Rising Tide Australia

New plant in Scotland will have to prove that carbon capture technology works

The first application to build a coal plant in Britain since energy secretary Ed Miliband introduced tough new environmental rules will be submitted next week, the Guardian has learnt.

UK-based conglomerate Peel Group is pressing ahead with the £3bn project to build a 1.6GW plant at Hunterston in Scotland, which will partially fit experimental carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. Its former partner, Dong Energy, dropped out last year, citing the recession. The application, which is expected to be submitted to the Scottish government on Monday, signals Peel's confidence that the unproven technology can work.

Hunterston is likely to become the UK's first CCS plant, ahead of the controversial Kingsnorth project in Kent, which E.ON still hopes to build.

Miliband announced that Kingsnorth, and Scottish Power's project at Longannet, will move into the final stage of a government-funded competition to build what it had said would be the UK's first pilot CCS plant. But no winner will be announced until next year, making Peel's project the most advanced. The technology is supposed to allow coal plants, which emit twice as much carbon as gas plants, to capture and store their emissions underground, but the technology has not been proven on a large scale and the government is relying on it working to meet its carbon targets.

Last year Miliband announced a radical new policy to force all new coal plants to be partially fitted with carbon capture technology. The government hopes the technology will be technically and commercially proven by 2025, by when all existing plants that have partially fitted the technology would have to use it to capture and store all emissions. But ministers have not spelt out what happens if the technology does not work or cannot be fitted to the whole plant. Environmental groups such as Greenpeace are concerned that if this happens, plants like Hunterston built under the new policy will remain open and end up emitting vast amounts of carbon dioxide.

Greenpeace has campaigned for an "emissions performance standard" which would restrict the operation of coal plants that had not fully fitted the technology. A coalition of Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and rebel Labour MPs narrowly failed to include the provision in the government's energy bill in a recent vote.

Joss Garman, climate campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said: "This application is a worrying sign that the government has failed to shut the door completely on dirty coal in the UK. Despite huge uncertainties over their ability to pay for carbon capture and storage technology, [Peel subsidiary] Ayrshire Power has decided to go ahead with these plans and call Labour's bluff.

"It will take a brave minister to shut down a functioning plant in the future, even if it has failed to deliver the clean coal technology it promised in 2010. That's why an emissions performance standard is needed from the start, to warn companies they face tough legal consequences if they fail to keep their promises."

Peel Group, which is backed by Saudi investors, owns airports, ports and a 28% stake in UK Coal. It is run by John Whittaker, 28th in last year's Sunday Times Rich List with £1.3bn.

• Coal
• Energy
• Energy
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS)
• Kingsnorth
• Energy industry
• Energy monitoring
• Ed Miliband

General election manifesto to encourage creation of community co-ops for getting good deals on insulation and solar panels

Home owners will be encouraged to club together to negotiate discounts from their energy bills under plans to be put forward in Labour's general election manifesto.

Such community energy co-operatives could also be used to get good deals on insulatiing properties and renewable energy devices such as solar panels or wind turbines.

Labour will not pledge money for the idea, but will offer to set up an advisory service to support groups. No target will be set, but a Labour source said there could eventually be "several thousand" such projects. In the US there are 900 similar schemes involving 42m people.

Ed Miliband, the climate secretary, said: "One of the most exciting things happening in the energy field at the moment is the formation of energy co-ops – local people banding together to get cheaper energy bills by buying electricity in bulk and discounts on energy efficiency measures such as home insulation.

"The government has already provided funding for some of these groups through our Low Carbon Communities Challenge Fund. But now I want Labour's manifesto to commit to establishing a support service so that more energy co-ops can be formed and more people can benefit from their services."

Energy co-operatives already exist in the UK, though they are mostly organised to invest in renewable power or mass insulation and share the profits from selling the electricity or energy savings, rather than push for reduced bills. Labour's idea builds on a report from the Co-operative Party, published last year, which suggested more consumer groups could be set up to emulate the success of those in US and Europe. One scheme in Belgium has about 15,000 members.

Based on overseas schemes, the report estimates consumers could save up to 10% – or about £100 a year – on their annual bills by using "collective power" to negotiate better deals with suppliers or direct with generators.

Those groups could then club together to pay for insulation, and following that build combined heat and power units, for example burning biomass, or put up renewable energy such as solar panels on roofs or even commercial wind turbines. These could in turn provide clean energy and possible generate profit from selling surplus electricity back to the National Grid, said Michael Stephenson, the party's general secretary.

"Firstly you can save even more money – the more control you have, obviously the more money you can save," said Stephenson. "If you're saving carbon, you're saving energy which means you're saving money off your bills. [But] a lot of reasons why local communities are working to get this off the ground is because they want to tackle climate change as well.

"We can see this as a potentially massive player in the energy market."

As well as the obvious appeal of lower energy bills – especially with Ofgem warning bills could rise 25% by 2020 – and pressure from most rival parties including the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to announce clear policies on the environment, Labour is understood to be attracted to the benefits of co-operatives in improving community links.

However the lack of any new funds to support the scheme will raise concerns that many community groups will not be able to afford the up-front cost of investing in efficiency or renewable power. There will also be questions about whether power companies will pass on the price cuts to the new groups, in the form of higher bills to other customers.

Stephenson said experience in the banking sector suggested they would not: in countries with a strong mutual (customer-owned) banking sector all banks tended to make lower profits out of their retail customers, said Stephenson. "It tends to have a civilizing influence on the market, rather than driving people the other way," he added.

Simon Roberts of the Centre for Sustainable Energy charity, which oversees a network of community energy groups in Somerset, said co-operatives would need advice on which technology to use in their area, likely costs, procurement and how to develop the structure of the organisation, especially if they needed to employ staff later to manage projects.

• Energy
• Energy efficiency
• Renewable energy
• Wind power
• Solar power
• Energy bills
• Labour

Our tariff plan is near-identical to Germany's – that's the one that produced woeful amounts of energy, jobs and innovation

Let me begin with a plea to tone down this debate on feed-in tariffs. Jeremy Leggett and I have addressed each other politely and stuck to the facts. I have no ill feelings towards him; I simply believe that he is wrong about solar power. But the level of viciousness displayed on the comment threads, by email and on other sites has to be seen to be believed.

Where does fury of this kind come from? In my experience it's often associated with denial. People who don't like the outcomes dismiss the facts and lash out at the bearers of bad news. Could we, just for once, please try to get past this reaction, and judge the case on its merits?

My own instincts press me to support solar power. Like most environmentalists I believe that small is beautiful. I hate pylon lines and I don't care for the sight of big power plants of any description, wind farms included. I detest the big energy firms which provide our electricity. I am deeply attracted to the idea of being able to produce my own power, just as I love producing my own fruit and vegetables. But my attempts to find the best means of tackling climate change, which I explain at greater length in my book, Heat, have forced me to put my gut feelings to one side. Our choices must be based on the best possible information. Otherwise we waste our lives chasing chimeras.

Against my instincts I have come to oppose solar photovoltaic power (PV) in the UK, and the feed-in tariffs designed to encourage it, because the facts show unequivocally that this is a terrible investment. There are much better ways of spending the rare and precious revenue that the tariffs will extract from our pockets. If we are to prevent runaway climate change, we have to ensure that we get the biggest available bang for our buck: in other words the greatest cut in greenhouse gas production from the money we spend. Money spent on ineffective solutions is not just a waste: it's also a lost opportunity.

Environmentalists have no trouble understanding this argument when lobbying against nuclear power. Those who maintain that it's more expensive than renewable electricity argue that we shouldn't waste our money investing in it. But now I hear the same people telling us that we should support every form of renewable generation, regardless of the cost.

I'm delighted that Jeremy has accepted my bet that solar PV won't reach grid parity in 2013. I am also happy for the winnings to go to SolarAid. I agree with Jeremy that solar PV is an appropriate technology in Africa, where most people are off-grid and there's much more sunlight. It's in this country that it makes no sense.

And I accept Jeremy's challenge to write a column admitting I'm wrong if he wins the bet (but I won't accept his subtle slippage, substituting "near" for "at"). If I am wrong, it won't be the first time. In 2005, before I had crunched the numbers, I called on green NGOs to switch from supporting windfarms to promoting "decentralised microgeneration projects", which I considered a more attractive option. After I discovered just how badly this would set back efforts to decarbonise our power supplies, I changed my views. What would it take to change his?

Jeremy and I can speculate about how useful solar electricity will be in the UK until we've worn our keyboards out. Until our bet closes in 2013, by which time billions of pounds will have been committed, no one will know which of us is right.

But you don't have to rely on speculation to see how this is likely to pan out. As the old cookery programes used to say: "Here's one we prepared earlier." The German experiment, almost identical to the UK's, has now been running for ten years. An analysis published in November by the Ruhr University (pdf) shows just what it has achieved.

When the German programme began in 2000, it offered index-linked payments of 51 euro cents for every KWh of electricity produced by solar PV. These were guaranteed for 20 years. This is similar to the UK's initial subsidy, of 41p. As in the UK, the solar subsidy was, and remains, massively greater than the payments for other forms of renewable technology.

The real net cost of the solar PV installed in Germany between 2000 and 2008 was €35bn. The paper estimates a further real cost of €18bn in 2009 and 2010: a total of €53bn in ten years. These investments make wonderful sense for the lucky householders who could afford to install the panels, as lucrative returns are guaranteed by taxing the rest of Germany's electricity users. But what has this astonishing spending achieved? By 2008 solar PV was producing a grand total of 0.6% of Germany's electricity. 0.6% for €35bn. Hands up all those who think this is a good investment.

After years of these incredible payments, and the innovation and cost reductions they were supposed to stimulate, the paper estimates that saving one tonne of carbon dioxide through solar PV in Germany still costs €716. The International Energy Agency has produced an even higher estimate: €1000 per tonne. There are dozens of ways in which you can save carbon for 100th of the cost of solar PV at high latitudes.

The Ruhr University paper comes out against using feed-in tariffs to stimulate wind power as well, but in this case it shows that large-scale wind power in Germany is likely to become cheaper than conventional power by 2022, at which point subsidies will become redundant. It makes no such prediction for solar PV. It reinforces the point I made in my first sally: while Germany, like the UK, belongs to the European emissions trading scheme, any carbon savings made by feed-in tariffs merely allow polluting industries to raise their emissions. The net saving is zero. The paper suggests that a far more cost-effective mechanism would be to crank down the emissions cap under the trading scheme – then let renewable technologies fight it out to offer the biggest carbon saving per euro.

As for stimulating innovation, which is the main argument Jeremy makes in their favour, the report shows that Germany's feed-in tariffs have done just the opposite. Like the UK's scheme, Germany's is degressive – it goes down in steps over time. What this means is that the earlier you adopt the technology, the higher the tariff you receive. If you waited until 2009 to install your solar panel, you'll be paid 43c/kWh (or its inflation-proofed equivalent) for 20 years, rather than the 51c you get if you installed in 2000.

This encourages people to buy existing technology and deploy it right away, rather than to hold out for something better. In fact, the paper shows the scheme has stimulated massive demand for old, clunky solar cells at the expense of better models beginning to come onto the market. It argues that a far swifter means of stimulating innovation is for governments to invest in research and development. But the money has gone in the wrong direction: while Germany has spent some €53bn on deploying old technologies over ten years, in 2007 the government spent only €211m on renewables R&D.

In principle, tens of thousands of jobs have been created in the German PV industry, but this is gross jobs, not net jobs: had the money been used for other purposes, it could have employed far more people. The paper estimates that the subsidy for every solar PV job in Germany is €175,000: in other words the subsidy is far higher than the money the workers are likely to earn. This is a wildly perverse outcome. Moreover, most of these people are medium or highly skilled workers, who are in short supply there. They have simply been drawn out of other industries. The researchers say that:

"Any result other than a negative net employment balance of the German PV promotion would be surprising. In contrast, we would expect massive employment effects in export countries such as China."

Germany's solar exports (€0.2bn in 2006) have been greatly outweighed by its imports (€1.44bn in the same year). And it's not getting any better:

"Recent newspaper articles report that the situation remains dire, with the German solar industry facing unprecedented competition from cheaper Asian imports."

The UK's prospects of building the major export industry Jeremy dreams of are even slighter, as it will now have to take on Germany as well as China and Japan. We've missed the boat by years.

While I've been taking plenty of flak for arguing this case, I've also received a lot of support from green energy experts. Chris Goodall and David Thorpe, for example, have both come to similar conclusions, by working the case out from first principles. If you doubt what I say, I urge you to read their analyses, and the astonishing figures they have produced.

I have no horses in this race: I have no products to sell. I hope that some of you might be able to see that this is an honest attempt to get to the truth of the matter, and to find the most effective means of preventing runaway climate change.

Monbiot.com

• Feed-in tariffs
• Solar power
• Renewable energy
• Energy

A collection of images that show the beauty of wind power

• Lobby consists of 90 academics, politicians and experts
• Claim appropriate information has not been made available

Pressure on the government to organise an independent inquiry into a new generation of nuclear power stations will intensify today with a call for action from a group of 90 high-ranking academics, politicians and technical experts.

The huge lobby says the "climategate" email scandal and other events have shaken public trust in the scientific governance of environmental risk, making a wider assessment of nuclear power more important than ever.

Paul Dorfman, an energy policy research fellow at Warwick University who has been coordinating support for an inquiry, said more debate was needed for a decision on nuclear to have full democratic backing. "The kind of consultation we have had so far has been flawed and inadequate. The government has put the cart before the horse by wanting endorsement before either the design of the reactor and the way waste will be treated has been decided. There is a democratic deficit here that needs correcting," he said.

Nuclear consulting engineer John Large, another campaign signatory, agreed. "The public consultation has been a failure because the appropriate information has not been made available for the public to make a proper assessment of the benefits and risks," he said.

"We need Ed Miliband [the energy and climate change secretary] to organise an independent inquiry as he is entitled to do under the justification regulations," he added.

These two critics are standing alongside a long list of academics, such as Jerome Ravetz of Oxford University and Mark Pelling of King's College London, as well as MPs including Simon Hughes of the Liberal Democrats, Michael Meacher from Labour and Jane Davidson, the environment minister in the Welsh assembly.

A "justification" process is a requirement under European Union law but Miliband will himself be able to decide whether he needs an inquiry or not. He is believed to want to take this step as soon as possible so that new nuclear power stations could come on stream in 2017, in time to meet an expected energy shortage.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change was unable to comment on the matter last night.

• Nuclear power
• Energy industry
• Energy
• Ed Miliband

Curse of the Black Gold: 50 Years of Oil in the Niger Delta by the photojournalist Ed Kashi documents the consequences of 50 years of oil extraction in the Niger delta

RenewableUK says inconsistencies in tariff favour solar panels, which takes microgeneration business out of UK

UK small wind turbine manufacturers say they will lose out to foreign solar panel manufacturers in the race to cash in on the UK government's new feed-in tariff scheme.

They claim their products will be penalised because solar panel owners will receive higher government subsidies than wind turbine buyers. As the arrangement stands, a wind turbine would qualify for 26.7-34.5p per KWh in government subsidies, while solar panels would typically bring in 41p per KWh.

Turbine manufacturers will also have to pay a fee of up to £100,000 to have their models certified for the scheme, and they argue that planning rules make it harder for customers to get approval for turbines.

Due to come into effect on 1 April, the tariff – also known as Clean Energy Cashback – will offer home owners a government subsidy for installing small-scale renewable energy technologies, including solar panels and wind turbines.

Alex Murley, RenewableUK's head of small systems, said: "Small wind is the only microgeneration technology which UK manufacturers dominate the market for. If we don't get this right we could be shooting ourselves in the foot and killing off a burgeoning UK success story."

According to Renewable UK, planning applications for small wind turbines have traditionally taken up to 14 months to process. Britain's oldest surviving small wind manufacturer, Ampair, has accused some local authorities of "systematically rejecting" applications.

The government promises to allow households to install small turbines without planning permission from June, but turbine manufacturers say the current planning allowance is too limited, restricting domestic wind turbines to a hub height of 10 metres and 2.2 metres blade diameter.

This will allow a 1.5KW turbine, producing an average of 800KWh a year in windy conditions – less than a fifth of the average UK household's electricity needs. By comparison, UK panel installer Solarcentury has estimated that the typical 18 metre square domestic solar panel installation would on average generate just over 2,000KWh – nearly half the average household's electricity consumption.

The government's Energy Saving Trust said that although such limitations are fine for urban roof top turbines, wind turbines in rural locations need to be bigger for small wind turbines to generate a significant amount of energy for the UK. It is these rural locations that will generate the lion's share of energy from "small" turbines. EST figures published last year show small turbines could meet 4% of the UK's electricity demands but only 4% of that energy would come from small turbines in urban locations.

UK manufacturers currently produce four-fifths of the country's small turbines, 3,500 of which were installed in the UK in 2008. All larger wind turbines and the vast majority of solar panels are manufactured abroad.

David Sharman, managing director of Ampair, claims the UK government is penalising its own manufacturing industry through inequalities in the feed-in tariff.

He also claims that the rigorous tests to qualify for the tariff's quality assurance certificate, the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), are prohibitively expensive at at £50,000-£100,000 per product certified. No small wind turbines have so far been MCS accreditedbut the government has set up an MCS 'transition list' for small wind turbines, which allows them to temporarily qualify for the tariff for one year while they complete the accreditation scheme.

Responding to criticism of planning restrictions for wind, a spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "We consulted on the proposals to find the right balance for these technologies. We want to enable homeowners to install microgeneration easily and also make sure we're fair about planning permission for larger installations. Different homes will be suitable for different technologies based on a number of factors – it's not a one size fits all."

• Feed-in tariffs
• Wind power
• Renewable energy
• Energy
• Utilities
• Manufacturing sector

New machine by Xeros cleans clothes with beads and a tiny amount of water and may cut household bills by 30%

"Dry" cleaning is set to become a domestic activity with a washing machine that uses 90% less water than a normal laundry cycle and could be available by the end of 2011. The device, developed by Leeds-based Xeros Ltd, replaces water with tiny plastic beads that suck up stains and its producers claim it will shift stubborn pounds from household energy bills as well.

The Xeros process uses 3mm-long nylon beads that can get into all the crevices and folds of clothing and can also be re-used hundreds of times. The beads flood the machine's drum once the clothes are wet and the humidity is at the right level. After the washing cycle is complete, the beads drain away in the same way as water in a conventional machine.

The chief executive of Xeros, Bill Westwater, said: "The net saving in water, detergent and electricity and including the cost of the beads, we calculate, is about a 30% cost saving for the user." He claims the machine has been tested successfully on a range of fabrics stained with everything from mud, red wine and curry stains to ink from ballpoint pens.

According to the Energy Saving Trust, just under one-third of household energy is used to heat water. Laundry washing also accounts for 15% of all household water consumption; meaning if everyone in the UK converted from normal washing to the Xeros system, the carbon emissions saved would be the equivalent of taking 1.4 m cars off the roads. Another perk of the device is that it should allow many delicates to be "dry" cleaned at home.

Xeros has already received research and development funding from Yorkshire Forward and has just returned from a government-sponsored "Clean and Cool" trade mission to the United States, aimed at securing investment from venture capitalists in Silicon Valley in California.

The idea for polymer-based cleaning came from Stephen Burkinshaw, a polymer chemist at Leeds University who spent 30 years working out how to improve the dyeing of plastics used in fabrics. A few years ago he realised that the stains on clothes acted in a similar way to dyes, and he wondered if he could use plastics to attract away the stains.

After experimenting with a range of plastics, he settled on nylon. Thanks to a natural property of the material, nylon beads attract stains to their surface and, in 100% humidity, the molecular structure of the plastic becomes amorphous, so the stains diffuse into the centre of the beads. "Not only are you able to suck the stain off the clothes, you're also able to ensure there's no deposition back onto the clothes," said Westwater.

When the beads are at the end of their life, saturated with dirt and stains, they can be collected and recycled into, for example, dashboards for cars. Eventually Westwater wants to design a closed-loop recycling system for his washing machines, where saturated beads can be refreshed and re-used in Xeros machines.

Westwater has already built a prototype washing machine and aims to have a product ready for the commercial laundry market by the end of next year, with a consumer version coming to market shortly afterwards. "There is more of a technical challenge [in development] as you compact the system. But it's not just about that - there's also consumer inertia. For millenia, people have been washing their clothes with water and a bit of detergent and suddenly we're coming along and saying that most of that water can be replaced by these beads. That's a big leap in the consumers' minds."

Claire Cunningham, a spokesperson for the government-backed Technology Strategy Board, said Xeros had an "interesting and innovative product" and the environmental and financial savings were of particular interest when it was selected to take part, along with the 18 other British clean technology companies, in the Clean and Cool trade mission.

• Water
• Energy
• Energy efficiency
• Energy bills
• Household bills
• Energy

I wish to make nine points in my response to George Monbiot's latest round in our disagreement about the importance of solar photovoltaics (PV) and the UK government's upcoming feed-in tariffs.

I have posted a longer version of this comment on my website (doc)

1. Monbiot argues that "either solar photovoltaic (PV) power in the United Kingdom is, as (Leggett) claims, a cheap, efficient technology, or it isn't. If it is, why should we be subsidising it to the tune of 41p per kilowatt hour? If it needs this subsidy, it is neither cheap nor efficient. If it doesn't need it, the feed-in tariffs are even more of a swindle than I thought."

This view takes a snapshot in time that is a flawed basis for analysis because it ignores both the past and the future, in terms of cost, plus the strategic context of the discussion. I don't claim PV is "cheap" today – I never have. PV is on a descending cost trajectory because economies of scale are at work in both manufacturing and installation, and costs and prices of conventional electricity are rising fast. The feed-in tariff is a market-building mechanism. It is designed to create sufficient demand for PV systems to trigger two benefits: first, falling cost and price of solar electricity, and second, growth of a proper UK-based solar PV industry that can compete with the fast-growing industries in Germany, China, the US, Japan and many other countries. More than 40 governments now have feed-in tariffs, and it is clear that many people believe them to be the best way to make grow renewables markets fast.

2. Monbiot bets me £100 that my prediction that solar PV electricity in homes will be no more pricey in 2013 than conventional electricity will be wrong.

I accept Monbiot's bet. But I have a proviso: that the winner donates the £100 to the charity SolarAid, set up by my company, for the training and equipping of solar PV lighting entrepreneurs in Africa.

This seems appropriate because of another sad aspect of Monbiot's assault on PV. He does not mention the strategic importance of providing channels of distribution and credit for mobilising solar PV in the developing world, where solar PV electricity is already economic in competition with kerosene and other alternatives. As even the World Bank has admitted, solar PV is a better bet than conventional power plants for the hundreds of millions of developing-world households currently without electricity.

If I lose the bet on timing of UK grid parity, it would only be by a few years at most, and by 2013 I am confident that people will be able to see the writing on the wall with respect to grid parity. And herein lies my return bet with Monbiot. I bet that if we are near or at grid parity by 2013, that we won't see a column of his admitting to how wrong he was. If he does, I'd gladly donate another £100 to SolarAid.

3. Monbiot suggests that if I "really believed" my sales pitch, I would be calling for the feed-in tariff for new installations to be scrapped in 2013, as it would then be redundant: "He can't have it both ways: defending the tariff while suggesting that the tariff won't be necessary."

I have never suggested that the "tariff won't be necessary." The government does not share my view of when grid parity will be delivered, but nor do they believe as Monbiot appears to that new industries and new installer capacity can just be turned on overnight.

By 2013, just three short years from now, the UK will still be endeavouring to build a domestic PV industry that can compete globally. To do that we will need a strong domestic market. To build that we will need a continuing market-enablement regime. The feed-in tariffs can and will be lower by then, but we will still need them. Otherwise, with a low-growth domestic market in an explosively growing global market, we will be importing almost all the solar technology we useand we will have further undermined our chances of energy independence down the track.

4. Monbiot asserts: "Every pound spent on PV is a pound not spent on a more effective technology."

This is another use of the flawed snapshot argument devoid of strategic considerations. If we were to use only the current price of energy technologies as a yardstick, and discount all trends and strategic considerations, we would allocate all our money to energy efficiency, where we get the quickest paybacks and carbon "bang for the buck." But this not an either-or: we can't solve all our energy problems with energy efficiency. We will need plenty of new generation to replace aging coal and nuclear plants, and this will have to mean a range of generation by renewables, alongside as much gas as Vladimir Putin and others overseas will allow us. We would be crazy just to go for the technologies that happen to be the cheapest in March 2010, and it is extraordinary that an advocate of expensive nuclear like Monbiot can argue this.

5. Monbiot says of the German feed-in tariff: "The realisation in Germany, after 10 years of minimal returns, that they have been getting shockingly bad value for money from their scheme coincides with the launching of the same fiasco in the UK".

It is untrue to suggest that the returns are minimal. Consider just taxation. In 2008, the German government gained almost €3bn from the direct and indirect taxation of German solar power companies and their employees. In the same year, feed-in tariff investments amounted to about €2bn.

6. Monbiot questions the jobs the German feed-in tariff has created. He says: "Leggett goes on to claim, again without attribution, that the Germans have "created over 50,000 jobs in solar PV alone."

The 50,000 German employees are counted by the Federal Solar Industry Association. Monbiot's questioning of even this statistic introduces another relevant issue. I have invited him in to Solarcentury several times to discuss the detail of our story and have a go at calibrating numbers ahead of any epistolary exchanges. I have had no success. He seems to prefer unrooted conflict from afar.

7. Monbiot also questions the location of jobs created. He says: "The electricity users who have to pay for the tariff would be rather put out to discover that the jobs the government says it will create are actually on the other side of the world."

How many mistakes can you make in one article? The Federal Solar Industry Association count over 100 factories in Germany in the industry built to date by the feed-in tariffs. Then there are all the installer companies.

Certainly modules are also imported from China and Japan as well. The global PV market is one of the fastest growing markets in the world (87% in 2008). That is why UK plc needs to be a part of it.

Feed-in tariffs in the UK will lead to many jobs in the UK. Solar companies estimate that around 100,000 new jobs could be created in the UK by 2020. And they will be skilled and fulfilling jobs.

8. Monbiot persists with the argument from his first article: that the British poor will subsidise the solar roofs of the middle class. He says: "Their bills will rise just like everyone else's to pay for a scheme which will mostly benefit the middle classes. This is why it is deeply regressive."

First, it is necessary to be clear about the numbers and the likely impact on average household bills as a result of this scheme. The average yearly cost of the feed-in tariff scheme to household levy payers is projected to be £8.50 per year to 2030. The average annual household levy in 2013 when tariff rates are all up for review is likely to be £3. And those are the costs for all technologies not just solar PV. So the question is whether an average household levy of just £8.50 per year makes the feed-in tariff scheme regressive or not? Furthermore, the government has already committed to make the scheme revenue natural by offering loans whereby households can borrow the capital cost of energy efficiency and renewable technologies and repay them over time using the money saved as a result of installation.

And if PV was so regressive, how come housing associations are so keen on PV as a tool for addressing fuel poverty?

9. Lastly, Monbiot accuses me of ignoring a "killer fact". He says: "Feed-in tariffs cannot reduce our carbon emissions by 1g while the UK remains within the European emissions trading scheme (ETS).

Monbiot and I might find things to agree on, when it comes to scope for nonsense in the European emission trading scheme, as it stands. But climate policymaking requires many tools in the toolkit, and there is no reason to throw feed-in tariffs out just because politicians have historically granted heavy industry emissions allocations that are too high to deliver an effective carbon price. Monbiot's "killer fact" taken to its logical conclusion would mean no support for any low or zero carbon technology outside the EU ETS.

• Jeremy Leggett is founder and chairman of Solarcentury, the UK's largest solar solutions company.

• Solar power
• Energy
• Renewable energy
• Feed-in tariffs

The Environment Agency has identified thousands of potential small-scale hydropower sites in English and Welsh rivers that could power up to 850,000 homes

Last month, inspectors found dangerous chemicals in the groundwater near the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor. The situation demonstrates that from the mining of uranium ore to the storage of radioactive waste, nuclear reactors remain as dirty, risky, and as costly as they ever were. If President Obama's recent enthusiasm for nuclear reactors has led you to believe otherwise, you've bought in to the administration's greenwashing of nuclear. From Grist, part of the Guardian Environment Network

On February 16, while President Obama was in Maryland announcing an $8.3bn taxpayer-backed loan guarantee for Southern Company to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia, inspectors at the Vermont Yankee reactor were finding dangerously high levels of tritium, a radioactive cancer-causing chemical, in the groundwater near the plant.

The next week, the Vermont state Senate voted overwhelmingly to shut down Vermont Yankee when its current license expires in 2012.

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas (R) called the timing of the nuclear loan guarantee announcement and the Vermont Senate's decision "ironic." More than just some coincidence, though, the Vermont Yankee situation demonstrates that from the mining of uranium ore to the storage of radioactive waste, nuclear reactors remain as dirty, risky, and as costly as they ever were. If President Obama's recent enthusiasm for nuclear reactors has led you to believe otherwise, you've bought in to the administration's greenwashing of nuclear.

President Obama has justified his proposed $55 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors by misrepresenting nuclear reactors as the largest "carbon-free" energy source in the United States. That's like saying McDonald's should be put in charge of a nationwide obesity campaign because it's the largest restaurant in the U.S. that sells salads.

The argument that nuclear is "carbon-free" conveniently omits the entire process of mining uranium, which produces greenhouse gases, along with other pollutants. In Virginia, where a study has just been commissioned to determine its safety, uranium is mined in open pits. This destroys topsoil and increases runoff, which contaminates drinking water with cancer-causing toxins.

The uranium-enrichment process also emits greenhouse gases and is highly wasteful. Eighty percent of the ore that goes through the enrichment process ends up as waste. And this is to say nothing of the lye, sulfuric acid, and other caustic agents that must be used to turn the uranium into reactor-ready fuel.

While on the surface, the steam billowing from the cooling tower of a nuclear reactor is less harmful than the toxic smoke that spews from a coal plant, nuclear reactors still create byproducts that are dangerous to human health and welfare. There's also the huge problem of radioactive nuclear waste, which can stay hot for hundreds of thousands of years. Storing the radioactive waste isn't just a security threat; there's potential for radioactive chemicals to leak, as they are in Vermont and at other aging reactors around the country.

Spent radioactive waste continues to sit at reactor sites and wait for a scientific breakthrough that is 50 years overdue. But a long-term waste storage solution doesn't exist. The Yucca Mountain facility, the government's radioactive waste repository project in Nevada, was marked by billions of wasted dollars, numerous legal challenges, and fundamental infeasibility. President Obama recognized Yucca Mountain's failure and cut the funding for it in 2009. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu followed up by issuing a request last week to revoke Yucca Mountain's application to be licensed as a waste repository.

In Maryland last month, President Obama told us the United States needs to build new nuclear reactors to keep up with France's nuclear investments. But France has had its own problems with radioactive waste contamination. The government has had to close down entire rivers because of leaks.

In the same speech, President Obama also used China's nuclear growth to greenwash his administration's push for more nuclear reactors. But his argument doesn't stand up. The United States already gets a greater percentage of its energy from nuclear reactors than China will after it reaches its target for nuclear growth, and China has pledged to invest even more toward increasing its solar and wind output. The goal of the United States should not be to build more nuclear reactors, but to make them irrelevant through our own investment in truly clean, renewable sources of energy.

In another inapt comparison, President Obama contrasted the emissions from a nuclear reactor with the emissions from a coal plant. But that false dichotomy ignores the cleaner and safer forms of renewable energy that exist and will do more to reduce greenhouse gases. Worldwide, renewables have actually outpaced nuclear reactors in energy capacity and fossil fuels in investment.

The $55 billion in taxpayer money the Obama administration wants to risk on more nuclear reactors would produce a far greater return if spent on truly clean, renewable energy. Building new nuclear reactors would be the most ineffectual method to reducing greenhouse gases, whereas building more wind turbines or installing more photovoltaic solar panels would not only do a better job at mitigating climate change, but would create more jobs. President Obama's nuclear industry bailout instead pushes us back to the energy future of the 1950s and gives cover to the nuclear industry to continue to be lax on safety enforcement and lethargic in technological advancement.

President Obama has said that "environmentalists and entrepreneurs" should no longer retread the same arguments about nuclear energy. But Vermont Yankee shows us that there's nothing new in nuclear that merits revisiting; clean and safe nuclear energy remains an "Atoms for Peace" pipedream. There may be a shiny green coat of paint on the cooling tower, but dangerous chemicals still leak from the pipes.

• Erich Pica is president of Friends of the Earth

• Nuclear power
• Obama administration
• United States
• Energy

Average carbon emissions of new cars reduced by 5.4% in 2009 as drivers trade in their old car for cleaner models

The average emissions from a new car dropped at the fastest rate in 13 years last year because of the UK government's "cash for bangers" vehicle scrappage scheme, it was announced today.

On average, new cars emitted 149.5g of CO2 per kilometre in 2009 – a 5.4% reduction on the average 2008 figure, according to a report from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT). This was the best year-on-year improvement since the SMMT began to keep records of this kind in 1997.

SMMT chief executive Paul Everitt said the scrappage scheme was a key contributor to the lower emission figure last year.

The average emissions of cars bought through the scheme was 133.3g per kilometre, which was 26.8% below the average of the vehicle being scrapped (182.3g/km). Average new car emissions are down from nearly 190g/km in 1999 to below 150g/km last year, a cut of 21.2%.

Everitt said:

"The industry is well on its way to meeting EU regulatory targets of a 130g/km fleet average by 2015, but the current rate of improvement must be maintained."

"Building consumer awareness and delivering effective mechanisms to influence buying behaviour through a long-term environmental tax regime, and the government's recent ultra-low carbon incentive scheme, will become increasingly important." Last month the Guardian revealed that only two electric cars - an £87,000 sports car and £25,000 four-seater Mitsubishi - would be available from the start of the ultra-low carbon incentive scheme.

The Mini sector had the lowest average emissions last year – dropping 6.7% to 115.6g/km. Luxury car models – which averaged 250.3g/km last year – were the worst pollutants, although emissions in this sector were down 6% on 2008.

• Carbon emissions
• Travel and transport
• Energy
• Energy efficiency
• Car scrappage
• Automotive industry

Will the government's feed-in tariff scheme which guarantees a rate of payment for renewable energy sold back to the grid tempt you to install your own solar panels or wind turbine?

Is now the right time to invest in micro-generation?
P Moore, by email

What a difference a week makes. When this question was posed last Monday I don't think we could have predicted the level of heated debate the subject of microgeneration and feed-in tariffs would have generated. George Monbiot kicked things off with his withering critique of feed-in tariffs (FITs). Readers seemed to largely agree with his central premise that FITs are, in effect, a "scam" because they are an expensive, grossly inefficient way to reduce emissions.

But then the fightback began. The Guardian received letters from interested parties such as Professor John Twidell and the World Future Council's Jakob von Uexkull and it also published a spirited response from Jeremy Leggett. George kept the debate going with his own response to Jeremy's response – including the challenge of a £100 bet on whether solar PV costs will achieve "grid parity" by 2013 – causing the debate to spin faster than the blades on a domestic wind turbine. (Which, according to George, would not be that fast so perhaps that's a poor simile.)

So where does this leave the person trying to weigh up whether to make the leap towards microgeneration? Returning to the original question, is it now the right time to invest?

As "ColinG" points out, financially it would seem the answer is a resounding "yes". Guardian Money's Miles Brignall reckons you could earn a 7-10% tax-free return. There has probably never been a better time to invest because there's never been so much financial support in the way of subsidies – although waiting until 2012 might be even more lucrative because that's when the government is hoping to introduce a "pay-as-you-save" loan scheme for microgeneration. So if you're in it for the money, invest away.

But George's point is that if your motives are based predominantly around reducing your emissions – as is likely to be the case with anyone currently considering microgeneration – then, by taking up the offer of feed-in tariffs, you would be supporting a spurious scheme and a questionable technology.

Personally, I sit somewhere in the middle of this debate. I have installed thermal solar panels on my roof and am very happy with how much hot water they provide. But, then again, I'm blessed with a south-facing, pitched roof and was already having a new heating system installed and major work done to my roof, so it seemed odd not to take the chance to install the panels. Would I have done the same if all this other work wasn't going on? I'm not sure I would.

I'm not convinced by the arguments for domestic wind turbines, certainly not the sort that are strapped to the side of one's home. They might not exactly be impartial in this debate, but it's hard to disagree with GoodEnergy's advice:

We'd always recommend that before you invest in microgen technology you first address the energy efficiency of your property. It's also important to make sure you choose the right technology for it to be effective – there's no point installing a wind turbine unless you live somewhere windy (which rules out most urban locations) and the best results for solar pv [photovoltaics] are south-facing roofs.

I looked into all sorts of microgen technologies for my home, including ground-source heating, PV and wind turbines and none of them really seemed to be make sense on either an economic or an environmental level.

Increased insulation was the lowest hanging fruit and, as I've already explained, there were several reasons why solar thermal was appealing. That was two or three years ago, though. Would I be tempted to do anything different after 1 April when the FITs are meant to be introduced?

I have to say that I'm unconvinced by microgen, particularly having witnessed last week's raging debate. And as "geofarce" points out, readers of David MacKay's excellent Without Hot Air will also be somewhat ambivalent towards many microgen technologies. I share George's concerns that we are in danger of being sold a pup with microgeneration, but I think we should also take each technology case by case rather than write them all off with equal aplomb.

I have to say that I really liked "Midipete"'s comments.

FIT for individual homes is a remarkably expensive way to build a component of an alternative, sustainable energy system. It also benefits a small social group, home owners with the financial strength to be able to invest the sums required. A more effective way is support local collective renewable energy schemes. A co-op approach that can build larger scale systems, PV, wind and hydro where appropriate working with the expertise of companies like Good Energy would be much more efficient.

And I also enjoyed – and was illuminated (not sure what the power source was, though) – by the friendly ding-dong between "ColinG" and "geofarce". Beyond all the technical banter they exchanged, I think "ColinG" makes an important point here:

The primary psychological effect is one of delusion. People are lulled into a sense of self-satisfaction: that they are self sufficient when in fact they are entirely reliant on subsidy; and that they are helping to save carbon when in fact they are diverting funds away from better options that would save far more carbon. I predict a backlash in a couple of years when the Daily Mail & co realise how much money is being wasted on this.

I couldn't agree more. Thanks for some excellent contributions. Combined with the comments on all the other related articles over the past week, I think we have collectively covered just about every possible avenue of discussion for this subject.

It would appear that now is possibly the best time ever to consider installing some form of domestic microgeneration, be it solar photovoltaic panels for electricity, solar thermal energy for hot water or even wind turbines in some circumstances.

Well, that's what the government want us to believe with its recent announcement that feed-in tariffs will commence from 1 April.

But the government hasn't always got it right in this area – look at the fiasco with domestic wind turbines.

I would be interested to hear readers' thoughts on all this, particularly if you are considering taking the plunge, or if you have already installed a form of microgeneration at home and wish to share your experience.

• Renewable energy
• Ethical and green living
• Energy
• Carbon footprints
• Wind power
• Solar power
• Energy bills
• Energy
• Feed-in tariffs

Report identifies thousands of potential small-scale hydropower sites in English and Welsh rivers that could power 850,000 homes

Interactive: Map of hydropower hotpots

Thousands of small-scale hydroelectric schemes could power 850,000 homes and produce 1.5% of the UK's electricity needs, according to an Environment Agency study (EA) published today (pdf).

The agency mapped the energy hotspots of English and Welsh rivers and identified almost 26,000 locations where turbines could be installed to generate electricity from the water.

Not all those sites could be developed, as some could damage the environment or are in places with practical constraints, such as difficulty accessing the local electricity grid.

Around half the sites are in environmentally sensitive areas and would need fish-friendly measures such as screens to stop fish getting killed by turbines.

But the EA said that with many of the potential locations in areas where humans have interfered with the natural landscape – for example by putting in a weir – there is potential to generate green electricity and improve the local environment at the same time.

Sensitively designed schemes – including fish passes, enabling species such as salmon to navigate around the turbine or other technology – could provide a "win-win" situation for the environment in more than 4,000 areas.

The rivers Severn, Thames, Aire and Neath are strong contenders for a hydroelectric scheme according to the study.

Small-scale hydropower will also benefit from government subsidies which will pay people to generate small-scale green energy, making investment in the green energy source more attractive.

Under the "feed-in tariff" scheme, which comes in at the beginning of April, hydropower schemes could qualify for up to 20p for every kilowatt hour of hydroelectricity produced.

A medium-sized scheme costing £100,000 to £150,000 to set up and providing enough electricity to power 32 homes, could receive around £25,000 a year in subsidies, the Environment Agency estimates.

Tony Grayling, head of climate change and sustainable development at the Environment Agency, said: "Some hydropower schemes have the potential to deliver low-carbon electricity and improve the local environment for wildlife, for example by improving fish migration.

"But there will inevitably be some sites where the risk to the environment outweighs the benefits of power generation."

He said there was increasing interest in small-scale hydroelectric plants, with a rise in applications from around 10 a year in the past to 80 last year, and further growth is expected with new subsidies for green power.

A system of grants for providing fish passes could help unlock the potential of small-scale hydropower in England and Wales, the study suggests.

Paul Knight, chief executive of the Salmon and Trout Association, said: "Poorly designed hydropower systems can cause damage to the river environment and its dependent species, so we are pleased to see that the report recommends that fish passes are used as a matter of course in all new hydropower installations."

• Wave, tidal and hydropower
• Renewable energy
• Energy
• Conservation
• Endangered habitats
• Water
• Wildlife

The aim is to cut costs and carbon levels - but they can't do it for you, says Lisa Bachelor

Thousands of households will soon get the chance to receive more accurate energy bills as the one company to offer smart meters extends its reach. First Utility last week became the cheapest energy company in the country with its internet iSave tariff, undercutting British Gas. At the same time, it announced customers on the new iSaveV3 tariff will be offered a free smart meter in coming months, with the aim of nationwide coverage by the end of the year. Only households in the Midlands presently have access to these.

Smart meters that monitor exact energy usage multiple times a day, resulting in accurate bills, have to be in all households by 2020, the government said last year. It is hoped they will also cut carbon levels by encouraging householders to pay more attention to energy usage and make more effort to control it. So should you switch to a smart meter now, and will it really save you money?

As First Utility is the only company offering smart meters it's hard to accurately assess their impact. However, householders should not automatically expect bills to drop.

"Bill shock" is a typical initial reaction of smart meter users, says First Utility, as customers used to smoothing out costs with fixed monthly direct debits are suddenly hit with bills reflecting actual usage over a cold winter. "People who were paying estimated bills before can find they were paying less," says a customer services representative.

First Utility is also struggling with customer service issues, according to a number of postings on web forums including moneysupermarket.com, Google and MoneySavingExpert.com. The company scaled back its initial national smart meter rollout after complaints about service in the early days, but seems to be still dogged by problems. Its customer rating is four out of 10 on moneysupermarket.com, compared with eight for Ebico, an energy company with a similar number of reviews.

One industry insider told the Observer First Utility is beset by complaints and that "customer service is terrible". Another said it is only communicating by email and that this is causing problems, while it is also rejecting a higher-than- average number of customers.

Mark Daeche, First Utility's chief executive, acknowledges it has been struggling with the volume of business and that customer service has suffered. "We have been a victim of our own success," he says.

"However we are expanding staff numbers and I expect to sign the lease for new offices in the next few weeks."

First Utility is still ahead of the game with its smart meters. Other companies are set to follow its lead but will have to learn from its experience when it comes to customer service issues.

British Gas is expected to lead the major push in smart meter installation after announcing it wants to recruit 2,600 "smart meter experts" by 2012, while other companies, such as npower, are testing the meters in different parts of the country. Even relatively tiny newcomer Ovo Energy has said it will be installing such meters this year.

Once smart meters are a regular fixture in UK households, bills should be cheaper, say industry specialists. They will give energy companies better understanding of people's energy usage and allow them to make better decisions when buying energy wholesale. These costs savings should, in theory, be passed on to households.

However, substantial savings will only be made if customers learn from the meters. "If I gave you a smart meter now you wouldn't save a penny," says a spokesman for npower. "It's about encouraging you to interact with it and that's what energy companies need to be doing. The benefits will only come when you start paying attention to it." By this he means making energy-saving decisions after seeing how much is being used by certain actions, such as switching on a hairdryer or taking a long shower.

Some remain sceptical about how much smart meters will change behaviour. Scott Byrom, utilities manager at moneysupermarket.com, says his company has recently tested energy monitors, devices connected to your electricity supply to tell you how much your energy costs each day but which are not used for billing. "We found that people are fascinated by how much turning on their kettle costs for the first week but they soon lose interest and stop looking at it," he says. "The only real benefit I see is that they will give you accurate billing. But we've almost already got that."

All the cheapest tariffs are online, he says, and most of these require customers to enter monthly meter readings.

Householders keen to get a more accurate view of bills might be better taking a "transitional approach", says Joe Malinowski of the energyshop.com. "I would advise householders to pick the cheapest tariff they can and then buy an electricity monitor to keep track of their daily usage," he says.

Energy companies are generally becoming more proactive in helping customers keep track of their energy usage, which can't come too soon. A report out this weekend from Britain's only not-for-profit energy company, Ebico, reveals more than 80% of the British public do not know how much they pay for their gas and electricity, and one in 10 never looks at their meters.

"Attempts to persuade people to reduce their energy use cannot be successful until consumers can make a simple correlation between the amount of energy used and cost," says Phil Levermore, managing director of Ebico. "People need to relate to household energy use in the same way they do to fuel consumption in a car."

Ebico has teamed with Oxford University to promote an energy-measuring tool. This lets you monitor real energy use and carbon emissions by submitting regular meter readings. You are given results as a £-spend-per-week and an A-E carbon rating. You can compare results with friends, family or other households.

• Energy bills
• Household bills
• Consumer affairs
• Energy efficiency
• Ethical and green living
• Energy monitoring
• Energy

Zoo joins 10:10 campaign to cut carbon emissions with plan to use biogas from dung to generate electricity

Mucking out the elephant enclosure may not be the most glamorous job at Paignton zoo in Devon, but managers there are hoping that in future the task may help reduce its energy bills - and carbon emissions. It aims to use the animals' digestive ruminations to create biogas that can be burned to generate electricity.

Paignton and its sister zoo, Newquay zoo in Cornwall have signed up to the 10:10 campaign and pledged to meet the campaign's goal to reduce their carbon emissions by 10% by the end of 2010.

Paignton has already begun producing more food for the animals on site using a unique soil-free growing system, thus saving on food miles. But it also has plans to use the plants fed to its herbivores - such as elephants, giraffe and rhinos - when they come out the other end. The zoo's two elephants alone produce two tonnes of dung every week.

"We are looking into being able to produce biogas from our animal waste," said a spokesperson for the zoo, "It's something we're seriously looking at." But he added the idea had not yet been costed in detail, "It's no good to us if it means losing money. As a charity we've got to look after every penny."

The zoo is also spending £5,000 installing a "voltage optimisation unit" to reduce the mains voltage of 240v down to 220v to help prevent any needless waste of electricity. And it has already set up an "experimental vertical hydroponic food system", which allows it to grow animal feed, such red chard, mizuna, edible flowers, wheat grass and barley, on site. The zoo estimates that this will not only reduce its feed bill by up to £100,000 per year, but also cut emissions caused by importing specialist foods. The system uses 5% of the water used by conventional agriculture.

Newquay zoo, which houses 149 different species and a total of 534 animals attracting 200,000 visitors a year, says that it plans to fully insulate all its older buildings over the next 12 months. Earlier this year, it commissioned a series of thermal camera images of its buildings to establish which ones were the most poorly insulated. In 2008, it calculated that its annual carbon emissions, including business travel, totalled 300 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Ruth Morgan, the zoo's environmental officer, said: "Some of the thermal camera images have shown up our buildings to be lit up like Piccadilly Circus. We might even take down and rebuild the very worst offending buildings. We are also considering installing advanced heating systems with timers and thermostats. But with animals you can't just turn down the thermostats by 1C like you can in your own homes. At the moment we keep our tropical houses at a constant temperature of 21C. We are now researching how we can mimic the natural temperature variations these animals would experience in the wild without causing them distress. For example, some birds can start to breed if the temperature goes down too low."

The zoos are both owned by the Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust, an education, scientific and conservation charity established in 1957 which is "dedicated to protecting our global wildlife heritage and inspiring in people a respect for animals, plants and the environment".

Eugenie Harvey, the director of the 10:10 campaign, which is supported by the Guardian, said: "We couldn't be more thrilled that the zoos have joined us in this national effort to cut 10%. Just when we thought we couldn't get anyone more colourful than Boris Johnson, we've been joined by 49 flamingos. We urge everyone to follow the example of Newquay's ostrich, pull their heads out of the sand, and get on with the job of tackling carbon pollution."

• To sign up to the 10:10 campaign, go to 1010uk.org.

• 10:10 climate change campaign
• Energy
• Energy efficiency
• Biofuels
• Animals

We are very concerned by your report of a possible delay to the introduction of the feed-in tariff scheme due to problems preparing the legislation, and we urge the government to do everything it can to ensure the scheme starts on time next month (Feed-in tariff delay alarms energy sector, 4 March).

However, it is inaccurate to say that criticism of the government's feed-in tariff scheme has traditionally been limited to groups opposed to wind or solar power. We campaigned for a UK feed-in tariff to support small-scale renewable electricity – and welcome its introduction – but we have always demanded that the final scheme must be accessible to the fuel poor and low-income communities.

While the increase in solar photovoltaic (PV) tariffs that we called for has now brought this technology within reach of social landlords, much more must be done to ensure that low-income groups benefit from the reduced electricity bills local renewable energy can bring.

The scheme must also be reformed to give other technologies the welcome support it will deliver to small-scale solar PV and wind power. Anaerobic digestion, community wind projects, sustainable biomass generation and river hydro schemes all deserve a better deal.

Greater support for small-scale renewable energy is vital, but so is a huge increase in the resources for domestic energy-efficiency measures. Both are essential to deliver energy security, cut carbon emissions and tackle fuel poverty.

Andy Atkins Executive director, Friends of the Earth
Stephen Burroughs Chairman, Stour and Vale Hydro Group
Anthony Battersby Chairman, Mendip Power Group
Julia Craik Managing director, The Premises Studios
Ruth Davison Director of campaigns and neighbourhoods, National Housing Federation
Rachel Feilden Director, River Energy Networks
Gaynor Hartnell Chief executive, Renewable Energy Association
Gavin Hayes General secretary, Compass
Ray Horwood Chief executive, National Federation of Roofing Contractors
Peter Kindersley Neal's Yard Remedies
Ed Mayo Secretary general, Co-operatives UK
Derry Newman Chairman, UK PV Manufacturers Association
Doug Parr Chief scientist, Greenpeace
Jenny Saunders Chief executive, National Energy Action
Tim Smit CEO, The Eden Project
Dave Sowden Chief executive, The Micropower Council
Sarah Webb CEO, Chartered Institute of Housing
William Worsley President, Country Land and Business Association

• So George Monbiot thinks solar PV panels are a mere fashion accessory that at this latitude produce risible amounts of electricity, does he (Comment, 2 March)? Here in Sheffield our modest array of panels generated 2067kWh last year – just short of the 2183kWh of electricity consumed by our three-person household. In addition to saving 1,172kg of CO2 emissions we no longer have to pay for electricity and, even before the introduction of a feed-in tariff, look forward each time a "bill" arrives to the net income we receive for the electricity we "export" to the grid. Based on our experience, solar electricity offers a far more effective and constructive solution to the problems of global warming and finite fossil-fuel resources than the hugely expensive and environmentally harmful nuclear option Monbiot appears to favour.

Jim Dignan

Sheffield

• Feed-in tariffs
• Solar power
• Energy
• Energy efficiency
• Wind power
• Wave, tidal and hydropower
• Energy
• Energy industry
• Utilities
• Energy bills
• Household bills
• Consumer affairs

• Ex-industry boss sheds light on Sellafield panic
• Greenpeace calls for fresh review of atomic industry

The autobiography of a former director of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) is likely to reignite fears about the safety of nuclear power, as Britain prepares for a new generation of reactors, by exposing the panic that rocked the industry two decades ago when a link was suggested between radiation and childhood leukaemia.

At its height, workers at Sellafield were advised not to have children, while bosses at the Cumbrian nuclear complex even proposed establishing a sperm bank or calling for "radiation volunteers" from among older workers in order to reduce levels of exposure for workers of child-bearing age.

The Tenth Child, by Harold Bolter, a former chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, reveals the extent of concern within the industry following a damaging report into clusters of illness around the Cumbrian reprocessing facility in the 1990s. It comes as Britain prepares to build up to half a dozen nuclear power stations, some of them possibly sited in that area.

Greenpeace said last night that there should be a major review of nuclear plants before any decision was made to construct new ones. Ben Ayliffe, senior energy campaigner, said: "The nuclear industry has a long history of evasion and dishonesty … Greenpeace is reviving its call for a public inquiry into all impacts of nuclear power – including health effects."

Bolter, a former BNFL director, describes as a "public relations disaster" comments by Roger Berry, then director of health and safety at the company, that some staff at Sellafield should make sacrifices to protect the health of future generations following a study by Professor Martin Gardner, published in 1990, that had suggested a link between external radiation received by male staff at Sellafield and the development of cancer among their children.

Pressed for a response to the report, Berry told reporters: "It may be that the proper advice is if you are so worried then maybe you do not have a family." He is also said to have earlier suggested that the company establish a sperm bank or called for "radiation volunteers" from among older workers.

Bolter says he publicly repudiated Berry's comments, claiming they were not company policy and promising BNFL would offer medical counselling to Sellafield staff.

"Once again, I had been forced to make company policy on the hoof, as it were, under pressure," Bolter writes in his book. "There was no time to consult anyone or to get approval. I didn't know what the chief executive or chairman's reaction would be, although I was sure Roger Berry wouldn't like what I said." He goes on: "Roger Berry felt badly let down. I tried to explain to him that what I'd said was the only way to protect the company – and probably his career as wellfor that matter."

BNFL, which has now been dismantled, handed over management of Sellafield to a group of private contractors including Areva of France.

The book has been published just as Britain prepares to build a new generation of atomic power plants for the first time in 30 years in an attempt to improve energy security and help beat climate change. The debate around the risk of nuclear power to public health gradually died down, partly as a result of a test case in the high court where BNFL was cleared of causing cancers in two women whose fathers had worked at Sellafield.

But more recently the issue has again been raised by government-funded research, known as the KiKK study, which appeared to show an increased risk of cancer in children under five years living near nuclear power plants in Germany.

Janine Allis-Smith, one of the women who took BNFL to court after her son contracted leukaemia, said last night the Bolter book and the KiKK study demanded a wider debate in Britain.

"With the government about to embark on a series of new nuclear power stations – including in Cumbria – it is time this health issue was properly looked at again. I have been trying to raise it for many years but it has just been pushed under the carpet again and again," she argued.

"Many people in this area [Cumbria] do not want to know because they want to retain their jobs at Sellafield. Comare [the committee looking into radiation and public health] is working on a report but it may not be out before the go-ahead is given for new plants, which I think is appalling."

Dr Ian Fairlie, an independent consultant who is writing a book on radiation risks and who has previously advised government departments, said the KiKK report was authoritative as it had been commissioned by the German government and its findings had been verified by them.He said: "In my view, the KiKK report is a showstopper for the government's plans for more nuclear power stations. It's impossible to justify killing children near nuclear power plants: there are many safer ways to generate electricity."

• Nuclear power
• Energy

• Since the scheme began, 224m bulbs have been distributed
• Government plan fails to meet cavity-wall insulation target

Forty-two million energy-saving lightbulbs were sent out by utilities companies in the three months before Christmas under the government's £3bn energy-efficiency scheme, even though many are unlikely to be used.

Since the scheme began less than two years ago, 224m bulbs have been distributed – almost 10 for each household. According to a survey by the Energy Saving Trust last year, the average home had six unused bulbs lying in drawers.

When the government introduced the three-year scheme in April 2008, it estimated that for it to be most effective, in total 110m bulbs – less than half the figure to date – should be distributed, the Guardian has learned.

It also said that 2.9m expensive domestic cavity-wall insulations should be carried out. According to the latest figures from the regulator Ofgem, just under 1m cavity walls have been insulated for households, about half the annual rate needed to meet government forecasts.

Experts said companies were exploiting loopholes to meet their obligations under the scheme in the cheapest way possible, even though more expensive measures such as cavity-wall insulation save far more energy. The costs of the carbon emissions reduction target (Cert) scheme are passed onto households through higher utility bills.

From 1 January, Ofgem only allows bulbs to be distributed to households that have requested them, which prompted the unsolicited deluge of bulbs before Christmas as companies rushed to take advantage before the loophole was closed.

Andrew Warren, chief executive of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, said: "The difficulty is that companies have exploited the loopholes. It's critical because this scheme is the centrepiece of the government's drive to improve energy efficiency in the home. It should be about achieving what it's supposed to do rather than just ticking boxes."

The Guardian has also learned that before Christmas, a marketing company acting on behalf of an energy supplier broke the scheme's rules by sending out water-saving "low-flow" shower attachments to households that had not requested them. Ofgem alerted Eaga, the company administering the scheme, and the marketing company was dropped.

Energy experts have criticised the lax regulation of the scheme, particularly in its first year. Last month, the Observer reported that tens of thousands of lofts that energy companies claimed to have insulated under the scheme, had not because of double counting. Last year, Ofgem introduced new guidelines designed to prevent the double counting.

Last week, the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, unveiled the successor to the Cert scheme, running from 2013 to 2020 and costing at least £18.6bn. Ministers conceded that the new scheme would be more transparent and closely regulated, with energy companies being forced to work closely with local authorities, rather than being able to select households to help themselves. Warren added: "The monitoring is absolutely critical on this."

• Energy efficiency
• Energy bills
• Energy
• Energy industry
• Household bills
• Consumer affairs