One of the UK’s largest manufacturers of heating devices, Worcester Boilers, has described the new Chancellor’s budget as tough and fair.

But Worcester Boilers did express some concern at the lack of discussion over the Renewable Heat Incentive.

In response to George Osborne’s emergency budget on June 22, Neil Schofield, head of sustainable development at Worcester Boilers said:
“After a great deal of speculation and trepidation, on the whole we agreed with the tough but fair description that was promised. There were some concerns that Osborne’s strategy would cause a double dip, but all in all we don’t feel that this will be the case.

“On the business side, obviously the VAT increase to 20% isn’t going to be welcomed by anyone but generally most predicted this was on the way and will find it an acceptable necessity. The fact that it has been delayed until January 2011 is positive, because in the second half of this year we could see consumers make that large purchase sooner rather than later to avoid the increase. For some this may mean a new heating system, which will be a boost for the industry.”

But whereas the emergency budget’s main issues were welcomed, Worcester Boilers has called for greater clarity on the fate of the Renewable Heat Incentive. The company recognised the talk of green policies, but said such talk was nothing new. It welcomed the idea of The Green Investment Bank and the Green Deal for Households, but lamented the lack of detail about both initiatives, saying the: “devil will be in the detail.”

What was very conspicuous by its absence says Worcester Boilers, was the Renewable Heat Incentive which didn’t receive any mention in either the budget speech, or within the budget document itself.

Indeed, Worcester Boilers points out that there has been no mention of the Renewable Heat Incentive since the new coalition Government took over.

Neil Schofield, head of sustainable development at Worcester Boilers, takes up the story again:
“Speculation is now rife but what we need as a business and for the whole industry is certainty, so that we can plan. If it’s in, then great, we can plan for it. If it’s out, we’ll be disappointed but at least we can move forward knowing what steps to take. We would urge the new Government to be honest and tell us one way or another, sooner rather than later.”

Many in the heating industry believe that the Renewable Heat Incentive is being deliberately overlooked and that is bad news for all concerned.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

The Ewe Hill Windfarm has got the go ahead from Dumfries & Galloway Council.

The council approved the building of the Ewe Hill Windfarm by ScottishPower Renewables.

Ewe Hill Windfarm is located just over ten miles from Lockerbie and will feature six turbines. They will produce enough green energy for approximately 10,000 homes.

The Ewe Hill Windfarm was initially ear-marked for 22 turbines and Scottish Renewables is still progressing part of what was an earlier application.

Possibly as a sop to views of residents near to Ewe Hill Windfarm, Scottish Renewables has said it has demonstrated its commitment to the local community by creating a special fund to support local projects. The company says that around £20,000 will be invested into the fund every year.

UK Director of ScottishPower Renewables, Simon Christian, said about Ewe Hill Windfarm:
“This announcement is tremendous news, not just for ScottishPower Renewables, but also for Scotland’s renewables targets. We have spent considerable time working on this project and to gain this consent is great reward for the efforts of all our team.”

Altogether, ScottishPower Renewables confirmed that it now has over 1200 megawatts of electricity generating capacity deriving from clean, green power. In terms of capacity in operation, sites under construction and planning permission consented, ScottishPower Renewables is the UK’s largest operator of onshore windfarms. It also operates Whitelee, which was completed in May 2009 and is Europe’s largest windfarm.

ScottishPower Renewables is a part of the largest wind energy company in the world, Iberdrola Renovables, and at the end of 2009, boasted a capacity of nearly 11,000 megawatts and a future pipeline of nearer 60,000 megawatts. The ScottishPower Renewables part of the business contributed 800 megawatts of installed capacity and a pipeline of 5,115 megawatts at the end of 2009.

Iberdrola Renovables has operations in over 20 countries worldwide.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

Elements of the media continue to question the viability of wind energy, questioning its very essence.

The Sunday Telegraph devoted a whole broadsheet page to the viability of wind energy.

It questioned the premise that wind farms are a good way of harnessing nature’s power.

One of the main problems of course is not so much how efficient they are at creating energy, but at their presence on the UK landscape. It’s said that there are now over 2,500 land-based wind turbines ‘polluting’ some of the country’s finest landscapes.

The Sunday Telegraph article reminded its readers of how the previous Government considered planning objections to the building of wind farms. Mr John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, once said: “We cannot let the squires and the gentry stop us meeting our moral obligation to pass this world on in a better state to our children. So let me tell them loud and clear: it’s not your backyard any more – it’s ours!”

But aesthetics aside – wind farms are now moving offshore – the central issue remains as to the viability of wind energy.

The arguments on one side are clear. The UK is the windiest country in Europe and this ‘free’ energy could provide enough juice to power the country several times over. Furthermore, for every unit of electricity generated by a wind turbine, the equivalent amount is not needed from a conventional power stations. And that existing wind turbines now in use have the capacity to stop the emission of nearly four million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year.

Great, the argument for the viability of wind energy.

Now the alternative argument. The key word is capacity. Wind turbines have the capacity, only if they operate at 100% all the time. In other words, they must operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in a optimum wind speed window of between six miles an hour to 55 miles an hour (when they have to shut down for safety’s sake) to achieve full capacity.

No wind turbine operates at 100%. The wind does not blow to order and Government and even industry figures suggest that the best they can hope for is a measly 30%. The problems comes down to storage. The power generated has to be used when it’s being generated. Massive storage of electricity is not possible with the current infrastructure, so when demand peaks, the power stations have to up their capacity and meet the demand then and there. Even if the wind blows on a good day, the power cannot then be stored for later use.

The Sunday Telegraph concludes that there will soon be 7,000 wind turbines operating in the UK and many of those will be offshore, and that this sheer number speaks more for the case of the politicians actually being seen to do something positive, rather than a sound economic argument.

But even this may be missing the point when considering the viability of wind energy. Wind turbines are part of a bigger strategy that will pull in renewable technologies which will in turn gradually make a difference to the C02 emissions. There is no quick-fix and that if a renewable industry has to be in effect subsidised, then so be it.

Guest Article by Neil Camp

Comments from the Government’s new Chief Scientific Advisor have not gone down well with top boiler manufacturer Worcester.

They were dismayed by Professor’s David Mackay’s first public comments, on his first day in his new job as chief scientific adviser at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which were designed to set out his vision for Britain’s energy future which centre on a significant increase in nuclear power capacity.

Worcester saw the advisor’s words as a: “…a thinly veiled attack on the use of gas in domestic heating.”

They were particularly irked at the Professor’s words which said:
“Setting fire to chemicals like gas should be made a thermodynamic crime. If people want heat they should be forced to get it from heat pumps. That would be a sensible piece of legislation.”

Neil Schofield, head of sustainable development at Worcester, Bosch Group, said:
“Professor Mackay’s comments set out a vision for Britain’s energy future based upon electricity, but it does not reflect the reality on the ground that domestic heat is predominantly gas powered in the UK. The logistics of replacing all gas-fired boilers with heat pumps, even in the medium term, would be an enormous undertaking significantly dwarfing the conversion from town gas to natural gas in the 1960s and 1970s.
“Professor Mackay has issued a new series of far flung objectives, bearing in mind that nuclear technology will take at least 20-30 years to come on stream, with no thought to the short term, the next 10 years. There is still no clear roadmap for either consumers or the heating industry of how we are going to meet the near term objectives.”
“Professor Mackay talks of people being forced to install heat pumps, but gives no indication of how consumers will be helped with the capital cost or what they should do if heat pump technology is not suitable for their own home. Our experience at Worcester, Bosch Group is that heat pump technology is not suitable for all applications. I would like to ask Professor Mackay how he heats his own house.”

Schofield makes it clear that he believes that the Professor’s comments are a further example of the Government and its advisers contradicting themselves in key policy areas.

He went on to say:
“On the one hand the Government is trying to encourage the uptake of renewable technologies with its proposals for the Feed-in Tariff for the Renewable Heat Incentive, but it is providing no upfront capital help for consumers to install the equipment and is now seriously considering taxing any monies generated. This will inevitably take away a major incentive for renewable technologies and make the Feed-in Tariff very unattractive to consumers.”

No doubt this rift between one of the country’s largest gas boiler manufacturers and a key Government advisor will play out over a long period of time.

Guest Article by Neil Camp 

Officials from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) are keen to see more waste used as a source for low-carbon heat.

The DECC is working on a new Heat and Energy Saving Strategy, which has been involved in an initial consultative period, and should be released in a more detailed version in the autumn. This will follow the government’s Renewable Energy Strategy which outlines the U.K.’s plan to reach its 15% renewable energy target by 2020.

The government is trying to marry the too much waste problem, with too little correct heat problem.

A number of solutions have been put forward, with one of the main contenders being the manufacture of biogas from waste, which is in turn cleaned and converted into biomethane, which can then be fed into the national gas grid. This method is very appealing to experts, as 90% of the country’s current domestic heating is provided by natural gas.

Experts explain that biogas has to be cleaned, because it consists of 65% methane and 35% carbon dioxide. When cleaned up into biomethance, it becomes about 90% methane, together the ethane and various other contaminants.

Cleaning biogas is regularly done in mainland Europe. The carbon dioxide has to be removed, as well as the hydrogen sulphide containments. The process is said to be no more complicated than cleaning natural gas from the North Sea before it enters the national grid.

Guest Article by Neil Camp