Vision Shopsters - Green Energy in the UK: Renewable sources, drivers, legislation, capacity growth and the future outlook
Author: Visionshopsters
Renewable energy generates close to 2% of electricity in UK. In 2008, UK's electricity generation totaled 389,650GWh, a decrease of 1.9% over 2007. During 2004-08, UK's electricity generation decreased at CAGR of 0.3% mainly on account of financial crisis. At a national level, the 'UK Renewable Energy Strategy' (2009) suggests that the UK's electricity generation from renewables would be more than 30% by 2020. UK's renewable energy industry is driven by government incentives and mandates. The UK's electricity market for renewables is driven by Feed-in Tariff system and the Renewable Obligation.
This report documents the growth of the UK renewable energy market, showing its current status and projecting where it is likely to grow to in the foreseeable future.
This document gathers the statistical data on the different types of energy generation, combines and contrasts them against each other to show the clear leaders, drivers to change and future growth.
Key features of this report
a¢ Overview of the UK electricity market with focus on renewable energy. Analysis of energy type volumes, capacity installed, and generation output in the UK.
a¢ Growth of renewables - installed capacity and generation, government mandates and incentives, and comparative economics.
a¢ Information and analysis by renewable energy sector - wind, solar, biomass, hydro, and geothermal.
a¢ Installed capacity and generation, global comparison, key players, economics, drivers, resistors, and outlook for each renewable energy sector.
a¢ Outlook for overall UK energy supply with future outlook.
Scope of this report
a¢ Achieve a quick and comprehensive understanding of how UK market trends and legislation are influencing the development of the renewable energy market.
a¢ Assess the emerging trends in renewable energy technology - wind, biomass, hydropower, solar, geothermal, and biofuels - capacity and generation.
a¢ Quantify value and volume growth potential in UK electricity market and in energy generation technology type.
a¢ Understand the major issues affecting general electricity market and renewable electricity in particular.
a¢ Predict the key growth areas in the UK renewable energy industry.
Key Market Issues
a¢ EU Emission Reduction Targets: Historically, the EU's emission reduction targets are the primary drivers for implementation of policies that encouraged usage of renewable energy in the EU member states. The EU's directive on reducing GHG emissions through increased usage of renewable energy is expected to be met at individual country-level through their own policies.
a¢ Renewable Energy Incentives and Mandates: In order to meet the emission reduction target laid out in the EU directive, UK adopted its own national climate action plan. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy' (2009) suggests that the UK's electricity generation from renewables would be more than 30% by 2020.
a¢ Political Support: UK's new coalition government has promised renewable initiatives under a new energy bill. The UK aims at creation of a green investment bank that would loan individual households the money to invest in carbon-reducing measures, including insulation.
a¢ Energy Efficiency: UK' energy policy is governed by twin objectives of reducing energy demand through energy efficiency measures and converting its generation fleet into a cleaner one.
Key findings from this report
a¢ Given mounting fiscal deficit, UK's new collation government has put an end to low-carbon buildings program grants. The UK government is to introduce the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme from April 2011. This is expected top cover heat pumps, solar thermal, biomass boilers, renewable CHP. The UK government plans to increase its renewable electric power generation to 30% by 2020.
a¢ Wind power is the second largest renewable energy source in the UK after biomass. UK has set a target to increase its installed wind power capacity to 28GW by 2020 of which 14GW would be onshore and 14GW would be offshore.
a¢ In 2010, the government of UK took initiatives to expand solar power sector by encouraging new developments in solar technologies and announcing feed-in tariffs for solar power.
a¢ In 2008, biomass shared largest contribution of 43.1% in total generation of electricity from renewables (21,597GWh). Biomass is the UK's largest green energy resource. The nation's biomass resource potential is at an estimated 20 million tons per annum. By 2020, UK could witness commercialization of cogeneration (i.e. Combining Heat and Power or CHP) using biomass.
Key questions answered
a¢ What are the drivers shaping and influencing new capacity installed in the energy industry?
a¢ How will renewable energy technologies capacity share perform to 2020? What are the opportunities?
a¢ What is the policy framework governing the renewable energy market?
a¢ Which renewable energy technology types are likely to grow strongly?
a¢ What is the potential of various renewable energy technologies?
To know more about this report & to buy a copy please visit :
http://www.visionshopsters.com/product/7383/Green-Energy-in-the-UK-Renewable-sources-drivers-legislation-capacity-growth-and-the-future-outlook.html
Contact us:
Visionshopsters
Ph : 91-22-40583020
Emailid: marketing@visionshopsters.com
Website : www.visionshopsters.com
About the Author
Visionshopsters specializes in providing comprehensive collection of online market research reports, events bookings, country reports, company profiles, latest books and magazines, customized research services offering informative solutions worldwide. We constantly believe in providing inventive solutions to clients all across the globe. Our clientele consists of over thousands of top most academic organizations, financial institutions, trading companies, legal service providers, accounting consultancies and other corporate business executives.
Would you vote for an independant Scotland?
I would. I think independance would benifit us via tourism, energy production both fossil and renewable energy, external funding from the EU as Scotlands living standards are actually lower than the EU aims. Along with various other benifits i cant be bothered to type up.
Please leave your view and state what country you are from Scotland,England, America whatever as id like to see the spread of views. Thanks! =D
Its funny to see most of england getting bored of our cries for independance. A tory governent would make independance more viable as the scottish people hate the conservatives. but if the torries got in it would be harder to push through independance getting scotland even more p’d off.
I think we should just take over faslane and threaten them with trident until we get independance im sure the norwegians would help. :L
FINAL RESULT – 15 (including me) for independance. 2 against
China sounds fascinating what with the Olympics, smog
Ten big polluters to make more than $4 BILLION from cap and trade – is this how it works?
The Environmental Leader website ( http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/03/05/ten-companies-to-take-in-4-4b-in-eu-carbon-permit-profits-by-2012/ ) reports that ten of the biggest steel and cement producers, responsible for most of the carbon emissions from industry in Europe will make more than four BILLION dollars by 2012 from the cap and trade “ETS” scheme set up by the EU.
This means that the biggest polluters in Europe are getting a handout from taxpayers money of billions and billions of dollars for doing nothing at all (the emissions cap was set too high).
QUOTE -
“”Ten organizations, primarily in the steel and cement industries, could share a surplus of €3.2 billion ($4.4 billion) of pollution permits by 2012 under the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), according to a new report from Sandbag Climate Change and Carbon Market Data. The report (PDF) indicates this is more than double the EU’s investment of €1.5 billion ($2 billion) in renewable energy and clean technology.”"
Is this how it’s supposed to work, or has the scheme been a failure so far?
.
Did you really think big business was going to suffer because of cap and trade? It is a money making scheme.
what the oil companies don’t tell you is that Amerca is spending over $400 billion per year (as high as $700 during high oil prices) and giving that money to other countries, some of which are not friendly. It also cost billions more in military to secure the oil supply and stabilize middle east. It’s an awfull waste of money that can be better spent in the USA. Consider too that renewable only cost during installation- there are not ups and down of fuel costs and the supply is forever. Emmisions and the environment are just a bonus.
which environment story should i use?
im currently on an open university course (U316) and i need to write a 600 word environmental story based on the concepts of sustainability and governance.
i have found two themes that i find interesting but cannot choose which one to follow. i have found equal amounts of research about both…
* is the number of puffins declining due to over-fishing by Danes, allowed by the EU fishing policy
or…
* china is building a new renewable energy project based on wind power. this will be similar to three gorge dam but within the atmosphere, leading to the largest global scheme.
please help me choose which one is best!
thanks
lou
Oil Co. Commercials say “Going Green Now will Hurt Economy” Proof They are Lying ,Obama on Right Track?
We have all seen the T.V. ads Put out by the Oil Co.s who Clear over $660,000,000 in PROFITS EVERY DAY telling you that Going Green at this time would cost American jobs, Nothing could be further from the truth Every other country that has been beating America in the race for the future “Green Economy” has pulled their economies out of a slump. The proof is rite under our noses If take a min. to see how other country’s economies are booming. Lets take a look at The Democratic nation of Germany,..
“How Germany Created Jobs by Going Green”
President Obama says investing in a “green economy” can create 5 million jobs in the next 10 years. How? The answer may lie in Germany. The country that is home to Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen is on its way to making its green sector larger than its auto industry by 2020, according to a recent study. Germany has developed 250,000 new jobs in renewable energy, including nearly 50,000 wind-power jobs in the last five years alone.
The government worked to promote a green culture through all levels of society. ”We started with simpler parts, like automating systems in office buildings to use less power,” says Elmar Bollin, a director of research in Baden-Württemberg. Financial incentives were given to people who retrofitted their homes with renewable sources. Police officers ticketed polluting cars that drove in emission-reduction zones. Competitions challenged citizens to see who could save the most power. Schoolchildren in the city of Heidelberg who devised and implemented successful plans received some of the money they saved to use in their classrooms.
http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/how-germany-created-jobs-by-going-green.html
Germany on track
“Germany, on the other hand, has cut its emissions since 1990 by about 20 percent and is basically on Kyoto track,” said Latif, a scientist who has written on the influence of human activity on climate change and has worked extensively in the US.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2705033,00.html
But it’s not just in Germany and the rest of the EU that America’s environmental reputation has taken a beating.
A 37-nation survey published in June as part of the “Global Attitudes Project” of the Washington-based Pew Center showed that there is a “general increase in the percentage of people citing pollution and environmental problems as a top global threat.”
If the Republicans get back in Power they plan to reverse Obama’s plans and efforts to move the U.S. toward a green energy future.The oil Co.s have the $$ and technology to take the lead in green energy, But their Greed for the Fast buck has them hiring actors who look like average working folk to make these misleading commercials. They don’t seem to care that Foreign Oil is the #1 funding for the Terrorists our troops are dying to defeat !
Which oil companies is it okay to accept funding from?
In another question I linked to a site (www.co2science.org) which listed various studies on the Medieval Warm Period. I was criticised for this choice of site as it has accepted funding from Exxon (which i already knew, having checked Sourcewatch).
From what I can gather, the criticism is that any organisation which accepts funding from a big oil company is, by that very fact, dubious. Now, I’m not sure that’s particularly true (it may just be that the company feels that the organisation’s efforts or research is likely to coincide with its own) but if that’s the case, then what about the research from the Climate Research Unit and the Tyndall Centre who as we now know have approached Shell for funding, as the email below shows:
———————————————————————————–
“”SHELL INTERNATIONAL
Mick Kelly and Aeree Kim (CRU, ENV) met with Robert Kleiburg (Shell International’s climate change team) on July 4th primarily to discuss access to Shell information as part of Aeree’s PhD study (our initiative) and broader collaboration through postgrad. student project placements (their initiative), but Robert was also interested in plans for the Tyndall Centre (TC). What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.
Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the TC, broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.
Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.
Robert seemed to be more interested in supporting overseas (developing world) than home/EU studentships, presumably because of the credit abroad and their involvement in CDM. (It is just possible this impression was partially due to the focus on Aeree’s work in the overall discussion but I doubt it.) It seems likely that any support for studentships would be on a case by case basis according to the particular project in question.
Finally, we agreed that we would propose a topic to this year’s MSc intake as a placement with Shell and see if any student expressed interest. If this comes off we can run it under the TC banner if it would help.
I would suggest that Robert and his boss are invited to the TC launch at the very least (assuming it will be an invite type affair). Question is how can we and who should take this a step further. Maybe a meeting at Shell with business liaison person, Mike H if time and myself if time? I’d like to/am happy to stay involved through the next stage but then will probably have to back off.
We didn’t cover the new renewable energy foundation.
Mick Kelly
11 September 2000″”
uea-tyndall-shell-memo.doc
—————————————————————————————————————–
What “role in setting the research agenda” did Shell get, and why is it not a problem that the Tyndall Centre accepts money from Shell, BP and other oil companies, and lets them shape the “research agenda” but when a website accepts a donation from an oil company, then any study it so much as refers to is suspect? Double standards?
.
EDIT – @ Don’t Panic. You wrote:
“”It’s a question of the driving force behind the research. Who wants the research to be done and for what purpose. “”
~ So it’s okay for the CRU to take money from those nice people at Shell because their intentions are pure? (Like justifying emissions trading, eh?)
The driving force behind my question? I want to understand why some people feel its fine for big oil companies to have a role in shaping the research agenda (when it’s clear that their only motivation is making money from emissions trading) when the research agrees with what they believe.
But when the an oil company funds research or a site that says stuff they disagree with, all of sudden that connection means we can’t believe any of it.
.
—————————————————-
EDIT @ Dawei
Good point. I should of included a link to a cached copy of the (now deleted) CRU History page at the University of East Anglia.
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
As you will see, Shell, BP – and Greenpeace – are listed amongst their sources of funding (scroll to bottom of page for list).
.
First of all, even if a “scientific” group is directly funded by a fossil fuel industry, although it brings their motives and biases into question, their actual research still warrants assessment for its own merits.
The problem is that the argument doesn’t hold up under even simple scrutiny. That various isolated geographic locations were warmer during some timeframe between 800-1300 AD than they are now is not controversial. When you cherrypick those locations and make a qualitative rather than quantitative argument that the MWP was warmer than today, that’s where your argument fails.
If the MWP were warmer than today, a *global* temperature reconstruction would show it. There has been no such reconstruction published in any peer-reviewed journal. If the folks at co2science wanted to claim otherwise, the correct process would be to put together a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. The reason they don’t is because they don’t have a scientific leg to stand on. They’re using an uncontroversial set of data to make a false conclusion that it does not support.
You might wonder why they would do such a thing – what their motives are. And perhaps their funding from Exxon has something to do with it. But regardless, the bottom line is that their data doesn’t support their conclusion.
As for Shell funding a student research program, personally I think the difference is obvious. Providing millions of dollars of funding to an organization which solely makes AGW “skeptic” arguments vs. funding a student research program – if you can’t see the difference, you have your denial blinders on.
*edit* bravozulu jumps in with the strawman claim “Exxon tends to give a little more money to Republicans”
I know you can’t differentiate between science and politics, but we’re not talking about Republicans, we’re talking about right-wing think tanks and other purportedly scientific groups. Exxon has to document its donations, and records show they’ve given tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to these AGW denial groups.