environmental impact

IEEP and its partner, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have published a report on “Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Policies in Europe and the United States”. This report includes the main conclusions of our joint project - Transatlantic Platform for Action on the Global Environment (T-PAGE). T-PAGE has provided a platform for debate to stimulate dialogue and exchange of experiences between environmental NGOs, academia and other interested civil society organisations in the U.S. and EU. The project has been co-funded by the European Commission within the framework of its programme to promote transatlantic dialogues at the non-governmental level.

This report includes the series of research papers produced during the course of the project. The papers include summaries of European and U.S policies on climate change and energy; an analysis of the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS); a summary of the current state of U.S. policy on cap and trade; a summary of policy approaches to promoting biofuels on both sides of the Atlantic; and an analysis of EU and U.S. public perceptions of the environment and climate change.

The project culminated in a final conference held in Washington DC in April 2008. At this conference, participants agreed that greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector should be addressed as a priority in overall climate policy through a broad mix of policy tools; while on the issue of biofuels, participants recommended a common strategy based on a combination of perspectives and called for a critical evaluation of the impact of biofuel production methods and outputs on the environment.

The report is available from: http://www.ieep.eu/publications/pdfs/tpageccfinalreport.pdf

Year: 2005
Policy Status: In force

The Environmental Fund was established in 2005 to implement state promotion of the environmental care, and operates under the Ministry of the Environment.
The Fund provides various subsidies, in the form of grants and soft loans, which support invesment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. Legal and natural persons are eligible for this support.

The Fund is financed through fees and fines linked with the environmental pollution, with grants and subsidies covering the following areas:

• Heat and hot water production using low-emission energy sources. The support is meant to achieve prescribed emission limits by means of the change of fuel used or the change of combustion technology. This includes projects oriented at public buildings (schools, hospitals, office buildings etc.)
• Heat and hot water production using renewable energy sources (RES). Financial support is provided for the construction of new RES equipment substituting original fossil fuel combustion boilers, or for the development of new equipment and facilities (Biomass, solar energy, heat pumps etc.).
• Support of the production of heat, hot water and electricity by the utilisation of RES (solar-thermal systems, photovoltaic panels, wind power plants, etc.). These projects generally target applicants who are natural persons.
  
  
  

Year: 2007
Policy Status: In force

In August 2007, the cabinet of the German government decided on an Integrated Energy and Climate Change Programme to underpin the aims of the coalition treaty and the results of the EU Spring Council meeting of 2007 which had set the parameters for an integrated European climate and energy policy.

The Energy and Climate Change Programme sums up the discussions of various energy summits held in 2006/2007 and has as its guiding principles security of supply, economic efficiency and environmental protection. The programme comprises the following 29 measures, mainly focusing on energy efficiency.

1. Amend CHP-law
   
2. Expansion of renewable energies in the power sector
   
3. CCS technologies
   
4. Smart metering for power consumption
   
5. Clean power stations (esp. NOx emissions)
   
6. Introduction of modern energy management systems
   
7. Support programmes for climate protection and energy efficiency: SME Programme
   
8. Energy-efficient products
   
9. Feed-in provision for biogas
   
10. Energy saving ordinance
    
11. Operating costs of rental accommodations
    
12. CO₂-Building rehabilitation programme
    
13. Energy-efficient modernisation of infrastructure
    
14. Renewable energies heat act
    
15. Energy-efficient modernisation of government buildings
    
16. CO₂ strategy for passenger cars
    
17. Expansion of bio fuels
    
18. Reform of vehicle tax on CO₂ basis
    
19. Energy labelling for passenger cars
    
20. Update HGV-toll
    
21. Aviation
    
22. Shipping
    
23. Reduction of fluorinated GHG
    
24. Energy efficient public procurement
    
25. Energy research and innovation
    
26. Electric mobility
    
27. International projects climate change and energy efficiency
    
28. Reporting on energy and climate change issues by embassies
    
29. Transatlantic climate and technology initiative

What’s the difference?

In these times of climate change concern, individuals and organizations alike are eager for measurable criteria to compare the impact of products and services on global warming. The notions of 'Life Cycle Assessment', 'Carbon Footprint', and 'Ecological Footprint' often appear in the media, but their exact meaning and the differences between them are rarely explained or widely understood.

Calculating all the big environmental impact categories

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the broadest indicator and an internationally standardized method (ISO 14040 and ISO 14044). It not only evaluates the impact on climate change, but also other impact categories such as acidification potential, eutrophication potential, ozone depletion potential, and ground level ozone creation. For each of these impact categories, the product or system is evaluated over its complete life span, from the extraction of raw material and manufacturing, to the use of the product by final consumers and end-of-life processes like recycling, energy recovery, and ultimate waste disposal.

Economic, energy and environmental benefits investigated

The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) conducted a study to assess the effect of deploying Concentrating Solar Power Plants (CSP) in California. It investigated the economic return, the impact on the energy supply, as well as the environmental benefits. The final paper of the study has been published on TroughNet (see recent blog post).

The NREL chose a 100 MW parabolic trough plant with six hours of storage as the representative CSP plant to focus the results of the study. Cumulative deployment scenarios of 2,100 MW and 4,000 MW between 2008 and 2020 were assumed. California has certainly enough potential CSP sites to realise such scenarios.

Greater than direct domestic water usage

With all the concern about carbon dioxide emissions, it is easy forget that other major environmental issues exist in the electric power sector. One of them is the use of freshwater by thermoelectric power plants (coal, nuclear, oil, steam side of CCGT power plants). Water withdrawal by thermoelectric power plants is huge, averaging about 95 litres per kWh. Coal-fired power plants with once-through cooling systems withdraw 142 litres per kWh while nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems require as much as 175 litres per kWh.

Zero–impact does not exist

Every type of energy utilization for electricity generation has environmental consequences. The main consequences of burning fossil fuels and of nuclear power are well-known. Renewable energy sources (wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc.) are generally thought of as harmless, but this doesn’t mean they have no environmental consequences at all. Most of them have a significant aesthetic impact and require large areas of land. Some also have a significant impact on the eco-system (birds, fishes, etc.).

No decision tool available

Not all of the environmental impact is included in the price of electricity. Part of it, the so-called externalities, is paid indirectly by society. Moreover, some environmental impacts are local, others regional, and others even global. That makes it very complex to compare the environmental impact of various energy sources and to take a well-founded decision on which energy source to use.

In their paper Environmental Effects of Electricity Generation, The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) published a table that compares the environmental impact of all major renewable energy sources for generating electricity (see paper page 53 table 13). It is an interesting overview, but should be used only for illustrative purposes. For decision-makers having to determine the future energy supply, a generally accepted quantification technique of the environmental impact is still lacking.