UK clean tech innovators look to move abroad for cash

The UK could lose some of its best young talent in the clean tech sector because the investment environment is ‘too tough to grow in’, start-up companies report.

An in-depth Greenbang study, called the UK Clean Tech Start-up Company Index 2008, found many UK start-up companies are tempted to head off to the US because investors are less risk averse.

“There is a danger that some very smart technologies could move offshore to places like the US where investors are happier to take a risk,” says Greenbang Editor Dan Ilett. “Some of the companies we selected for the index said they had to jump through hoops to get investment in the UK, particularly to grow from small to mid-size. It shows that while there is a lot of noise around clean tech and green business, innovators in the UK are simply not getting the cash they need.

“While there are some universities and government departments helping companies, the research showed that not all companies are finding it easy to get such support. Saying that, the research highlighted some inspiring clean-tech business ideas in the UK. The range of ideas and the potential for some of these companies is astounding.”

The report, a snap-shot of the UK’s clean tech market, profiles young companies innovating in carbon, construction, energy, resources, technology and transport markets. It also asks how these start-ups think businesses and consumers could cut their dependency on fossil fuels.

The report was sponsored by the University of Bath and PR company Hill & Knowlton. Other major findings include:

·       Getting seed capital from investors is relatively straightforward but moving products from the prototype phase is tricky
·       Transparency around new technology is key to avoid greenwash
·       Alternative energy technology is the way forward, people are unsure of the carbon cost
·       Energy security is essential – another driver for looking at alternatives

With global temperatures and the price of fossil fuels showing no signs of cooling, a target has been set to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by between 26 – 32% by 2020 in the UK. Combined with the growing awareness of an environmentally savvy consumer, there has been an explosion in innovation, which is a crucial step forwards for the environment.

“Earlier this year Gordon Brown said that the green tech industry would be worth billions,” says Ian Houston, CEO of Origo Industries, a company that captures carbon from cars and uses algae to turn it back into fuel. “The problem being that government bodies are the hardest route to funding. They are forcing these innovators leave British shores and the UK could lose a massive chunk of technology.”

http://www.greenbang.com/4766/the-uk-clean-tech-start-up-index-2008

EU paves way for more hydrogen cars

One of the big issues hampering adoption of alternative fuel cars is the all important question of where to fill up - whether that be re-charging an electric battery, or topping up with hydrogen.

Recognising that, European Parliament MPs have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a law proposing the establishment of a Europe-wide filling station network for hydrogen powered cars.

More importantly the EU wants to create standards for hydrogen vehicles across Europe to safeguard a single market, and ensure a high level of safety and environmental protection.

The EU also wants hydrogen-powered vehicles to be propelled by pure hydrogen produced as far as possible from renewable energies, saying the use of mixtures of hydrogen and natural gas/biomethane to propel vehicles must be no more than a transitional technology.

Sales of alternative fuelled vehicles in the UK alone have grown from just a few hundred in 2000 to over 16,000 last year.

Arlene McCarthy, UK Member of the European Parliament, said in a statement:

“At a time when petrol prices in Europe have doubled and with ever growing concern about the effects of climate change it is clear we need new hopes for future fuels.

“Sales of electric cars and other alternatives have soared but hydrogen cars are only on the cusp of large scale production. This new law will boost the development of these vehicles while ensuring they are reliable and safe.”

Londoners warned on climate change

Back from his unbuttoned jacket controversy and shoddy flag waving efforts at the closing ceremony of the Olympic Games in Beijing, London Mayor Boris Johnson has published a climate change report warning that London isn’t prepared to cope with the predicted effects of global warming, including increased floods, droughts and heatwaves.

The key findings of the report - which are, frankly, a bit of a statement of the obvious at time - include:

As the climate changes, London will experience warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, whilst ‘extreme’ weather events such as heat waves and tidal surges will become more frequent and intense.

Londoners will face an increased risk of floods, droughts and heatwaves that will endanger the prosperity of the city and the quality of life for all Londoners, but especially the most vulnerable in the city.

The strategy proposes ‘greening’ the city by improving and increasing London’s greenspaces to keep the city cool in summer, managing flood risk coming from the tributaries to the Thames and surface water flooding from heavy rainfall, encouraging Londoners to use less water and raising public awareness to flood risk.

London is well placed to help the world adapt to climate change: it has the skills and services to prepare for the predicted changes, and there is a clear economic opportunity to capitalise on this leading position.

Johnson said in a statement:

“We need to concentrate efforts to slash carbon emissions and become more energy efficient in order to prevent dangerous climate change. But we also need to prepare for how our climate is expected to change in the future.

“The strategy I am launching today outlines in detail the range of weather conditions facing London, which could both seriously threaten our quality of life - particularly that of the most vulnerable people - and endanger our pre-eminence as one of the world’s leading cities.”

But, speaking to the BBC, Green Party London Assembly member Jenny Jones said the measures contained “nothing new” and were “inadequate”.

The draft report on London’s Climate Change Adapation Strategy is here. The document is open for consultation, with a final version due sometime next year.

Obama rides in on beer biofuel

Amid all the hoo-haa, back-slapping and general political razzmatazz going on at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this week as Barack Obama officially began his Presidential campaign, there were some interesting green goings on.

It’s hardly going to change the world given the US’ broader environmental policies but every bit counts, right? The Democratic Party’s stated aim is to have the “most environmentally sustainable political convention in modern American history”.

The eco plans started a year before the convention and include initiatives ranging from minimising waste at “resource recovery” (Greenbang’s guessing this is political speak for recycling) stations to measuring the convention’s carbon footprint (with the help of carbon advisor Camco).

There’s lots of the obvious stuff like energy-efficient computers, motion-sensor and solar-powered lights and low toxin paint but some bigger initiatives as well.

One of the more interesting ones is the use of hybrid, alternative fuel or biodiesel for the buses used to transport delegates and media from hotels to the convention centre. One report says brewer Coors has even donated ethanol made with thousands of gallons of its beer waste.

Official Convention vehicle provider General Motors is also offering hybrid, E-85 and high fuel efficiency vehicles. All vehicle miles will also be tracked and included in the carbon footprint calculations.

More on the ‘greening’ of the event at the official Democrat National Convention website here.

Let’s just hope some of this thinking carries through to actual policy if Obama does make it all the way to the White House later this year.

Biofuel subsidies a ‘waste of money’

Biofuels is often a controversial green subject and think tank the Policy Exchange - a favourite of Prime Minister-in-waiting David Cameron - has waded into the debate claiming that government biofuel subsidies are a waste of cash.

A new report by the Policy Exchange, The Root of the Matter, claims the money spent on biofuel subsidies would be better spent saving forests and peatlands in terms of regulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

If developed countries spent the same amount of money on preventing deforestation and the destruction of peatlands as they do on biofuel subsidies - a whopping $15bn - this would halve the total costs of tackling climate change, the report claims.

Specifically the UK government is urged to take action by doing the following:

• Abandon biofuel targets and subsidies

• Support immediate action to reduce peatland destruction in South-east Asia

• Build capacity in developing countries to prepare for avoided deforestation

• Provide financial support to kick-start pilot avoided deforestation projects

The UK government is also urged to take action on the European and international stage to bring about a change in biofuel policy. The full tome from the Policy Exchange is here.

NYC gets turbines on skyscrapers - or does it?

Greenbang’s a little confused this morning - confused by the words of Michael Bloomberg, New York’s Mayor. The fella gave a speech a couple of days ago to the National Clean Energy Summit. It sounded good. It went a bit like this:

“Today, we’re taking a step that will really kick alternative energy production into high gear in the Big Apple. It’s a ‘Request for Expressions of Interest’ that’s going out to firms with strong track records in producing renewable energy. We want their best ideas for creating both small- and large-scale projects serving New Yorkers.

Such projects might, for example, be designed to draw power from the tides of the Hudson and East Rivers - something we’re already doing on a pilot basis. They might call for dramatically increasing rooftop solar power production, which we’ve estimated could meet nearly 20 per cent of the City’s need for electricity. They could tap into geothermal energy. In fact, some private home and building owners have already drilled their own ‘heat wells.’ Or perhaps companies will want to put windfarms atop our bridges and skyscrapers, or use the enormous potential of powerful off-shore winds miles out in the Atlantic Ocean, where turbines could generate roughly twice the energy that land-based windfarms can. Windfarms located far off our shores, some evidence shows, could meet 10 percent of our city’s electricity needs within a decade.”

Appealing isn’t it? Wind farms on skyscrapers, maybe a turbine or two hidden in the Statue of Liberty’s headgear. It’s the sort of thing that cheers you up when you’re getting your coffee of a morning.

Then Bloomberg has to ruin it. A day after making that speech, he told Newsday he wasn’t sure about all that skyscraper malarkey.

“I have absolutely no idea whether that makes any sense from a scientific, from a practical point of view… Are you going to put a big windmill on top of the Empire State Building? I think that’s very unlikely. Can you put windmills off the coastline? That is highly likely.”

Bugger. Maybe next time it would be better to stick to the facts, and not just make up things that sound good. Or at least be a bit more creative: tell New Yorkers you’ve got Godzilla strapped to a giant treadmill able to power 3,400 homes.

Oh well. At least there’s still some offshore stuff that might be promising.

Here’s more on the details from Mr Mayor:

The New York City Economic Development Corporation, on behalf of the City, today released a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) that will call for innovative ideas to help New York City develop sources of renewable energy. In addition to off-shore windfarms, these ideas could involve wind turbines on top of New York City’s bridges and skyscrapers and the generation of tidal power, solar power and geothermal energy. Responses to the RFEI are due September 19.

Surfers or surf power?

He may drive an SUV, but it seems the mayor of San Francisco is seeking to enhance his green legacy before leaving the office.

The city’s figurehead, Gavin Newsom has already accepted an award from ICLEI, a local government sustainability body, for the city’s effort to combat climate change - the emissions are apparently down five per cent on 1990 level. And, not content with this, he’s now turning his attention to wave power.

Quoted on the blog, SFist, Newsom said:

“I don’t want to leave office — and I have to at a certain point — without having a pilot demonstration project actually in the water, generating electricity … I’m not leaving this particular office, even if it means running for Contra Costa supervisor, until this is done.”

San Francisco will start to test Ocean Beach’s wave-power potential later this month. It seems like a healthy attitude to take but there may be protests from the resident surfers.

Who’s got your vote?

The environment has, thankfully, become one of the leading issues for the candidates in the US presidential race.

The Wall Street Journal has put together a brilliant piece looking at the two major presidential candidates’ views on the environment and the climate versus cost debate.  Greenbang is pleased to note that neither appear to be Bush-esque and look things look positive.

In the piece, McCain’s and Obama’s energy policy advisers outline what the environment can expect over the next four years.  Here are the highlights:

John McCarrick (McCain) says:

• The United States will become a leader in dealing with the global warming crisis
• The senator knows this will take more than just four years
• A $5,000 tax incentive for zero-emissions vehicles will be created
• A $300 million prize to advance battery technology for vehicles, and promoting the use of hybrids and flex-fuel vehicles will also be made

Heather Zichal (Obama) says:

• $150 billion will be invested over the next ten years in clean energy technologies
• The aim is to reduce the US dependence on oil, bring energy costs down and help solve the climate crisis.
• Assistance will also be made to lower energy costs - a tax credit of $500 per person or $1,000 per working family.

Australia publishes CCS green paper

Greenbang’s got a soft spot for Australia. In addition to the country’s animals having the world’s greatest level of overkill its environmental credentials are also on the up.

According to the Aussie newspaper The Age Canberra yesterday outlined a plan for a carbon emissions trading scheme.  This will be launched in 2010.  Penny Wong, the Aussie climate change minister has said the government “has spoken loudly and carried a small stick.

It’s not perfect and does protect its heavily polluting industries that export oversees, giving them free credits for up to 90 per cent of their emissions but it’s a start.

As The Age put it:

This is at odds with the advice of the Government’s adviser on climate change, Professor Ross Garnaut, and it is at odds with good sense, and with Senator Wong’s statement that “we cannot continue to pour carbon pollution into the atmosphere as if there is no cost”. Labor says the cut in fuel excise is to allow people time to adjust, but three years seems a luxurious amount of time for people to think about it, and does nothing to move people onto public transport. And the Government is saying it will review its position only in 2013. This is a get-out clause depending on political circumstances.

Unfortunately there is not yet a carbon cap, but this is believed to be due in December.  The other disappointment for Greenbang is the scheme is to be self-regulated, not the best really, especially as Australia is one of the worst per capita polluters on the planet.

Tories still unconvinced on climate change

A couple of weeks back Greenbang discovered her flatmate and very close friend didn’t believe in man made climate change. It was very odd and an uncomfortable silence followed the conversation. As odd as it seems, to Greenbang it felt akin to discovering her friend was racist or homophobe.

And it seems that parliament and especially the Tory party has the same problem. The latter’s leader (known to Greenbang as big green Dave) has failed to convince many in his party of the problem according to a ComRes poll for the Local Government Association. The survey has also been published today in the Guardian.

One fifth of 55 Tory respondents answered that they didn’t believe in man made global warming vs. 6pc of the 91 Labour MPs and 4pc of the 17 Lib Dem MPs polled. Furthermore, a significant proportion of MPs from each party answered ‘don’t know’. In addition 20 of the Tory respondents didn’t feel climate change should be a priority for local government.

In total, 168 MPs replied, with 32 answering ‘no’ or ‘don’t know’.

The poll’s data can be found on the Guardian’s website - here.

He added: “David Cameron’s emphasis on the environment has been one of the most important forces in green politics recently, but he has had some difficulty convincing some of his party that it is the right thing to do. This poll shows he has not won that battle yet.”

Greenbang tracks the explosion of the environmental industry, reporting on news of green innovation and thought leadership.

We blog on this rather than the environmental problems of the world because we are interested in the answers to climate change.