Latest Energydesk posts http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/feeds/newsdesk en Energydesk daily dispatch http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/energydesk-daily-dispatch-41 <fieldset class="fieldgroup group-content"><legend>Content</legend><div class="field field-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Christine Ottery </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-body"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> On EnergydeskAs European leaders sit down over the next two days at council summit, Damian Kahya gives the skinny on “What’s at stake as EU leaders sit down to hammer out the next batch of energy and climate targets?” A lot, it turns out.Business Green&nbsp;has also done a “10 things you need to know” style explainer on the package.Of course, the discussions over the 2030 targets also feature heavily in today’s news. See below for a round-up of what the papers say.Top stories1) 2030 targets: Challenges in hammering out an agreementReuters reports&nbsp;that there are several countries that are at odds with each other coming into the talks, and it’s not just Poland that could be in opposition to an ambitious 2030 climate and energy framework, for example Portugal and Spain could also obstruct the way forwards as they want a binding infrastructure deal.But it’s not just the usual suspects of the central European countries and now Spain and Portugal that may cause issues -&nbsp;the Wall Street Journal reports&nbsp;the UK has said it won’t accept the current efficiency proposal, with some negotiators attributing this reluctance to pressure from UKIP.“The main challenge for the 28 heads of government will be to iron out differences on a strategy that ensures cheaper and safer energy while stepping up climate-protection measures,” &nbsp;reports Bloomberg’s Ewa Krukowska. She goes on to cover the various challenges to be faced to reach an accord.2) 2030 targets: Industry bills could go up - but&nbsp;potential jobs could be createdA report by think tank Open Europe - timed to coincide with the council meeting - has been covered by the Daily Mail and others. It looks at the impact of the 2020 renewables target, saying that it has already added £59 to the average dual fuel energy bill in the UK, and suggests this figure will rise to £149 by 2020, according to the Daily Mail. &nbsp;City AM coverage of the same report states that the renewables targets could add 23% to UK firms’ bills by 2020.Meanwhile German energy-intensive industries say they face billions in losses as a consequence of the 40% greenhouse gas emissions reduction target,&nbsp;Euractiv highlights.And, the Guardian reports&nbsp;nearly a million potential jobs will be lost if EU leaders fail to agree strong climate and energy targets, according to the unions.3) EU seeks alternative sources of gas - and can 'manage' Russia cutting off supplyThe EU is looking to alternative sources of gas - other than Russia -&nbsp;according to the FT. These could include improving domestic supplies of gas, such as from Norway or the UK; fracking; and gas and LNG from as from further afield.&nbsp;This is in the wake of the publication of the European Commission’s&nbsp;European Energy Security Strategy&nbsp;on the Russia-Ukraine crisis last week.Forbes writes&nbsp;“gas stress tests” have show that the damage from a complete halt of Russian gas imports or from a lesser disruption of the Ukrainian transit route can be managed - suggesting that Europe is in a position to call Mr. Putin’s bluff.In other newsUS stocks retreat as energy shares decline with oil,&nbsp;Bloomberg reports.Labor rejects Abbott government's first attempt at renewable energy deal,&nbsp;according to the GuardianClean energy proves a costly exercise for Germany, reports the FTUS Department of Energy allocates $53m to drive solar innovation </div> </div> </div> </fieldset> http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/energydesk-daily-dispatch-41#comments News energy Thu, 23 Oct 2014 08:33:28 +0000 habelvik 366757 at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk What’s at stake as EU leaders sit down to hammer out the next batch of energy and climate targets? http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/what%E2%80%99s-stake-eu-leaders-sit-down-hammer-out-next-batch-energy-and-climate-targets <fieldset class="fieldgroup group-content"><legend>Content</legend><div class="field field-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Damian Kahya </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-body"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Renewables targets, gas wars, power outages and nuclear subsidies - possibly the biggest energy issues over the past few years and all linked in one way or another to deals made in the EU over the direction of the continent’s energy and climate policy.Today EU leaders are sitting down to hammer out the targets for the next 15 years, through to 2030.Whether we like it or not (let’s not go there right now) the decisions they make - each with their own veto - will have a bigger impact on our bills, our energy security and our emissions than anything which happens at a national level.What’s more, the targets they agree will have a big impact on the EU’s negotiating position in Paris in a year’s time when global leaders get together to try and cut a deal which will shift our energy use toward renewables and away from oil, gas and coal enough to avoid the more catastrophic effects of climate change.So what’s at stake today? Well much of the deal has already been decided and the devil will - as always - lie in the detail. Here’s the skinny:&nbsp;1. OK, so, broad brush strokes, what are we going to get?It’s all about targets. EU leaders are likely to agree 3 targets to be reached by 2030, including:A domestic 40% carbon dioxide reduction target, to be divided up amongst member states (compared to 1990 levels)A renewable energy target for something like 27-30%A target for a 30% cut in energy use through greater efficiency2. Righto, is that a lot, a little?It really depends where you are standing. If it’s Warsaw then you might think this is a pretty ambitious package, given Poland has repeatedly threatened to veto any deal which undermines its coal industry.If you are in, say, the Maldives (or a floodplain) it may not look so great. Here’s the thing. In line with the scientific evidence on climate change - and global agreements about how to share the burden - the EU is committed to cutting emissions by 80-95% in 2050 (compared to 1990 levels) to reduce the risk of global temperatures going above 2 degrees and forcing you into a houseboat.Cutting emissions by 40% (around 8% more than the commission estimates will happen anyway) by 2030 means you still have another 60% to go in just 20 years. Put another way, you have to cut the amount of oil, gas and coal you burn by two thirds in just two decades."I don't think many people have grasped just how huge this task is," Professor Jim Skea, a vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the BBC."It is absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented. My guess is that 40% for 2030 is too little too late if we are really serious about our long-term targets."The targets for renewable energy and efficiency are also hard to gauge because - as EU wide targets - it’s not totally/at all clear how they will be implemented by the commission.If you are sitting in a wind turbine factory you may note that the EU is already committed to a 20% renewable energy target and the commission’s own analysis suggests that without any new policies at all it would reach 24% by 2030.Indeed the new target would slow down the growth of renewables from 6.4% a year from 2010-2020 to 1.4% a year for the following decade (based on the commission’s assessment).As for efficiency analysis by E3G EU unit suggests that a 30% target would amount to a 12% saving on current demand projections - so, a cut, but not a huge one.The commission has calculated that with an efficiency target of 40 per cent, the EU could&nbsp;reduce gas imports by 40% and oil imports by 19%, compared to 2010. A target of 30% would only cut Europe’s gas imports by 22% and oil imports by 16%.We’re not sure if this will unduly trouble Gazprom.&nbsp;3. But like it or hate it the deal’s done, today is just a formality right?Not quite. To start with, the Polish could yet veto everything - just to add a bit of frisson to proceedings.Assuming things don’t play out that way, there are some seemingly arcane arguments going on around the details.The summit will agree the precise level of the targets on efficiency and renewables - with big impacts on energy imports and the clean energy sector.It will also decide on some quite important wording. Will the target for emissions say “at least” 40%, suggesting the EU may be willing to negotiate something more ambitious during the global climate summit?Will the EU renewables and efficiency targets be “binding” suggesting that even if they are not at national level some mechanism has to be found to force their implementation?Consider the difference between a package which allows no room for change and has few mechanisms for implementation and one with at least a promise of implementation and the possibility of future negotiation. It’s dull, but it does matter (whichever you prefer).4. What does business think?Actually that’s something of a bone of contention. UK consumers will certainly see the difference either way - will they be buying gas or wind power in future? Will the UK’s emissions targets be adjusted down, or up with all the changes that brings?EU businesses are fairly split. Some large energy firms such as EDF, EON, RWE etc with very large existing investments in oil, coal and gas have publicly lobbied against what they see as excessive ambition at an EU level, especially in the form of renewables.Firms with less to lose, or perhaps more to gain, from the growth of a “clean economy” such as IKEA and Philips have called for far more ambitious targets, whilst some energy firms with investments in renewables have called for a higher target there (albeit not much higher).5. What isn’t being agreed?One sacrifice to Polish agreement on the deal is likely to be reform of Europe’s largely moribund carbon market. If it goes unreformed it may mean continuing free allocations of carbon allowances for industries - and possibly Polish coal plants.Whilst this may still allow the EU to meet its modest 2030 target it has the effect of reducing the incentive for these sectors (or countries) to make long term investments in cleaner energy making the dash to the finish after 2030 tricky.Indeed an analysis by Sandbag suggests that coal burning may fall by around 23% through to 2030, a fairly modest fall compared to the 100% EU leaders are targeting shortly afterwards.Indeed an analysis by CAN Europe, WWF and Greenpeace found the vast majority of the estimated 12bn euros of European allowances and transfers intended to tackle climate change and diversify the energy mix between 2013-19 will instead be spent on coal.Further reading:Billions in EU allowances spent on coal EU’s environmental policies could fail to limit coal burningCan the UK cut it’s reliance on gas importsPolicy Notebook: How can EU leaders tackle climate change, and UKIP </div> </div> </div> </fieldset> http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/what%E2%80%99s-stake-eu-leaders-sit-down-hammer-out-next-batch-energy-and-climate-targets#comments News energy Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:12:34 +0000 damiankahya 366723 at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk China's coal use actually falling now (for the first time this century) http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/data/chinas-coal-use-actually-falling-now-first-time-century <fieldset class="fieldgroup group-content"><legend>Content</legend><div class="field field-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Lauri Myllyvirta </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-body"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> &nbsp;Coal use in China is falling this year - according to official data reported in the Chinese press.It is the first time this century that China has seen year on year quarterly falls in coal use. The Chinese economy continues to grow by 7.4%.The data&nbsp;suggests the world's largest economy is finally starting to radically slow down its emission growth, and it comes ahead of key talks next year on a new global climate and energy deal.&nbsp;The latest 3rd quarter data reinforces a trend towards falling coal use which started in the second quarter of 2014 and suggests China's annual coal use may end up down on the previous year.&nbsp;Significantly the latest data showed that even as power consumption grew by 4% (based on government data) coal demand for power generation actually fell by 1%.The drop intensified in August and September, with slow power demand growth and large hydropower additions conspiring to reduce power sector coal consumption by 11%.Economic growth without the carbon?Quarterly economic data is volatile and the falls in coal use may be reversed - not least if China pursues ambitious plans for a batch of new coal-to-gas projects.&nbsp;However the data suggests that economic growth in China is no longer leading automatically to higher coal consumption and CO2 emissions.China’s statistical agency notes that growth was increasingly coming from the service sector instead of heavy industry. The two main energy and CO2 intensive products, steel and cement, cooled down after some export-led growth in the first half of the year, with cement output dropping 2% on year in September and steel output growing a mere 1.7%.High-tech manufacturing also sped well ahead of energy intensive industry allowing economic growth without the same level of coal use.&nbsp;Impact on the climateThe past 12 years saw the size of China’s economy triple, fueled by a doubling of coal consumption.The link between coal fuelled power and economic growth is such that economists have long used electricity consumption growth rates as a proxy for GDP growth. In fact the growth of coal use in China was responsible for most of CO2 emission growth globally, and propelled China’s per capita CO2 emissions past the EU average.If this model for economic growth had continued, until all Chinese citizens reached western standards of living, keeping climate change within safe limits would have been impossible.&nbsp;Concern for the environmentThe change in this economic model is down to more than the rise of China's service sector at the expense of concrete and steel.&nbsp;The chief economist for&nbsp;China’s central bank recently argued that, along with the greater role of the service sector,&nbsp;public concern for the environment and particularly for air pollution is driving a restructuring of the economy.Indeed China is in the midst of preparing its next five-year plan for 2016-2020, which is likely to be&nbsp;single most important document for the future of the climate.Some of the trends, like structural change of the economy, are to an extent economic necessities, and others, like improving air quality, are political necessities. However, how fast and smoothly the changes unfold depends strongly on the targets in the five-year plan. Initial proposals from China’s National Energy Agency would limit the growth in coal consumption to&nbsp;2%, while wind power capacity (already the largest in the world) would more than double and solar capacity would grow more than 5-fold from 2013 to 2020. Whilst the proposals in themselves signal a radical departure from the rapid growth in coal use over the past 10 years, China can do better. The pledge that the top leadership made to peak CO2 emissions "as soon as possible" and the public demand for clean air should translate into peaking coal use before 2020.&nbsp;That will set the scene for next year's negotiations in Paris.&nbsp; </div> </div> </div> </fieldset> http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/data/chinas-coal-use-actually-falling-now-first-time-century#comments Data energy Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:49:51 +0000 damiankahya 366713 at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk Energydesk Daily Dispatch http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/energydesk-daily-dispatch-40 <fieldset class="fieldgroup group-content"><legend>Content</legend><div class="field field-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Zachary Davies Boren </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-body"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to our mailing list Report: Wind energy could supply one fifth of global energy by 2030The Global Wind Energy Outlook says that, with the right investment and incentives, wind energy could provide 19% of the world's supply by 2030. China looks to be leading this worldwide uptake of wind power, with its output projected to increase five fold in the next 16 years.Top stories1) Ukraine-Russia deal is in sightAlthough no resolution was reached in the latest round of EU-brokered talks between Ukraine and Russia, it looks as though Ukraine will be getting Russian gas this winter,&nbsp;according to EurActive.The two parties will meet again next week finalise everything, but EU Energy Commissioner Oettinger said everyone had settled on a winter gas price of $385 per thousand cubic metres - so long as Ukraine pays in advance.The FT reports&nbsp;that Russia, sceptical as to whether Ukraine can pay upfront, is now demanding assurances from the IMF or major European financial institutions that someone will back Ukraine's part of the deal - acting a guarantor of sorts.Meanwhile&nbsp;Business Week writes&nbsp;that Putin lost an ally in Total CEO Christophe De Margerie, who died two days ago in a plane crash.De Margerie was a staunch opponent of western sanctions on Russia, likely because of Total's considerable investment in the country.2) Oil price fall 'worse than sanctions'The world's oil price problems will see Russia, Saudi Arabia and the other oil giants fail to balance their budgets,&nbsp;according to DW.The current price is hurting the Russian economy 'worse than western sanctions,' prompting conspiracy theories that the whole debacle is another US-coordinated attack.Investors on the other hand, see this situation as an opportunity.&nbsp;Business Week reports&nbsp;that crude oil investment will hit a a two-year high as the speculators bank the commodity will rebound.3) US: Increasing emissions, midterms approachOfficial figures reveal US carbon emissions rose by 2.5% last year, the steepest increase in 25 years,&nbsp;according to the Guardian.In&nbsp;an Energydesk article earlier this week, we said this increase can be attributed to a coal and crude revival, though it is unlikely to last due to the number of coal plants set to retire in 2015.Meanwhile congressional elections are fast approaching, with environment and energy issues at the forefront,&nbsp;reports the New York Times.There's been record breaking numbers of energy-centric ads, with over 125,000 Senate race TV spots including references to the environment, energy and/or climate change.4) &nbsp;EU climate talks are troubledFrom the CBI to the European Trade Union, big business and labour organisations are pushing for ambitious climate change at tomorrow's big EU summit,&nbsp;writes Business Green.There's a sense of dread around these talks after IPCC vice-chair&nbsp;Jim Skea told the BBC&nbsp;the agreement will 'fail to protect the climate.'The New York Times&nbsp;has detailed the many divisions and conflict within the negotiations, highlighting Poland's threat to veto an agreement.Another one those factional disputes is between France and Spain,&nbsp;reports the FT.Spain and Portugal, who both produce more wind energy than they need, have threatened to block any agreement if neighbouring countries refuse to connect power grids in a move designed to prevent waste.France, with its huge nuclear sector, is not so keen on this power-share initiative.Other newsWind farms provided more of the UK's energy on Tuesday than did nuclear plants,&nbsp;reports the BBC.Half a million households with unresolved complaints against their energy providers are missing out on £100 from the industry ombudsman, the Labour Party claims&nbsp;via The Telegraph.Oil giant Shell has sold lots of its Nigerian assets,&nbsp;reports WSJ.And Alpine goats are shrinking because of climate change,&nbsp;says the Daily Mail. </div> </div> </div> </fieldset> http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/energydesk-daily-dispatch-40#comments News energy Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:07:12 +0000 zacharyboren 366674 at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk Wind energy could provide nearly one fifth of world's power within 15 years - new report http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/analysis/growing-wind-energy-sector-can-be-force-coming-years <fieldset class="fieldgroup group-content"><legend>Content</legend><div class="field field-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Zachary Davies Boren </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-body"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Wind energy could supply up to 19% of the world’s electricity by 2030 - if the world implements policies to limit emissions, according to a new report from GWEC, Greenpeace and the German&nbsp;Aerospace Centre.The report finds China is likely to dominate wind power, increasing output by five times between now and 2030.In addition to policy measures, the projections include continuing falls in the cost of wind power and advances in technology.See also:The Wind Turbine Rises: Is high altitude the future of wind energy&nbsp;The Global Wind Energy Outlook compares three scenarios for the wind energy sector: the IEA’s conservative New Policies projection, a ‘Moderate’ improvement in wind energy investment and output, and an ‘Advanced’ scenario in which further resources are committed.According to the ‘Advanced’ scenario, in which annual investment is double that of the IEA’s projected €50 billion, the wind energy sector can represent up to 9% of the global energy mix by 2020, and 19% ten years later.The ‘Moderate’ scenario, which the report claims is still “not in line with what would be required to meet agreed climate protection goals,” sees wind energy contribute around 8% by the end of the decade, and up to 14.5% by 2030.The original IEA projection, which acts as a baseline for this analysis, has wind energy output double in next six years to reach up to 6.7%. It, however, forecasts reduced investment and growth slowdown in the 2020’s leading to a 2030 global contribution of little more than 9%.As for emissions reductions, to which existing wind power plants currently provide 372 million tonnes, the IEA sees 1.5 billion tonnes by 2030, the ‘Moderate’ GWEO scenario sees 2.3 billion, and the ‘Advanced’ scenario would result in an annual reduction of 3.1 billion.&nbsp;&nbsp;Installations, investments, improvementThe GWEO report says its near-future projections have a solid foundation, but that beyond 2018 there are a number of uncertainties.The scenarios were designed under the assumptions of wider global uptake of wind energy, driven largely by declining costs and improving efficiency, as well as international climate agreements.Europe’s wind energy sector, for instance, will be shaped significantly by what is agreed at the Paris climate summit in December 2015.It’s up-to-2030 projections did not account for the probable improvements in turbine technology, using the average size of 2013 installation - 1.93 MW - and the current average capacity factor of 28%.The gains in the coming years are from the number of turbines the GWEO expects. 318 GW was added in 2013, 45 GW is expected in 2014, and by 2020 the GWEO scenarios have the world adding between 712 and 800 GW per year. That could reach up to 2000 GW by 2030, according to the ‘Advanced’ scenario, although the IEA forecasts only a yearly addition of 964 GW.For these proposed installations, investment is a must. The IEA expects €50 billion to be spent per year by 2020, and a decrease to €41 billion by 2030.The GWEO scenarios require more money than that, with the ‘Moderate’ needing an annual €80 billion by 2020, and an increase to €102 billion by 2030.The ‘Advanced’ scenario will need €141 billion, but that’s only a fraction of the €530 billion the IEA thinks the world will be spending on energy around that time.GWEO argues that in terms of the amount spend on the global power industry, that figure is good bang for your buck. For providing around 20% of the world’s electricity, the wind sector is given 26% of the investment.Emissions, and feasibilityAs touched on before, the uptake of wind energy serves the reduction of CO2 emissions. Wind power plants already cut 372 million tonnes a year, and under all three scenarios will vastly improve upon that figure.&nbsp;But where the IEA New Policies expects 899 million tonnes reduction by 2020 and 1.52 billion by 2030, the GWEO see potential for that number to double.The ‘Moderate’ scenario sees a moderate increase: 1 billion tonnes in 2020 and 2.3 billion tonnes in 2030.The ‘Advanced’ scenario forecasts a vast increase in wind power-driven emissions reduction in the 2020s, from 1.2 billion tonnes at the beginning of the decade and 3.1 a year by the end.Now the other question is whether the GWEO forecasts are at all feasible. It all depends on how much is done, and where it is done. Up until 2020, much of the gains in wind power generation will come from Europe and North America.In the tail end of the decade, and into the 2020s, China could become a real wind power-house. The country’s economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission, has targeted 20% of the China’s electricity by 2020 to be supplied by wind. IEA estimates indicate the country will almost triple its output by 2030, and the GWEO projections say it’ll be more like 5x, ending the period around the 500 GW mark.On the other hand, Greenpeace East Asia fears near-term growth may suffer for tariff reduction, premium payment delays, and, most importantly, the absence of policies and incentives.&nbsp;Africa will also look to get involved in wind, but its energy infrastructure won’t have developed until well into the 2020’s. From near-to-nothing now and for a while, Africa could deliver anywhere between 10 GW and 90 GW by 2030 depending on investment.&nbsp;&nbsp;The FT observed that the economics of wind power are improving, with its unsubsidised cost now cheaper (sometimes) than $37 per MWh - that’s less than half what it was five years ago.If that trend continues then considerable wind energy growth is indeed possible. The number of turbines installed over the last eight years is up by over 400%, with the ‘Advanced’ scenario suggesting a further 529% growth in the 17 years after 2013.&nbsp;&nbsp;Since wind energy began its consistent ascent 18 years ago, it has seen an average of 26% annual growth. And there are encouraging signs, including last week’s breakthrough in the UK.On Sunday October 19 wind energy supplied 24% of the UK’s energy, that’s 5% more than even the most ambitious global target for 20 years from now.But the report is clear that this sort of forecast is predicated on significant global investment and widespread political will.Raw dataSo the top half wasn’t just a festival of numbers, I kept it to %. If you’re interested in the raw energy generation stats. Here are they are bullet-pointed:Energy demand20k TWh today24kTWh in 202030k TWh in 2030Overall Wind contributionIEA New Policies1,500 TWh Wind Energy by 2020 (6.2 - 6.7% share) 2535 TWh by 2030 (8.4 to 9.4%)‘Moderate’ GWEO1750 TWh Wind Energy by 2020 (7.2 - 7.8%) 3900 TWh in 2030 (12.9 -14.5%)‘Advanced’ GWEO1950 TWh Wind Energy by 2020 (8.1 - 8.8%) 5,000 in 2030 (16.8 - 18.9%)Wind Turbine InstallationsIEA New Policies611 GW per year by 2020 964 GW per year by 2030‘Moderate’ GWEO712 GW per year by 20201500 GW per year by 2030‘Advanced’ GWEO800 GW per year by 20202000 GW per year by 2030 </div> </div> </div> </fieldset> http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/analysis/growing-wind-energy-sector-can-be-force-coming-years#comments Analysis energy Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:59:26 +0000 zacharyboren 366604 at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk Energydesk Daily Dispatch http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/energydesk-daily-dispatch-39 <fieldset class="fieldgroup group-content"><legend>Content</legend><div class="field field-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Damian Kahya </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-body"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Top stories this morning.1) India moves ahead with coal market changesAfter India's Supreme court ruled that almost all of a batch of licenses to mine&nbsp;coal were illegal the Indian government is moving to re-auction the country's coal mines to a larger group of potential bidders.The Reuters factbox&nbsp;on the changes observes they stop short of full privatisation India's coal mining sector whilst the BBC carries the reaction from&nbsp;the Indian press.The move comes as lower than expected coal supply from India's state monopoly - Coal India - means 64 of the country's power plants have coal stocks of less than one week's use. The problems have&nbsp;fuelled speculation&nbsp;that - in future - Coal India may be split up.2) UK media warn of "brownouts" as gas plant goes up in smoke, nuclear stays below parReuters reports that a fire at a major gas power station and the shutting down of nuclear reactors for safety&nbsp;reasons means 7%&nbsp;of the UK's total electricity generating capacity is offline.&nbsp;The Times reports on&nbsp;analysis&nbsp;from one of the UK's most controversial energy analysts, Peter Atherton, that there has been a substantial jump in the risk of "brownouts" this winter because of the problems.The paper reported that he estimated&nbsp;the risk of serious power shortages had risen from one in fifty in a normal winter to one in three in coming months. Another one or two incidents at power stations “could cause a serious security of supply event”, he said.&nbsp;Carbon Brief, on the other hand, carries a detailed analysis of how the National Grid deals with such issues:What happens when a major gas power station catches on fire? Well,&nbsp;it certainly looks spectacular. But it appears the short term impact on the UK's power generation is pretty minimal.3) EU targets will "fail" to protect climate says UN expert as EU clean energy investment fallsThe BBC's Roger Harrabin reports on claims by a UN expert&nbsp;that&nbsp;Europe’s leaders are about to consign the Earth to the risk of dangerous climate change.Prof Jim Skea, a vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the EU’s plan to cut CO2 emissions 40% by 2030 is too weak.He says the low level of ambition by 2030&nbsp;will commit future governments to “extraordinary and unprecedented” emissions cuts."I don't think many people have grasped just how huge this task is," he said. "It is absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented. My guess is that 40% for 2030 is too little too late if we are really serious about our long-term targets."His intervention comes as accountants&nbsp;Ernst and Young report that policy instability in the EU is hurting investment&nbsp;in clean energy, potentially allowing the EU to be overtaken by China and Japan in the sector.&nbsp;In other news:- UK wind energy reaches&nbsp;highest ever level- Former head of&nbsp;UK Environment Agency&nbsp;to lead new 'task force' on shale gas&nbsp;-&nbsp;CEO of major western oil company&nbsp;dies in Moscow plane crash&nbsp;-&nbsp;Quartz works out who wins&nbsp;from low global oil prices- And&nbsp;Think Progress follows up&nbsp;on our story from yesterday claiming renewables and efficiency made up 70% of the drop in US emissions since 2007Been forwarded this email? Sign up here.&nbsp; </div> </div> </div> </fieldset> http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/energydesk-daily-dispatch-39#comments News energy Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:07:13 +0000 damiankahya 366592 at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk Energydesk weekend dispatch http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/energydesk-weekend-dispatch-2 <fieldset class="fieldgroup group-content"><legend>Content</legend><div class="field field-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Damian Kahya </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-body"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> New data: Renewables and shale gas played similar role in cutting US emissions, but Renewables were more significantWind power, not shale gas, is the biggest single cause of the falls in US emissions from coal use, according a new analysis of US data by&nbsp;Energydesk.The data, also reported in&nbsp;Business Green, reveals that though the switch from coal to gas, largely attributed to cheap gas from shale, was more significant than the growth of wind power since 2007 wind power played a greater role in cutting emissions - because gas still released carbon dioxide.Top stories1) Solar farms "blight on the landscape" says UK minister as African solar scheme looks to power UKThe prospects for up&nbsp;until now booming UK&nbsp;solar sector look bleak after the new Environment secretary, Liz Truss described them as a&nbsp;'blight on the landscape'."Food and farming is our number one manufacturing industry, the whole food chain represents £100bn in our economy, and it is a real problem if we are using productive agricultural land for solar farms," Ms Truss told The Mail&nbsp;confirming&nbsp;she will cut subsidies to farmers.Her comment's -&nbsp;which haven't gone down too well in some quarters&nbsp;- come amidstmedia praise&nbsp;for her predecessor, Owen Paterson's criticism of renewables.The news comes amidst BBC reports that&nbsp;cheap African solar energy could be powering UK homes&nbsp;in less than five years time if a Tunisian project gets subsidies from the UK government under new rules to allow support for projects on non-UK landscapes (blighted or otherwise).Another scheme which doesn't take up agricultural land - the Swansea tidal lagoon project - also appears to be progressing after an&nbsp;investment boost from Prudential.&nbsp;2) Beijing marathon marred by gas-masks &amp; dropouts amidst return of the coal fuelled smogThousands of runners took part in the Beijing&nbsp;marathon over the weekend amidst conditions described as Hazerdous.With almost all the contestants wearing masks some where still forced to pull out after pollution levels rose far above levels recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO).British runner Chas Pope&nbsp;tweeted&nbsp;that he was only able to do 10km (6 miles) of the race in a mask before he was forced to pull out.He said that race should have been cancelled because the air quality was "not suitable for outdoor activities".Energydesk Briefing: Coal and China's smog, data and mapsThe renewed concerns over coal and smog come as US solar giant&nbsp;Sun Edison announced a 1GW joint&nbsp;venture project in China and oil and gas firm Petrochina said it was on track to beat it's&nbsp;2015 shale gas production targets.3) UK gas plant out after major blazeCoal generation in the UK is likely to increase amidst (probably silly) fears of blackouts after one of the country's largest gas power&nbsp;plants was hit by a major fire.The fire reportedly could affect half of the 1.3GW plant's capacity, the Energy Secretary has said there is no risk of power shortages.&nbsp;4) Indian government to buy-up and re-auction coal lots&nbsp;The&nbsp;Indian government could buy-up&nbsp;and re-auction coal lots, according to domestic reports. The news comes as India&nbsp;expands it's solar power target&nbsp;and carries out&nbsp;wide-ranging energy reforms.In other news&nbsp;-&nbsp;US energy imports hit 29 year low amidst plans&nbsp;to extend life of US&nbsp;nuclear plants by "decades"- Like India, Poland faces major coal restructuring,&nbsp;FT reports on impact on miners-&nbsp;Global clean energy investment grows 11%&nbsp;Been forwarded this email? Sign up here.&nbsp; </div> </div> </div> </fieldset> http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/energydesk-weekend-dispatch-2#comments News energy Mon, 20 Oct 2014 08:27:09 +0000 damiankahya 366545 at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk Renewables cutting US emissions more than gas as coal consumption drops http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/data/data-what-accounts-huge-cut-us-coal-use-2007 <fieldset class="fieldgroup group-content"><legend>Content</legend><div class="field field-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Zachary Davies Boren &amp; Lauri Myllvirta </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-body"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Wind power, not shale gas, is the biggest single cause of the fall in US emissions from coal use, according a new analysis of US data by Energydesk.The fall in US coal consumption since 2007 is to a larger extent down to improved energy efficiency and an increase in renewable generation than to use of shale gas, Greenpeace analyst Lauri Myllvirta has found.Between 2007-13 the US experienced the largest fall in coal usage ever experienced by any country, with renewables, energy efficiency and shale gas together picking up the slack.The switch from coal has led to lower emissions from the power sector, which has largely been attributed to fracking.However our analysis has found that, because they are zero emissions, the growth of renewables actually had a much bigger impact on the fall in US power sector emissions than shale gas. In fact, growth in wind power generation alone made a bigger contribution than the increase in use of gas for power.The growth of wind power in the US followed the introduction tax credits for clean energy backed by a large grass roots capaign for renewables and against coal.&nbsp;To top that off, a recent analysis by Bernstein research suggests US coal use will fall by a further 25% by 2020, again partially driven by renewables growth.The steady decrease of US emissions, however, has been reversed in these last 18 months following a price-driven increase in coal burning, and also a resurgence in crude oil production (up 31% in the last two years).But with a significant number of coal plants due to retire in 2015, we expect this return to rising emissions will be short-lived.21% fall in coalBetween 2007 and 2013 US coal-fired generation fell by 21%, leaving a vacuum of 43 terawatt-hours to be filled by other types of energy, equivalent to more than the power consumption of the entire U.S. West Coast.While just about every news story and serious analysis of the dramatic transformation tends to name cheap gas from fracking as the main or only factor behind the drop, the data suggests that a combination of energy efficiency measures and renewables has made up 56% of the difference.&nbsp;US renewable energy grew by 48.1% in that six year period, with wind generation, spurred by tax credits, nearly quadrupling on its own.Energy efficiency, both power plant and end-use, compensated for 21% of the drop in coal.The other 44% was covered by gas-fired generation, which grew 23.7% as gas generators were able to out-compete coal utilities to provide power to the grid.What is the impact on emissions?Here’s where the rise of renewables and energy efficiency gets even more pronounced.The drop in coal resulted in a 16% fall in US CO2 emissions between 2007 and 2013, but only around a third (30%) of that fall came from switching from coal to gas - because shale gas still emits CO2. By contrast 40% comes from the switch from coal to renewables and the remaining 30% from efficiency. Our analysis doesn’t account for the methane leakage from shale gas. The drop in coal and oil products resulted in a 16% fall in US CO2 emissions between 2007 and 2013, but only around a third (30%) of that fall came from switching from coal to gas - because natural gas still emits CO2.On the other hand 40% comes from the switch from coal to renewables and the remaining 30% from efficiency measures. Increased generation from wind power plants alone was responsible for 32% of the drop - a slightly larger contribution than that made by gas.And this is when you only look into emissions from burning the fuel; our analysis doesn’t account for the methane leakage from shale gas, which would subtract from gas’ contribution to the emissions reduction.Where’s this headed?US coal consumption will further fall by up to 25% by 2020, according to a report from Wall Street analysts.In their report The Coming Sea Change in Power Sector Coal and Gas Burn and Its Implications for Demand, Bernstein Research says it expects utility coal burn to drop by between 7 and 25% by 2020 due to a combination of renewables growth, incoming environmental regulations, and a negligible rise in power demand.State-level regulations holds that renewables other than hydropower, which currently account for 6% of US electricity consumption, must represent 10% of US power by the end of the decade - that's growth of around 66%.Assuming this level of power generation from renewables, Bernstein projects gas to grow by 18%.Both competition from renewables and new environmental rules forcing utilities to limit emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides, mercury and other toxics could lead many smaller, older plants to shut.This forecast, however, is predicated on a significant slowdown from current rates of renewable energy growth, with solar generation having doubled every year since 2011 and set to double again this year. Renewables could well hit 20% by the end of the decade.In any case, come 2020, renewables will be in the midst of an ascent even greater than coal’s decline.Renewable energy’s big breakthrough has already happened; Bernstein credits its recent upsurge with bumping off nearly 130 TWh of conventional generation.The other 60 MWh came from reduced power demand due to the recession and, you guessed it, measures to improve energy efficiency.Update on calculations:The calculations for this story were based on an analysis of actual falls in US emissions from coal, coke and oil and changes in generation for gas, nuclear, hydro etc between 2007 and 2013.Previously on Energydesk we have examined the fall in US emissions and it's causes from a more theoretical perspective using EPA assumptions for emissions savings from renewable energy and recently published research up until 2012.&nbsp;Different methodologies yield different results but overall the difference between the impact of gas and the impact of renewables on US emissions is small - with both having a significant impact and renewables exceeding the impact of gas in most years.&nbsp;&nbsp; </div> </div> </div> </fieldset> http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/data/data-what-accounts-huge-cut-us-coal-use-2007#comments Data energy Mon, 20 Oct 2014 07:53:26 +0000 zacharyboren 364795 at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk Energy Files: Government meetings with Shell, BP and Centrica in which energy firms said REDACTED about the Ukraine gas crisis http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/investigations/energy-files-government-meetings-shell-bp-and-centrica-which-energy-firms-said-redacted-about-u-0 <fieldset class="fieldgroup group-content"><legend>Content</legend><div class="field field-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Lila Randall, Christine Ottery </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-body"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> BP, Shell, and British Gas parent company Centrica have been meeting UK secretaries of state and officials from DECC this Spring and Summer as the Russia-Ukraine crisis escalated, according to documents seen by Energydesk.The FOI responses shows high-level meetings took place ahead of and around the same time as several rounds of US and EU sanctions affecting energy companies.As far as we could tell from the selectively-redacted emails - which include meeting agendas and briefings - government and European officials have been simultaneously trying reassure &nbsp;energy companies and extract information from them on their exposure to risk from the sanctions.British energy giants Shell and BP are both highly involved with investments and joint ventures in Russia. Most Western oil companies remain keen to exploit oil and gas in Russia, and reports suggest&nbsp;BP it is going full steam ahead despite the sanctions - while Shell is taking a more cautious approach.Meanwhile, Centrica has a deal with Gazprom to supply 10% of the UK’s residential gas demand from 2014.Read more:Which Western energy giants are most exposed to risk by their investments in Russia?Who does Russian energy giant Gazprom sell gas to in the UK?How can Europe reduce its reliance on Russian gas?Unlike many heavily-redacted responses to FOI requests (see our Energy Files series), some of the names of people involved in meetings have been included in this lot - but that doesn’t mean the content is too useful - much of the potentially juicy stuff is blacked out, while facts that are basically already in the public domain survive unscathed.For instance, when the UK’s secretary of state for defence and former energy minister Michael Fallon met representatives from BP over dinner on the evening of the 17 March - the first round of Western sanctions against Russian individuals took place in the week of 17 March in response to Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. The readout of the meeting was:In the same week (20 March), secretary of state for energy, Ed Davey, met people working for Centrica. The briefing for the meeting reveals the main intentions were: to reassure Centrica that the department is “working &nbsp;closely across Whitehall and with industry” as the situation develops. And, DECC wanted to invite Centrica to “set out their views on the risks to GB gas security, both at present and if relationships with Russia continue to deteriorate”.March was only the beginning of the political and energy crisis - friction was building between Ukraine and Russia as Gazprom heavily increased gas prices and threatened to switch off the taps if Ukraine failed to pay up.We can see is the pattern of similar meetings through the Summer - and the occasional sign of chumminess between the government and oil and gas executives.US sanctions against Rosneft’s chief executive, Igor Sechin - among other energy oligarchs - were announced at the end of April.And on May 9, Centrica had another meeting where they discussed the Ukraine crisis, this time a one-to-one between the ‘managing director’ of Centrica [if they mean CEO, this would have been Sam Laidlaw], and Simon Virley, the director general for the Markets and Infrastructure Group at DECC. The main point of this meeting seems to be to allay any anxieties over disruption to European gas supplies through Ukraine, and to invite Centrica’s views on the impact of Russia turning Ukraine’s gas supply taps off.On 2 June, Ed Davey met with three people from BP. The briefing he received ahead of the meeting is titled: “Regular catch-up between you and BP.” Cosy.Again, the point of the meeting - sorry, ‘catch-up’ - was to address BP’s concerns, including the key point to tell BP: “[We] appreciate your commitment to adhere to any sanctions”. Much of the readout from the meeting was REDACTED but the note remained that Davey “agreed he hoped there would be no further escalation and emphasised the HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] position” - and explained the medium and long-term strategies for energy security in the UK. The strategy - which contains altogether nothing unexpected - is described as increased interconnection, energy efficiency indigenous resources (read, fracking) and renewables including nuclear.Despite the sanctions against Sechin, BP signed a $300m deal with Rosneft to develop shale oil in late May and signed a $1.5bn pre-payment oil supply deal with the Russian oil giant in late June. Plus, the firm also owns a 19.75% share of Rosneft, Russia’s second-largest gas company.Then in late June and July Shell had its turn. Emails reveal a meeting to discuss the Ukraine crisis between Shell personnel and Simon Virley, as well as DECC’s permanent secretary Stephen Lovegrove, and DECC’s director general for International and Science, Katrina Williams. Again, the agenda sets out a fact-finding mission about how the situation affects Shell’s prospects in Russia, including “a third LNG production train at Sakhalin 2” and any new deals on the horizon in Russia, as well unconventional projects in Ukraine.Following this, a chain of emails on 25 July shows arrangements for Katrina Williams to brief Shell on upcoming sanctions, which were announced by the European Commission on 31 July - which left BP and Shell (among other multinationals) re-considering the upshot of the crisis.The Russian gas sector was not strictly included from the July round of sanctions but the EU restricted exports of energy-related equipment and technology to Russia.&nbsp;In September, a third round of sanctions EU sanctions came into effect, particularly aimed at hitting the Russian energy sector by cutting off the flow of cash from European financial markets to top energy companies including energy giants Gazprom and Rosneft.So what does all this actually tell us? Since it's not unusual for govenment to solicit information industry, and we don't know what was sealed under REDACTED that the energy giants said, not that much. But it does seem likely they attempted to deter strong sanctions against Russia that could risk their vested interests - and government was prepared to reassure them. Whether that is actually what happened is - of course - REDACTED.&nbsp; </div> </div> </div> </fieldset> http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/investigations/energy-files-government-meetings-shell-bp-and-centrica-which-energy-firms-said-redacted-about-u-0#comments Investigations energy Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:51:25 +0000 christine_ottery 366450 at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk Energy Files: Government meetings with Shell, BP and Centrica in which energy firms said REDACTED about the Ukraine gas crisis http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/investigations/energy-files-government-meetings-shell-bp-and-centrica-which-energy-firms-said-redacted-about-ukr <fieldset class="fieldgroup group-content"><legend>Content</legend><div class="field field-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Lila Randall, Christine Ottery </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-body"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> &nbsp;BP, Shell, and British Gas parent company Centrica have been meeting UK secretaries of state and officials from DECC this Spring and Summer as the Russia-Ukraine crisis escalated, according to documents seen by Energydesk.Of course, it’s not unusual that the government or European Commission meets energy companies - but FOI responses shows high-level meetings taking place ahead of and around the same time as several rounds of US and EU sanctions affecting energy companies.As far as we could tell from the selectively-redacted emails - which including meeting agendas and briefings - government and European officials have been simultaneously trying reassure &nbsp;energy companies and extract information from them on their exposure to risk from the sanctions.British energy giants Shell and BP are both highly involved with investments and joint ventures in Russia. Most Western oil companies remain keen to exploit oil and gas in Russia - and in the case of BP it appears to be going full steam ahead despite the sanctions - while Shell is taking a more cautious approach.Meanwhile, Centrica has a deal with Gazprom to supply 10% of the UK’s residential gas demand from 2014.Read more:Which Western energy giants are most exposed to risk by their investments in Russia?Who does Russian energy giant Gazprom sell gas to in the UK?How can Europe reduce its reliance on Russian gas?&nbsp;At the moment the Russia-Ukraine situation seems to be diffusing somewhat, with Russia pulling troops from the border with Ukraine. And through an energy lens, Russia and Ukraine are in the process of talks to resolve Russia stopping its gas supply to Ukraine in June. And in the past couple of weeks, Russia has finally inked a gas supply deal with China, and Ukraine has looked to Norway’s Statoil to provide its gas.But until recently the situation was branded ‘sensitive’ and ‘restricted’ and discussions considered ‘commercially sensitive’, it was shown across the bundle of several emails received following an FOI request.Unlike many heavily-redacted responses to FOI requests (see our Energy Files series), the some of the names of people involved in meetings have been included in this lot - but that doesn’t mean the content is too useful - much of the potentially juicy stuff is blacked out, while facts that are basically already in the public domain survive unscathed.For instance, when the UK’s secretary of state for defence and former environment secretary of state Michael Fallon met representatives from BP over dinner on the evening of the 17 March - the first round of Western sanctions against Russian individuals took place in the week of 17 March in response to Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. The readout of the meeting was:In the same week (20 March), secretary of state for energy, Ed Davey, met people working for Centrica. The briefing for the meeting reveals the main intentions for the meeting are: to reassure Centrica that the department is “working &nbsp;closely across Whitehall and with industry” as the situation develops. And, DECC wanted to invite Centrica to “set out their views on the risks to GB gas security, both at present and if relationships with Russia continue to deteriorate”.March was only the beginning of the political and energy crisis - friction was building between Ukraine and Russia as Gazprom heavily increased gas prices and threatened to switch off the taps if Ukraine failed to pay up.We can see is the pattern of similar meetings through the Summer - and the occasional telling sign of chumminess between the government and oil and gas executives.US sanctions against Rosneft’s chief executive, Igor Sechin - among other energy oligarchs - were announced at the end of April.And on May 9, Centrica had another meeting where they discussed the Ukraine crisis, this time a one-to-one between the ‘managing director’ of Centrica [if they mean CEO, this would have been Sam Laidlaw], and Simon Virley, the director general for the Markets and Infrastructure Group at DECC. The main point of this meeting seems to be to allay any anxieties over disruption to European gas supplies through Ukraine, and to invite Centrica’s views on the impact of Russia turning Ukraine’s gas supply taps off.On 2 June, Ed Davey met with three people from BP. The briefing he received ahead of the meeting is titled: “Regular catch-up between you and BP.” Cosy.Again, the point of the meeting - sorry, ‘catch-up’ - was to address BP’s concerns, including the key point to tell BP: “[We] appreciate your commitment to adhere to any sanctions”. Much of the readout from the meeting was REDACTED but the note remained that Davey “agreed he hoped there would be no further escalation and emphasised the HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] position” - and explained the medium and long-term strategies for energy security in the UK. The strategy - which contains altogether nothing unexpected - is described as increased interconnection, energy efficiency indigenous resources (read, fracking) and renewables including nuclear.Despite the sanctions against Sechin, BP signed a $300m deal with Rosneft to develop shale oil in late May and signed a $1.5bn pre-payment oil supply deal with the Russian oil giant in late June. Plus, the firm also owns a 19.75% share of Rosneft, Russia’s second-largest gas company.Then in late June and July Shell had its turn. Emails reveal a meeting to discuss the Ukraine crisis between Shell personnel and Simon Virley, as well as DECC’s permanent secretary Stephen Lovegrove, and DECC’s director general for International and Science, Katrina Williams. Again, the agenda sets out a fact-finding mission about how the situation affects Shell’s prospects in Russia, including “a third LNG production train at Sakhalin 2” and any news deals on the horizon in Russia, as well unconventional projects in Ukraine.Following this, a chain of emails on 25 July shows arrangements for Katrina Williams to brief Shell on upcoming sanctions, which were announced by the European Commission on 31 July - which left BP and Shell (among other multinationals) re-considering the upshot of the crisis.The Russian gas sector was not strictly included from the July round of sanctions but the EU restricted exports of energy-related equipment and technology to Russia.&nbsp;In September, a third round of sanctions EU sanctions came into effect, particularly aimed at hitting the Russian energy sector by cutting off the flow of cash from European financial markets to top energy companies including energy giants Gazprom and Rosneft.So what does all this actually tell us? Since it's not unusual for govenment to solicit information industry, and we don't know what was sealed with under REDACTED that the energy giants said, not that much. But it does seem likely they attempted to deter strong sanctions against Russia that could risk their vested interests - and government was prepared to reassure them. </div> </div> </div> </fieldset> http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/investigations/energy-files-government-meetings-shell-bp-and-centrica-which-energy-firms-said-redacted-about-ukr#comments Investigations energy Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:51:08 +0000 christine_ottery 366449 at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk