind

BBC - Wind turbines

BBC - Wind turbine expansion plans due - has a sidebar video on arguments pro-con

Times - Giant offshore wind farms to supply half of UK power - 'to infinity... and beyond!'

BERR - Link to windspeed calculations, and other info

Times - Country out-performs towns in household wind turbine trials - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi. Actually I am sure I had something on this recently. Now, where the heck would it be posted? Wind category, probably.

Junkk - Bogey Men

BBC - RSPB calls for more UK wind farms - Well, at least shredded seagulls are off the menu. I always thought this was a silly objection.

Daily Mail - Brussels demands thousands more wind turbines across the UK - targets vs. enviROI. Can't quite get my head around the EU setting rules for countries with different systems and climate.

ASA - You want to see how complex this can be? Check out this!

The big IF...

New renewables to power 40 per cent of global electricity demand by 2050

Then they just had to spoil it...

'With adequate financial and political support...'

Plus of course, sensible enviROI checks and balances, I'm sure.

Ah well, it was exciting while it lasted.

ps: Love the disclaimer.

Look out Kermit!

These are early days PR punts I'm guessing, so I won't accord them fully fledged category status as yet, but looks like your pond is a teeming fuel dump:

Indy - How to turn water into rocket fuel – scientists unlock power of the sun

Guardian - 'Oil from algae' promises climate friendly fuel

Both interesting, but also sort of focusing still on our desire to still combust, ultimately, rather than doing it less and less.

Still, it's nice to get a space story in without it being a major green eyebrow crank.

Gordon the green engine .......

OK, Gordon the 'green' PM. As he today announced a 'green revolution' of measures including the development of thousands more wind turbines and a push for much more energy from other types of renewables as part of a £100bn plan to boost renewable energy across the UK. Full story from the Beeb.

£100 Billion - now that's a serious wad of cash - how is the Gov going to fund it? Oh, "Household bills are expected to increase as a result of the measures". Ahhh, I see, we are all going to pay for it.

And who will manage the 'plan'? Well, I've just read it again and it is not really a plan, it's more of a 'vision' or even a 'strategy'.

So it all looks yet again like another vapour-ware initiative - all sound bites and no actual 'doing'. Not so much a 'green engine', more of a wisp of 'green hot air'.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt; anyone else getting that old 'Deja Vu' feeling?

Storing renewable energy for a cloudy day,

or even just for use that same night, has been the holy grail of the renewables industry for years. Generating power from the sun when it is shining is a doddle, storing that energy in a usable form for later has been the nightmare side of things.

Yet this, from The New York Times, suggests that the technologies for storing the energy from solar systems are moving on apace. Molten salt in an insulated tank seems to be one method that shows high promise.

"a coffee thermos and a laptop computer’s battery store about the same amount of energy"
"The thermos costs about $5 and the laptop battery $150".

So its a really big thermos flask full of molten salt. Hmmmm, I wonder if they need to add vinegar?

Reading between the lines

Follwing quickly on from the previous note on targets vs. actual results: Charities criticise npower’s ability to effect green tariff

I must say I stumbled a bit on the headline use of the word, but read on to see what is meant is 'environmental charities', who these days seem mainly around to 'slam' things.

What was of more note is that 'Npower says that it has the facility to supply just 2% of customers with renewable energy.' Hmn.

Which does rather make oen wonder why 'the company is planning to launch a major TV campaign to push its green tariff, Juice'. Is that the one which works/ed with Greenpeace?


But, at least, 'Npower will be spending £100m this year on the Government’s Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT)'.

Bless.

Government Incompetence?

Or deliberate policy?

The second question is mine, the first is from an interesting article in today's Guardian.

I've questioned the ridiculous state of government grants for renewables before, but somehow it seems to have got even worse than it was!

Whilst the DBERR is set to under spend the £18m low carbon buildings programme by £10m over the three years to March 2009, we get this!

"Last May BERR simply slashed the grants and made them more difficult to get. The result, entirely predictably, was a collapse. ............ Throughout much of 2006, for example, it was making 30-40 grants a month for ground source heat pumps. In the last three months of 2007, no such grants were made. There is a similar decline for solar thermal (hot water) and micro wind turbines. Not a single grant was allocated for a domestic solar PV system last month while the Germans installed about 12,000 systems."

And the DBERR is making no energy contingency plans for the eventuality of peak oil in case it causes panic! This no longer sounds like a bit of a shambles - it IS a bloody shambles!

3 degrees of separation

I just missed the opportunity to get all kultur'd up thanks to Homie Brown and his boys 'n girls from da Westminster hood's new plan, so I think I'm mixing a few literary icons.

I know there's something about 6 degrees of separation and how we're all just a few links off being Royal, but that'll teach me for giving up at O level.

Anyhoo, it's a snappy title, which I have hijacked to describe the fine art of talking about something, mainly to stir it up a bit, but in ways that isolate me from the consequences. A bit like when a reporter says 'some say...', and you just wish the interviewee won't budge 'til they 'fess up that it's actually them and no one else has said a thing.

But here I quote a blog that quotes others, so I'm pretty golden. Well, other than now, when I say that these two pieces make pretty clear that my concerns on enviROI of so-called 'green' initiatives and the associated (lack of) joined up thinking around them. Plus some 'solutions' not actaully, as such, doing much more than make a few folk rich and a few others feel better about themselves. Oh, and a few media keeping occupied talking things up and then down, which is a win-win. I just need one win: what works.

Greenbang.com - The £50 million wave fund that no one wants - whack up a windmill (with a few issues pending), no problem. Daily, regular, reliable tides.... hmnnn.

Greenbang.com - Hybrid cars: a misinformed craze? OK, it has a question mark. Good question mind.

I have an acronym coming... O, DTTTI.. Only delaying tactics 'til the inevitable?

Tilting Windmills

My ad agency had a motto: Quick. Cheap. Good: pick any two (and whatever happens one will always have to be good)

It came to mind as I read this: Backlogs threaten Government targets for renewable energy

So we have a target or two. That means the timing is not negotiable. So... I'm guessing the price will be going up even more than antcipated, which makes my enviROI concerns even more presssing.

Or, of course, quality might suffer. Hope not. But in meeting a target today there is a dubious history already of leaving the mess of tomorrow for others to clear up.

Ask not what gets done for the planet, but what the planet gets from our meeting targets.

Addendum: Top and bottom. I just thought I'd post this grab of the chat page. When it says 'let yourself go', bearing in mind the topic and context, I wonder if this is what Expedia and the Gaurdian had in mind?

Gaurdian - Join our web chat on renewable energy

'...how we are going to reach that 15% target and whether 2008 will be a key year for the renewables market.'

Is there not a danger in all this that, as this sentence suggests, the the aim becomes more the meeting of a target and/or the creation of lucrative business models, at the expense of actually achieving a result? Too often I see the product delivery hijacked by the process and those with careers involved in it.

If, to put things simplistically, it is believed that it is the carbon dioxide and other 'pollutant' greenhouse gasses going into the atmosphere that are responsible for PMWCC (Probably man-worsened climate change), should not the reduction of these be viewed more in totality?

Once we break things out into convenient, isolated chunks it for sure makes things awfully easy to measure, tick boxes and/or reward, but perhaps does not adequately challenge the overall worth to our kids' futures on this planet.

I can live with a poor ROI in many cases. And hence have a concept of enviROI that allows for not 'making' money as an option for doing something if it has an environmental benefit.

But it does have a lower limit, as it can be argued that ploughing funds into something when they may be used more productively elsewhere might be equally flawed.

Hence my concern at having a set number of 'renewables' laid out in this manner, with still no clear idea as to how they get there, what they do, how well they do it and what their relative contributions to mitigation of our energy demands are.

The last such webchat - in the country's top online forum, and arguably most 'green', too - attracted a few dozen. Let's see how this pans out.

Addendum:

Wow. I was first up. And got an answer, too:

This raises some interesting issues. I’d say that having attractive business models is actually essential to achieving the targets, rather than a distraction. Even though governments play an essential role in the move to a low carbon economy, most of the required investment needs to come from the private sector. Fortunately, there are already very strong commercial opportunities in renewable and other low carbon technologies, and these are growing rapidly. As for breaking down the target into ‘chunks’, I agree there’s some sense in this and actually, it’s a necessary next step for the UK. Currently under debate is how much of the 15% should come from electricity, heat and transport, with one scenario being around 45%, 10% and 10% of the total usage of each. Since renewable electricity currently supplies about 4.5% and heat and transport around 1% each, this represents a tenfold increase on all fronts.

Was it was the one I was seeking? Not really. One has to question the value of these efforts as they inevitably (have to) deal in generalities, but I really din't quiet get to where I wanted on enviROI's, especially with thinsg getting stonkking subsidies just to exist and tick a box, without worrying too much on what they might do to help.

This sounds sooooo far fetched .........

... that it might just be crazy enough to be another 'free energy' breakthrough.

For the days when the sun simply won't shine and the cats and dogs are falling from the overcast sky in bucket-loads, how about a mechanism for generating electricity from raindrops? As reported in PhysOrg.com, scientists from CEA/Leti-Minatec, Grenoble, France, have "recently developed a system that recovers the vibration energy from a piezoelectric structure impacted by a falling raindrop. The system works with raindrops ranging in diameter from 1 to 5 mm, and simulations show that it’s possible to recover up to 12 milliwatts from one of the larger 'downpour' drops."

What they have to do now is work out a way to store the recovered electrical power in order to provide a steady current for day to day use.

Altogether now - 'I'm generating in the rain, just generating in the rain, what a beautiful feeling ........'

UK facing stringent renewables targets

This from the Financial Times (you need to register [free] to read the entire article) suggests that the EU targets that the UK will receive next week are going to be pretty tough to meet.

"officials in Brussels and Whitehall have told the Financial Times that Britain will have to increase its use of renewables as a share of all energy use from about 2 per cent to 13-14 per cent by the end of the next decade."

"Britain has the lowest renewables share of any major EU country: only Malta and Luxembourg have less."

Given that Tony Blair was warned that his agreement to the overall 20% target by 2020 was unachievable, this could get very interesting. "Mr Blair was warned by the former Department of Trade and Industry that the scheme was unachievable and costly, but he overruled ministers."

I wonder what the level of fines the UK is going to have to pay for failing to meet the targets will be?

More windmills for Don Quixote to tilt at?

Spain is going to invest in a project to develop vast windfarms in order to reduce its dependence on natural gas and coal fired power stations. As reported in today's Telegraph.

"The Ministry of Industry plans to announce over the next few weeks its more detailed plans to erect tens of thousands of pylons.
This will require a further investment of about €45,000m in order to produce 107.845 MW of electricity by the year 2030. The ambitious scheme involves tripling wind power in order to reduce Spain's dependency on foreign suppliers of gas (North Africa) and to reduce pollution."

The overall plan is to produce up to 49% of energy requirements from renewables by 2030. My bet is that Spain will succeed while here in the UK we will still not even be at the 20% target set for 2020, even when we get to 2030.

The Gord giveth... and...

Gordon Brown's hot air

Hmnn... yes.

Didn't that Newsnight go well?

Meanwhile, I am looking at a tearsheet summary from the Sunday Indy (may have been here, too, sorry), and which may all have changed by now, but it says:

'Small business that want to do their bit for the environment face higher tax bills... the Valuation Office Agency, and arm of the IR , is preparing to tax solar panels, wind turbines and micro-generation tech with higher business rates and council tax. This follows news that GB is set to abandon TB's targets on renewable energy.'

But, as they say, maybe a few days is a long time in politics.

In any case, it may not be that bad. They'll probably lose the records anyway:)

The Gord giveth... and...

Has Brown finally become a bright-green revolutionary?

Bless.

I'm guessing he may be going various hues of all sorts of colours at the 'mo, but I'd be hard pressed to see a hint of green in any of them.

Do you actually read other articles in your paper?

THIS is what I am talking about

Checking back on my recent posts to Newsnight, I find this more than interesting submission:

Germany has made progress on renewables, but it's not all jam. According to the article, gearboxes which were supposed to last 20 years have been failing in large numbers. There have also been other failures, including rotor blades flying off.
Now whilst the financial cost and percentage of generated power is often quoted, what never is quoted is the whole reason why these things exist in the first place - CO2. If these devices are failing and having to be replaced or repaired frequently, how much extra carbon does that generate and how does it affect the amount they save - in short - are they saving the planet or just another business opportunity?
It also leads to the question, if the UK rushes into more and more renewable before the technologies are mature, are we going to find costs rising on projects just as the Germans have?
Perhaps Newsnight should do a report on the reality of the German experience.
Spiegel Online - The Dangers of Wind Power

No one is saying we don't look around, or try, all manner of worthy solutions. But get the green-tinted glasses off! All we hear is what these things 'can' do at full tilt, 24/7. But as this shows, there are all manner of other considerations (it focuses on safety, but reliability is obviously bound in) that may mean they are not quite the solutions being claimed... especially on enviROI!

Incentives for renewables?

Not according to eGov Monitor, who reckon that rather than reward businesses for going green, Ol' Golden's policies imply that businesses who reduce their energy bills by installing solar panels, wind turbines and the like, are going to be hit with bigger tax bills!

"The Valuation Office Agency, an arm of Inland Revenue, is preparing to tax solar panels, wind turbines and micro-generation technology with higher business rates and council tax bills."

"a solar panel 'will never achieve a payback, but would be a continual financial drain on the company'. A typical wind turbine for commercial premises will increase the business rates bill by £1,350 a year, while a solar (photovoltaic) installation will mean an extra £2,700 a year in rates."

What the hell is going on? This is turning into an utter shambles! I despair at the inept capabilities and crass stupidity of our esteemed government. We are supposed to be encouraging the uptake of renewables, not bloody well penalising them!

And this on the day when a top UN official states that it would be criminally irresponsible not to tackle global warming!

Its a different 20%

ADDENDUM - Junkk Male - Dilbert, as always, nails it. Though actually, it is my experience that the most talentless numpties I have ever come across almost always tell you as soon as you meet them how 'they can't stop/help/do anything' because they are so stretched for time. Like the rest of us are not.


Well I'm gob-smacked. Further to our previous posts on this very subject (see More Spin), that's the response to a direct question about the 20% from renewables by 2020 according to DowningStreetSays.

That had me rolling around on the floor laughing for 15 minutes.

How do these people have the balls to come out with pathetic spin that's such ..... utter balls!

ADDENDUM - (Junkk Male) - Guardian - Or change 'em!

More spin on renewables

After all the brouhaha of the last few days, leaked cabinet documents notwithstanding, Ol' Golden still manages to come out with this today at PM questions. (As reported on the 10 Downing Street site.)

"The UK was also in full support of an EU-wide aim of generating 20 percent of all energy through renewable sources by 2020"

But his own people have been telling us that it's impossible to achieve!

Even Shane Warne would be proud of the amount of spin this topic is getting.

ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) : Tuesday, 23 October, 2007 Newsnight

Missed the show but the blog has proven... interesting.

I was getting a bit confused by the interchangeability of the Green Party and Greenpeace. Good to see the cutback money is now being invested wisely in Strictly Come Celebanything. I guess I should ignore all BBC output at odd times as suspect in future.

And nice to see that the IT 'system' treats even those who run it with the fruits of its duplicationist nature (10 & 12) at times, too.

Still can't quite figure out why the moderator can't deal with these, though.

ps: Barely worth trying to debate the state of this country's renewables record/policies. But if I hear the word 'target' one more time I think I may just have to pin one on the self-serving clowns who see setting, and then missing (or changing) them as serving the public or their trust with funding well.

How much is being p*ssed away in this box-ticking obsessed culture these days, where hype and spin are valued so much more than actually doing a darn thing that helps or works?

ADDENDUM 2 (me again) - A PR (wish they'd pop it on a site and give a URL) from the Greens. One thing I do note is no mention of Labour. Did they do nothing? Or is this just playing wedge driving between no-government parties?

Liberal-Tory proposal on car emissions scuppers efforts to combat climate change

Efforts to tackle climate change in Europe suffered a profound setback today as the European Parliament voted to accept a joint proposal by UK Tory and Liberal MEPs to allow cars to produce higher C02 emissions.
The report adopted today outlines ways in which emissions reductions from cars should be achieved and what limit values should be proposed.
The amendment to the report by UK Tory and Liberal proposed to set weaker emissions limits for carmakers and to postpone the introduction of these limit values by a further three years to 2015 (1). This is despite the increasing urgency with which these parties are calling for tougher environmental legislation.
Commenting on today's vote and the amendment, UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas said:
"The proposal by Liberal and Tory MEPs to allow carmakers to produce dirtier cars and to delay the introduction of urgently needed emissions limits has scuppered EU efforts to combat climate change. The amendment accepted by MEPs today reveals just how cheap the media-friendly 'green-speak' of the Liberals and Tories really is.

"An independent study, presented by the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament last week, showed that only by introducing strict limit values for passenger cars as soon as possible will the sector be able to contribute sufficiently to enable the EU to meet an overall CO2 reduction target of 20% by 2020 (2). The study showed that an average CO2 emissions limit value of 120 g/km must be introduced by 2012 if cars are to contribute their share towards the EU's overall emissions reductions and that stricter limit values for 2020 will also be necessary.

“In order to meet the 30% reduction, which scientists say is absolutely vital if industrialised countries are to tackle climate change, significant measures not only to reduce vehicles emissions but also to reduce the amount of car travel are necessary.
"The EU must make these deep cuts in its CO2 emissions if it is to try and keep climate change in check. Letting the worst performing sectors off the hook, by allowing them to delay urgently needed emissions cuts, makes a mockery of the EU's climate strategy.
“The European Parliament has consistently called for strong measures to tackle climate change but by accepting the Tory-Liberal amendments to its report, it has ignored Green calls for more weighty action."
Editors notes:
(1) The European Parliament voted today, 24 October, on its report (Davies) on EU legislative measures to reduce CO2 emissions from cars. The EP Environment Committee voted in September for an average limit value of 120 g/km limit value to be set for CO2 emissions from new cars (by technical means which are influenced by driver behaviour). Liberal MEP Chris Davies and Conservative MEP Martin Callanan tabled an amendment for a limit value of 125 g/km and for the introduction to be delayed until 2015.
(2) The study gives a comparison of the actual CO2 reductions that would be achieved through the different emissions limit values currently under debate, which reveals that only with a 120 g/km limit for 2012 and a strong follow-up limit value in 2020, will the necessary emissions reductions from passenger cars be achieved. The EU will have to reduce its overall emissions by around 830 million tonnes if it is to meet its base target of a 20% reduction by 2020. Given passenger cars already account for around 12% of overall EU CO2 emissions, this means the sector will have to reduce its CO2 emissions by 80-100 million tonnes. The limit values which were proposed by the Liberals and Tories fall far short from delivering this reduction.
The study and political summary can be found at the following links:
Study
Political summary

Ah, here's the Labour bit: Leaked documents expose Labour's broken promises on climate change

Gaurdian - Surrendering our future

Peak oil - are we already there?

Peak Oil has been a much talked about event for quite a few years now, but this from The Guardian reports on the findings of Germany's Energy Watch Group, suggests that far from having many years to go before we get there, peak oil actually occurred in 2006. (Oh, and note the eye-catching and scaremongering headline, which talks of 'war and unrest', neither of which are mentioned again in the article.)

"The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel."

And I've noticed today that some futures for oil are trading around the $100+ mark.

"But the government prefers to sleep on without even doing a contingency study. For those of us who know that premature peak oil is a clear and present danger, it is impossible to understand such complacency."

There's nowt like burying your head in the sand; and this in the very week that our very own government is going to backtrack on its much vaunted renewables targets! (See Not Ready. Miss. Re-Aim below). So when big oil's pumps run dry, as they inevitably will, at least here in the UK we'll be able to fill up with alternative renewable fuels like bio-deisel and ethanol ....... NOT!!

Addendum:
More scary headlines ........ 'Peak Oil could trigger meltdown of society' is the headline that Renew, Reuse, Recycle comes up with for its interpretation of this same report.

ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male)

Guardian - It's rip-off Britain, even when it comes to climate change - I so envy such as Directors of orgnaisations who get paid well to say lots of things. Post by 'askingquestions' is well worth a read.

Gaurdian - Give ministers some credit for green measures