UK environmental regulator to cut more than 1,500 jobs

The UK Environment Agency is to slash its staffing numbers, raising fears that its ability to function will be compromised.

The agency, which is responsible for regulation in areas including pollution and fossil-fuel exploration, is to let around 1,550 staff go.

“Our budget for 2014/2015 will be confirmed shortly. However, we are likely to reduce staff numbers from the previous forecast of around 11,250 at the end of March 2014 to around 9,700 by October 2014,” said a spokesman.

Such cuts — which amount to more than 12% of the Environment Agency’s staff — have led some to speculate that some of the agency’s functions will have to be cut back too.

One anonymous member of agency staff told the ENDS Report — which broke the news of the job cuts: “We’ve already changed our ways of working so we regulate industry in a much more risk-based way and we rely on operators to self-report problems. We’ll do a lot more of that I guess, but how can you guarantee businesses are self-reporting properly if you don’t have the staff to check the reports?”

US Supreme Court to hear challenge on greenhouse gas limits

The US Supreme Court agreed today to review the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — a key piece of  the climate change strategy unveiled by US President Barack Obama earlier this year.

Industry groups and several states are challenging the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases produced by stationary sources, including power plants, under the Clean Air Act. Oral arguments in the case are expected to take place early next year.

But the court rejected the groups’ request to review whether the EPA has any authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Opponents of the regulations argued that there is insufficient evidence that the gases pose a risk to public health.

In 2007, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA required the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles if the gases endangered public welfare. In 2009, the EPA reviewed the evidence and declared greenhouse gases a threat, setting the stage for the emissions limits.

Rules for automobiles are already in place. The EPA proposed a rule for new power plants last month that would essentially ban the construction of coal-fired facilities. The agency is expected to release a proposal for existing power plants next June. Such facilities account for roughly 40% of US greenhouse gas emissions.

 

National laboratories prepare to shut down

With no end in sight for the US government shutdown that began on 1 October, the Department of Energy (DOE) is now preparing to shut down the sprawling complex of national laboratories that maintains nuclear weapons and performs a range of basic and applied research.

Los Alamos National Laboratory will stop most work on 18 October due to the US government shutdown.

Los Alamos National Laboratory will stop most work on 18 October due to the US government shutdown.{credit}Ethan Froggett/LANL{/credit}

Thus far the facilities have been sheltered from the government shutdown because they are operated by subcontractors — including universities and businesses — under longer-term contracts. But with their remaining DOE money beginning to run dry, national laboratories have begun curtailing work and preparing to close their doors. At least three major DOE facilities — including two of the core nuclear weapons laboratories, Los Alamos and Sandia in New Mexico — are scheduled to shut down within two weeks.

Without funding, Los Alamos will shut down on 18 October. Officials there are now preparing a list of essential employees who will stay on to ensure safety and security of the laboratory’s core facilities, nuclear materials and any critical scientific experiments. The lab will also “retain the capability to respond to national emergencies,” says spokesman Fred deSousa. As of 9 October, it remained unclear how many of the roughly 10,300 workers would be furloughed.

In an 8 October memo to employees, Sandia director Paul Hommert warned employees that the laboratory is preparing to shut down at the close of business on 21 October. Hommert did not say how many of the laboratories 8,700 employees would be retained, but cautioned that ongoing activities would be extremely limited.

At the Hanford Site in Richland, Washington, workers are already preparing scale back cleanup activities at the former nuclear processing site in preparation. Hanford has 8,000 contractors and another 450 federal employees, and officials expect that the vast majority of those employees would be furloughed beginning 21 October. The Y-12 National Security Complex, a manufacturing facility near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, that supports the nuclear weapons programme, has already begun shutting down operations in preparation for closure on 17 October.

Other laboratories are faring better. Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Illinois, has enough money to continue operations through the end of the month, and perhaps into November. Both the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee will continue operations into November. Laboratory officials have been ordered to direct all media queries to DOE officials in Washington DC, but officials there declined to provide any details regarding the pending closures.

One laboratory official who declined to be identified laments the gridlock among politicians in Washington DC. That person says it is just a matter of time before everything comes to a halt. “We’ll all be in the same boat if they don’t come up with a solution soon,” he says.

Facility Furlough date Employees affected Research areas
Y-12 National Security Complex 17 October 4,800 Engineering and manufacturing for nuclear weapons
Los Alamos National Laboratory 18 October More than 10,300 Nuclear weapons, security, energy, environment
Sandia National Laboratory 21 October 8,700 Nuclear weapons, engineering, energy, environment
Hanford Site 21 October 8,450 Nuclear clean-up
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory November 4,700 Materials science, energy, environment and national security
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Early November 4,400 Nuclear energy, environment, national security

Norway ditches large-scale carbon-capture plan

Posted on behalf of Richard Van Noorden.

Norway’s government is cutting off support for a facility that by 2020 was to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions at a commercial scale. After years of delays and mounting costs, the plan to capture 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year from an oil refinery and gas power plant at Mongstad would be halted, said oil and energy minister Ola Borten Moe on 20 September.

The failure at Mongstad follows hard on the heels of a series of disasters for European efforts to launch large carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. While North American projects look set to switch on next year, Europe has failed to finance projects that were conceived at similar times in the early and mid-2000s – thanks to a mixture of political reluctance, the economic recession and its effect on carbon prices, and government bureaucracy (see ‘Europe’s untamed carbon’).

In Norway’s case, says the Bellona Foundation, an environmental non-governmental organization headquartered in Oslo, the Mongstad failure was “a reflection not of the technology involved, but rather the shoddy organization and perpetual equivocation on behalf of the Norwegian government.”

The latest decision followed a critical report on 17 September from the country’s Auditor General, which said that the government had overspent on the project and handled financial risks poorly. “The complexity of implementing CCS was underestimated in 2006,” it said. That was when Norway first embarked on efforts to support a large-scale CCS plant, by passing laws that new gas power plants would have to install CCS, and by setting up a state enterprise, Gassnova, to support research and demonstration projects in the area.

Since 2007, the government has spent 7.2 billion Kroner ($1.2 billion) on CCS research and projects at Kårstø and Mongstad, the report said. Some 3 billion Kroner ($500 million) was to have been invested just on planning full-scale CO2 capture at Mongstad, following the launch of a $1 billion technology centre last year.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg had earlier called the Mongstad facility, a joint effort between Norway’s government and the domestic energy firm Statoil, a ‘moon landing’ project, according to Bloomberg. But the moon landing proved too expensive.

“There was too much risk associated with the costs we had in front of us – and that we couldn’t complete the project in the timescale given,” says Håkon Smith-Isaksen, a spokesperson for Norway’s energy ministry. Stoltenberg had admitted over the past few years that the costs of carbon capture had “unfortunately become much higher”.

The decision came in the dying days of Stoltenberg’s coalition government, which has held power for the last seven years but lost elections on 10 September. On paper, all of Norway’s political parties are still signed up to a climate package that a CCS full-scale plant be built somewhere in the country by 2020, says Smith-Isaksen — although it’s likely that the Mongstad project would have missed its 2020 target in any case.

Applications are now open for CCS projects elsewhere, and Gassnova, the Norwegian state enterprise for CCS, still has funding. Smith-Isaksen adds that some of the money spent on the plant at Mongstad had given results that could be used in other places around the world. But in the opinion of Keith Whiriskey, an advisor at Bellona, Mongstad was the best project, and a lot of the learning that Statoil put in to study the geology for carbon burial there may now be lost.

Whiriskey also argues that Statoil has dragged its heels on the project, not wanting to employ an expensive CCS facility at its Mongstad oil refinery, which would raise electricity prices. Statoil has been burying millions of tonnes of CO2 at the Sleipner and Snøhvit gas fields in the North Sea for many years, but that is because Norway puts a tax of €50 per tonne on offshore CO2 emissions, Whiriskey notes. There’s no similar incentive to trap CO2 emitted from onshore power plants, he says. Statoil were not available for comment.

The separate $1 billion technology centre at Mongstad, which supports research into how best to capture emissions, will continue, and the government will invest an extra 400 million kroner ($68 million) into the work. That is a joint venture between the Norwegian state, Statoil, and oil giants Shell and Sasol. The technology centre was itself over-budget by some 1.7 billion kroner ($290 million), the Auditor General said. (See ‘Norway opens carbon-capture test facility‘.)

EPA proposes emissions limits for new power plants

Following through on President Barack Obama’s climate strategy, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today proposed greenhouse gas regulations that would effectively ban coal-fired power plants unless they are equipped to capture and sequester a portion of their carbon dioxide emissions.

The proposed regulations come 18 months after the agency released its initial regulatory proposal, which encountered intense opposition from electric utilities. Although the new standards provide a little extra leeway and flexibility, the agency basically stuck to its guns regarding new coal plants, which would need to capture 40-60% of their emissions in order to meet the new standard. Utilities have said the regulations would effectively ban new coal-fired plants by requiring the installation of immature and expensive technology, but EPA administrator Gina McCarthy argued the opposite today.

“CCS is a technology that is feasible, and it is available today,” McCarthy said. “I believe this proposal, rather than killing future coal, actually sets out a certain pathway forward for coal to continue to be part of the diverse mix in this country.”

Under the proposed standard, large natural gas plants would be allowed to emit up to 454 kilograms of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, while coal-fired plants would be limited to 499 kilograms of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. Alternatively, utilities could opt for additional flexibility as they bring new coal plants on line if they agree to meet a stricter standard — 476 kilograms per megawatt hour — averaged across the first seven years of operation.

The EPA will accept public comments on the proposal for 60 days. Utilities criticized the proposed regulation and warned that it would be challenged in court, while environmentalists generally praised the announcement as a step in the right direction.

President Obama also called on the EPA to regulate emissions from existing power plants, which are responsible for about a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. McCarthy underscored that initiative and said the EPA is now working with industry as well as local and state officials to craft a proposal, which will be released as scheduled next June.

European Parliament votes to limit crop-based biofuels

The European Union Parliament voted today to limit Europe’s use of biofuels based on crops such as palm oil and soya beans, years after scientists pointed out that making fuel from food crops can do more harm than good to the environment.

The vote shows that politicians want to slow the use of conventional crop-based biofuels, after a decade of encouraging their expansion.

But what was agreed in Brussels did not go far enough to satisfy campaigners concerned about the environmental and ethical impacts of crop-based fuel. It is also far from being final legislation: after tense negotiations, another Parliamentary vote will be needed, if — as is almost certain — ministers from Europe’s member states quibble with the new policy.

Continue reading

El-Baz wants to solve Egypt’s problems from space

Following the recent and ongoing political upheaval in Egypt, Farouk El-Baz, the Egyptian-born director of Boston University’s Center for Remote Sensing, is suggesting his major development corridor construction project as a solution to Egypt’s biggest problems again, hoping the new government may be more attentive.

The project envisions building a “new Nile basin” parallel to the original river to the west, but one of asphalt instead. He wants to have an eight-line superhighway from Sudan to the Mediterranean, connected to all the major cities along the Nile basin. This should ease the population encroaching along the fertile Nile basin and offer millions of new land for agriculture and industry, El-Baz tells The Boston Globe.

El-Baz has been trying to sell his idea to successive Egyptian governments since Hosni Mubarak was president. While Mubarak’s governments was unresponsive, the first government formed after his ouster was excited about it and started selling the project as “Egypt’s salvation.” This government was dissolved under heavy protesting however, and the project was shelved again during the rule of Mohamed Morsi, the recently ousted president. Now, El-Baz is hoping the new government might bring the project, which would cost a whooping US$23.7 billion, back on the table.

There has been vast criticism of El-Baz’s project in Egypt, with some claiming it was overly optimistic, some arguing it was unaffordable and others suggesting the new population centres created would be prone to serious water shortages. El-Baz, who has been working for 30 years on this vision, refutes these claims and offers solutions to the problems. The funding, he says, should come from the private sector which would reap economic rewards immediately and the water can come from Nasser’s Lake, the large water reservoir at the High Dam.

You can read the full article at The Boston Globe.

Management row threatens to blow Sahara solar dream

Cross-posted from the Nature News blog on behalf of Quirin Schiermeier.

Plans to supply Europe with electricity generated in North Africa suffered another blow this week when the DESERTEC Foundation, set up in 2009 to promote the idea, pulled out of the industrial consortium which is trying to advance the €400-billion (US$514-billion) project.

The split, agreed upon during an extraordinary DESERTEC board meeting on 27 June, is the climax of growing tensions between the founders of the project and the Dii consortium — including Deutsche Bank and German energy utilities Eon and RWE — over management and strategy issues. Solar power capacities are expanding throughout North Africa and the Middle East — but Dii has recently scaled back ambitions, hinting to political and technical problems with transmitting massive amounts of electricity from North Africa to Europe.

The DESERTEC foundation — sole owner of the project’s brand name — has been increasingly unhappy with how internal discussions over the future of the project leaked to the press.

“It was always clear to us that our idea of producing electricity from the deserts (…) was never an easy task and will always face extreme challenges,” Thiemo Gropp, director of the DESERTEC Foundation, said in a statement.

“However, after many months filled with a lot of discussions we had to conclude that the DESERTEC Foundation needs to preserve its independence. [Our exit] is the result of many irresolvable disputes between the two entities in the area of future strategies, obligations and their communication.”

Gropp said the dispute has “negatively affected” DESERTEC’s reputation but he did not rule out future cooperation between the two organizations.

Analysts have repeatedly criticized the project as too big and expensive. Pulling the plug on its loss-making solar business, German engineering giant Siemens, based in Munich, quit Dii last year. Technology supplier Bosch, based in Stuttgart, also pulled out last year.

Management row threatens to blow Sahara solar dream

Plans to supply Europe with electricity generated in North Africa suffered another blow this week when the DESERTEC Foundation, set up in 2009 to promote the idea, pulled out of the industrial consortium which is trying to advance the €400-billion (US$514-billion) project.

The split, agreed upon during an extraordinary DESERTEC board meeting on 27 June, is the climax of growing tensions between the founders of the project and the Dii consortium — including Deutsche Bank and German energy utilities Eon and RWE — over management and strategy issues. Solar power capacities are expanding throughout North Africa and the Middle East — but Dii has recently scaled back ambitions, hinting to political and technical problems with transmitting massive amounts of electricity from North Africa to Europe.

The DESERTEC foundation — sole owner of the project’s brand name — has been increasingly unhappy with how internal discussions over the future of the project leaked to the press.

“It was always clear to us that our idea of producing electricity from the deserts (…) was never an easy task and will always face extreme challenges,” Thiemo Gropp, director of the DESERTEC Foundation, said in a statement.

“However, after many months filled with a lot of discussions we had to conclude that the DESERTEC Foundation needs to preserve its independence. [Our exit] is the result of many irresolvable disputes between the two entities in the area of future strategies, obligations and their communication.”

Gropp said the dispute has “negatively affected” DESERTEC’s reputation but he did not rule out future cooperation between the two organizations.

Analysts have repeatedly criticized the project as too big and expensive. Pulling the plug on its loss-making solar business, German engineering giant Siemens, based in Munich, quit Dii last year. Technology supplier Bosch, based in Stuttgart, also pulled out last year.

US Senate approves Moniz for energy post and advances EPA nominee

US President Barack Obama’s science team gained a new member on 16 May as the Senate confirmed physicist Ernest Moniz as head of the Department of Energy. Lawmakers also voted to advance the nomination of Gina McCarthy, Obama’s choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The unanimous vote to approve Moniz, director of the Energy Initiative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, came after Senator Lindsay Graham (Republican, South Carolina) withdrew his objection to the nomination. Graham had blocked the full Senate from voting on Moniz for nearly a month, citing a White House proposal to cut US$200 million in funding for a plutonium-processing plant in South Carolina.

Moniz, who now takes the helm of a sprawling agency with an annual budget of roughly $27 billion, is no stranger to Washington DC.  He served as an associate director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under president Bill Clinton, and for the past four years he has served on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Known for his strong support of natural gas and nuclear power, Moniz replaces fellow physicist Steven Chu, who left the energy department in April for a post at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.

Meanwhile, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works approved McCarthy’s nomination by a 10–8 vote, clearing the way for a confirmation vote by the full Senate.

Unlike Moniz, who has received broad support from both major political parties, McCarthy — who currently heads the EPA’s air-quality office — has faced strong opposition from Republicans. They boycotted a scheduled committee vote on her nomination last week, effectively blocking the process. The highest ranking Republican on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, David Vitter (Louisiana), said that he and his colleagues attended Thursday’s vote because the EPA had agreed to address Republican concerns about the agency’s policies on information access and transparency.

But McCarthy’s path to consideration by the full Senate is not yet clear: another Republican senator, Roy Blunt (Missouri), is blocking a final vote on McCarthy’s nomination until the Obama administration provides more details about a plan to install new pumping stations along the Mississippi River in southern Missouri.