Regarding ‘Smart grids could save Europe €52bn‘:

The linking of ‘smart grids’ and ‘energy saving’ is often done by those with an interest in selling equipment that ranges from remote-controlled meters (the people that design these are smart, the meters themselves are pretty dumb) through to capital equipment for power networks (similar comments on people and smartness apply).

“In which the writer positions himself”

I’m a power engineer involved in various projects that aim to improve the ability of power networks to absorb more renewables. This transition of power networks is commonly referred to as a move towards active network management and the components which accomplish it as active network components. I have also worked as a factory services engineer responsible for energy reduction activities.

“Energy Efficiency – Industry”

In November 2008 two Fraunhofers published a report on electrical energy efficiency in German manufacturing industry. They estimated medium-term efficiency gains of around 30%, all without smart grids or smart meters. The same savings and perhaps greater could apply to other EU member states. Furthermore, most factories (if the engineers know what they are doing) will already monitor, in real time, electrical energy consumption. Score: SGs & SMs 0 Energy Efficiency in Industry 1

“Energy Efficiency – Residential”

A PWR position paper has shown that there are only three types of energy consumption in homes (autonomous, instant and time shift). Autonomous refers to things like fridges, freezers and heating circulation pumps. Instant are items such as lights, cookers etc. Time shift has three items: dishwashers, clothes washers and clothes dryers.

Energy saving with respect to autonomous products can only be accomplished by replacement with more efficient ones. As a class this can account for up to 50% of a household’s electrical energy budget. It is quite possible through replacement to cut consumption in this class by more than half. Example (fridge freezer – 215l/60l): Class A++ = 137 Kwhrs/yr, Class C = 522Kwhrs/yr. A 75% reduction in energy consumption by replacing the Class C with a Class A.

Instant accounts for around 23% of electrical power consumption with, lighting accounting for between 12 to 18%. Lights are amenable to replacement with LEDS (which would cut consumption by 90% in this category). Time shift appliances account for less than 10% although smart grid proponents often emphasise the importance of this class.

The unresolved issue of ‘who pays for smart meter roll-out?’ can be answered quite simply. So far, the only country-wide installation of smart meters in Europe was done in Italy by ENEL. The financial justification was theft reduction. The project paid for itself in two years and was funded by ENEL. If power companies feel there is a need for ‘smart meters’, let them pay for the installation themselves.

Alternative systems to smart meters which also provide timely consumption information to the residential sector are rarely mentioned, for example Alertme in the UK (PWR has no commercial links to this company). When your only tool is a hammer (smart meter) every problem (energy consumption) becomes a nail.
Score: SGs & SMs 0 Energy Efficiency Residential Sector 1.

“Power Networks & Smart Grids”

It is claimed that using smart grids could reduce losses in electricity distribution networks. Losses in networks arise from two areas: transformers and cables/overhead lines. There are three ways to reduce losses. Replace old transformers with new, low-loss ones, re-configure the network in a more energy-efficient topology and change transformer tap settings to deliver a more accurate voltage. The latter two can be accomplished with more widespread instrumentation on a given network. Smart Grid? Hardly.

No doubt Mr Chris King (“utilities will also be able to lower the system voltage level”) is aware that distribution companies have a regulatory duty to deliver voltage within specific limits. Depending on the network, some struggle with both over and under-voltage. PWR is working on projects in this area. However, the core challenge facing power networks (both transmission and distribution) is absorbing more renewables. I would suggest this comes first and reducing system voltage a poor second.

“Saving Money.”

The Smart Energy Demand Coalition claims that smart grids and meters could save 52 billion euros. The residential sector spends around 103 bn euros per year and industry spends around 120bn euros on electricity. The Fraunhofer report indicates non-smart grid savings of around 30bn euros for industry. The residential sector could save (on a non-smart meter basis) around 40bn euros. In total, this amounts to 80bn euros without either smart meters or smart grids. I would be interested to hear in more detail about the hypothetical 53 bn euros that smart grids and smart meters would bring.

“Standardisation”

John Harris was quoted as saying “the first thing we need to do is to define what an intelligent system and meter is,” and noted that European standardisation bodies working under an EU mandate are a good starting point. Perhaps they are, but tell me John, how long does it take to make a meter standard (smart or otherwise?). The Open Meter project has been going for two years: what are the results so far???.

Let’s put this into context: Groupe Speciale Mobile took two years to put together a mobile network standard capable of supporting calls across a continent. Two years after that, the first commercial network went live. PWR does not see a similar level of urgency with smart meters and in any case, many member states are already rolling out smart meter systems. Possibly a case of closing the standardisation door after the smart meter horse has bolted?

Conclusion

In George Orwell’s 1984, the end of the book discusses how ‘newspeak’ will remove the ability to think certain concepts. Trite phrases such as ‘smart meters’ or ‘smart grids’ do likewise. They simplify to the point of meaninglessness complex energy systems and networks. Such an approach is useful if the intention is to eliminate clear thinking and open debate. It is also useful if the aim is to gloss over the complexities and the alternatives with the hope that politicians will be sufficiently bamboozled to simply hand over lots of money.

Mike Parr

PWR

It is understandable that our elected representatives in the form of the Environment Council may wish to undertake more studies on moving to a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions. After all, this is a momentous step. PWR has some very good news in this regard, which will also delight BusinessEurope.

Towards the end of 2009 two Fraunhofers produced a report for the German Ministry of Education and Research which addressed the issue of “how much energy could the German manufacturing industry save in the medium term”. The answer was between 25 and 30%, or expressed another way – about half the energy currently consumed by German households (= roughly 15% of German CO2 emissions).

The European Commission was sufficiently impressed by the report to have the summary translated into English. If the European Council asks the Commission nicely, it might even let it have a copy of the summary.

One image that does not spring to mind when considering the German manufacturing industry is the word ‘inefficient’. Quite the reverse. That an institution known for its generally rigorous approach (i.e. the Fraunhofers) can identify medium-term (less than 10 years) savings in an industry admired globally for its efficient approach to most things suggests that as a minimum there are similar (if not greater) amounts of energy savings possible in the rest of the European manufacturing sector.

In turn this suggests that achieving the 30% (well in reality an additional 10%) over 10 years using efficiency measures in industry is not just possible but also desirable, since it would leave the European manufacturing industry in the position of using less energy to produce the same goods. PWR has no doubt that BusinessEurope and doubtless our elected representatives in the form of the environment ministers would support such a worthy aim (over to you chaps).

BusinessEurope (BE) is also correct in observing that CO2 emission reductions can only be tackled globally. However, as the Fraunhofer study has shown, important sectors such as manufacturing could take efficiency measures that would in turn allow Europe to easily reach the 30% and at the same time be more competitive.

I cannot imagine that either the ministers or BE would want a less competitive European manufacturing industry. So why not, for example, push hard for efficiency in the manufacturing industry and get to a double result – a more competitive industry and a painless 30% CO2 reduction?

In the case of ‘open markets’, these are to be desired and supported and in this PWR agrees with BE. Continuing in this context, PWR would be delighted to hear an explanation of China’s current lack of ‘market economy status’ vis-à-vis the EU and how this relates to ‘open markets’. If a lack of ‘market economy status’ means that China does not have an ‘open market’ then surely the fuss over border carbon tariffs (BCTs) does not matter.

The other curious aspect of BCTs rarely referred to is the July 2009 report from the WTO on border carbon taxes. Depending on where you sit, this gives either an orange light (get ready to go) or green light with respect to BCTs. Either the report is garbage (over to you, Pascal) or some member states and the European Commission are being ‘economical with the truth’ when they warble on about how the imposition of BCTs would leave Europe open to disputes in the WTO. Surely the WTO would not produce a report that encourages trade litigation – would it?

Yours sincerely,

Mike Parr

PWR

Regarding ‘Oettinger values EU 2020 energy goals at €1 trln‘:

Readers will have noticed that in nature round numbers tend to be the exception rather than the rule (think of pi or e). However, in politics, the reverse seems to be the case as shown by Mr Oettinger’s €1 trln needed to overhaul energy networks (would that be with or without VAT, Guenter?) mentioned in an “early draft of the EU’s ‘Energy 2020′ strategy”.

The rhetoric that accompanies such figures is both entertaining and something of a giveaway in terms of the knowledge of the people writing, e.g. “massive refurbishment of its draughty buildings and creaking distribution networks”.

I’m an ex-power engineer that used to run power distribution networks. The phrase “creaking distribution networks” is not something that readily springs to mind when considering today’s distribution networks. They face challenges, but creaking? One does so love journalistic license. Let’s explore this in some detail.

Renewables will become more prominent as sources of embedded power in distribution networks. In the sunny south of Europe, PV will tend to dominate in both urban and rural networks. In the more windy north it will tend to be rural wind (with some PV).

Distribution networks will experience an increase in demand due to the growth in heat pumps (demand circa 6kW per installation) and later electric vehicles (probably in significant numbers from 2015 onwards). An EV on trickle charge looks like an additional house. A heat pump looks like several additional houses from the point of view of the power company.

Options to address the problem of increased demand include throwing more copper at the network (expensive) or mixing some targeted network reinforcement with home storage. If you are substituting electricity for gas and oil even with extensive electrical energy efficiency measures, it is still likely that overall power demand will rise.

PWR is currently discussing such issues with distribution companies, which clearly shows that we could not possibling know what we are talking about compared to Brussels-based NGOs (hi Erica) or indeed the towering intellects in the Commission.

By the way, you need to have well insulated houses (or offices) if heat pumps are to work well, which brings us to the “motherhood and apple pie” issue also known as “energy efficiency”. Considering the energy efficiency of electrical appliances, Mr Turmes may care to talk to his fellow MEPs who rejected a recent EC proposal on a new appliance labelling system on the basis that it was too complicated (…for our expensively educated citizens to understand). Nothing like positioning yourself as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

On the issue of transmission, 50,000kms of line (those round numbers again) is truly eye popping. But is it really this much?

Outstanding issues in this area include: moving German north sea wind to the Rhur (500km) / Stuttgart (650km) / Munich (750km), the Spain–France interconnection problem, integrating the UK into mainland networks and improving links to Europe’s battery aka Norway.

50,000km? Hmmm.

Some of the problems are political. A recent conversation between PWR and REE (Spanish TSO) respresentatives went along the following lines: PWR “you chaps need much more than 1GW of connectivity to France” REE “yes, we know – we have built most of the transmission lines needed to upgrade connections to France but the French don’t want to build on their side”. One does so love politics – over to you, Mr Oettinger: I understand you are ‘good’ at this kind of thing.

The numbers next to the German locations give distances from German north sea wind assets to the locations in question. A look at the Transpower network (which connects several of the German areas in question) suggests that a mix of a few new links (mostly located in areas of low population density) coupled to reinforcement of lines and perhaps more cross-border connections with Holland (to provide further circuit/paths) should do the trick. Say max 2,000km of network re-enforcement.

Mr Turmes is an excellent publicist but suggesting that “If Oettinger gives the message that we should sweep away protections for citizens to make way for infrastructure all he’ll get is public outcry” is missing the mark, since it is not him giving the message: Matthias Kurth, head of the country’s energy regulator (Bundesnetzagentur (BnetzA), has said that Germany’s renewable energy future hinges on the fast expansion of power transmission grids, but planning authorities are too slow.

I’m sure Mr Kurth will be interested in hearing the views of a Luxembourg MEP on the issue of network reinforcements in Germany and German citizens’ property rights. Perhaps a Euro questionnaire along the lines of ‘Do you find electricity useful?’ would focus people’s minds and help politicians get a feel for people’s priorities.

I will finish this letter with two round numbers. The recent Ecofys and the Fraunhofer ISI report commissioned by the European Climate Foundation and the Regulatory Assistance Project suggested that Europe could reach its goal of making energy savings of 20% by 2020 by realising all cost-effective energy saving measures.

Savings would be €78 billion/year by 2020 or reducing an average EU household’s energy bill by €380/year in 2020. The Euro380 figure is close to the estimate per household (Euro300/year) contained in the report ‘Roadmap 2050: A practical Guide to a Low-Carbon Europe for reducing GHGs by 80% by 2050′.

Although there is a time gap, it nevertheless suggests that getting to 80% through a mix of network upgrades coupled to investment by citizens in energy-efficiency measures should mean a fairly neutral overall cost.

The trick will be to balance the two such that they move forward in parallel. At the moment both seem to be stuck in Never Never Land where round numbers dominate and nasty detail is pushed into the background.

Mike Parr

PWR

The recent report produced by the National Technical University of Athens – ‘Energy Trends to 2030′ and profiled in your august organ included a comment by Mr. Kjaer of the EWEA along the lines that he thought the estimate for 2030 for wind was unrealistic.

There is a rather interesting back story to this. The Technical University also happens to be the guardian of the sacred flame with respect to the ‘Primes’ energy methodology. This was used to produce the ‘Energy Trends’ report.

In December 2009, the EWEA published its ‘Pure Power’ report with a foreword by Christopher Jones, then director for New and Renewable Sources of Energy at the European Commission’s transport and energy department, who spoke in glowing terms about the report and its contents.

The political ‘entertainment’ in the EWEA report starts on page 33. The EWEA demolishes the Commission’s projections for wind made in 2008 and looking forward to 2010 and 2015. Page 34 gets to the heart of the matter with a straightforward attack on ‘Primes’ and its controller. An extract is shown below:

“The European Commission scenario is obtained with the PRIMES energy model by the E3M Lab at the National Technical University of Athens. It would appear from the wind energy scenarios described above that the E3M Lab’s model is more than a little unreliable and has been so since its introduction in 1996. Unfortunately, it is not only wind energy that the PRIMES model fails to predict. In its 2008 scenario, the European Commission’s PRIMES model even suggests that EU investments in ‘other renewables’ (that is, renewables excluding biomass and wind) will be negative in 2009 and 2010 (see Figure 4.3). It predicts that more than 6 GW of ‘other renewables’ will be taken off the grid in 2009 and 2010. In sharp contrast to this, 4.8 GW of ‘other renewables’ were installed in 2008 alone.”

I think readers get the general idea, but just in case, another relevant extract follows: “The European Commission has allowed the E3M Lab to feed member states and the general public with misleading information about the future of European energy.”

EWEA notes that the ‘Primes’ model was last reviewed in 1997-1998. Given that the model seems to have real ‘form’ in making ‘misleading’ projections, there are a couple of questions that could be posed to EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger (who commissioned the ‘Energy Trends’ report). The first could be “did you know there are some serious doubts about the Primes model’s ability to provide reasonable energy projections?”. It could be followed by ” are there any plans to review the model?” and “do Athens Uni and E3M have the capabilities to operate the model?”.

The last question is not so difficult to answer. Working on the basis that the EWEA’s facts (with respect to the reliability of the model) are correct and given the apparent failure to review the model, then answer seems to be ‘no’.

None of this would matter much if the discussion were about projections for European chicken markets. However, it is about Europe’s energy future. Given the issues raised by the EWEA in its December 2009 report, it might be wise for the Commission to give serious thought to a Primes review and also the right institution to ‘hold’ the model.

Herr Oettinger might also wish to consider the value of the current report given the above comments. I am sure he would not like to mislead member states. Likewise, I wonder if they are aware of the issues concerning Primes.

Mike Parr

PWR

Regarding ‘EU mulls beefing up energy savings policy‘:

With the announcement that Danish MEP Bendt Bendtsen is to prepare recommendations for improving the EU’s energy savings policy, Europe’s half-hearted approach to reducing energy consumption could be about to change.

Reducing energy consumption – as opposed to simply improving efficiency, which has historically rebounded in demand increases – will guarantee greenhouse gas emission reductions, create new, local jobs and save money (up to €100 to €150 billion per year with a return to 1990 consumption levels).

On a straightforward consume less/import less basis, saving energy will reduce the EU’s dependency on external suppliers, and avoid the need to build the equivalent of 80 large coal-fired power stations. Tougher, target-driven policies would squeeze out inefficient fossil fuel and nuclear power plants – which transform barely a third of the primary resources (coal, oil, uranium) into electricity – and accelerate the transition to home-grown, secure renewables. Such a transition is essential if we are to guarantee 80-95% cuts by 2050.

Practices and technologies to achieve the savings are already available. What’s needed is a higher level of commitment and accountability for ensuring that the right policies and programmes are put in place – and a clearer allocation of responsibility to deliver on them.

In this regard the role of energy suppliers, distributors and regulators must be closely examined. Opening up the market for energy service companies, which install energy saving measures and receive payment for them directly from the savings achieved, offers a wealth of opportunities to large and small businesses.

Investment risks could be covered by green banking solutions, which use public sources of finance (e.g. from energy and CO2 taxation or power transmission charges) to leverage, then direct private funds towards energy-saving opportunities and service providers.

In June, the European Parliament took a step towards prioritising energy savings by calling for a binding target in its resolution on the EU 2020 strategy. Mr Bendtsen’s report now needs to make the shift irresistible. Europe can only gain: saving energy is geo-politically secure, financially smart and environmentally effective, but without mandatory targets to give a clear political signal and to push financing and other policy instruments into place, it will not happen.

Brook Riley, Friends of the Earth Europe
Catherine Pearce, European Environmental Bureau
Erica Hope, Climate Action Network

Regarding ‘EU promotes ‘green jobs’ as way out of crisis‘:

Let me first agree on the importance of the discussion presented in the article, and also on the role of climate and energy policies in catalysing the economic recovery and as a source of ‘green jobs’. In relation to this, I would also like to call your attention to the results of a study on the employment effects of a large and deep residential and public buildings energy-efficiency programme in Hungary.

The study was recently completed by the Centre for Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Policy (3CSEP) at Central European University at the request of the European Climate Foundation (ECF). I believe that the results of this research can contribute to illustrating some of the points discussed in the article.

Energy efficiency in buildings creates employment at all skill levels, but particularly among middle- and low-qualified workers. Our model, which combines Input/Output analysis with case study-based estimates, has estimated that 70% of the up to 130,000 net new jobs (including the workforce losses in the energy supply sector) that a deep renovation programme can create in Hungary by 2020 corresponds to skilled and unskilled workers. The remaining 30% of the new positions created would be occupied by professionals (e.g., architects, engineers and similar higher-education employees).

The results also indicate that up to 38% of the estimated employment gains are due to the indirect effects on other sectors that supply the construction industry and the induced effects from the increased spending power resulting from higher employment levels. These redistribute to all sectors of the economy a large fraction of the employment effects of the programme through production chains and household expenditure.

Though some uncertainties remain on the aggregated macroeconomic effects of a large intervention, the study has also found that building refurbishment activities are typically much more labour intensive than other types of climate change mitigation and economic recovery activities. For instance, the forecasted direct employment impacts of deep renovations would be five times higher than those generated in Hungary by the same investment in transport infrastructural developments such as road construction.

The research concluded that up to 85% of Hungarian energy use for heating in buildings, and the corresponding CO2 emissions, can be avoided by a consistent and wide-spread deep retrofitting programme. By 2030, it could save up to 39% of annual natural gas imports, and up to 59% of natural gas import needs in January (compared to 2006-2008 import figures), the most critical month from the perspective of energy security.

Redirecting the existing subsidies to the energy sector and making wiser use of EU funds could make available up to one billion euros per year, an amount that by itself practically covers during the first years of the programme the full annual costs of renovating Hungarian buildings at a gradual implementation rate (2.3% of the floor area, equivalent to 100,000 dwellings, per year).

Such results are particularly significant in Hungary, the member state with the second lowest employment rate of the EU, but are also relevant for other energy-intensive Central and Eastern European member states, whose often inefficient building sector contains substantial energy saving, mitigation and job creation potentials.

However, such large positive effects are only possible if deep renovation know-how is implemented (i.e. delivering over 80% of reduction in the building’s energy use for heating energy by the application of passive-house construction principles), as already demonstrated by the SOLANOVA project. In Hungary, suboptimal renovations achieving approximately only 40% energy-use reduction create less jobs, deliver smaller emission reductions and, worse, lock-in almost half of the energy saving potential of the building stock.

Prof. Diana Ürge-Vorsatz

Centre for Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Policy (3CSEP)

Central European University (CEU)

Regarding ‘EU promotes smart metering in fight against global warming‘:

‘Smart’ seems to be the solution to climate change these days: smart cars, smart meters, smart grids, smart cities. PWR has produced a position paper on smart grids and their cousin smart meters, and it is in the context of this paper and the statement from the article on smart meters (below) that I write.

Easy-to-use and pervasive metering devices embedded in specific home electronic equipment – such as televisions, washing machines and computers – or applied to the overall energy consumption of a household are believed to play a crucial role in increasing awareness among citizens and reducing energy consumption, with beneficial effects on climate change.

Smart meters will not achieve the desired result (lower energy consumption and hence lower CO2 emissions) because the solution they offer (providing energy consumption data to households coupled to time shifting of appliances) cannot address the core issues associated with household energy consumption. Furthermore, the meters have minor relevance for ‘distributed generation’. Whilst bi-directional meters are required to export power from the household to the power network, these do not need to be ‘smart’, as the case of Germany and residential photovoltaics has shown.

Residential electrical demand consists of three types of load: autonomous (central heating pumps, fridges, freezers), instantaneous (lighting, cooking, TVs, computers), time-variable (dish washers, washing machines, tumble dryers).

Residential electrical power consumption accounts for roughly 30% of EU electricity demand. Within that (and excluding the special case of electric space heating – mostly in France) lighting and food refrigeration account for around 30% (i.e. 10% of total EU power). The ONLY approach with respect to saving energy for autonomous appliances is energy efficiency. Nothing else can work. Smart meters are irrelevant to this segment.

Furthermore, a Swedish study (covering several hundred houses) showed that domestic lighting is the key contributor to the ‘evening peak’ in electrical power consumption. Thus moving the residential sector to high-efficiency lighting (CFLs or LEDs) will crack a problem of considerable importance to the power generators. Smart meters bring nothing to this issue.

In the case of computers, TVs and cooking: is anybody seriously suggesting that people will wait until power is cheaper before switching on their TVs or cookers?

This leaves washing machines, dish washers and tumble dryers. There is a benefit to having these running in off-peak periods. Timers and something called dynamic demand management could accomplish this at a far lower cost than smart meters.

The reduction of electrical power demand in the residential sector is key to reducing CO2 emissions. The issue is one of energy efficiency amongst the electrical appliances and products in a given household. It is not about looking at smart meters or using smart meters to switch things on and off.

In some cases one can justify the deployment of smart meters. The Italian business case was based on theft reduction and was successful. It is possible that a similar business case exists in other EU member states. However, justifying smart meter deployment on a pan-European basis using the rationale that it will save energy shows delusional thinking of a very high order.

Smart metering as a subsidy exercise for European companies active in this market is an excellent idea. It will gainfully employ many people. As a solution to household electrical energy consumption (or generation) it is a joke. In the context of the climate change challenge faced by humanity, it is a waste of both human and material resources. In short, a disgrace.

Mike Parr

PWR

Regarding ‘EU light bulb ban attacked from all sides as phase-out starts‘:

The ban on ordinary light bulbs is an extraordinary consumer ban on a product that is safe to use.

We are not talking about banning lead paint here – and light bulbs don’t give out any CO2 gas. Power stations do.

Note therefore the consumer legislation irony,forcibly replacing a cheap, simple, safe, popular product with an expensive, complex, mercury-releasing, unpopular product as the main proposed alternative.

Europeans (like Americans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (European Commission and light industry data 2007-8).

Banning what people want gives the supposed “great savings for them” – no point in banning an unpopular product!

If new LED lights – or improved CFLs etc – are good, people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).

If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).

The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy-using radio valves/tubes were banned…they were bought less anyway.

The need to save energy? Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter. People -not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it.

There is no energy shortage – on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed -
and if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.

Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway, for many reasons to do with CFL brightness, lifespan, the power factor, lifecycle, the heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research.

If energy use does indeed fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans, electricity companies make less money, and they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate (especially since power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition).

Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost-covering exercise, in which case less money savings.

Conversely, since energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy, people simply leave appliances on more than before, as shown by Scottish research previously reported on EurActiv (and in the case of “energy saving” lights, CFLs, they’re supposed to be left on more anyway, to avoid cutting down on their lifespan) – in which case less energy savings, adding to all the other reasons against supposed savings, as linked above.

That is not to deny that savings can be there – but not to the extent supposed, and insignificant in an overall view, compared with proper politics dealing directly with any energy or emission problems: a positive worldview believing in the ability to supply and deliver, not a negative world view of let’s-all-cry-into-our-beer-and-cut-down-and-save.

This type of petty interventionist banning politics, that Brussels is so good at, only serves to alienate people from cooperating in future more significant lifestyle changes in the pro-ban climate change agenda:

The only real “energy saving” going on here is in the mental activity of politicians in Brussels, London and Dublin.

Emissions? Does a light bulb give out any gases? Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?

Low-emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.

The taxation alternative

As previously said, a ban on light bulbs is an extraordinary consumer ban, it’s not about banning a product that’s not safe to use. This is simply a ban to reduce electricity consumption.

Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption would be fairer and make more sense, also since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects, etc.) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.

A tax of a few dollars that reduces current sales (the EU, like the USA, records 2 billion sales per annum, the UK 250-300 million pa) and raises future billions would retain consumer choice. It could also be revenue-neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.

When sufficent low-emission electricity delivery is in place, the tax would be lifted.
 http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

Taxation is itself unjustified: it is simply a better alternative, for pro-ban politicians as well as for everyone else.

Of course an EU ban is underway, but in phases, supposedly with reviews in a couple of years time…maybe the debate in the USA and Canada will be affected by the issues being raised over here?

Finally:
Anyone interested in the strange background EU and industrial politics that led up to this ban can read
 http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax

Peter Thornes, ceolas.net

Regarding ‘EU chief: ‘Energy and climate are today’s coal and steel’‘:

PWR’s business is monitoring the development of the renewable energy sector (RES) and climate change policies in Europe. As such, we are reasonably well placed to comment on the success or otherwise of the EU’s policies in these two linked areas.

Mr Barroso believes that EU climate policies were the greatest achievement of the last Commission. A cornerstone of the EU approach towards climate change has been not to accept “business as usual” or BAU in terms of action in the area of climate change or renewables.

Based on its analysis of legislation, PWR concludes that most EU legislation pertaining to climate change is in fact BAU and the reason for this is due to the Commission’s inability to face down vested interests. In turn this shows that Mr Barroso’s comment with respect to “I had more fights with big member states than with small member states” is perhaps correct, but does not mean that he won many or indeed any.

The Cars & Co2 Regulation is a case in point. The original Commission proposals were watered down (due to pressure from certain member states) so that they match, almost exactly, the current development programmes of the various large European motor manufacturers (OEMs). Model announcements this year indicate that by 2012 all the major OEMs will easily be able to match the provisions of the regulation. Indeed, there will be a number of cars available that will match the 95gms/km for 2019/2020. In summary, the legislation supported the BAU demanded by some member states and all OEMs. Mr Barroso 0 – Member States 1.

It is too early to tell if the RES directive will be a success, the Commission has issued pro forma forms for the member states to fill in. Success will be defined by the willingness of the Commission to implement infringement proceedings (either for tardiness or lack of a credible plan). Perhaps we will see a better result in this area. In the case of carbon capture and storage (CCS) there is a financing gap (despite the ETS new entrants’ reserve) that nobody wants to fill. Given that CCS is a core CO2 reduction technology (at least for Germany, the UK and Poland) this could hardly be called a success story.

In the case of the economic package earlier this year, money was offered for renewable energy projects that had already received financing, for example (there are several), the Ireland-UK HVDC interconnector.

None of the above would matter were not the situation with respect to climate change so very serious. PWR monitors what it calls the “geek” aspects of climate change. These indicate that radical action to reduce CO2 emissions is needed now. EU talk on climate change is encouraging, it is by far the leading region in terms of CO2 emission reduction and it has made some progress in this area. However, much more is needed and the “much more” means treading on toes that prefer BAU.

Mr Barroso may be the right person to deliver this. However, this means having a preparedness to face down member states and corporates (well it ain’t SMEs who want BAU) and most importantly, not just having fights with big member states, but winning them.

Mike Parr

PWR

Regarding ‘EU light bulb ban attacked from all sides as phase-out starts‘:

There is a great deal of hot air being generated in what passes for the ‘debate’ on more efficient lighting. A couple of stats would be helpful. In a home that is heated by oil or gas (and has no air conditioning), the two largest consumers of energy are refrigeration and lighting (very roughly 25% and 15% respectively). Thus lighting is a very good target for saving electrical energy.

CFLs the subject of all the current hot air are, frankly, rather old tech. This weekend, PWR took delivery of a LED ‘tube’, which is a direct replacement for a 60cm fluorescent tube. It has a similar light output to the fluorescent tube, but consumes eight watts compared to the 18 watts of the supposedly efficient fluorescent. Furthermore, although relatively expensive (perhaps USD20), the LED has a lifetime of 50,000 hours. Put another way, I’ll probably be dead before this tube fails.

The European Commission is correct: LEDs are on the cusp of commercialisation. Indeed, the question is who benefits: the usual Euro lighting suspects or the country that supplied PWR’s sample LED tube (China)? There are a very wide range of lamp formats currently available, so format is not an issue.

Last year, PWR had a meeting with one of the ‘usual Euro lighting suspects’ and the impression gained was of a desire for orderly markets and ‘steady as she goes’ change. An alternative analysis could be one company’s commercial position being more important than timely action on climate change.

PWR sees a massive commercial opportunity for LEDs, due to both low energy and long life. The current high-level whining that the CFL issue generates diverts attention away from alternatives to CFLs and/or incandescent. The stock-piling of incandescents is, given the LED alternative, frankly comical.

One scenario

PWR is advising a friend on the renovation of a house. The aim is very low-energy consumption from ‘traditional sources’. Solar thermal and PV on the south-facing roof will be undertaken. However, in the case of lighting, 12 volt LED-based lighting circuits throughout the house are being considered as a serious option. Energy requirements for this lighting could then be met through the PV panels and a couple of (cheap) car batteries. In the view of PWR, lighting costs could be reduced by 95%.

The current ‘debate’ on lighting is as coherent as somebody complaining about a ¾ empty beer glass whilst sitting next to a full beer barrel.

Mike Parr

PWR