French state-controlled electricity company EDF - the world's biggest operator of nuclear power plants - has recognised the value of a UK wave power company. See contract announcement below.
What a pity that no British company had the foresight to buy the licence for this technology.
EDF Energies Nouvelles collaboration and investment
Renewable Energy Holdings plc (AIM: REH), the investor and operator of proven
and innovative renewable energy technologies, is pleased to announce that the
Company has entered into a collaboration agreement ("Collaboration Agreement")
with EDF Energies Nouvelles SA ("EDF EN") relating to REH's CETO wave power
technology. This follows the announcement of 27 July 2007 that the companies
had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding.
The terms of the Collaboration Agreement will permit EDF EN exclusively to
develop offshore wave power projects in the Northern Hemisphere and at Reunion
Island in the Indian Ocean (together, the "Territory of Exclusivity"), using
REH's proprietary CETO wave power technology. Further information on the terms
of the Collaboration Agreement is set out in the Appendix to this announcement.
In addition, also as announced on 27 July 2007, under the terms of the
Collaboration Agreement EDF EN has today invested a total of #3.0 million in
REH.
Mike Proffitt, Chief Executive Officer of REH, commented:
"We are very pleased indeed to have concluded our CETO Collaboration Agreement
with EDF EN and we look forward to working with them to develop CETO wave power
projects across the Northern Hemisphere.
"EDF EN's interest in the CETO wave power technology demonstrates that the CETO
wave energy device has an exciting commercial future ahead and the potential to
be a global success."
Paris Mouratoglou, Chairman of EDF Energies Nouvelles, said:
"EDF Energies Nouvelles is committed to develop new renewable energy
technologies. The wave energy potential is very significant and has been
identified as one of our future sources for growth. We are delighted to announce
the signing of our final agreement with REH and look forward to a successful
development of the promising CETO technology."
EDF EN's #3.0 million investment in REH is structured as follows:
1. EDF EN has subscribed #1.5 million for 3.0 million new ordinary shares
of 1 pence each in REH ("New Ordinary Shares") at a price of 50 pence per new
ordinary share (the "Equity Payment"). The Equity Payment which has been paid
into an escrow account administered by REH's solicitors, Herbert Smith LLP, is
held to the account of REH and will be released to REH upon the following
milestones in the commercial development of CETO being achieved:
Overall Equity Milestone definition Equity Payment New Ordinary
milestone released from Shares
escrow attributable to
milestone
1 Three CETO II units having been installed #500,000 1,000,000
and connected through the joint off-shore
pipeline into the on-shore collection
system.
2 30 days of performance data collection of #500,000 1,000,000
the total system (three CETO II units)
having been completed.
3 CETO III prototype unit has been #500,000 1,000,000
manufactured and is ready to ship ex works.
Thursday, 17 January 2008
Monday, 7 January 2008
Wind power pays better than weapons
Money invested in weapons maker BAE Systems would have more than doubled in value last year if investors had sold their shares and bought stock in wind turbine makers instead.
BAE Systems gained 16 pct in 2007 but Vestas Wind Systems, the world's largest wind turbine maker, saw its shares soar 131 pct, taking its market value to a mighty 13.4 billion euros, fast catching BAE.
Fund managers can no longer claim that they can't invest ethically because they get better returns in unethical stocks such as BAE. In fact that excuse has been false for a number of years.
BAE's recovery takes the shares only fractionally above above where they were 10 years ago, whereas investments in Vestas have multiplied 33 fold in value since the company was first listed in May 1998.
Of course not all ethical or environmental stocks have had as a stellar a trajectory as Vestas but in recent years the sector has consistently performed as well as or better than the broad market. Over the past five years the Stoxx European sustainability index has climbed 61 pct, compared with a 46 pct gain by the Stoxx 50 index of European blue chip companies.
Even in Britain alone, where the ethical and environmental sector is relatively small because of lack of government encouragement, the FTSE4Good UK 50 index has kept pace with the benchmark FTSE 100 both during 2007 and over the past five years as a whole.
According to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Barnet Council's pension fund held shares worth £3,255,178 in BAE Systems in mid-2007. I once again call on the fund's managers to sell that immoral stake and invest the money in ethical companies.
There is every prospect that 'green' industries will continue to grow strongly in Europe as governments step up their spending so that 20 pct of energy comes from renewable sources by 2020, a target agreed by all 27 European Union countries including Britain.
Germany has already created an estimated 200,000 jobs in industries that help fight climate change and Britain could do the same if the government and investment managers such as those who control Barnet Council's pension fund woke up to the economic opportunities of these new technologies.
BAE itself should convert its factories to the manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels and marine power machinery. 'British Airpower Equipment' could even end up making more money than the group does from its current evil products.
Sunday, 18 November 2007
Barnet's quarter-hearted energy targets
It is welcome news that Barnet Council has finally decided to act to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But what unambitious targets! I wouldn't even call them half-hearted - they are quarter-hearted at best.
More than 200 local authorities are already implementing energy savings projects and some have already achieved much more than the 5 pct cut in household consumption and 10 pct per organisation which Barnet is giving itself until 2012 to reach. Woking, for instance, has reduced the release of carbon dioxide by 17 pct across the whole borough as well as slashing the council's own contribution by 70 pct.
Why is Barnet Council not leading by example by installing solar panels and wind turbines at its own sites? For instance, Barnet House and the North London Business Park buildings would seem ideal for solar panels.
Actually, I can guess the answer to that question - I expect certain members of the Conservative administration are still opposed to the idea. Earlier this year Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the plan for a wind turbine at Frith Manor School. Perhaps he would rather have a nuclear power station on Totteridge fields?
Personally, I find wind turbines quite pleasing to look at. The council can build one next to my allotment any time it likes.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is becoming increasingly urgent, as shown by research published last week demonstrating that carbon dioxide levels in the world's atmosphere are rising faster than anyone has forecast.
Cutting consumption of fossil fuels is something we all should be doing for other reasons too, notably to conserve the world's rapidly depleting resources.
And people like Mr Coleman should bear in mind that lowering use of energy saves money. Woking Council saved £1 million over 10 years thanks to its CO2 reduction project.
More than 200 local authorities are already implementing energy savings projects and some have already achieved much more than the 5 pct cut in household consumption and 10 pct per organisation which Barnet is giving itself until 2012 to reach. Woking, for instance, has reduced the release of carbon dioxide by 17 pct across the whole borough as well as slashing the council's own contribution by 70 pct.
Why is Barnet Council not leading by example by installing solar panels and wind turbines at its own sites? For instance, Barnet House and the North London Business Park buildings would seem ideal for solar panels.
Actually, I can guess the answer to that question - I expect certain members of the Conservative administration are still opposed to the idea. Earlier this year Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the plan for a wind turbine at Frith Manor School. Perhaps he would rather have a nuclear power station on Totteridge fields?
Personally, I find wind turbines quite pleasing to look at. The council can build one next to my allotment any time it likes.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is becoming increasingly urgent, as shown by research published last week demonstrating that carbon dioxide levels in the world's atmosphere are rising faster than anyone has forecast.
Cutting consumption of fossil fuels is something we all should be doing for other reasons too, notably to conserve the world's rapidly depleting resources.
And people like Mr Coleman should bear in mind that lowering use of energy saves money. Woking Council saved £1 million over 10 years thanks to its CO2 reduction project.
Wednesday, 3 October 2007
Norway to build world's first osmotic power plant
Here are details of yet another better alternative to building new nuclear power stations:
Norway's state-owned electricity company, Statkraft, said it is to build the world's first osmotic power plant, a renewable energy source that makes use of the pressure built up between sea water and fresh water.
According to Statkraft, osmotic power is based on the natural process of osmosis.
In an osmotic power plant, sea water and fresh water are separated by a membrane.
As the sea water draws the fresh water through the membrane, pressure is increased on the sea water side, and this is used to produce power using a turbine, Statkraft said.
"Osmotic power is a very promising technology," said the head of Statkraft, Baard Mikkelsen.
"It is clean and (greenhous gas) emission-free, and could become competitive within a few years."
According to Statkraft, the technology could produce approximately 1,600 terawatt hours (TWh) worldwide each year.
That is equivalent to "13 times the annual hydroelectric production of Norway," which covers almost all of its energy needs with hydro power.
In Europe, the potential is estimated at around 200 TWh, Statkraft said.
The prototype of the osmotic power plant is being built in Hurum in south-eastern Norway and could produce between two and four kilowatt hours (KWh).
Construction of the 100 mln nkr plant is scheduled to be completed next year.
Norway's state-owned electricity company, Statkraft, said it is to build the world's first osmotic power plant, a renewable energy source that makes use of the pressure built up between sea water and fresh water.
According to Statkraft, osmotic power is based on the natural process of osmosis.
In an osmotic power plant, sea water and fresh water are separated by a membrane.
As the sea water draws the fresh water through the membrane, pressure is increased on the sea water side, and this is used to produce power using a turbine, Statkraft said.
"Osmotic power is a very promising technology," said the head of Statkraft, Baard Mikkelsen.
"It is clean and (greenhous gas) emission-free, and could become competitive within a few years."
According to Statkraft, the technology could produce approximately 1,600 terawatt hours (TWh) worldwide each year.
That is equivalent to "13 times the annual hydroelectric production of Norway," which covers almost all of its energy needs with hydro power.
In Europe, the potential is estimated at around 200 TWh, Statkraft said.
The prototype of the osmotic power plant is being built in Hurum in south-eastern Norway and could produce between two and four kilowatt hours (KWh).
Construction of the 100 mln nkr plant is scheduled to be completed next year.
Monday, 1 October 2007
Renewable energy better than nuclear power
My 11 reasons why the government should invest money in wind, soar and marine power rather than new nuclear power plants:
1/ With the many billions of pounds it will require to develop them, every house in Britain could have solar panels on the roof. In other words, the money would be many times more productive if it was spent instead on developing macro and micro wind, solar and marine power projects, as well as on energy conservation.
2/ Nuclear power stations are operationally unwieldy because they take many hours to start and stop and thus cannot be used to match the rapid variations in energy demand (eg when everyone puts the kettle on a half-time in the football). This can only be done with gas power and energy storage plus a combination of renewable energy options.
3/ There are great risks from leakages and accidents at nuclear sites - eg Chernobyl, Kashiwazaki (Search in www.blackle.com). In the UK, the Royal Society said this month that the risk of an accident or terrorist attack on the stockpile of plutonium waste is so severe at the moment that urgent action is needed.
4/ No arrangements are yet in place for dealing with the waste produced by existing nuclear power stations, never mind any that might be produced by future stations. Disposing of the existing waste will cost a predicted 70 bln pounds. If nuclear power stations had never been built, that money could have been used to provide as much power from renewable sources as we need.
5/ Nuclear power stations do nothing to improve our energy security. Where will the uranium come from? There is none in the UK and major suppliers include Kazakhstan, Niger and the Central African Republic. Do you really want to depend on them? Niger and the CAR are currently in dispute about the terms under which uranium is extracted by foreign companies.
6/ There is a risk from terrorism. Should an attack ever succeed, the consequences of blowing up a nuclear power plant could be dreadful. In contrast, very little harm would be done by attacking a wind farm or any other renewable energy installation.
7/ Nuclear power requires big, expensive and cumbersome plants whereas it would be much more efficient to build a large number of small renewable energy installations nearer to the user of the electricity, as less energy is lost in transmitting the power from generating unit to end user.
8/ Nuclear power can only contribute to electricity production and cannot help reduce carbon emissions from other energy uses such as transport. Given the enormous cost of nuclear power plants, their potential contribution is almost irrelevant in the whole picture and the cost is certainly not justified given all the other negative factors.
9/ Developers would require long-term guarantees of electricity prices to justify their investment. This would mean the taxpayer would end up paying vast sums of money to nuclear power station owners even if they are built without government support.
10/ If as the government is proposing, the nuclear power stations would be privately owned, the state would have no influence to ensure they are properly run. This is totally unacceptable, especially given the problems there have been even at state-run nuclear installations.
11/ Nuclear power stations require large amounts of water to cool them. In Britain, this has meant them mostly being placed in coastal locations, where they will be increasingly liable to erosion as climate change causes sea levels to rise. In other countries hot weather and low water flows can and sometimes already has caused nuclear power plants to be closed down because of inadequate water supply.
For more details or to comment, contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
1/ With the many billions of pounds it will require to develop them, every house in Britain could have solar panels on the roof. In other words, the money would be many times more productive if it was spent instead on developing macro and micro wind, solar and marine power projects, as well as on energy conservation.
2/ Nuclear power stations are operationally unwieldy because they take many hours to start and stop and thus cannot be used to match the rapid variations in energy demand (eg when everyone puts the kettle on a half-time in the football). This can only be done with gas power and energy storage plus a combination of renewable energy options.
3/ There are great risks from leakages and accidents at nuclear sites - eg Chernobyl, Kashiwazaki (Search in www.blackle.com). In the UK, the Royal Society said this month that the risk of an accident or terrorist attack on the stockpile of plutonium waste is so severe at the moment that urgent action is needed.
4/ No arrangements are yet in place for dealing with the waste produced by existing nuclear power stations, never mind any that might be produced by future stations. Disposing of the existing waste will cost a predicted 70 bln pounds. If nuclear power stations had never been built, that money could have been used to provide as much power from renewable sources as we need.
5/ Nuclear power stations do nothing to improve our energy security. Where will the uranium come from? There is none in the UK and major suppliers include Kazakhstan, Niger and the Central African Republic. Do you really want to depend on them? Niger and the CAR are currently in dispute about the terms under which uranium is extracted by foreign companies.
6/ There is a risk from terrorism. Should an attack ever succeed, the consequences of blowing up a nuclear power plant could be dreadful. In contrast, very little harm would be done by attacking a wind farm or any other renewable energy installation.
7/ Nuclear power requires big, expensive and cumbersome plants whereas it would be much more efficient to build a large number of small renewable energy installations nearer to the user of the electricity, as less energy is lost in transmitting the power from generating unit to end user.
8/ Nuclear power can only contribute to electricity production and cannot help reduce carbon emissions from other energy uses such as transport. Given the enormous cost of nuclear power plants, their potential contribution is almost irrelevant in the whole picture and the cost is certainly not justified given all the other negative factors.
9/ Developers would require long-term guarantees of electricity prices to justify their investment. This would mean the taxpayer would end up paying vast sums of money to nuclear power station owners even if they are built without government support.
10/ If as the government is proposing, the nuclear power stations would be privately owned, the state would have no influence to ensure they are properly run. This is totally unacceptable, especially given the problems there have been even at state-run nuclear installations.
11/ Nuclear power stations require large amounts of water to cool them. In Britain, this has meant them mostly being placed in coastal locations, where they will be increasingly liable to erosion as climate change causes sea levels to rise. In other countries hot weather and low water flows can and sometimes already has caused nuclear power plants to be closed down because of inadequate water supply.
For more details or to comment, contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
Tuesday, 7 August 2007
Frith Manor wind turbine
News that Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the erection of a wind turbine at Frith Manor School is unfortunately all too typical of the head-in-the-sand attitude of Barnet Council's Conservative administration to the severity of the problem of climate change.
Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.
Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!
More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.
Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.
Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!
More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.
In her latest newsletter, distributed last week, Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, says: "I recognise the huge importance of tackling climate change, which is why I have been working so hard over the past two years to push it up the political agenda."
How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?
How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?
News that Councillor Brian Coleman was the only objector to the erection of a wind turbine at Frith Manor School is unfortunately all too typical of the head-in-the-sand attitude of Barnet Council's Conservative administration to the severity of the problem of climate change.
Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.
Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!
More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.
Instead of opposing wind turbines, Mr Coleman and his colleagues should be calling on all schools to investigate the possibilities for installing micro-generation equipment on their sites.
Sensibly, the planning committee ignored Mr Coleman's whinging and approved the turbine anyway. Well done Frith Manor School and well done to the planning committee!
More than 200 local authorities around Britain have pledged to reduce their carbon footprints but Barnet's administration has no coordinated programme to lower the council's own greenhouse gas emissions or to help local people and businesses to do so.
In her latest newsletter, distributed last week, Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, says: "I recognise the huge importance of tackling climate change, which is why I have been working so hard over the past two years to push it up the political agenda."
How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?
How do Brian Coleman and his council colleagues propose to respond to Ms Villiers' call for action to fight global warming? Perhaps they would like to have a nuclear power station built on Totteridge Fields?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)