<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Carbon Commentary</title>
	<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com</link>
	<description>A critical appraisal of issues in the move to a low-carbon economy</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 15:54:13 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>A public share offer is the right way to fund the gap in the financing of the London Array*</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/05/05/84</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/05/05/84#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 15:29:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[DONG Energy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[E.ON]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #10]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[ROCs]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Shell]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[investments]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[power generation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[renewables]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/05/05/84</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tr>
<td align="center"><a href="http://www.londonarray.com/wp-content/pdfs/boundaries-limits.pdf" title="Click on the image to see a more detailed map on the London Array website." target="_blank"><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/London-Array.jpg" alt="Offshore location map of the London Array" align="middle" height="370" width="440" /></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><small>Offshore location map of the London Array. Click on the image to see a more detailed map from the <a href="http://www.londonarray.com/" target="_blank">London Array website</a> (opens as a PDF).
</small></td>
</tr>
</table>
Shell backed out of its commitment to provide the financing for one third of the world’s largest offshore wind farm off the Kent coast. The London Array, expected to cost about £2bn, now needs to find a new investor. What about tapping the public? The project has reasonable economics, and private individuals could benefit from 40% tax relief by putting shareholdings into pension plans. Perhaps as importantly, such a move would raise understanding of renewable energy generation among the wider community.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tr>
<td align="center"><a href="http://www.londonarray.com/wp-content/pdfs/boundaries-limits.pdf" title="Click on the image to see a more detailed map on the London Array website." target="_blank"><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/London-Array.jpg" alt="Offshore location map of the London Array" align="middle" height="370" width="440" /></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><small>Offshore location map of the London Array. Click on the image to see a more detailed map from the <a href="http://www.londonarray.com/" target="_blank">London Array website</a> (opens as a PDF).<br />
</small></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>Shell backed out of its commitment to provide the financing for one third of the world’s largest offshore wind farm off the Kent coast. The London Array, expected to cost about £2bn, now needs to find a new investor. What about tapping the public? The project has reasonable economics, and private individuals could benefit from 40% tax relief by putting shareholdings into pension plans. Perhaps as importantly, such a move would raise understanding of renewable energy generation among the wider community.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/05/05/84#more-84" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/05/05/84/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The global warming ‘standstill’</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/04/25/83</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/04/25/83#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:42:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #10]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[weather]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/04/25/83</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/ncdc-data.gif" />
Nigel Lawson and others are suggesting that temperatures have ‘stabilised’ since the late nineties. 1998 saw the highest global average temperature and only 2005 has closely matched it. Since no year since 1998 has exceeded the record, some commentators are saying the global warming has stopped. The implication, sometimes stated, sometimes not, is that the increasing rate of growth of CO2 concentration is having no effect on temperature.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/ncdc-data.gif" /><br />
Nigel Lawson and others are suggesting that temperatures have ‘stabilised’ since the late nineties. 1998 saw the highest global average temperature and only 2005 has closely matched it. Since no year since 1998 has exceeded the record, some commentators are saying the global warming has stopped. The implication, sometimes stated, sometimes not, is that the increasing rate of growth of CO2 concentration is having no effect on temperature.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/04/25/83#more-83" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/04/25/83/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Roy Spencer presentation to the Heartland Institute conference</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:05:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #9]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/heartland-institute.jpg" align="left" height="177" hspace="5" width="133" />The Heartland Institute, a US free-market think tank, held a conference on climate change in New York in early March. It was a forum for some of the climate change sceptics to discuss their research. The conference got very little coverage in the media and was ignored by the science pages of the newspapers.

This seems a mistake. A large section of the population of the US and the UK, and smaller numbers elsewhere, believe that the apparent scientific consensus on global warming is a result of selective coverage by TV and press. The failure to cover presentations by some of the leading sceptics is support for the accusation that global media, and mainstream climate scientists, are refusing to engage with the dissenting views of reputable scientists who do not share the standard view.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/heartland-institute.jpg" align="left" height="177" hspace="5" width="133" />The Heartland Institute, a US free-market think tank, held a conference on climate change in New York in early March. It was a forum for some of the climate change sceptics to discuss their research. The conference got very little coverage in the media and was ignored by the science pages of the newspapers.</p>
<p>This seems a mistake. A large section of the population of the US and the UK, and smaller numbers elsewhere, believe that the apparent scientific consensus on global warming is a result of selective coverage by TV and press. The failure to cover presentations by some of the leading sceptics is support for the accusation that global media, and mainstream climate scientists, are refusing to engage with the dissenting views of reputable scientists who do not share the standard view.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81#more-81" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Energy efficiency of home phones</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/22/80</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/22/80#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:32:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[BT]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #9]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon reduction initiatives]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[domestic]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[energy efficiency]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/22/80</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/phone.bmp" alt="BT low energy power supply phone" align="absmiddle" height="463" width="303" />
BT announced that it was bringing out a new range of home phones with much improved energy efficiency. The claim is that ‘the new handsets boast power units designed specifically to consume around half the power of previous units’. BT said that almost all its extensive home phone range would contain the new energy-saving technology by mid-2008. Its press release gave very precise figures for the amount of CO2 saved – comparing the savings if all home phones incorporated the new technology to taking ‘57,000 cars off the road for a year’.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/phone.bmp" alt="BT low energy power supply phone" align="absmiddle" height="463" width="303" /><br />
BT announced that it was bringing out a new range of home phones with much improved energy efficiency. The claim is that ‘the new handsets boast power units designed specifically to consume around half the power of previous units’. BT said that almost all its extensive home phone range would contain the new energy-saving technology by mid-2008. Its press release gave very precise figures for the amount of CO2 saved – comparing the savings if all home phones incorporated the new technology to taking ‘57,000 cars off the road for a year’.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/22/80#more-80" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/22/80/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Policy confusion on nuclear and wind</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/10/79</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/10/79#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:41:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[National Grid]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #9]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[nuclear]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[power generation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[renewables]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/10/79</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tr>
<td><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/sizewell.jpg" alt="Sizewell B nuclear power station" height="261" width="348" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><small>Sizewell B nuclear power station</small></td>
</tr>
</table>
In the past three months, John Hutton, the UK government minister in charge of industry, has publicly backed an expansion of both nuclear and of offshore wind. Is this good for the UK’s climate targets? Possibly not.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3">
<tr>
<td><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/sizewell.jpg" alt="Sizewell B nuclear power station" height="261" width="348" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><small>Sizewell B nuclear power station</small></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>In the past three months, John Hutton, the UK government minister in charge of industry, has publicly backed an expansion of both nuclear and of offshore wind. Is this good for the UK’s climate targets? Possibly not.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/10/79#more-79" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/10/79/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
